choo 1 a- ill

the news quite aecently - mainl ~becausethe Government has beentrying to persuade teachers-0 organise more visits byreducing health and safety"bureaucracy'? but, asPeter Cookson argues, it isnot paperwork that stopseachers organising visits -parental attitudes and plansto do away with theAdventure ActivitiesLicensing Authority(AALA)2 are more likely tobe the final nails in thecoffin of educational trips.

SCHOOL VISITS ARE A GOOD THING BUT VERY

few are compulsory. They are organisedbecause learning is about more than justbeing in a classroom, and a school visit canbring weeks of lessons to life. Pupils go tomountains, moorland, rivers, shopping malls,museums, art galleries, castles, historichouses, artificial ski slopes, ponds, farms andtheme parks - to list just some. There areoverseas visits, exchanges, sports trips andadventure holidays - in other words, there isno such thing as a typical school visit.

The vast majority of school visits takeplace with no problems. Contrary to popularbelief, teachers are not unduly worried aboutbeing prosecuted under the Health andSafety at Work, etc. Act 1974, or beingsubject to corporate manslaughter charges.Bureaucratic paperwork was forced onschools by the government in the 1990s.Since then, sensible schools and localauthorities have adapted it and many of thelatter only need to provide approval if thevisit involves hazardous activities, or anovernight stay. (This approval is now oftenonline, using a secure system calledEVOLVE.)

In fact, the guidelines and exemplarpaperwork provided by the Department forChildren, Schools and Families (now theDepartment for Education) in 1998 werevery thorough and very good. It ensured that

The Government's decision to cut health and safety bureaucracy as the main way to encourage teachers to organisemore school trips may prove to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater © Superstock

hazardous and residential visits had to beplanned. School governors had to be happythat all the risks had been considered anddealt with appropriately before they gavetheir permission for the visit to happen.

Day visits do not need governor approvalbut they do need the head's approval and soshould go through the school's managementsystems. This can be bureaucratic but thebest schools recognise that risk is aboutproportionality and always has been. No - ifschool visits are less frequent now, it is downto other things.

So sue meThese days, schools are very concerned aboutparental litigation - so much so that oneteaching union, the NASUWT,has advised itsmembers not to undertake school visits forthis very reason. Parents challenge schoolsmuch more, making accusations about issuesthat have occurred on school trips, whetherthey concern minor injuries, or punishmentfor poor behaviour. Where there has been aserious accident, then schools are seen to beautomatically at fault by parents, and judgesseem to agree.

In 2000, a case came to court regarding aschool skiing trip, on which two olderteenage pupils disobeyed explicit instructionsabout skiing off-piste. They had already beencaught and warned against doing it again.They did so anyway, and one was seriouslyinjured. The school was held to be partiallyliable because the judge said that a reasonableparent would have taken away the boys' skipasses.' Although this was overturned onappeal, the damage was done.

In another case, young children went on afarm visit in 2000, during which a four-year-old was exposed to E.coli and wassubsequently left permanently brain-damaged. The risk of E.coli from contact withanimal faeces is obvious and farm-owners areresponsible for ensuring risk assessments arein place. But the farm and the school(through the LocalAuthority) admitted 95-per-cent liability - although, as the case wassettled out of court, the apportioning ofliability is unknown:

Not surprisingly, these types of cases giverise to deep concerns about safety and aboutcosts. Many schools are no longer withinlocal-authority control (foundation, trust oracademy schools) and it is the Government'sstated aim that all schools becomeacademies. This will mean that all schoolswill be directly responsible for all liabilitiesand costs - and they cannot afford this.Because the HSE says risk, though it cannotbe eliminated, can be properly managed so, if

they are to avoid litigation, schools and localauthorities have to ensure that propermanagement systems are in place and thatparents are kept informed.

Worst behaviourProbably the biggest concern teachers have ispupil behaviour. The hazards involved inmost visits are negligible because places suchas museums and art galleries are notinherently dangerous. Where riskieractivities are involved, schools will usuallymake use of companies, or field centres thathave the expertise to ensure that pupils aresafe. In this way schools are not directlyresponsible for health and safety and do nothave to undertake risk assessments for theseactivities. But as well as having to fulfil theirduties under the HSWA1974, teachersoperate under a specific common-law duty,that of 'in loco parentis'. There is a duty to takereasonable care of pupils and act as areasonable parent might act - and this opensthe door to the aforementioned litigiousparents.

Pupil behaviour is routinely cited as acause of workplace stress by teachers. Ifpupils don't behave in the classroom, theywon't behave when they are on a visit.Individual pupils can be very badly behaved,but groups of pupils do not behave as wouldbe expected, either. It is well known that fire-evacuation planners have to take account ofgroup dynamics and behaviour - the same istrue for planning school visits.

At the very least, groups of students - ofall age groups - tend be less aware of thehazards around them and less attentive andresponsive to warnings. Where the visitentails taking pupils who have a record ofmisbehaviour, and, often, seriousmisbehaviour, there is always concern aboutthose pupils and the effect on others.

The obvious solution - the controlmeasure - is to not take those unruly pupils,but that is not always possible. Firstly, theremay be an issue of discrimination: if the poorbehaviour is the result of an identifiedunderlying medical condition, then removingthe pupil from the visit is a clear case ofdiscrimination. Secondly, not to take a pupilon a visit is something many schools areloath to do because of the effect on that pupil- especially if the rest of the class or yeargroup are going. All of the above has to beconsidered for what might be termed'ordinary' school visits to places likemuseums, where the number and severity ofhazards are very low. If the school hassignificant poor behaviour, then it is ofteneasier not to plan a visit.

Now put that into the context of morehazardous visits, such as residential andoverseas trips, and adventure activities andholidays. These are the visits that tend to bethe most memorable for pupils, and fromwhich they can get the most. But from ateacher's point of view they are the mostdifficult.

For example, residential visits are always aproblem. Older pupils try to get out of theirrooms, either to go to other pupils' bedrooms,to find a bar, or just for fun. Instances havebeen recorded of supervised pupils usingwindow ledges to move from room to roombecause their teachers are checkingcorridors! Rooms could be checked but thiswakes pupils, and constantly going intopupils' bedrooms to check invites thepossibility of complaint from pupils and theirparents. Nevertheless, 24-hour supervision isrequired and staff can't go to bed until thelast student has gone to sleep and they haveto be up before the first student is awake.

The cost of controlThe control method for behaviour issupervision and there are clear guidelines asto how many adults are required to supervisestudents of different ages. Obviously, wherethere is a greater hazard then there have tobe greater control measures, so if a pupil is aknown behaviour risk then he or she willneed greater supervision, i.e. an adultspecifically allocated to look after them.

Providing supervision for pupils wouldseem to be easy for schools, as there are lotsof people who can undertake this role. That istrue to an extent but it is not as easy as itsounds. Schools have to ensure that allsafeguarding issues have been addressed, asany school that allowed an adult on a schoolvisit without a Criminal Records Bureaucheck would be seen to be taking a risk.Therefore most supervisors are school staff,especially in secondary schools.

School visits can be very costly - not onlyin terms of supervision but also transport (foranything other than a very local visit, someform of transport will be necessary) andthere will often be entrance and other costs.Parents have to pay for most visits but theschool, too, bears significant costs. First ofall, the normal running of a school isdisrupted by a visit; having support staffsupervise a visit could mean that phones maynot be manned, or the library might beclosed. If teachers go, then the school willhave to employ supply teachers to ensureother pupils not on the trip are taught. Onesupply teacher can cost a school up to £300per day (in 2009/10 schools spent some £293

www.shponline.co.uk VIEWPOINT - SCHOOL TRIPS I 37

Schoolchildrencan learn so much from undertaking adventurous activities © Ala my

million on supply teachers). Understandably,school managers want to reduce their costsand one way is to charge all or part of thecosts of supply to the visit - and to parents.

The pupil behaviour issue raises its headagain here as, in many schools, it deteriorateswhen the pupils have a supply teacher infront of them. In addition, school visits takeup a lot of time. If every subject had one visitper year group, per year that could amount to

an annual total of 100 curriculum visits. Thatis very expensive for parents and meanspupils would miss a lot of teaching time,which, in turn would affect results andleague tables. No school can afford to see itsranking slump and anything that reducestime away from their pupils by teachers islooked at very carefully by managers.

Consequently, schools have to ration thenumber of visits that are undertaken - firstly,

because they or the parents can't afford themand secondly, because of the potential impacton the learning of all those who do not go onthe visit. That is why many schools pack visitsinto the end of the summer term. Insecondary schools, teachers have more timeat this point, because exam classes have leftschool and both the primary and secondarysectors see the end of the summer term asbeing less important in terms of classroomlearning. The alternative is to organise themduring holidays and half-term breaks,especially residential trips. However,teachers have become increasingly averse tothis, as visits then disrupt their own familylife.

Risk assessmentGovernment advice is now to do away withrisk assessments for typical visits, not have aneducational visits coordinator (EVe), and toobtain parental permission for all visits at thestart of the child's school career.' But this sitsbadly with both the law and HSE adviceabout managing risk. The former is quiteclear that any activity that is hazardous needsto be risk-assessed and the findings recordedin some way. The latter states that"precautions should be proportionate to therisks involved" and that "risk assessmentfocuses attention on real risks - not risks thatare trivial and fanciful".

A risk assessment is a good way ofensuring that proper organisation is in placeand that all adults involved know what thearrangements are. Having an educationalvisits coordinator, in particular, can helpschools ensure that risk is managed and thatorganisational learning can take place,something the HSE is very keen on. An EVCalso allows schools to demonstrate that theyare acting reasonably and that they havemanagement systems for overseeing visits -necessary to successfully fight litigation.EVCs also provide support for visit leaders,something which the HSE says is imperative.The person appointed is usually a seniormember of staff and someone who hasexperience of school visits in their differentforms. Abandoning them would thereforeseem quite foolish.

Increasingly, however, EVCs are likely tobe business managers, who usually have littledirect experience of visits and thus are oftenunable to tell the difference between a realrisk and a fanciful risk. This has theinevitable consequence of making riskassessments long and bureaucratic becauseno one knows any better. Their role alsomakes them risk-averse because theyunderstand the financial consequences of

38 VIEWPOINT - SCHOOl TRIPS SHP OCTOBER 2011

litigation - especially if the school is nolonger within local-authority control.

It is also unlikely that schools will cease toask for parental permission. The DfE is clearthat parents have to be informed as to wheretheir children are during the school day, ifthere is a school visit. As visits have to bepaid for, schools are asking permissionanyway because payment implies acceptance.Payment also means that parents should bekept fully informed about any risks orhazards, as this reduces the possibility oflitigation.

On a more mundane level, if there is anaccident that involves some form of medicalintervention, then contacting parents is anecessity. Many parents do not updateschools about contact details, or changes inchildren's medical conditions, so informingthem and asking for their permission is asensible precaution. In the case of residentialvisits, or hazardous activities, teachers willalways hold a meeting so that parents can beinformed about arrangements and raise anyconcerns.

Don't know what you've got til it's goneWhere activities are of a more adventurousnature, part of the reassurance is often thefact that the HSE regulates these activitiesand companies - but not for much longer.'Adventure holidays in all forms areundertaken by a lot of schools. They promotethe kind of soft skills that industry saysschools should be developing, including teamwork, decision-making, leadership andcommunication skills. They are organised foryounger pupils as a means of promotingfriendship and social cohesion, and theyprovide all pupils with challenges that areexciting and outside their normal experience.

Poor behaviour is usually rare on this typeof visit because discipline is enforced not byteachers but by expert adults who can explainthe consequences of poor behaviour whendoing potentially dangerous activities. Inaddition, the physical exercise tires pupilsout!

But there is concern in schools aboutthese types of school visits. Before the mid-1990s, there was no real regulation.Unfortunately, it took the death of fourteenagers on a canoeing trip in Lyme Baybefore the government decided to act. TheActivity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act1995 requires providers of certain adventureactivities to be licensed. The relatedAdventure Activities Licensing Regulations2004 state that an 'adventure activity' meanscaving, climbing, trekking and water sports.Knowing that providers are inspected by theHSE in order to obtain and maintain theirlicences allows more schools to offer these

visits because they do not have to worryabout their inability to judge whether acompany was actually capable of deliveringhigh standards of safety.

Therefore, abolishing the AALAis not,from a school's point of view, a good idea.Adventure holidays are a lucrative marketand part of the rationale for the abolition ofthe AALAis to reduce costs for companiesand allow easier entry to the market for newfirms. But staff turnover in this industry canbe very high, especially as many firmscontract staff for a season, or a few weeks,depending on the level of demand.

Currently, there are statutory regulationsregarding qualifications in specific areas, andstaff training has to be of a minimumstandard. Schools know that qualificationshave to be obtained and that thesequalifications ensure that instructors areactually qualified to lead the activities theyare hosting, even if schools do not actuallyknow what those qualifications are, or whatthey mean in practice. The abolition of theAALAends these assurances.

Schools do not want to go back to pre-AALAdays and the Government recognisesthis, in that it is proposing that self-regulation replace the Authority. But let's faceit - self-regulation has not had a good pressrecently, and schools will not find theprospect of an industry that adheres tovoluntary rather than statutory standards andlicences appealing. In the short term,however, having no AALAwill probably notmake much difference, as schools will likelycontinue to use the firms they know andtrust.

But time and competition erode the bestself-regulated industries. A voluntary schemeis already in existence to reassure schoolsthat risk assessments are in place - theQuality Badge Scheme includes museumsand outdoor centres. However, museumshave to be safe for all members of the publicand schools do not need to do riskassessments for them. Also, the riskassessments required for membership of theQuality Badge Scheme do not include theareas the AALAcurrently covers, so

membership by outdoor centres, etc. couldbe positively misleading for schools. It is notclear how this will mesh, if at all, with theself-regulation of adventurous activities, sothe scene is already set for confusion - and itwill not get better.

ConclusionTeachers want to undertake visits with theirpupils because they want to offer the besteducational experience possible. But it is nothealth and safety bureaucracy that is stoppingthem. Better training in risk assessment isneeded and the paperwork can be furtherstreamlined, but what is really required is asea-change in parental attitudes. Too manydo not believe that their child is capable ofmisbehaving and thus confront schoolsaggressively when informed that their child isbeing punished. As visits are entirelyvoluntary, teachers do not want to beconfronted - either because a child is notgoing, or because a child behaved badly.Schools do not want to risk litigation,especially when many are no longer backedby the local authority. The structures aroundvisits in schools are there for a reason and theGovernment has not addressed that. •

References1 SHP (2011): 'School-trip guidance

distilled in the name of common sense,'in SHP August 2011, Vo1.29,No.8 -www.shponline.co.uk/news-content/full/school-trips-digest-to-ease-bureaucracy-burden

2 In his 2010 review of health and safety,'Common sense, common safety', Torypeer Lord Young stated that theadventure activities licensing regime isseen as a cost and a burden on businessthat adds little to the health and safety ofyoung people undertaking adventureactivities. He recommended insteadintroducing a code of practice that theHSE would oversee and monitor. Theconsultation on the abolition of theAALAended on 21 September 2011

3 wwwtes.co.uk/orticle.nspxzstorycode=350164 and www.tes.co.uk/orticle.ospx?storycode=365764

4 www.mdependent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/form·and-council-admlt-liabilityfor-ecoli-boy-706078.html

5 wwweducation qovuk/oboutdte/odvice/f00191759/departmental-advice-on-health-and-sofety-for-schools

Peter Cookson has been an educational visitscoordinator and has led numerous school visitsduring his time as a teacher - see page 4 formore information