Quick straw poll - Y6 residentials would you allow your child to go abroad?

[Crunchymum]

I am sure some primary schools already do residentials abroad, so would be good to hear about them, but if your school do not but were considering offering it, would it be a yay or nay?

They've already done a 4 night / 5 day residential in Y4. But this was about an hour away (and much, much cheaper than the Y6 trips they run)

Yes.

I wouldn’t have had a problem with it being abroad and mine had passports, suitcases suitable for flying etc. I would question whether you have included all costs for overseas including insurance for any dc or helpers with medical issues which can mount quickly. I’m guessing it’s not too far and by coach - think about the logistics of food as can’t take dairy or meat into the EU so packed lunches are tricky, additional cost if extra meal is required and so on

Yes. DD went abroad for a holiday riding camp when she was just 10 (Summer after the end of Y5).

The school did a trip June of Y6 after SATS, at that time they were already quite independent and sensible.

Passport wouldn't have been an issue as we always have up to date ones anyway.

Yes, as long as it was local abroad. I’d be delighted if my children were given that opportunity, especially at a PGL where you know everything will have high standards and be well organised.

I’d be pissed off if the school arranged a PGL type trip abroad. Just unnecessary additional travelling for the children. And so far if they needed to get home if unwell etc. Rubbish idea

i have never heard of a primary doing a residential abroad ever. Just incase of homesickness etc. high school aye.

i probably wouldn’t let them that young.

it would also be very expensive and the residential trips are hard to afford that the best of times.

Yes. My DD did overseas residential in Y5 and Y6 (a good few years ago) but because of overseas relatives she had a passport anyway.

It's not just about passport costs. I think if the school thinks it is, that's quite naive and definitely borders on discriminatory for a trip that is supposed to be semi-compulsory.

• Some families are unlikely to have the means to actually make this work - the process itself will feel too much (a quite high level of literacy, for example, is needed).
• some families may not have the right documentation to get a new passport easily even if they can meet the cost - a passport for an English child with English parents going back generations still requires hard PROOF of eligibility the first time. x1000 if, for example, one parent is not British, the child was not born in England etc.
• Some families may have passports that are not UK. This means they might struggle with visa or other issues when travelling to Europe or that the child would be subject to additional checks on their return to the UK. This ups the cost and effort for that family wanting to send their chid on a residential

These are just a few issues I can think of immediately. There may well be more.

Also< I really don't understand how the costs could be so much lower than a local residential. Insurance alone surely must be astronimical when taking a bunch of 10 year olds. DD was invited to travel to Europe with a friend and one of my concerns was that I'd probably need to look into quite heavy travel insurance.

I would say yes if DC wanted to go. Though DC doesn't have a valid passport and was in 2 minds whether to go on the P7(Y6) residential trip next academic year.

We were given a rough price, it was only confirmed once the number of children attending was confirmed. I lent tell you if the price was more or less than what we were told initially.

We're in the top half of Scotland so no chance of any abroad school trips in primary school!

Some very valid points which I hadn't considered.

I think a lot of socio-economic factors have already been considered before the options have been put to the parents. It's quite a middle class / international year group and I don't imagine there are many kids who wouldn't be able to get a passport. Of course I don't know this for sure but I'm pretty certain they wouldn't have offered these options if the majority weren't able to afford it and have the means to travel.

Costs are approximate, but the abroad trip is being touted as £100 less than the UK trip (which is just the next county over)

Mine are older now but none of them ever went on trips outside the uk with school, so it would be a hard “no” from me. Totally unnecessary risk for very little gain. Visas for non British passports, no NHS for accidents, no emergency parental support, money flowing out of the country rather than into our own communities, different safeguarding standards, long tiring journeys,…why even entertain this?

Yes, dc's school did trips to France for that age group.

Yes, it's not much different age wise from year 7 when most secondary schools offer trips abroad.

I went to Holland in the last year of my primary school in the late 70s. I vividly remember being split into groups of 3 in Amsterdam and being told to go and explore and meet back at the coach in a few hours ... imagine that now 😮

Even secondary, or just primary?

Well 40 odd years ago our Y6 residential was to France and a lot of the surrounding schools went too. But I lived in a city with plenty of cross channel ferries so it wasn’t so tricky. We could be dropped off at the ferry port so no
coach travel on this side.

So, because the "majority" can make it happen, they'll go ahead and exclude the minority?

Unless this is a private school that most likely has a high expectation of both wealth and capabilities, I find that very offensive. \

One of DD's friends is already routinely excluded from things becuase his family life is chaotic and his mother simply doesn't seem to have the skills to do what seem simple to the rest of us. I 100% guarantee that this child is NOT going on a residential to another coutnry. But I guess that doesn't matter because "the majority" are nice middle class families?

Truly optional trips is a completely different story but that is NOT what we are talking about here.

Yes definitely. Mine went to France in Y6 and back to Europe for enrichment week in Y7. I think it’s fab. Our residential when I was her age was to the local wetlands reserve for 2 nights in a bunkhouse.

The only consideration for me would be cost. It’s not a worry for us, but it’s an awful lot of money to a lot of families. Our school got a grant to cover part of the cost so was only £250, but full cost without the grant would have been £600 per student. That’s a heck of a lot of money and puts it out of reach to some children. There should be capacity to cover the full cost for certain children on a means tested basis.

Yes of course.

I am not saying anyone will be excluded but I am saying the vast majority would be able to make a trip abroad happen. That's just the demographic of the school / year group.

I am definitely one of the poorer parents in the equation.

Not private, just in a naice area with a huge middle class contingent.

For me it's the UK cost that is prohibitive. At least with the abroad trip the kids are travelling and having a proper "holiday" experience. The UK trip is the next county over from us.

Yes, of course. I'd assume it's something fairly tame within Europe at that, not trekking through the Himalayas. Though one of mine would have done that in a heartbeat!

By definition, they are excluding anyone who will not be able to come because of issues around their passport. And the argument seems to be that it doesn't matter becuase most children WOULD be able to come, if their parents want them to.

Whether that is 1 child or 10, that is nonetheless an exclusion. And in fact, arguably, it is WORSE if it's only 1 child. That child becomes even more "othered" as a result.

Most school trips abroad are by coach. Much easier to manage.