schools opening when it has snowed!

johnnyl

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

I actually know quite a bit about high hazard risk assessment, maybe not as much as you, but let me give you an example that you will be familiar with. If the risk assessment for a maintenance procedure requires a minimum number of staff present to carry it out safely, and you do not have those people present, you do not do the procedure.

The core H&S legislation is the same, as are the legal implications, the difference being how many people you might injure/kill if you ignore it and it all goes wrong.

Although you are quite correct on the maintainence thing there is a difference, you have to assess the hazard that is inherent to the task. So that analogy does not transfer directly to the school environment because it is a very (relatively) un-risky environment.

For instance, say you have 200 kids and normally have 15 teachers, your RA might not be based on true risk but what the assessor thinks is a realistic lowest number of teachers that you might have. They might pluck the number 10 out for a minimum number of teachers. However if you had 9 or 8 is there really more risk than 10? There isnt because it is a non-risky environment in the first place. Obviously you wouldnt want just 1 or 2, but what I am getting at is that it is very unlikely that the RA done is aligned to a true statistical risk.

Now if you were taking a group of kids yomping through some mountains the ratio becomes critical because a real hazard has been introduced and this supervision is critical.

thegirlintheattic

johnnyl wrote: »

Although you are quite correct on the maintainence thing there is a difference, you have to assess the hazard that is inherent to the task. So that analogy does not transfer directly to the school environment because it is a very (relatively) un-risky environment.

For instance, say you have 200 kids and normally have 15 teachers, your RA might not be based on true risk but what the assessor thinks is a realistic lowest number of teachers that you might have. They might pluck the number 10 out for a minimum number of teachers. However if you had 9 or 8 is there really more risk than 10? There isnt because it is a non-risky environment in the first place. Obviously you wouldnt want just 1 or 2, but what I am getting at is that it is very unlikely that the RA done is aligned to a true statistical risk.

Now if you were taking a group of kids yomping through some mountains the ratio becomes critical because a real hazard has been introduced and this supervision is critical.

I agree with you that it may not be based on 'true-risk' (although school is not completely non-risky - you'd be surprised at the number of ambulance calls a year). However if the risk assessment says you need x number of staff to adequately staff the school and the head decides to ignore this and open with less, he is breaking the regulations (as he has not managed the risk using the control method he has said he would). 9 times out of 10 nothing will happen, but if something does happen then he's in a lot of trouble.

Hanging_by_a_thread

gregg1 wrote: »

Aahhh Melly. Now that really is a name that strikes fear when it comes to teacher bashing. Whatever happened to Melly. Actually, forget that, I don't want to know;)

Probably six foot under, done in by a teacher he got on the wrong side of.

johnnyl

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

I agree with you that it may not be based on 'true-risk' (although school is not completely non-risky - you'd be surprised at the number of ambulance calls a year).

Im not surprised as such, just desensitised to those events which I probably shouldn't be. Its all relative I guess, our standard is set at not blowing multiple people up so its hard to get excited about small slips and trips etc

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

However if the risk assessment says you need x number of staff to adequately staff the school and the head decides to ignore this and open with less, he is breaking the regulations (as he has not managed the risk using the control method he has said he would). 9 times out of 10 nothing will happen, but if something does happen then he's in a lot of trouble.

I'd be interested to see what it does say.

Thinking about it, if you had 100 kids (not infants) they could probably go to school and be quite safe with 2 or so teachers provided they are herded into the sports hall and given something to do. It would be a naff day and I wouldnt want to do it, but I'd be confident that they would all come home safe and sound. Now split them up in 4 x 25 and put them in different classes like science labs and CDT rooms and 1 teacher clearly aint enough.

I would have thought the RA would be based on (for example) 1 teacher per group rather than a number to number ratio

anyhow...im digressing now

johnnyl

Hanging_by_a_thread wrote: »

Probably six foot under, done in by a teacher he got on the wrong side of.

I assure you shes not, Im talking to her right now :rotfl:

Kaz2904

Why is it that teachers get such a bashing? I wouldn't want their job for a footballer's salary! Seems everyone loves to hate teachers.
Besides, taking your kids out of school in term time means they lose out. My BiL and SiL took theirs out for a 2 week holiday (well they do nearly every year but that's another story) meaning that my nephew missed his school camp. I felt really bad for him, it's such a good opportunity on school camp and I remember mine fondly even as an old wrinkly

johnnyl

Kaz2904 wrote: »

Why is it that teachers get such a bashing?

oh thats like a red rag to a bull. How long have you got, we can discuss it :rotfl:

melly1980

hi all

I am alive and well. Leave me out of this it has nothing to do with me.

Valli

Kaz2904 wrote: »

Why is it that teachers get such a bashing?

johnnyl wrote: »

oh thats like a red rag to a bull.

Because there are lots and lots of teachers so lots of 'targets' to 'attack'.

Unlike, say, Chemical Engineers, a rare breed these days, given the number of Chemical Refineries that have closed down now; thus rendering them unemployed and with lots of time on their hands to attack other demographic groups. Still, makes a change from attacking benefit claimants, one supposes.:p

RuthnJasper

johnnyl wrote: »

rather strangely, everyone else in the country can manage to get into work.

Not me. I worked from home. And I have no children and no connection to the education sphere of work. The basic reason (which is good enough for me, my boss, her boss, and all the bosses above them) is that, where we live (rural location), it is simply not safe to travel.

I understand that a reliable and respectable Postman of 25 years' service died in a location similar to mine whilst attempting to do his job despite the weather. I have nothing but heartfelt sorrow for his loss and sympathy for his colleagues, family and friends. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-21117105) But perhaps, johnnyl, you may prefer to sneer at him and those who have closed their places of business/education/leisure to try and avoid similar tragedies?

It just isn't worth taking the risk and endangering yourself - AND the poor underpaid b*gg*rs working for the Emergency Services who have to come out and rescue you because you thought you were stronger than the weather.