Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Deaf children

76 replies

FrameyMcFrame · 10/01/2014 16:14

Probably being VU but I'd like to understand why.

My DS's school has a high proportion of deaf children, it's a specialist centre.
The rules are that no parents can drive on to the site in the morning or evening even though there is a large parking area but the parents of the deaf children are allowed to drive in and out with impunity.
This means that there is LOTS of traffic on the school grounds, and in my opinion it's dangerous for ALL the kids in the school because of the way the carpark and yard and paths are arranged, I keep seeing nearly accidents and can't help thinking it won't be long before there is one.

So AIBU to think that the deaf children and parents should walk on to the school grounds like everyone else as they don't have mobility problems?

OP posts:
ExcuseTypos · 10/01/2014 16:33

I agree copper At the school I work in, there is a small car park for a mini bus and children who come by taxi. Everyone else has to park outside the school gates.

headlesslambrini · 10/01/2014 16:33

I would think that this is just about an assessed need and managing it. A risk to hearing impaired children is that they are not able to hear car engines. It can also be difficult for children with additional needs to understand the dangers and can often take longer for them to learn this particularly if there is a learning difficulty as well.

The school is just trying to minimise the risk as a child with hearing loss is more likely to be hurt crossing a road than a child with full hearing.

TheProsAndConsOfHitchhiking · 10/01/2014 16:34

I would presume that a) the deaf children/parents will be travelling from further afield and b) it would possibly be a risk to the deaf children having to walk across a busy road/car park.

TheProsAndConsOfHitchhiking · 10/01/2014 16:35

x post with headless

UniS · 10/01/2014 16:35

just guessing here..
deaf pupils may come from a wider catchment than hearing so more of those pupils come by taxi or parental car.

a deaf child is less safe on the pavement as they can't hear traffic behind them or parental warnings.

some of the deaf pupils may have other disabilities , intellectual or physical.

a young deaf child in a hearing family will often have a language delay , with knock on effect to their behavior.

I think yabu. the school have a designated parking area and have decided to prioritise their vulnerable hearing impaired pupils rather than have a free for all. if you think your child is similarly vulnerable you could try asking school for permission to use on site parking.

Original poster
FrameyMcFrame · 10/01/2014 16:35

ExcuseTypos, no you're wrong, deaf is a perfectly reasonable word. It;'s written in huge letters on the front of the school!

OP posts:
Original poster
FrameyMcFrame · 10/01/2014 16:38

TheProsAndCons, if cars were banned on the driveway at those times no One would be in danger though.

OP posts:
BarbarianMum · 10/01/2014 16:38

The OP isn't want to park on site though Unis She's worried about her child getting knocked down whilst walking into school property. Which I think is a reasonable concern if a lot of cars and pedestrians are trying to share a narrow drive, or whatever.

TravelinColour · 10/01/2014 16:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ADishBestEatenCold · 10/01/2014 16:43

"Well I have just received an email as I had complained about the volume of traffic coming in and out of the school where there is a carpark and a driveway for the kids to cross on site."

I see you've received an email (from the school, presumably) in response to your complaint. Did the email shed any light on the matter?

With regards to the parents of the deaf children being allowed to drive in and out of the school, could it be that in fact the parents of children with disabilities are allowed to drive in and out of the school?
Perhaps you simply associate this with deaf children because of the large number of deaf children attending the school, but it may be that the school's parking concession applies to parents of children with all types of disabilities.

SigningGirl · 10/01/2014 16:43

deaf is fine, as is child with hearing loss/ hard of hearing.

hearing impaired is actually quite derogatory.

however, it isn't the deaf children or their parents that might be unreasonable, if anyone, it is the school...

Artandco · 10/01/2014 16:46

I'm assuming this is the only deaf specialist area for many many miles. So many are driving from quite far to get there compared with everyone else who can just pick a local school

Gileswithachainsaw · 10/01/2014 16:47

There should be a safe method of entry for ALL the children!! Whether or not the dead childrebs parents can drive onto the school is irrelevant. It's not safe by sound of it for any of the children.

Gileswithachainsaw · 10/01/2014 16:47

Oh ffs deaf not dead what is up with this iPhone Blush

Donki · 10/01/2014 16:49

You are not being unreasonable to want a pedestrian route into school which does not bring pedestrians and cars into close proximity. This is a health and safety issue that needs sorting.

YABU to object to the parents of deaf children being able to take children into school.

  1. they are much more vulnerable as pedestrians to traffic.
  2. parents may have little or no choice about driving right across the authority to get to specialist provision.
  3. is it parents or taxis? It is more likely to be taxis to a specialist unit. Taxis will have escorts but if there are several young deaf children in the taxi, it might be dangerous for one escorts trying to get 3 deaf children into school on foot by themselves. Nearly all taxi transport is door to door.
ExcuseTypos · 10/01/2014 16:50

Sorry I thought Deaf was not the right term. Thank you for putting me right.

Original poster
FrameyMcFrame · 10/01/2014 16:50

Agree with you Giles and thanks for shedding light on it for me everyone else.

OP posts:
BackforGood · 10/01/2014 16:51

As several others have said, the reason for the difference is that children attending their local catchment are expected to walk, but children having to travel to a Resource Base some distance from their home will need to be transported safely in.
What you need to do however, is ask a slightly different question - maybe directly to the governing body ? - about your concerns that as there currently are some vehicles that are moving on site whilst the children are arriving and leaving, you are concerned about everyone's safety, so would it be possible for a risk assessment to be done and a viable alternative found. Without knowing the layout of your site, it's difficult for us to offer suggestions, but there may be a suggestion you could make about ALL transport that moves around site at drop off / pick up time.

BackforGood · 10/01/2014 16:52

x posted with several!

LottieJenkins · 10/01/2014 16:58

As the mother of a deaf child I have to say the title doesn't offend me in the least. I am sure there must be a good reason why there is a parking difference! I do know how difficult it is to keep your eye out for a deaf child in a car park. I actually let go of my trolley to grab my son from behind a car once! Shock The trolley went trundling off down the hill at speed towards the road.........Luckily a very nice superhero type man chased after it and grabbed it. Grin

nokidshere · 10/01/2014 16:59

If its not safe for children to get into/out of school because of the traffic it is irrelevant that some of the children are deaf. It should be safe for all children.

Presumably the children leaving the school grounds to go out to the car park are the ones who are "nearly having accidents" with the cars that are driving on to the premises.

You need to point out that the system needs looking at to make it safer

dayshiftdoris · 10/01/2014 17:01

My son attends a resource provision for ASD 3 miles away and I know a number of other children with ASD are there although it's not their nearest school... Yet we have no parking and can see absolutely no reason to allow it for resource provision parents and not the others.

My school does allow parking in a small car park to one side for special allowances (parents disabled, mobility problems, etc) but it's monitored and strictly policed for safety. I have had cause to occasionally use the staff car park in order to get him in safely mid-meltdown but there is no need for parking across the board just because you might live further away.
Our school transport also does not use the car park.

It needs addressing with the school as a safety concern. I would approach the head teacher.

Gileswithachainsaw · 10/01/2014 17:02

Is there some way some cones or fencing could ensure a certain route is used for each. So those in cars can drive in safely (must be nerve wracking for the drivers too) and pedestrians use a different entrance ?

Or a teacher meets and greets the deaf children so they can be escorted safely into the school so all those relying on taxis etc provided can be a little further away and out of the danger zone and have someone to hand kids over to.

Original poster
FrameyMcFrame · 10/01/2014 17:07

Thanks all, probably didn't make it clear from the start.

I emailed the head to complain about the dangerous situation with the cars. Asked if cars could be banned from site during drop off and pick up times and she said no because the parent of deaf children need to drive right up to school door.

There is a drop off zone with parking for everyone else.

The place where the school yard joins the carpark and the children's bike racks are is where the danger is. It all merges in to one mess of kids, bikes and cars performing 3 point turns.

Cones/fencing a good idea Giles.
I might email governors.

OP posts:
Gileswithachainsaw · 10/01/2014 17:10

I hope they sort it out. Must be extremely worrying for all involved.