Today’s daily dose of LangCleg sense

I'll try to remember not to use them, they do often serve to confuse more than to clarify.

Thanks TheInebriati and RO. I am very bad with acronyms even in my own specialty field and so I feel obligated to ask on behalf of all the acronym challenged.

Where does the LA gets its info

Info about what?

A MAT is a Multi Academy Trust, a type of school in the UK.

Thanks kittens, too obvious for me.

Would someone please disambiguate these acronyms? What do LA and MAT acronyms stand for for starters.

LA is local authority
MAT is multi academy trust

Plain speaking is vital when discussing Safeguarding. Jargon & acronyms risk excluding people from participating in discussions which should never happen in this context.

LA - Local Authority

One of the underlying problems is the eagerness with which government gives over authority to self styled non profit lobbying organizations who promise to do for free what the government would otherwise have to hire competent staff for.

They're charging individual schools & trusts as well as receiving public grants. The government has effectively endorsed them as a 'preferred supplier' of training/resources despite many having an explicit lobbying function which would previously preclude/limit their presence in schools.

Would someone please disambiguate these acronyms? What do LA and MAT acronyms stand for for starters.

Worrying. Where does the LA gets its info, hooves

Oh, trust me, my suspicious eyes are on the LA too! The basic issue is that any time any group or individual is above suspicion and is given carte blance to do things as they like, that opens a door through which predators can and will step.

Oh, you mean like Stonewall or Mermaids? Yes, that is a bit of a worry.

Honestly, from what I saw, I would be even more worried about LA, particularly when it comes to schools. The only saving grace in my area is that all secondary schools are now academies, most part of a MAT and so outside of the grasp.of the LA. However, all of the primary schools are still maintained and that means they are vulnerable to being forced to do what the LA tell them to. If an organisation did want to push an agenda they wouldn't even have to target individual schools - if they target the LA they will have reached all of the school's under their control.

That's such an important post to highlight TheProdigalKittensReturn. There are some lobby groups that offer 1 - 1 "mentoring" of gender non conforming children in schools. No evidence of the qualifications of these adults to work with such vulnerable children. So worrying.

The cliche that you get what you pay for does rather spring to mind.

One of the underlying problems is the eagerness with which government gives over authority to self styled non profit lobbying organizations who promise to do for free what the government would otherwise have to hire competent staff for.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. It is just a matter of who pays. Children pay.

Oh, you mean like Stonewall or Mermaids? Yes, that is a bit of a worry.

R0wantrees

I have seen first hand just exactly how powerless governing bodies are in the face of LA. You might be posting that the buck stops with GB, which is no doubt true if someone is looking for a scapegoat. However, if anyone thinks that a decent governing body will be any protection against an LA hell bent on driving through their own agenda then they are very wrong.

It's all well and good you posting that the responsibility rests with GB but what power do you think they actually have? I know of a GB and HT removed by the LA because they refused to do what the LA wanted because it was wrong for the students of that school. Ultimately that is what will happen if a LA wants to.push an agenda through - they will remove any GB who stand in their way.

Looking back now at the result of what happened I actually wonder if we were correct to take a stand. Maybe we should have done what the LA wanted because although it would have been detrimental to the students we would at least have been there to fight further battles. As it is, they removed us and then out in an IEB of their choosing who placed it with a MAT of the LAs choosing and it has just gone from bad to worse.

This for me is the very real danger that no one appears to acknowledge - that certain organisations appear to have absolute power with nothing that can be done to stop them.

My friend's daughter (15) wants to transition to male. About a year ago they started attending a Youth Club for children in this situation. My friend literally had the door pushed in her face on the first occasion she took them there. She was told no parents, we have children here who don't feel comfortable dressing in a different gender in front of adults, so we respect their privacy.

She didn't meet any of the people her daughter went on to discuss life changing issues with. I don't think she knows who any of them are, what their backgrounds are. I asked her at the time about safeguarding, if they had undergone DBR checks etc? She looked at me like I was being unkind and suspicious. Her answer was oh I'm sure they're all ok, they're all people who've been through the same thing.

Whoever said this thread would make the hair on the back of your neck stand up was bang on. That one situation above raises more red flags than a whole parade's worth of bunting. This is what happens when it's collectively decided that some demographics should be exempt from safeguarding. It's dangerous. The adults working with those kids might be fine, but they might not, and the way it's set up nobody would know they're not until a child is harmed. The situation itself is modeling dangerous behavior and poor boundaries, and could lead the kids into other unsafe situations. Every single person who signed off on that is, bluntly, an idiot, and should not be given any further responsibility for the wellbeing of children.

I think one of the problems some have with this is that they expect safeguarding to be instinctive and feel comfortable, but if you yourself didn't grow up with excellent boundaries then it's not. There's a whole lot of stuff that used to be taken for granted and accepted that isn't any more precisely because after Sotham and Saville some very intelligent people went through the factors that make it possible for predators to access kids piece by piece and put new rules in place based on what they found. If you grew up prior to that, those rules won't be the same as the ones you grew up with. This is a good thing. The old rules didn't work, and lots of kids were harmed. So now there's an effort to close the loopholes that allow predators to operate and keep kids safer, but it's being constantly undermined by people going "Well that doesn't feel necessary" and "I'm sure X is fine, they always seemed nice to me" and "isn't being suspicious of someone who's from Protected Group Y bigoted?" even though the same suspicion is being applied to literally every single other adult who has contact with children. And so bit by bit the framework is eroded, and if it carries on like that we'll be back to the 70s. Which nobody who cares about child welfare should want.

Ive seen first hand on numerous occasions how school staff who were not qualified teachers were instrumental in identifying very serious risks of harm to childen. Ive also known qualified teachers who do not understand Safeguarding.
All adults within a school contribute to how effective the Safeguarding is.

Thank you for pointing that out R0wantrees. Sometimes I'm a bit lazy and use teachers when I should say all adults in schools - especially as non teaching staff can make an invaluable contribution to safeguarding children.
We are in a dreadful position when we are having to warn adults in schools - and parents - that much of the advice being given by political lobby groups to schools is dangerous and not in line with safeguarding.

The multi disciplinary approach to safeguarding is so important - and very humbling when you're trying to contribute to decisions about when a child should be removed from an abusive situation. Teachers learn from listening to doctors, police officers and social workers with all of us sharing our individual expertise and professional viewpoints. Social workers, health professionals and police officers live with the knowledge that they regularly make life and death decisions. Teachers less so, but on occasions.....

Its very often staff in schools, not just teachers also TAs & support staff, who pick up on the first indicators of potential abuse & neglect. They are a crucial part of Safeguarding framework.
Critical decisions are made throughout the process. Not doing something or being hindered from sharing concerns can also prove to have very serious consequences

Also glad to see you back RO

Im happy to be back Prawn though similarly distressed. Lang's ability to communicate clearly the nub of Safeguarding points was unique here. She is also incredibly supportive of so many women.
Hopefully more people will feel empowered to speak up every day about Safeguarding children & vulnerable adults.

It's a joy to see you back, R0wantrees, posting with your customary well informed good sense and goes some way to assuage my distress over Lang's banishment.

They can become 'professionally dangerous believing that they have an expertise that enables them to make individual decisions.*

Uncompromisingwoman
Absolutely agree.
Humility is a core requirement for effective Safeguarding. That isnt just the opinion of a few random Mumsnet posters as well as being ingrained in reflective Social Work practice its specifically identified as a requirement for effective Governance:

2019 Governance Handbook
"1.2 The key features of effective governance

1. Boards must be ambitious for all children and young people and infused with a passion for education and a commitment to continuous school improvement that enables the best possible outcomes. Governance must be grounded in reality as defined by both high-quality objective data and a full understanding of the views and needs of pupils/students, staff, parents, carers and local communities. It should be driven by inquisitive, independent minds and through conversations focussed on the key strategic issues which are conducted with humility, good judgement, resilience and determination.
2. In our rapidly developing education system the range of organisations being governed is more diverse than ever – ranging from single small primary schools to large MATs governing numerous academies. Regardless of the scale or nature of the organisation being governed, the features of what makes for effective governance remain the same. They are common across the education sector and share their fundamental principles with governance in the charity

1. Effective governance is based on six key features: