A nine-year-old boy with autism and ADHD was not supposed to go with his class to Spiekeroog. The primary school saw a safety risk, even though personal support was available. A few days before departure, the parents prevailed before the Düsseldorf Administrative Court. The decision shows that schools must take possible dangers seriously, but are also obliged to examine reasonable ways of allowing joint participation. The case concerns German school law.
Exclusion shortly before departure
A five-day trip to the North Sea island of Spiekeroog was planned from 5 October 2026 for the fourth grade of a primary school in Voerde. On 1 October the school management prohibited the nine-year-old from taking part. He had been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder and ADHD.
The school justified its decision by its concern that the child could endanger himself or others. In everyday school life there had been situations in which the boy reacted impulsively and put himself at risk. In the view of the school management, adequate supervision could not have been ensured during the trip even with one-to-one support.
The child’s parents lodged an objection and applied to the administrative court in urgent proceedings. Three days before the start of the trip, the court obliged the school to enable his participation with the support person who was available (Düsseldorf Administrative Court, decision of 2 October 2026, case no. 18 L 2965/26).
The court saw no sufficient basis for the exclusion
The judge doubted that the events cited by the school demonstrated a concrete danger to the health of the child or of other people. An earlier incident was too far in the past to infer from it, without further ado, the upcoming class trip. According to the preliminary review, the documentation submitted was also not sufficient to assume a concrete danger to others.
A final decision on every possible danger to the child himself was therefore not necessary. Even if there had been a risk, the exclusion would in the court’s view have been disproportionate. This is because the school had not recognisably exhausted all available options of special educational support.
The standard applied was section 54 (3) of the North Rhine-Westphalia School Act. Under certain conditions, the provision allows exclusion from school events where there is a concrete health risk. But it does not justify exclusion solely on the basis of an autism diagnosis or a general fear.
Personal support had already been organised
Particular weight was given to support that the school itself had previously demanded: an integration assistant for continuous one-to-one support. The parents had organised this at short notice together with the youth welfare provider and informed the school about it around ten days before the decision.
According to the court’s findings, the support person had already built a good rapport with the boy. The judge therefore considered it likely that this person could reliably provide the necessary supervision during the trip.
The mother also wanted to be on Spiekeroog at the same time and could have helped additionally if needed. The court took this particular situation into account. However, this does not mean that parents are generally obliged to accompany their child on a class trip.
The court did not accept that an additional person making planning more difficult was sufficient justification. In such a situation, the school must in principle accept organisational difficulties.
Class trips are part of participation in school life
School trips are more than an outing. They are part of educational work and, in North Rhine-Westphalia, are in principle school events for the whole class. The guidelines for school trips there expressly require consideration for pupils with disabilities or chronic illnesses so that participation becomes possible and reasonable.
For the nine-year-old, the exclusion therefore meant not only missing a few days of lessons outside school. He would have been excluded from a shared experience with his class. The court saw in this a disproportionate interference with his right to school education and to participation free from discrimination.
The decision highlights an important distinction: the school must ensure safety. But it must not immediately resort to exclusion when suitable help can make participation possible.
What parents and schools can take from this
For families who fear exclusion, early coordination, documented in writing where possible, is helpful. Which situations could become difficult? What support is available? Who takes on which tasks, and what arrangements apply in the event of overload or a crisis?
Where needed, a school support worker can also play a central role on a trip lasting several days. Which services can be approved in an individual case and who is responsible is explained in our knowledge article Applying for a school support worker: responsibility and procedure (in German).
Our article School support workers in everyday school life: goals, role, independence also offers pointers on how to shape the support.
If exclusion is imminent at short notice, parents should ask for a written justification and promptly seek expert legal advice. Depending on the federal state, the justification and the stage of proceedings, different legal remedies may be available. The Düsseldorf case shows that an urgent court decision may still be possible before departure.
No blanket entitlement without a safety assessment
The decision does not mean that schools must take every child on every trip regardless of concrete dangers or available help. The court ruled on a special individual case in interim legal protection proceedings. Here personal support had been organised; the assumption of danger was doubtful and less restrictive measures had not been sufficiently examined.
In addition, school law is a matter for the federal states. The guidelines applied are valid in North Rhine-Westphalia and cannot be transferred unchanged to all other federal states.
Despite these limits, the decision matters beyond the individual case. It is a reminder that, for a planned class trip, the question must not be only what difficulties a child might cause. Schools must examine just as carefully under which conditions his participation can succeed.
Sources
Düsseldorf Administrative Court, decision of 2 October 2026, case no. 18 L 2965/26: Decision in full text (in German).
Düsseldorf Administrative Court, press release of 5 October 2026: Court announcement at DATEV (in German).
Ministry of School and Education of North Rhine-Westphalia: Guidelines for school trips, BASS 14-12 No. 2 (in German).
State of North Rhine-Westphalia: School Act NRW, in particular section 54 (3) (in German).
Found a mistake?
If something is factually wrong, out of date or unclear, let us know. You do not have to give any personal details.
