Schonrock kids and unchaperoned "school run"

[BB100]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> I suppose if we were having this conversation 100

> years ago we would be discussing the nuisance of

> unsupervised children rather than their

> vulnerability.

>

Yes, that view of the child as 'born sinful and in need of discipline' was more dominant then.

[*Bob*]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> It would also take a while for all the messages to

> be delivered by post.

I quite like the idea of having a more genteel area to the forum; where carefully considered and thoughtful 'letters' arrive on a less frequent basis - and without all the froth and bluster.

Maybe this is one for Admin to think about.

[????]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Brendan Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It would also take a while for all the messages

> to

> > be delivered by post.

>

> I quite like the idea of having a more genteel

> area to the forum; where carefully considered and

> thoughtful 'letters' arrive on a less frequent

> basis - and without all the froth and bluster.

>

> Maybe this is one for Admin to think about.

*Bob* I've sent my thoughts on this to you in the post.

Apologies to Postie, I overestimated how much dog poo you could get in an A4 letter envelope.

[pk]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> there are lots of relevant stats/research, and

> quite a few references to them on this thread.

> They include the statistical risk of child

> abduction, absolute and relative risk of road

> trafic accidents (including comparing the idyllic

> 70s when most of us walked or cycled to school

> unaccompanied with the present), and research

> regarding the positive benefits of exercise and

> exposure to risk for children

i haven't seen anything here that compares e.g. relative risks of accidents/abduction for accompanied v unaccompanied children on bikes or the impact on 'positive benefits' - can you point me to it?

[DaveR]

pk, I'm not going to trawl all the way back and post every example - here's one:

Growlybear Wrote:

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

> > I can only

> follow my own standards and conscience...but we live in a very different world today,

>

If these statistics are to be believed we actually live in a safer world: traffic deaths are lower

than they ever have been (National Statistics, 15th April 2009) and child

murders at the hand of strangers remain consistently low (National Statistics,

11th June 2009).

So is it more dangerous, or has our perception of risk changed?"

If the point you are making is where are the stats specifically for accompanied vs unaccompanied, fair enough, but that wasn't the point I was making. And in any event, when the occurrence you are talking about is exceptionally rare, e.g. child murders at the hands of strangers, the difference in likelihood between accompanied and unaccompanied kids is likely to be wafer thin in statistical terms.

[lozzyloz]

This is not the only example re a 5 year olds ability but . . . Valentino Rossi first began riding at a very young age. Rossi's first racing love was go-karts. Fuelled by his mother, Stefania's, concern for her son's safety, Graziano purchased a go-kart as substitute for the bike. However, the Rossi family trait of perpetually wanting to go faster prompted a redesign; Graziano replaced the 60cc motor with a 100cc national kart motor for his then 5-year-old son.

[pk]

DaveR Wrote:

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

>

> If the point you are making is where are the stats

> specifically for accompanied vs unaccompanied,

> fair enough, but that wasn't the point I was

> making. And in any event, when the occurrence you

> are talking about is exceptionally rare, e.g.

> child murders at the hands of strangers, the

> difference in likelihood between accompanied and

> unaccompanied kids is likely to be wafer thin in

> statistical terms.

yeah that's what i was geting at - i thought that was what the thread was about

re murders i agree that the numbers are likely to be very low (thankfully) but in this extreme example i guess i'd be surprised if unaccompanied 5 and 8 year olds were not more at risk than those that are with adults

[DaveR]

"re murders i agree that the numbers are likely to be very low (thankfully) but in this extreme example i guess i'd be surprised if unaccompanied 5 and 8 year olds were not more at risk than those that are with adults"

Me too - but I also wouldn't be surprised if the difference was between 0.000001% and 0.000002%, and if both those numbers were far smaller than the statistical risk associated with all sorts of things that parents let their kids do every day without thinking about it. I mentioned horse-riding before in part because of the notorious "ecstasy safer than horseriding' story that ultimately led to the resignation of half of the government's drugs advisors, which was a classic case of (statistical) reality vs perception.

I think this thread, as it has developed, is about quite a few things, but fundamentally, surely, it's about at what point a parent's decision about how they raise their child is challenged by the state, and on what basis.

[Santerme]

In the velodrome of discussion we have come off the high bank of boredom and entered the final straight of ennui with this thread!

[BB100]

Keef Wrote:

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

> I also feel that it is putting a lot of pressure

> on the 8 year old. If something did happen, and

> the 8 year old saw the 5 year old get hit by a

> car. They are tyhen expected to keep calm, call

> 999, administer first aid? Thety are 8, and should

> not be burdened that way.

trinity Wrote:

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

> > In addition older children having responsibility

> for their younger siblings in certain situations,

> in this case the ride to school, would also have

> been entirely normal and part of a healthy family

> relationship.

'It is estimated that there are 175,000 young carers in the UK'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6636585.stm

Society doesn't seem to be making the same amount of fuss over the number of young children caring for their PARENTS in this country. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6122190.stm

[alice]

yeah but that's not a situation they have chosen....

[and i really wanted to stay out of this one...]

[citizenED]

Next time you want a thread to die a death, Marmora Man, please post to let us know - for since you did this thread has has come back to life with some well measured points made. Like a lot the best threads on here it is tantalisingly balanced between the general and the particular - people pulling it back to the specific rights and wrongs of the Schonrock decision whilst others expand it out towards broader social points about parenting.

Can we yet put to bed the notion, made so forcefully yesterday, that these parents are actually negligent? We have had a parent with kids at the same school tell us that this arrangement has been going on all year. Is that long enough for people to believe that these two children are competent enough to make the journey safely. How long would it take for you to be convinced?

DaveR makes this point "I think this thread, as it has developed, is about quite a few things, but fundamentally, surely, it's about at what point a parent's decision about how they raise their child is challenged by the state, and on what basis." I agree but would add that it is also about at what point a parent's decision about how to raise their child is challenged by other parents. The creeping over-supervision of kids has, I suspect, progressed incrementally every time that one parent criticises the "free-range" techniques of another. It is the "I told you so" mentality that chips away at the confidence of mothers (in particular) so they feel less inclined to allow their children to take risks.

I have to admit my wish that the actions of the Schonrocks might at least give some others the resolve to follow their instincts and allow their (slightly older) youngsters to walk unaccompanied to their (closer)schools .

[ImpetuousVrouw]

But then they'd risk the finger pointing and tut tutting too - and I think they prefer to belong to the rightiously indignant instead because there is safety in numbers.

[BB100]

'Society doesn't seem to be making the same amount of fuss over the number of young children caring for their PARENTS in this country. [news.bbc.co.uk]'

alice Wrote:

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

> yeah but that's not a situation they have

> chosen....

>

>

You assume that all child carers are looking after physically ill or disabled parents. Actually many children have to look after their parents because they are alcholics, drug abusers or self-harmers.

I worked with a 6 year old child recently who looked after her five year old sibling and her mother everytime she was intoxicated (3-4 times a week). She even did the shopping and the cooking. Social Services knew but they just had a meetings about it.

[Keef]

Out of interest, what do you think would be appropriate action from Social Services in these circumstances?

[Narnia]

Given the previous post to your's Keef, I'd say they have more important cases to deal with. If they were to take up this 'case' what could they do? The parents are not harming their kids in a way they will be scarred for life.

[BB100]

Hi Keef,

It's not really about what I think. I was just illustrating the hypocrisy of taking the moral highground on parental responsibility when there are children taking very serious and significant responsibilities for others all around us and are largely ignored by wider society.

[Narnia]

Keef Wrote:

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

> Out of interest, what do you think would be

> appropriate action from Social Services in these

> circumstances?

Apologies if I misunderstood what you were referring to. I understood it to be the title of the thread but it would seem not.

[Keef]

No worries Narnia, yes I was talking about the post, not the original subject of the thread.

BB100, I agree with you, but it is difficult to know what is best, and easy to say social services do nothing. I suspect that is not the case.

[Zebedee Tring]

When I was a lad I used to walk barefoot six miles to school every day through six feet snowdrifts. And when I got to school I was regularly flayed alive. But it did me no harm - in fact it made me the man that I am today.

Them kids today have it soft.

[Narnia]

Did you meet Dougal or Florence on your trip Zeb? Tell me it was magical.

[Zebedee Tring]

Actually, Narnia, I'm an old rustic from 'The Archers' who died in 1973 but who rose again in order to contribute to this message board.

[hilili]

My 11 yr old makes his way to school by bus or train happily - but at 5 or even 8, not a hope - having been a resident of Dulwich for a few years now and having the note in the school bag asking parents to be vigilant as an 11 yr old was followed - this happened on two occasions that I know of - and just two weeks ago the same thing happened near East Dulwich. Paedophiles do not hang around the frozen food section of Sainsburys. This is the extreme end of the scale but at the very least an 8 yr old should not be responsible for a 5yr old - children have a basic right to be looked after - no matter how capable they are or how much you can trust them - you cannot always trust other people - careless to say the least

[Zebedee Tring]

When I first read this thread, I was inclined to support the parents and to take the view that the school's reaction was somewhat over the top. I have now read that the parents told their kids to cycle to the school on the pavement and not on the road. If this is true, it is highly regrettable that parents should encourage their kids to break the law in this way. And there is no exemption for kids of eight and under from the provisions of the Highways Acts barring cycling on the footway.

We live near Alleyns and are bedevilled by Alleyns kids, other school kids and other cyclists, including people who seem to think that they are taking part in the Tour de France, cycling at speed on the pavement. Recently I had the misfortune to encounter a most unpleasant teenager who, when I told him that he shouldn't be cycling on the pavement, replied with a very supercilious 'And your point is?' (a deeply annoying and overused phrase in itself). I told him what my point was in no uncertain terms and forced him on to the road.

Rather than trying to make an example of the Schonrock parents, the Alleyns head would be performing a better service for us by emphasising to his pupils that it is totally unacceptable for them to cycle to school on the pavement.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Make them all cycle on the road, I agree. Kill, Kill, Kill the rich!