Family think I'm bad for leaving child at school 10mins before door opens

[pointbla]

I take my year 4 child early 10 mins before the school doors open and leave him there. I have another child to take to another school. He's 9 , I see no problem with it , other children are there too. Also, I don't regularly do that just occasionally.
My family seem to think this is very bad and I am putting my child at risk as the kids mess about. AIBU?

I get that you don't like the supposed expectation that the school is legally responsible for supervising and that the op would hold them responsible if something happened. But she has never said this!

If I leave my child in the playground, he breaks his leg and everyone leaves him to his own devices,damn right I'd be pissed off, not because it's a school but because it's a society. So in that sense yes I 'expect' help, but not because it's a school - I would in the street as well.

I sometimes send my 9yo to school by himself. He usually arrives 10 or so minutes early. Am I less of a cheeky fucker because my expectation of help within school before the bell is the same as on the way there? Genuine question.

I get that you don't like the supposed expectation that the school is legally responsible for supervising and that the op would hold them responsible if something happened. But she has never said this!

But she knows it is true. She knows it isn’t the same as leaving him at home and letting him set off however many minutes before school it would reasonably take him to walk. She has avoided asking the question of whether the school allows what she is doing because (I can only assume) she doesn’t think he is old enough or mature enough to make his own way.

I sometimes send my 9yo to school by himself. He usually arrives 10 or so minutes early. Am I less of a cheeky fucker because my expectation of help within school before the bell is the same as on the way there? Genuine question.

What’s their policy?

When I was younger than 9 I was walking to catch the school bus. I was totally unsupervised. It’s fine, don’t let the helicopter parents tell you any different. I know they’ll say it’s different nowadays but it isn’t really that different. It’s not as if you’re letting him walk through a ghetto and forcing him to cross motorways. I’m pretty sure there are responsible adults within shouting distance.

I did some charity work in Bangladesh and children not much older than that went to a boarding school where it took two days, lots of walking and several ferry crossings to get home from their boarding school.

Am I less of a cheeky fucker because my expectation of help within school before the bell is the same as on the way there?

Plus, it isn’t actually the same, is it? You might hope for and expect someone to help your child to the extent that they are able, but you have no case for saying things like, “Why didn’t you call me immediately? Why didn’t you apply First Aid correctly? Why did you leave him alone to go and do X?” The standard of intervention you might expect from a stranger in the street is definitely not the standard you would demand from your child’s teacher.

No it's completly irresponsible. Teachers aren't responsible for children until the doors open. You are leaving them unsupervised

Like I said above, their policy is that as long as you know there is no supervision, it is up to parents what they do. In practice, I guess if the school gates are open they probably are happy with having ultimate legal responsibility for the kids on the premises. But that does not mean active supervision, as you seem to imply - our school make it very clear that that isn't provided. In practice, that means you can't expect the school to stop your child climbing the tree in the playground before school, because there is no supervision. But you can expect them to call an ambulance after the leg has been broken. You seem to think that school secretaries and teachers have an obligation to get involved in minor details such as squabbles between kids if they arrive early. They really don't - in our school the kids are on their own with everything barring major bleeds or missing limbs.

Where schools feel there are legal reasons for something not being allowed they tend to make that abundantly clear, so if the ops school haven't said anything to the contrary, the default is permission, especially as the vast majority of schools allow upper KS2 kids to walk to and from school alone if parents allow it, and hence being alone in the playground when they arrive.

Frog: if your child’s school has a policy, you are aware of it and you are happy with it, why on earth would I call you a cheeky anything? You have explicitly been told this the way they see it, and have simply done that.

"You are leaving them unsupervised"

Ballsdeep that is kind of the crux of the question! Most of us on here think 9 is an entirely appropriate age to leave a child for ten mins unsupervised!

so if the ops school haven't said anything to the contrary, the default is permission, especially as the vast majority of schools allow upper KS2 kids to walk to and from school alone if parents allow it, and hence being alone in the playground when they arrive.

I don’t think the default is permission. My child is my responsibility. It is my responsibility to find out what support will be there for her, before leaving her somewhere.

The question is, why (some) people are willing to leave their children on the school playground for ten minutes, but wouldn't be so happy about leaving them on the streets outside for the same length of time. The answer has to be because they are perceived to be safer inside the school gates. Why? Because there are school staff in closer proximity. (Other parents would also be milling around in the area outside the gates).
Ergo, they are presuming that those staff are effectively "on call, " or responsible for the child. That is where we cross into "cheeky" territory. If the school is really responsible for supervising before school starts (so parents can disappear sooner), then they should have staff officially on duty (for their own legal protection along with anything else). Staff in many schools are not willing to do this, so it needs to be made very clear that parents are responsible until the bell goes. Not sure where anyone stands if this was taken to a court of law in the case of a serious accident in that grey area of time.
And all those posters proclaiming that their child is sensible, aren't taking into account that the school sees the bigger picture, which is that quite a lot of kids of that age are not sensible at all.

OhDearGodLookAtThisMess

Exactly this.

It really depends on what the school say. Mine says children can be dropped off at 8:30 (start 8:45) when the school gates open and there are staff on the playground.
If it was to hang around in the street waiting for the gates to open, then I would drop them a little walk away instead or at a friends house where the friend is walking to school.

It's about what the default position is then, isn't it. In practice of course, op will know the situation better than any of us. In my case I don't much care about the school's responsibility either way before school, because I know that by 8.35 there will be at least 100 parents there who know my child, and if anything happened to my 'unsupervised' kids at that point my phone would crumble under the weight of messages and calls summoning me. We rely on our communities to keep our kids safe, not abstract legal obligations. Once you have to invoke those, it's probably too late.

Ohdeargod no, for us parents come in the playground before school, that's the gathering point to drop kids off. So it isn't staff responsible, it's the school community - just like on the way to school. Why assume your situation is identical across all schools?!

It's about what the default position is then, isn't it.

The default position is that I am responsible for my child.

My neighbours have never had to specifically tell me not to leave her in the garden because I know they are next door.

My boss has never had to tell me not to leave her in Reception because there’s someone on the desk.

My sister has never had to tell me not to send her round to her house after school without asking.

She is my responsibility until someone agrees to assume responsibility for her.

I cant believe you re still arguing your point herculepoirot2 the situation is resolved and needs no further discussion from the Op. She stated pages ago that as of next September this would not even be a problem as both children would be in the same school. Many schools have already broken up for the summer and those that have not will do so in the next few days. Why is the topic still being dissected when it's clearly no longer an issue?

Well then, for me what it comes down to is does the op expect the school to stop her child climbing a tree or walking off to the sweet shop? If so, she is cheeky. If she just expects someone to call an ambulance if he breaks his leg, she isn't.

HeadsDownThumbsUpEveryone

Why are you talking to me and not Frog, who is engaging me in debate just as I am engaging her?

frogsoup

She is, because she knows they have to, and that - as you are still choosing to ignore - is why she leaves him at school, rather than outside school. Bottom line: a person in the street can ignore your injured child. Perhaps they have a good excuse for that: they have dementia, or they are in labour, or they are blind. But even without an excuse, you could only express your shock and disgust at their decision to leave your childbirth screaming on the floor. A teacher who did that would be fired. And the OP is taking advantage of this.

Child - not childbirth. That would be weird.

The question is, why (some) people are willing to leave their children on the school playground for ten minutes, but wouldn't be so happy about leaving them on the streets outside for the same length of time.

Are there really many parents who wouldn't allow a 9yo to play unsupervised on a quiet street for ten minutes?

My DD's were walking to and from school on there on at the age of 9, there were also allowed to play outside and go to the park 10mins down the road, kid's need some level of independence, no harm ever come to them, if that makes me a bad mother in some people's eye's so be it, there both happy and confident young adult's

hercule, the crux of your point seems to be that it is unfair to put the school in this position as staff would feel obliged to help in an emergency, even though they would have no legal obligation to. Whereas letting a 9yo child walk to school alone is fine because no one adult is going to feel under pressure to help him out in a crisis. Is that correct?

It's a strange, skewed way of looking at the world, relative risks and the social contract. And thankfully you seem to be in a minority on this one.

as staff would feel obliged to help in an emergency, even though they would have no legal obligation to.

No, they DO have a legal obligation, and that’s why it’s cheeky.

It is up to a parent whether their child is mature enough to walk to school alone. If the one reason you choose to leave them at school rather than letting them walk is that you know they are safer under the care of peoplewho haven’t said they are happy to be responsible, but are obligated to do so, you’re cheeky. End of story.