Hi Al I have also at times been similarly bemused about SOME of the closures, and while you may be right about the OFSTED situation (although I have no idea myself) I think that the reasons for closures are often various. Overall I don’t think that most head teachers use the snow or health and safety as a convenient excuse to close the schools but are sometimes left in the situation of having to make a decision one way ot the other, and are often damned if they do and damned if they don’t (close the scholl that is) I would think that heads and the LEA look at a number of issues when trying to determine whether to close the school or not. The weather obviously What the weather is forecast to do throughout the day Will there be enough teachers in to supervise Will the coach companies be running their services not only to get kids to school, but also to get them home again Could the weather ‘close in’ meaning that kids are stuck on coaches either on the way in or on the way home If they send kids home early will there be a suitable adult waiting for them, and if not will that create a child protection, and will they incur the wrath of parents who would have to change their plans half way through the day. The catchment area of the school i.e. is it predominantly rural or urban and the associated travelling issues (above) It’s a difficult call. As I say, I feel that heads will be ’damned’ either way. Yes I agree that they should TRY to remain open, and while the majority around here have closed, there have been some that remained open as well. I also agree that in the ’old days’ we weren’t quite so willing to ’close’ ourselves down quite so readily, but things have moved on (for good or bad), there is a different culture, different standards, and a vast body of people much more willing to vociferously complain or take civil action against heads and teachers for all sorts of things; perhaps even closing the schools! Arguably the situation that we find ourselves in, is perhaps one of our own making. Hindsight is, they say, a wonderful thing.

I do not think it is anything to do with either risk aversion or that we have somehow morphed into a nation of stop at homes. We live in a world where: -kids have to travel to school up to distances of 10 miles each way even for infant school. -teaching staff often live up to 20 miles and sometimes up to 50 miles away from where they teach. -everything is contracted on so called best value competitive tendering which means the contractor has contractual limits. ( best recent example of the stupidity recently where the snow blowers in County Durham stopped at the County border and turned back even though the road to the next town is still blocked.) -people commute to work using cars much more than they did back when and travel considerable distances. -those who use public transport no longer have a system which has any contingency at all for extra services or emergency conditions and run with minimum staff so not surprisingly it grinds to a halt when the norm is exceeded. -everyone follows the media led hysteria about the inefficiency and cost of local and central government and then wonders why we no longer have the resources we once did. So no I do not subscribe to the theory that an H&S culture has led us to becoming frightened to do anything. What we are experiencing at the moment is a severe excursion from the norm which our society has decided it wants to staff and pay for, contingency cost money after all. The best example I can give you today is that I have just returned from the local hospital where the disabled persons car park area has not been properly cleared of snow and ice some 5 days after the significant snow fall. That doesn't suggest a risk based approach to me, anymore than the fact that many roads locally have been heavily and repeatedly gritted but no pavements have. Presumably the risk assessment that supports such an approach declares pedestrians are somehow less of a risk or the numbers are much fewer. Or maybe management decisions are not actually made that way? One positive example locally is a company who needed to have employees at work arranged a 4x4 ferry from a safe main road location (which just happened to be a local pub/restaurant that could also provide a bacon sarnie and a mug of tea for those who arrived) and then ferried them safely to their office in the 4x4. They thought the additional cost was acceptable. I am sure schools are no different to other businesses, it is usually more a case of practicality than H&S. If youngsters cannot get there or there is an obvious concern about getting home; if there are not enough staff to supervise and teach those who may arrive; if the school facilities such as heating are not working (maybe due to non delivery of fuel); if the school canteen is not staffed etc etc. These are all reasons not to open. One could argue they are H&S and pof course the media would do so. However, you have to ask yourself, is the decision really being made based on a risk assessment or is it simply a matter of common sense practicality? And one of the really annoying things about being "stuck" at home is that you find time to write rants like this!!

I agree with you in part Pete. There is a lot less contingency in the systems than there used to be as we are unwilling to pay for it and so those who have to travel long distances to reach schools might well not be able to. However there are still many pupils and teachers who live locally and could get to their schools. However Alan points out that some (perhaps many) teachers appear to be unwilling to play a part in the different arrangements which schools might wish to put in place in such circumstances, such as gathering the children who could make it into school together in the hall and providing alterative activities for them. This inflexibility is defended with the statement that “we are not childminders” and “we are not in the business of running crèches”. This is all a complex business and does reflect changes in society in recent years. However rather than admitting it and discussing the issues it raises, teachers and local authority leaders trot out a heath and safety mantra and tell us that the health and safety of our young ones is paramount. It think that accepting statements like this with out questioning and challenging them does lead to us to morphing into a nation of stop at homes. If we really believe that the health and safety of our children is paramount we mean that it is even more important than them developing into well rounded young adults who do not give up at the first sign of adversity. Yes, the health and safety of children is an issue, you could even argue that it is an important issue, but by no stretch of the imagination is it “paramount”. As Phil points out I think that some head teachers feel stuck between a rock and a hard place with people ready to damn them if they close and ready to damn them if they stay open. Here there is surely a role for government in giving them some direction. Perhaps a clear statement that schools are expected to stay open even if only some of the pupils can attend and even if only some of the teachers can make it in. I do feel strongly that closing schools in the way we do sends a very poor message to children about how to respond to hardship and adversity. Finally, I have to say I agree with Pete that one consequence of this bad weather is that it is much more comfortable to be inside and having a rant on the computer!

Controversial as ever, and harping after Chris’ crown! :-) NOT including Chris as he is like me a man of leisure, free to work when he wants or not as the case may be!!! NOT!!!!!! As neither of us get paid per-se if we don't work. Reading the posts above, I suspect that the very persons who will condemn the schools for not opening, thus having to take time off and loosing payment for work, are those VERY same people who would try to prosecute the schools/LEA/Teachers if their child got injured at school. Now to me this is a balance of risk, the parents should decide, me, mine would go (2@15, 1 @10) and be damned, my Wife & I as do all parents including those who would prosecute, I suspect, let them out to play etc. when it snows, even encourage them, and if an accident were to happen well, that’s life eh?... Would this be the case at school? For some I doubt it… For us HONESTLY, we’d blame the kids for being stupid & not taking care! IMHO these are life risks that people (kids) MUST learn to understand. Otherwise how are these young people going to develop sensible risk management strategies & turn into well rounded and sensible individuals in the future, or are we heading the way of, well I dread to think… A film comes to mind which is slightly off topic, is called Idiocracy, IMHO we are heading there! Please look it up if you have not seen it, try IMDB.com (NO LINK to me). Not only is personal responsibility being dumbed down, but IMHO educational levels are being reduced too. So here I go, RD&H & prepares to be flamed to death! Paul RD&H Paul

The reasons that schools close in such bad weather is complex and not just about health and safety. For a typical Comprehensive school of say 1100 pupils say 65 staff and ancillary help. it is very difficult to assess how many children are able to get into school. A school might bus pupils in and have hundreds who walk or come by car. Staff will have to make a judgement as to whether they can get in , in the morning. The Head will have to make a decison early that morning. Imagine having say 1000 pupils and only half the staff able to get in and those staff are not represenative of the curriculum requirements for that day's timetable. The ratio of pupils to staff is far too big and presents a considerable health and safety risk. I could go on and on but will spare you!

Matt, I was arguing that things have not really changed in terms of risk aversion; risk aversion has always been part of human society, it always will be. Social risk aversion is driven by social matters rather than any technical assessment so today is bound to be different from 1960 or 1970 etc. I am not denying that today a headteacher would use the term H&S to partly justify a decision whereas in previous years it may have been simply a case of stating that it was not sensible for children to get to school merely to be herded into groups and kept amused; better by far for them to be out there enjoying the endless delights of the snow whilst it lasts or better still at home helping their mum. (who would of course likely be at home and without all the modern aids of today) I don't think it matters what current jargon is used to describe the issue, what matters is getting the answers right. And the level of debate around this area of risk aversion suggests that is what has changed. Not enough of us get it right enough of the time and we all do it more in public than we used to. Everyone is a risk assessor today! I lived through the winter of 1963 which started in a not dissimilar way to this year and I see very little difference in people's responses. Short term chaos, some really horrendous local conditions, epic stories of individual effort, lots of questions about why it happened, people struggling to get to work and businesses fretting about the impact and--------schools closed for months. I don't remember any discussion about risk aversion. I remember moans and groans about the difficulty of everyday life and eventually it got sorted for better or worse depending on where you lived. The irony of a reporter travelling with a crew, all at work, to stand in a frozen field telling me that is cold and snowy and only essential travel should be undertaken is obvious. Even better taking a 4x4 onto the moors to visit a farmer and actually completing the journey on foot due to the conditions really sums up the muddled thinking in my view. Compare that with the angst about gritting a car park or a walkway to a factory and I would argue that this is not risk aversion but poor risk management. I dont judge either decision here merely use the example to illustrate. But we all do sit and wait to judge those who have to make those calls, that breeds risk aversion, it is often more fear of judgement by others. That is much more common today, as indeed you have demonstrated in your comment about where teachers live. Why you assume they will always have any real choice in that I am not sure. I bet many who do travel would dearly love not to.

Chris, I would not say that your first paragraph is a disagreement, I was obviously NOT explaining myself very well! I AGREE completely, and I have done exactly the same when my kids have had minor injuries whilst playing in whatever circumstance. Mind a few years ago, we did have a minor problem when my daughter was knocked over by our dog & broke her arm, at home, yes genuine, my twins were playing with the dog and she ran between Emma's legs and knocked her over, she fell awkwardly and casualty here we come. BOY did we get a grilling from the health visitor! He sister "got us off" as she could not stop talking about how funny it was to see Emma being knocked off her feet by our puppy! I don't envy you driving in school premises with all those people around, when I have to do it with a car/van etc. for work I am SOOOOOOO careful, I rerely get above a mile an hour or 2, as I don't want to have some parent screaming at me for running into their kid at 5 mph & causing minor bruising when they were running across the internal road looking the other way................... Paul

I give you a quote from Mr Wenger on the subject of risk: "If one of 60,000 people has an accident, you feel very guilty and nobody accepts anymore that the slightest insecurity could exist in our society and that is why the games are postponed when there is no real need for it."