ForumGarden

Teacher Heather Wolfson, 56, hits out after being suspended for diving a stranded pupil home | Mail Online

We have some teachers here so what do you think of this case?

Rules such as the rules put In place by this school are put there surely to protect pupils?

There has been several teachers, male and female prosecuted for under age sex with their pupils so I think It's quite right that teachers are banned from giving out their mobile numbers and having contact with children, possibly without their parents knowledge. Surely this stops or decreases the chances of staff getting too close and ' personal' with children.

I don't have any sympathy for her although I think she acted In good Intention.

She was also found to have taken home a male pupil because he had no one coming to collect him,

She feels she has done nothing wrong. Why ? If that was a male teacher getting a young girl pupil alone In his car whatever his good Intention was, he'd lose his job.

I live next door to a school and frankly, from what I have seen of teacher parking, some of which can't park, can't reverse and can't drive either, I'd be horrified If one of them were to put my child In their car without my knowledge.

The Mail Is full of comments stating this Is PC gone mad and with other active Imaginations of ' what If the child was walking home alone and was murdered' ?

So what If, the teacher even through no fault of her own had an accident and killed that child driving him home?

I think they need to fix the spelling in their link, I thought it was some sort of swimming accident.

It was commonplace for a teacher to help out a pupil in distress in the 50s and 60s, when I was at school. I think it's tragic that we live in the kind of society where this is no longer allowed to happen.

To be suspended for six months and have it added to her records is an excessive punishment IMHO. Neither action was "wrong", neither set of parents had any complaint - for a teacher of thirty five years good standing it was heavy handed at best.

posted by oscar

I don't have any sympathy for her although I think she acted In good Intention.

She was also found to have taken home a male pupil because he had no one coming to collect him,

She feels she has done nothing wrong. Why ? If that was a male teacher getting a young girl pupil alone In his car whatever his good Intention was, he'd lose his job.




You may have a point but it's also sad that a common courtesy like giving someone a lift is something you have to be aware that people will assume the worst. The acti taken by the council does seem rather draconian. Teachers have to be very aware how much damage an infatuated pupil or even just a little **** can do to their career. My wife had a problem with one such who even came round to the house one evening where he met me. The next day he was boasting about he had gone round when asked if it was true she was able to reply yes where he met my husband, suffice to say his version of events was a bit different from the reality as confirmed by some of his giggling mates who were with him. Just imagine though a lone female teacher having a bunch of 16 year old yobbos popping round to visit and some spotty little oick spreading rumours. It's easy to find a teachers address or spread rumours on facebook. The little darling pupils are not always the innocent victims.

And on the flip side, if she hadn't given the kid a ride home and something had happened, she'd be blamed for that as well.

gmc;1397979 wrote: posted by oscar



You may have a point but it's also sad that a common courtesy like giving someone a lift is something you have to be aware that people will assume the worst. The acti taken by the council does seem rather draconian. Teachers have to be very aware how much damage an infatuated pupil or even just a little **** can do to their career. My wife had a problem with one such who even came round to the house one evening where he met me. The next day he was boasting about he had gone round when asked if it was true she was able to reply yes where he met my husband, suffice to say his version of events was a bit different from the reality as confirmed by some of his giggling mates who were with him. Just imagine though a lone female teacher having a bunch of 16 year old yobbos popping round to visit and some spotty little oick spreading rumours. It's easy to find a teachers address or spread rumours on facebook. The little darling pupils are not always the innocent victims.


And there you raise another very good point. What If the boy had made false rumours that she had done something untoward In the car? She'd have had no witness's and she'd be not only losing her job but probably a night down the police cells.

The rules are put In place to protect vulnerable children and protect teachers from false allegations. She broke the rules and made herself wide open. Why did she think she was above the rules of the school?

I agree that It's sad It has to be that way these days but we don't live In a safe world any more.

oscar;1397985 wrote: And there you raise another very good point. What If the boy had made false rumours that she had done something untoward In the car? She'd have had no witness's and she'd be not only losing her job but probably a night down the police cells.

The rules are put In place to protect vulnerable children and protect teachers from false allegations. She broke the rules and made herself wide open. Why did she think she was above the rules of the school?

I agree that It's sad It has to be that way these days but we don't live In a safe world any more.


I don't think we ever did. It's just that nowadays we believe we can control what happens.

Our school doesn't ban any of that, but they definitely discourage it, strongly. I've given male students a ride home. I would do the same for a female student. If simple humanity costs me my job then the job isn't worth the cost of keeping it.

Accountable;1398010 wrote: Our school doesn't ban any of that, but they definitely discourage it, strongly. I've given male students a ride home. I would do the same for a female student. If simple humanity costs me my job then the job isn't worth the cost of keeping it.


I applaud you for that, Acc. For me, that's the way it should be...we have become so separate from one another and it simply isn't natural.

oscar;1397985 wrote: And there you raise another very good point. What If the boy had made false rumours that she had done something untoward In the car? She'd have had no witness's and she'd be not only losing her job but probably a night down the police cells.

The rules are put In place to protect vulnerable children and protect teachers from false allegations. She broke the rules and made herself wide open. Why did she think she was above the rules of the school?

I agree that It's sad It has to be that way these days but we don't live In a safe world any more.


We never did people just used to pretend bad things didn't happen. Afraid I can't view ha past with rose tinted spectacles I remember a few decades of it rather well.

Accountable;1398010 wrote: Our school doesn't ban any of that, but they definitely discourage it, strongly. I've given male students a ride home. I would do the same for a female student. If simple humanity costs me my job then the job isn't worth the cost of keeping it.


That's right, AC. We have certain students who are left stranded at school or after school events. Usually there are quite a few teachers at my school, and we go to gether as a group to walk them home. It is a scary neighborhood to traverse, through a cemetary and gang areas with stuff happening.

What an uncaring school that teacher worked for, to give her such a consequence for ensuring a child's safety.

Luke 10:25-37

New International Version (NIV)

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”



This seems like a simple, straightforward parable. Yet today, we are hestant to help someone because others may be bound to question our motives first.

along-for-the-ride;1398021 wrote: Luke 10:25-37

New International Version (NIV)

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”



This seems like a simple, straightforward parable. Yet today, we are hestant to help someone because others may be bound to question our motives first.


Leaving aside the religious bit it's very true - if I see a lost child rather than approach to help I would make sure I had someone else with me, preferably female.

along-for-the-ride;1398021 wrote: Luke 10:25-37

New International Version (NIV)

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”



This seems like a simple, straightforward parable. Yet today, we are hestant to help someone because others may be bound to question our motives first.


Yes, AFTR, it is so simple and straightforward.

So, how have we reached this place where it's no longer so?

theia;1398025 wrote: Yes, AFTR, it is so simple and straightforward.

So, how have we reached this place where it's no longer so?


Because sadly, some children as gmc pointed out are quite happy to make false allegations and precautions have to be taken. The school has a duty of care toward their children as well as their staff. No teacher should put themselves In a position where they leave themselves wide open. It's sad but It happens.

If a child Is stranded at school, why Is that the problem of the teacher or the school? That's bad parenting. The schools here these days are expected to be wet nurses as It Is.

Yes, bad parenting. It's not the kid's fault for being left.

Accountable;1398038 wrote: Yes, bad parenting. It's not the kid's fault for being left. I agree but It Is not down to a teacher to be emotionally responsible for that.

Imagine the scenario of teacher gives stranded pupil a lift home and teachers car is hit by a truck and pupil killed.

I was referring more to the way we are and the distance that has been created between us all. AFTR's quotation points us towards helping one another and it really is such a simple message and yet we have made it so complex nowadays with the culture we've created.

Yes, we can say "bad parenting" if a child is left stranded at school but why can't we simply give the child a lift home as an act of kindness. Yes, it's possible that we might have an accident and that the child might be killed but can we really stop helping one another because of the fear of something bad happening? Have we all become the one who crosses the road to avoid helping?

I'm as caught up in this culture as anyone but it doesn't stop me thinking how tragic it is.

theia;1398042 wrote: I was referring more to the way we are and the distance that has been created between us all. AFTR's quotation points us towards helping one another and it really is such a simple message and yet we have made it so complex nowadays with the culture we've created.

Yes, we can say "bad parenting" if a child is left stranded at school but why can't we simply give the child a lift home as an act of kindness. Yes, it's possible that we might have an accident and that the child might be killed but can we really stop helping one another because of the fear of something bad happening? Have we all become the one who crosses the road to avoid helping?

I'm as caught up in this culture as anyone but it doesn't stop me thinking how tragic it is.


I agree with you Theia but In this day and age you have to be so careful.

Covering yourself In these situations doesn't mean we have to distance ourselves from being kind to others.

For example, my husband was approached by two 15 year old girls very late one night at our friends takeaway as they were closing up for the night. They were stranded and had no money for a taxi. He took them home but not before two of the kitchen girls accompanyed him In the car for the journey. It's just being sensible.

In this teachers situation, she could have taken the child to the head's office. Most schools have all parents contact details and mobile numbers these days. They could have contacted the parents even If the boy had to wait an hour for them to arrive. That way, the child Is safe and the school and the teacher Isn't left wide open.

oscar;1398037 wrote: Because sadly, some children as gmc pointed out are quite happy to make false allegations and precautions have to be taken. The school has a duty of care toward their children as well as their staff. No teacher should put themselves In a position where they leave themselves wide open. It's sad but It happens.

If a child Is stranded at school, why Is that the problem of the teacher or the school? That's bad parenting. The schools here these days are expected to be wet nurses as It Is.


Because from the point at which the child enters the school grounds until the point at which (s)he leaves the teachers are in loco parentis and responsible for the safety of that child. If the teachers just left the child to fend for itself then they would be responsible for any harm that came to that child.

Bryn Mawr;1398119 wrote: Because from the point at which the child enters the school grounds until the point at which (s)he leaves the teachers are in loco parentis and responsible for the safety of that child. If the teachers just left the child to fend for itself then they would be responsible for any harm that came to that child.


So are you saying the school Is responsible for a child even after he has left the school ? Because I would beg to differ.

If a young child has no lift home then the responsible thing to do, Is keep the child safe within the school until a relative could be contacted to collect him/her. However, I'm pretty sure that If the child had already left the confines of the school premisis and begun to walk home, the school Is not responsible. If It were responsible, then every time a child was knocked down by a car on the way home from school, the school would have been sued.

Once a child leaves those school gates at 3.30 pm the school Is In no way responsible for the safety of that child.

What 'In Loco Parentis' Means to You - Law And Parents

Note 'what the teacher can and can't do'

oscar;1398128 wrote: So are you saying the school Is responsible for a child even after he has left the school ? Because I would beg to differ.

If a young child has no lift home then the responsible thing to do, Is keep the child safe within the school until a relative could be contacted to collect him/her. However, I'm pretty sure that If the child had already left the confines of the school premisis and begun to walk home, the school Is not responsible. If It were responsible, then every time a child was knocked down by a car on the way home from school, the school would have been sued.

Once a child leaves those school gates at 3.30 pm the school Is In no way responsible for the safety of that child.

What 'In Loco Parentis' Means to You - Law And Parents

Note 'what the teacher can and can't do'


Where do I even begin to imply that?

What part of "until the point at which (s)he leaves" suggests that they are responsible "even after he has left the school"?

I'm confused.

Bryn Mawr;1398130 wrote: Where do I even begin to imply that?

What part of "until the point at which (s)he leaves" suggests that they are responsible "even after he has left the school"?

I'm confused. Let me start again.

I agree with your post that the school Is responsible for the child whilst he Is on the premisis during school time.

My link shows that once the child has left the gates once school Is finished at 3 pm, the school has no obligation If the child Is not collected and Is not responsible for his safety.

The case Of this story where the teacher took a young boy home In her car was breaking the rules of the school. The more responsible thing to do was to take him back Inside the school and keep him safe until a relative or social services could collect him.

As the link states. It Is not the responsibility of any teacher If a child Is not collected from school.

oscar;1398131 wrote: Let me start again.

I agree with your post that the school Is responsible for the child whilst he Is on the premisis during school time.

My link shows that once the child has left the gates once school Is finished at 3 pm, the school has no obligation If the child Is not collected and Is not responsible for his safety.

The case Of this story where the teacher took a young boy home In her car was breaking the rules of the school. The more responsible thing to do was to take him back Inside the school and keep him safe until a relative or social services could collect him.

As the link states. It Is not the responsibility of any teacher If a child Is not collected from school.


If the child is not collected the (s)he is, presumably, still at the school waiting to be collected. Having not left then (s)he is still the responsibility of the school.

oscar;1398131 wrote: Let me start again.

I agree with your post that the school Is responsible for the child whilst he Is on the premisis during school time.

My link shows that once the child has left the gates once school Is finished at 3 pm, the school has no obligation If the child Is not collected and Is not responsible for his safety.

The case Of this story where the teacher took a young boy home In her car was breaking the rules of the school. The more responsible thing to do was to take him back Inside the school and keep him safe until a relative or social services could collect him.

As the link states. It Is not the responsibility of any teacher If a child Is not collected from school.


Hi Julie,

Our school district is responsible for the child walking or being bussed to and fro school. If the child does not make it home or to school if they're coming and going without a designated adult, our district is responsible.

Many moons ago, I drove kidlets home and picked them up at times, watched them after school, with parent permission or parent request, when I first began to teach which was a long time ago. I didn't mind 'attall' since I was there all the time and loved the kids and parents.

However, times have changed. I would not put the child in my car and drive them anywhere now due to the changes in our society. For example, I might have a car accident, parent might hate the school, kids might accuse me of something that didn't occur.....yaya....We have to be soooooo careful now with children. (Of course, if it was a medical emergency where no one was around me to help the child, then yes, I would drive the child to the hospital).

But, I would never, ever leave a child alone at the school. I have, mega times, stayed for hours until the parents came or called the principal or nurse to return to school to help me with an emergency. I would also make sure that the janitors or an adult who was still at school was with me

So, the child would be safe, and I would be safe from lawsuits or false accusations.

This is just a part of life now.

Bryn Mawr;1398133 wrote: If the child is not collected the (s)he is, presumably, still at the school waiting to be collected. Having not left then (s)he is still the responsibility of the school. Yes, It's when the child leaves the gates that all responsibility ends.

oscar;1398141 wrote: Yes, It's when the child leaves the gates that all responsibility ends.


Which is, if you check back, exactly what I said.

Bryn Mawr;1398143 wrote: Which is, if you check back, exactly what I said.
Sorry Bryn... I haven't had a cigg for nearly 48 hours...

Kathy Ellen;1398139 wrote: Hi Julie,

Our school district is responsible for the child walking or being bussed to and fro school. If the child does not make it home or to school if they're coming and going without a designated adult, our district is responsible.

Many moons ago, I drove kidlets home and picked them up at times, watched them after school, with parent permission or parent request, when I first began to teach which was a long time ago. I didn't mind 'attall' since I was there all the time and loved the kids and parents.

However, times have changed. I would not put the child in my car and drive them anywhere now due to the changes in our society. For example, I might have a car accident, parent might hate the school, kids might accuse me of something that didn't occur.....yaya....We have to be soooooo careful now with children. (Of course, if it was a medical emergency where no one was around me to help the child, then yes, I would drive the child to the hospital).

But, I would never, ever leave a child alone at the school. I have, mega times, stayed for hours until the parents came or called the principal or nurse to return to school to help me with an emergency. I would also make sure that the janitors or an adult who was still at school was with me

So, the child would be safe, and I would be safe from lawsuits or false accusations.

This is just a part of life now. You're so right. I wouldn't want the responsibility of putting someone's child In my car without their knowledge. That's why I think the teacher In the article was just plain stupid.

oscar;1398146 wrote: Sorry Bryn... I haven't had a cigg for nearly 48 hours...


The very best of luck with that effort - it might hurt in the short term but I can assure you, it pays dividends in the long term.

oscar;1398141 wrote: Yes, It's when the child leaves the gates that all responsibility ends.
Legally responsible, that is.

For you, Oscar:

Accountable;102459 wrote: I come from a family of smokers. Some of us quit; some of us haven't. A smoker needs 2 things to quit:

1. The desire to quit.

2. The belief that one can quit.

Neither of these things can possibly come from the outside. Smoking is a behavior. The addiction is not. Lots of steps involved in smoking, especially if there are none in the house. One possible scenario of many:



1. Get dressed.

2. Find the keys.

3. Walk to the car.

4. Enter the car.

5. Start the car.

6. Leave the house.

7. Drive to the store (numerous substeps involved here).

8. Park the car.

9. Get out of the car.

10. Enter the store.

11. Approach the cashier.

12. Take a breath of sweet, clean, nicotine-free air.

13. Ask for a pack of cigarettes.

14. Pay for the cigarettes (possible substeps here).

15. Exit the store.

16. Tamp the pack (we used to call it 'pack' but I'm trying to avoid confusion).

17. Open the pack (several substeps here).

18. Remove a cigarette.

19. Place the cigarette in the mouth.

20. Find fire (undoubtedly many substeps involved).

21. Light the cigarette.



Every one of these steps and substeps involved a decision toward behavior. Each of these decisions is an opportunity to behave differently.

Smoking is a decision to behave. Stopping smoking is likewise a decision to behave. It's not an easy decision, but the responsibility lies completely and absolutely with the individual - no one else.

Accountable;1398155 wrote: Legally responsible, that is.

For you, Oscar:


Thanks Acc... that's very thoughtful of you and I appreciate It.