Coventry Schools have contacted me

A number of Coventry schools have contacted me following publication here of the list of safeguarding scores.

Some have asked which points they missed out on and what they need to do to make their policies better. Some have asked me to re-score them on the basis of additional information and/or updated policies they have provided. It is my intention to publish a revised list taking into account new information provided by schools. I will make special mention of any additional schools which score 10 after reviewing the new information.

One recurring theme is that some schools have their safeguarding procedures scattered amongst a number of documents - variously "Safeguarding Policy", "Child Protection Polcy", "Child Protection Procedures" and so on. I think this is very poor practice. For something as vitally important as safeguarding, all the key information should really all be in a single document which can easily be referenced.

In addition, I would recommend that the document is laid out in a logical fashion. With regard to arrangements for reporting abuse, I suggest you organise the document in this order.

1. Name and briefly describe the categories of abuse that need to be reported.
2. Describe symptoms or indications that staff should be on the lookout for.
3. Describe the procedure for reporting a child protection concern to the designated teacher, whether it is an observed physical injury, a disclosure by a child, or some other indication.
4. Describe the procedure to be followed by the designated teacher on receiving a report from another member of staff.

This way, when a member of staff or a parent first reads through the document, they are taken through the process in the order in which things happen - possible abuse is recognised, it is reported internally, the report is passed on to the authorities. It becomes much easier to remember what to do, and much easier to refer to the policy to check it out when a staff member needs to consult it.

Remember that safeguarding policies in schools need to be operated by people whose primary job is teaching, not social work. Make the layout and language simple and don't load it down with jargon.

Finally, I strongly recommend that your safeguarding policy is put up on the school website so that parents can see and read the policy. When I obtained the policies for the survey, only about a third of schools published their policies online. If you wan the confidence of parents, let them see your new policy and what you are doing to protect their children.

The Governors' letter

A letter was sent by the governors of St Augustine's to all parents on 19 September, and it seems that some changes are afoot.

Just before I proceed to the meat of the letter, let me just address some comments that have been made over the last few days speculating as to whether any governors have resigned. According to the Accounts to July 2010 as they appear on the Charity Commission website, the following governors were in place as of that date.

Brigadier D Cantley OBE (deceased December 2010)
Dr M M Dowling-Branagan BA, MBBCh
Mrs H Grewal BA
Prof A Hemingway
Mrs A B Kendall
Prof G Bennett

Apart from Brigadier Cantley, all the governors listed have signed the most recent letter, and in addition we now have Dr M Barnard, Mrs F Carey, Deacon A Clark, and Mrs C Phillips. So it seems that no governors have resigned.

The letter starts, as one might reasonably expect, by thanking Mrs Gumley Mason for her service. It then goes on to explain that an appointments committee has been set up to manage the appointment of a new headteacher, and that they may work with "external agencies" to get the highest possible calibre of candidate. All very good. The interesting thing is the composition of the appointments committee: Professor Bennett, Dr Barnard, Deacon Clark and Mrs Carey. All new governors appointed or elected within the last year or so. It would appear that there has been something of a changing of the guard, Professor Bennett being the longest-serving governor on the committee having been appointed during the 2009/10 academic year.

They then talk about the transition period. It seems that the announcement of Mrs Gumley Mason's departure has caught the governors somewhat by surprise, since they don't yet have a set of transitional arrangements to announce. It seems to me that the transitional arrangements will need to address two separate phases of the transition. Firstly, whether there are any particular arrangements that need to be made for the remainder of this term while Mrs Gumley Mason works out her notice, and then they will need to consider separately the period between the end of the calendar year and the appointment of the new permanent headteacher.

There are a few things that will need to be sorted out: the appointment of an acting head, the arrangements for support of the acting head by the governors and senior staff, the arrangements for safeguarding, since Mrs Gumley Mason is also the Designated Teacher for Safeguarding. But by and large, there should be no great difficulty over this - a school can manage without a headteacher for a short period in the event of the illness or absence of the head. Any strategic decisions can be deferred, or taken by the governors. And in the meantime, the heads of department and the heads of year get on with the tasks that they already know need to be done.

Then the governors go on to address the governance structure of the school. It is very interesting that they have mentioned this now. The ISI report published earlier this year mentioned shortcomings in governance, but it has taken until now for a committee to be set up to look at this. Again, the composition of the committee is instructive: Professor Hemingway, Professor Bennett, Mrs Philiips, Deacon Clark and a Trustee. Mostly new governors for this job as well, particularly including Prof Bennett, a professor of law. In my view, one of the first things that needs to be addressed is the frankly unhealthy arrangement of separate boards of Trustees and Governors. There seems to be far too much scope here for differences of opinion leading to one body attempting to impose its will on the other. It seems to me that a school of only 500 or so pupils doesn't really need two separate governing bodies.

Then there's a bit of motivational stuff about the future, where they at one point say that it is an opportunity for the school to move forward, and also say that it is a turning point for the school, which seems to be a bit of a contradiction - you can't be moving forward if you perceive the need to make a turn. Quite what they mean is anybody's guess, but I don't think we need worry greatly. It's common for letters from school governors  to contain a bit of this sort of thing.

Lastly, the governors promise that this letter is the first in a series of more detailed communications aimed at keeping pupils, staff and parents as informed as possible. And that is very much to be welcomed.

Overall, this is a positive letter, it looks as if the governors are beginning to get to grips with the problems the school has had over the past 18 months or so concerning the ISI report and the school's woeful response to it. Much clearly still needs to be done, and I wish the governors all the very best in their efforts to achieve it.

Let me add one final point. The reason I have written about St Augustine's Priory School on this blog is solely because gross shortcomings in its safeguarding policies and procedures came to my attention. As soon as I am satisfied that this has been rectified, that the policies reflect best practice and are being thoroughly implemented, then I will wish the school well and cease to have any interest. On the other hand, if I think that the governors are backsliding in their efforts to ensure proper safeguarding at the school, then I will say so. My sole objective in all this has been the safety and welfare of the pupils

But it shouldn't have required all this bad publicity from me. Parents, staff and governors shouldn't have allowed the school to get into this situation in the first place. Once the school is made safe, you all have a responsibility to be vigilant in order to keep it that way. That job never ends.

Things to look for in a school's safeguarding policy

Parents understandably aren't often experts in child protection. Nonetheless, they have the responsibility for protecting their own children as best they can. With a new academic year about to start, here are a few things to look out for concerning your school's child protection policy.

These tips are designed primarily parents of children at independent schools, though some will be equally applicable to state schools.


1. Is the policy published on the school website?

If it's not, and the school has a website (almost all independent schools do), then the school is breaking the law.

2. Is the school clear and unequivocal in its policy on reporting abuse?

The London Child Protection Procedures are perfectly clear and simple on this point. Paragraph 15.2.1 states "The employer must inform the local authority designated officer (LADO) immediately an allegation is made."

If there is not a similar statement concerning immediate reporting of all allegations to the LADO, then you have reason to be very concerned. In particular look out for weasel words around the statement, such as "in all appropriate circumstances", or suggestions that in cases of doubt there should be informal discussions with the LADO, or suggestions that the parents' permission should be obtained before a report is made. The statement should be entirely clear and unequivocal. If there is an allegation of abuse, it must be reported. Immediately. No ifs, buts or maybes.

It is then for the LADO to decide what to do with it. If the LADO regards it as being trivial or unfounded he can say so. If the LADO regards it as being appropriate for the school to handle, then he will say so and should confirm this in writing to the school. If the LADO thinks a police or Social Services investigation is needed, then one will be ordered.

The vital importance of this is that it is the LADO who decides on the choice of action, not the school. The  LADO has no commercial interest in the allegation being thought unfounded, and is not burdened with a personal acquaintance with the teacher concerned, which would almost certainly be allied to a preconception that he or she would never do such a thing.

3. Is the definition of sexual abuse clear and aligned with official guidance?

The London Child Protection Procedures includes both a clear definition of sexual abuse (clauses 4.2.6 to 4.2.8) and guidance on how signs of it might be recognised (4.3.19 to 4.3.24). There's is no valid reason for schools to deviate significantly from it.

Reasons for concern in the school's policy include unclear definitions, or wording concerning diagnosis which goes out of its way to suggest that the home is the primary or most common source of abuse.

4. Is there a clear procedure defined for allegations against staff when the matter has been referred by the LADO back to the school?

The policy needs to be clear so it can easily be understood by parents. If it is confusing, then in the event that your child is affected by abuse you won't know where you stand. It needs to ensure that the procedure provides for proper support of the pupil as well as the teacher. It needs to have as its primary aim that the truth will be uncovered, and a secondary aim that matters will be dealt with as quickly as possible consistent with getting at the truth.

5. Who is the Designated Teacher for Child Protection?

I'm very suspicious of schools where the headteacher is the Designated Teacher. The headteacher, by the nature of the job, has to be a bit apart from the pupils of the school. As a result, Headteachers generally aren't all that approachable, particularly if a pupil wants to discuss a highly personal and sensitive issue such as having been sexually abused. The job of headteacher and pastoral care don't go well together.

At the best of times, it is hard for a child to come forward with a report about this. There needs to be an atmosphere in the school which encourages such reporting. A key element is that the staff member with special responsibility for child protection is available and approachable, to maximise the chance that a troubled child will come forward. If there is abuse at the school, the sooner it gets reported, the fewer victims there will be and the less harm will be done.

If the headteacher takes the role of designated teacher, it is a sign that at best the school doesn't have a very good understanding of child sex abuse, and at worst that the school might have more of an interest in protecting itself from allegations than in protecting its pupils from abuse. It's not illegal for the headteacher to be the designated teacher for child protection, but I think it is seriously bad practice.

6. Is there great emphasis on what to do with unfounded or malicious allegations?

Let's be clear, unfounded allegations do happen from time to time. A child can misinterpret something he sees or hears. And very occasionally, a child can deliberately make something up. Such a possibility should not be ruled out, but it is the LADO who has the experience and training to sort the wheat from the chaff. So if the policy seems to put a lot of emphasis on protecting the staff from unfounded allegations, then you have reason to be concerned about the school's priorities.


Wherever you are, whatever school your child attends, let me suggest that one of your tasks before the start of term should be to visit your child's school website, and read the school's safeguarding policy.

What I have described above does not cover everything that a good policy should contain, and even a good policy might not be being properly implemented. But if there are issues concerning any of these six points, then alarm bells should be ringing very loud in your heads, because these are strong indicators that there is something seriously amiss with the school's commitment to child protection and its proper reporting. You should complain immediately and in writing, both to the headteacher and to the chair of governors. If you don't get a satisfactory response, you should seriously consider withdrawing your child from the school.

I can't say that abuse is definitely happening at a school even if all six of these points indicate cause for concern. All I can say is that the policy may be helping foster an unhealthy culture at the school where, if any abuse occurs, it might go unreported for a long time.

Equally, the finest policy, scrupulously implemented, is not an absolute guarantee that abuse will never happen. There are two big problems that prevent any kind of guarantee from being practicable. First is that it may happen that a child doesn't report abuse, or at least doesn't report it initially. And the other is that you can't tell a potential abuser by looking it him, they have no common profile.

What this means is you need a good policy and effective training for to staff and a commitment by the school to effective safeguarding so that children feel as able as possible to report, and you need to ensure that any reports or allegations that are made must be reported as soon as possible so they can be effectively investigated. The overall aim is that in the event of an abuser getting on to the staff, the abuse is noticed, reported and investigated as quickly as possible, as few victims as possible are affected and the harm done kept to a minimum.

The child protection policy of any school is a written undertaking by the school to the pupils and parents. It is important that parents hold the school to account for the commitments that are made within this important document. Walk away from any school with a weak policy.