Schonrock kids and unchaperoned "school run"

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Horsebox, I think you will find that most things on this forum has nothing to do with most of us....does not stop any of us posting and giving our opinion does it?

As I work with children I am quite concerned about anything that puts a child in harm's way. I know you cannot protect them from everything and they all have to make their way in the big wide world sooner or later, but I have issues with a five year old being supervised by an 8 years old.

They invited us to comment on their post and we did, that shall be the last I shall say on the matter.

[Narnia]

I agree but there are not too many occasions when that is the case.

I agree also. I wasn't thinking of junctions and in fact I would say it's not particularly safe to cross near one given that vehicles could come from 4 directions as opposed to two.

This doesn't make sense to me. Are you suggesting that cars/vans should not stop at zebra crossings? Now that would be irresponsible.

[Growlybear]

Horsebox Wrote:

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

> Will Heidi Hi and Growlybear ever let this go? The

> more you both post the more it seems you have some

> other motive, other than a passing interest in

> something that has nothing to do with you

> whatsoever. Witchhunt much?

I would echo what HeidiHi said. I work with a number of primary schools where safeguarding and child protection issues are constantly under discussion and this is therefore an issue which is of interest to me. It is a contentious topic being discussed on a public forum as well as in the national press and on local radio and to single out two contributors to a thread and suggest that there is another motive seems a little strange. I apologise if I find it hard to understand the vast differences in what parents think is an acceptable way to get a five year old child to infant school. I just can't understand any possible reason or justification for sending a five year old on a one mile bicycle journey to school, crossing three roads, without adult supervision. But like HeidiHi said, I think I'll leave this discussion now - it's clear from the post by the parents that they have no understanding of why so many people are concerned for their children's safety.

[CoD]

Yes, I do feel very sorry for the children being cooped up inside the house.

You are the parents, you brought them into this world, you are in charge. This entire affair arises from choice and the carrying out of parental responsibility. So make your choices carefully.

I hope the kids are doing fine.

[Marmora Man]

I believe it is time to draw a line under this discussion.

Some of the criticism and the support of the parents has been over the top and hysterical with assumptions made, that have little or no basis in fact, about motives, danger, threats and impact on the children.

Others have made positive and thoughtful contributions - both for and against the Schonrock's actions.

It is surely time to stop - posts are becoming repetitive, argumentative and adding little to the debate.

Perhaps the Matt Cartoon will help all to see a lighter side?

[Mick Mac]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> I believe it is time to draw a line under this

> discussion.

>

Some people may only have just seen the thread and in any case the parents have only just made their first post.

[PeterW]

"Whilst we are confident that our decision to allow our children to cycle themselves to school is in their best interest given our particular circumstances, we are not in any way suggesting that our decision is appropriate for other people's children. We believe parents should carefully evaluate the benefits and risks of their particular situation. They are uniquely qualified for this job and should be allowed to make their own parenting decisions."

The Sch?nrocks have (understandably) put it better than I ever could.

I can understand why people take a different view. But why this apparent need to judge, condemn and interfere with another family when there's no evidence whatsoever of harm coming to the children? It's baffling. Some people could do with focusing more on their own lives and less on other people's.

[dominic_heaney]

Pages of forum entries ? difficult not to add my bit?! I wonder if you are still reading Gillian/Oliver...

I?m glad the school has had a chance to put their side now ? and as a parent directly mentioned in the Times article I think it is important to correct another error, which has been repeated as if it was fact. In reality, there wasn?t some kind of ?parents revolt?, banging on the door of the headmaster. My own view about the Schonrock school run decision (which has been going on for ages) was mild bemusement. I can?t say I thought about it often. I didn't respond to the email described (a University of Westminster study done in the 1990s) because it was very complicated and seemed abit out of date - but more importantly, it seemed like hard work and too similar to the work I do in my dayjob! I think (although don't know) that this would have been the view of other parents too.

My own ?risk assessment? is that the risks associated with unaccompanied trips to school for 5 years olds are low ? but not negligible (I think because we all like our cars we have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to numbers of RTA-related injuries). Stranger-danger? I agree that does seem far-fetched. But I also can?t see the benefits are so great either at this stage. So those are my views. FYI I guess I?ll be gradually building a bit more of the independence you describe into my children?s lives over the next couple of years. But having seen my own children handle bicycles on the path or road ? I know they are not ready now.

But this went very, very public, and that?s the bit I didn?t like. I think you must always assume you are on a loser when your view is simplified down to a ?nanny-state?/"social-worker" bashing session, and backed by the Daily Mail and Boris Johnson (who goes public, even admitting he didn't know the facts - that is irresponsible). It was so unnecessary: the school didn't deserve it, and niether did our children.

Dominic

PS everyone else is anonymous on this forum - am I about to find out why??

[SeanMacGabhann]

are we? a lot of people here meet pretty regularly - it's a community forum

[Keef]

You'll never guess my real name.

[Keef]

Oh, and sorry for getting wound up yesterday, wrong side of bed and all that. I had wanted to take part in the debate, but got rather sidetracked.

[*Bob*]

Is it Rumplestiltskin?

[Narnia]

I don't know if you would like to clarify what email you are referring to as either I missed something previously or you assume readers of the thread know what you mean. Thanks.

[ruffers]

After reading the whole thread a few things keep bubbling in my mind..

For a kick off if I?m understanding it right these kids have been doing this for essentially a whole school year, I still can?t work out why this has become an issue now? As it goes I?m not actually feeling that critical of anyone involved in the situation. While I think the rise of a situation where the school feels legally obliged to have a word and it potentially has to tell someone of its concern that?s not of itself the school?s fault, more that of an increasingly and ludicrously over protective society, an attitude which is reflecting by many of posting on this thread. I actually find the ?never mind the reasoned arguments, what about common sense?!?!? posts amusing though; God help us if we apply any kind of calm and sensible consideration of the facts eh?

Like a few others on here I?m broadly in support of the family although my initial reaction is that five does seem too young. Having said that I don?t know them, I don?t know the kids, and I trust them as parents to make the right decision for their own. (As Mick Mac said earlier though if they were walking I?d be even more calm about it)

Earlier in the thread was mention of a boy who is only just allowed out to the shops on his own at the age of twelve. Is that appropriate? I don?t think so.

[Penguin68]

As one of the longest and fastest growing 'single issue' threads it has been difficult to keep up/ keep abreast of developments, so apologies if I am repeating what others have written.

1. I do not know the family or the children, which is I guess true of most of the posters here. I wouldn't have been happy with my children, at those ages, doing what these are doing, but I do know that children mature very differently, and I have known children well up to doing what these are doing. We set 'ages' to do things based on what the majority are capable of, but any distribution has outliers, and I (and most of you) cannot say that these children don't belong there.

2. Despite somewhat shrill condemnation, it is clear that the parents are neither feckless nor stupid; what they have done they have done in a considered manner and (I believe) with what they believe are the clear best interests of their children in the forefront of their thinking. I would hope that where conditions were different (very inclement weather, high winds, ice, snow, poor visibility) they would consider alternative options as risks changed.

3. As a society we tend to intervene (we should intervene?) where people are making careless, unthoughtful, ill-considered,. selfish, unconsidering decisions about their children - not true in this case (because I (or you) wouldn't do, don't agree with, what others are doing doesn't make them necessarily any of those things listed).

4. We also tend to intervene where people are making decisions which, however well considered, are immediately and directly injurious - so we consider female circumcision and infibulation illegal in this country even where many cultures entirely endorse it, for what they believe are good reasons.

5. In this case, whereas we perceive risks we wouldn't perhaps take ourselves, there is nothing immediately injurious in cycling to school along quiet residential pavements. And we would all see benefits in our children being more resiliant and self reliant, less fearful and better exercised, all of which comes with this option.

So it comes down to - do we want to live in a society where other people take decisions on our behalves about how we bring our children up (given all the caveats about carelessness and thoughtlessness above) or do we want to take that responsibility ourselves?

Of course, with responsibility comes personal risk - and we must hope that the worst fears expressed here do not come to pass (but note that life is not risk free, as this 5th anniversary of 7/7 painfully underlines)

[BB100]

Growlybear Wrote:

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

I apologise if I find it hard to

> understand the vast differences in what parents

> think is an acceptable way to get a five year old

> child to infant school.

It all comes down to differing views of the child. The child as 'vulnerable and dependent' has a stronger consensus in the UK than the child as 'capable and competent' or the child with 'rights'. It is these socially constructed views of the child that constantly compete in everyday discourses about children. Developmental psychology has also heavily influenced our ideas about what a child can do at a certain age and stage rather than looking at a child's unique abilities. We accept all children are different but we expect them all to behave the same at a certain ages.

The Schonrock parents are German (or at least one of them is) which suggests a difference in cultural views of the child and their perception of risk are the root causes of this clash of opinion.

The problem in the Uk is we don't like it when people dare live their lives differently to the rest of us.

[????]

Oh the terribly intolerant Brits...try being a bit different in a small German town say? Or in mainstream France? Or Italy.....liberal cultural cringe strikes again

[Alex K]

@????: I suggest that "Tu quoque" is not likely to convince many people.

(That things could be the same, or worse, elsewhere seldom means that one should not pull up one's own socks. **grin**)

A famous slogan in the United States is "My country, right or wrong!" (Rather like "My mother, drunk or sober!") This is an incomplete citation, however: The original statement was, I believe, "My country, right or wrong -- when right to be kept right, when wrong to be put right". I prefer the original.

The acknowledgement "when wrong to be put right" is not always a "liberal cultural cringe", it seems to me; rather, it recognises the beam in one's own eye (as well as the mote in one's neighbour's).

We can all work, I trust, at being not just more tolerant, but also more accepting.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm buying Alex a pint

[????]

No surprises there

[BB100]

???? Wrote:

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

> Oh the terribly intolerant Brits...try being a bit

> different in a small German town say? Or in

> mainstream France? Or Italy.....liberal cultural

> cringe strikes again

Yes of course you are right but I wasn't comparing the UK's intolerance to any other country - merely trying to explain the intolerance of our own attitudes to differences in parenting styles. And these views of the child also compete within our culture not just across cultures.

[????]

In my opinion. The root cause of the clash of opinion asides from the theoretical asides and the perv-paranoia. Is that many (most?) of those who have regular contact with a reasonable sample of 5 year olds find it very, very difficult to believe that any 5 year old has sufficient cycling skills, developed balance & coordination, road sense, spatial awarness and experience to cycle to school solely chaperoned by an 8 year old, we are joined in this intolerance by both the Local Authority and the national guidelines on cycling (sorry don't know who they are by but posted earlier). No we've not assessed the individual 5 year olds capability (and the parents have, agreed) and our sample of 5 year olds is relatively small but it still feels pretty unlikely and I think that's expressed in the doubt of even supporters on here.

[Brendan]

?Off topic?

Why the use of liberal as a deprecating term? Why should a term, which essentially means that an individual puts the greater good of society and the acceptance of others over and above their own personal needs, wants and prejudices, be pejorative?

Just asking, because I?ve found myself using it as such once or twice and then had a think about why. I also wondered, perhaps with a not unjustified hint of paranoia, who has been encouraging its use as such and why.

When you consider it properly if you aren?t ?liberal? you are just a self serving, intolerant, antisocial cunt. Which granted is what a large portion of the population are but does that mean we should let them gain credence by allowing the very term which refers an opposing stance of common decency towards your fellow man to become a slur?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Can?t argue with any of that quids, and very well put

But can we agree that somewhere in the last what? 50 years?... parents have become much more cautious with children?

Not entirely a bad thing perhaps but many people seem to hanker after the freedom of their own youth whilst not permitting it to their own children. And some will argue the world is a scarier place (I don?t agree entirely) and that is entirely their perogative to raise kids as the see fit but the question of why people are SO much more cautious is interesting. To me anyway

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Anyone who quotes the King James Bible gets a pint from me too - swoon.

When my daughter was three we regularly went to the adventure playground at New Cross which was run by a wonderful Scandinvian woman.

She expected my daughter to ride without stabilisers, so she did. She expected my daughter to take hot things out of an oven, so she did.

I really had to bite my tongue and curb my maternal instincts, but lo and behold, my daughter was capable of so much more than I could have imagined.

Maybe it is a continental thing?