Advanced search

To think Ofsted made a harsh decision on this nursery.

(52 Posts)
MrsOlaf78 Sun 07-Feb-16 22:55:56

Or at least are being rather heavy handed here. Yes staff aren't allowed to use personal phones to take pictures of the children but when there's obviously nothing wrong happening here and photos were just being sent to a parent to reassure them that their child had settled, surely there was no need for them to be downgraded. A wrist slap would surely have sufficed.

MrsOlaf78 Sun 07-Feb-16 22:56:28

DonkeyOaty Sun 07-Feb-16 23:05:44

Safeguarding ineffective. Staff use of personal mobile phones not monitored. Manager lacked understanding of the risks this poses to the children.

Inadequate justified imo

The report is on the Ofsted website, btw

ghostyslovesheep Sun 07-Feb-16 23:07:45

yes rather than reading sad face Daily fail articles read the OFSTED

you don't go from outstanding to inadequate for ONE picture

Much as I dislike OFSTED the article is misleading

ReallyTired Sun 07-Feb-16 23:08:22

Its harsh, but the right decision. Allowing nursery nurses to use their own cameras/ phones is a huge safeguarding risk. The nursery should have used a nursery owned camera and emailed the photo to the parents. If a nursery nurse phone is used the management has no way of knowing who has a copy of the image and what images have been taken.

Allowing nursery nurses to use their own phones to take photos enables people like Vanessa George to take photographs of your child's vagina and send it a bunch of paedophiles. They can take pictures of your child being abused, send the image to a paedophile ring and delete the picture off their phone. The nursery management is none the wiser as they have no control of photography. The nursery also needs a policy of when photos are taken and management of the images.

The nursery in question had failed its inspection on other counts. Its not just safeguarding, although that is the most serious issue. The previous OFSTED rating of being outstanding had clearly gone to their head and they saw no need to keep to update with safeguarding. Everytime there is a serious case review lessons should be learnt. It is quite right that a nursery that can't been arsed to learn from serious case reviews is rated as inadequate.

BackforGood Sun 07-Feb-16 23:21:30

Agree with everyone else.
A very, very basic safeguarding issue. Makes you wonder, if she thinks that is a good idea, how poor her judgement is in other areas too.

Frusso Sun 07-Feb-16 23:27:19

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AnUtterIdiot Mon 08-Feb-16 02:07:32

Some of the porn out there is innocent photos that have been altered digitally. The duty to safeguard has included only taking and storing photos of children on equipment owned by the school for several years and has been clearly published in the guidance given to schools. It isn't actually unreasonable to have that rule given the speed and ease with which photos can be sent, tampered with and published online. I suspect the downgrading would have been less severe if the owner had agreed and changed the policy rather than trying to argue with there inspector about it.

LalaLyra Mon 08-Feb-16 04:42:58

The manager sounds like she's got no clue that normalising staff members taking photos of children with mobiles makes her comment about the Vanessa George case look extremely naive, and worrying for a nursery manager.

Even if she had a policy regarding taking the photographs it would have been better, not good, but better. Her comment about the Vanessa George case is a bit baffling. It'd raise questions for me about her grasp of safe guarding in other areas.

1AngelicFruitCake Mon 08-Feb-16 06:36:08

There was also mention of outdoor provision being inadequate, which is massive.

How silly of the nursery to be taking random photos and then even worse that they go in the Daily Mail feeling sorry for themselves!

Fugghetaboutit Mon 08-Feb-16 07:36:45

When I worked in a childrens centre, our phones were locked away in lockers upstairs never allowed down near children.
We used a nursery camera to take pictures.

The manager was wrong and put the feelings of silly parents worrying about their kids before children welfare IMO.

When my ds started nursery is was hard, but I would call and they would tell me he's fine. I didn't expect pictures to prove it, although they do take pictures of the kids playing etc but it's never sent to phones.

PixieChops Mon 08-Feb-16 07:40:21

I agree with everyone else. Think it's the right decision imo. Especially since the recent case with Vanessa (or whatever her name is). Very naive of the nursery manager.

SocksRock Mon 08-Feb-16 07:52:42

Sorry, but I think the OFSTED decision was right. The preschool my daughter goes to has three staff iPads. Any other photo capable equipment goes in a locked cupboard. The iPads are not linked to wifi so nothing can be sent from them.

Jesabel Mon 08-Feb-16 07:56:57

It wasn't just one photo, once, it was that personal staff mobiles were being used for photos, observations and contacting parents. She should have provided the staff with tablets for work.

Although the no mobiles thing is very standard, basic safeguarding now, I must admit I'm not really sure what it is that makes mobiles a safeguarding risk rather that a data protection issue. Surely it's having child abusers having lone access to children which is the safeguarding risk?

SatsukiKusakabe Mon 08-Feb-16 08:17:23

Yep, agree with everyone else. I didn't read the Ofsted report but fairly easy to read between the lines of a story like this - it said in the article that outdoor provision was inadequate, and the manager told inspectors that there was no way of keeping track of staff's personal phones.

The playgroup my ds attended had a designated camera and an iPad for taking photos of children doing activities for their learning journeys which they had to sign out, and all mobile phones were deposited in a safe in the kitchen area when they came in, as were all visitors mobiles. If a child was wobbly when left, staff would give a phone call half an hour later to say how they were getting on, and you could see photos from the day at pick up time if you wished.

This manager didn't seem to have a basic idea about safeguarding, and the papers have made a headline out of a straw man argument.

SatsukiKusakabe Mon 08-Feb-16 08:21:09

jesabel there was a recent case referred to in the article I think, where a nursery worker used a personal mobile to take pictures of children in private and then passed the photos around online to other abusers.

But yes, I guess the original safeguarding problem was not having a second person with her when attending to the children in non-public areas.

Jesabel Mon 08-Feb-16 08:24:44

Yes, that Vanessa George case was the reason why mobile phones were banned - but the safeguarding issue was her abusing children rather than the phone.

Childminders use personal mobile phones all the time and it isn't a safeguarding issue, what is the difference with nursery workers?

SatsukiKusakabe Mon 08-Feb-16 08:34:44

Childminders still have to have a policy in place regarding their use - visitors to the setting should check theirs in, the childminder should use landline at home and mobile only when out and not for pictures.

There isn't a blanket ban because some settings might not have landline access etc, but taking steps to ensure people cannot distribute images of children online to abusers is safeguarding them from exploitation, not simply a data protection issue. If VG hadn't actually been abusing the children, but still distributing images of them that still would have been a problem, wouldn't it?

Jesabel Mon 08-Feb-16 08:37:31

Most schools and nurseries distribute photos online though.

frigginell Mon 08-Feb-16 08:38:58

I remember that when Paul Wilson, the assistant at Little Stars Nursery who raped a toddler in the nappy changing area and recorded it on his mobile in 2010, was asked by Birmingham SCR why he didn't carry out any of his abuse at the other nursery setting he worked at, he told them that it was because the other setting strictly observed the no mobile rule.

You are being unreasonable.

SatsukiKusakabe Mon 08-Feb-16 08:46:47

Yes, I wrote distributing 'online to abusers' most schools don't do that; having a mobile phone policy, as mobiles mostly have cameras and online access, reduces the possibility of misuse.

Jesabel Mon 08-Feb-16 08:49:20

If they are online surely abusers can look at them?

I'm just not convinced that using mobiles is a safeguarding risk on its own. Having adults in a position where they can be completely alone with a child for long enough to abuse them (so, every nanny and childminder) is more of a risk.

Jesabel Mon 08-Feb-16 08:51:09

Satsuki - do you have any link to rules that childminders must not take photos on a phone and must have a landline?

tkndnv Mon 08-Feb-16 08:56:48

Oh please. I agree. Very heavy handed.

ghostyslovesheep Mon 08-Feb-16 08:56:50

the issue isn't having pictures - it's about having the opportunity to make and distribute indecent images of children - which mobile phones makes very easy - as shown in the case mentioned above

Hence why mobiles should not be used and staff should not have them with them

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now