Opinions on this School Rule?

ScotTanya

At my 6yr old daughters School, a rule they have is that during unpleasant weather and especially in Winter, the kids aren't allowed out to play until jackets are fully done up (which means zip and velcro).
The reason rule was introduced is because, last Winter, a lot of kids were coming back into class soaking wet due to having snowball fights or just general fun in snow whilst wearing jacket wide open.

So, what are your opinions on this rule and, during Winter, do you insist that your kid(s) do up their jackets?

snortlegeist83

100% yes everything needs to be zipped, wrapped, secured, because frostbite sets in quick! I don't understand why this rule would be in question. I would be legit upset if this rule was not imposed at school!

Littledeer84

I wish our preschool would impose this rule... H found our 3.5 year old playing outside in 45 degree weather with no coat. The DCP said she didnt want it on. Ummm, so what? She is 3, make her put her coat on!

ScotTanya

For what its worth, I DO want her jacket done up and will do it up myself if she doesn't.

snortlegeist83

catbenatar said:

I don't know why it really has to be an official rule. Sounds like common sense to me. If you're going out in the snow, zip your damn coat!

Probably because there are those kids that put up a fight about it and refuse and the parents back the kids because why should little Johnny have to do anything he doesn't want to? Then little Johnny comes home with pneumonia and snow burn on 98% of his body and the parents blame the school. Just a thought.

SpaceGirlSpiff

I come from a place where snow is foreign, but trying to picture the scenario in my mind and.... yeah, I'd want my kid properly zipped up if they're playing in the snow.  I wouldn't want his clothes under the jacket to be all wet from snow and I agree it kind of defeats the purpose of a snow jacket to leave it gaping open.

ScotTanya

unheardof said:

Maybe I'm misreading but does this rule mean the kids need to be able to put on the mittens, coat (fully zipped and velcro-ed) and hat completely on their own with no help?

Cause that determines my opinion.

Yes, they want kids putting on their own gloves, hat and jackets zipped by themselves but DD sneaks out with hers unzipped but teacher tells her off and firmly says "do your jacket up please!"

AliceKC9876

I used to be a 4th grade teacher and one year there was a parent that called up one of the other 4th grade teachers and laid into her because the teacher told her son during recess that he needed to put his coat on...it was winter, but not freezing...maybe in the 40s? It was really strange that this parent felt the need to throw a fit about something so silly...I wish I could say I was surprised, but those we're the kind of parents we had at that school.

RondackHiker

CTGirl30 said:

ScotTanya said:

unheardof said:

Maybe I'm misreading but does this rule mean the kids need to be able to put on the mittens, coat (fully zipped and velcro-ed) and hat completely on their own with no help?

Cause that determines my opinion.

Yes, they want kids putting on their own gloves, hat and jackets zipped by themselves but DD sneaks out with hers unzipped but teacher tells her off and firmly says "do your jacket up please!"

This is not "telling her off." It is reminding her of the rule she needs to follow.

And if you're upset about her being reminded of a rule, I can see why they made it a rule so teachers didn't have parents mad at them for "yelling" at kids "for no reason". Of course, now parents are upset because they think it's a dumb rule.

Maebb

The only problem I have with the rule is the vagueness of it. "During unpleasant weather and especially in Winter" is not very specific. I would prefer if it said, "When the temperature goes below 45 degrees or if it is snowing or raining," or something like that.

DS is not even 2 yet, but yes, I insist that he wears a jacket (and zips it) if I feel like it's cold enough to require it, and I would want his school or DCP to do the same.

Bythebeach09

At 6 most kids can put their own outdoor gear on, except maybe gloves. The rule makes sense, but they should help a kid if they need it. Now, if the kid is being a pain and doesn't want to zip up, then, yeah, they should be spoken to.

Our schools (NY) don't go out for recess if the temp is under 40, raining or snowing, or if there is snow on the ground or the ground is all muddy. Kids spend most of the winter having indoor recess. I wouldn't want my kid playing in the snow at school. No way.

RondackHiker

Bythebeach09 said:

At 6 most kids can put their own outdoor gear on, except maybe gloves. The rule makes sense, but they should help a kid if they need it. Now, if the kid is being a pain and doesn't want to zip up, then, yeah, they should be spoken to.

Our schools (NY) don't go out for recess if the temp is under 40, raining or snowing, or if there is snow on the ground or the ground is all muddy. Kids spend most of the winter having indoor recess. I wouldn't want my kid playing in the snow at school. No way.

That sounds miserable. I LOVED playing in the snow in winter. Not going out below forty is crazy to me.

Bythebeach09

It does suck, but it's ALWAYS been like that and we don't know any different, so it's not a big deal. Even when I was in elementary school over 30 years ago, we had the same rules. We also don't go outside in June if the temps are over 90. When the kids can't go outside they either stay in the classroom and play games, or they go to the gym and play some organized games or whatever.

I'm sure it's all about liability.

BluepointToasted

In front of my elementary school, the plow used to push all of the snow over to one big pile.  The mountain would start off as snow, but as winter progressed would become a lovely mountain of jagged ice.  We would climb to the top in our catholic school jumpers and ankle socks (bare legs) and slide down.  There was blood a few times for sure.  But then again we could never feel the pain because we were numb from the cold.

sleepy33

Mackalien13 said:

Well, there are CAUTION HOT labels on coffee cups for a reason.

OMG, do not make me go off on my 'the McDonald's coffee lawsuit was legit' rant.

Bythebeach09

Dude, McDonald's coffee is at volcanic temps. Why? Who wants coffee at the boiling point????

ScotTanya

I would start a new thread for non School issues but decided against it (unless I get ok to start a new thread).

Anyway, on Sunday she wanted to go to swingpark with 1 or 2 friends despite it being very wet (it was pouring down with rain) so I said "ok but be back by teatime (we said about 5pm) and put your jacket on", she put her jacket on and hood up and went out of door with it wide open, so I signalled for her to come in, which she did so next I said "you have hood up yet have it untied, tie up zip" she groaned "do I have to?", I firmly said "yes, its pouring down, now tie it up or else stay in!", she did tie zip that time.

When she came back in she was complaining about getting soaked so I said "you untied your jacket, I asked you to tie it up for a reason so now I am not sure if I can trust you next time".

ScotTanya

Yeah, why?

sleepy33

unheardof said:

That lawsuit was legit.  Could she have won the case even if the cups already had the warning label on it anyway though?  Since it was kept at such an extremely dangerous level that's not recommended in the food industry?

Yes. The case wasn't about whether or not there was a warning, but the unreasonably high temperatures at which the coffee is stored, which McDonald's was and is aware is hot enough to cause severe burns. They'd had numerous other complaints and injuries, yet did not (and I believe, to this day, still do not?) lower the temp.

ScotTanya

TyrannosaurusLex said:

ScotTanya said:

I would start a new thread for non School issues but decided against it (unless I get ok to start a new thread).

Anyway, on Sunday she wanted to go to swingpark with 1 or 2 friends despite it being very wet (it was pouring down with rain) so I said "ok but be back by teatime (we said about 5pm) and put your jacket on", she put her jacket on and hood up and went out of door with it wide open, so I signalled for her to come in, which she did so next I said "you have hood up yet have it untied, tie up zip" she groaned "do I have to?", I firmly said "yes, its pouring down, now tie it up or else stay in!", she did tie zip that time.

When she came back in she was complaining about getting soaked so I said "you untied your jacket, I asked you to tie it up for a reason so now I am not sure if I can trust you next time".

What is the question?

It was going to be; Did I handle situation well?

Bythebeach09

But it can't be consumed for at least an hour!!!!

sleepy33

stebnie said:

If I didn't know before, I would totally know from this thread the people that have taken law classes.

I was totally going to say, you can usually tell who's had 1st year Torts by their response to the McDonald's coffee case.

sleepy33

Mackalien13 said:

My understanding was that that is the reason those label are on there. It prevents liability from people getting burned by hot coffee because they provided warnings. 

Mmmmwell, it's their attempt to limit liability, anyway.

sleepy33

Mackalien13 said:

I am not arguing that she should have sued. If you were injured by any other product, you would sue. 

I am just saying. The fact that coffee is hot, is largely--with the exception of coffee causing 3rd degree burns-- hot.

Right, but the warning was there before the lawsuit. The warning is basically bullshit. It's McD's attempt to say they shouldn't be liable because, "We warned you!" Possibly, they might get some  people to believe they don't have a case because of it. But the truth is that, obviously, they can still be held liable regardless of the warning.

sleepy33

I once bought a coffee table with the best warning sticker ever. It said, "Warning: this is a table, don't sit on it."

sleepy33

Also, fuck tort reform.

sleepy33

stebnie said:

Does anyone know what happened in house after they lost? Like job-wise? If I remember she initially wanted to settle for like $100k. To have been a fly on the wall at that meeting with the CEO.....

I am pretty sure they laughed, wiped their asses with $100 bills, and continued selling their coffee at the same unsafe temps. The judgment amount of $2.9 mil was the amount they earn from coffee sales worldwide in a single day. And the media portrayed it like a frivolous lawsuit, so they come out smelling like roses. Also, IIRC, the judge ended up reducing the punitive judgment for some reason??

sleepy33

I went back and checked, the trial judge said either she agree to take reduced punitive damages of $480k or he would enter a JNOV, she appealed, then later settled with McD's out of court for an undisclosed amount.

mstal0929

Mackalien13 said:

I actually enjoy common sense labels on products. It's there because some dumb ass has tried it.

Like curling iron boxes that say "for external use only" :-O

aglenn

I once saw a road sign next to some train tracks that said "No right turn when train."  Good advice, bro.

ScotTanya

Yes, I am very confused but can we stick to topic please!!

Anyway, School now wanting my help with this problem, they say that DD ends up having to get her jacket tied up by the teachers.


DD always comes out of School complaining that HAVING to tie up her jacket is silly rule but I say to her "but I ask you to tie it too if weather is unpleasant".

sleepy33

LOL

SpaceGirlSpiff

.

SpaceGirlSpiff

JFC.

And also, brush twice a day and floss for optimal dental hygeine 

SpaceGirlSpiff

Mackalien13 said:

I actually enjoy common sense labels on products. It's there because some dumb ass has tried it.

Like curling iron boxes that say "for external use only" :-O

Well we know some people never learn not to stick stuff up their vagina.

But it was the WOODY end!

SpaceGirlSpiff

Because you can get banninated apparently by making posts that aren't helpful in any way.  Or something.

So now all posts can be helpful

nattyncbride

Off topic (or off the original topic, at least): My dad was burned by McD's coffee this past summer.  His friend was bringing a tray of coffees over to the table and they spilled on my dad's shoulder.  He went to the ER, had third degree burns, and was in an immense amount of pain for about two weeks (he is not one to complain about anything).  I had no idea coffee could do that much damage.  It's awful.  He didn't sue b/c he admitted he know the coffee was burning hell hot.  

Now that I write this, I am not sure I am adding much value to the thread.  Except to say McDs is still making coffee really, really hot.  As they called the ER, the manager was sure to tell my dad he could not sue b/c he was aware of the temp of the coffee.

He bought a coffee maker and has not been back.

nattyncbride

K3am said:

@nattyncbride - I'm not sure the manager's legal opinion that he "can't sue because he was aware of the temp" means he can't sue. 

Not that it's awesome that he's not sue happy, but the manager is an idiot. 

Agreed.  His decision to not sue was purely his decision.  He knew he could have contacted a lawyer and talked about options.  However, he concluded he knew that the coffee was hot, and it was just an awful accident.  I included it in the post to highlight the stupidity of said manager.  The whole thing was a cluster.  He's just happy he is healed, and we are all still shocked that 4 small coffees could cause the damage it did.  

Edited for clarity.

sleepy33

Ok, but knowing that coffee is hot (ie implying that you are assuming the risk by knowingly ordering hot coffee) does not excuse McDonald's from their responsibility to serve coffee at a safe temperature, for just this reason. Accidents happen even if you know it's dangerous and are exercising reasonable caution. Many experts agreed that the temp McD's serves it at is unnecessary and unsafe. It would be like if your electric company decided to start running 1000 volts of current through your house instead of 220 volts, for some inane reason, and instead of just getting a mild shock from an outlet, you were seriously injured.

nattyncbride

I don't disagree @sleepy33.  I don't think my story lends itself to the theory that McD's isn't being irresponsible with their decision to continue serving coffee at insane temperatures.

My thread was more of a "I have witnessed first hand what you guys are talking about" (hence my comment "Now that I write this, I am not sure I am adding much value to the thread.").  My dad's decision not to sue was meant as advice on what to/not to do.  I completely respect his decision, but I'm not sure what I'd do in the same situation.

sleepy33

nattyncbride said:

I don't disagree @sleepy33.  I don't think my story lends itself to the theory that McD's isn't being irresponsible with their decision to continue serving coffee at insane temperatures.

My thread was more of a "I have witnessed first hand what you guys are talking about" (hence my comment "Now that I write this, I am not sure I am adding much value to the thread.").  My dad's decision not to sue was meant as advice on what to/not to do.  I completely respect his decision, but I'm not sure what I'd do in the same situation.

No, I know, I just was more or less agreeing with @k3am's point that the manager you mentioned is obviously mistaken in his assertion that you 'can't sue'. It's just frustrating that 'the system' that is supposed to work to protect consumers from unsafe practices clearly isn't, in this case.