Schonrock kids and unchaperoned "school run"

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I think it's probably more to do with the head not allowing them to leave the premises by themselves but insisting that an adult picks them up.

[clare999]

Mr James Barber: glad to see our councillor playing a part in this debate

"Nearly all of those seriously injured and the definition for this being very broad. Many of these were car occupants"

Not sure how "broad" you regard the definition of killed is. And re stats: numbers are from 2009 Dept Transport

They state that of children killed or seriously injured in GB (2,590), pedestrians are 63% and cyclists 13%. Figure of thirteen KOSI for Southwark derived from an assumption about number of under 15 in that borough. It seems that stats you have to hand are "different". Whatever, I don't think you can say that car occupants (just 17% of KOSI) can truthfully be said to represent the "many". What can one say about a politician and statistics! And I guess a LibDem is never quite what he seeems.

But seriously, the points I was making about the numbers was (1) they aren't to be ignored, and (2) they're happening despite a society that is often criticised for being too careful. What do we think will happen if we leave more under 5 year olds minimally supervised in the streets at the time of the school run?

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

What do we think will happen if we leave more under 5 year olds minimally supervised in the streets at the time of the school run?

They will adapt (at least the ones that survive will), the gene-pool will be strengthened, and we can look forward to future generations of super-kids who tend to the elderly, operate creches, and probably combat crime.

[BB100]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it's probably more to do with the head not

> allowing them to leave the premises by themselves

> but insisting that an adult picks them up.

Lol!

[Loz]

"Nearly all of those seriously injured and the definition for this being very broad. Many of these were car occupants"

Not sure how "broad" you regard the definition of killed is. And re stats: numbers are from 2009 Dept Transport

Dunno if you are being purposely thick to make a point, but he means the definition of 'seriously injured' is very broad.

[chantelle]

there's also a broader issue here of two parents needing to get to work, and finding it difficult to drop off and collect their children.

[Narnia]

If you choose to be a parent then surely work has to come secondary to your child's needs.

[James Barber]

Blimey Clare999,

I see where you got your stats. London is one of the most collision free parts of the country. Northern Scotland one of the highest for KSI's.

My stats come from the last published Southwark Road Safety Plan page 10:

Southwark Road Safety Plan 2009

Seriously injured defined by Dept of Transport as staying in hospital more than 6 days. Many of these will make full recoveries.

Page 13 shows where these collisions occured. Along the route these kids take those that occurred bar one are where the lollipop person helps kids cross the road. The other reported collision is junction they pass on the pavement. In fact where they cycle is about one of the most collision free parts/routes of Southwark.

I stand corrected on vehicle occupants - apologies. 50% of Southwark road casualties pedestrians, 18% cyclists and presume remiander vehicle occupants.

[pablogrande]

I won't let my three year old out in the garden on his own, not until he's finished the ironing.

[david_carnell]

@DulwichMum - bringing Madeleine McCann into this debate is a new low. Congratulations. You have managed to invoke some sort of child abuse version of Godwin's Law where every aspect of encouraging freedom and independence amongst children is met with the crass, ignorant and illogical response of, "well, I bet the McCann's thought they were doing the right thing too".

Quite frankly you should be ashamed to use the grief of that family to back up your spurious point-of-view.

I've been reluctant to even comment on this thread until now simply because I feel it has almost nothing to do with me, or anyone else for that matter.

It is a matter for the family involved and no one else. As Cllr Barber insightfully informs us this set-up has been in existence since at least Christmas with little or no controversy. As long as these children have been arriving at school on time and in a fit condition it is nothing to do with the school either. I don't know what agenda is at play here to suddenly bring this issue to the fore but I'm in no doubt there is one.

If, and it is quite frankly a massive if, anything ever happened to these children do you really think the parents then require the denizens of East Dulwich to sit sneering "I told you so"? Their anguish will be sufficient. But as BB100 has shown, road accidents and child abductions are at all time lows. But then anecdotes always cloud the truth.

If you feel it is inappropriate, fine. Do not do the same with your children. Wrap them in cotton wool until you decide they are scared enough of the world to continue the cycle. But to wag a finger of disapproval at this family behind the anonymity of a local forum smacks of cowardice and paranoia. Leave them be. And their children.

[Mamma Mia]

chantelle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> there's also a broader issue here of two parents

> needing to get to work, and finding it difficult

> to drop off and collect their children.

They also have a nanny, don't they?

[BB100]

?Thirty years ago England and Wales were the third or fourth highest child killers in the Western world, but we?re now fourth lowest.? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8497277.stm

[James Barber]

Hi chantelle,

The parents are reported to have a nanny.

I believe they choose this start to the school day for their kids.

They could equally have chosen to share school runs, employed a nanny with expectation of them taking kids to school.

[BB100]

pablogrande Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I won't let my three year old out in the garden on

> his own, not until he's finished the ironing.

I used to iron when I was 5. Now my kids can't even butter their own bread because they are frightened about knife crime.

[Growlybear]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi chantelle,

> The parents are reported to have a nanny.

> I believe they choose this start to the school day

> for their kids.

> They could equally have chosen to share school

> runs, employed a nanny with expectation of them

> taking kids to school.

Perhaps they could even have chosen to take responsiblity for taking their own children to school themselves.

[Loz]

Growlybear, et al.

This is not laziness or work priorities behind this decision. As the Telegraph article said, '[Mrs Schonrock] said she and her husband had gradually exposed their children to taking greater responsibility and risks and the result was children who ?we have been told are well adjusted, mature and independent for their respective ages.? '

And I bet they are as well.

[dulwichmum]

@David Carnell.

You mis-understand me. The McCann's should be prosecuted for abandonment at least. What do you suppose would have happened there if they had not been white middle class? This is all about lazy parenting, not empowerment and exercise. My kids walk to school every day. Why can't parents take their responsibility seriously and walk with them?

[chantelle]

Their nanny probably doesn't start until school ends. It's pretty costly to have a full-time nanny for school age children who won't be around for most of the nanny's working hours. And it's all fine and well to say that work should be secondary to getting your children to school, but how does that work exactly if you have two employers offering little flexibility on hours?

[dulwichbloke]

Posted by: trinity Yesterday, 08:58PM

"So traffic is not a problem as they cycle on the pavement,

abduction is not a problem as there are so many parents doing the school run

that leaves the problem of crossing the roads - which (according to the Daily Telegraph)so the family have minimised that risk by making sure they cross at a junction with a lollipop lady.

On the DT website Mrs Schonrock said that she believed the benefits to her children outweighed the risk. I agree with her."

If you agree with her about the benefits outweighing the risks, why don't you get your 5 year old to make his or her own way to school, rather than getting a nanny to pick them up? Is it because in reality it is just a pointless risk and negligent parenting to leave such young children to fend for themselves. Surely, they can learn to be independent without being put in such a position?! The independence excuse is just that - an excuse. It doesn't stand any proper scrutiny.

[BB100]

chantelle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> there's also a broader issue here of two parents

> needing to get to work, and finding it difficult

> to drop off and collect their children.

No, if you read the article in the Telegraph it says the kids go to private school (money not an issue). The parents want their children's lives not to be restricted by the culture of fear we have in the Uk.

I do wonder what social services would actually do if the Head went forward with his threat anyway. Haven't they got more serious cases on their books to attend to? Doesn't this kind of discussion promote a distraction from more important social work? 'Nearly 32,000 children in the UK are known to be at risk of abuse right now' http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/statistics/prevalence_and_incidence_of_child_abuse_and_neglect_wda48740.html.

Maybe the Schonrock's need to let the Head go ahead and report it to SS and take a stand for what they believe in. They might be surprised to find that Social Workers have a more realistic perception of the actual risks to children.

[chantelle]

wait - just because children go to private school means money is not an issue? maybe that is true for a minority of parents but i doubt it applies to most children at private school.

[MitchK]

In an ideal world, 5 and 8 year old kids would be able to cycle to school. But this is South London. It hardly constitutes neglect or child abuse in my view, but I think the parents are guilty of wishful thinking and ignoring the potential dangers.

The publicity that this has received presumably means that every bike and mobile phone thief will now be on the look out for them so Mrs Schonrock will doubtless have to fire up the Volvo in the future.

[Growlybear]

chantelle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And it's all

> fine and well to say that work should be secondary

> to getting your children to school, but how does

> that work exactly if you have two employers

> offering little flexibility on hours?

Perhaps that should be something to take into account before you have two children? Or is it too old fashioned to make your children your first priority if you decide to bring them into the world?

[BB100]

'Children need to learn about risk and daring; and if we don't give them opportunities for excitement they will simply invent their own' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/7871753/Hail-the-heroic-parents-who-let-their-children-cycle-to-school.html

'recent studies suggest that UK children are too frequently attracted to the ?wrong? sort of risk. Whether it?s smoking, drinking, fighting or unprotected sexual activity, UK children appear more attracted to potentially dangerous risky activities than many of their international peers.' http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/ESRC%20DfES%20Publication%20-%20Risk%20Taking%20Behaviour_tcm6-21251.pdf

Research suggests that overprotecting children leads to them to seeking riskier risks. For example, whilst parents think their children are safely at home and off the streets and away from pedophiles, instead they are on their computers talking to them!

[buggie]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi Dulwichmum,

> I'm sorry my different views have incited a

> personal jibe.

>

> If the lollipop person said to cross at the wrong

> time then clearly the lollipop person would be at

> fault.

> If a car jumped red traffic lights when these kids

> are crossing on a green man phase then the car

> driver would be at fault.

>

> I'm sorry you think I'm trying to raise my

> profile. Unlike virtually every other person

> posting I do it in my own name.

>

> It's a really important issue in terms of

> encouraging people to walk and cycle to schools.

> Most of the anti people posting have suggested the

> roads are so dangerous kids should'nt be out

> alone. I suspect most of these drive their kids to

> school. Which is exactly what causes this

> perceived danger.

>

> My kids aren't yet ready to undertake school runs

> on their own - as much due to me as a parent not

> preparing them. But they have been asking and

> we've been creating smaller opportunities for them

> to stretch their confidence.

>

> I hope that all parents hearing of this case wont

> hold their kids even closer but reflect on how we

> can ensure we're not micromanaging every waking

> moment but find ways to give kids a bit more

> freedom and liberty to grow in confidence.

Erm... what??

I'd say most of the people here don't James, rather make arrangements where their child can walk/cycle to school with adult supervision/without at such a young age having to be fully responsible for their sibling. Or in my situation, have had to care for children scared and bewildered having had accidents while unsupervised and waiting for their parents to be contacted/to come in.

Am quite shocked and annoyed by your sweeping generalisation.