AIBU to think school are too risk happy with older kids in Forest School?

[LizzieLookAtTheFlowers]

10yo was taking part in organised forest school activity and broke her collarbone. Am all for inherent risk of adventurous play, this is not the issue - had she simply fallen, I wouldn't be here. But, the hammock she was in collapsed and she was tipped out backwards about 110-120cm and landed on exposed tree root causing a displaced clavicle fracture. 2 weeks off school, aside from that healing ok, will need physio as has reduced range of motion.

However, circumstances surrounding the incident concern me.

1. The hammock had also collapsed on the previous go - child thankfully not injured.
2. Teacher was not there, they got him, he re-rigged it and tugged it, told them not to swing then went back to campfire.
3. There were 2 adults to 14 kids overall, but across 2 stations quite far apart, so hammock area couldn't be seen or heard when he was at campfire with the TA and other kids.
4. The big exposed tree root is what broke her collarbone

On first occasion, kids were swinging friends in hammock quite vigorously which is what caused it to fall down. On second occasion, one girl didn't listen and swung my daughter in it, but as she was one small girl it wasn't crazy swinging and it collapsed more dramatically than before.

School have essentially said Y6 are old enough to get on with things themselves and don't need babysitting, they should have been able to trust them (presume this means they blame the girl who swung it but they haven't explicitly said this). they have lowered the hammock a bit to 86cm and that H&S assessor said the knots were fine. But didn't explain why then the hammock repeatedly collapsed if the knots are fine.

They didn't report to RIDDOR as said it wasn't related to a work activity even though it was in lesson time, the equipment failed, had previously failed and teacher decided to keep going with it and leave the kids unsupervised.

No adult witnessed her fall or was there to provide assistance - she had to get up and be helped over to the campfire quite a way away to tell an adult what had happened, and they couldn't even hear her crying.

I feel uneasy. I don't feel the school are learning lessons from this that Y6 kids are still kids. Surely if something changes and a risk becomes KNOWN rather than theoretical they need to change safety plans. I probably wouldn't have left them to it at that point, or would have taken the hammock out of action for the lesson until I could look into why it was falling repeatedly. But their investigation showed "no evidence of unsafe management" not even the hazards in the fall zone or the height or anything (despite them making some changes).

It's not the first time. In last 12 months I know of 4 other kids hospitalised due to forest school. One of them I know the school were really defensive and blasé about. Despite their risk assessment stating "no running", they organised a manhunt activity which resulted in a boy running full pelt into suspended ropes and rebounding off them with his face/neck. He got severe facial/eye rope burns that scarred, whiplash and concussion. They said no safety issues found.

I just... I'm uneasy. I know accidents happen, and these kids will be fine, but both of those incidents plus the other two could have been so much worse and there's just a pattern of ignoring risk assessments and generally saying "oh well the whole point of Forest School is they get a bit roughed up and they're almost at secondary school!" It's always Year 6 that get hurt!

Am I oversensitive? Or should the school be a bit less risky happy?

While I agree that a year 6 shouldn’t need constant adult supervision (these kids should be able to get to school and back in 2 months time if they aren’t already doing it), kids do random impulsive shit and need watching- especially if others might egg them on.

It’s unclear if the hammock fell because of the swinging or if the tying technique or equipment was wrong. The fact that the girl who swung your dd was little is neither here nor there. I’ve known toddlers who are strong enough to hurt an adult. The girl who swung your dd should have known better and she and the other kids who swung others should have been forced to sit out the activity because they can’t be trusted. In a couple of months they’ll be at secondary and expected to use cookers in food tech and Bunsen burners in science.

The hammock was the issue. Suggesting you withdraw your child instead of them just removing the hammock is very arse about face. 30 children vs one hammock above hard roots is asking for trouble. If she'd been climbing a tree she would have fallen more upright.

Well, this school is definitely risk happy! They don't take any responsibility when preventable accidents happen and literally do not follow their legal obligations. Not reporting a RIDDOR reportable incident is a criminal offence and they just didn't do it... Like, are you ok with your kid just going to a school where they don't understand the basics?

When my friend said "your risk assessment says no running in the roped area, so why did you organise a running activity in it?" they replied "there is no evidence of any unsafe management and we're satisfied all safety precautions were taken." 😅

So your daughter saw that other children had fallen out of it and then decided to go on it herself and let someone swing her even though the teacher had just said not to? And regarding the tree root, do you want them to remove all the trees? It wouldn't be a very good forest school.

i personally think forest school is worth the price of broken bones. Just ask the school to make sure the girl who pushed your daughter without her consent is seperated from yours next time.

My daughter was told by the teacher it was ok to take her turn. And one girl swung the hammock; how was she supposed to stop her from inside it? I'm guessing she should also have figured out at 10 that a tree root was a hazard BEFORE it smashed her shoulder and dug it out or moved the posts herself. What a bloody moron she is. I'll take her tablet away 😊

PS checking fall zone for rocks and tree roots is literally in the school's risk assessment and is the law for kids play equipment, and also bloody common sense we all follow in our own gardens if we aren't thick

Well , they obviously have a different perspective on their own management of the situation. They are trained, experienced professionals. But if you disagree with their way of working you must act as you see fit.

And what basics didn't the kids, year SIX, understand???? Don't swing on the hammocks. If they didn't understand that don't swing on a hammock means DON'T swing on a hammock, then maybe they are better in a classroom with extreme supervision.

And any particular reason why your friend is now involved??

I agree. I just think they should be a little bit more aware of what is in their control. No idea what happened with the girl they won't disclose.

So your daughter was sat calmly in the hammock when this lunatic girl, ignoring her protestations, ran over and began to shake it violently enough to break it?

I am talking about one of the previous injuries/incidents I mentioned in my first post. I helped her with the complaint she made a few months ago and saw the response. I thought her question was reasonable and the school were definitely not reasonable and ignored lessons that would have served them (and my daughter) well re following their own RAs.

It is definitely a reportable incident.

Children are not considered to be at work in a school. From the HSE perspective they are treated as members of the public. As such the school should only report the incident if the pupil was taken to hospital as a result of the accident and was found to have sustained injuries. If they are taken to hospital as a precaution, and the medical advice is that no serious injury was sustained then there is no need to report it. A broken collar bone would be classed as a serious injury so this should be reported.

That said, it is likely that the HSE will not take any further action unless there is a history of similar accidents at the school. They do not investigate every reported accident and this is not particularly serious in either nature or outcome.

Are you serious? When a teacher says "ok all ready for you, hop in!" and watches her get in then walks off, she is supposed to therefore override his safety decision and say "actually no sir, I will decline this fun activity I've been waiting for. My dynamic risk assessment has concluded you should probably take the hammock out of service pending full inspection or at least stay here to supervise."

FFS. Absolute clown. 🤣🤣

Is this the Manhunt incident?

Kid running in a no running zone??
Like swinging after being told not to swing?

Did you read what I wrote? Because that is not what I said, is it? Forgot how mental mumsnet was! 🤣🤣

The school organised a manhunt activity where the instructions were to run around and hide and chase each other. Kid followed the rules of the game and ran into ropes and was injured. Transpires the RA said no running in the area but the school still organised a running activity in the area anyway and couldn't admit to any issues. It really is as plain and simple as I am saying it. I don't know how else to explain.

Thanks this is balanced. I think it was a combination of all of the factors combined that led to the injury not one big mistake but several small ones.

They need to assess safety but so do the kids. They were told not to swing, they swung. If my kid was going to an outdoor school I;d be clear with them, if they are told not to do it, don’t do it. Sure your kid didn’t swing it, but they also didn’t get out or ask the kid to stop. At 10 years’ old, they should know to do what they are told where safety is involved.

You... think I haven't? I did they said there was no evidence of any unsafe management.

A manhunt is not the same as a running activity.

Is it at all possible that the children were told not to run in the no running area ?
Could this be why the school finds no issues in their management because the issues are year 6 kids who swing hammocks after being told not and run full speed after being told not to?

“But don’t swing” is the key here.

It happened literally as soon as the girl swung it; it wasn't violent I already said this and this is what my daughter said and the the other kids also according to the head who took their statements. What was my daughter supposed to do when it happened so fast? Why do people love to blame kids for things like this happening to them?

And, frankly, surely a hammock should be able to withstand one really small girl swinging it for a second. Hammocks are not static they ARE dynamic and kids WILL swing them. Risk assessment says nothing about not swinging and as far as I can see synthetic ropes are not recommended for exactly this reason.

You cannot remove the risk from every activity. We would all live in padded cells.

I had one parent demand that the local group I ran should have all scissors removed as her son got a small cut on his finger. The kids were around 8. The scissors had blunt ends and plastic "blades". How he managed to cut skin still confuses me. I said absolutely not, and she did try to escalate it. Bonkers!

You see this elsewhere. A kid has an accident once, and that activity is banned for all kids evermore. We will run out of activities soon!

Parents seem very keen to remove every shred of risk from their child lives. This means the kids have no concept on how to assess or manage risk.

The outcome - they get a taste of semi freedom and go nuts!

Accidents happen sure but 4 children needing medical assistance is crazy

Supervision involves being nearby not across the other end of a forest totally out of earshot and view and this fact is not disputed by the school.

Are you telling me if you had 7 kids to supervise and they had been playing unsafely and caused something to fall, narrowly missing an injury, that you would watch that happen then think its good idea to piss off somewhere else where you can't see or hear them?

No person, teacher or institution is perfect. I am not saying he should have been. All I want is to hear "with hindsight that wasn't the best thing to do and I have learned something from that." Not that "this was totally the right thing to do why are you so mental", which is what I'm hearing.