School safeguarding failure

[VortexofBloggery]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/23/teacher-allegedly-abused-pupils-despite-previous-charge-court-hears
School wasn't advised of previous allegations of child abuse at former school. I don't know the rules around this, but would imagine the school should know all the details of a previous case before hiring someone to work with children.

Any safeguarding experts out there?

I think whats happened is that the fundamental principle of Safeguarding which is to strive to protect children from serious risk of harm have been lost amongst beliefs that to 'pass safeguarding' is about policies.

Anyone recruiting people to work with children or vulnerable adults should be really determined to do all that they can to ensure that someone with a history of abuse is not selected.

If the DBS & meaningful reference checks have become seen as a paperwork exercise then its indicative of a serious Safeguarding framework failure.

Unsubstantiated claims don't appear on the DBS check (which is very thorough) If not reported to the police or not passed on from the previous employer (which employers won't do now because they can be sued) you're stuffed.

Can't understand why something that the CPS were prosecuting didn't appear. Big failure on all sides.

If not reported to the police or not passed on from the previous employer (which employers won't do now because they can be sued) you're stuffed.

This is the common point of tension which is causing so many of the failures in Safeguarding frameworks.
Safeguarding is a universal legal responsibility to protect all children & vulnerable adults in conflict with the individual asserted rights of (usually) adults.

The difficulty comes if someone is prosecuted for something and found not guilty. Are they still automatically banned?

Im not sure I understand sorry, automatically banned by who?

The difficulty comes if someone is prosecuted for something and found not guilty. Are they still automatically banned?

They are not automatically banned, but I would have thought they'd be referred to the Teaching Regulation Agency who have the power to ban people, and operate "on the balance of probabilities" rather than the "beyond reasonable doubt" required by criminal courts.

Should have said - Teaching Regulation Agency operates in England only. There are equivalent bodies in Scotland, Wales and NI though.

A referral is meant to be made to the TRA (used to be GTC) but there's a legal loophole. However the expectation is that the employer would report a teacher to the TRA if he or she were arrested for anything, and the police also notify. TRA during their investigations contact the police and get PNC checks, but if police and employer both fail to notify (rare but not unheard of) then TRA can only find out through their DBS counterparts who share the barred list (from working with children) with them. However this is only relevant for teachers. Not teaching assistants, cleaners, lunchtime supervisors etc.

Over and over the problem is not only with the predators but also with the people in authority who enable predators by thwarting safeguarding requirements and responsibilities.

And sadly, of course, the kind of person who is drawn to abuse children is going to know how to circumvent things and be capitalising on exactly this fear of scandal, desire to avoid publicity, etc.

It takes a lot of manipulation and coercion to keep a scandal quiet. Lots of people need to tacitly agree to turn a blind eye, to choose to stay quiet, play along.

Which is why OPENNESS, accountability and rigorous double checking needs to be standard. Why our freedoms to speak, question, raise 'concerns' etc must never be taken for granted and always need to be fought for.

If you piss people off because of referring to/implementing/referencing safeguarding practise then it's quite likely that that is highlighting a weakness in the system. A blind spot or a place where people are vulnerable to manipulation.

This fear of having things out in the open is a red flag in itself.

Which is why OPENNESS, accountability and rigorous double checking needs to be standard. Why our freedoms to speak, question, raise 'concerns' etc must never be taken for granted and always need to be fought for.

If you piss people off because of referring to/implementing/referencing safeguarding practise then it's quite likely that that is highlighting a weakness in the system. A blind spot or a place where people are vulnerable to manipulation.

This fear of having things out in the open is a red flag in itself.

Absolutely this ^^

I was taught & am utterly convinced that defensive practise is dangerous practise when there are Safeguarding implications.

I think whats happened is that the fundamental principle of Safeguarding which is to strive to protect children from serious risk of harm have been lost amongst beliefs that to 'pass safeguarding' is about policies.

I am watching this play out right now in the US. Lawmakers are writing policy that they claim will make immigrants feel safe to talk to the police. They won't actually be safe if they talk to the police but writing the policy creates the illusion of safety.
Everyone congratulates themselves for their accomplishments in writing a policy the police will disregard with impunity. Taking action against the perps who simply hire on at another agency if they are ever actually disciplined for their abuses would be more effective at making people safe, but it would cost a lot of money and make people feel less safe.