3 day school trip to London(52 Posts)
DS is in Y6 and their "leaving" trip is a 3 day trip to London (we are in Liverpool), see the sights, catch a show, houses of parliament etc
Am I being a miserablist to think this is a bit excessive for 10 & 11 year olds? I think they are too young to be in a capital city for 3 days withouth their family. I am also concerned about the logistics of 30 kids on tubes, 30 kids in a hotel etc etc. Not generally a worrier, DS has done scout camp etc - is confident and independent.
I think it would be great for them all Do Something together to mark the end of their time at the school but this seems.....unnecessary?
Dd1 had a trip to london when i think she was year4. They took all of keystage 2. They were fine, had a great time
No, not at all, bit of a jolly(bog standard primary btw, bit of affluenza in the air iykwim). Its also £325! Which is ok considering all they are doing. But.
It sounds like a fantastic trip.
What exactly is your objection to being "in a capital city"? . My DS went on a PGL style trip in y6 - for a week. At his previous school they used to do a three day trip in y4 and the isle of Whyte in y6 for a week.... Millions and millions of people, including groups of school children, use the tube every day and are fine. Even without their families. ;).
Fwiw I don't disagree about the price of school trips, but tbh £325 is nothing compared to the price of trips once they hit secondary. :-)
I did this at the same age. We travelled from Newcastle and went for a weekend. We also went on a 5 night residential to an outward bounds type place.
Teachers have to jump through hoops to complete risk assessments for this kind of thing, so they will have thought of safety issues.
When I was in y6, we went to Belgium for a week. Year 7 was 4 days in London. It was ruddy brilliant. We saw Starlight Express and the Queen's house.
We are in outer London (not on the tube), and school trips are all done on public transport. 60 kids in a year, plenty of staff help, tubes and buses and trains all the way. Involves walking kids to bus stop, getting all kids on train, then usually a tube at the the other end. Head counts all the time. Kids have a fantastic time.
In her last year at primary dd spent the night on HMS Belfast, visited the Houses of Parliament, saw a show etc. All on separate days/nights.
No different from any other school residential trip, but sounds excellent fun. They also did a pgl trip for 4 nights to countryside. The kids who didn't do the residential trip did day trips during school time to the south bank, museums in London etc.
The main reason the school never gets coaches is the expense, as well as the sheer convenience of public transport (it's free too)!
In my parent's village the Y6 pupils at the TINY village school all go to London for a 5 day trip. They absolutely love it and for some of them it's the first time they've been and maybe won't go again for a long long time- I would have thought it's a great idea? (and is cheaper than my DDs 3 night outward bound residential. What happens if parent's can't afford it? Will the school find the money?
Other DD's Y2 class went on a trip in London yesterday - 30 6 and 7 year olds on the bus and tube - they loved it as well.
How do you think kids who live in London travel around for school trips?
Not excessive, sounds brilliant. Some kids age 11 living in London would be taking themselves to school on the tube. I can't see a down side?
Thanks everyone. Maybe I am just being oldfashioned.
But...I just think this is symptomatic of things escalating beyond children's needs. I don't think 10 and 11 year old children need to go on city breaks without their parents. DS has done 2 or 3 nights away for cubs, scouts and with school for PGL type things - and I'm very happy with him doing that. To me what is important is the time with his class before they all leave and go their separate ways to high school.
Re cost, I think it is pretty good value for what is on offer. Though it is still quite a lot of money. He's not in secondary school though, he's in primary school, and when he is we will have to be selective about what trips can be afforded.
Day trip I would have less issue with; kids who live in London - don't see how that is relevant - they will have lots more experience of using the tube etc. I grew up in London and we have visited plenty of times.
You might have, but many children will not. Indeed when we went to London for our residential, several children had never been on a train before, let alone the underground!
Your children are clearly very fortunate but there will be others who will not have had the same opportunities. School trips are often aimed at those whose parents cannot take them everywhere, one of my sisters in law had never been outside Cornwall until she went to university in Devon.
But they are only 10 and 11! Not 17 and not having been further than the end of the road.
And tbh I know our school's demographic (and who is in my son's class) and it really doesn't apply.
I took my son and his friend to London on the train (30 minutes) They are 9 and his friend had never been on a train or public transport bus before. He's been on planes, taxis, coaches (school trips) and cars but never on public transport. What I'm saying is that small experiences like that are unforgettable for some kids.
Our school takes them to a PGL type place. I don't think that one type of trip is better than the other tbh.
I agree that it is weird that some kids have never even been on a bus. But..do they need to go on a £300+ trip over 3 days, 3 hours on the train just for an experience of public transport?
I am perfectly prepared to accept I am being old-fashioned and a bit grumpy about it. I also think its good to offer something that isn't outward bound for the kids who hate that stuff.
I think it's fine. Ds's school use the tube for school trips from 4 years
I just think this is symptomatic of things escalating beyond children's needs
We did it 25 years ago. As I said, our year 6 trip was a week in Belgium. And it's not something they need, no. However, it's entertaining and enriching and educational. It fosters independence and encourages personal growth. It's about culture and socialisation as well as friendship and responsibility. It can be seen so positively if you pause to consider the benefits.
We all indulge in things we don't need but still gain life experience from.
I live just outside London and will admit that the first time I saw groups of children on the tube my first thought was "OMG how on earth do they keep them all together/manage them all in the crowds etc etc,". But the kids love it, and the risk assessments are water-tight.
Due to living where we do my DS is incredibly confident using public transport be that bus/train/tube etc, and I am always a bit when I realise that kids from where I used to live are ferried around everywhere and lack that level of independence.
Ds gets himself home from school on the bus 3 days per week, has done since y5, and gets the metro type train when need be. His has some rather less competent and not-very-sensible classmates.
My comment about needs requires elucidation - this cohort have no shortage of trips and holidays (as I say, there's a touch of affluenza in the air) but tbh I think they need to run around in the woods and make things out of sticks and have some chilled out time together.
No way would my primary-school-aged child be going abroad without a family member. Wouldn't even consider it. I am still considering this London trip. He says he would rather go to scout camp in the summer - I'm totally into him doing that - we could just about afford both but our family holiday budget would have to absorb the costs.
It's London - not Damascus. I can't understand your objection to it.
My dd year six leaving trip is five days in the Isle of Man via plane. It's £260 which I think is really good value.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.