To think the school were neglectful?

[frogshead]

Dd (8) went on a school trip yesterday in a heat wave, 40 minutes each way walking to and from a museum.

I sent dd with 2 bottles of water and she didn’t drink either of them and a hat which she didn’t wear.
She arrived home with a headache and has had diarrhoea since.

I know this was partly down to her but she is juts a child and nobody encouraged her to wear her hat or drink anything all day.
I applied sun cream before she went so at least she had that.

Hawk watch is exactly what you are suggesting because you state you can't trust the kids to do as they are asked

The evidence is a child didn't listen

It would not make you liable in court

PP is just making hyped up claims now about a lack of proper care when a risk assessment would say that children would be reminded to drink water, there would be options to refill and children would be told to wear a hat

You wouldn't be liable if you had a RA in place which covered the above and you had followed it by requesting they drink. You wouldn't be liable because you didn't force feed water to a child who was 8 with no known special needs which required more intervention

Oh so you were there and know that the teachers didn't tell them to drink and to put their hats on?

You've seen their RA and know it didn't include the control of reminding children to drink and wear their hats?

All sorts of laws. Negligence, standard of care, the school's non-delegable duty of care to prevent harm to children during school activities - which includes active monitoring to mitigate unusual circumstances which otherwise may not be necessary, in this case unusual temperatures.

Children under 10 are rarely considered able to fully care for their own health and safety, and their contribution to an adverse outcome is insignificant.

Reminders are passive supervision. Given the heat and the exceptional circumstances, the teacher/adult should have actively ensured compliance, not just issued reminders.

There really isn't a way round it - the school was in charge, they failed to keep a child safe - or demonstrate adequate supervision. That's the long and short of it, decrying how 8-year-olds should know better or how 'this hasn't happened to me and I've walked 5 miles through the Sahara before' is pointless.

As it stands, nothing more is likely to come from this particular situation because the child doesn't seem to have been severely ill - and OP's reasonable concerns will (evidently) be dismissed by most people as 'complaining and making a fuss'. That is simply outcome bias and leading people to downplay the school's role in the situation. However, had this child been very unwell, or hospitalised, the very same actions (or non actions) defended here would would be viewed as reckless or negligent contributors.

If she had been more ill the replies still would have been "at 8 she is old enough to know to drink water and follow instructions"

Unless we have proof they weren't even being reminded to drink water/wear a hat then we cannot call them negligent.

What if she'd run into the road? The teachers would be watching them, they would be told not to do so, those who would be more at risk would be kept by a teacher/adult and on the inside. It still doesn't prevent a child doing something stupid they should know better on.

Would you call them negligent then?

Two very different things.

at eight, a child is old enough to put a hat on and drink when thirsty.

Which I've said several times

I don't doubt they would have but they would have still be wrong, just as they are now.

Unless we have proof they weren't even being reminded to drink water/wear a hat then we cannot call them negligent.

Reminding is not enough. Active supervision is what's missing. I've said it several times, but you don't want to read or process that bit.

What if she'd run into the road? The teachers would be watching them, they would be told not to do so, those who would be more at risk would be kept by a teacher/adult and on the inside. It still doesn't prevent a child doing something stupid they should know better on.

Would you call them negligent then?

No, because in the example you've given the adults are taking active measures to ensure compliance (teachers watching, keeping children at their side etc). In OP's daughter's situation this was not the case, that's why they are negligent in this instance. If a child had run in the road because the teachers had issued reminders and nothing else, and assumed 'well they're 8 they should know better', then yes, they would be negligent. In the same way, if the teachers here had actively ensured all the children were drinking and wearing hats, not just reminding, then there would be much less grounds, even if the outcome had been the same.

The cases are very different and cannot be judged in the same light - not every adverse outcome should be classed as negligent, however this one, based on the facts we have, was.

Don’t exprct school to parent your child.
It is up to YOU to make sure dd knows how much to drink. Teachers have no time to individually check each child on water stops.
20 minutes each way for a healthy child is absolutely fine.
You are being completely ridiculous and you need to teach your child some basic self care skills.

Is this a joke? It is the schools fault that your child didn’t wear the hat or drink the water you provided …… at age 8 (not a pre-schooler)?? I am not sure the issue lies with the school. Don’t 6 day trips happen within the next 2 school years? I would focus on your child listening and processing basic instructions and self care, maybe some SEN testing to help them if that is not possible, as it seems here, to help them progress and mature in school life.

Reminding them IS active
They are 8. Not 5. At 8 a reminder should be plenty.

Your stop every 5 minutes and idea that 8 year olds need a teacher hovering over them saying "we aren't moving until you drink" shows me you either have no idea or are risk adverse

We don't even have all the facts anyway so we can't base it on facts.

Reminding them IS active

It isn't.

At 8 a reminder should be plenty.

It demonstrably wasn't.

Your stop every 5 minutes...

I've already said the interval isn't the point

and idea that 8 year olds need a teacher hovering over them saying "we aren't moving until you drink"...

I didn't say that

...shows me you either have no idea or are risk adverse

Taking no action at all has resulted in harm. I know which side of the liability I'd rather be on.

We don't even have all the facts anyway so we can't base it on facts.

OK. Well then, you go ahead and just base it on what you really, really want to be true.

They DID take action if they reminded them

You're risk assessment is it should be more but you also suggested the excessive 5 minutes stops so your risk assessment is more risk averse. But you are quoting in parts and splitting quotes up to try and make points incorrectly

They wouldn't be facing consequences because they had a risk assessment in place.

You're basing it on facts we don't have.

What else were they supposed to do if you didn't mean hover over them then???

They DID take action if they reminded them

Putting it in capitals doesn't make it true. A quick google will prove you wrong. Reminding is passive (telling, instructing), action is active (verifying, supervising or enforcing).

They wouldn't be facing consequences because they had a risk assessment in place

Do you mean in this scenario? The existence of a risk assessment is absolutely not a defence against negligence. It depends if it was appropriate, it depends if it was thorough and it depends if it was followed.

• If the risk assessment didn't say 'active action is required to ensure all children have taken on water', then it's not fit for purpose, given the extreme temperatures on the day.

• If it did say that then the adults didn't comply with it in this instance and they are therefore negligent.

You can't really argue with that.

You mentioned that 5 minutes was excessive - I've said many times now that's fine - let's say you're right! But it's really not important and you trying to hang your argument on it is irrelevant. It's not about the intervals of the rest stops, it's about what they did during them that is the key. I don't know how to write it any clearer.

Omg you really do love being wrong don't you?

Risk Assessments only have to show what you think are relevant measures in place which suit your Assessment. You are trying to make out there is a set practice which it must say

If the teachers deem that the children are old enough that active reminders are all that is required then their RA saying this is adequate. You may feel differently but that doesn't invalidate their RA because it's THEIR assessment of the risk.

You also contradicted yourself. You think they need to be actively watching them and taking action but that hawk watching and "we won't move until you drink" aren't what you meant...

What else do you mean? What action can you take if they won't drink other than refusing to move (keeping children out in the sun much longer)? Take them back to school, which reduces adult numbers for the trip?

Informing parents after the fact isn't changing the outcome that the child might get ill, it's just informing parents why their child might feel unwell. And might well be what the school did.

And my point is that your RA going to 5 minutes means you have a higher level of risk aversion and would put a higher level of risk management in place because of YOUR feelings.

It's not about the time so much as about YOU that I'm commenting on

How different people assess risk and risk management differently

No, risk assessments still have to be appropriate and thorough, not just writing whatever you like. If a risk assessment is insufficient (due to carelessness or misjudgement or high risk tolerance or whatever by the author) then liability is still yours. Just having one isn't a magic cover-all, it has to be fit for purpose.

Teachers can deem children old enough but the law - and the outcome in this case - say otherwise. So a risk assessment is not 'adequate' if it has failed to make reasonable and verifiable decisions and steps to properly prevent harm.

(Also: what are active reminders? Reminders are passive, not active. You've been very clear that passive reminders are enough and no active follow through is needed, they are 8 after all)

Informing parents after the fact isn't changing the outcome that the child might get ill, it's just informing parents why their child might feel unwell. And might well be what the school did.

Of course it won't change the outcome, I've already said that, it's plain evident. But it will show that the school noticed and reported it - which would reduce their fault significantly, if not entirely. As it is, nothing suggests that they did notice or report it, which is the whole problem, and so they remain liable. You can pretend they did if you like, but the OP doesn't say that so you'd just be making it up.

It's the lack of action by the school - during and after the trip - that makes them negligent, not the outcome itself.