School safeguarding failure

I think whats happened is that the fundamental principle of Safeguarding which is to strive to protect children from serious risk of harm have been lost amongst beliefs that to 'pass safeguarding' is about policies.

I am watching this play out right now in the US. Lawmakers are writing policy that they claim will make immigrants feel safe to talk to the police. They won't actually be safe if they talk to the police but writing the policy creates the illusion of safety.
Everyone congratulates themselves for their accomplishments in writing a policy the police will disregard with impunity. Taking action against the perps who simply hire on at another agency if they are ever actually disciplined for their abuses would be more effective at making people safe, but it would cost a lot of money and make people feel less safe.

Which is why OPENNESS, accountability and rigorous double checking needs to be standard. Why our freedoms to speak, question, raise 'concerns' etc must never be taken for granted and always need to be fought for.

If you piss people off because of referring to/implementing/referencing safeguarding practise then it's quite likely that that is highlighting a weakness in the system. A blind spot or a place where people are vulnerable to manipulation.

This fear of having things out in the open is a red flag in itself.

Absolutely this ^^

I was taught & am utterly convinced that defensive practise is dangerous practise when there are Safeguarding implications.

Over and over the problem is not only with the predators but also with the people in authority who enable predators by thwarting safeguarding requirements and responsibilities.

And sadly, of course, the kind of person who is drawn to abuse children is going to know how to circumvent things and be capitalising on exactly this fear of scandal, desire to avoid publicity, etc.

It takes a lot of manipulation and coercion to keep a scandal quiet. Lots of people need to tacitly agree to turn a blind eye, to choose to stay quiet, play along.

Which is why OPENNESS, accountability and rigorous double checking needs to be standard. Why our freedoms to speak, question, raise 'concerns' etc must never be taken for granted and always need to be fought for.

If you piss people off because of referring to/implementing/referencing safeguarding practise then it's quite likely that that is highlighting a weakness in the system. A blind spot or a place where people are vulnerable to manipulation.

This fear of having things out in the open is a red flag in itself.

A referral is meant to be made to the TRA (used to be GTC) but there's a legal loophole. However the expectation is that the employer would report a teacher to the TRA if he or she were arrested for anything, and the police also notify. TRA during their investigations contact the police and get PNC checks, but if police and employer both fail to notify (rare but not unheard of) then TRA can only find out through their DBS counterparts who share the barred list (from working with children) with them. However this is only relevant for teachers. Not teaching assistants, cleaners, lunchtime supervisors etc.

Should have said - Teaching Regulation Agency operates in England only. There are equivalent bodies in Scotland, Wales and NI though.

The difficulty comes if someone is prosecuted for something and found not guilty. Are they still automatically banned?

They are not automatically banned, but I would have thought they'd be referred to the Teaching Regulation Agency who have the power to ban people, and operate "on the balance of probabilities" rather than the "beyond reasonable doubt" required by criminal courts.

Im not sure I understand sorry, automatically banned by who?

The difficulty comes if someone is prosecuted for something and found not guilty. Are they still automatically banned?

If not reported to the police or not passed on from the previous employer (which employers won't do now because they can be sued) you're stuffed.

This is the common point of tension which is causing so many of the failures in Safeguarding frameworks.
Safeguarding is a universal legal responsibility to protect all children & vulnerable adults in conflict with the individual asserted rights of (usually) adults.

Can't understand why something that the CPS were prosecuting didn't appear. Big failure on all sides.

Unsubstantiated claims don't appear on the DBS check (which is very thorough) If not reported to the police or not passed on from the previous employer (which employers won't do now because they can be sued) you're stuffed.

I think whats happened is that the fundamental principle of Safeguarding which is to strive to protect children from serious risk of harm have been lost amongst beliefs that to 'pass safeguarding' is about policies.

Anyone recruiting people to work with children or vulnerable adults should be really determined to do all that they can to ensure that someone with a history of abuse is not selected.

If the DBS & meaningful reference checks have become seen as a paperwork exercise then its indicative of a serious Safeguarding framework failure.

One of my old Head Teachers used to say that if the school failed on safeguarding during an Ofsed inspection then that was an automatic fail for the whole inspection.So even if schools don't care about the children (which is a revolting thought) then I would expect the leadership to care about their own jobs and make sure this was in place. I guess there's no accounting for bad leadership.

RaingodsWithZippos that is just awful.

And yes TheBewilderness definitely this. Over and over the problem is not only with the predators but also with the people in authority who enable predators by thwarting safeguarding requirements and responsibilities.

RaingodsWithZippos That's chilling. Given that schools who fail to comply with safeguarding automatically 'fail' their Ofsted, it defies belief that ensuring compliance isn't the top priority.

It’s hard to believe in this day and age we’re still seeing such terrible safeguarding failures.

So, I know of another case like this, my stepson's secondary school. The teacher had been dismissed for an inappropriate relationship with a pupil elsewhere in the country, the school didn't want the stigma and didn't report him to the General Teaching Council or the police. The pupil's parents went to the police but the girl refused to say anything in interview and the only evidence was her diary, which she claimed was just fictional and she had a crush. The school denied all knowledge and said they dismissed him for other reasons. The case went nowhere but it went on his dbs check as 'soft Intel'.

A year later he applied for and got a job at my stepson's school. The council's HR department who carried out checks didn't get a copy of his DBS check, the school had believed the council had done it and didn't ask for a copy for their records. Nobody asked his previous employer for a reference. The school had no single central register and so when the inevitable happened and he started up a relationship with a 14 year old that turned sexual, the school were caught out. The worst thing was his wife also taught at the school, discovered the affair because she found letters in his bag, but didn't tell anyone because she was ashamed and also loved him. It only came to a head when he was caught on CCTV with the pupil in a compromising position at school.

The school concerned have completely overhauled their safeguarding policies. They are now an academy and do their own recruitment and checks, things are apparently much tighter and Ofsted are happy. The teacher got banned with no option to apply for it to be lifted.

Over and over the problem is not only with the predators but also with the people in authority who enable predators by thwarting safeguarding requirements and responsibilities.

The very simple answer is for schools to insist on seeing evidence of the DBS certificate before taking on the supply teacher.

Im very surprised that this isnt standard practice.

It will be interesting & important to hear further specific details about what happened as it has direct parallels with Ian Huntley.

When a school employs a teacher directly, they do the DBS checks and keep a central record. But in the case of supply teachers, the DBS check is done by the agency, who hold the certificate. So the agency either didn't do the check, or did the check but withheld the info from the school.

The very simple answer is for schools to insist on seeing evidence of the DBS certificate before taking on the supply teacher.

"Barring

Where requested, an enhanced certificate will also include a check of one or both of the DBS barred lists. If an individual is listed, this will appear on their DBS certificate.

It is our responsibility at the DBS to maintain these lists. This area of our work involves making fair, consistent and thorough decisions that are appropriate to the behaviour that has occurred, and considering the risk of future harm.

People are brought to the attention of our barring team in one of three ways:

automatic barring offence – also known as autobar
disclosure
referral

Automatic – also known as autobar

This is when someone has been newly convicted or cautioned for a serious offence and they are considered for immediate barring, either with or without the opportunity to make representations. This information comes from the Police National Computer.
Disclosure

This is when someone applies for an enhanced DBS check to work with children or adults in certain circumstances, such as those in receipt of healthcare or personal care, and the check reveals relevant information that results in the individual being considered for inclusion on one or both of the barred lists.
Referral

This is when an employer, volunteer manager or other organisation has concerns that someone has either caused harm or has the potential to cause harm to vulnerable groups and submits a referral to the DBS.

Regulated activity providers (employers or volunteer managers of people working in regulated activity in England, Wales or Northern Ireland) and personnel suppliers have a legal duty to refer to DBS where conditions are met."

www.gov.uk/government/organisations/disclosure-and-barring-service/about

That's awful ChickenonaMug
Collective learning about safeguarding continues to be inadequate. What on earth went through that original school's thinking that they failed to report a sexual assault on a child by (presumably) a stranger?

Teachers are subject to 'enhanced with barred lists' DBS checks, which show up anything questionable, even if there are no convictions. Somebody hasn't been doing their job properly.

www.gov.uk/government/organisations/disclosure-and-barring-service