Schools close when it snows

1 Dec 2010

Quote by chris19802
What is the punishment for having an unauthorised absence? Or an authorised one that is marked as an absence on your record?

Depends on the school but usually it is only an issue if you have a record of bad attendance, for example if your attendance drops below a certain threshold (92% unauthorised absence in our school).
In our school the trigger is 90%, when Educational Welfare Officers are informed and questions are asked of the parents or carers. The child isn't punished but the ultimate consequence for the carer, could be a fine or a prison sentence, or both. One parent of a child at our school has been imprisoned.

1 Dec 2010

Quote by chris19802
Completely misinformed again I'm afraid... a school like ours with 2,000+ pupils is on a big site - it would take at least a day to clear and grit it all for a few caretakers. You can't have a 'wet policy of keeping kids indoors' at a secondary with a sixth form attached - you can't just keep them in like that and anyway they have to cross yards and things to get between lessons. Assuming you could clear the site, say overnight if you could get the staff to agree to do it (they aren't obliged to), then a couple of hours of snow during the day could put you back at square one. And as for accidents being a fact of life; I agree about that and agree that the school has done nothing wrong, but (a) it is not just about liability, we would rather the kids were as safe as possible and they will be safer at home under these conditions, and (b) if we let kids in when the walkways, steps, etc. are not safe then it can be argued that we have done something wrong.

Completely misinformed? I am sorry but I see plenty of sites that are as large as schools and make a contingency plan to reduce the risk of slipping while on site from a foreseeable weather condition.
It is not unexpected as the weather is forecast 48 hours in advance. Now if you care to say there is not enough resources available than that may be closer to the truth, but claim that it is done in the name of H&S is just an excuse.
Where has the British spirit gone? When the chips are down people should help out.......looks like they now rely on "I am not obliged to".
Get plenty of grit in and get all the staff to help out. Relax the workclothes policy and let them wear sensible footwear instead of dress shoes. It can be done, but some are clinging on to the "Its not my job" excuse. I am an office worker, but have been known to be at the sand pits filling sandbags when there was a risk of flood. I didn't say it wasn't my job, it was a necessity and we got it done. My school has over 1100 children and they have a wet policy where they have them all under cover. They grit the main walkways and the children use these. They do not walk everywhere as this is impossible to grit, so they relax the getting into class on time rule.
If one school can do it then so can the rest. In some cases the need to close is the right one, but it shouldn't be the first option.
Dave_Notts

1 Dec 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

Completely misinformed again I'm afraid... a school like ours with 2,000+ pupils is on a big site - it would take at least a day to clear and grit it all for a few caretakers. You can't have a 'wet policy of keeping kids indoors' at a secondary with a sixth form attached - you can't just keep them in like that and anyway they have to cross yards and things to get between lessons. Assuming you could clear the site, say overnight if you could get the staff to agree to do it (they aren't obliged to), then a couple of hours of snow during the day could put you back at square one. And as for accidents being a fact of life; I agree about that and agree that the school has done nothing wrong, but (a) it is not just about liability, we would rather the kids were as safe as possible and they will be safer at home under these conditions, and (b) if we let kids in when the walkways, steps, etc. are not safe then it can be argued that we have done something wrong.

Completely misinformed? I am sorry but I see plenty of sites that are as large as schools and make a contingency plan to reduce the risk of slipping while on site from a foreseeable weather condition.
It is not unexpected as the weather is forecast 48 hours in advance. Now if you care to say there is not enough resources available than that may be closer to the truth, but claim that it is done in the name of H&S is just an excuse.
Where has the British spirit gone? When the chips are down people should help out.......looks like they now rely on "I am not obliged to".
Get plenty of grit in and get all the staff to help out. Relax the workclothes policy and let them wear sensible footwear instead of dress shoes. It can be done, but some are clinging on to the "Its not my job" excuse. I am an office worker, but have been known to be at the sand pits filling sandbags when there was a risk of flood. I didn't say it wasn't my job, it was a necessity and we got it done. My school has over 1100 children and they have a wet policy where they have them all under cover. They grit the main walkways and the children use these. They do not walk everywhere as this is impossible to grit, so they relax the getting into class on time rule.
If one school can do it then so can the rest. In some cases the need to close is the right one, but it shouldn't be the first option.
Dave_Notts
It is never the first option, not in my experience anyway; by definition it is the last option. You should know that weather forecasts are not always accurate and not granular enough to know the impact on a particular school. Asking staff to spend the day outside gritting walkways when a lot of them are not able and certainly not trained is not a good idea - any good manager would know not to risk that even if the offer was there from staff. Other sites that are larger than schools do stay open; including the one I used to manage when I was in industry, but they have different considerations and a different regulatory framework than schools do. And saying that if one school can do it the rest can too is just plain naive - every school site has different conditions, hazards, pupils, etc. It really is a decision that has to be made on a case by case basis.
I think if you knew more about the considerations that need to be taken into account you would probably understand that the decision to close is never taken lightly, not least because there is significant pressure to stay open from parents, county, etc.
And "British spirit"? Really? I think such a thing is a myth... people are individuals and not defined by where they live; we have people who are willing to work in this country and we have slackers, always have done and always will have. The majority of teachers that I know certainly do not fall into the 'slackers' category; they couldn't do the job if they did.
Sorry, but I think you are arguing from a position of ignorance on this issue.

1 Dec 2010

Training for how to grit? Now lets get in the real world here. If your car was stuck on a hill and there was a grit bin to the left hand side. Would you not go get any grit because you are not trained?
A normal person would walk very carefully to the bin. Take some grit out and make a path from the bin to their car with the grit then start to grit around their wheels and then clear a route to get some traction. What you have wrote suggests that teachers are not able to do this. If that is the case then their qualifications and life experiences must have skipped this. I know a couple of teachers and they would laugh at the thought they were incapable to pick up some grit and place it on the floor. There will always be some that cannot be able to undertake the task due to a medical condition.......not a problem, they can look after the kids while the rest do it.
Weather forecasts are very accurate for county geographical areas especially upto 48 hours ahead so prior planning and preparation is a possibilty, with forethought.
The legislation is the same for schools as the rest as industry. They may have different guidance issued by governmental departments but they usually carry a caveat stating it is guidance only.
The main thing to ask here is, why did they close? If it was because of slipping risks then that is not other hazards.....it is snow and ice and this can be managed with forethought and preparation. Buy in more grit, get the caretakers working, get the staff to help out, get the local authority to help if need be. It can be done. There are over a million people on the dole, with lots who are signed onto agencies. Get them in shovelling grit. If anybody is worried about CRB checks then get them in and off the site before the kids arrive. There are ways, but we seem to just close the schools. 260 in Nottinghamshire with some closing where we had to pass them getting to my school, that stayed open.
You think I am arguing over this issue in ignorance but I think you are arguing over it in excuses. But thats what makes us different.......and it would be boring if we all thought the same duel

Dave_Notts

1 Dec 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Training for how to grit? Now lets get in the real world here. If your car was stuck on a hill and there was a grit bin to the left hand side. Would you not go get any grit because you are not trained?
A normal person would walk very carefully to the bin. Take some grit out and make a path from the bin to their car with the grit then start to grit around their wheels and then clear a route to get some traction. What you have wrote suggests that teachers are not able to do this. If that is the case then their qualifications and life experiences must have skipped this. I know a couple of teachers and they would laugh at the thought they were incapable to pick up some grit and place it on the floor. There will always be some that cannot be able to undertake the task due to a medical condition.......not a problem, they can look after the kids while the rest do it.
Weather forecasts are very accurate for county geographical areas especially upto 48 hours ahead so prior planning and preparation is a possibilty, with forethought.
The legislation is the same for schools as the rest as industry. They may have different guidance issued by governmental departments but they usually carry a caveat stating it is guidance only.
The main thing to ask here is, why did they close? If it was because of slipping risks then that is not other hazards.....it is snow and ice and this can be managed with forethought and preparation. Buy in more grit, get the caretakers working, get the staff to help out, get the local authority to help if need be. It can be done. There are over a million people on the dole, with lots who are signed onto agencies. Get them in shovelling grit. If anybody is worried about CRB checks then get them in and off the site before the kids arrive. There are ways, but we seem to just close the schools. 260 in Nottinghamshire with some closing where we had to pass them getting to my school, that stayed open.
You think I am arguing over this issue in ignorance but I think you are arguing over it in excuses. But thats what makes us different.......and it would be boring if we all thought the same
Dave_Notts

Some of that is true... Of course teachers are capable of gritting, but employers have to ensure that people are trained to do the job they are being asked to do - it is the same for cleaners who already know how to use a hoover, or warehouse operators who already know how to lift a box - they still have to undergo training because the employer has to cover their back from a legal point of view.
Legislation is not the same for schools as for other industries - we have legislation that is particular to people working with 'children and vunlerable people' (that is the term used by law). I know this because I have been through the training ;-) And these things are not guidance but are mandatory. This is why the county authorities spend millions every year on settlements when people put in claims because their children have been injured at school. No matter how much you and I think that people should be able to 'just get on with it' and use their common sense, schools still get sued for things that are not really avoidable and we have to protect ourselves against this as much as possible otherwise our budgets shrink yet further. I could tell you stories of ridiculous claims against schools that I know of which have nonetheless been settled in favour of the claimant.
Weather forecasts are reasonably accurate to county level, true, but as I said they are not accurate enough at a granular enough level to put targeted measures in place ahead of time. Unless of course we start hiring people and making arrangements in advance every time there is a slight threat of snow, which would be a tragic waste of budget.
As for your idea about getting people on the dole to come in and work - I think it is a great idea! Probably not doable in the short term, but not a bad idea nonetheless. This is not something that schools can just do though, it would have to be set up well in advance with government support - but I do think that it should be pursued (it won't be, because of political reasons, but it should be).
Believe me, the last thing I want to do is make excuses to keep schools closed - I for one would like to be in! It makes my life much more difficult when I miss a week's worth of lessons just to sit at home and chat on a swinging website!

1 Dec 2010

.

1 Dec 2010

Quote by HugsnKisses
Road was really icy and slippery this morning so no chance of driving to the school . Ok she could have walked, however her school bags weigh about 2 stone on PE day, she isn't allowed to wear boots at school so would have to walk in flimsy school shoes and risk frostbite falling over...or add more weight to her school bags for the rest of the day.
Its a half hour walk in decent weather up hill and across busy roads full of cars that skid on the take an hour or more in these conditions. Sorry Teachers but no way I am putting a child of mine through that.
I think schools ought to start an hour later and /or finish an hour earlier in snow so that there are less cars on the roads during rush hour , reducing travelling time and increasing safety for to do 4 hours at school than none.

I don't think you have to aim that at the teachers; I think most of them would agree with you. I know I do!

1 Dec 2010

Sorry Chris, make that sorry to OFSTED.
By the way I think ofsted are the reason for a lot of closures, if you think about it.
Kid doesn't turn up for school because of bad weather + unauthorised absence = ofsted bollocks the school.
School closes because of bad weather + kid cant attend = authorised absence = no bollocking . Simples !

1 Dec 2010

Quote by Freckledbird
kaz is the y mark on an authorised absence just for the bad weather absences or for all absences where it has been authorised? i only ask because i had been given authorisation for some time off for my son but in his school report he got it taken off as a percentage and they stated it was an unacceptable amount of time off even though it was authorised. just wanting to warn people that although it may be classed as authorised it may still be taken into account on a child's report

I dont know if it differs around the country but I think not. All I know for fact is in our authority a day off for bad weather counts against attendance. If the head closes the school every child gets one day non attendance which counts in the annual attendance figure.
Our percentage figures are calculated based on the nuber of possible attendances. If the school is closed, it's not a possible attendance. So, a child who is there every other day (when the school is open) will still have 100% attendance. Snow days don't count against them.
Taking holidays in term time is different - even if authorised, the child won't have 100% of possible attendances.
I Think my original message was a little confused. What I was trying to say is it counts against the school if they close. If the school closes every child is counted as absent and those absences count towards the schools total figure. It probably does not count against the children individually as they were unable to attend. Its the heads decision to close the school or not so its up to them if they want to close the school and take the absence figure for the school or leave it open in which case the absences count against the individual children.

1 Dec 2010

Quote by chris19802
And "British spirit"? Really? I think such a thing is a myth...

Depends on your definition.

1 Dec 2010

Quote by essex34m

And "British spirit"? Really? I think such a thing is a myth...

Depends on your definition.
Yes it does, but I've never heard a definition I'd recognise yet.

1 Dec 2010

Quote by chris19802

And "British spirit"? Really? I think such a thing is a myth...

Depends on your definition.
Yes it does, but I've never heard a definition I'd recognise yet.
So what is your definition, and why is it a myth?

1 Dec 2010

Quote by essex34m

And "British spirit"? Really? I think such a thing is a myth...

Depends on your definition.
Yes it does, but I've never heard a definition I'd recognise yet.
So what is your definition, and why is it a myth?
I've always considered it to be what the 19th/20th Century propaganda told us it was; steely determination, not giving up, etc.
It doesn't really matter though, I reject the notion of any 'national spirit'; we're all individuals with our own ethics and shouldn't generalise like that.

1 Dec 2010

Quote by chris19802

And "British spirit"? Really? I think such a thing is a myth...

Depends on your definition.
Yes it does, but I've never heard a definition I'd recognise yet.
So what is your definition, and why is it a myth?
I've always considered it to be what the 19th/20th Century propaganda told us it was; steely determination, not giving up, etc.
It doesn't really matter though, I reject the notion of any 'national spirit'; we're all individuals with our own ethics and shouldn't generalise like that.
And that, in a nutshell is why that spirit is diluted - the selfish every man for himself I'm all right Jack mentality.

1 Dec 2010

Quote by essex34m

And "British spirit"? Really? I think such a thing is a myth...

Depends on your definition.
Yes it does, but I've never heard a definition I'd recognise yet.
So what is your definition, and why is it a myth?
I've always considered it to be what the 19th/20th Century propaganda told us it was; steely determination, not giving up, etc.
It doesn't really matter though, I reject the notion of any 'national spirit'; we're all individuals with our own ethics and shouldn't generalise like that.
And that, in a nutshell is why that spirit is diluted - the selfish every man for himself I'm all right Jack mentality.
Yeah, I reject that mentality too - not sure where you got it from. You should try reading posts more carefully in the future to avoid making more mistakes like that. I never gave any hint as to what my mentality is; I just said we shouldn't generalise and characterise a nation with one statement.

1 Dec 2010

Quote by chris19802

And "British spirit"? Really? I think such a thing is a myth...

Yeah, I reject that mentality too - not sure where you got it from. You should try reading posts more carefully in the future to avoid making more mistakes like that. I never gave any hint as to what my mentality is; I just said we shouldn't generalise and characterise a nation with one statement.
You stated your mentality in your original statement. For you to state that British Spirit is a myth, you are stating that you at least do not hold such feelings. I agree that we shouldn't generalise, but it is fair to assess an individual's attitude when they make it clear that they, at least, believe something is a myth.

1 Dec 2010

Quote by foxylady2209

And "British spirit"? Really? I think such a thing is a myth...

Yeah, I reject that mentality too - not sure where you got it from. You should try reading posts more carefully in the future to avoid making more mistakes like that. I never gave any hint as to what my mentality is; I just said we shouldn't generalise and characterise a nation with one statement.
You stated your mentality in your original statement. For you to state that British Spirit is a myth, you are stating that you at least do not hold such feelings. I agree that we shouldn't generalise, but it is fair to assess an individual's attitude when they make it clear that they, at least, believe something is a myth.
Stating what you do not believe in is not the same as stating what you do believe; saying that I don't think the "British mentality" exists does not tell you anything about what I do believe or what I hold as moral and ethical. Again, I have not said anything about that.

1 Dec 2010

Quote by chris19802
Yeah, I reject that mentality too - not sure where you got it from. You should try reading posts more carefully in the future to avoid making more mistakes like that. I never gave any hint as to what my mentality is; I just said we shouldn't generalise and characterise a nation with one statement.

No mistake on my part, I read the following:

Quote by chris19802
It doesn't really matter though, I reject the notion of any 'national spirit'

The comment of 'British spirit' is not generalising or characterising a nation, it is referring to one particular element to a character. By being so dismissive of it and calling it a myth I feel you are the one doing the generalising, by saying we are individuals, and can't engage in collective feeling.

1 Dec 2010

Quote by essex34m

Yeah, I reject that mentality too - not sure where you got it from. You should try reading posts more carefully in the future to avoid making more mistakes like that. I never gave any hint as to what my mentality is; I just said we shouldn't generalise and characterise a nation with one statement.

No mistake on my part, I read the following:

Quote by chris19802
It doesn't really matter though, I reject the notion of any 'national spirit'

The comment of 'British spirit' is not generalising or characterising a nation, it is referring to one particular element to a character. By being so dismissive of it and calling it a myth I feel you are the one doing the generalising, by saying we are individuals, and can't engage in collective feeling.
I feel like we're having two different conversations; you referred to my comments as "the selfish every man for himself I'm all right Jack mentality.", which I have pointed out I never alluded to. And you don't generalise by dismissing a generalisation, that doesn't make sense. Also I never said we can't engage in collective feeling at all...
You need to read what I'm actually saying rather than what you think I'm saying, because they are two different things.

1 Dec 2010

Quote by chris19802

Yeah, I reject that mentality too - not sure where you got it from. You should try reading posts more carefully in the future to avoid making more mistakes like that. I never gave any hint as to what my mentality is; I just said we shouldn't generalise and characterise a nation with one statement.

No mistake on my part, I read the following:

Quote by chris19802
It doesn't really matter though, I reject the notion of any 'national spirit'

The comment of 'British spirit' is not generalising or characterising a nation, it is referring to one particular element to a character. By being so dismissive of it and calling it a myth I feel you are the one doing the generalising, by saying we are individuals, and can't engage in collective feeling.
I feel like we're having two different conversations; you referred to my comments as "the selfish every man for himself I'm all right Jack mentality.", which I have pointed out I never alluded to. And you don't generalise by dismissing a generalisation, that doesn't make sense. Also I never said we can't engage in collective feeling at all...
You need to read what I'm actually saying rather than what you think I'm saying, because they are two different things.
You are right, I am wrong, I apologise.

1 Dec 2010

i went to work today, i work in education in leicester
its on a huge site with lots of buildings separated by paths and roads
its open for clients from approx am until approx
the powers that be had said they wouldnt grit due to health and safety issues but in fact they had changed their minds and had done some paths but no roads ...its probably far to big and complex for it all to be done plus it snowed so much today i doubt the maintenence men could keep up along with all the heating issues they had to sort out too !
the car park i parked in was one big ice rink and i slid and skidded my way in mid morning (the time i was due to start work)
all day i slid and skidded (on my feet and at times my bum) between buildings doing essential work not just wandering about
then when i left early evening i skidded accros the car park in my car narrowly missing a group of students walking thru the site, i only missed them because they jumped out the way !
shame the head didnt see that !

2 Dec 2010

Quote by chris19802
Some of that is true... Of course teachers are capable of gritting, but employers have to ensure that people are trained to do the job they are being asked to do - it is the same for cleaners who already know how to use a hoover, or warehouse operators who already know how to lift a box - they still have to undergo training because the employer has to cover their back from a legal point of view.
Legislation is not the same for schools as for other industries - we have legislation that is particular to people working with 'children and vunlerable people' (that is the term used by law). I know this because I have been through the training ;-) And these things are not guidance but are mandatory. This is why the county authorities spend millions every year on settlements when people put in claims because their children have been injured at school. No matter how much you and I think that people should be able to 'just get on with it' and use their common sense, schools still get sued for things that are not really avoidable and we have to protect ourselves against this as much as possible otherwise our budgets shrink yet further. I could tell you stories of ridiculous claims against schools that I know of which have nonetheless been settled in favour of the claimant.
Weather forecasts are reasonably accurate to county level, true, but as I said they are not accurate enough at a granular enough level to put targeted measures in place ahead of time. Unless of course we start hiring people and making arrangements in advance every time there is a slight threat of snow, which would be a tragic waste of budget.
As for your idea about getting people on the dole to come in and work - I think it is a great idea! Probably not doable in the short term, but not a bad idea nonetheless. This is not something that schools can just do though, it would have to be set up well in advance with government support - but I do think that it should be pursued (it won't be, because of political reasons, but it should be).
Believe me, the last thing I want to do is make excuses to keep schools closed - I for one would like to be in! It makes my life much more difficult when I miss a week's worth of lessons just to sit at home and chat on a swinging website!

This is what Lord Youngs report was about. It was about the fear of litigation and not an actual risk that stops things happening in this country. The County do not pay out millions but the insurance will pay it out for injury claims. This does not make the claim right as most are settled out of court as it would be cheaper to pay up than to fight it. The insurance companies are after profit and not what is right or wrong......another point Lord Young brought up.
The legislation that is particular to the young and the vulnerable is specific to certain circumstances but not health and safety issues as this is all under the one umbrella of the 1974 Act.
Now training people to do jobs is right as people should have it but "proper training" can consist of:
Me: Take the shovel and put it into grit
Chris: Like this?
Me: Yes, now throw it on the path
Chris: Like this?
Me: Yes, like that. You can pick up your training certificate at the end of the day. Now get the bloody path clear before the kids get here.
Not all training has to be undertaken by qualified professional trainers, just someone who knows how to do the job safely. To lay some grit does not require someone with the brains of an Arch-Bishop. It is a manual job that just needs to be done by people with a bit of a can-do attitude, or as I call it British spirit.
Now someone else who posted raised a valid point. School closing because of snow gets no criticism from Ofsted, but leave it open and the kids do not turn up has the school being criticised. Could this be the real reason? Not the arguing if a teacher can lay grit or not.
Dave_Notts
PS Do not agree with me for getting the unemployed to work as I am going to hell for that one and you don't want to join me lol

2 Dec 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

Some of that is true... Of course teachers are capable of gritting, but employers have to ensure that people are trained to do the job they are being asked to do - it is the same for cleaners who already know how to use a hoover, or warehouse operators who already know how to lift a box - they still have to undergo training because the employer has to cover their back from a legal point of view.
Legislation is not the same for schools as for other industries - we have legislation that is particular to people working with 'children and vunlerable people' (that is the term used by law). I know this because I have been through the training ;-) And these things are not guidance but are mandatory. This is why the county authorities spend millions every year on settlements when people put in claims because their children have been injured at school. No matter how much you and I think that people should be able to 'just get on with it' and use their common sense, schools still get sued for things that are not really avoidable and we have to protect ourselves against this as much as possible otherwise our budgets shrink yet further. I could tell you stories of ridiculous claims against schools that I know of which have nonetheless been settled in favour of the claimant.
Weather forecasts are reasonably accurate to county level, true, but as I said they are not accurate enough at a granular enough level to put targeted measures in place ahead of time. Unless of course we start hiring people and making arrangements in advance every time there is a slight threat of snow, which would be a tragic waste of budget.
As for your idea about getting people on the dole to come in and work - I think it is a great idea! Probably not doable in the short term, but not a bad idea nonetheless. This is not something that schools can just do though, it would have to be set up well in advance with government support - but I do think that it should be pursued (it won't be, because of political reasons, but it should be).
Believe me, the last thing I want to do is make excuses to keep schools closed - I for one would like to be in! It makes my life much more difficult when I miss a week's worth of lessons just to sit at home and chat on a swinging website!

This is what Lord Youngs report was about. It was about the fear of litigation and not an actual risk that stops things happening in this country. The County do not pay out millions but the insurance will pay it out for injury claims. This does not make the claim right as most are settled out of court as it would be cheaper to pay up than to fight it. The insurance companies are after profit and not what is right or wrong......another point Lord Young brought up.
The legislation that is particular to the young and the vulnerable is specific to certain circumstances but not health and safety issues as this is all under the one umbrella of the 1974 Act.
Now training people to do jobs is right as people should have it but "proper training" can consist of:
Me: Take the shovel and put it into grit
Chris: Like this?
Me: Yes, now throw it on the path
Chris: Like this?
Me: Yes, like that. You can pick up your training certificate at the end of the day. Now get the bloody path clear before the kids get here.
Not all training has to be undertaken by qualified professional trainers, just someone who knows how to do the job safely. To lay some grit does not require someone with the brains of an Arch-Bishop. It is a manual job that just needs to be done by people with a bit of a can-do attitude, or as I call it British spirit.
Now someone else who posted raised a valid point. School closing because of snow gets no criticism from Ofsted, but leave it open and the kids do not turn up has the school being criticised. Could this be the real reason? Not the arguing if a teacher can lay grit or not.
Dave_Notts
PS Do not agree with me for getting the unemployed to work as I am going to hell for that one and you don't want to join me lol

Well, there are a few issues there...
- The county does pay out millions because of claims; have you seen the increase in insurance bills?
- You're wrong about the legislation; the Every Child Matters initiative has "Stay safe" as one of its five pillars and is underpinned by the Children Act 2004. It is one of the main things that ofsted and county inspectors look for when visiting; one of our local schools was recently put into special measures partly because it was not upholding the ECM Stay Safe pillar.
- The training you describe above I would think would be enough in a sane world, but not in this one; employers have to keep a record of safety training undertaken by each employee and in the case of the public sector this has to be submitted to county before the employee takes up the job. It also has to be undertaken by a registered training organisation. In my last job I was actually told I could not help out in moving some computers between offices when we moved because I hadn't been trained to lift them. Like it or not this is the way things are.
- I wouldn't look to Arch-Bishops as an example of brains :-D
- The Ofsted point I haven't really argued about because I don't know whether it would go against the school or not; I suspect not because the head would explain any mitigating circumstances like that in the SEF which would be taken into account by inspectors; but I'm not really sure whether it works that way in practice.
And lastly; I'd be more than happy to join you in hell - sounds more fun than sitting on a cloud with a harp all day :twisted: I reckon all the best parties will be down there...

2 Dec 2010

Quote by chris19802
Well, there are a few issues there...
- The county does pay out millions because of claims; have you seen the increase in insurance bills?
Agreed that they pay higher insurance premiums but not the actual claim. This is business wide and has been for years. I have noticed that some types of work tripled or quadrupled in their premiums over the past 10 years even though they haven't made claims.
- You're wrong about the legislation; the Every Child Matters initiative has "Stay safe" as one of its five pillars and is underpinned by the Children Act 2004. It is one of the main things that ofsted and county inspectors look for when visiting; one of our local schools was recently put into special measures partly because it was not upholding the ECM Stay Safe pillar.
This is where we will differ I am afraid. If a H&S offence has been committed or a claim sought, would it be brought under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act and its associated legislation or the Childrens Act? Name any cases that have gone to court.
Every Child Matters initiative is just that. An initiative that is guidance based and not an absolute piece of legislation. Unless the piece of legislation has "should" or "must" preceeding the requirement then it is not an absolute requirement but one that has to be looked at with a reasonable approach. This is the problem with the "risk aversion brigade". It is easier to ban something than do it right. Easier and costs less. Just they haven't the balls to say this.......they hide behind guidance and say "It is the law". No it isn't the law, there are ways and means to achieve it most of the time. I would understand lack of resources and can appreciate it, but not excuses or hiding behind legislation.
- The training you describe above I would think would be enough in a sane world, but not in this one; employers have to keep a record of safety training undertaken by each employee and in the case of the public sector this has to be submitted to county before the employee takes up the job. It also has to be undertaken by a registered training organisation. In my last job I was actually told I could not help out in moving some computers between offices when we moved because I hadn't been trained to lift them. Like it or not this is the way things are.
This is where Lord Young did say that the risk averse are getting their knickers in a twist. The HSE are now supplying example risk assessments on their website to show people how easy and how little you actually have to write. The best example is cleaning chemicals used by a normal cleaner in an office. If you look at a schools COSHH assessment for a cleaner it reads like someone who works in a nuclear powerplant. The HSE's example is "Read the lable on the back of the bottle and follow the instructions". Thats it.......nothing else, basically the same as what we do at home as 99% of the cleaning chemicals are domestic grade. Lets get back to simple. Let the Headmaster make the decision at local level and not go back to County to decide if his caretaker can shovel grit or clean an oven. The Head is the best person to know if a) the job is too big for his staff b) the staff have the ability to do the job whether they have training or not. The example you have given above is what is wrong with Britain today......too risk averse instead of just getting it done.
- I wouldn't look to Arch-Bishops as an example of brains :-D
Brighter than me though
- The Ofsted point I haven't really argued about because I don't know whether it would go against the school or not; I suspect not because the head would explain any mitigating circumstances like that in the SEF which would be taken into account by inspectors; but I'm not really sure whether it works that way in practice.
I have no idea, just saw it in another post and thought to myself "I wonder if that is the real reason?".
And lastly; I'd be more than happy to join you in hell - sounds more fun than sitting on a cloud with a harp all day :twisted: I reckon all the best parties will be down there...
Then lets party .........................first there gets the beers in

Dave_Notts

2 Dec 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Well, there are a few issues there...
- The county does pay out millions because of claims; have you seen the increase in insurance bills?
Agreed that they pay higher insurance premiums but not the actual claim. This is business wide and has been for years. I have noticed that some types of work tripled or quadrupled in their premiums over the past 10 years even though they haven't made claims.
- You're wrong about the legislation; the Every Child Matters initiative has "Stay safe" as one of its five pillars and is underpinned by the Children Act 2004. It is one of the main things that ofsted and county inspectors look for when visiting; one of our local schools was recently put into special measures partly because it was not upholding the ECM Stay Safe pillar.
This is where we will differ I am afraid. If a H&S offence has been committed or a claim sought, would it be brought under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act and its associated legislation or the Childrens Act? Name any cases that have gone to court.
Every Child Matters initiative is just that. An initiative that is guidance based and not an absolute piece of legislation. Unless the piece of legislation has "should" or "must" preceeding the requirement then it is not an absolute requirement but one that has to be looked at with a reasonable approach. This is the problem with the "risk aversion brigade". It is easier to ban something than do it right. Easier and costs less. Just they haven't the balls to say this.......they hide behind guidance and say "It is the law". No it isn't the law, there are ways and means to achieve it most of the time. I would understand lack of resources and can appreciate it, but not excuses or hiding behind legislation.

ECM is an initiative and every point is a 'must' - it is not guidance but mandatory, schools can be closed for not upholding it. It is also underpinned by the children's act which is law and does have claims brought against it; if you want examples there are hundreds in case law, I can give you a few examples from personal experience, but an easy one for you to check up on because it was very high profile is the case of Sam Linton, who died after suffering an asthma attack at school. The school made multiple mistakes, most of which could have been and should have been avoided, and the inquest drew on aspects of the Children's Act as well as many others. In the end the school were found guilty of systematic neglect and one of the things that was mentioned in the report was a lack of training provided in handling such situations (the teacher left the boy in a corridor alone - something which many would say was common sense not to do so we shouldn't need training?)

- The training you describe above I would think would be enough in a sane world, but not in this one; employers have to keep a record of safety training undertaken by each employee and in the case of the public sector this has to be submitted to county before the employee takes up the job. It also has to be undertaken by a registered training organisation. In my last job I was actually told I could not help out in moving some computers between offices when we moved because I hadn't been trained to lift them. Like it or not this is the way things are.
This is where Lord Young did say that the risk averse are getting their knickers in a twist. The HSE are now supplying example risk assessments on their website to show people how easy and how little you actually have to write. The best example is cleaning chemicals used by a normal cleaner in an office. If you look at a schools COSHH assessment for a cleaner it reads like someone who works in a nuclear powerplant. The HSE's example is "Read the lable on the back of the bottle and follow the instructions". Thats it.......nothing else, basically the same as what we do at home as 99% of the cleaning chemicals are domestic grade. Lets get back to simple. Let the Headmaster make the decision at local level and not go back to County to decide if his caretaker can shovel grit or clean an oven. The Head is the best person to know if a) the job is too big for his staff b) the staff have the ability to do the job whether they have training or not. The example you have given above is what is wrong with Britain today......too risk averse instead of just getting it done.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not - the schools have to abide by the rules, which say that no matter whether you like it or not, people have to be trained sufficiently, and there are many cases where 'common sense' or 'stack those boxes over there' have not been enough because when employees injure themselves doing these jobs they run straight to the solicitors to put in a claim. The schools simply have to protect themselves against this just like anyone else.
And on risk assessments; I am a science teacher, so believe me, the risk assessments are a little different for us. Some of the substances we use are radioactive and have to be kept behind lead, some are explosive and have to be kept under oil, and many are poisonous even in small amounts. Try writing 'follow instructions on bottle' for some of those! you wouldn't get very far.
I do agree that people can be too risk averse in some situations in today's society, but that isn't the argument; the fact is that schools ARE working in this society where people will claim for things that are unavoidable in reality, etc. so they have to protect themselves, and if this means closing the school when it is not safe enough to avoid claims, etc. then they have to do it. It is not a fault of the schools but a consequence of the state of society (claim culture, etc.)

- I wouldn't look to Arch-Bishops as an example of brains :-D
Brighter than me though

I think you don't give yourself enough credit; you're clearly more switched on than someone who believes that a man was born of a virgin and walked on water, etc. Don't even get me started on that!

- The Ofsted point I haven't really argued about because I don't know whether it would go against the school or not; I suspect not because the head would explain any mitigating circumstances like that in the SEF which would be taken into account by inspectors; but I'm not really sure whether it works that way in practice.
I have no idea, just saw it in another post and thought to myself "I wonder if that is the real reason?".
And lastly; I'd be more than happy to join you in hell - sounds more fun than sitting on a cloud with a harp all day :twisted: I reckon all the best parties will be down there...
Then lets party .........................first there gets the beers in

Hhmmm... if there is a hell then I think I'll be first there based on my comments about Arch-Bishops lol

2 Dec 2010

Ooooooo, a rainbow! smile

2 Dec 2010

The Law will have an overarching piece of legislation e.g. the Childrens Act and then from this guidance, initiatives, policies are wrote to help implement the spirit of that piece of legislation. Usually the main act will have a bit in it that allows the Secretary of State to produce these. These are not law but guidance. The duty holder can either follow that guidance to the letter or do something that is equal to or better than the guidance.
When schools say it is mandatory it is their policy of being madatory and not a legal mandatory.
In the case of Sam Linton, the school had guidance to have an asthma policy. Either mirroring the guidance or having something equal to or better than the guidance. The school was criticised because it had neither. This is where they failed. When the parents take the school to court they will refer to the legislation for the specific "must" or "should" and point at the guidance to show what they could have done. This is where people get mixed up with what is law and what is guidance. It all has its part to play in the legal field but it is only the law which will be used to prosecute. In a civil court it is a bit different, they have to prove a duty of care, the duty holder failed to give it and the person was effected, and I can see how in that example all three can easily be proved.
Being a science teacher then you'll know that the chemicals you use are slightly different to your usual domestic product. The COSHH assessments for a lab would be slightly more technical than a cleaners COSHH assessment........and rightly so. The risk has increased so the knowledge, controls and training would have to be higher than that of mr or mrs mop who splashes a bit of Flash about.
The schools and insurance companies bending to the will of the claim solicitors are making the claims culture a thing that people believe in. Statistically the claims culture has been proved to be a myth, and Lord Young even reported it as so in his report. The schools bring in the rules, not the law. It is their aversion that is breeding the risk averse culture further. We need, as a society, to break this. Lets go back to basics and lets see how we can do things instead of looking how we can't do things. We will never eliminate risk.........it is part of life. Society needs to put in place things that will reduce the risk but still allow the act to be carried out. With the first thing being snow. It is white, cold and slippery. People will fall, tough, thats life. As long as the main walkways are free of ice and snow then that is ok (See how I got it back on topic wink

)
Dave_Notts
PS If you do the colour thing again, can you change it to blue please. I am colour blind so the greens and reds just flowed into each other. Note to self........don't use red

2 Dec 2010

Are we not getting a little over excited about kids not being at school for a couple of days every few years.
Frankly if we had this problem every year it might be worth making some investment. As it is it doesnt happen very often so I cant see a reason for expensive contingency plans.

2 Dec 2010

Putting some salt down is an expensive contingency plan? The loss to industry for having their workforce at home looking after the kids instead of in school would balance out any cost as a whole I would have thought.
Dave_Notts

2 Dec 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Society needs to put in place things that will reduce the risk

All this wrapping up of kids in cotton wool....
When I were a lad, I had whooping cough and all my mates were brought round by their parents so they could catch it too (the kids, not the parents).
Sterile kids makes for an unhealthy lifestyle.