New Zealand primary school principal Bruce McLachlan has attracted international attention to himself and his school, a 500-student Grades 1-8 school, by encouraging teachers to stop reprimanding students who race around the school’s playground on their scooters, wield sticks in play swordfights or do any number of other things that might be considered risky.
McLachlan has been open with the media about the fact that he knows children might get hurt, which was exactly his point. He advocates freeing kids from the “cotton-wool” with which their 21st-century parents seek to protect children from all harm.
It’s an idea that has attracted other educators, who have been extolling the virtues of reintroducing risk into children’s lives.
McLachlan had become part of a playground and risk study by Auckland University researcher Grant Schofield three years ago. The researchers gave 16 schools grants of $15,000 to build their vision of a playground that would reintroduce risk and help encourage physical activity.
But “it hadn’t occurred to me that anyone would actually abandon all school rules,” said Schofield. “I don’t think people realize quite the degree that Bruce is actually putting himself out there every day.”
Out there indeed. Knowledgeable school trustees, administrators and teachers in B.C. who have been around long enough to understand the history of school-liability court decisions, both in B.C. and other parts of Canada, must be shaking their heads.
It is a widely accepted position in education law that the standard required of a teacher in his or her care of students is that of a careful, prudent parent. Just what that means is sometimes only clear as result of a court’s decision in a specific set of circumstances where a child has been injured at school.
Canadian courts have consistently ruled, in cases involving serious injury to students or even loss of life, that it is the responsibility of supervisory adults to anticipate what reckless risks kids might take, left to their own devices or when they are inadequately supervised.
One of the better known and often quoted examples of what this means with respect to the “prudent parent” standard is the case of Thornton et al. v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57 (Prince George), et al.
Gary Thornton was a 15-year-old student attending Kelly Road Secondary School in Prince George at the time of the accident. He and other Grade 10 students in a physical education class had chosen to undertake an individualized gymnastics program. The teacher provided the class with no instructions, cautions, demonstrations or immediate supervision.
Thornton attempted an aerial front somersault off a springboard and broke his neck. The trial judge assessed damages of $1.5 million.
There are numerous other school liability cases in Canada, some involving physical education classes, outdoor education activities and playground injuries. Based on Canadian hospital injury data, about 28,500 children per year in Canada require medical treatment as the result of playground-equipment injuries.
Although many of these injuries were minor, most of the incidents resulted from “free play” activities.
The bottom line to all this is that Canadian law recognizes that adults have a responsibility to gauge the benefits of an activity in which kids are involved to determine if those benefits exceed the consequences of any loss or injury that might result.
In effect, the organization, the school and the school district (which has deeper pockets) have judged and accepted the risk factor for a given activity, in classrooms, gyms, hallways and playgrounds and are responsible for taking positive steps to reduce the chance of a serious injury occurring.
Risk is a necessary part of a child’s development, but deliberately allowing kids to take excessive risks is at the least irresponsible, and at worst negligent.
Geoff Johnson is a retired superintendent of schools.
