When did no surnames become a thing?

[jewelcase]

There are bigger problems in the world, sure. But it was my younger DD’s school play the other night. The Y8s do a play every year, and this was hers.

In the programme, they listed the cast. But they only put first names. The school newsletter is the same. No surnames.

When did this start, and why is it a thing? I guess for some kind of safeguarding reason, but what’s the risk? It just seems to infantilise the kids, and you can’t tell one kid from another with the same name.

Is my kids’ school the only one? I suspect not.

AIBU to want surnames back?

Well your now being quite ridiculous. It's better for my son to be found by his violent and dangerous birth family than your child be "infantslised"? These are not a small amount of stories. Every single foster child is affected. A high percentage of adopted children. All children who one parent can't find out where they are.
You say you won't die on a hill for this bit your not accepting the information goven to you.
I think your being deliberately goady

It's GDPR

We put full names in show programmes and on school honours boards etc.

But things that are published online (newsletters etc) it's just first names. And social media is no names at all. Just captions like 'well done to this Year 8 pupil for passing their Grade 7 Clarinet with Distinction'.

If you really aren't on social media then you are living in blissful ignorance at the sheer selfish stupidity of approx 30% of the population.

People are giving you a hard time but you may just be really lucky to have been sheltered from the horror that is some children’s reality. We can all read stories in the newspaper, watch the news on TV and remain detached from that “story”.

Abigail’s dad could be on the sex offenders register and her mum fled the area when he was convicted (if her surname isn’t common - that places her at risk).

Jenifer’s mother is in jail for murder and she’s gone into foster care as a result - again, the child does not need to be associated with mothers actions and doesn’t need to have her whereabouts known by mother or her crazy family.

Daniel’s mum and/ or dad are struggling with mental illness and Daniel lives with his foster family 30 miles away until parents are in a better place mentally. To disclose his location could lead to his parents turning up at the school to remove him by force, the police need to be called and Daniel is traumatised further.

Above are examples but safeguarding is a broad spectrum and no other parent in the school needs to be made aware of what other children’s situations at home are. The school will put in suitable measures.

Well no. That comes under age appropriate interaction, not protection of minors, so it’s not relevant.

I'm sorry but this is stupid. Why should you look at the statistics? If your school has this policy, then it's a good bet that a child at your school needs their name to be concealed. You don't need to see statistics. One child being protected is worth the very minor sacrifice of your child not having their full name in black and white.b

Despite your protestation, you are clearly against safeguarding and your arguments against it are quite something

I'd like to respond to this but words fail me, I don't even know where to start.
Hopefully someone else will be able to articulate a suitable response.

Well I've been teaching for 20 years, attended many a safeguarding course and can't think of any for the bulk of the children, and have never come across this practice as you describe it.

We have a list of pupils who can't be photographed etc. for a host of reasons, but the vast majority of the children are unaffected by such concerns.

Why on earth do you need to know their surnames?

Perhaps I should’ve started a new thread. On this particular thing about names in play programmes, if people are bothered about safeguarding then whatever. I don’t care. Take the surnames away if you want. Slight feeling of sadness for two seconds but I get it.

But more broadly, on safeguarding generally, I think there’s a point to be made about ubiquity and proportionality, and the impact of small numbers of very difficult cases on the majority.

Can safeguarding ever be over done ?
If it's not done properly it may lead to harm.
In what way can that be over estimated

I work with a lot of schools. Safeguarding reasons for why ‘first names only’ is often a thing might be situations where a child or family has been re-located away from an abuser or parent that can’t have contact with their child because they are being/have been adopted or fostered… There are many situations in which it can not be widely known which children are attending which school. I would bet there is at least one child in each school who falls in to this category at any given time.

I have to wear a name badge at work with my surname on it, and I hate it. I have a rare English surname so easily Google-able. On my social media I’m just [Firstname] to reduce the chances of disgruntled customers chasing me down.

DD is the same on social media, as are most of her friends, in that they don’t use last names.

But more broadly, on safeguarding generally, I think there’s a point to be made about ubiquity and proportionality, and the impact of small numbers of very difficult cases on the majority.

How many children are you happy to see abused for the sake of the "majority" enjoying whatever unspecified thing you have in mind? Two? Five? Fifty? Two hundred? Let us know OP, and we'll run the numbers.

I'm not sure the post will be up long enough for someone to

Safeguarding…. And to protect from AI.

tell me who John smiths children are attending X school.

Names, schools, photos online of children is building a database for AI to read. Keep your kids names and faces off everything online for their sake.

Which is fair enough, but we just wouldn't include that Childs name, and instead list all the others as per usual.

We had one girl some years ago who took the lead in one of our plays who could not be named, the drama teacher and her came up with her stage name for the programme - she was in foster care, I understand that now in adulthood she has adopted that name.

Possibly, from a safe persons perspective.
But I guess not from an unsafe persons perspective.
Probably 99.99 percent of car journeys do not result in a crash but the law says we must wear a seat belt. Laws and regulations are restricting of all our freedoms, I agree. But also, they are there because too many times something bad happened when there were no rules to provide guardrails. I think we just have to accept the rules.
If for a hypothetical example, one day you were a witness to a murder in a restaurant, and you had to give evidence against someone who was part of an organised crime group... would you want your child to be easily found?

An equally impossible question to answer is ‘How many restrictions should we put on the experiences of millions of children to ensure the safety of a tiny number?’

There can’t be a numerical answer to either question. It’s about finding a balance through discussion.

But what's AI going to do with all this trivia??

I'd much rather my own child not have their full name on there than for a child who has had such a difficult life already to be made to feel different.

Okay, I'll bite, but surely you cannot be this naive?

I have a relative who was in a very abusive relationship. She has a child as a result of this relationship. She has a very uncommon surname.

She moved hundreds of miles away and the child has no contact with their biological father or his extended family. They have no idea where she is in the UK.

She does not use her surname on any social media and uses a different name for work. School are incredibly careful never to use her son's surname on anything. It would only take one slip-up with someone posting a photo of a programme, or his name appearing the the papers or online and it could lead to them being traced and this man finding them.

What restrictions? How does it affect anyone?

Restriction? You're talking about a fucking name in a programme they're probably never going to look at again