DD no longer allowed to walk from school.

[TheWonderhorse]

DD is 9 and has been walking from school to a car park just off the grounds (not the official school car park but closer). She's been really wanting to walk home but we compromised at this for now and would work up to that gradually. I signed a consent form to permit them to release her.

So this morning the school sent a letter out saying that they've had a rethink to all parents, and from Monday only Year 6 children are to be allowed to leave the classroom without a parent.

DD is Year 4 but the oldest in her class, meaning we won't be allowed to start this again for 17 months. AIBU to ask the head to reconsider? I know they can't really refuse to let her out, but I don't want to be a dick. I just feel like DD is being held back for no good reason at all. We have this covered and didn't need the school to intervene.

IABU, school know best.
IANBU it's up to the parent to judge what's safe for the child.

Maybe no-one asked about y1,2,3? It doesn't mean the OP needs to shut up and put up when her child is Y4 was leaving school unsupervised since September.

Yeah, and if there is a specific safeguarding concern, they should address it, potentially ask parents for temporary cooperation in mitigating it.

Safeguarding is heavily overused word, often used to bully normal parents while the children in risk can still fall through.
"Safeguarding" on it own isn't a magical world to explain why the y4 can't leave the school alone.

I don't understand your logic. Surely the child in question will notice that all other walking/being alone outside giyt limited as well, so will understand that something is happening.

In the second case, it doesn't make sense either. Ok, one child needs to be collected, why should the others be punished for something they have nothing to do with?

I was responding to the suggestion that schools should make no rules other than those very directly related to education.

My view is that, while society continues to hold schools responsible for so much more than academic teaching and learning, schools have every right to make rules around all areas they will be held responsible for. And again, as I said earlier, on the (mercifully infrequent, due to working in schools with careful rules and procedures in place) occasions when children’s transfer back to their parents’ care at the end of the say has not gone smoothly, and a child has been temporarily lost, the parents have always, without exception, blamed the school first.

If a school will be held to account and blamed when something goes wrong, they have every right to set rules that make it less likely to go wrong.

Apologies, answers out of sequence.

In the case of two examples (eightisNewNine’s post) I was simply pointing out that parents cannot - and should not expect to - be told the specific reason for every rule a school makes or every change to an existing rule.

There does have to cone a point where parents say ‘we trust that a school is making decisions in the best interests of its pupil body, and we accept that we may not know the exact reason for every decision.’

"Bully parents". Seriously, have a word with yourself! What utter nonsense!

If only one child is protected by this measure it's worth it.

I don't agree primary school kids should be allowed out by themselves. I dont care if other kids do it in year 5 and 6. Mine most certainly won't be thankfully hes in reception now so i have a few years till the argument. It takes 2 seconds for something to happen. It isn't worth the risk. Imagine she got kidnapped or S/A'd on her way back?

And this is what schools have to contend with - for every parent who thinks it's fine there will be another who thinks it's not.

Therefore this school has taken the decision to have a blanket rule which all must abide by. It makes perfect sense for them to work in this way.

A word with myself about what? The "if one child is protected" is nonsensical argument when used as a generic pronouncement. If you expand on it, you will find that Y6 isn't that much older, you might think about protecting y8s from risk of hanging out with bad friends. And maybe you can end up with forbidding women to take a late shift, so they wouldn't walk alone. If one woman is protected by this measure, it's worth it, isn't it.

The aspect which is getting overlooked in this kind of threads is, that policies should be proportionate.
Disproportionate policies lead to people resenting the system, and aren't necessarily safer or better overall.

For example the penalties for unauthorized absence are an example of bullying normal parents. Yes, school absence can be a red flag, especially if it is repeated, erratic, or if it happens after some investigation took place.
In normal case with no additional concerns, the children from poorer families who can't afford to pay a fine (on top of off-season holiday price) aren't in bigger danger than children from slightly wealthier families who "count the fine as a part of the cost of off-season holiday and still save a lot".

It doesn't really make sense. The school doesn't have any need to resolve those different parental opinions. A simple rule is, that the parents either put in writing that the child is leaving alone or pick their child up.

In light of recent knowledge becoming available I think they are wise to do this.

Agreed - parents are in a much better position to judge what’s appropriate for their child depending on route to school, how they behave when out, level of independence etc.

"If only one child is protected by this measure it's worth it."

Oh dear, this one again:

https://vintage.isi.org/intercollegiate-review/if-it-saves-just-one-life-fallacy/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

If you are advocating restrictions on people's freedoms in the name of a percieved danger, you have to provide a logical, not an emotional, argument to justify that and look at the full picture. Restrictions applied using the excuse of safety like that may have undesirable side effects which on a population scale are worse than the original small risk was.

In this case, it sounds unlikely the school's rule is down to danger to children. If it were, ALL children would not be allowed to leave the school unaccompanied. Why should the subset of children who have been taught situational awareness be penalised? Let the parents decide if their child is capable of independent travel.

As for the risk of being abducted/harmed, in the majority of cases, children are abused by someone they know.

I'm not asking for a tailored set of rules for my child. I'm asking school to permit parents to make the decisions they're best placed to make.

My daughter follows the school rules and I have never once criticised staff. The school has brilliant teachers in fact. I have defended them many many times in other circumstances, I have made tiny uniform for and minded the guinea pigs, helped raise thousands only pounds a year for it and am genuinely invested in its success. I have been very vocal about the school's merits and am very involved in all aspects of life I can be. The school would not question my motivation, I'm sure of that.

I just think that they overstep when they police how we get our children home. I think we can do that. Parents can, and they should. Kids are getting to secondary school and aren't ready for it, because they aren't given that level of freedom or responsibility until too late. It must be so overwhelming. Perhaps if schools were more supportive and empowered parents rather than patronised then we would have more confident and less anxious teenagers.

Can't a parent who can show that they've put their time where their mouth is question the limits of the school's authority in good faith without everything coming back to how demanding and terrible parents are. This is a big deal for me in principle and a big deal for DD in practice. Surely schools want parents to care about this sort of thing.

Yes and as someone else said earlier in the thread, the real damage being done toc children is the helicoptering, raising anxiety and lowering resilience and coping skills.

Schools can have rules about what happens during the school day, once that day has ended the parent's decisions are final. If the school fee that those decisions are putting a child at risk they know the procedures to go through.

All this seems very bizarre to me. Is there a specific credible threat? If not the school is irrational and perhaps exceeding their authority. If that's the case, maybe find a school with a more sensible, evidence-based policy.

As a child I walked to & from school since age 5. Up to 4 miles each way, often on my own, in England & abroad. We were taught to be aware of dangers.
People retort that the world was safer then. Actually, it wasn't.

As a teacher, in all the schools I taught only children up to year 1 had to be collected.

Our perception of risk is very unreliable - that's a scientific fact. Children are at vastly, really hugely, more risk from family and known adults than any kind of stranger. That's an unpalatable statistical fact.

It almost seems as if some institutions and individuals are competing to be the most concerned, the most caring...what could possibly be wrong with that? After all, we're talking about childrens' safety.
Nothing at all, except losing touch with reality, failing to teach safe behaviours, failing to develop self-reliance, responsibility and self-confidence through structured experience.
Then as soon as child is, well, pick an age, mid-teen maybe or off to university, suddenly they're out in the world on their own. With no experience of the world without a chauffeur or hand holder.

Schools do mountains of things which are not directly education. They feed children, they liaise with multiple professionals, they administer medications, they manage finances, and buildings, change nappies, manage behaviour, break up fights, desl with fallings out, monitor SEN plans, plan school trips, take children to swim lessons, provide family support.....

If all schools had to do is provide teachers to stand at the front of classes, they might have the capacity to deal with a variety of different end of the day arrangements.

Schools are protecting themselves from parents blaming them when things go wrong.

It's all very well saying children need to take risks etc etc but just spend some time on these boards & see what parents complain about & accuse schools of.

As I said before, schools just can't win and I don't blame them for aiming to make their lives easier & having cautious blanket rules.

If you don't like a school's rules you can exercise your right to move your child to another one.

All those things pertain to the child's welfare while on their premises and during the school day or after school club, not the parents choice of how the child gets to and from school

If I've consented it's not their responsibility. That's the point of consenting.

Surely handing control of walking home to parents is literally pleasing every parent. Those who want to collect from the door until their kids are 15 and those whose children are able to walk to their Nan's over the road at 7. How could that possibly annoy parents?

I'm not proposing that she break the rules, I am asking the head to reconsider the rules

But you keep saying the rules in for 50 metres, but it wouldn't be, the rule would be to release any child of that age from the schools care, which they now do not deem safe, it just so happens its only 50 metres for your DD.

Again, if you are parked up anyway and it's only 50 metres- why can't you just give the nod at the class door, then let her walk with her friend after that ??

Most schools allow kids at least year 6 to walk home for the exact reason of preparing them for high school,they don't need 3 years to get used to it.

Surely, handing control of walking home to parents is literally pleasing every parent

The problem is, what if a parent of a 5 year old child thinks the same. Thinks its absolutely ridiculous, as little Jimmy is very capable of walking home alone ?

The school have to be comfortable with releasing that cohort, they are just saying they are not now.

I am quite certain that the school has a sound reason for this. As I and others have said before it will be about safeguarding and probably about an induvidual family.
Part of functioning in a community is being willing to understand that some rules are for the good of others.
The OP has been most insistent that it is a very short distance and this is all the more reason to accept the rule and show trust in the staff. There is no need for this level of indignation. Your DD is not being harmed by this in any way.

No. I am asking the head to allow parents to decide. Whether or not it's safe to release a child depends on particulars the school don't know. Parents do know.

I don't think it's about doing the minimum required to getting them to high school, I think it's doing as much as they can do safely. Just like academic skills, you don't get them to the minimum standard and that will do, you try to get the best out of them. Social skills and independence are every bit as important as those, and it seems far too easy to curb that side of their development for the vaguest of reasons.

I am on your side @TheWonderhorse . Schools should be encouraging independence and not helicoptering.

My DD's school brought in "meet away from the school" for Y5 and above after lockdown. DD walked part of the way to school from the start of Y5 and then all the way (it's only 5 mins but it's across a road that needs a lollipop lady) from about Jan of Y5. She's a May birthday so started aged 9 and at 11 she'll be walking herself 20 mins to the bus stop and catching the bus to secondary school.
The risks from strangers are lower than they were when I was at school (70s/80s) and it's up to us to make them traffic wise. If more children walk themselves instead of being driven, there will be safer roads.