Another what would you do...

FBaby

ome kids are more confident, but it's clear this is not a situation this kid should have been in. The school have a duty of care regardless of maturity or anything else.

This is where we disagree. You are absolutely adamant that OP's boy was put at risk by the situation. My position is that it depends on what was said either way, but going by OP posts, it would seem that her boy wasn't upset by being left to walk back alone.

My 16 year old daughter is evey bit as capable as yours I'm sure, as are most kids, but there is a difference between walking around in London in the day,which is a really safe place generally, and walking down an alley in the dark. Or even a quiet road.

I totally agree with you, but by saying this, you are inferring that it was the case for OP's boy. Since he went after school, it can be guessed that he ended up walking home around 4pm, so not at a time when it is still pitch black. No reference to him having had to walk down dark alleys either, so not sure how we can conclude that the school failed its duty of care on this basis.

bylromarha

No he wasn't phased by having to take an unknown route to his plan b bus stop. He's fine at solving problems, just can't see the easiest solution. It was the fact he was allowed to walk away with no one being informed of the fact he'd walked away which irks.

By the time he got home, he was walking in the dark, as plan b bus route is 80mins, plus an extra 20min walk at the end which he doesnt have to do on the school bus. All the faff about the train meant he would have caught a bus around 3.45pm.

And whoever asked about handing in the slip, yes he did. The cheque has been cashed.

And no letters are on the school website, or emailed to us. We've had 2 newsletters, each newsletter is 30pages long. Craziness, and costly, for such a large school

Flyonthewall

FBaby wrote: »

This is where we disagree. You are absolutely adamant that OP's boy was put at risk by the situation. My position is that it depends on what was said either way, but going by OP posts, it would seem that her boy wasn't upset by being left to walk back alone.

It doesn't matter whether he was upset or not. You stated a child is in danger at any time. That potential danger is obviously going to be higher when the child is alone, in public, walking in the dark. Therefore he was put at risk by the situation.

You don't seem to understand what a duty of care means. It means they should be looking after their pupils, regardless of how capable they are or whether they want that care and that includes not letting any kid walk off alone. It doesn't matter what you believe is a risk because it's a fact that they have a duty of care, which means the school is in the wrong as you can't be looking after a kid who's alone somewhere.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

bylromarha wrote: »

And had he gone AWOL, or been picked up by a stranger, we wouldn't have had any alarm bells until 6.15pm when we turned up to pick him up and he wasn't there.

None of those are reasons Jono, they're all excuses. If we'd expected him to be in their care until 6.15pm, then when he left the trip for whatever reason, she should have made sure someone knew about the change of plan. And his fare had already been paid.

Plus no email comms from the school bar direct emails I send to his teacher. I don't have a parent pay to log into either. I sent a cheque in.

bylromarha wrote: »

Maybe it's a control thing? Photos on FB of kids in uniform being stupid on the bus? I don't know. Either way, we don't have a problem with it.

To top it all, I found out today that entry to the author's talk was only £5 pp - school were charging £7 plus train fare.

Wish we'd never bothered!

The £2 may have allowed for something else - a programme/handout, the price may have changed after they booked, it may have been booked at a set price, or it may be a tiny charge to help PPG kids to attend.

There's also kids being mugged and robbed of their phones, filming attacks on other kids and inappropriate sexual imagery being made. And the fact that the majority of people sem to lose their braincells once there's a little blue screen flickering in front of them. All of which may make allowing phones far too much a risk in the opinion of the school.

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Exactly, a school trip. When your kids are under the supervision of teachers. At least, they're supposed to be. Doesn't matter that it was outside of normal school hours, they are still responsible for every kid in their care.

Doesn't matter what school it is or what age he is. They are a school, he is a kid. There is no more to it than that, especially as the parent of the kid is not happy with the situation.



It's not though, he wasn't at school. He had to go home from another location.



He did, but there are many dangers out there and he wasn't going his usual way home with the usual people, he was alone. What would you be saying if he'd been injured or worse?

You keep pointing out the school. So if he were at primary school their actions wouldn't have been acceptable?

Considering he was born in August if he'd been born a month later he'd still be in primary school. So you're saying because he was born a month earlier all of a sudden he's grown up enough to find his way home from a random location alone?

I'm not going to keep debating ages and all that. Even if he were 16 I'd be saying the same as he'd still be a kid.

So all I'm going to say is he is a kid and the teachers/school were responsible for him and his safety. They did nothing to ensure that safety.

There may have been numerous issues with paying or contact or whatever else, but in the end that is still down to them. They should be prepared, well organised and avoid such issues in the first place.

No excuses for the school. This situation should not have happened.

I completely understand the kid with the money and why the OP is annoyed.

If the difference is 3.45pm from, say 3.30pm, are people really saying he was at huge risk from those 15 minutes? Even the kid himself isn't that bothered - after all, if he used the emergency money to catch the bus home, that sounds more like he didn't want to go after all, or he'd have used the same £2 to go there.

My school sounds like it's roughly the same distance from the train station; in our case, it's down the bottom of the road & cross over. The nearest sweet shop is further away than that.

Flyonthewall

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

If the difference is 3.45pm from, say 3.30pm, are people really saying he was at huge risk from those 15 minutes? Even the kid himself isn't that bothered - after all, if he used the emergency money to catch the bus home, that sounds more like he didn't want to go after all, or he'd have used the same £2 to go there.

My school sounds like it's roughly the same distance from the train station; in our case, it's down the bottom of the road & cross over. The nearest sweet shop is further away than that.

bylromarha wrote: »

By the time he got home, he was walking in the dark, as plan b bus route is 80mins, plus an extra 20min walk at the end which he doesnt have to do on the school bus. All the faff about the train meant he would have caught a bus around 3.45pm.l

We're not talking 15 minutes though.

Regardless, 15 minutes may seem a short time but it takes seconds for someone to grab a kid walking alone or a car to hit them while crossing the road. Both of which could most likely be avoided with another person there. So yes, even for 15 minutes he'd have been at a higher risk.

As for the money, the trip was a fun thing to him so emergency money didn't seem the logical/right thing for him to use. The bus home was a plan b, emergency option, that wasn't fun and so using the money then seemed right to him.

bylromarha

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

The £2 may have allowed for something else - a programme/handout, the price may have changed after they booked, it may have been booked at a set price, or it may be a tiny charge to help PPG kids to attend.

Having had a colleague who went to the same event, she can see no reason why it was £7 as she booked her ticket early on for £5. There was no programme to buy and charging some kids extra for other kids, PPG or otherwise, is illegal. Never mind the fact it's another 40% on top of the actual ticket price.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

If the difference is 3.45pm from, say 3.30pm, are people really saying he was at huge risk from those 15 minutes? Even the kid himself isn't that bothered - after all, if he used the emergency money to catch the bus home, that sounds more like he didn't want to go after all, or he'd have used the same £2 to go there.

The 30 minutes extra in the school area meant he missed the daily school bus. This meant that he took the emergency bus, meaning his travel time school to home was 40 minutes longer than normal. Add in the 30 minute delay of beginning that travel meant he was walking home from the bus stop in the dark for 20 minutes, walking a longer and less familiar route than from his school bus stop.

He did want to go - he was gutted to have missed it. He's been reading books by the guy since he was 7. But I've tried to leave DSs emotions out of this thread as it doesn't help the facts of the matter. Like I said before, he just didn't think a "fun" school trip equated to a reasonable reason to spend emergency money which he perceived that you only spend on emergencies like getting home when you're stranded or if you've left your lunch box at home. He knew he wasn't stranded, he just knew he didn't have train fare in his hand. He didn't process further than that as he's an emotionally immature 11 year old boy.

Form tutor has sent a polite reply saying he'll get back to me when he knows more.

pollypenny

Am I right in thinking that the Head of English organised this?

If so, I'd have complained to someone further up the hierarchy than his form tutor.

mai_taylor

FBaby wrote: »

And that means nothing at all. Yes, he is a kid, who in this situation is used to taking buses and coming home on his own from school, which some days might indeed be in the dark.



But that's you as an adult. Personally, it wouldn't faze me at all. My DS was able to walk alone at 8, taking the bus alone at 9, and the train at 10yo. DD went on a school trip to London when she was 14 and she and two girls ended up losing the teacher. They were told where to go if that happened. DD wasn't bothered at all and was able to get through the underground, even though she never done so without an adult before (and only been in London a hand full of time) and never been to that station.

The bottom line is that some kids are more confident than others just as adults are and you can't make assumptions about what a child is capable of doing just on the basis of their age.

If OP had written that her boy had learning difficulties, had never walked home alone before, and had shown distress to the teacher and this had been ignored, my response would have been very different, but it wasn't the case.

I think you're totally missing the point. Just because someone is confident to walk around alone doesn't mean it's safe to do so. I'm sure the op's son was perfectly fine to make his way home alone but if anything had happened to him once he's left the train station his parents would have no idea until a few hours later, which is a long time when a missing child is concerned. Unfortunately the world we live in is not a safe place to be anymore.