Cognita schools and child protection (abuse at Southbank International, London)

[SchoolsQs]

A popular local prep school is owned by Cognita. It is one of relatively few options for my and several friends' DC.

I was already concerned about Cognita ownership (and have seen old MN threads).

But now there is news about sexual abuse at a Cognita school in London by a person with convictions abroad, and it's alleged in the media that Cognita did not make sufficient pre-employment checks (and child safeguarding arrangements did not prevent the abuse).

Am I being over-anxious to rule out the Cognita school because of this? Should I say anything to the friends also considering it (they might not be aware of the link)?

Am sorry if this is a selfish thread to start, know that school choices are not the main issue here!

I don't think this is particular to Cognita.

Did it happen at the school you were considering or elsewhere?

Either way you could aways raise it with the Head when you visit or go for an Open Day.

At a different school in the chain. Realise these things can happen everywhere, but it does seem, from reports that there might have been failures by Cognita. I wouldn't feel comfortable bringing it up during an open day.

Maybe you could write to the Head or even to Cognita then, to ask them what they have done to ensure that it won't happen again?

Do you know others who already have children at the school?
It might be easier to talk to them.

I think you can also get a sense of the school from visiting (and often meet with other parents who you can talk to about something like this). It's a good way to pick up snippets of info that won't be in the brochure.

I wouldn't rule a school out because of this. In fact, it is very likely they will overhaul their procedures in the light of this.

Until any allegations are proven, you cannot know where there is anything to worry about (the version I heard was that failings were in record keeping, nit absence of the checks themselves).

And of course someone with a conviction for a sexual offence shouldn't have been able to get a visa, so the deception may have been both detailed and sustained and able to stand considerable scrutiny.

A person such as that could, I suppose, be anywhere.