Bless those little boys’ hearts! If I thought I could have gotten away with it, I would have let that mean dad go in for free, just for the sake of his son.
Yes. There’s nothing more infuriating, at least to me, of being prohibited from doing something desirous and being given as an explanation “that’s just the rules” (and this was especially the case as a child). If you can’t put a concept into a context a child can understand, it indicates that either:
A: you don’t fully understand the concept yourself (which I do not believe to be the case here, as Lissa seems to understand liability just fine)
B: you don’t respect that person enough to believe they will be able to grasp the concept, so you assume that they will not, and blow off their request for an explanation.
Oh. Why did they build the museum again?
…Well I can tell you they DIDN’T build it for strangers to take very young children without any parental supervision (or knowledge of where their children might be) into.
Send the kid home with literature and a coupon. I can’t imagine an adult that is the least bit present in their child’s life not stopping by after that.
This reminds me of the weird neighbor kid who use to come by me and my girlfriends apartment in college. She had a very loud and very big cocateau that could be heard throughout the complex. I assume he saw the bird in the window one day and came up to ask about it. Soon he’d come by every couple of days to see the bird and each time ask if he could hold it. I would have to explain that “no, his beak is sharp and he might bite you and his claws might scratch you.”
To teach people about history. Not tort law, as you inexplicably seem to assume.
Ah, ok. Wouldn’t want to teach them more than we’re supposed to. 
Can you follow him home and talk to his mother/care-taker and invite them to the museum? Maybe offer them a free visit?
okay so this is your example of putting a concept into a context a child can understand? You think this aptly describes what Lissa means when she says a child has to have an adult along? :rolleyes:
Lissa, you haven’t answered the question about whether you could be the adult who takes him.
Alternately, could you ask what school he goes to, and pitch a field trip to that school?
Or set up once-a-month DIY field trips, where a group of kids could sign up and get dropped off?
The kid’s already taken more risks than I would have at that age (and perhaps even now) to find out about what you’re about. I think he deserves a better outcome.
Better than “that’s just the rules.”
Well I can get behind that. I likely would have found some way to explain it or figure out a way to get him in. The determination he shows would make me want to foster that interest.
I just don’t think that Rigamarole’s approach is the right way. Without seeing and interacting with this kid, it is difficult to know what he is capable of understanding. I have to go with Lissa here since in most of her postings she seems very level headed and she was there, and is the best judge of what this kid could understand.
I would be interested in hearing from Lissa what options she has. I thought your suggestions above were pretty good
While I would have put it differently, I agree with Rigamarole’s point.
Telling kids ‘just because’ is always a bad idea. Lissa you deal with kids. You know this. No doubt you explain things all the time for this reason. I’m willing to put up actual money that you don’t say “We can’t touch things, because it’s against the rules.”. Nope, you say “We can’t touch these things because we might drop or break them, and even if we didn’t every touch hurts it just a little bit and if everybody touched it, soon it would fall apart.”
I’m actually surprised you didn’t say “Well, we need grown ups to make sure everybody is quiet, and doesn’t shout their questions. And we need grownups to make sure nobody gets lost or hurt, and to do all those other things grownups do. That’s why your friend still had to come with his teacher.”
Tsarina
Very bad idea. If the staff member is a man, expect allegations of child molestation. A female staff member still runs the risks of-saying something that offends the parents religious or cultural beliefs, being unprepared for a sever food allergy, asthma attack, seizure, or other condition. If the kid slips and hurts his head, there will be a civil suit. Even if none of the above happens, parents may still stir up outrage over those weird docents enticing children into their gingerbread museum.
That’s so sad. Maybe someone could ask his mother if they see her about it? (Although that would probably cause more trouble than it’s worth.)
Sometimes kids have to deal with “just because”. Cause, you know, that’s a life lesson, too. Sometimes you have to do things just because, even as an adult.
I think **Lissa **did fine.
Do I? Do I really? :dubious:
Well, I do. And I know lots of other people don’t. I’m willing to acknowledge perhaps you don’t.
No, I can’t think of any examples off-hand. I do know that most of what we do in life isn’t necessarily what we want to do, and sometimes it doesn’t have any benefit to us, but we have to do it anyway, and sometimes we don’t really have a good reason for it.
Anyway, I’m not spoiling for a fight here. Just added my two cents.
I cannot. It has to be a parent, guardian or teacher. (Now, it’s not like we ask for an explanation of the relationsip between an adult and the child who walk in the door, mind you, but there’s a presumption that the adult with the child will be responsible for their behavior and safety.)
But, no, it can’t be me. I’m an employee of the museum, not responsible for him in any legal way.
I know he’ll get here eventually-- every third-grader in the city comes once a year. The only reason that’s happening is because the director of the museum teamed up with another local historical site and begged our major donors to fund the trips. The schools used to do it themselves, but because of funding issues, that ended last year. When the director was told that, he “went a-begging”, as he puts it for money to pay for the busses and other expenses, and the schools found enough parents to come with the groups to provide sufficient chaperones. It was a stretch to pull it off in time, but he did it.
Getting a specially-arranged field trip just for his class wouldn’t be possible, really. Firstly, they’d feel it’s unfair-- if one class comes, all of the classes in that grade should get to come, too. (You know how kids are.) We’d also have to get funding for it. Lastly, they usually wait until third grade when the kids start learning our state’s history. The figure before that, the kids don’t get a lot out of it-- they’re too young to really understand what they’re seeing.
We do have a junior member program for kids where once a month they come out to the museum and get to make crafts and watch demonstrations. (People come in to show them how to make butter and paper, or spin wool.) I think I’ll drop a brocheur about it in his mailbox. Unfortunately, there is a fee, and his parents might not be willing to pay it.
I do, too. The other staff and I have discussed it at length, trying to figure out SOMETHING for the poor kid, but were at a loss. We even broached the subject with the director who (after expressing horror that the kid was out on a city street by himself) said he was sympathetic, but our policies are firm.
To which he would have responded with heartfelt promises that he’d be quiet and not touch a thing. No matter what I said, I don’t think he would have understood it. He’s only a little kid who still has training-wheels on his bike.
And I know that it sounds harsh, but I do have a job to do. I can’t spend twenty minutes explaining the legal aspects to a five-year-old who would still protest and beg me to change my mind when there are artifacts to be cleaned, exhibits to hurry up and finish before the deadline, the phone to answer and other people who need help in the giftshop or who might be coming in for tours themselves. I did the best I could at the time.
Yeah, you kind of do.
Last time I got pulled over, I didn’t argue with the cop and ask WHY I should obey a stopsign instead of coasting through when I could see clearly in all four directions that there wasn’t another car coming. I’m sure he would have just replied with, “It’s the law,” and not a lengthy discourse on why the law was created and what possible repercussions it could have if I disobeyed it.
There are all sorts of substances you cannot legally put into your body, and for some of them, there aren’t really any more valid reasons than “just because.”
Try to return an item without a reciept in some stores, and all the response you’ll get is that it’s against store policy. Likely, they won’t go into a lengthy explanation as to why the store thought that was fiscally sound.
*No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. *Why? Because it’s policy. Are they going to explain all of the health issues to you? No. They’re just goind to say it’s the rules.
Of course, people can always point to a blue million reasons why they should be an exception to the policy, but there are lots of rules and policies out there “just because” that you simply have to accept or walk away from the establishment. Maybe customer service wouldn’t be such a pain in the ass if people learned this early on. 
I realize he’s just a kid. I still think you could have given a better answer.
Do I?
But even if the cop didn’t explain why, you know the justification and that it is more than ‘just because’. If you failed to notice the cop, then you are clearly not in a position to claim you were aware of the important things around you- including oncoming traffic.
Laws I feel should be abolished. Besides, I don’t have to obey those laws (though I do, I’m on enough prescription medication that illicit pharmaceuticals are a very dangerous idea). I just have to avoid being caught.
I disagree. I think any employee who understands the policy will explain that it prevents theft and fraud.
Again, they don’t have to explain it. You already know the reasons and that they amount to much more than ‘just because’. Children often do not know the justifications for rules.
I made a post explaining exactly why there should NOT be an exception. I’m not disagreeing with the rule, or your enforcing the rule. I just think you could have explained it better. I realize we are talking about a kid here. I don’t see that as a great obstacle.
But this rule isn’t there ‘just because’. It exists for a variety of very defensible reasons. Many of which can be explained to a child.
Even without this event, I think I’d write a short note for him to give his parents: *Your son has come by the museum several times asking to visit. Unfortunately, we are not permitted to admit a child who is not accompanied by an adult (for reasons of liability).
We would be delighted to welcome him if an adult from his household could find the time to bring him for a visit.* (Then toss in all the brochures you can find.)
It’s not Lissa’s job to teach the kid the whys and wherefores-that’s up to Mom and Dad. And she can’t sit there and explain tort law and liability to a kid when she has other work to do.
And sometimes, shit DOES happen “just because.” That’s life.
But he didn’t want an answer. He wanted in. No explanation would have been adequate. He didn’t want to understand the rule. He wanted in.
Trying to explain would have just tortured him with hope as he listened, not to understand, but to find another arguement. Trying to explain would be like peeling the bandaid off slowly.
Maybe you would have prized the knowledge that the rule that was keeping you out was a reasonable one. Maybe you would feel more respected at getting a more involved explanation. I’d bet money that all he cared about was whether he was spoken to kindly (and he was) and whether he got in.