Pity the poor teacher

[Clarkkent]

The following appears in French News:

Pity the poor teacher
A teacher has been sentenced to five months in prison, suspended, and found guilty of involuntary homicide because a child in his charge fell out of a window and killed herself. The French have developed a ridiculous habit of giving out prison sentences for those found guilty of what any normal person might call negligence. His ‘crime’ was to forget to shut the window after playtime. The ten-year-old girl fell from the classroom window while the teacher’s attention was distracted; she had climbed onto a chair to get to the window sill. The teacher was busy packing a trunk with kit ready to accompany the class on a skiing holiday. This sort of case is an extremely undesirable result of allowing the families of those hurt or killed to be represented in court. The judges seem to be afraid of being seen as soft. Lawyer Maître Karim Achoui, representing the girl’s family, said after the hearing that it was “a victory for the earthenware pot over the iron pot”. No wonder experienced teachers are leaving the profession in droves. Is this an example of Anglo-Saxon practices and attitudes invading France? Is the statement in the last sentence accurate?

[Teamedup]

For years now there have been certain circumstances where the person in charge has a real responsibility under french law for all sorts of things. Being the Pesident of an association for example means that one takes the fall for just about anything that goes on in an association. So that this sentence  doesn't surprise me.

And schools, well since I have lived here it has always shocked me that even nursery schools are often on more than one floor, I don't know of one primary school that isn't. That there are not more accidents with little kids with windows and stairs has always surprised me.

 

Anglo saxon influence, don't know about that. The way punishment is dished out here appears to done in a very different way.

[Iceni]

I think that you will find the same rules apply in the UK - they did when I taught at a college, if we were talking about an adult I was told I could still be 50% at fault even if they threw themselves out.

With a child I feel it is the teacher/schools responsibility to ensure that children cannot fall out of windows. School is supposed to be a safe environment after all. In my school in the East End of London I can remember that only the very top of the high windows opened and the only person who could open or shut them was the school caretaker - not even the teachers had the pole to do this.

This has nothing to do with the 'poor' teacher and everything to do with health and safety. Someone has to be at fault for a minor in this situation and I am afraid the teacher and or school must be responsible.

I also went to a nursery school and school in the UK where the playgrounds were on the ROOF, classrooms over 3 or 4 floors. The school is still in this situation due to lack of space for a playground. Not every building is ideal for its purpose, you just have to make them safe and secure. Someone has to take ultimate responsibility, if you don't want that responsibility, don't do that job.

[Pantouflard]

In the uk any enforcement action would be taken by the Health and Safety Executive.  Whilst that could be against an individual, such as a teacher, it would be far more likely to be the employer who was prosecuted.

The employer would be expected to assess the risks of this happening and implement controls.  Having to remember to close the window is not a very robust control measure ie it is forseeable that the teacher may forget.  If the risk of someone falling is foreseeable I would expect restrictors on the window to limit how far it can open.

If the controls identified by the assessment had been implemented but they had not been followed by the teacher (eg overriding the window restrictor) then action against the teacher may be taken.

Does anyone have more details of this case?

[Autismuk]

Ah, we're ahead of them. Or behind them.

This is a true story - not apocraphal, not told to me by someone. It happened to a colleague of mine, who I was working with at the time.

Boy tried to climb out of a first floor window (drop onto concrete). Window had fasteners etc. to stop it opening more than about 6" or so, but was forced open, breaking the catch (the boy had the option of leaving by the front door ....)

Boy was about 2/3 of the way out. Was pulled back in by my colleague (child didn't resist, wasn't hurt in any way, just stopped from climbing out).

Boy complained. Social Services went after him. No question regarding the raw facts. The criticism was, and I quote, "you didn't know he was going to jump out" .......

Of course, if he'd let him jump, you'd be done for negligence .....

Simple rules here. Negligence is genuine negligence. Anything else is personal responsibility.

If I take a group of children horse riding (which I've done) and I don't bother to provide them with hats, stirrups and qualified support, that's negligent.

However, if I do that, and they unstrap their hats, jump off the horse and hurt themselves, then that is their fault.

[Autismuk]

[quote]I think that you will find the same rules apply in the UK - they did when I taught at a college, if we were talking about an adult I was told I could still be 50% at fault even if they threw themselve...[/quote]

********, Iceni.

The rules state you cannot build a prison type environment - bars on the windows stuff - unless the child really needs them. You have this balance between the desired "homely environment" and "safety".

Some rational judgement has to be made about the "child's" behaviour. People use the word "child" and everyone thinks "little four year olds" - yes, there *should* be extra safeguards.

Problem is morons like CSCI and H&S then try and apply the same rules to 15 year old "children" who are well aware of what they are doing, do what they want, and then blame everyone else if it goes wrong.

If you are a teacher you *cannot* (except in a few very SEN cases) stop a 15 year old leaving the school. But you are still lumped with the responsibility.

[Val_2]

These stories appear all the time here in the press. No matter what happens,if there is a death or serious injury,the person in charge is held responsible usually with a prison sentence suspended. Even accompanying parents/teachers can be charged so beware of going on dangerous school trips. Remember the kids on the school trip who drowned in the EDF dam in the SE and here,the 12 scouts who drowned off Perros Guirec after going to sea without lifejackets and no experienced person. The abbot in charge was elsewhere on shore and he was charged with their deaths. Compensation payouts though are not the crazy amounts that arise in the USA & UK. A lady from our village was killed by a negligent driver, the family received 30000ff compensation.

[Cjb]

The end result of this is that teachers no longer want to take children on school trips. Are trips more dangerous now than in the past? I seriously doubt it. In fact I'd be pretty sure that in the present climate far more precautions are taken than ever before. In the end, it's the children that lose out, as a result of disproportionate media coverage!! These same newspapers then bemoan the fact that children spend too much time infront of the T.V and playing on playstations and that teachers don't want to run extra-curricular activities.

[Pantouflard]

However, if I do that, and they unstrap their hats, jump off the horse and hurt themselves, then that is their fault.

The courts view of negligence is  just a wee bit different.  Taking reasonable care is more than handing out riding hats!  Do they know how to use them; do they fit; do they understand their importance; did you know they had undone the straps; etc etc.

In criminal legislation concerned with occupational health and safety most of the duties include the word 'ensure', which also means doing more than providing safety equipment.