As school leaders, we always have a lot going on. But one of the most persistent frustrations for staff is the mountain of forms required to leave the school gates. We often assume that a thick stack of signed documents equals a safe trip.
However, there is a dangerous paradox at play in many institutions. While robust documentation is essential for legal defensibility, an over-reliance on bureaucratic compliance can actually increase the danger to students.
When
school excursion risk management becomes a tick a box exercise rather than a thinking process, we stop managing risk and start managing liability. And those are two very different things.
The "Compliance Shield" Illusion
Many schools will scream and curse at the suggestion that their safety systems are flawed, claiming they have a great paperwork system. But here lies the problem.
A paperwork system based purely on checking boxes and approvals often masks a lack of real risk management understanding and implementation. It creates a "compliance shield", a false sense of security that leads administrators to believe that because a form is signed, the risk is controlled.
The reality is that paperwork without training and experience is just that: paperwork. It can be dragged out later to accuse staff of errors in an attempt to deflect blame, rather than acting as a genuine support mechanism for decision-making.
The "Tick and Flick" Danger
We see this disconnect constantly. Schools often employ people, sometimes external consultants or a single compliance officer, to "do" their risk assessments for them.
This separates the planning from the execution. The teacher running the trip might be handed a document they didn't write, don't fully understand, and simply sign because they have to. I’ve seen bosses insist everyone sign every document before an activity, yet when something within that document materially affected safety, nothing was actually done about it.
This "tick and flick" mentality is dangerous because:
It shuts down critical thinking: Teachers stop assessing the environment because "the form says it's safe."
It ignores dynamic variables: A risk assessment written in an office cannot predict a sudden storm or a student's medical episode on the day.
It promotes complacency: It looks nice in a brochure or a board report, but it offers no practical protection in the field.
As I have noted before, I could probably train a team of monkeys on typewriters to "do" paperwork better than some of the risk assessments I’ve seen over the years. But paperwork doesn't save lives; situational awareness does.
On-Site vs. Off-Site Reality
Part of the issue is that the skills required for activities outside the classroom are dramatically different from those inside the classroom. Inside, we have a structured, controlled environment with clear parameters. If something goes wrong, you call the office.
Outside the classroom, the environment is dynamic and uncontrolled. You are dealing with transport, the general public, weather, and foreign laws.
Most teachers are well-trained for the classroom, but they are often ill-prepared for the outdoors. Expecting them to absorb risk management skills through "osmosis" or by reading a generic ISO31000 standard is ridiculous.
If a teacher has not had formal risk management training, they shouldn't be planning or running an activity. No amount of paperwork can compensate for a lack of competence.
Moving From Compliance to Culture
To truly reduce risk, schools must stop viewing risk assessments as a barrier to clear before a trip and start viewing them as an operational blueprint.
We need to address the disconnect between documentation, implementation, and culture. This involves:
Training for Situational Awareness: Teachers need to train for contingency planning and adaptability, not just form-filling.
Empowering Staff: Staff need the confidence to make decisions in the field, rather than relying on a static document.
Allocating Budget: Schools need to allocate money for good quality training, not just assume teachers will figure it out.
Bridging the Gap: Ensure the person running the trip is the one engaging with the risk assessment process.
The Bottom Line
You cannot contract out your duty of care. If you are taking a group out, you are responsible.
Paperwork is necessary, but it is the minimum standard, not the gold standard. If your risk management strategy relies solely on a signature on a page, you are risking more than you think.
The fix isn't to stop running trips. That would be a tragedy for student development. The fix is to provide specific training and support so that paperwork becomes a byproduct of safety culture, not a substitute for it.
