Ms. Dare,

I thought you didn’t want a ‘nanny state’?  I could just as easily play devil’s advocate and ask, ‘What about firing the parents?’  Field trips aren’t a highly guarded classified secret.  We know about all of our children’s field trips.  If I had a child who was sun-sensitive, I’d make darn sure that they had sunscreen on, or clothes to cover up.  Funny how you want to play the nanny when it suits.

From what I read, Mom did put sunscreen on, but these children are mildly-albino and needed it to be applied frequently.  I suppose Mom could have also kept the kids home too. If the kids were locked in a hot car, would they act in the same way?  Probably not.

To quote Margaret Wente’s column today (on another topic) “common sense and initiative” was lacking.  Were the teachers SO worried about repercussions from rigid ‘rules’ and possible litigation or reprimand that common sense went out the window?

Wayne, it’s beyond me why you would defend a teacher who completely disregarded the welfare of two children.

Doretta,

You are ignoring several other important points:

1)  Sunscreen is not the only way to cover up.
2)  One of my students went into anaphylactic shock during class and we had to use the epipen because the girl beside her had sunscreen on that contained coconut oil.  “Were the teachers SO worried about repercussions from rigid ?rules?” - no, but as teachers, we have to worry about ALL of our students - you can’t pit one against the other.
3)  Kids locked in car?  Really, what’s that got to do with anything?
4)  Where does concern for safety end and the ‘nanny state’ begin?  Since you people are constantly harping about it, perhaps you could define this for me.

Finally, to answer one of Ms. Dare’s points above, there other such rules in other boards.  For example, our board has forbidden the use of bleach as a disinfectant by the students.  Odd how we had students working in the cafeteria and family studies kitchens for over four decades using bleach with no accidents.  Suddenly, our internet-savvy, techno-wizard students are incapable of using bleach safely - what does that say about our system?

This says way more about your collective procession Wayne than it does about responsible parenting.

How many teachers have basic First Aid training? Do you know that number? In the USA too?

Did you know that up until the last decade or so it was not a requirement that anyone in a school in Ontario have basic First Aid, yet a summer student working for a parks and playground department did?

It’s not a Nanny state worthy comment either, that, I see is more of your usual dig at Ms. Dare, who by all counts has trumped you again. Every kneejerk reaction is a point for her. You do realize that don’t you?

See Wayne, that’s the beauty of common sense. It doesn’t have a shelf life or go out of style.

I see this as being similar to a teacher freely welcoming a class bully to beat the crap out of the new student, and send the kid home to mom and dad for bandages.

Bev,

It is beyond me why you never read one thing I write.  Look up - what I said was:, “I could just as easily play devil?s advocate ”  Note:  could, not will.  You may remember several weeks ago, you people were castigating me for defending the ‘nanny state’.

I would have preferred that the children had never come to harm.  There is more than enough blame to go around in this case:

1)  The Board - could have passed a ‘nut free’ sunscreen policy rather than a ban on all sunscreen.
2)  The teachers - could have made sure the students were covered up, or left them behind if they were unable to ensure their safety.
3)  The parents - already mentioned above.

Wayne.  I get your points. 

1. Absolutely true. (see below)
2. If there was an allergy of that severity to sunscreen, the school should have been informed, however considering the girls’ known albinism, I doubt that they were allergic to sunscreen.
3. It is about common sense and decency.
4. I didn’‘t “carp’ about the Nanny state.  I absolutely think parents should be responsible for their young children, however when they are under the care of the school (in “loco parentis”) like on a class trip, then it is up to the school and teachers to ensure their safety.

When my daughter was in high school, if there were any allergies, health problems etc. parents filled out a form to let the school know.  We also had to fill out a permission form for any medications that the student had to have (insulin comes to mind)—including one for aspirin.  It is about using some sense and finding a creative way to deal with a problem—you know, using higher order thinking skills.  And, before you start, Mom could have done that too—-there was poor communication on all sides.

Wayne - defending the union contracts again?  Numerous rules of the thou-shall not kind, to ensure teachers only teach, and not applied sun-screen or tied shoe laces or zipped up a coat. Or the common one, supervision of students at recess and lunch, and the many restrictions placed on teachers, but it is always done at the expense of the students at the end. Like this one Ontario school, and the justification why students are not allowed to roam the hallways, or go to their locker between class. “Backpacks are not allowed to be used once the school day starts, and since students are not allowed to revisit their lockers between classes, your child will need to carry all their books and pencil cases from class to class. This is one of the hardest things for our students to get used to, but for safety and security reasons, it is a rule that all students need to abide by.”
http://schools.peelschools.org/1549/pages/comingtohazelinseptember.aspx

As one reads down in the above link, it becomes obvious the parents and the students becomes the scapegoats and in the same way as Wayne did in his post.

Common sense left the education system a long time ago, when the rules and regulations became the vehicle to limit liability and download the responsibilities to the students and parents.

Fuzzycat in the comment section hit the nail. The students are not allow to applied their sunscreen on their own, without a doctor’s note, and the teachers are not allowed period.

Wayne, and others who seem to think it is okay to kick responsibilities back to the parents, is what is exactly wrong with society and our social institutes called schools. Governments demand compulsory laws to attend school, school boards along with the unions set up the regulations and other rules for the operations of the schools, and both demand the right for loco parentis. “The term in loco parentis, Latin for “in the place of a parent”“[1] refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. Originally derived from English common law, it is applied in two separate areas of the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

In a Alberta legal paper: “The concept that the teacher is acting in loco parentis has gradually evolved through legal precedent. This means that the teacher stands, in relation to the student, in the position of a caring parent, as an unofficial guardian.”
http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/Other Publications/Teachers Rights Responsibilities and Legal Liabilities/Pages/Chapter 3.aspx

Call it whatever you want Wayne, but it is negligence no matter how it is colour. In the same way, I told the school many moons ago, ignore the hives on my youngest face, and there be a lawyer in the office the next day. I had no choice but to threaten because the school would not phone me so I could administer the antihistamines or to pick up my child. Nor would the school give a common medication over the counter to my child, but had the nerve and gall to suggest, their actions did not justified me to have my child stay home for two days to recovered from the hives, because medication was delay until she came home.

My how times have change, where my oldest child who is now an adult, went through elementary school where the school nurse had no problems administer antihistamines for her, but always phone me to pick her up, for the tepid water bath that the school could not administer for her. School nurses went bye-bye a long time ago, but had the common sense to know the quicker that oral antihistamines are given, the chances are the child be back at school the following day.

Can’t have it both ways Wayne, either way loco parentis and its legal precepts provides the vehicle for teachers and the whole education system to legally act as the stand-in parents. ” Thus, a teacher could be liable for damage caused to a pupil where the teacher?s conduct falls below the standard of care commonly accepted as being reasonable in a parent?child relationship. A teacher may even have to meet a higher standard of care where special knowledge makes the teacher aware of dangers that the normal parent might not appreciate.”
http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/Other Publications/Teachers Rights Responsibilities and Legal Liabilities/Pages/Chapter 3.aspx

And what about it Wayne - How many teachers have first aid training?  OR is it the type of thing that is used to raise the salaries of teachers, but not necessary to qualify to teach students?  Handy thing to have in my eyes, especially when one of your children is choking…......or your grandmother.

Doretta,

In my experience, most parents of students with special needs do more than merely communicate by letter - they come in person or phone as necessary to ensure that there is nothing lost in the paperwork.  They are well-versed in advocating for their children. 

Re:  nanny state - I said ‘you people’ that does not = you personally.

Nancy,

Your anti-union stance is showing again.  This was a board policy - it had nothing to do with a union contract.

First Aid:  very few teachers have any formal training.  Our board, like most others simply cannot afford it.  At about $100-150 a person, that would be about $165,000 for our small board alone.  We are already facing a $4.3 million deficit.  How would you propose that the employer pay for it?  No textbooks?  No field trips?  Talk to Dalton - he controls the purse strings.

Finally, Nancy, read what I wrote above.  I am not defending the teachers.

“Nancy,

Your anti-union stance is showing again.  This was a board policy - it had nothing to do with a union contract.”

Look around you Wayne. There’s an anti-union movement gaining momentum throughout the whole province.

It’s acceptable and in my opinion warranted.

Re: First Aid Training - PD in basic First Aid training may be offered by boards, IF they feel it’s a priority. In the schools in our board, one person in the school MUST have this basic training.  I would imagine that other boards allow it as well, and as Wayne says, his doesn’t seem to have the money for it.

“In my experience, most parents of students with special needs do more than merely communicate by letter - they come in person or phone as necessary to ensure that there is nothing lost in the paperwork.  They are well-versed in advocating for their children.”

In my experience too.

Chuck,

In response to your and Nancy’s question about the number of teachers with first aid training - I said not many.  That does not mean none.  Think about it.

Our board trains 3 people/year per school.  In a school of our size, it would take over 30 years to train the entire staff - longer than most careers.  With constant staff changes, leaves and retirements this is a never ending process.  Therefore, the board concentrates on high-risk areas like phys. ed.  I’ve put my name on the list for the last 10 years, but have never made it to the plate - I guess math is not a life-threatening activity.

At the St. John Ambulance site - rates varied across Ontario, where Toronto appears to have the highest prices. Looking across Canada, the Atlantic provinces for the standard first aid course is at $80.

There is other non-profits, offering courses as well. Rates are in keeping with the St. John Ambulance.
http://www.sja.ca/Ontario/pages/Stratford.aspx

In numerous jobs, a first aid training certificate is required. Babysitting to home care worker to a volunteer coach to a janitor to senior high school students taking the safety work course. In most cases, its at the worker expense, and it looks good on applications and/or a requirement.

As for the teachers’ union - are not the members of the union involved as much as the board staff in policy making? If so, both groups would filter their policy decisions through the union lens. It leads to some crazy decisions, such as no-zeroes and no touching.

“The Peel District School Board is certainly not the first to ban hugging. One Australian primary school punishes students with “counselling sessions” if they’re caught touching at all. This includes high-fives.
No word on whether conversation will be banned in an attempt to stop swearing and verbal abuse.
This isn’t the only new policy in the world of “strange solutions to school problems.” To encourage students to finish their work, the Edmonton Public School Board has implemented a no-zero policy.
According to the policy makers, a zero gives the student a reason to quit. An incomplete grade should, instead, create an incentive to catch up on the missing work. So even if a student hands in a test without filling in any answers, he won’t be given a zero, despite answering zero questions.”
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/no-hugging-no-zeroes-school-rules-hurting-students-162457680.html

In the Toronto Star - “But El Dsoki and April Hoyt, Diana?s mother, said that after the girls created the Facebook page, they were called into the principal?s office. They spent 45 minutes there and then were told they had to spend the rest of the day with the guidance counsellor and were not allowed to talk to anyone. That?s definitely a consequence, they say.”
http://www.thestar.com/news/education/article/1214670—hug-in-draws-40-opposed-to-school-s-no-loving-rule

The no-touching policies have gained traction throughout the globe in unionized environments. In the comment section, parents are fed up.
“The better question is this: Before those rules existed, we adults seemed to fare well in School ! The entire educational system needs to be over hauled from top to bottom ! Keep the Social engineers away because they have screwed things up royally !”

While indeed the teachers the post writes about did not use common sense and behaved irresponsably, I hold the parents more responsible then the teachers.

There is a lot of hysteria here in Ontario about adults not interfering with somebody else’s kids in any way so to some degree what the teachers did is understandable to me.
There are a lot of parents that raise very unexpected and to me ridiculous issues. If I saw somebody else’s kid in the sun I would try and convince him to get in the shade or to cover up but I would not apply sunscreen that was not parent approved.

Seriously, some parents are extreme and lack common sense.
You should see 3-4 year olds lathered in thick sunscreen, and then dressed in a swimsuit that is basically a long-sleeve plasticky T-shirt and knee-lengths plasticky shorts and wearing a cap with an extra piece of material at the back covering the back of their necks. Then, you see these children that are now “protected” be out in the sun for 2-3-4 hours in the row in heat over 30 degrees Celsius, simmering and sweating in their own juices and the sunscreen and wearing that icky plasticky swimsuit. 
Of course, the same kids go in the community centre swimming pool without any regard of the notes posted everywhere “To keep the pool clean please shower before entering the pool.”

I’m not saying that I approve what the teachers did. I just say that the parents were far more responsible in this case.

Nancy,

Board staff make the policies, if union officials are consulted - then it is just that - consultation.  I can’t speak for every district, but I have never heard of our board scrapping a proposed policy because the union objected.  Excuse me for bringing up Mike Harris again, but our board loved his tactics so much, that they have used them ever since.

Nancy, use your common sense (no pun intended).  Do you not think that the union objected to the ‘no zero’ policy? (since Ms. Dare has raised this topic again)  As a math teacher, I was included in a meeting between union officials and the superintendent.  I got to see first hand how she thoroughly ignored anything we had to say.  Unless it is a contractual issue (sunscreen policies would not be part of any contract), the board really doesn’t want to hear from the union.  When pushed, the board will assert ‘employer rights’.  They are the employer - they have the right to set the rules.

Well not to add more, but policies do get in the way of common sense.

Take note of the responses and actions of the Toronto School board and expenditures.

“n response to widespread anger by principals at their leadership, the two top TDSB officials met late Thursday and devised a plan to grapple with cost overruns that are hurting students. School board director Chris Spence, who flew back from Africa for the meeting, and board chair Chris Bolton sent out a one-page letter to all principals and vice-principals outlining the plan.

In addition to the monitoring system, they have announced:

the TDSB has asked the education ministry for a ?deep operational review? to be conducted by Price Waterhouse Coopers;

an end to charging individual principal?s school accounts for construction and maintenance work;”

Sounds wonderful until - “Run by Jimmy Hazel, the trades council has created what many principals and teachers have told the Star in interviews over the past two months is a ?culture of fear.? Teachers who bring in tool kits to, for example, put up a shelf are warned they will face retribution by Hazel?s outfit.”

” Harrison, a firefighter by trade, thought it would be simple to have local parents paint the rusted pole. He was told it was not allowed.

Two painters were dispatched by the Maintenance and Construction Skilled Trades Council. The workers spent a morning: the bill was $1,800, says Harrison. The painters? rate at the time was roughly $30 an hour. Even including the cost of the paint, at $1,800 that reflects more than 50 hours of work.”

The thou-shall not rules always over rules common sense approaches.
“The Star, which is continuing to investigate, has been trying to obtain a copy of the school board?s database listing work orders and costs.

Thursday, we received a letter from the TDSB?s lawyer, Giselle Basanta, announcing that the Star?s request was received and ?we will respond to your request according to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.? No other details, and no timeline for response, were provided”
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1219717—school-board-to-set-up-electronic-system-to-flag-high-costs-for-work

It is so easy to blame others, and so much easier when education policies and practices are designed to benefit the adults as well as being protected from being held to account. More so when parents and students are not allow to pick up a paintbrush to paint a flag pole, or nailed down the flapping roof shingle or even rate a phone call from the school to deliver the sunscreen or often as the case, to enforce their own rules on the procedures and protocols to follow when things go astray. .  .

“I?m not saying that I approve what the teachers did. I just say that the parents were far more responsible in this case.”

Sorry Europe but I can’t agree with you here. If the event was a sanctioned school event, then the children are under the direct supervision of the teachers. They are the adults in the room.

Were parents advised ahead of this event to provide sun screen for their children? Most notices that came home with my kids announcing a special event or school trip included a list of what to bring, including sun screen.

I have also found out that our local health unit provides schools with extra sun screen for the school to use just in case a child forgets or a child needs it on the playground.

Can we agree that just as parents are asked to use their own common sense, that we can expect the supervisory teachers, principal etc. to do the same?

Not a stretch really.

The blog is about the unbelievable neglect on the part of the teachers, even though they knew full well that some of their students were albinos.  The parents are an entirely different topic…

Look, the sunscreen issue happened to my son at the summer camp albeit with minor consequences.

Because my son has “good” skin and he is outdoors starting in spring, I sent him to summer camp with a medium tan already and with instructions to stay in the shade as much as possible, to always wear a cap or a hat and to always wear a light color T-shirt.

Personally I think that the majority of sunscreens have unproven chemicals in them that while not necessarily toxic are best avoided. In addition I think sunscreen provides a false sense of safety, in the same way that SUVs do. Once people have applied sunscreen they tend to spend irrationally long time in the sun in the middle of the day. Sunscreens do not protect from sunstroke.

So I did not provide my son with his own sunscreen thinking that sunscreen or not it would be unreasonable to keep kids in the sun for longer than a few hours.

Well, I did not think through all the situations.
As part of the camp program they went on a 3-day canoe trip. All the days were sunny and extremely hot. Being on the water intensified exposure because of water reflection. Because my son did wear a hat and T-Shirt he got sunburn only on the top of his arms from elbow to the hand and on his cheeks.

Although the councilors had sunscreen with them they did not apply to my son’s arms because by not providing him with his own sunscreen I implicitly dissaproved of sunscreen.

Nobody conducting activities with children these days dares to do anything that a parent has not agreed to in advance because the parents are very vocal and have very different expectations and they expect them to be met.

I was very mad, but I must admit I saw some logic in the behavior of the camp staff.

Who can predict why a parent did not sent sunscreen? And since we treat children like imbeciles here the staff can still be held accountable if they did something at the child’s request that the parent did not agree to.
Nobody wants to get in that kind of controversy.

Maybe is more of a GTA thing and perhaps outside GTA common sense still prevails.
My experiences here make me very careful about what other parents would consider normal.

Europe, I agree that sunscreen applications are best avoided due to the chemicals. One never knows of allergic reactions to skin, as I found out one year. Sort of ruin my holiday for me, dealing with a really bad rash. I was better off, to cover up and in the same way my mother made sure we wore hats, and at the beach liberal application of suntan lotions plus coverups. Of course that was way before sunscreens and cancer warnings and civil suits. but common sense was employed for the most part. Historically, being sunburn was to be avoided and at the very least to avoid the unpleasant pain of sunburns.

Common sense was employed, so people could work and play in the sun. Science finally caught up to developed new products, rendering the common sense approaches moot, or as a last resort. Sunscreen additives are into everything, including shampoo and make-up. It has put the hat and the cover-ups into mere accessories, and not part of everyday clothing for child and adults.

Having children far apart, the wearing of hats and cover-ups was part of growing up, except for my youngest, who is now 17.  I fought with her to don on the hat and the cover-ups at every step, and the majority of the fights were because none of the other children were wearing hats and cover-ups. I eventually purchased sunscreens, only to discovered my youngest had the same sensitivities to sunscreen as I have. No big deal, just a rash but that began the taking of antihistamines on a regular basis, in order for her to don on sunscreen. That led to other negative factors, and I ended up purchasing sun tan lotions that had no side effects, instead of sunscreens. Sunscreens were to be used only in times of playing in the snow and water on sunny days, but by that time, new products of sunscreen had been developed for people with sensitive skin.

So yes, there is sunscreen in my home, but is at a higher retail price to simply avoid the rashes and the antihistamines. The sunscreens are only used if it is anticipated one will be out in the sun for long periods of time. Otherwise, the donning of hats and suitable clothing is used, and hence the farmer’s tan that I currently have.

What I do expect, is common sense to be employed by others who are in charge of my children, and not the worries about being liable for using their common sense. No parent can anticipate every scenario when their children are in the care of others. But what is more important, are the actions of school boards setting up the conditions to prevent the use of common sense approaches at the school level,  downloading the responsibilities to the parents, to anticipate the likely scenarios, and the school boards absolving themselves of any liability considerations.

Ergo, the parents and the children become responsible and are held to account at a much higher standard than the education system. One such personal example, in 1999 at a Ontario school. I was attending a school council event, where my youngest attended and put in the care of the babysitting service being offered by the school. I would have been better served, if I hired a babysitter for the evening, rather than dragging her to the free service being offered at the school. My child stubbed her big toe, and it was bleeding profusely.I was informed, that the school staff was not allowed to obtain the first aid kit, and administer first aid, including giving me a band-aid. Suffice to say, I exploded with anger, including the other parents and the parents came to my rescue by going into their purses looking for band-aids and other aids, so I could get into the car without a trail of blood. When I left, the school council dropped all other business, and voted for a first-aid kit for all meetings. However, the principal defended their policies of not providing basic first aid and band-aids outside of the normal operating hours of the school day. Oh yeah, the blood left on the floor was the janitor’s job, and parents had a lot to say about that one.

In the legal sense, the school was only held accountable if they administer first aid, by giving my child a band-aid and would become legally liable in the eyes of the court. Just like the doctor in his off-time using his skills to administer first aid at an accident scene, or the everyday person giving first aid to the best of their knowledge, and be sued for their caring actions. The education system has taken it too far, to the point where actions of the school staff are absolved by ensuring that parents carries the highest level of liability, with or without parents being present at the school.

The culture of blame, rather than employing common sense in all aspects of schooling. So much easier to blame others, rather than finding solutions based on common sense for the best interests of the students. .  .

Why would school staff offer babysitting when they weren’t allowed to administer first aid to their charges?  What if a child had an asthma attack; broken a limb; etc.?  Perhaps it’s because staff is completely unaccountable that they don’t have to think anything through.. 
Also, after six years of living in Asia, upon returning to Canada, I noticed how illogical parents here are here.  I think it’s for two reasons—deep down they sense that the school system is no good and that the vast majority of children fail to thrive, but they don’t have a clue what to do about it, since this is all they know; also because they’re uneducated themselves—even the ones with degrees—very little information (and no background to boot) will cause them to leap to all kinds of off-the-wall conclusions. 
Although there are some great minds in the States, it’s downright scary how mushy some of the others’ minds are.  Canada is headed in exactly the same direction.

Exactly my point Bev; the school administrators solves the problem by requiring school councils to have first aid kits, rather than to used the first aid kits of the school. As for asthma attacks, allergic reactions, the school fully expect the students and parents to supply and administered their own first aid. The majority of asthma and allergic reactions, are not life threatening , and like the broken leg two different protocols are followed. One protocol for the normal operating hours of a school, and for all events falling out of normal operating hours, such as evening concerts. The other protocol are for all other events and organizations outside of the normal operating hours of the school, that are not sanctioned by the school, or fall under not vital to the operations of the schools.

The first protocol, a band-aid would have been applied, if my child stubbed her toe during the school day, and a staff member would indeed be free to apply it. An evening concert, would have volunteer first aid organizations or the local volunteer fire department to administer first aid, rather than the school staff.

The second protocol is where my child landed, and a great many have found out much to their dismay sending their children to outside activities located in schools, but are not sanctioned by the school. Liability goes to the Brownie leader, and the school completely absolves themselves from any and all liability under the legal umbrella.

If parents are illogical, it is a reaction to the rules and regulations of education systems, to limit their liability and eventually absolving themselves of being held to account in all aspects of educating children/students.