Educational Visits and Exchanges

Response from Suffolk NUT to the draft revised guidance from Suffolk LEA

Deadline for responses: July 26th 2002.

General:

(1) The documentation is very weighty and confusing, because it has grown out of all proportion to the original guidance. Because one document is now encompassing guidance for all types of visit, it has become difficult for organisers to see quickly which parts apply to them and which do not. It is no doubt too late now to re-marshal the info but a suggestion for the future would be to issue separate guidance booklets for each main type of activity/visit. Only the relevant sections and forms need be included. At present, it is difficult to see the wood for the trees and, therefore, it is possible that, with the best will in the world, some important stage or form will be missed when organising a particular activity.

(2) Our casework, including only last week(!), indicates that one major concern for schools and teachers contemplating taking pupils out of school, is the element of pupil behaviour in the risk assessment. Many of the comments below refer to the need at school level to have and pursue consistently a school behaviour policy which includes agreements with pupils and parents about behaviour in school and participation in out-of-school activities.

(3) The administration of medicines: The NUT advises members not to agree to administer medicines to pupils, except in a genuine emergency. We are therefore concerned that foreseeable medical needs are considered as part of the risk assessment and resource implications for each activity. This could include adding personnel to the accompanying staff team specifically to address known medical needs.

(4) Some aspects of the policy regarding foreign exchanges and activities during "free time" may not be well appreciated by teachers and headteachers. We are thinking in particular about such activities as swimming (perhaps in a campsite pool) or punting on a day-trip to Cambridge during unsupervised time. We wonder whether a separate letter could be sent to schools to highlight this aspect of the guidance.

Detailed points:

p9, 2.1: Add in "all staff must": inform the visit leader / headteacher if any participant is known to pose a particular hazard, through unacceptable behaviour or where the child or parent has made a complaint or allegation against any staff; or requires regular medication.

In 2.2: Add that group leaders should inform the headteacher if, in his/her view, the group of participants contains any pupils whose participation presents a hazard which either needs extra resources, or exclusion from the visit on health and safety grounds (e.g. a reasonable doubt that the child will obey safety instructions or be a danger to other pupils).

In 2.2: It would be helpful if the County guidance pointed out to headteachers that the decision whether to include any particular child, on H&S grounds only, must remain with the Group Leader. (We have had incidents where a headteacher has instructed a group leader to include a child whom the Group Leader has recommended should be excluded, for reasons of disobedience and violent behaviour in school or previous visits. Such an instruction should be considered ultra vires.

This is implicit in 2.3: if the teacher has to "ensure" overall maintenance of good order, etc., then (s)he must have the final word on who participates.

In 2.4 Add reference in the "particular responsibilities" - Verify that there is no behavioural or medical reason why any of the proposed group of children should participate in the activity.

In 2.5, responsibility of the Governing Body. It would be helpful if reference was made in the school's Behaviour Policy to the possibility of exclusion from visits in the event of repeated violent or challenging behaviour, in situations where full parental consent was not forthcoming or where parents sought to impose extra conditions (e.g. regular administration of medicines).

Re. 7.1: I have copied this section to our Regional Office for checking, I am aware that there has been some national moves to seek to help teachers who are volunteering for such activities as listed. I await their reply.

Section D. Risk Assessment: 2.2: Again, we suggest that specific reference should be made to potential pupil misbehaviour as an integral part of the risk assessment for specific activities, as part of the planning stage. You mention "particular special needs" (p.21) but not "behavioural factors".

At the end of 2.3, we would suggest that a formal risk assessment is always advisable, using a checklist such as on p51 (which does mention behavioural problems). Medical needs: If a child needs regular medical attention, including supervised administration of medicines, then this should be included in the planning and risk assessment. Teachers cannot be required to agree to take responsibility for medical needs. A suitably trained first aider or nurse could be included in the staff team to provide such medical cover, or parents could be asked to accompany the child for this purpose. We do not consider the disclaimer form signed by parents to be sufficient protection for staff, or the group leader, in cases of known medical needs.

Re. 2.3 Final sentence: we would suggest that all identified hazards or hazardous incidents should always be recorded at the time and transferred on return to school to an incident report form (as mentioned in 5, p23.). The question of whether this should lead to amended practices, etc., should not be taken at the time, but inform monitoring and review meetings, then future risk assessments. Incident forms are collated at County level and can give useful information on potential danger areas.

p24, 1.3: The final paragraph is vital and needs expansion. It is important that decisions are not taken ad hoc but come within the school's behaviour policy, debated by the Governors and made known to parents. That school policy might include the possibility of including a child who would otherwise be excluded if special arrangements can be made. This could include a home-school agreement re. restraint and sanctions (e.g. for the child to be sent home if conditions are breached), full-time behaviour assistant in attendance, or, with the headteacher's consent, the parent agreeing to accompany the child (e.g. to administer medicines). Similar guidance should be included in 1.6.2, re assistant staff and in 1.7.

Section F, Emergency Planning: Teachers should not be expected to administer medicines or to apply plasters, etc. except in a dire emergency. Staff should be instructed to call for medical assistance when required.

Notes: (1) The Union's concern re. exclusions is for pupil and staff safety, and to avoid foreseeable challenges and allegations against staff. If a child has made allegations against a teacher, for example, which have been investigated and shown to be unfounded, the school should avoid exposing the teacher to a possible repetition of vexatious complaints. Similarly, a school could be held to be negligent under the Health and Safety at Work Act, if a child with a known history of disobedience or violence was allowed on a trip, and caused injury or danger to others.

(2) In referring to exclusions from activities for behavioural or medical reasons, we do not mean that children should be excluded for reasons of disability, wherever reasonable adaptations to the itinerary or activities can be made. The Union believes that medical conditions such as diabetes or epilepsy should not normally prevent participation in visits and exchanges, but that properly trained medical expertise should be included in the staff team accompanying the group. The NUT believes that to exclude a child on medical or disability grounds alone could be considered illegal, in circumstances where reasonable adaptations can be made. Each case should be considered individually, in consultation with the child, group leader and parents.

(3) The Union has had correspondence with the County Council's insurers concerning cancellation charges in the case of a deposit or fees having been paid, but a decision is taken to exclude a child or abandon the activity, on grounds of health and safety. We have had situations where the Headteacher has insisted that an activity goes ahead, despite the group leader's reluctance because of doubts over safety, quoting the cost of pulling out of a contract at short notice. It would appear that the insurers will consider compensation in such circumstances. This might also usefully be included in the guidance.

MJG Suffolk NUT July 2002