Are we too cynical?

[sleah]

With regard to the points about 'being in charge', 'signing orders', 'being point of contact'. That may be true to some extent, but their is always someone looking over their shoulder.

As for being point of contact - no-one should be so arrogant as to think they're the ONLY point of contact. I suspect some suppliers would contact the school's finance department directly to check everything is in order. The student will never know about this contact and is of course powerless to prevent it, regardless of who's name is on the paperwork.

 

With safety, specifically the example of paint thinners being stored incorrectly, it frieghtens me that there was clearly no estates or maintenence people over seeing the general overall safety of the school :o

 

Another example of someone doing electrical work and it being checked over by someone competent - in reality the person doing the work has absolutley no responsibility whatsoever regardless of their 'title' or the nature of the tasks they are performing.

 

There has to be a compromise between knocking someone's confidence by telling them they are nothing, and encouraging these young people whilst not letting them run a-mock.

 

After all, when it comes to responsibility, there are few of us who actually have ultimate responsibility, even as a 'Head' of something, there is almost always someone higher up the food chain who has responsibility over us....

[cfmonk]

Kerry: The school had premises licences for its sports halls, it's sixth form club and the great hall along with its grounds so we never needed seperate licences (TENs weren't available back then anyway if I know my licencing history?). The licencing I was talking about was the licencing of the script from the author.

 

Simon: That's just the point. On here we assume that that is always the case but I was thinking back and I'm fairly certain it wasn't. Specifically with Stage Electrics the school had not used them in the past (just one example). I now don't have a boss and whilst I appreciate at school there was always a teacher to report to if needed and H&S bod to keep happy that certainly did not stop me being "in charge" of things or doing things off my own back, when I had meetings with the bursary there was certainly no indication that there was a further level of scrutiny after I submitted invoices(at the end of the day we were doing the selling of the tickets so the budget was ours) but of course, it could have been a conspiracy.

[ojc123]

I started doing technical theatre in the late 80's. There was some kit in the School Hall, a bunch of talented kids and nothing to do. I'd a background in coal mining, a degree in Geology and knew three chords on the guitar. I was obviously perfectly qualified.

 

Over the years I learned as I went along. I let some of my early student technicians do rather a lot of things that would not be acceptable now. They did deal with suppliers. They used ladders and the scaffold tower. They put 13A plugs on. They hung things overhead etc etc. I trusted them to do the job right.

 

Changes in insurance, greater awareness of H&S implications, cotton wool culture have all reduced what I will allow my students to do. I've learned a lot from this Forum and from other experiences.

 

In the past I have thought that some of the comments aimed at students were unnecessarily harsh. I think the worst of those are being moderated out and the sniping culture is dying down as a result. Some (not all) people in the professional theatre give good technical advice without an up to date understanding of how it works in schools.

 

All in all, I think we're just about getting it right at present. Ill thought out posts are ignored rather than sniped at and there are fewer ad hominem attacks. There is always room for improvement.

[brainwave-generator]

I think it's fair to say there has also been a shift in culture especially within the 'who's to blame' sector.

 

When you were hanging lights up for a performance... had a gel frame fallen out, landed on a visitor, and put a nice big gash across their head, what would have happened?

 

Nowadays it's safe to say there'd be no loyalty between parent and school. There'd immediately be an Injury-lawyers-4-u case opened in order to get some much needed free money. The investigation would find that the pupils had ordered and installed the lights themselves, in a school activity, with no supervision of competent persons. You'd probably find the school's H&S representative getting in a whole world of brown stuff, the head of department for theatre etc also getting right in the brown stuff, and the school would probably have to pay out some completely out-of-proportion settlement because the victim now apparently has recurring nightmares about phantom gel frames and accordingly can't go to work anymore. The pupils would probably get off pretty much scot-free as the line of "they're not in a position to know better" would be taken, the blame would very much lie in the lack of supervision category.

 

I think that culture is something that's really only developed to it's full ugliness in the last 5-10 years, IE mainly since you left school (Chris). And all teachers and school staff are very wary of this fact. The modern line of thought is "every risk is a compensation claim waiting to happen". And as such, every risk has to be approached not only with "how likely and how badly is somebody going to get hurt" but also with "if this were to happen, could we afford it". In fact, I'd reckon in some cases, people are more worried about liability than prevention - see the Staging & Rigging thread for points about the concept of "it is good to use as long as somebody else has put their signature to it".

 

There are no doubt many old teachers who see nothing better for character building and maturity than sending you up a ladder with a lantern in one hand and a spanner in the other, but are all too aware of the penalties they face if it goes wrong. It's not a case of bundle you off to the sick bay for an ice pack and a hug anymore, it's bundle you off to the sick bay and await the solicitor's letter. What's more, all the new teachers coming into the system are being trained and developed with this culture at the forefront.

 

People use the word 'scared' a lot here. I think there's some truth in it, but I think there's a bigger truth simply in the phrase 'not worth it'. It's just not worth the risk of losing your job, costing the school many thousands of pounds, and a whole load of bad press, to let some of the pupils get experience in focussing lights which is of no real benefit to their ongoing education and the government pressure to score highly in academic exams. If they need to focus lights as adults they will learn to focus lights as adults. Sticking to what you know, what can't go wrong, and what, when it can go wrong, is backed up by complete and utter justification in an educational environment; is the safest way to work.

[paulears]

I left my college in 2004 and in 2006 or thereabouts got a letter from solicitors acting for a student who had been injured during a performance at a local theatre in 2002. They wanted to know what I remembered as the 'person supervising'. I told them I couldn't even remember the names of people from a couple of years before, let alone 4 or 5 years ago. In the end, they tried to sue the theatre. They took legal advice and denied responsibility. The insurance company persisted and it went back and forth for a while. The theatre repeated they were not responsible, and then the insurance company tried the college - who's insurance company held both hands up and admitted liability - and he got (from memory) 4 or 5 thousand quid for an incident I can't even remember - I did actually remember his name, but he was a 'luvey' - and rarely got dirty. I can't see how a piece of steel deck fell on him - but there we go. So he got his money, and blew it on a foreign holiday. Then a bill from the theatre's solicitor arrived at his house. Their argument went along these lines. We denied responsibility, you continued with action against the theatre, again we denied it was our responsibility and you then took action against the theatre, who admitted liability - making our denial accurate, as the college had accepted liability. Therefore, the action against our client, was unnecessary. As a result, they slapped in a big legal bill for the work done for the theatre. Far more than he got in compensation. He went back to court and the judge agreed with the solicitor - and he had to pay the legal expenses - described I think as frivolous - he had spent the money, so as he was in work, there was an attachment of earnings order. I laughed myself silly. So the idea is sue anyone and see who panics and gives up. It seemed that none of the people involved with the show were working for the college any longer (as in we all left the same year) so there was nobody at all who knew what went on - so they just gave in! Stupid really.

 

If any student gets hurt nowadays, the teachers are the ones in the hot seat!

[kerry davies]

You are right, Mr Monk, I was thinking of the wrong kind of licensing. TEN's were casual licences in those days.

 

Judith Hackitt the Chair of HSE has an interesting blog on civil suits and HASAWA relating to schoolkids this week, by coincidence. Worth a look.

 

The eighties saw a perfect storm of legislation. Solicitors were allowed to advertise. Colleges became commercial enterprises. Apprenticeships became a thing of the past and students became the "norm". Vocational training including the practicalities of on the job training was replaced by theoretical study because it was eminently marketable by FE/HE.

 

Since HASAWA applies to work but not education the criminal law that covered apprentices was replaced by civil law with the commercial imperatives of advertising and profits being involved. This meant that Qui Bono, who profits, took precedence over who is responsible and money became the driver. Teachers get squeezed between the lawyers and the management and the "blame-game" results. Changes to insurers practices due to this move to civil law simply exacerbated the situation and it is not "H&S" it is fear of litigation, an entirely different thing.

 

It is not one thing or another but the combination of cultural change and a new approach since the eighties.

[apexsoundandlighting]

I can say that at the school I currently attend, students are (sometimes worryingly) given full responsibility. A student designed and installed an (unsafe) truss rig, rented some movers and sound. Ran the whole room for the entirety of the week long school event, the rig was never safety checked. I can also say that his invoices were never checked by anyone in finance, he just got the rental cost back.

I have been asked to organise an event next year. Although the school will provide ladder training, no other safety stuff will be checked. My team and I are on our own. :/

[Jivemaster]

The trouble is that in the event of an incident the children do not have the liability, the school does though and many schools pay their own legal charges and fines -which rather messes with next year's budgeting. Hence the risk averse culture that pervades everything at a school. How a modern school would cope with the metalwork tecnician building go carts with us with real lawnmower engines I hate to think but as a tecnician he wasn't really supposed to teach however as an ex REME engineer he was good, and as a TT mechanic and scrutineer his machines were FAST.

[timsabre]

So the idea is sue anyone and see who panics and gives up.

 

This is indeed how the no-win-no-fee injury solicitors work. I have been on the receiving end of such a claim. We hired a smoke machine to a school for about £15 or something ridiculous. 2 years later I get a letter from some solicitors claiming a child burnt their ankle on the output nozzle of the machine, has major scarring, distress etc etc. The school has no record of such an incident, and has already rebuffed the claim. The solicitors provide no evidence. I had to warn our insurance company of the claim, they straight away took over all correspondence and within a couple of weeks despite my protestations had paid out £12K in damages and legal costs to avoid a potential court case. Very disappointing and of course affected future insurance premiums, but it was completely taken out of our hands.

 

It's no wonder there are so many personal injury outfits going strong.

[JackP]

I live in the U.S. and have been doing technical theater since I was 14, and have always been allowed to use ladders, and any power tool with only the supervision of older students. Now that I am 17 I have connected 200 amp distro's and used one man lifts, and even hung truss when me and a couple older students were the only supervision (after hanging the truss a rigger then inspected it and gave us the okay, that it was done correctly). My teacher also relies on me to let him know what gear would be useful to have (that is if we have any leftover money in the budget after taking care of lumber and expendables). My teacher does have allot of trust in us, but as well he should because every one involved loves what they do and wants to be the best they can.

[sleah]

So the idea is sue anyone and see who panics and gives up.

 

This is indeed how the no-win-no-fee injury solicitors work. I have been on the receiving end of such a claim. We hired a smoke machine to a school for about £15 or something ridiculous. 2 years later I get a letter from some solicitors claiming a child burnt their ankle on the output nozzle of the machine, has major scarring, distress etc etc. The school has no record of such an incident, and has already rebuffed the claim. The solicitors provide no evidence. I had to warn our insurance company of the claim, they straight away took over all correspondence and within a couple of weeks despite my protestations had paid out £12K in damages and legal costs to avoid a potential court case. Very disappointing and of course affected future insurance premiums, but it was completely taken out of our hands.

 

It's no wonder there are so many personal injury outfits going strong.

 

The insurance companies squeal about rising costs and having to put up premiums due to the blame culture, when in fact it is the insurance companies who are as much, if not more, to blame for the culture as the ambulance chasers.

I doubt very much there is one single honest person in the insurance industry, their corruption makes politicians look like saints!!

[Stuart91]

I had to warn our insurance company of the claim, they straight away took over all correspondence and within a couple of weeks despite my protestations had paid out £12K in damages and legal costs to avoid a potential court case. Very disappointing and of course affected future insurance premiums, but it was completely taken out of our hands.

 

Who was the insurance company?

 

I'm sure many of us would make a point of avoiding them in future.

[brainwave-generator]

I had to warn our insurance company of the claim, they straight away took over all correspondence and within a couple of weeks despite my protestations had paid out £12K in damages and legal costs to avoid a potential court case. Very disappointing and of course affected future insurance premiums, but it was completely taken out of our hands.

 

Who was the insurance company?

 

I'm sure many of us would make a point of avoiding them in future.

 

Er... why are you so keen to boycott insurance companies who pay out?

 

I'd rather have an insurer who pays out easily than an insurer who does their best not to.

[cfmonk]

 

I'd rather have an insurer who pays out easily than an insurer who does their best not to.

 

Going O/T here but I disagree. We want insurance companies who are fair. They will pay out when there is a valid claim but will fight your (their) corner when they need to to save you money in the future. The whole settling as soon as somebody waves a threat of legal action thing is tiresome at best!

[alistermorton]

How a modern school would cope with the metalwork tecnician building go carts with us with real lawnmower engines I hate to think but as a tecnician he wasn't really supposed to teach however as an ex REME engineer he was good, and as a TT mechanic and scrutineer his machines were FAST.

 

Pretty much the question I asked elsewhere, except we used chainsaw engines (more powerful). We got used as a test case by an engine manufacturer - they'd developed a new engine that was based on their chainsaw engine but was aimed squarely at school karting. It was a drop in replacement and raised the top speed of the kart from about 55 mph to about 75 mph. At 16, I was the test driver ...