tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post2329485918140163584..comments2024-01-25T09:28:56.610+00:00Comments on Confessions of a skeptic: NSPCC on mandatory reporting - 4Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-54654183912868351672014-08-13T18:29:54.247+01:002014-08-13T18:29:54.247+01:00The MandateNow proposal isn't that such cases ...The MandateNow proposal isn't that such cases be immediately reported to the police, but rather that when there are reasonable grounds for suspicion they are reported to children's services.<br /><br />And if a school is unsure whether a concern is sufficient to justify a formal report, an informal phone call to ask is not that hard to do.<br /><br />With training in what are the appropriate thresholds it shouldn't be hard to do, and I agree with you that good schools do it already.<br /><br />But as I discovered when I did a survey of school child protection policies in Coventry, in the aftermath of the death of Daniel Pelka, there are awfully few good schools in this respect.Jonathan Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-49316789296197150482014-08-13T18:17:06.747+01:002014-08-13T18:17:06.747+01:00IMO it depends on the degree of suspicion. The cas...IMO it depends on the degree of suspicion. The case of a teacher and a pupil being seen leaving a hotel should immediately be referred to the police. <br /><br />It is worth remembering that good schools have strict rules for teachers: no car lifts, no meeting outside school, no contact through social media, no handing out telephone numbers. The consequences of breaking such rules are severe, i.e. dismissal, even if it was proved that no sexual misconduct took place. In such circumstances, a teacher would struggle to explain why s/he risked dismissal if the reason for meeting or contacting a pupil was innocent. <br /><br />Most suspicions, however, do not arise from such clear cut evidence. They arise due to a teacher and a pupil appearing to be touching when seen from a distance or only for a split second. Or another teacher arrived too late to see that the physical contact had been made by the pupil without any encouragement from the teacher. <br /><br />Should each of these incidents be reported directly to the police? IMO no. The police would probably not be able to cope with the number of such incidents and the risk would be that the police started to ignore all reports from schools. <br />ChrisBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-18449642215710880672014-08-12T16:45:30.300+01:002014-08-12T16:45:30.300+01:00ChrisB
I agree with much of what you say, but a te...ChrisB<br />I agree with much of what you say, but a teacher suspected of sexual misbehaviour should not be interviewed by the school Safeguarding Officer, or by anyone else at the school. He or she will be dealt with by the statutory authorities. Far too much abuse has occurred as a result of school staff meddling where they should not.<br />If a suspected member of staff was interviewed by anyone other than the police, they would have opportunity to interfere with any criminal investigation. They could interfere with a witness or, more likely, pressurise their victim or even worse. <br />The role of the school safeguarding officer is to offload the case to the appropriate authorities as a matter of urgency.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-12358949189208170712014-08-06T09:50:11.482+01:002014-08-06T09:50:11.482+01:00Thanks for a considered account. You are far from ...Thanks for a considered account. You are far from alone in questioning the role played by the NSPCC. <br />One point though, a point that I have never seen covered in any MSM report. <br />All state schools (I don't know about private schools) are expected to have a designated child protection officer or officers, appointed by the head but not the head. All teachers should be told who this is/are as part of their induction process. They should also be told in detail what they should report, as well as what they are not allowed to do with respect to pupils and parents. Child protection issues should also be covered regularly on training days.<br />The position of child protection officers is worth considering. Firstly, if there is no designated child protection officer or teachers are not informed about who they are, then the head teacher is negligent. The audio clip concerning a SEN teacher mentions no child protection officer. As it is a secondary report, it may be inaccurate.<br />Secondly, teachers reporting suspicions do so to the child protection officer. They do not report them to the head teacher or in most cases a line manager. This gives teachers a degree of protection, although again in the bad schools the head will appoint someone who can be trusted to protect him or her and not the children. <br />Thirdly, child protection is the main role of the child protection officer. S/he cannot claim overwork as an excuse for failing to act. Child protection is his or her first priority. Those people who do the job well are often in late on a Friday night waiting for social services to find a temporary home for a child reporting abuse. <br />Child protection officers therefore should have the time and resources to do their jobs well. You are quite right to highlight that actual abuse is rarely witnessed. It is suspicions that other teachers have and which they should report. It is unreasonable for a teacher to be suspended solely on the word of another teacher or member of staff or pupil that something might be happening. However, the teacher suspected of abuse should be interviewed by the child protection officer and the suspicion raised without the other teacher / member of staff / pupil being named. A record should be kept of the initial report and of the interview. The interview should act as a warning whether the suspected teacher is innocent or guilty. An innocent teacher is warned that s/he needs to keep a greater distance from pupils and a teacher actually guilty of abuse or grooming may be frightened off from continuing his or her activity. Should the same teacher be reported a second time especially concerning the same pupil, then the child protection officer should be required to involve the head teacher, with both the teacher and the pupil or pupils being formally interviewed with a parent or guardian present. <br />In some of the cases mentioned, Jeremy Forrest and Daniel Pelka for instance, there were reports of warnings being given but no action taken. In none of the MSM reports, however, were there any questions about whether there was a designated child protection officer, whether suspicions were passed on to him or her and whether his or her performance was satisfactory. Instead of analysing what had happened within the context of the different responsibilities of a classroom teacher, a child protection officer and a head teacher, the journalists allowed the schools to give the impression that suspicions were raised but they disappeared into the ‘blob’ that was the school staff. <br />ChrisBnoreply@blogger.com