The Government contends that the decision not to station supervisory personnel on the playgrounds was an exercise of a discretionary function, thus barring recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act exception In 28 U.S.C. 6 2680fa). The United States on this point presented evidence at trial that BIA boarding schools of this type had once been run in a highly militaristic fashion with the children marched in groups between the various points of the campus. Such rigid practices had been relaxed at the Chuska school as part of a deliberate effort to make the atmosphere of the school open and encourage Individual responsibility in the students. As mentioned earlier, the school instituted Instead a system of periodic head checks to ensure that the children's whereabouts were regularly checked. The Government argues that the decision to make these changes was a discretionary judgment made by the BIA officials which comes under the rule In Dalehlte v. United States. 346 U.S. 15. 97 L. Ed. 1427. 73 S. Ct. 956.

It appears from the record that Indeed the after-school [**8] supervisory system was changed at the Chuska school. This may or may not have constituted an exercise of the discretionary function. However, the negligence found was a result of a failure under the new system of the dormitory personnel to properly carry out their duties to supervise outside. The doctrine or exemption of a dscretlonary function thus does not come Into play at all as the new system Itself was not the cause as It acknowledged the need for outside supervision.