'Safeguarding issues' caused by timetable changes

[AlterEgo]

Actually, yes. I do. I've seen both primary and secondary aged students assaulted in classrooms. If something were to happen to a pupil or a child because the teacher was not in the classroom, they have come to harm, thus creating a safeguarding issue. I've heard from teachers on training days whereby they have had incidents before and after school with fighting, bullying, stealing and other issues. Whether you like it or not, any pupil is capable of harming themselves or others, regardless of whether they are in school, out of school, 11y/o+. At least with adults in the classroom, incidents can be either witnessed, or prevented from going further quickly.

Fighting and stealing are what kids do. Every child is going to experience those things to a greater or lesser extent.

As you say, kids will harm each other regardless of whether they are in school or out of it, and sitting in a classroom is not making anybody any safer, or a more whole human being. They’ll just fight on the way to school, or on the way home, or whenever.

I don’t think I was exposed to any sort of unacceptable risk by sitting in a classroom for 20 minutes prior to the school day for years. It’s a bit worrying people charged with teaching children genuinely think that’s something to worry about. I’m baffled by it.

 

[transmanche]

It’s a bit worrying people charged with teaching children genuinely think that’s something to worry about. I’m baffled by it.

That's a massive misrepresentation of what people have said. I suggest you re-read the thread where it's been explained time and again that it's all about mitigating the risk (whatever level you perceive it to be) and that this costs both time and money.

If you think it's acceptable to allow an unknown number of children to roam around a school without suitable adults tasked to supervise them/be responsible for their safety, then you are wrong. No school or LA would allow that.

If you say that they are only going to be allowed in one area, then it means there has to be someone who lets them in, knows how many children are on site and directs them to that appropriate area. That costs money.

The fact that you think it's as simple as throwing open the doors and leaving it all to chance, baffles me!

 

[island]

This thread seems to have nothing to do with timetabling or even trains now, just a general argument about safeguarding.

And not even a well-informed one.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's a massive misrepresentation of what people have said. I suggest you re-read the thread where it's been explained time and again that it's all about mitigating the risk (whatever level you perceive it to be) and that this costs both time and money.

If you think it's acceptable to allow an unknown number of children to roam around a school without suitable adults tasked to supervise them/be responsible for their safety, then you are wrong. No school or LA would allow that.

If you say that they are only going to be allowed in one area, then it means there has to be someone who lets them in, knows how many children are on site and directs them to that appropriate area. That costs money.

The fact that you think it's as simple as throwing open the doors and leaving it all to chance, baffles me!

I haven’t said it’s as simple as that. I accept that the way things are set up means you can’t do that easily.

What I’m saying is that way of thinking is bonkers, unhealthy, and unwelcome for the reasons I outlined up-thread. “Leaving it all to chance”, what - kids in a classroom? A load of them walk to school alongside roads. Isn’t that “leaving it to chance”?

 

[pt_mad]

No because it's the schools fault if the kids start attacking or attempting to steal from one another.

 

[Bromley boy]

Not if it was DOO (which, as it's a Northern Connect route, there is a chance it may become in the not so distant future, though for discussion of this there is a separate thread).

But it isn't. So thats' irrelevant.

Trains locally to me are DOO and carry unaccompanied kids to and from school. Do you regard this as an unacceptable safeguarding risk?

 

[pt_mad]

This safeguarding issue should have been used in the fight against more widespread DOO. Seriously. Because it's hard to win an arguement against it as is seen here. The authorities would have a job saying that no supervision is acceptable, when at the same time it's utterly unacceptable in schools and before and after school.

 

[Bromley boy]

This safeguarding issue should have been used in the fight against more widespread DOO. Seriously. Because it's hard to win an arguement against it as is seen here. The authorities would have a job saying that no supervision is acceptable, when at the same time it's utterly unacceptable in schools.

I’m not sure that argument would work because guards most certainly *aren’t* engaged in any kind of supervisory role.

 

[pt_mad]

I’m not sure that argument would work because guards most certainly *aren’t* engaged in any kind of supervisory role.

Although I suppose they're safeguarding the kids from harm. The poster above is worried about safeguarding between the train and school time. And so was the journalist. So presumably they're classing being on the train as being safeguarded by the train staff onboard?

Come to think of it I can't think of school kids ever being mentioned in the anti DOO campaign. Disabled, elderlyand vulnerable rail users were. Not sure why this hadn't occured to RMT and Aslef could have been quite an argument.

 

[Bromley boy]

Although I suppose they're safeguarding the kids from harm. The poster above is worried about safeguarding between the train and school time. And so was the journalist. So presumably they're classing being on the train as being safeguarded by the train staff onboard?

“Safeguarding” in this context means specific duties owed to a vulnerable group, children in this case, by an organisation charged with looking after them. A guard is there to protect the welfare of passengers by dispatching the train safely, etc. but doesn’t have any additional responsibility for schoolchildren over and above any other passengers.

 

[Bromley boy]

Not sure why this hadn't occured to RMT and Aslef could have been quite an argument.

As I say, guards don’t provide “safeguarding” in the sense being alluded to in this thread. The issue with disabled passengers is simply getting on and off the train. Guards are not there to look after vulnerable passengers who are incapable of travelling unaccompanied.

 

[pt_mad]

As I say, guards don’t provide “safeguarding” in the sense being alluded to in this thread. The issue with disabled passengers is simply getting on and off the train. Guards are not there to look after vulnerable passengers who are incapable of travelling unaccompanied.

The booked assist system does seem to do this. And there's the duty of care which TOC staff are now trained they have over all of the traveling public including drunk passengers.


I'm not agreeing with the arguement. What I'm saying is, if some of the posters above, the journalist, and the school are saying that there's nothing to protect the kids between the train and school, they must be classing them as safeguarded whilst in the train.

So what has lead them to think that? Because the train is staffed? Or do the kids not need safeguarding on the train but they do before and after it?

 

[Bromley boy]

The booked assist system does seem to do this. And there's the duty of care which TOC staff are now trained they have over all of the traveling public including drunk passengers.

I think the point was made earlier in thread by @Bletchleyite that the railway doesn’t provide an airline style service where unaccompanied minors are able to travel while being supervised by staff.

The duty of care is really limited to ensuring the railway is operated safely. There’s no duty to prevent a passenger being beaten up or robbed by another passenger, for example.

I'm not agreeing with the arguement. What I'm saying is, if some of the posters above, the journalist, and the school are saying that there's nothing tovproteto the kids between the train and school, they must be classing then as safeguarded whilst in the train.

I think it’s more an issue of the school not wanting to take responsibility due to lack of supervision. We increasingly live in a nanny state and children sitting in a room unaccompanied is deemed too risky.

So what has lead then to think that? Because the train is staffed? Or do the kids not need safeguarding on the train but they do before and after it?

I think the other poster is labouring under a misapprehension about the role of guards.

 

[AlterEgo]

The booked assist system does seem to do this. And there's the duty of care which TOC staff are now trained they have over all of the traveling public including drunk passengers.


I'm not agreeing with the arguement. What I'm saying is, if some of the posters above, the journalist, and the school are saying that there's nothing to protect the kids between the train and school, they must be classing them as safeguarded whilst in the train.

So what has lead them to think that? Because the train is staffed? Or do the kids not need safeguarding on the train but they do before and after it?

The booked assist system does not in any way offer any supervision for someone to complete their journey. It merely provides the disabled passenger with an opportunity to navigate the station and access the train. Nobody is going to check on the passenger onboard.

 

[theblackwatch]

Children need exposing to risks so they learn how to mitigate them for themselves. The Scouting movement seems to have that right, as did the Air Training Corps when I was a member.

I totally agree with this, and with a lot of Bletchleyite's comments. I was a member of scouts and after that became a leader for a number if years - being in cubs/scouts taught me a good number of life skills, such as confidence, being responsible for myself and others, teamwork, etc. At scouts we were given the responsibility to plan things ourselves. Given that we're in a railway discussion, I will mention one thing we did with the cubs when I was helping out - we took them on the train to Leeds and back. As part of this, over the previous couple of weeks, we made them plan the trip using timetables (I had gone into my local station and got 25 copies of the timetable - the ticket office staff were quite happy when I explained why), and on the day, we made each of them buy their own ticket from the conductor (I bet he loved us ).

 

[Bayum]

Fighting and stealing are what kids do. Every child is going to experience those things to a greater or lesser extent.

As you say, kids will harm each other regardless of whether they are in school or out of it, and sitting in a classroom is not making anybody any safer, or a more whole human being. They’ll just fight on the way to school, or on the way home, or whenever.

I don’t think I was exposed to any sort of unacceptable risk by sitting in a classroom for 20 minutes prior to the school day for years. It’s a bit worrying people charged with teaching children genuinely think that’s something to worry about. I’m baffled by it.

And because of that, it is important to safeguard against those things happening. It doesn't matter whether that's what children and pupils do. I'm actually quite offended by the fact you seem to think that it's worrying that in my view, children should not be left in a classroom for a period of time. Are you a teacher? Are you in the position of experiencing things that have happened when teachers have left the classroom? I've given you examples of what I've seen, there will be many more examples around the room too. A teacher should be in the classroom at the same time as the pupils, to prevent anything happening, or prevent it happening further.

 

[Bayum]

I totally agree with this, and with a lot of Bletchleyite's comments. I was a member of scouts and after that became a leader for a number if years - being in cubs/scouts taught me a good number of life skills, such as confidence, being responsible for myself and others, teamwork, etc. At scouts we were given the responsibility to plan things ourselves. Given that we're in a railway discussion, I will mention one thing we did with the cubs when I was helping out - we took them on the train to Leeds and back. As part of this, over the previous couple of weeks, we made them plan the trip using timetables (I had gone into my local station and got 25 copies of the timetable - the ticket office staff were quite happy when I explained why), and on the day, we made each of them buy their own ticket from the conductor (I bet he loved us ).

Again, completely different context to being in a school. Were you left to catch the train by yourself? Did you leave them to catch a train by themselves?

 

[Bromley boy]

I'm actually quite offended by the fact you seem to think that it's worrying that in my view, children should not be left in a classroom for a period of time. Are you a teacher? Are you in the position of experiencing things that have happened when teachers have left the classroom? I've given you examples of what I've seen, there will be many more examples around the room too. A teacher should be in the classroom at the same time as the pupils, to prevent anything happening, or prevent it happening further.

Good grief! What a load of rubbish.

I hope to God you aren’t a teacher yourself. Children can’t be left in a room unsupervised?! With thinking like this it’s no wonder schools are turning out a nannied, mollycoddled generation of special snowflakes who can’t take any responsibility for themselves.

Kids fight each other. No doubt you would regard that as “assault” and call the police.

 

[AlterEgo]

And because of that, it is important to safeguard against those things happening. It doesn't matter whether that's what children and pupils do. I'm actually quite offended by the fact you seem to think that it's worrying that in my view, children should not be left in a classroom for a period of time. Are you a teacher? Are you in the position of experiencing things that have happened when teachers have left the classroom? I've given you examples of what I've seen, there will be many more examples around the room too. A teacher should be in the classroom at the same time as the pupils, to prevent anything happening, or prevent it happening further.

I’m not a teacher but like everyone else here I was once a pupil, so I’ve a good appreciation of the extremely low level of risk involved in leaving an 11 year old in a classroom.

Never mind fighting...Do you agree that there’s a chance a child might be seriously injured or killed walking to school on the path next to a road? Should they be supervised walking to school?

Do you not agree that the expectation society puts upon schools and other organisations is unrealistic and unwelcome? The expectation is an order of magnitude higher than society expects of the children’s own parents. Nobody bats an eyelid at a child walking to school alone but you seem massively concerned about leaving kids alone in a room.

 

[AlterEgo]

Again, completely different context to being in a school. Were you left to catch the train by yourself? Did you leave them to catch a train by themselves?

When I was in the cadets I was expected to use a rail warrant and get myself to places, even as a 13 year old. This was a good and worthwhile experience which taught me about responsibility and made me appreciate the risks involved with something simple like catching a train.

 

[richw]

Maybe northern have done it to deter students? Misbehaving?

And why should Northern consult the school unless the school or LEA are subsidising the service?

 

[theblackwatch]

Again, completely different context to being in a school. Were you left to catch the train by yourself? Did you leave them to catch a train by themselves?

No. But when I was at primary school, I'd go to catch the (unsupervised) school bus by myself. When they changed the route of my bus, I remember that on the last day of it going the old route, I walked to the start point (outside the bus depot) rather than my usual stop, in order to cover the whole journey. Amazingly, I didn't come to any harm.

I think I was about 9 or 10 when I did my first rail journey on my own.

 

[nedchester]

As someone who was a teacher and now works in the Rail industry I have to say that the “safeguarding” issue has taken on a life of its own.

Safeguarding was initially all about rightly protecting children from abuse (sexual, mental and physical) and I don’t think anyone on here can in anyway object to that. Like many things it has become a bigger issue than just the issues listed above. A bit like health and safety which obviously is important but is cited at every opportunity in case an issue of litigation occurs.

The problem is that now many children feel cosseted so much that they actually do not see danger when it occurs (look at the instances of kids staring into their phones while crossing the road or railways lines). Effectively this safety blanket is actually, to an extent, making children less safe as they are not aware of the dangers that lurk in everyday life.

So back to the issue in question.

Northern have retimed a service so the school kids will arrive at Ulverston 20 mins earlier. The school management are panicking about having to look after the kids for 20 mins longer. I can understand why they are concerned due to safeguarding due to issues with Ofsted in particular.

However, it is not Northern’s responsibility to ensure the safety of the kids except when they are at the station or travelling. I take the views about Northern needing to listen to “stakeholders” (I hate that word) but it may well be that the new times suit other passengers better? Maybe those going to Lancaster who get an arrival of 0846, just in time for work.

The school could make a rule that pupils are not allowed on site until a certain time to alleviate the need for extra staff. It will then be up to the parents as to whether they feel they want the “risk”of the pupils wandering the streets for an extra 20 mins.

Timetable changes do not suit every user and sadly this is just one of those things.

 

[Bromley boy]

However, it is not Northern’s responsibility to ensure the safety of the kids except when they are at the station or travelling.

I agree with most of your (very sensible) posting. However I would qualify the above to point out that the TOC has no obligation or responsibility beyond ensuring the railway is operated safely. If they are attacked on the train that isn’t down to the TOC.

All rail passengers, including schoolchildren, who are travelling alone need to be competent to travel completely unsupervised. Otherwise they should be accompanied by a responsible chaperone.

 

[Bayum]

I’m not a teacher but like everyone else here I was once a pupil, so I’ve a good appreciation of the extremely low level of risk involved in leaving an 11 year old in a classroom.

Never mind fighting...Do you agree that there’s a chance a child might be seriously injured or killed walking to school on the path next to a road? Should they be supervised walking to school?

Do you not agree that the expectation society puts upon schools and other organisations is unrealistic and unwelcome? The expectation is an order of magnitude higher than society expects of the children’s own parents. Nobody bats an eyelid at a child walking to school alone but you seem massively concerned about leaving kids alone in a room.

Again, I think the situation needs to be assessed, as with anything before allowing a student to talk to/from school independently. If a parent makes a request for their child to walk home indepedently on a,b,e days, the head teacher assesses the request based on the child's age, how far from school they're walking and the route. Clearly, the risk is not going to be reduced, however, an effective decision has been made based on the child. The same for being in the classroom - you say you've had experience of an 11 year old in the classroom. I wonder how long ago that was? I currently have a child in Y3 (7-8) who has caused the need for the class to be evacuated to another place in school, due to their behaviour. What would have happened if the child were in a room with the rest of the class unsupervised and they began to kick off in such a way?
We had to permanently exclude a Y2 (6-7) child a few years ago because of their behaviour towards everyone in school. This behaviour didn't develop in school, it was pre-existing from nursery. A teacher and child were bitten so severely that they both needed extra antibiotics and hospital referrasls, even after human mastication procedures were followed by their individual GPs. Another TA is having to have surgery to repair a hernia caused after having to restrain said child when they attacked another child. Now, what about the children that have asthma, diabetes, or one of them is suddenly seriously ill?

Good grief! What a load of rubbish.

I hope to God you aren’t a teacher yourself. Children can’t be left in a room unsupervised?! With thinking like this it’s no wonder schools are turning out a nannied, mollycoddled generation of special snowflakes who can’t take any responsibility for themselves.

Kids fight each other. No doubt you would regard that as “assault” and call the police.

See above. And yes, that's what many schools are doing for fighting students these days. It isn't about children taking responsibility, it is about keeping them safe. They can be taught how to be and stay safe, through constant assessment of the risk of harm to themselves and others. though in school need to be safeguarded effectively. I don't necessarily agree that schools are mollycoddling children - there are so many activities I have done with my class, and trips we have been on that the headteacher has openly expressed that they wouldn't have done when they were a teacher 15+ years ago, when children were no doubt 'tougher' and 'switched on' to life.

 

[AlterEgo]

Again, I think the situation needs to be assessed, as with anything before allowing a student to talk to/from school independently. If a parent makes a request for their child to walk home indepedently on a,b,e days,

Sorry what? Parents have to ask the permission of the school for their child to walk there now? What the hell?

That’s how 90% of the kids got to school when I was in middle school and 11 years old.

the head teacher assesses the request based on the child's age, how far from school they're walking and the route. Clearly, the risk is not going to be reduced, however, an effective decision has been made based on the child.

Madness. What if the school says no?

The same for being in the classroom - you say you've had experience of an 11 year old in the classroom. I wonder how long ago that was?

I’m not sure why it would matter that much, although if you want to know, I was 11 in 1997. Boys will be boys and the risk (though clearly not the tolerance of it) is basically the same.

I currently have a child in Y3 (7-8) who has caused the need for the class to be evacuated to another place in school, due to their behaviour.

What would have happened if the child were in a room with the rest of the class unsupervised and they began to kick off in such a way?

Not sure why you’re bringing up much younger children here in this specific example which proves little; clearly there is a sliding scale of risk. You wouldn’t leave a baby alone in a classroom but you could definitely trust an adult. Anything in between is a sliding scale. I would not leave a seven year old in a classroom alone, but I would an 11 year old.

We had to permanently exclude a Y2 (6-7) child a few years ago because of their behaviour towards everyone in school. This behaviour didn't develop in school, it was pre-existing from nursery. A teacher and child were bitten so severely that they both needed extra antibiotics and hospital referrasls, even after human mastication procedures were followed by their individual GPs. Another TA is having to have surgery to repair a hernia caused after having to restrain said child when they attacked another child. Now, what about the children that have asthma, diabetes, or one of them is suddenly seriously ill?

Again, unsure why you are using primary school children as an example here in a discussion about 11 year olds.

What if a child has an asthma attack on their way to school? What if they get run over? What if, what if?

A little risk is very healthy.

They can be taught how to be and stay safe, through constant assessment of the risk of harm to themselves and others. though in school need to be safeguarded effectively.

At which point do you stop holding their hands and actually expose them to risks which you expect them to take some ownership of? 16? 18?

Do you feel that it’s inappropriate for the Scout movement to undertake the arms-length activities @Bletchleyite described earlier in the thread?

 

[Bromley boy]

See above. And yes, that's what many schools are doing for fighting students these days.

Ridiculous. One of the earliest life lessons I learned at school was that if someone attacks you, you need to defend yourself.

Although I imagine these days they might be carrying knives... So perhaps it’s a different situation.

It isn't about children taking responsibility, it is about keeping them safe. They can be taught how to be and stay safe, through constant assessment of the risk of harm to themselves and others.

Up to a point - schools clearly need to be basically safe environments. But surely there’s nothing inherently dangerous about sitting in a classroom unsupervised?

In the big wide world people need to be able to assess risk for themselves and make sensible decisions.

Surely you should be equipping them to do that in school, rather than mollycoddling them?

 

[Bayum]

Ridiculous. One of the earliest life lessons I learned at school was that if someone attacks you, you need to defend yourself.

Although I imagine these days they might be carrying knives... So perhaps it’s a different situation.



Up to a point - schools clearly need to be basically safe environments. But surely there’s nothing inherently dangerous about sitting in a classroom unsupervised?

In the big wide world people need to be able to assess risk for themselves and make sensible decisions.

Surely you should be equipping them to do that in school, rather than mollycoddling them?

Being in a room is not inherently dangerous, no. It's the other children that make it potentially.

Again, unsure why you are using primary school children as an example here in a discussion about 11 year olds.

What if a child has an asthma attack on their way to school? What if they get run over? What if, what if?

A little risk is very healthy.

I'm making a link, because these are children at a young age. Secondary is far worse than that these days. Instead of two children through the school you've potentially 5/6 in each intake at secondary.

Sorry what? Parents have to ask the permission of the school for their child to walk there now? What the hell?

That’s how 90% of the kids got to school when I was in middle school and 11 years old.
Madness. What if the school says no?

Then they stay with us until they are collected.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm making a link, because these are children at a young age.

But there’s a big difference between a child who is 7 and one who is 11.

Then they stay with us until they are collected.

Yes but I expect these are young children who aren’t in double figures age wise, right?

 

[Bromley boy]

Being in a room is not inherently dangerous, no. It's the other children that make it potentially.

Sorry but that is an absolutely ridiculous mindset.

As a teacher you seriously believe children make a classroom a potentially dangerous environment?!

Wow!!! I find that both staggering and sad.... yet sadly unsurprising!

A true sign of the times.