Blue Tack & Pritt Stick - they're dangerous, you know
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews...
Wear goggles when using Blu-Tack: the safety rules ruining education
Teachers are being handed five-page guides warning of the dangers of Pritt Stick, fuelling claims health and safety rules are ruining education.
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Published: 7:01AM BST 19 Jun 2009
Staff told how they had been subjected to a series of increasingly bizarre guidelines to stop schools being sued in the event of an accident.
A teacher said one school ordered adults and children to wear goggles when using Blu-Tack.
Another told how a school banned them from using spray foam when marking out spaces in case a child slips and "drowns" in it.
And at one primary school, a three-legged race was dropped from sports day because it was too dangerous.
The disclosures are made in a survey of almost 600 school staff by Teachers' TV.
Almost half of those polled said health and safety rules were now "too restrictive", negatively impacting on pupils' education.
More than four-in-10 said school trips had been toned down or cancelled because of safety concerns.
It follows conclusions in a Government-funded report last year that "perceived health and safety regulations were felt to have systematically undermined communities and the quality of their children's education".
But according to teachers, tighter rules had no significant effect on child safety. Eighteen per cent of those polled said accidents had been reduced over the last five years, but 11 per cent said they had increased and the majority said they made little difference.
Other rules revealed by teachers include:
"Any concerns that arise with regard to health and safety issues, including child safety, should be covered by appropriate in-service training."
A spokeswoman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "We urge schools to take a common sense approach to keeping safe. Health and safety should not be a major burden and it shouldn't stop pupils from learning and playing. A small amount of risk is part and parcel of growing up and we do not subscribe to a cotton wool culture of a sanitised childhood."
FFS, get a grip.
Wear goggles when using Blu-Tack: the safety rules ruining education
Teachers are being handed five-page guides warning of the dangers of Pritt Stick, fuelling claims health and safety rules are ruining education.
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Published: 7:01AM BST 19 Jun 2009
Staff told how they had been subjected to a series of increasingly bizarre guidelines to stop schools being sued in the event of an accident.
A teacher said one school ordered adults and children to wear goggles when using Blu-Tack.
Another told how a school banned them from using spray foam when marking out spaces in case a child slips and "drowns" in it.
And at one primary school, a three-legged race was dropped from sports day because it was too dangerous.
The disclosures are made in a survey of almost 600 school staff by Teachers' TV.
Almost half of those polled said health and safety rules were now "too restrictive", negatively impacting on pupils' education.
More than four-in-10 said school trips had been toned down or cancelled because of safety concerns.
It follows conclusions in a Government-funded report last year that "perceived health and safety regulations were felt to have systematically undermined communities and the quality of their children's education".
But according to teachers, tighter rules had no significant effect on child safety. Eighteen per cent of those polled said accidents had been reduced over the last five years, but 11 per cent said they had increased and the majority said they made little difference.
Other rules revealed by teachers include:
- A "five page warning about the danger of Pritt Stick"
- A ban on children being sent out of the classroom to "cool off" because it is a fire hazard
- The removal of climbing equipment because bark chippings beneath did not meet the required depth
- Wet grass stopping PE lessons
- Children told not to eat sweets for fear of choking
"Any concerns that arise with regard to health and safety issues, including child safety, should be covered by appropriate in-service training."
A spokeswoman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "We urge schools to take a common sense approach to keeping safe. Health and safety should not be a major burden and it shouldn't stop pupils from learning and playing. A small amount of risk is part and parcel of growing up and we do not subscribe to a cotton wool culture of a sanitised childhood."
FFS, get a grip.
You cant use THAT word.. "Common sence" does not exist any more..the government banned it!
Seriously... we are breeding a generation who will not be able to cope with responsible calculated risk taking, they will be scared to do anything new .... this boils my wee wee..
When I was at school (10 years ago) we were dropped in the middle of the countryside with a map and told to find our way back to school.... This would NEVER happen now...
Seriously... we are breeding a generation who will not be able to cope with responsible calculated risk taking, they will be scared to do anything new .... this boils my wee wee..
When I was at school (10 years ago) we were dropped in the middle of the countryside with a map and told to find our way back to school.... This would NEVER happen now...
when I was at junior school another pupil accidentally stuck a pencil in my eye (thankfully causing no lasting damage). Funnily enough in the 70s people had the common sense to realise that didn't justify all children wearing goggles when drawing.
Oh dear, I have been in the P&P too long and am becoming a reactionary old fart myself!
isn't targeted advertising great? This is the advert that came up when I submitted the post!
Oh dear, I have been in the P&P too long and am becoming a reactionary old fart myself!
isn't targeted advertising great? This is the advert that came up when I submitted the post!
Edited by ludo on Friday 19th June 11:58
funkyrobot said:
What concerns me most about this is the fact that some group of people somewhere is being paid to think this s
t up!
I bet their wage comes out of our multitude of taxes too.
It'll be one (or many) of the 500,000 or so public sector jobs manufactured by this government. Yes our taxes pay for them and the very expensive index linked pensions too.t up!I bet their wage comes out of our multitude of taxes too.
On the subject of goggles in swimming pools I said:
Yin: The wearing of goggles is forbidden...
Yang: ...because of the very real risk of litigious parents sniffing a bit of compo should Sharquin Mercedes come a cropper because the dizzy sprog's been pinging itself in the face with its goggles.
I agree wholeheartedly that children should, within reason, be allowed to explore risk and, again within reason, experience first-hand the consequences of getting it wrong.Yang: ...because of the very real risk of litigious parents sniffing a bit of compo should Sharquin Mercedes come a cropper because the dizzy sprog's been pinging itself in the face with its goggles.
The "compo culture", on the other hand, is not compatible with this.
tegwin said:
When I was at school (10 years ago) we were dropped in the middle of the countryside with a map and told to find our way back to school.... This would NEVER happen now...
When I was at primary school 25 years ago, we had the "climbing wall" in the playground. This was basically a bunch of breeze blocks and bits of concrete drainpipe slung together to form a structure approximately 5-6 feet tall, 20-odd feet long and maybe 1 foot wide, with one end shaped into steps, the other shaped into a ramp, with bits of block sticking out/cut away at one point near the middle to act as a ladder, and with a couple of bits of pipe sticking through the side of the wall. The whole thing was surrounded by tarmac - the nearest "soft" bit of ground was the playing field about 10 feet away on one side. The sole piece of safety instruction we had was on our first day of joining the primary school, where we all trooped out into the playground with our teacher and, single-file, climbed up the steps, walked along the top, and slid down the ramp. Once we'd all completed that, we were free to play on it with the barest minimum of supervision. Then there were the climbing bars nearby - parallel lengths of scaffolding pole supported by concrete pillars, which we could climb up, sit on, hang from, swing around on, and again, doing all of this with a hard tarmac surface below us. The maximum height we could get off the ground on these bars wasn't as far as on the wall - I think the highest was about 4 feet off the ground - so they weren't quite in the same "you used to do WHAT?!?" league as the wall, but still...
And to echo tegwin's point, at secondary school we were expected to go off on cross-country runs with just a verbal description of the route given to us before we set off, and with the teacher leading the run typically keeping pace with the front runners, leaving those of us who were, shall we say, challenged for pace, to figure out our own way back. Granted, the routes we used never took us quite as far away from the school as in tegwin's case, but at the furthest points we were still a good 3-4 miles away.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to protect the young (most of us would need to fight deeply-ingrained instinct not to intervene and keep our little 'uns safe), but we need to set sensible limits on what levels of risk they're allowed to put themselves in, rather than wrapping them from head to toe in cotton wool (or has that been banned as well?) and trying to eradicate the possibility of them picking up so much as a scratch or bruise.
That wet grass one made me chuckle, although my girlfriend informs me it's been about a while, they weren't allowed to play rugby/hockey at her school if it was raining. I don't think I ever played rugby when it WASN'T raining to be honest. Vividly remember being made to play that ridiculous sport when the pitch was laden with snow.
twister said:
tegwin said:
When I was at school (10 years ago) we were dropped in the middle of the countryside with a map and told to find our way back to school.... This would NEVER happen now...
When I was at primary school 25 years ago, we had the "climbing wall" in the playground. This was basically a bunch of breeze blocks and bits of concrete drainpipe slung together to form a structure approximately 5-6 feet tall, 20-odd feet long and maybe 1 foot wide, with one end shaped into steps, the other shaped into a ramp, with bits of block sticking out/cut away at one point near the middle to act as a ladder, and with a couple of bits of pipe sticking through the side of the wall. The whole thing was surrounded by tarmac - the nearest "soft" bit of ground was the playing field about 10 feet away on one side. The sole piece of safety instruction we had was on our first day of joining the primary school, where we all trooped out into the playground with our teacher and, single-file, climbed up the steps, walked along the top, and slid down the ramp. Once we'd all completed that, we were free to play on it with the barest minimum of supervision. Then there were the climbing bars nearby - parallel lengths of scaffolding pole supported by concrete pillars, which we could climb up, sit on, hang from, swing around on, and again, doing all of this with a hard tarmac surface below us. The maximum height we could get off the ground on these bars wasn't as far as on the wall - I think the highest was about 4 feet off the ground - so they weren't quite in the same "you used to do WHAT?!?" league as the wall, but still...
And to echo tegwin's point, at secondary school we were expected to go off on cross-country runs with just a verbal description of the route given to us before we set off, and with the teacher leading the run typically keeping pace with the front runners, leaving those of us who were, shall we say, challenged for pace, to figure out our own way back. Granted, the routes we used never took us quite as far away from the school as in tegwin's case, but at the furthest points we were still a good 3-4 miles away.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to protect the young (most of us would need to fight deeply-ingrained instinct not to intervene and keep our little 'uns safe), but we need to set sensible limits on what levels of risk they're allowed to put themselves in, rather than wrapping them from head to toe in cotton wool (or has that been banned as well?) and trying to eradicate the possibility of them picking up so much as a scratch or bruise.
BJG1 said:
That wet grass one made me chuckle, although my girlfriend informs me it's been about a while, they weren't allowed to play rugby/hockey at her school if it was raining. I don't think I ever played rugby when it WASN'T raining to be honest. Vividly remember being made to play that ridiculous sport when the pitch was laden with snow.
Our PE teacher didn't let us play rugby when it was raining.He preferred the ground to be frozen solid, instead.
/hard_upbringing
Climbing bars at my junior school was meant to be on grass but that had all been scuffed away leaving hard dirt with stones. So, when going for a double bar to bar swing to impress a girl, Jodie I think, I miss the 2nd bar and crashed to the ground ripping my back open on the stones.
Hurt like buggery and I got a thick ear for being daft from my Dad when I got home.
My fault - my pain.
Hurt like buggery and I got a thick ear for being daft from my Dad when I got home.
My fault - my pain.
daily mail article on same thing said:
Judith Hackitt, chairman of the Health and Safety Executive, said the examples cited were 'frankly ridiculous'.
She added: 'Health and safety is blamed for a lot of things not going ahead, but they're often about something else - high costs, an event that requires a lot of organising or fear of getting sued.
'Children cannot be wrapped in cotton wool - risk is part of growing up and our children need to learn how to manage risks in the real world.'
She added: 'Health and safety is blamed for a lot of things not going ahead, but they're often about something else - high costs, an event that requires a lot of organising or fear of getting sued.
'Children cannot be wrapped in cotton wool - risk is part of growing up and our children need to learn how to manage risks in the real world.'
AlexS said:
8 mile cross country run is impressive. You must have had pretty lengthy games lessons.
Been too long for me to remember the timetables in any great detail, but I do have these unpleasant recollections of double games/PE for one term a year - I think it was because some of the academic subjects were always doubled-up, and sometimes this meant other subjects which were usually just single lessons ended up having to also be doubled-up because there wasn't any other way to organise the timetable.Our school was successfully sued recently. Can't go into details as my username is a bit of a giveaway, but it involved tables, the sitting on there-of, and collapsing and a "hurt" foot. Apparently the table wasn't fit for purpose 
Sitting on ANY desk in the place - even the traditional teacher perch on the edge - is now a no-no.
(Although old habits die hard - f$ck 'em)
Sitting on ANY desk in the place - even the traditional teacher perch on the edge - is now a no-no. (Although old habits die hard - f$ck 'em)
Nice Car Tony, I assume you don't drive "that" to work.
The only car I've seen remotely interesting in a car park apart from mine was a chap at my old school who had some sort of full race V8 TVR. Awesome noise on startup, the old mini came a close second with it's ridiculous compression ratio and silly camshaft/exhaust "pipe".
Back to H+S. I can't even imagine how Pritt Stick and Blu-Tack would fail a basic COSHH assessment. It is pretty damn safe. I would say elbowing yourself in the eye was more of a hazard.
The only car I've seen remotely interesting in a car park apart from mine was a chap at my old school who had some sort of full race V8 TVR. Awesome noise on startup, the old mini came a close second with it's ridiculous compression ratio and silly camshaft/exhaust "pipe".
Back to H+S. I can't even imagine how Pritt Stick and Blu-Tack would fail a basic COSHH assessment. It is pretty damn safe. I would say elbowing yourself in the eye was more of a hazard.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff