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?

I think we are more aware as a society about what is happening behind some closed doors. Im pretty sure lists would be sold of vulnerable kids who are only being named by first name only if we singled them out.

Surely it’s possible to draw a link between the over-regulation of activities and mental ill health? Children miss out on activities, are conditioned to view them as dangerous, and thus develop anxiety and worse.

It’s data protection and safe guarding. The fact that you are so worked up about it probably means that you have nothing to worry about.
But those adopted or fleeing domestic abuse are probably very grateful that full names aren’t printed.

Well said

Yes I have two.

I’ve sort of moved on from talking about names in programmes (see my other comments) but in answer to your specific point - I think that the chances of someone doing that are vanishingly tiny. The risk of random stranger paedophiles is hugely overstated, and I’d have zero concerns for my own kids in that regard.

That’s not to minimise the other valid points raised elsewhere in this thread about other types of vulnerability in relation to printing full names.

Yes, but this is how the likes of Jimmy Saville got away with it for so long.
I imagine the knife thing at guides is an insurance thing and the result of the guides being sued at some point over a child chtting their finger
DBS check, I agree with, its not a catch all but at least is some way to ensure you don't have a registered sex offender helping out on sports day.
It is a shame we have to live like this. But we know more than ever before and have just evolved procedure to reflect it.

I know my kids primary school went from full names to first names only when a child in care arrived at the school. I assume it was to stop the parents trying to track them down.

The child wasn't allowed to be in any photos, even those that were not shared on social media (just in case) and the headteacher gave a dressing down to a parent who flouted the 'pics/filming are fine but don't share on social media' rule for the nativity. That parent alone stopped parents from being allowed to take photos or videos of any school event.

Having worked in schools and in prisons. I understand only too well why we need to protect people.

This is one of the wildest things I've read on here

You can take your own kids on activities and adventures outside of school. I went on a minimal number of school trips as my parents didn't have a pot to piss in but Dad took me camping and fishing and up to all sorts of stuff and so did Mum.

This is wrong. Saville was never charged or convicted in his lifetime so a DBS wouldn’t have made any difference.
He got away with it due to wealth, fame and privilege.

I think it works on a number of levels. First there is a bit more of a 'claim culture' that exists now than it would have done previously. When I was a child if I hurt myself at a club my parents would have taken me to hospital and told me off for being careless. Whereas now, there's a genuine fear within charities/organisations/ schools etc that if something happens to a child on their watch it could financially or reputationally close their doors. Which means all kids miss out. However at the same time, we can't expect children to make decisions and assess risk the way adults do, which is why there needs to be appropriate levels of adults present who are dbs checked and informed on what is or is not risk assessed. I know facilitators who have been on excursions where children have nearly died through random accidents - as a parent I'd want to know that all possible measures were taken to ensure my child was as safe as possible when in someone else's care - wouldn't you? A lot of the issues affecting young people now are exacerbated by social media and what they're accessing online and while we tell parents to keep on top of this, it can actually be quite hard for parents to get solid information on how to actually do that because tech is evolving rapidly. The last online safety conference I went to I had come across yp using social media in harmful ways that the police facilitators weren't even aware of. We have better safeguarding systems in place now because we've learnt from the awful things that have happened to children in the past. In terms of knives in the kitchen - this isn't allowed in my work either unless under close supervision because some of our young people self harm regularly or have a history of carrying weapons. Services should be accessible which means they need to have measures in place to accommodate and support the widest range of children while still keeping them all safe at the same time. I don't see that as infantilising. Its about making sure risks are measured.

And also dbs is just making sure there's no known history of someone being harmful to children or vulnerable adults. It acts as a deterrent for people who might otherwise be drawn to certain jobs to secure positions of power over vulnerable people. Obviously it only includes those who have been caught but that's where organisational safeguarding/ codes of practice/whistleblowing / child protection policies and procedures should be robust enough to help fill that gap.

The kids don’t care if their surnames are included on some booklet, this is some weird ‘health and safety gone mad’ issue you have. Bonkers.

It could be that a particular child needed protection so they left all surnames off the programme??

I don't know ..... Clutching at straws.

My saville comment was more speaking to the point around when you were a kid things were more free. Yes they were, people were more trusting. Now they are not trusting.
Not sure if things are worse or not, butbwe certainly collectively know more about the risks.

Wouldn't it be better to take on different names though in that kind of situation? Less likely to be found

For some reason the primary school just does first names, the high school does both, one dance school does both and the other just first names. Both my kids have super common names (on purpose as I don’t!) and I have muddled up some dance call times as it just lists ‘Jessica’ (not her name!) several times and I have no idea which is the right one.

This is wrong. Saville was never charged or convicted in his lifetime so a DBS wouldn’t have made any difference.
He got away with it due to wealth, fame and privilege.

You are wrong. Allegations absolute can be disclosed in an Enhanced DBS (which anyone working with children or vulnerable people will have) if information is relevant to safeguarding.

It was specifically set up that way (well CRb as it was at the time) after Ian Huntley to prevent someone like him ever again being able to bounce from place to place with no joining up of the repeated allegations made against him.

It's not only about charges and convictions.

I think about safeguarding and its parameters too.

I write books, and won’t give talks to schools or assemblies where there are young people, because of the hassle of DBS and the extra professional liability insurance. Talks are online now, or adults only. That way I am not exposed to any problems. There are a number of authors who won’t give talks in schools for these reasons…not because they have criminal records, but because of all the parameters that have to be followed. Also won’t do any volunteer work with kids. I just don’t want any unfounded accusations, repercussions. It just isn’t worth it.

If you're doing a one off event in a school and won't be left in charge of the children then you don't actually need a DBS (though I understand why you just don't).

The over use of them is something that's also being clamped down on atm. It just makes it take longer for necessary ones to be done.

I know, but try telling that to the school. They still wanted the DBS…it was for an assembly of 400 students where teachers were present—a one-off, one hour talk with Q and A, and then dinner at a restaurant with the head master. 16-17 year olds about an academic topic…nothing controversial.

I mean, Ok, I understand the need for safeguarding…I get kids need to be safe. That’s fine. But, yeah, it does have effects like this, and people are the poorer for it.

Surnames aren't on most staff name badges, is that infantalising?

@Patterncarmen It's a bad habit many schools have fallen into unfortunately.

I worked in one that didn't have a printer fixed for two months over a dispute over if the repair person needed a DBS or not.

DBS themselves have started to be much stricter on the enhanced ones. On the course now they very much make the point that if you're responsible for the DBSs for your organisation/place then you need to make sure you're legally entitled to the information you're asking for.

If you are really unaware then you’re very privileged

guarantee every school will have some vulnerable children in, and often, hopefully, you’ll have no idea who they are.

also some children may appear to be more identifiable by name than others - linked to assumptions around ethnicity, so it could be as far as majority children in the mix anonymous but 1-2 identified.,, would you like it if your child only was highlighted?

there are very good reasons safeguarding exists and as adults we all play a part in upholding this.

you chose to enrol your children in OPTIONAL extra curricular activities though, knowing that a performance is part of it. School is compulsory so pupils can't opt out of it.

Are you suggesting that if children aren't happy to have their full names publicised they should be excluded from consideration for awards? So at-risk children aren't allowed to win?

if your kid won the best footballer or 100% attendance prize, or whatever, you, and they, would obviously know that "Emily" referred to them. If they told you their friend won another prize you'd know which child that referred to.
Other than that, why would you care about which random stranger won any other prize?

If you don't know the boy in Year 10 who won the poetry competition what possible difference to you does it make if he's 'recognised' as Joe or Joe Bloggs in the school newsletter? He will know it's him, his parents will know, his friends will know, nobody else will care. If you don't know the child then it's just a name, without any actual link. Adding a surname doesn't magically tell you anything more about the pupil who won it.

And why 'infantilising?' Everyone has a surname from the time they are born, it's not something that only comes with age!