Head guilty of Hand S breaches which led to pupil's death .

[LIZS]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/6925503.stm Can't help thinking that this is the thin end of the wedge as far as our children being given scope to play is concerned. Obviously the accident ahd very sad consequences but how does the financial penalty and a civil case by the parents help ? At what age is it acceptable to expect children to obey out of bounds rules without constant supervision. Does Ofsted apply in Wales ,and if so, if it was such an obviosu hazard why had it not previously been noted as an action point .

MT - don't forget the arm of the chair - they could fall off that too (As DS2 keeps repeatedly doing - lots of bumped chins doesn't seem to make him realise it's not a good place to play )

Tripping over in the normal course of events is not the same as having an obvious, predictable hazard.

It's just not. That's why the guy was found guilty.

There are always howls of outrage about H&S, but actually most mad cases we hear about are insurance companies being unreasonable, not the law being mental. English law is actually very reasonable on this sort of thing. It's all done on what is reasonable. It is reasonable to anticipate that three year olds and brick steps are a potentially serious danger. That the guy didn't anticipate it, is unreasonable, that's why the judge has got him bang to rights.

"The head teacher should never allowed a ratio of one teacher to 59 pupils."

So how do you explain 2 teachers to 180 pupils then at DS1's school? (reception-yr2 age)??

It's not the same as Malory or Expat's dh supervising their own children. You weren't looking after 59 children at the time! Not sure about rules in Wales, but in England under Ofsted, I'm sure the school would have been breaching the ratio of adult to child in nurseries.

And you'd be happy to send your 3 year old to a kindergarten which had a flight of stone steps that they let them go and play on unsupervised would you?

Why not an uncovered pond too? And let them go and play with the traffic as well? After all, there are so many risks in life, why bother to minimise any of them?

MaloryTheExciterTowers,

Its not just about the activity, it is about the lack of supervision. It is impossible for one teacher to effectively watch 59 children.

It is part of H&S culture though that if an accident is investigated properly, there is always a cause - unfortunately few accidents 'just happen' without there being a cause.
Obviously H&S at a school or other public places/workplaces is a lot more closely scrutinised & regulated that H&S in the home (but don't forget far more injuries occur in the 'safety' of our homes than out & about!)

but edam - this isn't a day nursery - it's a school - I presume that not all of the children were 3/4yrs old.........

IT'S NOT A NURSERY OR KINDERGARTEN - IT'S A SCHOOL!!!!!!

I think that's the problem, QoQ, because it was a school the head didn't think about his responsibility to provide safe care for the 3yos. If you are going to provide care for nursery-aged children, you have to provide proper supervision for that age group.

I have a child developement degree and I find this outrages. Ratio allowed in my state is 1 to 8.

But the children concerned were not school age.

Some of them were 3. And the HT chose to have safety standards for them, which were appropriate for the older children at the school.

Which is why it was a guilty verdict.

My ds was in a bedroom upstairs at the age of 3, and would come downstairs in the morning unsupervised (our bedroom is downstairs).

As I mentioned, what frightens me is the H&S expert said it was the equivelnt of [only] falling from the arm of a domestic settee. The "only" is my addition - how easy is that to happen and there but for the the grace of god go so many of us.

This incident explains why my bestfirend, who lives in North Wales, was concerend when I said that the janior was responsible for monitoring my ds' primary school playground. Not even sure that he has any assisitance - and there are 200 kids, plus he can't see all of the playground (doens't have x-ray eyes to see through the school building }. There aren't any steps though!

there can't have been that many 3yr olds - it's a school with 150 pupils aged between 3 and 16......

A class of 35 3 year olds, MT?

1 to 8 ratio is for a nursery, I didn't realize it was a school. DS's kinder classes had 17 kids, 20 kids, and 19 kids. They all had assistants.

oh for gods sake

i let my 2 yr old walk up and down steps unsupervised

some steps is not the same as an uncovered pond, get it into perspective, please

haha MT - I can beat that - I had classes of 40 when I was a Gap Year Student

MaloryTheExciterTowers,

That is a reasonable amount of kids of a certain age. But I really beleive when you have kids as young as 3 in a classroom that would never do.

FGS it doesn't matter how many 3 year olds there were. If you take money to look after them, you have a duty to see that they are properly catered for and that includes their safety.

This guy couldn't be arsed. A three year old child is dead for Christ's sake. And people are getting outraged that he's being held to account, instead of outraged that the poor child is dead.