Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Consultation response form
Consultation closing date: 16 February 2016
Your comments must reach us by that date
Keeping children safe in education
If you would prefer to respond online to this consultation please use the following
link: https://www.education.gov.uk/consultations
We are interested to know your views to our proposals on the policy changes required
to Parts 1 and 2 of Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance.
Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information,
may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the access to information
regimes, primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act
1998.
If you want all, or any part, of your response to be treated as confidential, please explain
why you consider it to be confidential.
If a request for disclosure of the information you have provided is received, your
explanation about why you consider it to be confidential will be taken into account, but
no assurance can be given that confidentiality can be maintained. An automatic
confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as
binding on the Department.
The Department will process your personal data (name and address and any other
identifying material) in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, and in the
majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to
third parties.
Please tick if you want us to keep your response confidential.
Reason for confidentiality:
Name: Catherine Sezen
Please tick if you are responding on behalf of your organisation.
√
Name of Organisation (if applicable): Association of Colleges
Address: 2-5 Stedham Place
London
WC1A 1HU
If your enquiry is related to the DfE e-consultation website or the consultation process in
general, you can contact the Ministerial and Public Communications Division by e-mail:
[email protected] or by telephone: 0370 000 2288 or via the
Department's 'Contact Us' page.
Please insert an ‘x’ into one of the following boxes which best describes you as a
respondent.
Local Authority
Headteacher or school
leader
Parent or Carer
Pupil
Teacher
Governor
X
National
representative body
Other (please specify)
Please Specify:
1 Should governing bodies, proprietors and management committees be required to
ensure that all staff should not only read at least Part 1 but also understand it?
Yes
No
√
Don't Know
Comments:
All colleges have safeguarding and child protection policies and procedures in place
and require all staff to undertake training. However, the nature of this training differs
from college to college; some offer online training and others face-to-face, some offer
both. This is dependent on college size and staff contracts. For example, an online
module is more realistic for a part time member of staff on a two-hour a week teaching
contract in adult training provision.
It is unclear what the Government’s definition is for the word ‘understand’ in respect to
this consultation. It is also unclear how will this be measured, both internally and
externally, and whether this will be through inspection/audit processes.
Some colleges use online training packages which include a test element. We would
like to know whether successful completion of this would be sufficient to comply with the
term ‘understand’. Face-to-face training in colleges utilises assessment for learning
techniques to check ‘understanding’, but this is not a formal assessment.
2 Will the new emphasis on “understand” lead to you changing process or procedure in
your school? Please provide details.
Yes
No
√
Don't Know
Comments:
See 1 above
Once the term ‘understood’ is clarified then it is likely that colleges would need to
supplement their training with a tool to measure ‘understanding’.
3 Does the section “The role of school and college staff” make clear that safeguarding is
everyone’s responsibility?
Yes
√
No
Don't Know
Comments:
Staff are already made aware of their responsibilities however the use of bold font is
helpful to reinforce the message. However, the section does not explain where this
responsibility on staff is derived from including whether it is a contractual duty. This
should be clarified and stated.
4 Does “What school and college staff should do if they have concerns about a child”
provide a simple and easy to follow message with regards to referrals?
Yes
√
No
Don't Know
Comments:
The guidance should provide clarity regarding what constitutes an emergency or high
risk situation rather than a ‘concern’. Paragraph 18 is very vague. It does not specify
what amounts to a ‘concern’ that should be raised with the designated safeguarding
lead. It is unclear how this gives a ‘simple and easy to follow’ message to staff
members. The previous guidance1 of July 2015 referred readers to the NSPCC website2
for further guidance on identifying ‘concerns’ however this reference has been deleted
in the proposed revisions.
Colleges are large, complex organisations often based over more than one site.
Therefore, we would recommend that any referral should be channelled via the
safeguarding lead/ team to ensure that there is consistency of approach, record
keeping, monitoring and follow up.
In the case of an emergency, where a young person is in immediate danger it needs to
be clear that the action should be noted and referred back to the safeguarding lead for
follow up.
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447595/KCSIE_July_2015.pdf
2 https://www.nspcc.org.uk
5 Is the new flow chart on page 10 an improvement compared to the old flow chart that
it replaces?
Yes
√
No
Don't Know
Comments:
Please see Q 4 above with regard to emergency situations
6 What changes would you propose to improve the effectiveness of Part 1?
Comments:
Clarity of the ‘training’ requirement would be helpful particularly whether it refers to full
training, a refresher or update on changes to guidance and whether it should it be face-
to-face or online.
We recommend rewording and greater clarity with regard to female genital mutilation
(FMG) and radicalisation.
Further clarification on whether the mandatory reporting duty under the FGM Act 2003
applies to schools and/or colleges would make this statutory guidance easier for
colleges to understand and implement.
The section on the ‘Prevent duty’ requires updating because this duty now also applies
to further education and sixth form colleges. Reference should also be made to the
Home Office’s published advice specifically for further education colleges.
The section entitled ‘Channel’ states that ‘school staff should understand when it is
appropriate to make a referral to the Channel programme. It is unclear whether this
responsibility also applies to staff in further education and sixth form colleges.
The scope of the duty on college staff to make referrals to the Channel Panel is vague.
Legally, the extent of the duty on staff to cooperate with the Channel Panel is only ‘so
far as appropriate and reasonably practicable’ but this is not stated in the text.
Therefore, there is no easy-to-follow message in the guidance about when it is
appropriate to make referrals to Channel Panels. Nor is easy-to-follow guidance
provided in the Channel Guidance publication of 20153 referenced in footnote 16.
There should also be greater reference made to e-safety and for individuals to be aware of their institution’s e-safety policy.
7 Does it help to publish Part 1 as a standalone document?
Yes
√
No
Don't Know
Comments:
Having more than one published document could lead to confusion. Some colleges
may decide to print part one for staff, but most would probably use it as an online
resource for sustainability reasons.
3 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/425189/Channel_Duty_Guidance_April_2015.pdf
8 Will the proposed changes to Part 1 require you to adjust your safeguarding policies
and procedures? Please provide details.
√
Yes
No
Don't Know
Comments:
Most colleges undertake safeguarding training with staff every two years with an
additional rolling programme of training being undertaken to cater for new starters. The
requirement for annual training for all employees (in whatever form it should take) is not
practical in very large organisations with 500+ staff working a variety of contracted
hours. It will increase the workload on safeguarding leads and CPD/HR departments
where staff training records are kept.
9 Is the guidance clear as to the cover arrangements for “the designated safeguarding
lead”?
√
Yes
No
Don't Know
Comments:
Many colleges have at least 500 staff and therefore have a lead and team working to
the lead. The member of staff with overall responsibility for safeguarding is on the
senior leadership team (SLT) but day-to-day responsibility is often delegated to ensure
that cover is always available.
10 Should “designated safeguarding lead” training be provided annually- as a
minimum?
Yes
√
No
Don't Know
Comments:
If there is a requirement for all staff to have annual training then it would suggest that
the lead should have annual training too. However, in many local authorities this would
cause a capacity issue; designated training courses are often oversubscribed and it can
currently take nearly a year to be allocated a place.
11 We are proposing staff should receive regular safeguarding refresher training,
annually as a minimum. Would this result in you having to provide training more
frequently?
√
Yes
No
Don't Know
Comments:
Most colleges require staff to attend/ complete online a safeguarding refresher course
every two years . Colleges also have a rolling programme of training to cater for new
starters. The requirement for annual training (in whatever form it should take) will
increase the workload on safeguarding leads and CPD/HR departments where staff
training records are kept.
The Department for Education could greatly assist colleges with planning training
schedules if it operated with increased transparency. For example, the Department
could communicate (e.g. via GOV.UK email bulletins) when changes to the statutory
guidance will be implemented. For example, the July 2015 revised guidance appeared
online without any prior notification. Additionally, colleges must read this statutory
guidance and plan training in light of other statutory guidance issued by the
Department, such as its ‘Disqualification under the Childcare Act 2006’ guidance. This
guidance states that it will be reviewed in September 2015. However, the Department
did not announce a consultation nor has it provided an update concerning any proposed
revisions. This ‘ad hoc’ approach lacks transparency and makes the burden on schools
and colleges of scheduling and implementing annual training impossible.
Paragraph 73 of the draft September 2016 guidance states that ‘training should be in
line with advice from LSCB’. It would be helpful if the guidance could outline minimum
requirements in respect of training content.
12 How often do you provide training currently?
More than one a year
Once a year
Once every two years
√
Other
Comments:
Colleges provide training at different intervals, with most requiring staff to undertake
refresher training every two to three years.
13 Is it reasonable to expect schools and colleges to ensure they have
appropriate online filters and monitoring systems in place to protect children from
harmful online material?
Yes
No
√
Don't Know
Comments:
This is a complex issue.
To ensure that all ‘harmful’ sites are blocked would be very challenging because as
soon as a site is blocked another will become available. There are some very good
devices available which help block or filter internet traffic. Some devices have the
capability to recognise key words and can, if set up correctly, automatically block
inappropriate sites. However, the initial set up expense and staffing to monitor needs to
be considered and factored into college funding.
The majority of students who attend colleges will have access to their own mobile
technology and filters cannot necessarily block sites on these devices. Filters may also
block appropriate sites unintentionally which can be irritating for staff and students alike
when carrying out research. Filtering could also lead to some students deliberately
wanting to try and manipulate the system purely because sites are blocked, exposing
them to extremism.
The alternative to site blocking is to be less restrictive, but implement a regular
monitoring procedure. Concerns can then be raised with students rather than driving
behaviour underground.
14 Would it help schools and colleges if online guidance/an online portal was created
that set out what “appropriate” filters and monitoring systems looked like and advice as
how to satisfy themselves that they have them?
Yes
No
√
Don’t Know
Comments:
See 13 above. This needs further consultation. All colleges are on the Janet system
run by Jisc. A workshop discussion involving AoC and representative colleges would
be helpful.
15 Is it reasonable to change the emphasis from “should consider” to “should ensure”
with regards to teaching about safeguarding, including online?
Yes
No
√
Don't Know
Comments:
The proposed change from ‘should consider’ to ‘should ensure’ does not inform schools
or colleges whether or not it is a mandatory requirement to teach safeguarding, or
merely a recommended course of action. This is likely to cause confusion.
16 Will the change in emphasis from “should consider” to “should ensure” lead to an
increase in costs? Please provide details.
Yes
No
√
Don't Know
Comments:
Please see response to Q 15 above. If this were a mandatory requirement, colleges
would need to consider buying in more specialised packages for use during tutorial
sessions.
17 What, if any, information would help governing bodies and proprietors develop
appropriate peer on peer abuse policies and procedures?
Comments:
Guidance regarding examples of peer on peer abuse to ensure consistency across the
sector would be helpful.
18 What changes would you propose to improve the effectiveness of Part 2?
Comments:
Reference should be made to safeguarding all students and ensuring that the emphasis on Prevent does not lead to a backlash against specific groups of students. We have a duty to safeguard all students. Wherever possible institutions should consult students about their views. There should be greater clarity and interaction between this guidance and Ofsted guidance and practice. For example, paragraph 60 of the draft guidance does not reflect Ofsted’s requirements, as stated in paragraph 21, of ‘Inspecting safeguarding in early years, education and skills settings’4. Ofsted requires an external visitors’ policy, which is not explicitly mentioned in paragraph 60. Paragraph 79 refers to Ofsted guidance documents on how its inspectors approach and assess safeguarding in schools and colleges. However, many colleges have reported a divergence between the approach of Ofsted inspectors and the requirements stipulated in the statutory guidance. For example, some Ofsted inspectors continue to perpetuate the ‘myth’ that college staff should undergo DBS checks every three years. It should be noted that Ofsted inspectors are only required to undertake training every three years. This is a potential concern as some inspectors still refer to ‘CRB checks’ rather than ‘DBS checks’ and appear unfamiliar with recent changes in safeguarding legislation. It is disappointing that this consultation does not provide stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on either Part 3 or Part 4 of the statutory guidance. This lends itself to a ‘piecemeal’ approach towards amending highly important statutory guidance.
4 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inspecting-safeguarding-in-early-years-education-and-
skills-from-september-2015
19 Will the proposed changes to Part 2 require you to adjust your safeguarding policies
and procedures? Please provide details.
√
Yes
No
Don't Know
Comments:
This would require more frequent staff training, possible consideration of filtering
packages (after further consultation) and a review of tutorial input for students.
20 Do you have any comments on the changes made to the Annexes?
Comments:
No, but could there be greater clarity over which parts of the document refer only to
schools and which to schools and colleges. While the document does state that ‘child’
refers to anyone under 18, colleges do not use this term. Using the term child/young
person would be better.
It should be noted that colleges also have responsibility for the safeguarding of
vulnerable adults. It would help if responsibilities for this student profile were also
clarified within one document.
Thank you for taking the time to let us have your views. We do not intend to
acknowledge individual responses unless you place an 'X' in the box below.
Please acknowledge this reply.
X
E-mail address for acknowledgement: [email protected]
Here at the Department for Education we carry out our research on many different
topics and consultations. As your views are valuable to us, please confirm below if you
would be willing to be contacted again from time to time either for research or to send
through consultation documents?
√
Yes
No
All DfE public consultations are required to meet the Cabinet Office Principles on
Consultation
The key Consultation Principles are:
departments will follow a range of timescales rather than defaulting to a 12-week
period, particularly where extensive engagement has occurred before
departments will need to give more thought to how they engage with and use real
discussion with affected parties and experts as well as the expertise of civil
service learning to make well informed decisions
departments should explain what responses they have received and how these
have been used in formulating policy
consultation should be ‘digital by default’, but other forms should be used where
these are needed to reach the groups affected by a policy
the principles of the Compact between government and the voluntary and
community sector will continue to be respected.
If you have any comments on how DfE consultations are conducted, please email:
Thank you for taking time to respond to this consultation.
Completed responses should be sent to the address shown below by 16 February 2016
Send by post to: address, Michael Bell, Level 3, Bishopsgate House, Department for
Education, Feethams, Darlington, DL1 5QE
Send by email to: [email protected]
