given new, later, start time, can I drop my 4th grader at the (closed) door at 8:30?

[Anonymous]

What if the kid is waiting but not technically on school ground? Is that OK?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if the kid is waiting but not technically on school ground? Is that OK?

Probably, because if the kid isn't on school property, isn't engaged in school-related activities and it's not having an on-grounds impact, it's not the school's responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure that before/after care does get exclusive use in every school. My kids attend b/a care at their school and they go out before and after school if it's nice. The school I teach at only after care goes outside. I don't think either school has a strict policy about who can use the playground when.
What time kids can be dropped off before school, both have very clear rules about that. And repeat offenders are directed to set up before care. Financial assistance is available

What does this mean, in practical terms?

School secretary running out to the car that has arrived to drop off their child 20 minutes early for the 3rd day in a row:
"Good morning ms/mrs/mr larla's mom. We've noticed that larla has been dropped off prior to (our stated door opening time) for the last 3 days. As you know, students are not to be dropped off until ... Here is the information regarding our before care program that opens at ... The director would be happy to talk to you about setting that up."

Thanks. Does that work? It doesn't seem like much of an obstacle, especially compared to the cost of before care.

Well, that's step one. Followed by the principal making a phone call to you. Followed by other phone calls that will eventually lead to other agencies being involved. The parents whose jobs are genuinely the difference between food on the table or not, are thrilled to have safe and financially assisted care for their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because then there's no argument that the children are there for school-related activities that the school is liable for. If the grounds are kept in an unsafe condition and someone gets hurt because a piece of playground equipment breaks, sure, there might be a case. But the school doesn't become responsible if another neighborhood child assaults your child. If people are dropping unsupervised children off in front of the school to wait for the doors to open and the school does nothing to ban it, then the children arguably are there for school-related activities (i.e., waiting for school to start) and the school system becomes liable for a whole bunch of things like kids fighting under a failure to supervise theory -- they permitted kids to hang out there before school started, but then didn't put a responsible adult out there to monitor them. I'm sure your school always has staff members positioned outside the school during official drop-off and pick-up, and this is one of the primary reasons -- so they can supervise the kids and make sure no one is getting into trouble.

But that wouldn't apply to children (who are not in the after care) using the playground after school, so it still doesn't explain exclusive playground use by the after care.

Could you please tell me more about the "failure to supervise" theory? Why would the school be expected to supervise 9-year-olds waiting outside school for school to start, especially after the school has made it clear that the school will not do so? And is this "failure to supervise" theory as applied to schools something that has only come up in the last 30 years? Before then, it was routine for elementary-school students to wait outside school for school to start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well, that's step one. Followed by the principal making a phone call to you. Followed by other phone calls that will eventually lead to other agencies being involved. The parents whose jobs are genuinely the difference between food on the table or not, are thrilled to have safe and financially assisted care for their kids.

What does the financial assistance consist of, and who decides who gets it?

Also, does the school really call CPS? And if so, how does CPS respond?

[Anonymous]

OMG Perry Mason, sue MCPS and find out for yourself !!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG Perry Mason, sue MCPS and find out for yourself !!

Please remind me -- what am I suing MCPS for?

This is going to be an even bigger issue for elementary schools in MCPS this year than in previous years. I hope that elementary schools have effective strategies for dealing with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, that's step one. Followed by the principal making a phone call to you. Followed by other phone calls that will eventually lead to other agencies being involved. The parents whose jobs are genuinely the difference between food on the table or not, are thrilled to have safe and financially assisted care for their kids.

What does the financial assistance consist of, and who decides who gets it?

Also, does the school really call CPS? And if so, how does CPS respond?

Don't know the details of financial assistance.
There is an entire process in place for schools to deal with kids who are neglected. And yes, leaving your kid outside of the school unattended day after day, before you have been told they are allowed to be there, and particularly when the school has made every effort to communicate this policy and work with you to fix it, does make neglect a viable question. Like it or not.
School staff and CPS are obligated to report anything questionable.
So, yes, the call. And, yes, CPS responds.

[Anonymous]

Is it the same school system employee posting over and over? The syntax is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well, that's step one. Followed by the principal making a phone call to you. Followed by other phone calls that will eventually lead to other agencies being involved. The parents whose jobs are genuinely the difference between food on the table or not, are thrilled to have safe and financially assisted care for their kids.

Aren't most people's jobs genuinely the difference between food on the table or not? Mine certainly is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because then there's no argument that the children are there for school-related activities that the school is liable for. If the grounds are kept in an unsafe condition and someone gets hurt because a piece of playground equipment breaks, sure, there might be a case. But the school doesn't become responsible if another neighborhood child assaults your child. If people are dropping unsupervised children off in front of the school to wait for the doors to open and the school does nothing to ban it, then the children arguably are there for school-related activities (i.e., waiting for school to start) and the school system becomes liable for a whole bunch of things like kids fighting under a failure to supervise theory -- they permitted kids to hang out there before school started, but then didn't put a responsible adult out there to monitor them. I'm sure your school always has staff members positioned outside the school during official drop-off and pick-up, and this is one of the primary reasons -- so they can supervise the kids and make sure no one is getting into trouble.

But that wouldn't apply to children (who are not in the after care) using the playground after school, so it still doesn't explain exclusive playground use by the after care.

Could you please tell me more about the "failure to supervise" theory? Why would the school be expected to supervise 9-year-olds waiting outside school for school to start, especially after the school has made it clear that the school will not do so? And is this "failure to supervise" theory as applied to schools something that has only come up in the last 30 years? Before then, it was routine for elementary-school students to wait outside school for school to start.

Exclusive use of the playground is something an aftercare provider would probably require from the school in the contract. They don't want to risk being sued because children they had no control over were creating dangerous situations on the playground while the aftercare kids were out there.

On the "failure to supervise" thing, that's a general umbrella for a lot of different causes of action (I'd need to get really into MD education law to put a more precise term to it). The notion is that when the school invites children onto the property for any kind of school-related activity, it is responsible for making sure that those children are safe during that time. Kids waiting for school to start is very arguably a school-related activity, since it's not like everyone can show up the moment the bell rings and be instantly transported into their seats. They need time to walk across school property, get inside, get to their classrooms etc., and if they don't want to be late, odds are there's going to be a few minutes of wait time somewhere (whether outside, in the hallways, or in the classroom) before the bell actually rings. If children are invited to wait on school property for school to start and the school does not provide staff to supervise those children, then it can be liable for failure to supervise -- it failed in its duty to make sure children are safe on school grounds during school-related activities. Therefore, the school needs to be very clear with children and parents about when they are and are not invited to wait on school property, to make sure it's only during times when staff are available to supervise. If they announce that school opens at a certain time and then simply look the other way on people waiting outside before then, the kids could still be construed as invitees because they school knew they were there for a school-related reason and did nothing to prevent it. In order to avoid liability, the school needs to take measures to make very explicit that kids are not invited to wait on school property at that time and to prevent kids from doing it, such as by contacting parents to come get their kids when they're found waiting on school grounds.

As for when the doctrine developed, I couldn't tell you when, but I'm fairly certain it's older than 30 years ago. 30 years ago, though, people weren't making claims against schools at nearly the same rate for not protecting their children from bullying, or because Billy punched him, or he fell while climbing a tree and broke his arm, so it wasn't really a risk that schools needed to contend with and minimize. As we've become more litigious as a society, lots of organizations, not just schools systems, have had to take extra steps beyond what they used to in order to protect themselves from lawsuits. It doesn't make sense from the school's standpoint to sit back and wait for something bad to happen and then see what the courts say when it's very easy for them to set out a clear rule that parents/kids can't do this, and then enforce it. It's pretty fundamental risk management.

[Anonymous]

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why we can't have nice things.

Tell that to the folks who could not get their lazy behind teens out of bed and now ALL of us have to change our lives around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we can't have nice things.

Tell that to the folks who could not get their lazy behind teens out of bed and now ALL of us have to change our lives around.

Judging from the many, many, many reminders I received in my e-mail not to drop children off early (which suggest that people were dropping children off early), we already didn't have nice things before the time change. It is frustrating that people can't do reasonable things because somebody is worried that somebody might sue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we can't have nice things.

Tell that to the folks who could not get their lazy behind teens out of bed and now ALL of us have to change our lives around.

Judging from the many, many, many reminders I received in my e-mail not to drop children off early (which suggest that people were dropping children off early), we already didn't have nice things before the time change. It is frustrating that people can't do reasonable things because somebody is worried that somebody might sue.

That goes for a lot of things. Our school also sent out a lot of reminders about not dropping off.
But our school also has a lot of lower income kids whose parents have a hard road getting to and from low paying jobs with no flexibility and cannot afford before care. Thank God we can. But the whack jobs on this thread who think they can just drop their kids off anywhere they want just because they want, they are a whole 'nother brand of crazy.