Yr 3 staying in a youth hostel open to other residents

[luciemule]

Hello -haven't been on MN for ages but wondered if anyone had experienced the following:
Next year, my DD is potentially going on a 2 night residential trip and they're all staying in a youth hostel (a really nice one). However, when questioned, the school have said that the children will be staying in unlocked rooms of about 3. Once the staff go to bed at night, any other of the hostel residents could enter their rooms. I am very NOT ok with this set (case of Caroline Dickinson, Brittany 1996)and feel that further measures could be taken to ensure more security at night. I have written to the hostel to double check what they say and they said they issue group leaders with keys to lock all rooms but the school told me they can't lock the rooms due to fire regs. I need to talk the head about the risk assessment but she's sooooo keen on the whole school trip (as I am in an ideal world) and I fear she'll shoot me down in flames before I've begun. What's a good way to approach this and get a satisfactory outcome that doesn't result in my child not going (which is what we'd decide if nothing is done).

I think that YH must have just slipped through the net. I have read an article today that says the school language exchange is being killed off because, although it has run happily since they began, there is now a call to have all families CRB checked. I think this is a great shame-my DS gained so much from staying with a non English speaking French family. It appears to be that, even if everyone was willing to be checked, it is just too cumbersome. I think that the situation of OP only exists because no one has thought about the potential (tiny) risk.

Roisin - I agree. The potential benefits will completely outweigh the tiny risk of staying in accommodation where there just happens to be strangers staying there too. I despair at how we are being obsessive with safety and I fear that we are breeding whole generations of children who will never be exposed to real life situations and will grow up completely un-streetwise. God help them when they reach the age of 18 - they just will not have a clue.

I wouldn't sleep in an unlocked room so certainly wouldn't let my 7 year old. It's nothing to do with creating independence it's common sense. If it was safe, then why do they have locks at all?

Ha! I notice I said practically the same thing yesterday - must try and remember what I've said in future.

Hocus what a silly question "If it was safe why have locks at all?" Have you ever stayed in any accommodation, hotel, guest house, band b whatever that dosent have locks on the doors?. Are these all unsafe then? Every hotel I have ever staued in, my bedroom door locked when I close it behind me. Please stop trying to make out hostels are unsafe just because they have door locks just like the majority of other accommodation.

I think that it would be very frightening to have a 7/8yr old in a locked room.

The op said the rooms were going to be unlocked at night and strangers could get in.

I dont think it is possible to leave the rooms unlocked unless the teachers are deliberately going to wedge them open. They will lock when closed but can be opened from the inside (yale-type lock) or by a teacher with a key from the outside. Why should this be frightening? Surely most 7 year olds have been shown how to open their own front (house) door from the inside? If not then they should have. If the door is closed a stranger will not be able to get in.

If they have front door style locks that's fine. I read it as if it was just like internal doors with just a handle. I still wouldn't be happy about children wandering about in the middle of the night using the shared toilet though.

I thought that the whole point was that they didn't have front door style locks? If they lock when closed and the teacher has a key, that it OK. I thought it was open to all or someone had to lock them. A door that the DC can just open is fine-a door they have to have a key to, is not (in case of fire).

Well why do hotels have locks then? And why do we all prefer ones with en-suite bathrooms rather than shared ones? If everything's so lovely and safe in the world generally, surely we should all be happy without either of those things?

This is not about saying YHs are dangerous and everywhere else is safe, this is about young children sleeping apart from their family and working out what are the best conditions for them to do that in - in a sole-use place, or a place where (mostly but not always benign) strangers can come in and out?

There are other options than just missing out on the trip, there's doing it with better sleeping arrangements. Yale-style locks wouldn't bother me as much as normal internal doors - that would definitely be more reassuring. But as a mum to a fairly immature 8 year old, I wouldn't be all that keen on the kids being free to wander either. Overall I would think: crap choice of accommodation, could do better, probably won't be a trip my child will be going on.

I think OP needs to find out exactly how the doors operate.

Manager said yale type locks with extra dead lock bolt on inside but school said they don't allow doors to be locked (perhaps they mean bolt locked).
Even so, if it's not sole-use, this still means children could be wandering about in the night, without direct supervision from staff, possibly coming into contact with other non-school residents.

I'm really NOT saying that YHs aren't nice. I have stayed in them and they were lovely. However, the risk thing you mention Squish is very important because although it's partly about assessing risk, it's not as simple as saying the risk of the kids molested/attacked etc is minimal because if something did happen, the consequence would be HUGE.

My DD is fairly streetwise and has experienced lots of things in her 7 yrs non-forces children haven't experienced and I'm really happy at what a confident little girl she is - she knows how to cross roads safely, not to talk to strangers, how to get help if she's lost and how to find where she is on a map using electricity pylons so I'd say that by 18, she'll be streetwise enough!
I'm still not happy about her sleeping down the corridor from mr/mrs YH resident who we don't know a thing about with an unlocked door.

I have just read some information about Kingswood activity centres. It seems the children sleep in dormitories with toilets and showers nearby (not ensuite). A manager would be 'on call' 24/7. So it seems children could (at Kingswood) get up in the middle of the night and 'wander' about the building without anyone being up and about. Or does a teacher remain up all night to patrol the corridors outside of the dormitories? I would doubt it.

I really hate to see File refer to Hartington as "crap (rather than inappropriate) choice of accommodation - could do better", when the only issue seems to be non sole-use (in this case - the school has chosen not to book sole use when they were at liberty to do so.

Hartington is anything but 'crap'.

Just book the extra rooms!

DCs have to be able to wander at night-they have to be able to go to the toilet without waking the poor teacher!

I also looked at Kingswood but hadn't actually looked at accommodation arrangements at that time. They do look like fab residentials though.
The LEA health and safety team said that the school should be minimising risk as far as possibe and if that meant having staff on duty through the night (if there was no other option), then it shouldn't be ruled out.
I wouldn't mind my DD getting up to walk to the loo in the middle of the night if there were no other residents so yes, the issue fundamentally is the non-sole use issue.

Have only just seen this so, sorry, haven't read the rest of the thread.

It is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable and not best practice. We had this issue on a school trip and parents wrote a joint email and raised it robustly. The school initially refused even to check who was booked into the other rooms in the hostel. Eventually all the children were accomodated in a secure part of the hostel, and even then we raised concerns about which staff had access to that secure part of the hostel.

This is absolutely unacceptable. Do not count on having staff on duty in the middle of the night. I would not trust that promise at all.

Do not let anybody try to make you think you are overreacting or being overprotective: you will hear "they'll be alright, we've been using this hostel for years" and so on. Ignore it. Ignore all complacency here. It is NOT acceptable.

but this is very very naughty

Stuffitllllama - do you have ties with schools (governor/teacher). You sound very sure it's completely wrong.
We did hear at the meeting "there's no question we can't answer because we've been running this trip for years" etc.

No, I don't, only the experience we had with our own trip.

If that trip has been running for years then all the locals know that there are school children staying there in unsecured accommodation.

It is inconceivable that Y3 children should be allowed to stay without an adult in rooms that can be accessed by strangers.

I will link the best practice guidelines.

Stufit - I really think you should read the whole thread. This accommodation will not be unsecured - all doors have locks.

The issue is non sole-use which wouldnt be a problem if the school had chosen to book all of the accommodation (they could have done this if they really wanted to).

As for not trusting staff who promise to be on duty throughout the night - if you cant trust a teacher to do this if they say they will then can you really trust these them to run a school trip at all.

Lucie: I can't link as it's a pdf file.
Google: Educational Visits Best Practice 2009.

Squish: unless there is an outer door to the whole area which is secured it is immaterial that each door has a lock.

Sole use is indeed the problem: they should book the whole hostel whether or not every room is used.

You cannot trust staff to be patrolling the corridors every night. Sorry, but you can't.

Lucie: points you need to note are: the best practice guidelines require all staff at the hostel to be vetted according to normal procedures. An entirely pointless exercise if the other guests at the hostel are not also vetted.

You'll find on page 6, 7, 8, various paragraphs about the staff's duty of care in terms of jeopardising the children's safety and protecting from harm. Staying in rooms accessible by unvetted strangers is a failure of duty of care.

Apologies if I have missed a part of the thread which says the children are in a secure part of the hostel.

Staff who have done a trip "for years" can be complacent, can fall asleep, can pop into someone's room for a cup of tea.

The safety of children so young should not be dependant on: the children themselves having to open a locked door or operate a keypad: the children having to be locked into individual rooms: the children themselves having to raise the alarm: the children themselves having to accompany each other to the toilet.

Sorry that paragraph is my own opinion, not in any guideline.

"dependent"