Today’s daily dose of LangCleg sense

[OnlyTheTitOfTheLangBerg]

Because it bears repeating.

Thank you for pointing that out R0wantrees. Sometimes I'm a bit lazy and use teachers when I should say all adults in schools - especially as non teaching staff can make an invaluable contribution to safeguarding children.
We are in a dreadful position when we are having to warn adults in schools - and parents - that much of the advice being given by political lobby groups to schools is dangerous and not in line with safeguarding.

Ive seen first hand on numerous occasions how school staff who were not qualified teachers were instrumental in identifying very serious risks of harm to childen. Ive also known qualified teachers who do not understand Safeguarding.
All adults within a school contribute to how effective the Safeguarding is.

My friend's daughter (15) wants to transition to male. About a year ago they started attending a Youth Club for children in this situation. My friend literally had the door pushed in her face on the first occasion she took them there. She was told no parents, we have children here who don't feel comfortable dressing in a different gender in front of adults, so we respect their privacy.

She didn't meet any of the people her daughter went on to discuss life changing issues with. I don't think she knows who any of them are, what their backgrounds are. I asked her at the time about safeguarding, if they had undergone DBR checks etc? She looked at me like I was being unkind and suspicious. Her answer was oh I'm sure they're all ok, they're all people who've been through the same thing.

Whoever said this thread would make the hair on the back of your neck stand up was bang on. That one situation above raises more red flags than a whole parade's worth of bunting. This is what happens when it's collectively decided that some demographics should be exempt from safeguarding. It's dangerous. The adults working with those kids might be fine, but they might not, and the way it's set up nobody would know they're not until a child is harmed. The situation itself is modeling dangerous behavior and poor boundaries, and could lead the kids into other unsafe situations. Every single person who signed off on that is, bluntly, an idiot, and should not be given any further responsibility for the wellbeing of children.

I think one of the problems some have with this is that they expect safeguarding to be instinctive and feel comfortable, but if you yourself didn't grow up with excellent boundaries then it's not. There's a whole lot of stuff that used to be taken for granted and accepted that isn't any more precisely because after Sotham and Saville some very intelligent people went through the factors that make it possible for predators to access kids piece by piece and put new rules in place based on what they found. If you grew up prior to that, those rules won't be the same as the ones you grew up with. This is a good thing. The old rules didn't work, and lots of kids were harmed. So now there's an effort to close the loopholes that allow predators to operate and keep kids safer, but it's being constantly undermined by people going "Well that doesn't feel necessary" and "I'm sure X is fine, they always seemed nice to me" and "isn't being suspicious of someone who's from Protected Group Y bigoted?" even though the same suspicion is being applied to literally every single other adult who has contact with children. And so bit by bit the framework is eroded, and if it carries on like that we'll be back to the 70s. Which nobody who cares about child welfare should want.

R0wantrees

I have seen first hand just exactly how powerless governing bodies are in the face of LA. You might be posting that the buck stops with GB, which is no doubt true if someone is looking for a scapegoat. However, if anyone thinks that a decent governing body will be any protection against an LA hell bent on driving through their own agenda then they are very wrong.

It's all well and good you posting that the responsibility rests with GB but what power do you think they actually have? I know of a GB and HT removed by the LA because they refused to do what the LA wanted because it was wrong for the students of that school. Ultimately that is what will happen if a LA wants to.push an agenda through - they will remove any GB who stand in their way.

Looking back now at the result of what happened I actually wonder if we were correct to take a stand. Maybe we should have done what the LA wanted because although it would have been detrimental to the students we would at least have been there to fight further battles. As it is, they removed us and then out in an IEB of their choosing who placed it with a MAT of the LAs choosing and it has just gone from bad to worse.

This for me is the very real danger that no one appears to acknowledge - that certain organisations appear to have absolute power with nothing that can be done to stop them.

Oh, you mean like Stonewall or Mermaids? Yes, that is a bit of a worry.

One of the underlying problems is the eagerness with which government gives over authority to self styled non profit lobbying organizations who promise to do for free what the government would otherwise have to hire competent staff for.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. It is just a matter of who pays. Children pay.

The cliche that you get what you pay for does rather spring to mind.

That's such an important post to highlight TheProdigalKittensReturn. There are some lobby groups that offer 1 - 1 "mentoring" of gender non conforming children in schools. No evidence of the qualifications of these adults to work with such vulnerable children. So worrying.

Oh, you mean like Stonewall or Mermaids? Yes, that is a bit of a worry.

Honestly, from what I saw, I would be even more worried about LA, particularly when it comes to schools. The only saving grace in my area is that all secondary schools are now academies, most part of a MAT and so outside of the grasp.of the LA. However, all of the primary schools are still maintained and that means they are vulnerable to being forced to do what the LA tell them to. If an organisation did want to push an agenda they wouldn't even have to target individual schools - if they target the LA they will have reached all of the school's under their control.

Oh, trust me, my suspicious eyes are on the LA too! The basic issue is that any time any group or individual is above suspicion and is given carte blance to do things as they like, that opens a door through which predators can and will step.

Worrying. Where does the LA gets its info, hooves

Would someone please disambiguate these acronyms? What do LA and MAT acronyms stand for for starters.

One of the underlying problems is the eagerness with which government gives over authority to self styled non profit lobbying organizations who promise to do for free what the government would otherwise have to hire competent staff for.

They're charging individual schools & trusts as well as receiving public grants. The government has effectively endorsed them as a 'preferred supplier' of training/resources despite many having an explicit lobbying function which would previously preclude/limit their presence in schools.

LA - Local Authority

Would someone please disambiguate these acronyms? What do LA and MAT acronyms stand for for starters.

LA is local authority
MAT is multi academy trust

Plain speaking is vital when discussing Safeguarding. Jargon & acronyms risk excluding people from participating in discussions which should never happen in this context.

Thanks kittens, too obvious for me.

A MAT is a Multi Academy Trust, a type of school in the UK.

Where does the LA gets its info

Info about what?

Thanks TheInebriati and RO. I am very bad with acronyms even in my own specialty field and so I feel obligated to ask on behalf of all the acronym challenged.

Thanks for this thread here. Great work

I'll try to remember not to use them, they do often serve to confuse more than to clarify.

One of the underlying problems is the eagerness with which government gives over authority to self styled non profit lobbying organizations who promise to do for free what the government would otherwise have to hire competent staff for.

The gender identity policy for schools in Denbighshire which I linked to earlier was written for them by an organisation called Viva, a local group which "provides youth groups and support for young people aged 14 to 25 identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or those who aren’t sure yet… They also provide support for Denbighshire schools."

I wonder what they paid Viva to write this policy (I may have to do another FOI request to find out).

This policy has now been adopted by some schools in the area, including Rhyl High School.
www.rhylhigh.denbighshire.sch.uk/assets/gender-identity-policy-and-implementation-guidance-(1).pdf

This obviously saves Rhyl High School from the need to write their own policy, and according to the policy itself:

"The purpose of this policy and implementation guidance is to...Provide information that will allow schools to feel confident that they are complying with the Equality Act 2010 and meeting their Public Sector Equality Duty obligations and the specific requirements of safeguarding legislation."

Except their Equality Impact Assessment shows that they don't understand the Equality Act or the PSED, and the policy itself indicates that they don't understand safeguarding.

The only saving grace in my area is that all secondary schools are now academies, most part of a MAT and so outside of the grasp.of the LA

The Safeguarding rule being discussed today applies in all school contexts- that adults should not invite, promise or encourage children to believe that they will keep secrets. Also that any training or proposed policy which breeches this should be identified as a breech of Safeguarding & red flag.

an organisation called Viva, a local group which "provides youth groups and support for young people aged 14 to 25

one presumes that they have a range of groups & Safeguarding policies which differentiate between the children (under 18) & adults they are supporting?

Except their Equality Impact Assessment shows that they don't understand the Equality Act or the PSED, and the policy itself indicates that they don't understand safeguarding.

When working with children & vulnerable adults this is very serious.