It is a scene played out in school administration offices every week. A stack of excursion forms lands on the Principal’s desk. They are due to go out next week. The Principal, juggling parent complaints, staffing issues, and curriculum reviews, scans the documents. They see the date, the venue, and the teacher in charge. They sign the bottom line.
Everyone breathes a sigh of relief. The teacher feels covered because they have "approval." The Principal feels the school is covered because the paperwork is filed.
But here is the hard truth:
A signature is not a safety strategy.
In many schools, the approval process has become a dangerous form of compliance theatre. It creates a false floor of security that crumbles the moment a real crisis hits. If we want to protect students and staff, we need to dismantle the myth that administrative approval equals operational safety.
The Compliance Illusion
There is a fundamental disconnect in how many schools handle risk. We often confuse the administrative act of approval with the operational reality of safety.
Many schools rely on a paperwork system based purely on checking boxes and approvals, which masks the fact that there is a lack of real risk management understanding and implementation. The teacher fills out the form assuming the Principal will catch any errors. The Principal signs the form assuming the teacher has done the due diligence.
This circular assumption creates a gap where no one is actually critically assessing the risk. Paperwork without training and experience is just that—paperwork. It does not stop a bus crash, it does not prevent a severe allergic reaction, and it certainly does not help a teacher make a split-second decision in a thunderstorm.
The Experience Gap at the Top
We must be realistic about who is signing these forms. Principals are highly skilled educational leaders, but they are rarely experts in outdoor logistics or high-risk environments.
Unless the approver has specific training in excursion and activity risk, they are bound to miss something, which can lead to injuries and incidents which could have been avoided.
If a Principal is signing off on a canoeing expedition or an international tour, do they truly know what they are looking at? Do they understand the specific water levels required for safety? Do they know the medical evacuation times for that specific remote location?
Likely not. And that is not a criticism of their leadership; it is a reality of their role. However, when an administrator approves an activity they don't fully understand, they aren't managing risk; they are simply accepting liability.
Liability Cannot Be Rubber-Stamped
There is a pervasive belief that obtaining approval shifts the burden of responsibility. Teachers often feel that once the Principal signs, the "school" owns the risk.
However, you cannot contract out your duty of care. When the rubber meets the road—or when a student is injured—the courts are rarely interested in whether a form was signed. They are interested in whether the risk was foreseeable and whether reasonable steps were taken to prevent harm.
If a fatal incident occurs, the fact that a Principal signed a piece of paper will not defend the school if the underlying planning was flawed. In fact, it can make things worse. It demonstrates that the school leadership reviewed a flawed plan and allowed it to proceed.
Moving From "Approval" to "Interrogation"
So, how do we move from a rubber-stamping culture to a genuine safety culture? The approval process must change from a passive signature to an active interrogation.
Good risk management decisions happen weeks, months, and years in advance of the activity. The "approval" shouldn't be the final step; it should be the validation of a robust process.
Here is what a defensible approval framework looks like:
Vetting by Experts: Don't just send forms to the Principal. High-risk activities should be vetted by a Risk Coordinator or an outdoor education specialist who understands the specific hazards.
Stress-Testing the Plan:
The approver should ask specific "What if?" questions. "What is the plan if the bus breaks down here?" or "How do we manage this specific student's diabetes in this environment?"
Checking the Skill Gap: Ensure the staff running the trip actually have the skills to handle the environment. As we know, most schools have a risk form often completed by teachers with no real understanding about risk management. The approver must verify that the staff are trained, not just willing.
Budgeting for Safety: Is the school’s risk management backed up by any sort of budget?. If the approval doesn't come with the resources (satellite phones, extra staff, proper equipment) to make the trip safe, the signature is worthless.
Systematizing the Solution
Reliance on manual paper trails invites human error. Forms get lost, versions get confused, and critical medical updates are missed.
To fix this, schools need to move toward systems that force compliance and logic before the document ever reaches the Principal’s desk. A digital system ensures that a teacher cannot request approval until specific safety criteria are met—mandatory qualifications, updated medical profiles, and completed risk assessments.
This shifts the Principal's role from "hazard spotter" to "process validator."
The Bottom Line
Your students deserve transformative experiences, but they also deserve to come home safely.
A signature on a form is the easiest part of risk management. It is also the least effective if it stands alone. It is time to stop viewing the "Approved" stamp as a shield against liability and start viewing the planning process as the true guardian of student safety.
Next Step: Take a look at your current excursion approval workflow. Does it require a review by a subject matter expert before it reaches the Principal? If not, you are relying on luck, not strategy.
