Slashdot Mirror


Elementary School Bans Students From Touching Each Other

theshowmecanuck writes "A school in British Columbia (the province that now even California can call flakey) has just banned elementary school students from touching each other during recess. You know, one of those times for play and more importantly learning how to socialize (which itself includes touching). CTV News reports: 'A ban on touching during recess at a B.C. elementary school has shocked parents, who call the new no-touch policy "ridiculous." For most kids, recess is a chance to run around and goof-off with their friends, but a new ban on touching at a school in Aldergrove could put a damper on playtime. School administrators at Coghlan Fundamental Elementary School in B.C. have banned kindergarten students from touching each other during recess.'"

10 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. what about freeze tag? by cortcomp · · Score: 5, Funny

    How do you know who's "it"?

    1. Re:what about freeze tag? by cortcomp · · Score: 5, Funny

      "You can't touch anyone, but feel free to shoot rubber bands at them AS LONG AS THE RUBBER BAND ISN'T TOUCHING THEM BEFORE LEAVING YOUR FINGER! THEN YOU'RE TOUCHING THEM! Refer to chart in appendix C for minimum rubber band engagement distances." This will also end the age old game of "Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!"

    2. Re:what about freeze tag? by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Funny

      How do you know who's "it"?

      Obviously, you hit them with a rock.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:what about freeze tag? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 5, Funny

      Usually when you call they answer "IT, this is so and so".

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    4. Re:what about freeze tag? by anegg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My wife and I had to go in and have a conference with the principal and two teachers when my 4th grade son drew a picture of a figure holding a shuriken in its hand. I was confused by the initial letter of complaint sent home by the teacher: it was not clear whether he was in trouble for drawing a picture (any picture) because he had been instructed to not read or write after finishing a test he was taking, or that he was in trouble for drawing a picture of a WEAPON! (Underlined three times in the note). Things didn't get any better during the meeting when I pointed out that he hadn't read or written anything, he had made a drawing (he is very literal that way). Then they pointed out that he had drawn a picture of a WEAPON! (Imagine that, a 10 year old drawing a picture of a shuriken!). Since I knew already, I asked them what the test had been about - primitive societies. It included several questions on the tools that they used to hunt. You know, weapons. I asked them how they could possibly expect him to differentiate between GOOD weapons (used by primitive people 1000s of years ago) and BAD weapons (shurikens as seen in Japanese anime). Finally, my wife told them we were just going to have to agree to disagree about the whole weapons thing. They assured us they were just so concerned because it was school department policy to have to report any such incidents to the superintendent of schools. Sheesh. Oh - it is also a big no-no for them to make the "gun sign" (point your finger like a gun). This includes anything that even slightly resembles making the gun sign (like making the "L" for loser sign on your forehead).

  2. Good news! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Funny

    have banned kindergarten students from touching each other during recess.

    But touching themselves is still allowed. Huzzah!

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  3. I saw this in the news a few days ago. by mark-t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Parents are upset about it.

    It's an overreactionary policy by the school, nothing more.

    If my kid were in that school, I'd tell them to ignore the rule, and tell the teacher or principal that reprimands them that their dad told them to ignore it because they thought it was stupid.

  4. It's a good start but not enough. by aevan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Children could still sneak out of sight and have body contact. They could 'trip' and fall into each other (faking it, the little bastards-my nephew loves faking falls). This is a start, but clearly falls short of its goals.

    What's needed here is a way to keep them contained and safe, both for their own good and the good of the other children. Perhaps a start could be a resistance device fitted on the ankles to limit their speed (after all, high speed injuries are more dangerous). Maybe similar ones for the arms to prevent flailing arms injuring other people, or accidentally throwing objects at each other. I was originally going to propose having it by the forearms, but that still leaves elbows as threats - so instead have an entire jacket purposed for this effect. It could double as a uniform for ease of identification of students, maybe in a bright recognisable colour in case they wander off.

    Once the children are properly protected, you then need to move onto securing the environment. Additional padding for those inescapable falls, having all objects edges rounded and no sharp objects around, would be a good use of taxpayer money for classroom renovation. Only then can we ensure they are properly cared for and educated, to grow up into strong, well-adjusted, outstanding members of the administration. It's a miracle we every survived this far as a race without these critical safe-guards, but not one we should take for granted.

  5. Re:The Type by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly. They don't come up with this crap on their own, even though there are paranoid conspiracy nuts who think school administrators just live for coming up with weird and restrictive regulations, the truth is, every time there is some weird and restrictive new regulation put in place that makes people shake their heads and ask "Why would anyone have that rule?", there is some idiot out there who demonstrated that it was necessary.

    In the case of elementary schools, it's almost always because an irresponsible parent who should never have been allowed to have children went on a screaming lawyer fit because their "darling angel" was pushing others around (as is their right!) when some other kid pushed them back (how dare they! Imma sue the kid, their parents, and the school!) resulting in lawsuits that should never have happened, and new rules that should never have been needed in order to placate the moron. The same moron who will still encourage their kid to be a bully and push other kids around, 'cause those rule things only apply to other people, and who will try to sue the school again when their kid gets suspended for breaking the rule they forced into existence.

    Why no, I'm not bitter at all from having watched this happen over and over. (Alright, yeah, I am.)

  6. Re:The Type by drosboro · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've got a little bit of knowledge of this specific situation, as it turns out (my kids are at the school). The Slashdot summary, in typical style, is way out to lunch. The school has placed a temporary ban on play at recess or lunch that involves physical contact between kindergarten students. This is in response to a number of injuries that have happened with this particular class. Given that we're two full months into the school year, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the teachers have done the "Billy, please don't hit Bobby" routine, and there's a few kids for whom that's not working. At this point, given the way negligence and liability works in Canada, if the school was not to react in some way, my guess is that legal action from one of those lawsuit-happy parents we often read about could in fact be successful. So, they responded and said for the immediate future, there will be no touching on the playground, for the class that's having the problem.

    As for "shocked parents", I'd say it would be more accurate to refer to "the shocked parent". This would be the one who went straight to CTV News without clarifying the situation with either the teacher or the principal. Most of the other parents that I've talked to are more than a bit disgusted by a) the decision to skip the usual channels and go straight to the news, b) the extremely slanted news coverage (which of course seems to have exactly the one interview with the one mom, since few of the other parents were willing to go on camera when it was obvious the angle the news was taking), and c) the gross overreaction by the news-story-commenting-public.