Today’s daily dose of LangCleg sense

Thanks for that excellent reminder. I have learned SO MUCH from LangCleg (and other posters on here) about safeguarding. Solid, helpful, practical information. Thank you.

I agree R0wantrees Part of the problem is that people undertake one or two safeguarding sessions and they think it turns them into safeguarding experts. They can become 'professionally dangerous* believing that they have an expertise that enables them to make individual decisions.
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.....

The purpose of raising potential safeguarding situations with experts is so that intervention and action can take place if necessary.

I have concerns (based upon experience) about organisations that sit outside local authority networks. I have been involved in a situation with a well-meaning health charity who reported a safeguarding situation internally all the way to the top of their organisation but failed to follow the local guidelines thus delaying appropriate intervention. This was despite their contract requiring them to adhere to policy from the local SG board.

I can see a similar situation in education happening. Children at risk sometimes need action and not just words. Beware of anyone or any organisation whose processes might delay timely intervention.

I haven't been on this Board for months, since I was threatened with being suspended for referring to a biological male as he.

I was utterly sick of gaslighting myself, and twisting my own speech, to follow guidelines which centre the clamour for validation by a tiny percentage of people. A tiny percentage of people who claim to be the spokespeople for an entire group. This in itself is nonsense. It's not an homogenous group, anymore then saying "I represent all people who wear green jumpers."

I believe certain activists have stolen the legitimate voice of the even tinier percentage of people, who have been living quietly and in a dignified manner as they tackle the unimaginably hard process of transition.

The sharp intellect and amazing breadth of knowledge by posters on these boards continues to give me hope that this madness can be stopped.

Uncompromisingwoman thank you, it was always my intention to come back to FWR. I think its very important that people are able to feel confident to think & talk about Safeguarding core principles.

When people are frightened or defensive they are much less likely to make good Safeguarding assessments or decisions. This means that though they are entirely well-meaning, they represent an indirect Safeguarding risk.

My personal opinion is that over the last decade or so people have been poorly trained & advised in that core Safeguarding principles are forgotten & it becomes all about policies.

R0wantrees

Thanks, but if it's all the same to you I'll take my advice from the bodies that we contracted to provide us with our legal advice.

For a start off, if the LA don't like what a governing body is doing they can just remove you and replace you with an IEB, so a governing body can try to assert their independence as much as they like but it won't get them very far if the LA doesn't want it to.

Source - 2 schools in my LA

gosh that's an excellent post from Lang

who would report a poster who wrote posts like that?

R0wantrees
It is so good to see you back in action here.

To reiterate my post on this thread from earlier today.
All school governors should be very conscious of this responsibility.

What people should also be very aware of is that School Governors hold ultimate responsibility for all of their staff & pupils.

(In Academies, these people might be desribed as Directors, Trustees or Governors but are identifyable as those who are registered at Companies House)

This is legal responsibility & whilst external bodies may hold governors to account eg OFSTED, parents, staff, the Local Authority, the Department for Education and the Health and Safety Exec the 'buck', so to speak, stops with the governing body.

The scope of responsibility includes:
Safety and wellbeing of staff, students and visitors
employment of all staff (teaching and non-teaching)

Many many schools are now outside the influence of Local Authorities and I am not aware of any statutory guidance that tells schools to adopt LA policies.

This was when our school was maintained by the LA. Arguably it's worse now as policies are handed down by MAT boards with local governing bodies having no say at all. I also didn't say that it was statutory guidance to adapt LA policies but it was certainly the very strong advice given to us by our clerk, by the GBSU, by the Hats union when he sought advice and my an independent source that we consulted - that to place the school outside of the LA policies was not recommended.

Safeguarding & Confidentiality policies aren't written in negotiation with Unions.

Not specifically no. Other statutory policies are though and we were also advised that given we would be expecting teachers to follow a policy, particularly the safeguarding one, that it had to be acceptable to the unions. We would have a hard time disciplining a teacher for not complying with our safeguarding policy if that policy was deemed to go against teachers standards, legislation, was deemed unfair etc.

By using our own policy we would also not get LA support should that policy ever need to be tested in court.

This excellent article by ExcelPope (a school governor) identifies how Safeguarding should work. Its a different scenario but the questions he asks about risk & responsibility are core fundamentals:

(extract)
"I spend a lot of time designing policies and procedures, and what I tell people is this:- Imagine a worst-case scenario occurs. There is an official investigation, where you’re asked “What did you do to prevent this happening?”. Now imagine what answer you’d like to be able to give to that question in that scenario – that’s the starting point for writing your policies.

In that vein, here’s a scenario.

You are the head-teacher of a secondary school, with pupils aged 11-18. A police officer arrives at the school and asks to speak to you. They have found a video on a porn site which shows the changing-rooms at your school, including a number of girls, who appear to be aged 13-15, in various states of undress. It has clearly been filmed with a concealed camera-phone.

The video has been taken down, but not before it had tens of thousands of views. The account that posted it has been traced to a student at the school who identifies themselves as trans and was, in accordance with the guidance, allowed to use the female changing rooms.

The police need a female member of staff to view the video with them, to identify the 20 or 30 teenage girls who appear in it, so that they and their parents can be informed that they have been victims of voyeurism.

What did you do to prevent this happening?" (continues)

There are around 2.2 million males aged 13-18 in the UK, no matter how much experience you have with children, with trans people, with trans-children, you cannot absolutely assert that none of them will abuse, or attempt to abuse, the guidance given in a manner that infringes of the rights of other students.

This isn’t about demonising all trans people, or suggesting that any given one of them would act in such a manner. This is about the risk presented by the guidance itself, whether that risk can be mitigated in a manner which is proportional to the potential seriousness of the outcome and whether the risk is, in part or in whole, outweighed by the risks of not implementing the guidance." (continues)

excelpope.wordpress.com/2019/02/28/the-unaskable-question/

You don't have the expertise or the clout with unions to rip up the LA policy that has considered all relevant legislation and consulted and negotiated with the unions, and draw up your own policy. We did consider it briefly, even took independent advice which was do it at your peril.

Safeguarding & Confidentiality policies aren't written in negotiation with Unions.
School Governors' statuatory responsibility for policies is covered in this document:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-policies-for-schools-and-academy-trusts/statutory-policies-for-schools-and-academy-trusts

Advice regarding statutory policies is to adopt the local authorities policies, so that may not be as useful, potentially, as you think
Many many schools are now outside the influence of Local Authorities and I am not aware of any statutory guidance that tells schools to adopt LA policies.
In fact it is the splintering of LAs and a developing commercial market that has enabled lobby groups to present themselves as "experts" with naive schools and local authorities failing to exert due diligence and accepting these claims. It is the overreach of these policies in attempting to implement wholesale change of a school's policies, ethos, curriculum, organisation, uniform, language in favour of a tiny percentage of the school population that is a major part of the problem.

I specifically remember when LangCleg posted this - it was in reference to Munroe Bergdorf becoming an NSPCC ambassador after inviting kids to DM them on Twitter wasn't it?

But we have seen there is lots out there from trans lobbyists about trying to alienate children from their families, trying to suggest that it would be better to be in contact with them than discuss with their families.

And of course schools guidelines which say that if a child discloses to an adult that they think they are trans then the adult should keep that to themselves.

Encouraging secrets between adults and children - huge safeguarding red flag!

OnlyTheTitOfTheLangBerg Yes absolutely, the evidence from people who have 'detransitioned', parents, NHS whistle-blowers, head of Oxford University Evidence Based medicine, bodies representing GPs etc are all concluding the same.

Of course you ask the questions but if you are categorically being told that you need to adopt your LA policies then that's what you do.

You don't have the expertise or the clout with unions to rip up the LA policy that has considered all relevant legislation and consulted and negotiated with the unions, and draw up your own policy. We did consider it briefly, even took independent advice which was do it at your peril.

Advice regarding statutory policies is to adopt the local authorities policies, so that may not be as useful, potentially, as you think.

Im very aware of both the responsibility, the availability of training & guidance available. I have been a school governor.

Safeguarding requires that those who hold responsibility always ask questions.

School Governors are required to review all school policies. They are provided opportunities to ensure they are adeqately informed to do this.

Advice regarding statutory policies is to adopt the local authorities policies, so that may not be as useful, potentially, as you think.

So if a group of adults were trying to discuss safeguarding in a work context, and the proportion of male offenders was relevant to steps that may need to be taken, or changes made, who would be brave enough to say this?

If a discussion about Safeguarding cannot endure someone raising known risks then it cant Safeguard.

OnlyTheTitOfTheLangBerg It should demonstrate that, in this area, Gillick competence principles have been misused.
Some doctors do not apply Safeguarding & Child Protection principles & expertise.

What people should also be very aware of is that School Governors hold ultimate responsibility for all of their staff & pupils.

(In Academies, these people might be desribed as Directors, Trustees or Governors but are identifyable as those who are registered at Companies House)

This is legal responsibility & whilst external bodies may hold governors to account eg OFSTED, parents, staff, the Local Authority, the Department for Education and the Health and Safety Exec the 'buck', so to speak, stops with the governing body.

The scope of responsibility includes:
Safety and wellbeing of staff, students and visitors
employment of all staff (teaching and non-teaching)
performance management of the Head & SLT
Maintenance of buildings
Results and performance of students
Financial budget

If anyone has Safeguarding concerns about school policy, it is worthwhile ensuring a member of the governing body receives a copy of concerns alongside any discussion with teachers.

School Governors are required to review all school policies. They are provided opportunities to ensure they are adeqately informed to do this.

we know they are overwhelmingly male This is a statistical fact, one that I've yet to see disproved.

But in this time of hysteria, where each group clamours to be seen as more oppressed than the next, just stating a "fact" that attaches itself to a "group", be that male, female, heterosexual, trans etc is - absurdly - controversial.

So if a group of adults were trying to discuss safeguarding in a work context, and the proportion of male offenders was relevant to steps that may need to be taken, or changes made, who would be brave enough to say this? The conversation would quickly change to how males were being discriminated against and oppressed. The people who the safeguarding measures were meant to protect would fade into the background.

Many people who have convictions such as shoplifting in the past make excellent & very responsible employees who completely understand & practice Safeguarding.

How do you know?