To think Ofsted made a harsh decision on this nursery.

[MrsOlaf78]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3435442/How-innocent-snap-sent-worried-mum-end-outstanding-nursery-facing-threat-closure-Ofsted-strips-school-highest-rating-owner-sent-photo-worried-mum-little-girl-s-day.html

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.

CMs can use their mobile phones to take pictures and I don't have a landline, so I use my mobile for everything. I do have a policy covering mobile phone use. The danger (as stated before) is the person, not the phone. It is sensible to limit phone use where possible though, because the phone in the wrong person's hands is a risk.

Having said that, any safeguarding risk found at inspection will result in a downgrading. Ofsted are quite clear on that.

Inspectors found the provider was not monitoring the use of the personal mobile phones of staff effectively and lacked understanding of the risks this presented to children.

They weren't downgraded for taking photos, they were downgraded for not monitoring the use of personal phones wrt safeguarding. Also, the outdoor play was inadequate.

Quite right too. I think some people are missing the point.

Not to rules - but LA websites have sample policies for childminders to use; the landline thing was an example given on one of these.

here

I'm no expert, just assumed they would have to have something in place regarding this if they were registered and undergoing Ofsted inspections.

"The Perpetrator was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum sentence of fifteen years, reduced to thirteen and half years after appeal. He subsequently told the serious case review that the abuse of the child had taken place in the bathroom which was located off the room in which he worked. Mobile phones were not permitted in the nursery but were kept in staff pockets in the kitchen area. On the two occasions when he filmed the abuse he was bringing the child in from the outside play area to go to the toilet and had to pass through the kitchen and was therefore able to retrieve his phone from his pocket. It is notable that the Perpetrator also told the review that his
first student placement had been in a school where he did not abuse and had appreciated the clear rules that were in place"

"The Perpetrator made it clear to the review that abuse would not have happened on another placement because of “rules”. Attention therefore needs to be paid to enhancing external inhibitors within nurseries."

Birmingham Serious Case Review

One 'external inhibitor' would be the serious consequences imposed by ofsted on settings where safeguarding rules are shat all over.

In all the Nurseries I have worked in, mobile phones are not allowed out of the staff room. A girl got actually got dismissed for using her mobile phone while working.

Well it's reassuring to know that other nurseries do take safeguarding seriously cantgo.

The pics are all over the internet now!

I am surprised that you have to get as far as 4 comments in before someone managed to bring it round to muslim bashing. The daily fail must be slipping

It is fair enough.
The report is worth reading rather than the article.
My dd school were in trouble for leaving a file out during an Ofsted visit, they weren't downgraded because of it and the school has visits every few months atm, for other safe guarding reasons.
They just got a slap on wrist and told not to happen again, put procedures in place etc.
To be so down graded there is much more to it.

I think it was the right decision. I absolutely love it when the teachers take photos of my children at school but they have a school camera. However, I was shocked recently to see that one teaching assistant had taken selfies on her phone in the classroom during a dress up day with children in the background and then uploaded it to Facebook. She also checks in to Facebook during school trips.

There are no legal controls over the use of mobiles in any setting, childminder or nursery.

What we must have in place is a policy explaining to parents how mobile phones are used in the setting. If this is not in place then, yes, that's a safeguarding issue.

It's a waste of time demanding that a childminder or nanny does not have his or her mobile phone with them. Our LA tried it on very briefly before realising it was unworkable.
Parents need to contact us and vice versa. Ofsted demand evidence of progress (and so do many parents) and photos are the easiest way for a childminder to provide this evidence. Ofsted also inspect childminders individually (although they want to move us to Childminder Agencies and abolish that level of safeguarding because it's cheaper for them).

It comes down to trust between parents and childcarers.
If you don't trust them, you should not be using them. My parents use me because they prefer to see photos of their children enjoying their day rather than worrying that I might be sending said photos to a child porn ring.

It sounds as though there was a lot more wrong with this nursery and they probably wish the parent had never started all this.

This is the second article in a week where an Ofsted inadequate has led to the head going to the national media to complain how unfair it is. It doesn't show great judgement by the heads involved tbh.

She's quite spectacularly managed to back up Ofsted's point about her lack of understanding of safeguarding issues in a very public way.

Our nursery went from Outstanding to Inadequate based on a single incident: they had workmen in, and as the men were in and out, one of them propped open the security door and as a result child was able to get out. They didn't get very far (not actually out of the building) but because of it the nursery had to notify Ofsted and they were downgraded and reinspected as a result. They were really good about it, called all the parents in to discuss what had happened and totally took it on the chin.

To call the media and have a moan about it only proves that they don't take child safety seriously and that alone would ring alarm bells for me.

As people have said, it's not about taking one photo of a child in a public area and sending it to their parent. It's about the managers of the nursery not appreciating the risks involved in letting staff take photos of child using their personal phones, and not having a proper procedure in place to manage that risk. The risk is only small as most nursery staff wouldn't do anything untowards, but if 1 in 100 or even 1 in 1000 staff would - then you need that procedure and those rules to prevent them from having the opportunity to do something that would harm children.

The key quote from the report is: "The provider allows staff to use personal mobile phones to take and send photographs of children to parents and other staff. She does not monitor this practice effectively and this puts children's welfare at risk. The provider has not identified the use of mobile phones as a safeguarding issue and does not show a secure understanding of how to safeguard children."

The fact that when challenged the manager decides to kick up a fuss and say how unfair it all is and go to press, rather than taking on board that maybe she hadn't appreciated the risks and changing her practices, isn't terribly inspiring of confidence that they would be open and honest about other problems and issues in the future...

I understand the problem but as a parent I wouldn't remove my child. You can update safeguarding easily you can't legislate for caring staff.

The quality of outdoor provision is not the reason the setting scored inadequate. The teaching and learning is good. What is not good is leadership and safeguarding. If the manager is clueless about safeguarding then there really is a problem. Rather than going to the papers the manager needs to resign or the governing committee need to sack her.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2561941-To-wish-that-this-man-was-given-a-jail-term

I think reading stories like that make me feel slightly relieved that the "no phone" rule for staff is taken so seriously tbh.

The manager seems immature behaving how she has.

But photos of children are on almost every school and nursery website and Facebook page. 2 seconds of googling and I could find thousands of photos of children to "misuse" however I want.

I personally know the owner of this nursery and she is not immature, she has a reputation amongst parents of the children as being a responsible manager who the children all love. It is an amazing nursery that was previously rated as outstanding. the photos are taken on the NURSERY mobile phone. OFTSTED get a snap shot of what is happening. This is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut!

The report states staff use personal mobile phones to photograph the children. Second sentence of the report.

Are you saying that this is not the case?

It wasn't a personal
Mobile phone it was the nursery mobile phone used to contact parents. Ridiculous decision by Ofsted.

So are you saying that the Ofsted have got this wrong?

Presumably if the safeguarding policy fully complies with the statutory requirements, contains a section on staff mobiles, how they are monitored and outlining the possible risks, then this will be easy to prove, it will already be in writing. Which makes it all the more odd that this has hit the headlines 3months after the report was published and 2 months after they were required to have taken action to meet the statutory requirements.

As a rule of thumb, going to the press is never really a good sign. It's usually a sign of a head out of their depth, who lacks understanding of the issues facing their setting.

the photos are taken on the NURSERY mobile phone.

And at no point did she say "they are not personal mobiles, it's the nursery mobile"?

Or did she say this and OFSTED said "that is irrelevant, you clearly don't understand safeguarding"