Schonrock kids and unchaperoned "school run"

[dulwichmum]

Mark O'Donnell is a fabulous head teacher. Without question he has done the right thing. The children's welfare is his primary concern. To be fair, none of us know exactly what has gone on. As someone who has written for the Telegraph etc, I would never place any weight on the value of what is actually reported in the newspapers or on the TV news.

I have had cause to discuss child protection issues with Mark O'Donnell (and yes, I may not be spelling his name correctly) in the past - I have 15 years experience in this area, and he is, without question, a balanced and measured individual, completely desserving of his position at the head of Alleyns. I think that he is head and shoulders above the heads of any of the local schools, and no, my kids do not go there.

[Loz]

I'm certainly not saying he is a bad head teacher - I'm sure Alleyns pay enough to employ people that are more than just competent. It's just, in this case, he made a bad call and he has now caused his school much embarrassment. I've noticed that Australia and Qatari news agencies have started to pick the story up. This could blow up massively on him.

I hope he learns from this - threatening to hit the nuclear button from the word go is no way to handle such a situation. He made a poor decision and he should be on the phone to the parents and back-pedalling as fast as he can. If he doesn't kill this story PDQ then it may yet snowball on him.

[????]

I supsect he had little choice. I suspect most parents at Alleyn's support him. I supsect the govenors support him. I suspect that he was acting on Protocol. I think he is not the villain of the piece...I'm not sure that there is one...other than the media.

[Growlybear]

I don't believe that this will have a negative impact on the school at all, but shows that the school takes their responsiblities for the welfare of the pupils seriously. If I was considering sending a child to a local public school, it this would definitely make me more inclined to choose Alleyn's.

I work with a number of local primary schools, and don't believe that the headteacher of any primary school in this area would condone five year olds cycling to school without an adult. Many primary schools won't allow children to cycle to school until they are in Year 5 or 6, even with adult supervision.

[Alex K]

The headmaster may have been between a rock and a hard place.

Who knows what his personal inclinations were?

But - as the original SUNDAY TIMES story said - after other parents expressed concern, he was moved to act.

Backed by conviction, "expressions of concern" can be... emphatic. A hypothetical: "Denounce these parents to child services, sir, or be denounced yourself as failing to comply with Southwark's 'guidance'."

A bad position to find oneself in.

[Santerme]

I say, it's their children and if these people want to begin an experiment in social engineering with them let them.

I have two (teenage now) girls who are extremely well balanced both on and off bikes...and have developed this way without me or my wife presenting them with undue danger or risk.

An eight year old supervising a five year old is nonsense, pure and simple.

[PeterW]

Couple of points:

- It's long seemed to me that one of the main pleasures some parents get from having children is being able to judge other parents harshly and publicly, with a hand-wringing, 'You'd never catch me doing that...' tone. This thread makes that argument eloquently.

- Several posters have made comments on the lines of, 'Well of course I cycled to school when I was young, but the world is different now.' Indeed, it is different - it's safer.

Really? Let's consider the evidence. The statistics show that the number of children abducted and/or murdered by strangers in the UK has stayed broadly level for decades, despite various public scares. Meanwhile, the roads are becoming safer every year. This DfT graph shows how pedestrian deaths on the roads (for all ages) have plummeted in the last 40 years.

One thing has increased, though - and that's fear.

- I tell you who should be reported to the authorities: people who drive their kids short distances to and from school. They're the ones creating the road danger people are so scared about. And don't get me started on urban 4x4 drivers. If any of the more judgemental posters here drives a Range Rover or similar, then consider yourself morally excluded from the rest of this thread.

[????]

...sorry!!! what was that about judging people harshly and publically?

Hypocracy's a funny old thing.

[Santerme]

The one constant in all this is allowing an eight year old child to supervise a much younger child.

It is patently stupid.

[????]

..besides which the falling death rate is a potential red herring, it could just as easily be argued this reflects the fact that kids are MORE likely to be accompanied by adults on their journey to school than they used to be...

[Santerme]

Or car bumpers are more accident friendly!

[pk]

???? Wrote:

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

> ..besides which the falling death rate is a

> potential red herring, it could just as easily be

> argued this reflects the fact that kids are MORE

> likely to be accompanied by adults on their

> journey to school than they used to be...

it's a good point and one that was going to make if you hadn't already

[BB100]

PeterW Wrote:

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

I tell you who should be reported to the

> authorities: people who drive their kids short

> distances to and from school. They're the ones

> creating the road danger people are so scared

> about. And don't get me started on urban 4x4

> drivers.

I was thinking that the extra traffic on the road during the school run probably makes them safer as you can barely do 5mph in the morning.

[PeterW]

????/pk:

> ..besides which the falling death rate is a

> potential red herring, it could just as easily be

> argued this reflects the fact that kids are MORE

> likely to be accompanied by adults on their

> journey to school than they used to be...

The graph is for all pedestrians, not just kids. The fact is that safety innovations with cars, plus better designed and maintained roads (among a host of factors) means the streets just aren't as dangerous as they used to be. The only change for the negative is parents' sometimes absurd levels of fearfulness and mollycoddling. British kids are, statistically, fattest and least happy in Europe. Any guesses as to why?

as for me "judging people harshly and publically", I'd say there's a difference (but then again I would). I'm not lambasting based on prejudice or what I've half-read in the newspapers; the case against urban 4x4s is backed up by statistics. Personally, I think every owner should be obliged to carry a rear-window sticker saying: 'Yes, I know my vehicle is much more likely to kill your child in a low-speed accident, but I just don't give a damn.'

I was thinking that the extra traffic on the road during the school run probably makes them safer as you can barely do 5mph in the morning.

I can only hope you're joking.

[Keef]

Bugger, only just seen this thread.

Agree with all the points - the parents are to be applauded. The school to be lambasted, Social Services sent on their way and other parents at the school to be given a short lesson in common sense and parental responsibility. Better to raise an aware, confident and fit young children by letting them take a short walk to school than to create an artificial bubble for them to live in until their teens.

One of the kids was 5, that is too young IMO.

I walked to school on my own from quite an early age, but not 5. Cycling to school at 5 is insane.

As for "Social Services sent on their way", would you have them not look in to anything just because they thought it sounded a bit silly? They are doing their job, which is right and proper (but will soon be cut no doubt, so it won't be an issue will it).

Buggie made a very good point (also back on page 1), that had these kids been run over, there would be uproar, and people would probably be demanding that they be taken away from their parents! (which would be a gross overreaction, but that is the nature of these things).

Sorry if I'm repeating stuff, I've not bothered reading all 8 pages.

[pk]

PeterW Wrote:

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

> ????/pk:

>

> British kids are, statistically, fattest and least happy in

> Europe. Any guesses as to why?

>

is it cos in every other european country all 5 year olds ride their bikes to school without adult supervision?

[James Barber]

Alleyn's School has released the following statement:

"

Alleyn's Junior School would like to correct the misreporting of the travel-to-school story.

First, the school has not reported the family to the local authority social services.

Second, the school and the family named in the press are not in dispute.

The school understands that the safety of children on their journey to school is the parents' responsibility. It is for the regulatory authorities, not a school, to determine when parental freedom compromises parental responsibility.

However, legislation emphasises that all schools are legally obliged to safeguard their pupils. To this end, the school has taken into account the particular circumstances: the age of the younger sibling in Reception Year, and the age of the escorting, older sibling in Year 3, and has therefore raised its concern with the parents about the safety of their children's travel arrangements, for which the parents are responsible. Both children are below the 9 years-of-age threshold currently recommended by the local authority (Southwark Council) for crossing the road independently. Moreover, Bikeability, the government-approved, cycle-training organisation, itself does not recognise a child's ability to cycle unsupervised and independently until they are over eleven years of age.

Legal advice confirms that we would be failing in our safeguarding duty not to raise this concern with the parents as the initial step towards exploring alternative travel arrangements.

Ann Kenrick, founder of the Safe Routes to School initiative for the Dulwich schools and author of the nationally acclaimed book Let Me Out! How to Enjoy the School Run said yesterday, "Alleyn's School has been at the vanguard of work on promoting walking and cycling to school for over 10 years. Clearly the priority is the safety of the children, but developing fitness and independence is also incredibly important."

The School does not intend to make any further press statement.

"

[Keef]

Someone said they ride the bikes on the pavement, but isn't this against the law? Petty perhaps, but law nontheless.

Just noticed there was some discussion earlier about the McCanns. Always found them to be very very odd people, trying to deflect guilt away from themselves* by whipping up such a huge media storm.

*Not suggesting they are guilty of anything sinister, but the fact is, what happened was completely avoidable had they been more responsible.

[Alex K]

"...legislation emphasises that all schools are legally obliged to safeguard their pupils... Both children are below the 9 years-of-age threshold currently recommended by the local authority (Southwark Council) for crossing the road independently. Moreover, Bikeability, the government-approved, cycle-training organisation, itself does not recognise a child's ability to cycle unsupervised and independently until they are over eleven years of age. Legal advice confirms that we would be failing in our safeguarding duty not to raise this concern with the parents..."

To me, this reads as if fear of lawyers, or of those who might make out that Southwark Council's recommendation is a command, who might insist that abilities not recognised by Bikeability do not exist, has led the school to act.

I'm reminded of T H White's parable of the antheap in which everything not forbidden was compulsory.

I hope that the school, having raised this concern with the parents, will content itself with a response of "Thank you for your concern; we have explored alternative travel arrangements, as you put it, and believe that they are not satisfactory; these are our children, we mean to rear them as we see fit, and on this point we must agree to disagree."

[James Barber]

No, it isn't illegal to ride on the pavement for the small wheel sizes involved and age of the kids.

I really think any reference to the terrible McCann case is unhelpful in the extreme.

[*Bob*]

Let Me Out! by Ann Kenrick

This practical and fun guide to the school run has been brilliantly put together by Ann Kenrick. She transmits a huge amount of information in a simple and easy to digest format and, I believe, has created the definitive book on the topic. .. Whether it is for advice on preparing a school travel plan or how to tackle the challenge of changing behaviour this book will provide you with inspiration, tools and lots of useful contacts.

Jesus Wept

[*Bob*]

Also by Ann Kenrick:

How to Open an Unlocked Door

A jargon-free and practical guide for parents and children alike who are struggling to cope with the challenges of opening unlocked doors. The step-by step instructions cover both handles and knobs - plus useful tips on how to close the door once you're through.

[Keef]

No, it isn't illegal to ride on the pavement for the small wheel sizes involved and age of the kids.

I really think any reference to the terrible McCann case is unhelpful in the extreme.

Well perhaps you should point it out to the poeple who were discussing it earlier, to which I responded with an opinion. It's not about being helpful anyway James, it's about a load of poeple on the internet giving their opinion about something which is really none of their business. Just to be clear though, I was not in any way comparing these parents to the McCann's, I was simplyt taking part in an internet discussion, which is all this is. It's really not that important.

I had heard something about the law and wheel size, and I think it is good if kids can ride on the pavement legally.

[dulwichmum]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> No, it isn't illegal to ride on the pavement for

> the small wheel sizes involved and age of the

> kids.

> I really think any reference to the terrible

> McCann case is unhelpful in the extreme.

Where did that comment regarding the McCann's come from James? You are the one bringing it back up again.

I mentioned them in the first instance because in my opinion, this is a further example of poor parental judgement, where the parents enlist the support of the press and politicians in a way that working class parents could not. Get over it. This is a democracy or had you not processed that?

The parents at Alleyns have every right, as part of this community, to notice and raise alarm if some children are not being protected appropriately. Isnt there always uproar when people ignore the evidence in front of their faces and some tragedy occurs?

As for this constant discussion of the threat of being investigated by Southwark social services, in my professional experience, it is virtually impossible to have a child placed on the at risk register in this borough. I have been involved in child protection cases in Southwark where children had broken bones, cigarette burns and evidence of sexual abuse, and the social workers attitude could be summed up by the word "inertia". They are overwhelmed with work and too much of the surveillance is left to the health visitors.

Boris Johnson and the government backing up this family is nothing more than spin and softening the public up for the inevitable cuts in social services locally. YOU KNOW IT!

[Jeremy]

I can't work out whether DulwichMum is posting "in character" or not. I always thought that having an au pair was one of her jokes.

Anyway, doesn't all this nonsense belong in the Family Room?