Saturday, September 26, 2009


To start out, I wish to say that I have no problem with the idea that teachers and school administrators have a special duty to foresee situations which could be potentially dangerous. I think that is a very good expectation to hold up. For myself, I think I'm fairly good at it. I can see a million and one ways in which an activity can go wrong and decide if the risk is worth it. (Example, playing wall ball. I know that there are splinters on the wall, and that sometimes the grass is slick. However, I know that my children are also aware of this and are use to running on the slick grass. Therefor, I allow it. However, dodge ball. I know my boys tend to be more energetic then necessary and have little self control when it comes to throwing the ball. thus I see a child getting hit in the head and sustaining a major injury. Therefor, I do not allow the game to be played.)

My issue with forseeablility is how teachers are suppose to have these skills. Most teacher preparation programs do not have students out in the schools untill their pratical skils section (aka, Student Teaching or Internsip). If they have the unforutnate situation as to have been unable to work with children outside of that time they have no chance to practice these skills. How do first year teachers then develop this skill quick enough to prevent a liablity suit leveled against them? I realize that there are protections in place (namely, the word 'reasonable'), but could a court not say that the new teacher in question should 'resaonably' have been taught about general situations which would cause harm?

I have major problems with the subjectivity of the law. I realize that there is no other way to phrase it so that there are more streamlined ways of dealing with liablity suits but the whole set of rules simply puts a bad taste in my mouth.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Locations of Site Visitors