What happened (summary of an anonymised case)

A group of secondary students were allowed to walk from the boarding house to a cluster of nearby shops after school. The visit was loosely supervised: staff knew the general area but did not keep a live list of who had gone, which route they were taking, or when they were expected back. During the outing, one student was injured in a minor traffic incident near a pedestrian crossing. The subsequent review accepted that parents had consented to local leave in broad terms, but raised questions about what supervision, if any, the school owed once students stepped beyond the physical boundary of the campus.

The key issue was not just the accident itself, but whether the school had taken reasonable steps to plan, communicate and monitor an activity that was school-endorsed, even though it occurred off site.

Why this matters in a boarding context

• Boarders are “in the school’s care” for more of the day: Weekday afternoons, evenings and weekends often involve outings beyond the campus gates, but still under the school’s umbrella.
• Duty of care can extend beyond the gate: Courts in several jurisdictions have noted that a school’s responsibilities generally continue where a student is on a school-approved activity or following school instructions, even off site.
• Informal traditions create grey zones: Phrases like “they just walk to the shops” or “everyone knows the routine” can hide the fact that expectations are undocumented and untested.
• Parents often assume higher supervision: Especially for younger or international boarders, parents may reasonably believe staff are monitoring local leave more actively than they are in practice.
• Communication gaps increase risk: If no one has a live list of who is out, where they are, and who they are with, it becomes difficult to respond quickly when something goes wrong.

Practical reflections for boarding teams

1. Define what “in our care” means: Clarify which off-site activities and locations are considered school-supervised, partially supervised, or unsupervised but permitted.
2. Use simple local-leave systems: Even a basic digital or paper sign-out that records destination, time out, expected return and contact number improves visibility dramatically.
3. Match supervision to age and risk: Younger students, new arrivals, or those unfamiliar with local roads and traffic may need closer supervision than older, experienced boarders.
4. Agree on “no-go” areas and times: Map and communicate which locations are off limits, and set clear boundaries around travel after dark or during peak traffic.
5. Practice incident response: Staff should know what to do if a student is late back, injured, or caught up in an incident off site – including who to call, in what order, and what to record.

Policy notes to revisit

• Definition of local leave, town leave, and school-endorsed off-site activities.
• Sign-out and Sign-in procedures for boarders leaving campus on foot or using transport.
• Age-based rules for unaccompanied off-site movement (e.g. juniors vs seniors).
• Staff roles and responsibilities when students are off site but still under school authority.
• Parent communication about what level of supervision to expect beyond the school gate.

Sources & further reading

Informed by legal commentary and school-duty-of-care cases in Australia and other common law jurisdictions, including discussions of how a school’s duty can extend beyond the physical boundary and normal school hours. Boarding leaders should refer to jurisdiction-specific guidance, case law, and sector best-practice documents when reviewing their own policies.