America is raising its children into soft ****ies

[Arkan]

Officials at an elementary school south of Boston have banned kids from playing tag, touch football and any other unsupervised chase game during recess for fear they'll get hurt and hold the school liable.

Many of you seem to have overlooked this tidbit. I think many of the employees at the school would agree that the rule is stupid; they're just afraid of getting sued.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then we're raising our children to be scared as well as soft. Nice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

'Cautious' is probably a more accurate term than 'scared'.

 

Edit: Despite my arguments, I'm still against the decision. I just wonder how wrong it is for the school system to try to protect themselves from stupid parents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

These stupid parents that sue the schools should be laughed out of court. People didn't sue the school when kids got hurt even when I was in school, and I'm only 23. This is encouraging our kids to blame others and not accept responsibility for themselves. That's the kind of fear I was talking about.

[Arkan]

You say that now, but I bet when you receive the bill for the new halo to keep your kids head straight you'd be whistling a different tune.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know, I've never been put in this situation, and I'd never want to (that I can think of), but I sincerely believe that I am of better character than to punish the school for my child getting injured (even seriously) for doing things that I did as a child.

 

This is actually discouraging children from being active. I mean, who wants to really let loose and have fun if you have to have a teacher hovering over you.

[Pop]

You say that now, but I bet when you receive the bill for the new halo to keep your kids head straight you'd be whistling a different tune.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know, I've never been put in this situation, and I'd never want to (that I can think of), but I sincerely believe that I am of better character than to punish the school for my child getting injured (even seriously) for doing things that I did as a child.

 

This is actually discouraging children from being active. I mean, who wants to really let loose and have fun if you have to have a teacher hovering over you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably the kids who get the **** kicked out of them and robbed, which is common enough when teachers aren't hovering around. Kids are kids, and the idea that we should expose children to social Darwinism is about as drastic to me as coddling them.

 

Simple solution: Get somebody to supervise the ****in' games. Nobody seems to have thought of that, though.

 

What the...

 

This is all kinds of fun and sad at the same time.

 

...just what are the kids supposed to do now during recess? Bored kids get all kinds of stupid ideas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Like bringing daddy's handgun to school.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, I've seen some special logic in my time, but that's pretty out there. That's some serious "what"age, right there.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Pop

[Skynet]

These stupid parents that sue the schools should be laughed out of  court.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, those parents should be laughed out of the courts, but that doesn't change the fact that cases like these win all the time.

 

People didn't sue the school when kids got hurt even when I was in school, and I'm only 23.

How things were when you were a kid is irrelevent.

 

This is encouraging our kids to blame others and not accept responsibility for themselves.

No. Its the actions of stupid parents trying to sue the school that encourage what you said, not the schools' preventive measures.

 

That's the kind of fear I was talking about.

If you're refering to always being afraid of being sued, then I suppose this is the point where we'll never agree. I can't remember if you're American or not, but in this country, liability is a very big thing. Every time one is in charge of anything that includes any number of children, there is always a weight on that person's shoulder, because if one of those kids gets hurt, you're at risk. For a school that has to watch over a thousand kids five times a week, that is a huge burden.

 

Arguing that giving up physical activity for safety is not the best decision is fine, but calling it cowardly is a bit too much for me. We don't have to deal with liability issues daily like a school does.

 

 

Simple solution: Get somebody to supervise the ****in' games. Nobody seems to have thought of that, though.

According to the article, the rule only bans unsupervised games, but I have a feeling most teachers won't bother to go outside and let them play.

[Atreides]

I think to some degree it's schools not wanting to have ppl suing them for negligence in case **** happens. Who's fault? Probably grownups and the parents, media that overreact.

[Blank]

How about... requiring the parent/guardian to sign a legal waiver regarding these things in order to have their kid attend the school, so that the school can allow soft-contact games during recess?

[Oerwinde]

Know what would solve all these problems? Universal Health Care. If people didn't have to worry about paying hundreds of dollars if their kid gets hurt, no one would bother with suing people for medical costs.

[alanschu]

How things were when you were a kid is irrelevent.

 

Why is that?

[Lucius]

Must be annoying to live in a place where you know you can get sued for just about anything

[Tigranes]

To a lesser degree it's in all developed countries.

 

About ten years ago there was a frenzy of German vacationers suing travel agencies by taking their holiday packages, then accusing them of false advertising on ridiculous stuff like "The pamphlet didn't tell me I'd find a dead ****roach's leg under the bed, beneath the bedpost".

[Walsingham]

Know what would solve all these problems? Universal Health Care. If people didn't have to worry about paying hundreds of dollars if their kid gets hurt, no one would bother with suing people for medical costs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, we had the same thing being debated here in the UK yesterday. I think the problem is that there is no concept of 'natural peril' inherent in law. There needs to be.

[kalimeeri]

The issue isn't the games, it's control and liability, and this just isn't going to work.

 

Teachers can't control some of the kids in classrooms, despite the 'rules'. It is those bad actors who take harmless playground games too far. But I fail to see how making another rule is going to stop them. They will play their version of 'tag' regardless, and other less aggressive (or even spectating) children will still get hurt.

 

Nor does their 'rule' absolve the school system of liability. Now they have to find a means of enforcing it--if they don't, they are even more likely to get sued. It *is* their mess, regardless of how many times they say it isn't.

 

Many folks do walk around with a chip on their shoulders, looking for any reason to sue someone else, in hopes of winning big $. But I dare anyone who cares about their child to say that they wouldn't be enraged if he/she was seriously injured in such a situation. Minor bumps and bruises are expected, but an injury that will affect the rest of a person's life is what all parents fear and try to protect against.

 

But the fact is that they can't. School is mandatory--and while a child is there, parents must relinquish its care and protection to others. If the school system fails to live up to its responsibility, especially through negligence or incompetence, they're lawyer-fodder. Blamecasting and revenge are just human nature; and sometimes it actually fills the more useful purpose of preventing a future tragedy.

 

This won't. It's stupid, because a bully or a bad actor is all about violating rules.

[astr0creep]

I wonder...

 

When I was about 10 years old, I was riding my bike and I hit a small pothole in the street.

I fell off my bike(it wasn't that small) and scraped both my knees and elbows almost to the bone.

 

Can I still sue the city I lived in back then? I really need the money.

 

:D

[alanschu]

I have never seen the term "bad actor" used in this context before. Just, well, bad actors. Learn something new everyday.

 

 

Blamecasting and revenge are just human nature; and sometimes it actually fills the more useful purpose of preventing a future tragedy.

 

In any case, what "tragedy" are they preventing. I suppose someone could suffer serious, permanent injury when playing tag. But how does restricting physical activity help with say, the epidemic of obesity? Is it better to prevent the tragedy of a single individual possibly getting seriously hurt, or the tragedy of a lifetime of health problems because kids aren't allowed to be active any more.

 

 

Seriously, what set this precedent? A relatively short 15 years ago, if I got hurt playing some touch football at recess, I'd spend some time in the nurse's room, and maybe get some bandages. I doubt that my parents at any time considered the prospect of suing my school.

Edited October 19, 2006 by alanschu

[Surreptishus]

I wonder...

 

When I was about 10 years old, I was riding my bike and I hit a small pothole in the street.

I fell off my bike(it wasn't that small) and scraped both my knees and elbows almost to the bone.

 

Can I still sue the city I lived in back then? I really need the money.

 

:D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That would be a reasonable claim. Its (probably) the local authority's responsibility for the upkeep of roads ands footpaths.

 

However, you'd have trouble convincing anyone that you'd suffered 20+ years of emotional/psychological/physical distress. "

Edited October 19, 2006 by Surreptishus

[Walsingham]

Alanschu has the key point. At what price is all this coddling? We ough to counter-sue for preventing our kids learning about real life, and getting fat!

[LadyCrimson]

I can understand the fear of litigation but it's still inexcusable imo to restrict the children from such activities and set such an example. Should we put our kids in padded rooms with desks made out of rubber, too?...I mean, they could stub a toe or trip and hit their head on a desk! You can't protect everyone from everything all the time.

 

Riddiculous.

 

Tether-ball - ahhh...that was fun.

[Walsingham]

We got taught murder ball by an ex para! I recall one lesson where he challenged the whole class to get him while he was armed with a hockey stick.

[alanschu]

The thing is, it seems as though the "solution" is to prevent the odd severe accident from happening, which likely only happens to a small (I'd wager significantly small, as no one was ever permanently hurt in any of my schools during recess) minority of people.

 

Yes, it does suck if you are that one person, or if you're that child's parents, but this "solution" places restrictions on the activities of all children, and they will all be subjected to a childhood that is less active.

 

Furthermore, this will probably also set an example for the children as well. A large part of school is the socialization effect it has on the children. But restricting physical activity because of the possibility of injury sends the message that not being physically active is preferred. It will reinforce them to not be as active, as the active behaviours became looked down upon, restricted, and most likely punished. Or alternatively, kids will see the restraints as being artificial, and begin to resist and reject societies rules. Kind of like the social contract not holding up, so the kids don't buy into it.

 

 

Quite frankly, I blame the media and society in general. We're being morphed into a culture of fear, where teachers require a third party observer if they need to talk to a child one-to-one during recess or after school. Where a few shootings at a school spawn debate as to whether or not teachers should carry concealed firearms. Where you don't want to leave your child unattended for a second, because pedophiles and kidnappers lurk around every corner. Where parents are not content in letting kids do what they themselves did while growing up.

 

It's sickening.

[Walsingham]

Well, I don't know if its sickening. I just think its going to result in a massive shock for our kids when the wheel spins and our world stop being so freakishly safe as it has been these last sixty years.

[Judge Hades]

This world has never been "safe."

[Walsingham]

This world has never been "safe."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

*Holds up and juxtaposes London 2006 against London 1906*

[metadigital]

The blame culture of the US is heading for a crisis.

Know what would solve all these problems? Universal Health Care. If people didn't have to worry about paying hundreds of dollars if their kid gets hurt, no one would bother with suing people for medical costs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, we had the same thing being debated here in the UK yesterday. I think the problem is that there is no concept of 'natural peril' inherent in law. There needs to be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's an interesting take, and I haven't heard about it: care to expand?

[Judge Hades]

This world has never been "safe."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

*Holds up and juxtaposes London 2006 against London 1906*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Looks about the ame to me. The only reason why there ahs been so much more "danger" than before because of instant information. We know almost instantly if a car bomb goes off in Bagdad even though we are opposite side of the world. We now instantly if there is a massive earthquake that has the property damage in the billions even though we are nowhere near it.

 

We are constantly bombarded with information, most of it about death, maimings, oppression, cruelty, riots, and whatnot it gives the illusion we live in a far more dangerous world than a century ago. For the most part, we aren't.

[LoneWolf16]

Just because I have to......Would hard pussies be preferrable?

 

And I'm in agreement with Alan and a few others. Just sickening. Let the kids play.

 

To use a George Carlin quote... "Natural Selection, survival of the fittest. The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own."