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?

A shockingly high number are sex offenders. That you think almost none are and you have kids is worrying OP.

If you were to look at your area or even your street and see who is living there having signed the SOR, you would be surprised.

Anything that protects even one kid should be done and when it is as simple as withholding their surname on a document that will be lining the bin in a day, why not.

I’m not shocked by the number of sex offenders. It’s a high number but in the proportion of the population I’d expect (ie a very low one). And of those sex offenders, only a small proportion have harmed children.

‘Anything that protects even one kid should be done’. I don’t think even you would actually stand by this statement if you thought about it. We allow our kids to take risks every single day, and rightly so. The key is proportionality. Obviously a little thing like names in a play programme doesn’t matter so there’s little point in taking risks in most circumstances. But to say ‘anything that protects even one child should be done’ is the kind of trite statement that leads to kids missing out on stuff and, crucially, to get parents thinking they’re protecting kids when actually they’re harming them by not thinking harder.

Kids are much more likely to come to harm by factors and people nowhere near a DBS check or the SOR. They are much more likely to experience low level violence, bullying, inappropriate behaviour etc than incidents of very serious harm. They are highly unlikely to experience serious risk in most circumstances. Yet sometimes I think that we use DBSs and safeguarding procedures etc as a crutch and to cover our own backs rather than engage in hard thinking about a proportionate balance of harms. Procedures have their place, and are of value, but they are not the be all and end all, and should be used in conjunction with a more nuanced approach to risk in my view.

Again, let me say that that’s not about names in a school play programme, but generally.

Except I don’t think kids do miss out on activities or view them as dangerous because we insist that adults given access to them have DBS checks.

Incidentally DBS checks aren’t required just to volunteer with kids. You don’t need a DBS check to help out with a school trip. You only need one if you have unsupervised or regular access to kids or are involved in their personal care etc.

You keep saying this isn’t about names in a programme but you’ve been repeatedly dismissive of those who have children facing specific risks, and that is the subject you chose to start a thread on.

But can you explain specifically when you think DBS checks should be required? I presume you don’t object to them in all situations?

The thread has moved beyond names in a programme. As I’ve said before, if people want to restrict surnames because they think it will keep kids safe then OK, take the surnames away. I’m not sure it will actually keep kids safe but whatever, it’s a tiny thing to give up so go for it if you want. But perhaps also think about whether the real risk and the best solution have been identified.

I don’t object to DBS checks. In fact I’ve been checked several times myself for roles I’ve done eg Brownie leader.

I find it a shame that some people are put off volunteering because of the procedure.

But my main concern is that people think that DBS equals ‘job done, kids are safe’, and that ‘No DBS equals kids are unsafe therefore X activity can’t happen’. Neither of those things are true.

Okay, so what's your kids name and what school do they go to?

It absolutely is about names in a school play programme. That's why you posted.

You've just been told exactly in what circumstances schools sometimes print only a forename. You've dismissed this as overreach.

And you're response was this - That might mean some people being less safe.

Thankfully your need for your Molly to get her surname in a programme to differentiate her from 3 other Mollys doesnt trump other childrens safety and wellbeing.

We take the measures that are available to us to limit risk - nobody pretends that it eliminates it entirely.

Your not you're!

Our school uses full names on things. Pictures on Facebook group tend to have a couple if children's faces covered assuming at parents requests

This is a really good point about proportionality.

Some methods of publicising names are more risky than others. As this thread has shown, some schools restrict surnames and others don’t, so it’s not a black and white issue. But on the scale of proportionality my view is that putting full names and school details on the Mumsnet forum is indeed too risky.

It's been explained a number of times in a number of different ways why schools would need to take different decisions depending on who is on their roll and the various risk factors.

That doesn't support your argument that all children should be named in full.

what’s the risk? It just seems to infantilise the kids

Ha! Staying silent doesn’t infantilise kids. Referring to teenagers by their first name only does.

Exposing their full names and school details on an internet forum used by hundreds of thousands is riskier than printing their surname in a school play programme read by dozens.

"what’s the risk? It just seems to infantilise the kids"

it's limiting their experience of being at risk.

Fancy coming on a parenting site and suggesting your desire for recognition is more important than small measures to protect (other people's) children.

Nobody is saying a DBS check means job done child is 100% safe.

Your arguments are all over the place and I'm not really sure what you're even arguing anymore but you had come across as one of the older generation who posts a picture in black and white of kids playing outside with the caption 'Share if you miss the days when kids were allowed to play outside'

I know - but many also choose to (eg Millie Bobby Brown says she chose to change her stage name to include ‘Bobby’ for “shits and giggles”… and I can’t imagine there was another Millie Bonnie Brown). See also YouTubers / social media presences who don’t use their legal names.

Pretty patronising to tell a parent of a formerly looked after child to think about the ‘real risk’ and ‘best solution’ have been identified. As if parents of vulnerable children don’t think every day about the ‘real risks’ and as if we aren’t acutely aware that there are no ‘solutions’, just mitigations of which this is one.

And on DBS I’m now not sure what you’re saying.

You agree with DBS being required, but are worried it deters volunteers. Grand. But you’re not advocating the requirement be removed.

So what specifically would you change?

But it's impossible to mitigate all risks so doing so where it's possible, even if that risk is considered by some (you) to be almost non existent, and with something like this that doesn't affect anything at all, why not do it?

You can take your kids on adventures so they are not 'missing out'. The stuff kids get to do in school is lame compared to what a parent with even a mediocre imagination can come up with. It's all a non issue.

DH asked me to proof read a piece he'd written for a village newsletter the other day. A teenager in the village is doing some volunteering with a group he runs and he'd put this in the article. The 1st thing I said to him was "have you got mum/dad's permission to publish the child's name?". Thankfully he had although I was surprised they'd agreed to the surname as they're the only one's with that name in the area. But at least he had considered that it could potentially be a problem.

Yet someone could post a picture of the programme on here with names.

As this thread has shown, some schools restrict surnames and others don’t, so it’s not a black and white issue. But on the scale of proportionality my view is that putting full names and school details on the Mumsnet forum is indeed too risky

So, you've made a risk assessment and decided the level you feel is appropriate for your children's safety, but the thread is basically a massive whinge about the fact your child's school has done the same for all of the children in their care?

What exact changes would you make to DBS? How would you train groups to be able to distinguish between volunteers who want to dodge DBS because they've a string of dodgy allegations behind them and ones who just can't be arsed with the form?

I think it's totally correct not to include surnames. It may not a be safeguarding risk for you, and the majority of children or parents, but there absolutely are people for whom this could create serious problems. Minor minority as they are, I think their privacy takes precedence; there is no good or necessary reason at all why surnames need to be broadcast.

Tbh most SA occurs in family and friends who would know the kids anyway

I agree - most but not all.

My children’s schools (both primary and secondary) and clubs (eg drama group) always use surnames in programs and newsletters. So even if it is a safeguarding issue, it is clearly not a universal practice.