Schonrock kids and unchaperoned "school run"

[Ted Max]

They were dropping kids off out of passing aeroplanes on Saturday. One way to beat the traffic.

I used to paraglide to school every day when I was three. Hell of a walk home, though.

[*Bob*]

The kids will be gutted when they discover their irresponsible parents blew ?150,000 on sending them to junior school.

[dulwichmum]

I am genuinely shocked by the support for these parents. In my opinion this is a child protection issue. This is called neglect.

Last Friday morning, not 2 miles from here, a 15 year old boy was stabbed and died outside his school. Last week here on the forum, I read that a boy in his early teens was prowling around near the kids play area in Dulwich Park. When I last looked, it was against the law to leave any child under 11 unsupervised in this country.

At 5, my son could not cycle a bike. 5 and 8 is far too young. These children have a right to their parents protection and supervision. There is more to raising your children than paying the damn school fees.

I wonder what the reaction would have been if this story had turned up in a different context, if something had gone wrong?

Well done the headmaster. I think he is fabulous.

This is South East London for Gods sake. Our children deserve our care and attention.

[lalaland]

I think this is a really tricky area. I quite agree that we shouldn't wrap our kids up in cotton wool and should teach them to be independent and enjoy some freedom. I think it is ridiculous the number of parents who could easily walk to the Dulwich schools who make such short unnecessary car journeys. However I do not think an 8 year old should be given the responsibility of getting herself and her brother to school safely every morning. The traffic around the South Circular, Dulwich Village and the schools is intense and not particularly cycle-friendly. Even if the children are on the pavements they still have to cross busy roads and I can quite understand the genuine concerns of other parents and the Headmaster.Why doesn't one of them cycle with the children? I do not think the couple should have exposed their family to this degree of media attention where both sides of the argument can be distorted to make a good story.

[taper]

Dulwich Mum

Agree entirely. I'm uncomfortable too that the parents should seek national publicity in this way when the children involved are readily identifable and so young. I suspect they won't have a particualrly comfortable day at school.

[Marmora Man]

The essential question is not whether you agree / disagree with the Schonrocks but whether the school, social services or other parents have any right to intervene.

Parents are responsible for their children. If they choose to allow / encourage their children to make their own way to school that's up to them - unless it is demonstrably an unwise / dangerous decision.

The school is responsible for children in the school and, at the end of the school day, for handing them back to their parents / guardians. This is presumably why the Schonrocks arrange to collect their children as the school controls this handover.

State interference in child care already tends to be oppressive. On the whole the state has not shown itself to be a good or effective guardian of children (cf outcomes for cildren in care).

THis is a personal decision taken by the parents and no one should have the right to intervene. Comment by all means but no intervention.

[DaveR]

"I do not think the couple should have exposed their family to this degree of media attention where both sides of the argument can be distorted to make a good story"

I don't think it was the parents who called in the press, nor are they the ones distorting the argument. An 8 year old cycling 5 - 10 minutes to school on the pavement should be relatively uncontroversial; it is the accompanying 5 year old that causes concern. This is not because the scenario is substantially less safe for a 5 year old, but (as has already been said) because of the burden of responsibility it puts on the older child. That makes me uneasy.

PS "it takes a village to raise a child" is more usually interpreted as "we all look out for all our children" rather than "I feel entitled to tell other parents that they've got it wrong".

[citizenED]

Much of the fuss over this is down to what people perceive to be the age at which it would be safe for children to travel to school unaccompanied. In this case it seems many think the kids are just too young. That is promising, for it suggests that in general there would be an age at which it would be deemed acceptable.

I have a proposal. If a law was to made that said kids could not travel to school unaccompanied before they are, say 7, them so be it - but after this age they must travel unaccompanied.

In this whole debate there is far too much pressure on parents from the thoughts of other parents. It's the "I told you so" principle at work. The fear in some parents that if you follow your heart and instincts and allow your little cherub to do something that another parent would not allow, then when something happens you will be lambasted as a bad parent.

[taper]

"I don't think it was the parents who called in the press"

It seems likely this story comes from the parents. Who else would push it?

[GinaG3]

Reading through this I must say, I totally agree with HonaloochieB and dulwichmum.

To me this is unacceptable. I wouldn't dream of leaving a child of 8 in responsibility of a 5 year old in a million years. You can be so naive in thinking that nothing will happen to your children cycling on pavements, in busy streets or an early weekday morning. There is a first time for everything, no matter how caution you are. Especially with the fact these are 5 and 8 year old kids.

My brother is just coming up to his 12th birthday, and has just been allowed to start even walking down to the shop by himself. He must carry a mobile with him at all times, and my mum and dad call him when they feel to.

BTW - even if nothing happens to these kids by way of getting harmed etc on the way to school. There is still the option of being robbed, they are cycling to school on, I'm assuming probably rather good bikes considering the amount their parents pay for education. I'm sorry but nothing would stop a drug addict desperate for their next fix trying to pinch a bicycle they know they could get ?20 for, off an easy, young target. And yes, there are people out there who wouldn't think twice about robbing a vunerable young child if they see they have items of value. These children are obviously clearly wearing the uniform too. This is the world we live in these days.

Could they not have independence in a cab to school in the morning? Surely it cant be too expensive for an Alleyn's parent?

I'd rather pay for that than put my child at risk!!!

[BB100]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Schonrocks, is it really our business to make such a public judgement? NSPCC statistics suggest more children are killed and have accidents at home than on the street. This is more about people's attitudes towards what makes a good parent than real concerns about the children's safety.

Curmudgeon - does the school have this policy in writing? I read the entire HM Government Statatory requirements for safeguarding children 'manual' a few years ago and don't remember it making any such demands.

[duchessofdulwich]

5 years old is far too young...end of

[taper]

"is it really our business to make such a public judgement"

If the parents have made it a public issue, then yes.

[Growlybear]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> The essential question is not whether you agree /

> disagree with the Schonrocks but whether the

> school, social services or other parents have any

> right to intervene.

>

>

I think that in cases where very young children are perceived to be in a vulnerable or dangerous situation, the school or other parents have a responsibility as well as a right to intervene. If intervention by the school has not persuaded the parents to take responsibility for ensuring that their infant daughter in particular arrives at school safely, then I can't think of anything else that the school can do but to alert Social Services. The fact that a five year old has, so far, managed to make her own way to school by bicycle accompanied only by her eight year old sister without coming to any harm doesn't mean that she won't come to grief in some way in the future. I really can;t think of any circumstances when I would have let me child travel to school alone on foot at the age of eight, let alone having responsiblity for a five year old.

[dulwichmum]

Wasn't Damolola Taylor walking home from school alone? This is a huge city. In an ideal world our kids would walk to school alone to build self confidence, but what kind of a bubble do we consider Dulwich to be?

My aupair was fined ?50 for cycling on the path last year near the traffic lights. She hasn't done it since. The law is there to protect everyone.

These children deserve the protection of a responsible adult until they are at least 11.

I make no secret of my love of Dulwich, but really now, the 8 year old should not be supervising a younger child. The school they attend allows kids to build a sense of responsibility. Neglect is child abuse.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Also the fact that they let the children go to school unsupervised in the morning but a parent/nanny supervised them after school suggests to me that they are too busy in the mornings to supervise their kids so it is more to do with not enough time for the parents in the mornings to take them to school and less about self confidence otherwise the kids would be 'confident' enough to cycle home alone also since they cycle to school alone.

[Loz]

At this point, can I mention the oft-written dangers of the child-snatchers dressed as clowns in the Dulwich area?

Honestly, these parents sound like the sort of hands-off parents that should be the norm. How other people can say their style is 'unacceptable' is, frankly, unacceptable. My money is that these kids will grow up to be a couple of very well-rounded human beings. Other should learn from them, not condemn them.

[bawdy-nan]

I'd love to allow my children (7 and 5) to make their own way to school because I want them to learn that they can be ok in the world without me and I think the regular route to school is a perfect place to do it.

Ideally all of our chidlren should have safe routes to school. Around here it shoudl be possible to provide proper off road, safe cycle routes to ALL of the schools. Cllr Barber ... a possibility?

[Loz]

Boris Johnson can be a daft bugger, but sometimes he hits the nail firmly on the head.

[dulwichmum]

Loz Wrote:

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

> At this point, can I mention the oft-written

> dangers of the child-snatchers dressed as clowns

> in the Dulwich area?

This is just not funny.

Leaving little people, this young to make their own way to school, as reported, is lazy parenting. It is not about allowing children to exercise or develop a sense of responsibility. It is irresponsible. We live in London.

Conveniently ignoring the dangers is neglect. Neglect is a form of child abuse.

[BB100]

Growlybear Wrote:

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

>> I think that in cases where very young children

> are perceived to be in a vulnerable or dangerous

> situation, the school or other parents have a

> responsibility as well as a right to intervene.

>

This is very sound reasoning. The problem is: who should define what is perceived as being vulnerable and at risk? As the below quote suggests we have become a society of paranoid parents, so are we really in the right position to judge the Schonocks when our perceptions of risk are distorted? (I'm not saying I would copy the Schonrock's actions or they are doing the right thing but I do think we are not in a good position to decide for them).

'There is a sense of danger and fear among parents and adults in contemporary society.

In fact the danger to children is statistically minimal: 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). This apparent mis-match between reality and the fears

discussed by parents and children is understandable when viewed alongside

features of a culture of fear. An approach to parenting has arisen which asks

?what if?? and seeks to prevent any risk involving their child. This ?what if??

is enhanced and intensified by media horror stories and an over-assessment of

risks and dangers. However, there is also an awareness of a need to allow

children to experience some kind of independence and self-responsibility,

and so parenting and childhood in a culture of fear is constructed as an issue

of balance: a balance between creating ?cotton wool kids? and allowing

children to be ?free range?'. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/everyday-fear-leanne-franklin.pdf

[Loz]

Conveniently ignoring the dangers is neglect.

Statistically, the biggest danger to a child is their parents and close relatives. Discuss. Or ignore.

[Growlybear]

BB100 Wrote:

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

>

> This is very sound reasoning. The problem is: who

> should define what is perceived as being

> vulnerable and at risk? As the below quote

> suggests we have become a society of paranoid

> parents, so are we really in the right position to

> judge the Schonocks when our perceptions of risk

> are distorted? (I'm not saying I would copy the

> Schonrock's actions or they are doing the right

> thing but I do think we are not in a good position

> to decide for them).

>

>

I think we all have our own perceptions of what constitutes a child being vulnerable. I can only follow my own standards and conscience, and without doubt, if I was aware of two little children of this age making a journey of this length to school on their own, I would have no hesitation in alerting the school concerned. In an ideal world, of course young children shoudl be able to live the sort of carefree childhood that I had, but we live in a very different world today, and I just can't see this situation as being anything other than irresponsible parenting at best, and downright negligent at worst.

[clare999]

This thread started with a great deal of vitriol targetted at either the "authoritarian headmaster" and the "nanny state". But unfortunately, as always the facts of the case don't match the stereotypes. The issue has been running for months, with the school and, believe it or not, other parents generally being sympathetic to this modern (but rather contrived?) dilemma. So strike off images of mothers huddled in the playground, gossiping etc!

But the bottom line is that 4 year old/8 year old are too young to make this step. They are too distractable. They don't have the skills to cope with the unexpected. Its an unecessary risk.

Stats suggest thirteen under 15yo killed or seriously injured in Southwark on the roads last year - of which 80% cyclists or pedestrians. 2800 children killed or seriously injured on the roads in UK during the same year. Thats quite a lot. And that is with the so-called nanny state and paranoid parents in full swing. I can't think the numbers would reduce by adopting a more relaxed attitude to leaving your very young children unsupervised on the road. And of course these accidents don't happen randomly - they occur where children tend to congregate.

And re the benefits (independence etc etc). Yes - sort of. But there are other ways, and whats the urgency in making kids grow up so fast by taking such a big step?! Just chill: walk them to school, share the health benefits - and its quite fun too! And don't cycle on the pavements - too many cars reversing out of drives to be safe, and a complete pain in the neck for those trying to walk.

PS Not fair to really rely on other parents to watch out - or at least if you do, at least get their consent!

[GinaG3]

I'm sorry, but some people are absolutely mad. What would Boris be saying if a child that cycled to school on their own (even on the safest route) experienced something terrible. If the child lay hurt or worse, would he congratulate the heroic parents then? What if something happened to the younger child, whilst in the care of an 8 year old. Social service would have to get involved, as the question would certainly arise 'what was an 8 year old doing in sole charge of a 5 year old?'

This thread is here to be talked about, discussed and for opinions to be given. If parents want to let their children go to school on their own at this age by all means, they will do it. But I for one will opt out of this..

And, I do believe authorities should be involved, at the very least talk to the parents. If this was flipped and a mother on a council estate had 2 children who she allowed to walk to school on their own, no doubt at all authorities would get involved. Social services would leap at her. Rightly so, there could be many reasons why the children are walking to school on their own, its their job to check everything is alright, with the children and parents too.