|
Out-of-school activities
For educational visits the same general principles apply as for in-school
activities, and these are the subject of guidelines issued by the DfES (DfES,
1998 and 2002). The 2002 supplements to this Good Practice Guide, available
from www.teachernet.gov.uk/visits, are particularly helpful.
One supplement deals with managing safety in outdoor adventurous
activities, which are part of the National Curriculum and are compulsory at
Key Stage 2. If such activities are to present the kind of challenge that
underpins effective learning, there must be an element of risk attached. Part
of the skill of conducting such activities is to enable children to experience the
thrill associated with high perceived risk, while responsibly containing the real
risk at acceptable levels. As most children are adventurous creatures anyway,
it is safer to expose them to controlled risk situations than to let them take
unsupervised risks on their own.
Some schools allow their teachers to supervise such activities and even
have their own outdoor activity centres. Others take children to specialist
centres, run either by the LEA or by charitable or commercial organizations.
If schools provide their own activities, the head must ensure that they are
conducted safely in compliance with the 1974 Act and 1992 Regulations.
Teachers have been sent to prison for infringing these. LEA outdoor edu-
cation advisers or other specialist advisers should always be consulted. It is
imperative to check that, where the activities come within the scope of a
national governing body of sport (such as Mountain Training UK or the
British Canoe Union), the teachers in charge have the requisite NGB
qualification at a level appropriate to the activity and context, and that the
qualification has not expired. Most serious accidents occur with unqualified
staff in charge, and a BEd or PGCE is no guarantee of competence in the
outdoors. However, a Scottish or National Vocational Qualification in
Outdoor Education, Development Training and Recreation provides better
evidence of competence because several of the constituent units cover health
and safety in the outdoors and are linked to NGB requirements. Another
useful qualification, Accredited Practitioner of the Institute for Outdoor
Learning (APIOL), is just being piloted.
Contrary to public perception, most specialist outdoor activity centres
maintain high safety standards, according to the Health and Safety
Executive, which carried out 200 inspections in 1994 and 1995. This remains
the case in 2003, when the Health and Safety Commission wrote: ‘Given the
number of people participating in adventurous activities, the sector is con-
sidered to be of low risk in comparison to other industries’ (HSC/03/38:
www.hsc.gov.uk). Additional assurance is provided by their membership of
the British Activity Holiday Association (BAHA: comprising mostly
commercial organizations) or of the Development Training Employers
Group (DTEG, of which Everard is chair, is a consortium of 11 leading
educational charities specializing in outdoor learning). However, the best
208
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT
assurance derives from the regulations that were developed by the Health
and Safety Executive following the passage of the Activity Centres (Young
Persons’ Safety) Act 1995. These are administered by the Adventurous
Activities Licensing Authority which inspects centres’ safety provision and
issues licences to those that comply (www.aala.org.uk). Not all centres, and
not all activities within centres, are subject to this registration and inspection
scheme, but those that are cannot trade legally without a licence.
Although the management of safety in outdoor activities is loaded with
regulations, it is important to put the actual risk into perspective. More
children get hurt travelling to outdoor centres than once they get there. And
always remember the words of the Health and Safety Executive’s publication
on Safety Principles for Nuclear Plants: ‘A safety culture should be established
which will enhance and support the safety actions and interactions of all
managers’; so with schools, in every department and activity.
DISCUSSION TOPICS
(1) ‘Teachers have their work cut out simply teaching the curriculum;
quality, health and safety management must come second.’ Why is
this wrong?
(2)
What else can be done in your school to get quality and safety
management ‘into the bloodstream’?
(3)
Employers who have endangered mental health and emotional
safety have been brought to justice. What are the implications of this
for school managers?
FURTHER READING
Brierley, D. (1991) Health and Safety in Schools, Paul Chapman Publishing, London.
Crosby, P.B. (1993) Quality is Free: Making Quality Certain in Uncertain Times, McGraw-
Hill, Maidenhead.
Crosby, P.B. (1995a) Quality without Tears: Art of Hassle-free Management, McGraw-Hill,
Maidenhead.
Crosby, P.B. (1995b) Reflections on Quality, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Deming, W.E. (1992) The Deming Management Method: The Complete Guide to QM,
Mercury Business Books, Burien.
Health and Safety Executive (1995) Managing Health and Safety in Schools, HSE Books,
Sudbury.
Juran, J.M. (1994) Managerial Breakthrough: The Classic Book on Improving Management
Performance, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Ofsted (1994) Handbook for the Inspection of Schools, Consolidated Edition, HMSO,
London.
West-Burnham, J. (1997) Managing Quality in Schools, Financial Times Prentice Hall,
London.
MANAGING RESOURCES
209
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
