| | Cheezies said "| | Abbysmum said "| | Cheezies said "All the schools are supposed to do this. Our school children weren't allowed to come any sooner than 5 mins before bell time( morning and lunch). Kids under 12 require supervision, that is the law. There is no one to supervise those kids that aren't lunch program students. The supervisors that are being paid are there to watch the students in the lunch program. Those supervisors also have a ratio of staff per number of students. It's for everyone's safety as well. What if a kid came back to school early and got hurt, or was hurting someone... who is responsible for that child? Not the supervisors or school, they are not free babysitters.
Do all these parents just drop their kid off at a park by themself too? " |
|
|
"Do all these parents just drop their kid off at a park by themself too?"
Depending on the child's age, yes. It's not unreasonable to allow an 8 or 9 year old to go to the park by themselves. " |
|
|
Thanks for answering my question.
I do think some children are mature enough to be able to go to a park or other places alone.
But I also think that people seeing children alone at a park at a certain age, may choose to call authorities as well. Look at the woman who had the authorities called in wpg for leaving her children in the back yard unattended for a moment. The law in Manitoba is 12 years old, unattended, is what I understand.
I get where your coming from and agree to a point, but rules are in place for a reason. Just my opinion!
And parent council usually is the ones who ran lunch program at our school, and they pay the people they hire to watch our kids. The bus kids are automatically in lunch program and the rest of the students that chose to be in lunch program ( limited number of spots available) pay to use it. Those who don''t pay and decide to have kids come home for lunch are responsible for their own child from lunch bell till end of lunch bell is what we were told. Teachers get a lunch hour and a break from the kids. Some do help out in the program though.
And we paid for supervision, why should other kids get the supervision free, just so they can play with their friends?
Edited by Cheezies, 2017-04-05 18:52:44" |
|
|
re: the magic 12 for supervision
It seems to me a number of years ago (within 11 years, because I distinctly remember reading it in the Brandon Sun and I moved to Brandon 11 years ago) that there was this legal column by one of the local lawyers that ran on Saturdays. One week she addressed the issue of what "supervised" means for a child under 12.
From what I recall from her column, "supervised" is not hard-and-fast defined within the law, as it's based on age-appropriateness. For example, a one-year-old more or less needs constant direct supervision. But a mature and responsible 10 or 11-year-old, was her example as I recall, *could* remain at home with reasonable provisions for "supervision". In her example, she stated reasonable as possibly being 1. of short duration (only a hour or two at the most), 2. with access to an at-home neighbour that could be contacted if needed, 3. the child having mom's cell number close at hand, 4. the child having rehearsed with the parent that there's no cooking, no answering the door, etc.
Somewhere in those few years, however, we seem to have gotten away from this common-sense approach. I'm not directly supervising my kids when they walk to school alone. I'm not supervising them directly when they're in the basement playing and I'm outside doing yardwork. Kids don't learn to be independent people if we never give them a chance to practice those skills in relatively safe, controlled environments. It's illogical that the law makes it so we have to directly supervise our children at all times, but magically at age 12 they can be responsible for siblings, the neighbour's child, even a brand-new infant.