 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
JimW, well put. I have long wondered when H&S will force the positioning of walk ways with handrails along mountian ridges so that no one can fall off. It would be very safe. And boring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| ccl wrote: |
| Kel wrote: |
Back in the good old days, before health and safety went mad. I went to a place called Cauterets in the Pyrenees with the school every year, part of the trip (as it was a RC school) was a day trip to Lourdes. The last time I went, I was in the 5th year and there was a about 4 of us who had been every year and had already been to Lourdes 4 times, the teacher came into the dorm the night before and said OK lads tomorrow you just discreetly sneak off.
He knew we were sensible and capable enough, but can you imagine that happening now !!!. |
But it shouldn't have happened then either. There is nothing mad about exercising a proper duty of care to young people in your care: your teacher simply didn't and had there been an accident he would even then have been in very deep merde.
(for goodness sake, why can't I simply write s h i t without it being changed a childish poo-poo) |
I know that.
Whats more I met the same teacher by chance some 25 years later in Les arcs and had lunch with him, during the conversation this incident cropped up. He said he was worried all day and wish he had never done it, but he had checked the weather and asked an off duty instructor to keep an eye out for us and we were on strict instruction not to stray off piste. I personally feel he had assessed the risk.
Then my kids turned up who had been skiing the whole of Paradiski by themselves all morning aged 14 & 15.I know and understand about duty of care etc etc, but go back to the original post, the world has gone bl00dy mad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| JimW wrote: |
So how does one develop this sense of risk, of boundaries, of 'the edge' when cotton wool and "mummy state knows best" is the order of the day?
It is a fact that there will be casualites as we discover those limits, and pain and heartache that goes with it. |
Isn't it about setting appropriate boundaries so that there is enough freedom to explore and discover those boundaries, but not providing a complete free for all and abdicating any sense of responsibility?
In a case like this I wouldn't let an group of Upper Sixthform pupils ski without any supervision even if they were over 18 (just as an aside, what should be done if there are Upper Sixthform students who have not yet turned 18?), especially if they had just three weeks ski experience. Neither would I want to constrain them by skiing in in a sort of ski school snake because I wanted to make sure they followed a "safe line".
I think there's a perfectly acceptable middle way where you can give them freedom to take whatever line and speed they want down a piste by setting a meeting point ("we'll meet at the third lift pylon down, if you get there before me make sure you all wait. Whatever you do don't crash in to each other, so leave plenty of space or I'll have you skiing in a ski school snake"). You can leave them, collectively, to decide what next ("Right, what's next?"). If you want to give them the opportunity to think about route planning you can do that ("we're here on the piste map, I want Charming 18-Year Student A and Charming 18-Year Old Student B to lead us to that restaurant on the other side of the ski domain. If we get lost I'll think of some evil forfeit you'll have to pay"). You can find pistes where there are easier and harder options to everyone gets appropriately challenged ("OK, big bumps to the left, easier route to the right. Pick your own line and meet me by that group of skiers who are picking themselves up after stupidly skiing in to each other. Oh, and don't ski in to each other"). You might be able to find a piste or park where they can lap around by themselves but you can broadly keep an eye on them ("Right, I'm going to hang around with the cool kids at the bottom of the snowpark, you can lap around and do what you want. You can only use the T-bar no other lifts, and your instructor this morning said you're not good enough for the black jumps so stick to the blue and red ones. Come and find me when you get bored"). So they get more or less the same kind of freedoms and the same kind of constraints in terms of their skiing as any group of adults would have if skiing together for the afternoon. I think it's an important lesson in life than adulthood isn't always "me, me, me ,me". Yes, you get more responsibility than when you're a kid and the freedom to make bigger mistakes, but most of the time you have to make compromises and accommodations and live by the rules.
So under that level of supervision the kids will broadly get to choose what and where they ski, how fast they ski, what routes they take, there will be some differentiation so everyone is challenged, and they might have the opportunity to lap around on one lift doing bumps or park or whatever. But they won't have the freedom to "try that bit of off-piste that those ski tracks are heading to", or challenge each other to the biggest jump off the biggest kicker in the park, or duck under a rope which has closed the black piste they've wanted to ski all week, or drink 5 toffee vodkas each when Sir isn't watching, or a dozen other scenarios which their parents wouldn't want, the school prohibits and which lawyers and the Court of Public Opinion would have a field day with. Is that such a bad thing? Feels like a reasonable compromise to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Kel wrote: |
| Then my kids turned up who had been skiing the whole of Paradiski by themselves all morning aged 14 & 15.I know and understand about duty of care etc etc, but go back to the original post, the world has gone bl00dy mad. |
It's right to say that you know about duty of care, etc, and it is absolutely right that you exercise that for your kids. But what happens if you are responsible for a group of 10 kids and their parents all have different idea about the level of care that is required. Some might want close supervision all the time, others might want complete freedom for their kids for some or all of the day. How do you cope with that? School trips, like many situations, don't function well if there is a complete free for all to set their own rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
rob@rar, a perfectly well argued option (sorry: that's the one above your response to kel). I cannot fault it. And laced with humour too!
I think the issue here is the ski snake is the 'easier' option, and the one a lot of times become the default, enabled because people can hide behind "nanny state" excuses without thinking for themselves.
And why is this? - I posit that it is because they have been cowed into not taking responsibility (even as the supervising adults) as a result of an overbearing state making decisions for them when THEY should have been being given the opportunity to make mistakes...
And the girls in this class, not having been given your scenario, will also grow into that mindset. And so the wheel turns.
If only all people were able to think in the way you describe and come up with those types of solutions. Unfortunately, one gets the impression that that ability has been sore eroded.
(PS sending another starter your way to Inside-out)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Kel wrote: |
| Then my kids turned up who had been skiing the whole of Paradiski by themselves all morning aged 14 & 15.I know and understand about duty of care etc etc, but go back to the original post, the world has gone bl00dy mad. |
It's right to say that you know about duty of care, etc, and it is absolutely right that you exercise that for your kids. But what happens if you are responsible for a group of 10 kids and their parents all have different idea about the level of care that is required. Some might want close supervision all the time, others might want complete freedom for their kids for some or all of the day. How do you cope with that? School trips, like many situations, don't function well if there is a complete free for all to set their own rules. |
It wasn't a free for all, it was 4 lads all of whom were capable and sensible, like I said He had assessed the risk and thought yes they will be OK. He shouldn't have done it then, but there is not the remotest of chances of any teacher ever giving "responsible" kids freedom like this
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JimW wrote: |
I think the issue here is the ski snake is the 'easier' option, and the one a lot of times become the default, enabled because people can hide behind "nanny state" excuses without thinking for themselves.
And why is this? - I posit that it is because they have been cowed into not taking responsibility (even as the supervising adults) as a result of an overbearing state making decisions for them when THEY should have been being given the opportunity to make mistakes...
And the girls in this class, not having been given your scenario, will also grow into that mindset. And so the wheel turns.
If only all people were able to think in the way you describe and come up with those types of solutions. Unfortunately, one gets the impression that that ability has been sore eroded. |
That sounds to me like a very convincing argument that all teachers/responsible adults on school ski trips should have done a little bit of training and perhaps a small qualification like "Ski Leader". Nothing too onerous (or the anti-bureaocracy brigade will be up in arms), but just enough to give some ideas about how you can supervise a group without reverting to the dreaded ski school snake approach, and to give teachers the confidence to do this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kel wrote: |
| It wasn't a free for all, it was 4 lads all of whom were capable and sensible, like I said He had assessed the risk and thought yes they will be OK. He shouldn't have done it then, but there is not the remotest of chances of any teacher ever giving "responsible" kids freedom like this |
Did the teacher check with the parents of all four that they were happy to be left in the ski resort alone while the rest of the group went to visit Lourdes? I'll bet he didn't. I'll bet it was not the school's policy to leave pupils in a resort alone, never mind on a piste! I'll bet he was worried - if something had gone wrong he would have been instantly dismissed, and rightly so IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
So how does a school skiing trip normally operate? As a parent of an 8 and an 11 yr old it has already reached the stage of them wanting some freedom and 'meet us at the 3rd snow cannon' or 'ski down until you reach marker 13'. Oh, to be able to keep up!
So on a school ski trip:
Are there always bone fide instructors with the kids when they are skiing? Does the teacher sometimes lead the groups down the hill? Is it all 'ski school snakes'? Is it 'rendevous at X at Y time' or 'ski down and we will meet at the third snow canon'? What happens if the teacher/s in charge takes a tumble and is stretchered off the hill - who takes responsibility for getting the kids off the hill? Do they have a teacher at each end of the line to make sure everyone gets down? If the teacher rather than an instructor is in charge of a group do they have to have a minimum skiing ability? The more I think about it the more you realise what an undertaking it is if the teachers DO have responsibility for the kids - it is not the same as walking a class round Chatham docks with some parents helping is it? It's a wonder they do it at all. If its an instructor then I guess they have a mechanism for dealing with most of the above and their class size is limited - in addition I think there is an understanding amongst kids that in a lesson situation it is a ski school snake and most will comply (as will adults), but on a school ski trip is is only lessons or is some skiing done out of a 'lesson' format?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JimW wrote: |
| (PS sending another starter your way to Inside-out) |
Thanks ever so much for the recommendation, but we've changed our business model a bit over the last couple of months and now we don't offer lessons for complete beginners. We only teach on the main slope at Hemel and don't run a Learn to Ski programme in the Alps any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| The more I think about it the more you realise what an undertaking it is if the teachers DO have responsibility for the kids |
I think you're right that it is a significant undertaking. Ultimately the teachers have responsibility for everything, even if they temporarily hand that responsibility to a ski school while the kids are in lessons.
| Megamum wrote: |
| - it is not the same as walking a class round Chatham docks with some parents helping is it? It's a wonder they do it at all. |
Again, absolutely right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
School trip, so school rules apply. If the person doesn't want to comply with the rules, they shouldn't go on the trip. Simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Scottish Scrutineer wrote: |
| Simple. |
I don't think it is quite that simple. A school telling a parent that "these are the rules, if you don't like them that's tough" is just as bad as the advice earlier "she's 18, so you can sod off". Ultimately the school does have responsibility, legally and by accepted convention, so the school's rules must be accepted. But there needs to be a sensible dialogue between parents, pupils and the school so those rules can be understood and agreed to, including the school doing what it can to accommodate the wishes of pupils and parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Thought this story was relevant to this discussion. A bit of fun in the snow, one error of judgement then the teacher is sacked and has a huge professional black mark that may well blight the rest of his career. |
You beat me to it.
As I have often thought with similar stories, if I ran a school I'd be asking him to come over for interview.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
One of the problems here is that a school trip is, almost by definition, adults looking after other people's kids. It's a very limited environment, with boundaries which have to be set for the "lowest common denominator" (what about the 18 year old who's a complete dick head, think's he's Bode Miller, or the 17 year old Head Girl who's been skiing since she was 4).
18 year olds are adults. At least in some legal sense. If they choose to put themselves in the anomalous situation of going on a "school trip" (and I can't for one minute think any of mine would have dreamt of wanting to do so) then yes, there are going to be anomalies.
It's obvious from some SHs discussions, and just chatting to friends, that parents have extremely different ideas about what they let their kids do. Some young teenagers have never been off under their own steam on public transport, or done the kind of "Duke of Edinburgh" 3 day hikes, with tents on their backs, which were a regular feature at my boys' school. My 14 year old daughter, with friends, cycled to the Isle of Wight and camped at a site about 2 miles from the marina where we and friends were with our boats. Some of my friends clearly thought we were mad to allow this (there were - boys! too). On our later ski holidays, she and her cousins (and any other waifs and strays they'd picked up in the accommodation), used to go batting round the ski areas on their own, on their snow blades,  through streams, woods, ditches, etc etc etc. We were pretty careful where we went (their wildest holiday, with a group of very fast and skilled young ice hockey players on blades) was in Valloire/Valmeinier where the dangers were limited. I'd not have let them do that in the Espace Killy. Again, other parents keep much tighter rein on their kids. We were fortunate, no harm became them, but it could have done, and it was a calculated risk.
Thing is, she wouldn't have wanted to go on a school ski holiday where she had to be under supervision all the time unless it had been focussed on high quality, high level, all-day tuition (then she'd have loved it).
I was very close to a very sad incident where a child lost an eye in a freak accident in a sailing session supervised by a very highly qualified and experienced Senior Instructor. The parents (who had always seemed perfectly nice and reasonable sort of people) were absolutely bent on suing. At least the mother was, and the father backed her up reluctantly, I suspect. My daughter (a friend of the injured girl, and also at the same session) and all the others were given strict instructions, because of the legal ramifications, to avoid discussing the incident, whilst people prepared their positions. The instructor involved was absolutely devastated though no possible blame attached to him (indeed, by chance, another instructor at the same session was being assessed by a senior RYA person, and the whole group had discussed and agreed the (fairly risk averse) plan for the session beforehand.
The person who suffered the most was the little girl - a really nice and sensible child (according to my daughter) who was never allowed to go to the club again, missed a lot as a result and also felt bad about the way her mother had pursued the instructor. It was particularly difficult for her as she went to a smart private school in Portsmouth and the sailing club was the main place she met "local" friends (who were mostly at the local comps). The case never got anywhere, there was no case to answer, and it was all just miserable. the senior instructor was a volunteer, who gave hours every week to help the kids. In his day job he was a successful lawyer. Had he been a professional instructor, or a teacher, he would probably have been suspended pending investigation and might well have had his career ruined. He still sails (very well indeed) but I don't think he instructs any more.
People do lose all sense of balance and objectivity where their kids are involved. My daughter got a very bad-tempered (and ill spelt) email from the mother of a girl whose mobile phone she had confiscated during a history lesson when the girl kept texting under the desk. The stupid woman accused her of denying her human rights. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| jzBun wrote: |
If she, and her friends (all 1 took out independent insurance would this bypass the school's objections? |
What do the school have to say on the matter? A letter to the group leader could be more productive than this discussion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
The more I think about it the more you realise what an undertaking it is if the teachers DO have responsibility for the kids
Start thinking about the responsibility from 6.30am until 2am. Sitting in a corridor after "lights out" waiting for them to finally go to sleep.
TBH the bit where the instructor takes over and you just have to follow them down the slope is the easy bit 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Jonny Jones wrote: |
| It also supports the view - widely held outside the educational establishment - that, in their obsession with health and safety, schools are abdicating their responsibility to develop children into rounded human beings who are able to make sensible decisions and take responsibility for their own actions. |
OK school governor hat on now, it isn't about an obsession with H&S, though of course that must be properly considered and making sure the kids are safe is a primary concern (note safe isn't the same as totally, utterly risk free, my eldest daughter broke her arm in an accident at school, even at 11 she straight away said it was her own fault for doing something rather daft!), it is about staying out of jail and avoiding the school or individual staff member being sued for compensation. If there is any obsession anywhere it is in what seems to be societies current view that someone else is to blame for everything that happens!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| davkt wrote: |
| If there is any obsession anywhere it is in what seems to be societies current view that someone else is to blame for everything that happens! |
Which is closely followed by the view that schools are usually in the wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| e17phil wrote: |
Who knows, but if I was a parent with a kid on a school trip and that kid repeatedly broke the rules by going off piste I would fully expect a teacher to take the pass away. Do you not feel the same way?
|
Given the way things are today I think that puts you in the sensible minority, guess many/most would be chasing the school for a refund on the holiday as the little darling didn't get to play in the snow as much as they'd paid for!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I've come to this debate late. But as someone who takes a school trip of 140 kids every year I thought I'd put my two penneth in. It's all about what was written on the risk assessment. I'm 99% sure the insurance will cover pupils skiing without teachers as long as it is on Piste. (thats based on ACE insurance policy which a large amount of LEA's use) But before having permission to take the trip the Teacher in Charge would have to put in a risk assessment to the LEA. If that risk assessment says (like mine does) that no pupil will ski without supervision then they can not change from that as if there was an accident they'd be seen as negligent. I don't take 18 year olds on my trip but if I did I'm sure I'd put on the risk assessment that sixth formers can ski without supervision. I'd then make this risk assessment available to the parents.
Our pupils have 5 hours lessons/guides a day. It's easier when you take 140 kids though to have groups that suit the pupils' ski ability so they are not bored with the skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Kel wrote: |
| It wasn't a free for all, it was 4 lads all of whom were capable and sensible, like I said He had assessed the risk and thought yes they will be OK. He shouldn't have done it then, but there is not the remotest of chances of any teacher ever giving "responsible" kids freedom like this |
Did the teacher check with the parents of all four that they were happy to be left in the ski resort alone while the rest of the group went to visit Lourdes? I'll bet he didn't. I'll bet it was not the school's policy to leave pupils in a resort alone, never mind on a piste! I'll bet he was worried - if something had gone wrong he would have been instantly dismissed, and rightly so IMO. |
No of course he didn't. Yes what he did was wrong, but it has gone too far the other way. There is a story in the news at the moment about a teacher losing his job for taking 2 kids sledging, something to do with unacceptable level of risk, ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kel, The guy sacked over the sledging had a very long disciplinary record which hasn't really been reported. Constantly undermined the authority of the Head so I'm led to believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| JimW, well put. I have long wondered when H&S will force the positioning of walk ways with handrails along mountian ridges so that no one can fall off. It would be very safe. And boring. |
Barrel Edge on Wirksworth moor, classic gritstone escarpment with a path along the the very edge of the top of the slopes, yep you've guessed it Derbyshire County Council in their infinite wisdom have decided to fence off a good length of the scarp slope!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Think I might jump in here..! The couple of school trips I attended had a few seperate groups within in, beginner, intermediate and advanced, all of which had their own teacher of a proper standard, along with a professional instructor - that seemed to work quite well. Admittedly, the oldest student was 16, but the principle still applies.
However, I think the thing to remember, and please understand I intend to cause no offence by this is that when a group of older teenagers get together, be they exceptionally talented and experienced skiiers or complete novices, the temptation is always to show off. And that, ladies and gents is when accidents happen - you can't blame the teacher and the schools for not allowing "free-skiing" time. Not sure if I was a teacher (bearing in mind I'm training to be one) that I'd fancy fcuking up my career so that the more advanced skiiers can have more fun. Forgive me if that sounds selfish! Majority of the time, there's always one idiot that'll do something stupid if left to their own devices. I'm sure we all know (and sometimes love) at LEAST one.
Although I also agree with the idea that H&S monkeys have ruined quite a lot of fun and has gotten completely out of hand!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| jzBun wrote: |
james75,
| Quote: |
| School trip, school rules apply. Quite simple. |
Once again someone who has simply failed to read the thread properly.
| Quote: |
| And I know that when on a school trip you obey the school's rules. But it was a serious question about amending the rules in certain situations. |
This is not about breaking the rules and conditions of the trip. I never argued for that. This is about setting/amending the rules!! Not when already out there but when the trip is conceived.
Sounds like you selectively read a few lines and then fired off like reactionary DM reader. Are you Ann Widdicombe and do I collect £5? |
Not AnnWiddicombe. Just a teacher who has been on 10 or so school trips with 90 11-18 year olds. I would love to let the kids go off on their own, but I know who's head would be on the chopping block if one of them had an accident.
As far as I'm concerned, ANYbody who signs up for a trip has to abide by its rules. You cannot bend/amend the rules to suit one or two people in a group of 90. Suffice to say that if Chemmy Alcott paid to come on the trip, she would not be allowed to ski without teacher/instructor supervision!
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
Not AnnWiddicombe. Just a teacher who has been on 10 or so school trips with 90 11-18 year olds
|
Touché, james75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
james75,
| Quote: |
Suffice to say that if Chemmy Alcott paid to come on the trip, she would not be allowed to ski without teacher/instructor supervision!
|
One might consider that was for the wrong reasons however...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Dave_A wrote: |
If they're on a school trip then the teachers and school have a duty of care regardless of their age.
Here's a sobering example of what can go wrong with an "intermediate skier" on a school trip.
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=350164 |
My missus was telling me about this case, a bit of research shows that the case went to appeal and the school was held to not be negligent; that is the bollocking the student got was sufficient, and it was his own bleedin' fault for playing silly bugs. (To paraphrase the appeal judge, of course! The executive summary was that yes, removal of lift pass privileges would have prevented the accident, but the failure to do so wasn't negligence and the accident itself "... resulted from his carelessness, it was a skier's error on-piste, the sort, as Mr Exall acknowledged, to which even highly experienced skiers can succumb on occasion.")
There is no reason why a school party couldn't permit a group of older/experienced students to go off on their own, especially if they are adults in their own right. Practically, they may prefer not to simply because it's easier to look after 3/4 groups that you've got a handle on, rather than worrying about a splinter who, as competent as they may be, are on their own cognisances to be in the required places at the required time. Indeed, if I were a teacher, I'd be more concerned about them pissing off for a cheeky bottle of vin than anything else!
IMO, if a young adult wants the freedom to ski as they wish, then they need to arrange their own trip rather than trying to crowbar their own agenda onto what is already a complicated logistical exercise. As I understand it (being some decades since I went on a school ski trip), it's not necessarily anymore expensive to go it alone then it is with a school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| multijoy wrote: |
There is no reason why a school party couldn't permit a group of older/experienced students to go off on their own, especially if they are adults in their own right. |
For goodness' sake, have you not read what has been said many times in this thread by various people who know what they are talking about? With some 20 years experience as headteacher of secondary schools, I can tell you simply that you are wrong. Had any member of my staff allowed pupils on a trip, 18 years old or not, to ski on their own, he/she would have been immediately subjected to formal disciplinary procedures and almost certainly have ended up with at least a formal warning.
Yes, there are good reasons, most if not all of which have been cited in this thread. I doubt if we are all wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
My daughter has been on school ski trips and my son has recently returned from this year's very successful and fun school trip and he will go back for more next year. He will probably give the sledging a miss next time as he was covered in bruises.
It was stipulated quite clearly before we booked, as always, that there would be no skiing without supervision. The supervision on the slopes was provided by the local ski school instructors.
Surely these older, experienced students will have lessons in a group appropriate to their level of skiing and it is then up to the instructor to make the week fun for them. My experience of ski school has always been very positive and I think I would go as far as saying that the lessons with a 'cool/hot/sic' (delete as appropriate or substitute whatever the latest term is) instructor were clearly the highlight of at least one of my daughter's holidays!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Did you read my post, or just the bit you wanted to?
There is no reason in law why you may not permit a group of students to go off on their own. The TES piece quoted suggested that a school was found negligent for failures of supervision, but when the case went to appeal it was found they were not. The trial judge was held to have erred when he linked the fact that they didn't have their lift passes removed but instead were given a bollocking, to the accident that later occurred. Chittock v Woodbridge School [2003] P.I.Q.R. P6
I have no real opinion on whether or not a school should permit a group to go unattended. I don't believe that there is any reason in law why they should not, if the school are prepared to put in place appropriate measures, which must be balanced with available supervision, logistical considerations etc. etc.
It is entirely a matter for the individual party/school, and you'll note that I pointed out that the best way for a young adult to ski independently would be to arrange their own trip.
I'm not especially fussed about your reign of terror, sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
multijoy,
| Quote: |
I'm not especially fussed about your reign of terror, sorry.
|
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Another one coming late to this but wanted to have a say having learned to ski with school in 1980 when I was 12 - shows how old I he am - and then went every year bar one all the way through to sixth form. In those days we were allowed to ski on our own once you had your old British 3 star award which if anyone can remember also included a theory test (do they still do this as learning about the rules of the hill seems to be something that even a few adults could do with?) Still had lessons in the morning and early afternoon and then a couple of hours freeski after that. The attraction was being away with mates and without family and the fact that you got an extra week on the snow.
My eldest goes on her first school ski trip next year at 13 and will have 10 years under her belt but is happy to be going away with her mates, and without parents. Like me, she will be happy to be on the snow for an extra week and as a parent I would be happy to know that she is accompanied while out on the slopes as my double standards would stop me being happy about her or her brother being allowed to go off looking for small cliffs to drop off or build kickers off the side of the piste - the latter did lead to an early finish one day and a telling off over a beer in the hotel bar with the head of PE. Halcyon days!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Sorry multijoy, there was no mention of "in law" either in the sentence I quoted, "There is no reason why a school party couldn't permit a group of older/experienced students to go off on their own, especially if they are adults in their own right" nor in any of the rest of what you said in the first posting. You may have had "in law" in your mind but it isn't in your words ... well, not till you added it in after my reply. My response was to what you actually said at first.
As to the "reign of terror" , that, if you knew me, is laughable. I am simply pointing out what would have happened had a teacher disregarded the strict no unsupervised skiing rules of the local authority. The disciplinary action would have been instigated by the local authority as the employer, whose rules had been disregarded by the teacher, an employee. Is an employee's obligation to work according to the requirements of the employer laid down in the law somewhere? I don't know but expect so since one is in a contractual situation. Clearly an employer can legally sack someone who doesn't, as is most recently illustrated in the sledging incident or as can be seen on building sites on the "No hat, no boots, no job" signs. For the teacher there seems to be good reason in law in contractual terms (disregarding employer's rules) for not allow unsupervised skiing; and for the employer be it local authority or independent school, there seems to be good reason in law in terms of legal liability for not allowing it in the first place.
On the level of personal experience, during my 20 years' "reign of terror" I never came across any member of staff involved in any form of outdoor activities who even required a "gentle word" about safety: they were all responsible and reliable. And my skiing colleagues in particular were punctilious about the supervised safety of young people. We were lucky to an extent in experiencing few injuries and no serious problems, since some accidents can be truly just accidental, but to paraphrase a well-known saying, it is amazing how much luckier you get, the more careful you are. We were also lucky that while we carried out risk assessments in advance of activities, and continuous risk assessment during an activity, we didn't until latterly have to complete mountains of paperwork to demonstrate that it had been done.
And maybe that's a final general point I would want to make. There is nothing new in risk assessment: what is comparatively new is the formalisation of it, with a title, and the requirement to record so much of the details. While that is a lot of work, if the formalisation and recording help to ensure that it is properly done in every case and that consequently there are fewer preventable accidents, then it is no bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, that's a very informative link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you were to allow pupils to ski unsupervised where would you draw the boundary?
Pupils who were 18? Then their 17 year old friends in the same school year who could be much better skiers would complain.
Pupils who have skied more than 5 times? They could still be very weak.
The rules are there to ensure a safe trip for EVERYONE.
As mentioned above the lessons/guide should be catered to the needs of the pupil and then everyone will enjoy.
On our trips the guides/instructors will often take the best skiers off piste or to the snowpark or over to other resorts. No one ever complains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| ccl wrote: |
| multijoy wrote: |
There is no reason why a school party couldn't permit a group of older/experienced students to go off on their own, especially if they are adults in their own right. |
For goodness' sake, have you not read what has been said many times in this thread by various people who know what they are talking about? With some 20 years experience as headteacher of secondary schools, I can tell you simply that you are wrong. Had any member of my staff allowed pupils on a trip, 18 years old or not, to ski on their own, he/she would have been immediately subjected to formal disciplinary procedures and almost certainly have ended up with at least a formal warning. |
What a ridiculous generalisation - I suggest a read of the link above, ccl before you spout off like that. I can tell you simply that you are wrong.
As recently as 2002 a school allowed its older pupils to go off on their own. On a red run one of the children broke his spine. The school was held not guilty of negligence. The claim had been brought on the basis that the pupil had been off piste (against the rules) earlier in the trip and that the school should have withdrawn his lift pass - and then the accident would not have happened. Nobody suggested that the school should not have allowed them off on their own - the parents had agreed to this policy prior to the trip.
Now obviously I do agree with you on the following two points:
1. The school makes the rules. OP's school has its rule, the rule must be followed.
2. In your own local authority the rule was that no pupil should be permitted to go off on his own, and any teacher in breach of that would be subject to disciplinary action. Obviously you, your schoolmasters and your pupils had to follow that rule. (It would be interesting, given the above, whether an individual schoolmaster would successfully challenge a disciplinary process.)
However, you cannot make a generalisation that no child should ever go off on his own on a school trip. That is for the school, the parents and other interested parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I ave been on the phone to our LEA this afternoon regarding our ski trip in Feb. They have told me that all pupils must be supervised when skiing. Not sure if every other LEA gives out the same advice. They also told me all pupils must wear a helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
