Banning play at school

[Debra]

Don’t know if you’ve heard, but Willett Elementary School in south Boston has banned tag, touch football, and other games which imply kids chasing each other around a schoolyard.  The reason?  Fear that a child might injure him or herself and the parents will sue.  And they’re not the only school to have done it.
Now, when I was younger and my parents would go on and on about “how the world has changed” since they were little, I swore to myself that I would always be able to stay on top of things and be more connected to such changes so as to never settle into some grumpy-old-man mode, pining for better, simpler days.

But seriously, the world has changed.

http://www.gluemeat.com/2006/10/19/bann ... at-school/

Bloody hell how did any of us survive to this point? :roll:

Soon we'll be putting them in plastic bubbles as soon as they're born and then wondering why they have weight issues and no imagination.

[fern hill]

I marvel that I'm not dead of dehydration.

[brebis noire]

I like the comment after the piece:

"Even in Stalin's Russia, children could still play tag."

[Herr Magoo]

The reason?  Fear that a child might injure him or herself and the parents will sue.

A perfectly reasonable fear, in the litigious United States.  

Parents may someday have to choose between having kids that run around and play (and aren't having coronary bypasses when they're 10), or being able to sue the school for a hundred trillion dollars because their precious little Billy tripped and fell and knocked out two teeth.  Cha-ching!

[Debra]

It is an interesting thing that a society which accepts so many not having health care because it speaks to "independence" and "individualism" at the same time allows you to place the blame for nearly anything on someone else and get paid for it/

[Herr Magoo]

To be fair, I'm glad that civil litigation exists for those cases of actual negligence or recklessness or fraud.  But I think that over the last few decades it's also slowly creeped its way into all kinds of areas that didn't used to need multi-million dollar settlements, and even more creepy, it's now a perfectly legal form of double-jeopardy.  And the settlements seem like someone's blue-sky thinking run amok.  Someone hurt your feelings?  Well, how many millions of their dollars would make it up to you?

Sadly, all it would have taken to prevent something like this is a few judges willing to say "Sorry, folks, that your kid fell down, but kids fall down.  The school cannot prevent kids from falling down.  Go home now".

[brebis noire]

Our schoolyard issue is that kids are playing on equipment that is safe and insurable - according to 1970s standards. We have slides and monkeybars that have been around since then; the parents remember playing on the same equipment.
The bigger problem is that the ground surface is cement, or hard ground where a few blades of grass still grow.
If we want to buy a swingset that's certifiable according to current insurance standards (because the old one is broken) - it will cost something like $14 000 dollars for a 4-swing set. The school won't have that kind of money any time soon, and if it did, they would have other pressing needs.

So we keep the old equipment and make the teachers' days that much more stressful, preventing the kids from using the equipment for more 'creative' purposes.

[steffie]

Sadly, all it would have taken to prevent something like this is a few judges willing to say "Sorry, folks, that your kid fell down, but kids fall down. The school cannot prevent kids from falling down. Go home now".

You are right. It is sad that this type of attitude no longer prevails.  If a judge said this to a complainant, s/he would surely be accused of what, sexism, racism, violating the human rights of the victim?  When did taking responsibility for one's own actions fall out of fashion?

[vmichel]

It's a staff problem more often than not. Sure, kids fall down and get hurt playing games at recess. And if the school has taken the basic precautions they ought to take, like having a nurse on staff and some aides on the playground to keep an eye on things, then they aren't going to be found liable for that.

But say the kid breaks his nose on a Wednesday, and Wednesday is the day that the school doesn't have a nurse because they cut the position to part time. Or he broke his nose tripping over a junked piece of equipment, which was clearly dangerous to have out in the middle of the ballfield but it hadn't been moved because the maintenance workers only come out once a month. And maybe the game really was rougher than it should be, and older kids or neighborhood kids were involved who had no business being on the playground, but this went unnoticed because there was only one playground aide and she was clear across the property. Now a judge is going to hold the school partially responsible, as well they should in my opinion.

It's sad. Kids need to play, but they need a safe place to do so, and unfortunately shortages of money and staff make that impossible in many places. It totally sucks for the kids.