Training teachers in child protection

Training Teachers inChild Protection

O ver the past 2 years the author has conducted a seriesof surveys within various sections of the education

system to discover more about how schools, local educationauthorities (LEAs) and teacher training bodies haveresponded to an increasingly de®ned responsibility inrelation to child protection. This paper sets out to exploresome of the implications for training which have emergedfrom that work

De®ning the Role of the School in ProtectingChildren

It is important to put these implications within the context ofhow the role of the school in this work has become moreclearly de®ned in recent times. Although there have been afew studies which have examined teachers' attitudes (see, forexample, Birchall, 1992), before this research was conductedthere had been no attempt to map what was actuallyhappening on the ground. While the responsibility of localauthorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of childrenfalls most heavily on Social Services Departments, otheragencies are involved in child protection work and, over theyears, there has been a deliberate attempt to coordinate actionand to encourage and develop inter-agency work and make itmore e�ective. One of the key agencies is the school. This isrecognized in the consultation document on the revisedWorking Together document (Department of Health et al.,1999), as it was in the original version. Not only do teachershave a role in recognizing the signs of abuse or neglect andreferring such concerns, they have to be able to provideinformation for child protection enquiries and be involved inthe preparation of inter-agency child protection plans.Although individual accounts and literary ®ction provideexamples of cruel and abusive school experiences, mostschools have tried to do their best to maintain and supportthe welfare of their students. However, until relatively recent

Child Abuse Review Vol. 9: 74±81 (2000)

Copyright *c 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

TrainingUpdate

Mary Baginsky*NSPCC Senior Research O�cer

*Correspondence to: Mary Baginsky, NSPCC National Centre, 42 Curtain Road,London EC2A 3NH, UK.

`No attempt to

map what was

actually happening

on the ground'

times, there was little guidance on the part they should playin the child protection process.During the 1970s and 1980s, a number of Committees of

Inquiry drew attention to the important role which schoolsshould play in protecting children. The report on the LucyGates inquiry (London Borough of Bexley and Greenwichand Bexley Health Authority, 1982) highlighted the need forschools to be able to recognize child abuse. The RichardFraser inquiry (London Borough of Lambeth, InnerLondon Education Authority, Lambeth, Southwark andLewisham Area Health Authority, 1982) referred to the lackof a real understanding by school sta� of the procedureswhich should be followed in the case of suspected injuries,and the Beckford Report (London Borough of Brent andBrent Health Authority, 1985) drew attention to theinteraction between a child's private life and its response toschool and went on to comment that the `fear . . . of crossingthe vague boundaries which divide the social worker fromschool inhibits each side from a collaboration which isnecessary to them both'. In retrospect, it is evident that themajor impediment to teachers playing a greater role in childprotection stemmed from the uncertainties which manyteachers felt about what exactly this would entail.

Guidance and its Limitations

In an attempt to respond to these concerns, the Departmentof Education and Science issued guidance designed to clarifyand support the school's role. The Beckford inquiry hademphasized the importance of the school in the managementof the child protection system and recommended theappointment of a designated teacher in every school. Thisrecommendation was subsequently adopted in Governmentguidelines. Circular 4/88 (Department of Education andScience, 1988) recommended that à senior member of aschool's sta� should have responsibility, under the pro-cedures established by the Local Education Authority(LEA), for coordinating action within the school and forliaison with other agencies'. Seven years later, Circular 10/95(Department for Education and Employment, 1995) set outthe responsibility for child protection issues within educa-tion departments, schools and colleges and gave guidance onlinks with other agencies involved in the protection ofchildren. Each LEA was directed to appoint a senior o�cialto have overall responsibility for the coordination of policy,procedures and training and for making sure that procedures

`The lack of a real

understanding by

school sta� of the

procedures'

`The uncertainties

which many

teachers felt about

what exactly this

would entail '

Training Update 75

Copyright *c 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 9: 74±81 (2000)

were set out in authority-wide documentation. The guide-lines also reinforced the recommendation that all schoolshave a senior member of sta� as the designated and namedchild protection liaison teacher/coordinator.Such initiatives went part of the way to address what had

been seen to be the failure of many schools to play ane�ective role in child protection. However, they would havedone little to address teachers' reluctance to get pulled intoprocesses which many did not fully understand, or perhapstrust, if adequate training had not been o�ered.

The Extent of Training in LEAs

Many LEAs moved very quickly to provide training fordesignated teachers and sometimes other members of sta�.In response to a request from the NSPCC, LEAs provideddetails of the proportion of schools in their areas representedon child protection training during the past 3 years. For mostLEAs, the vast majority of their schools had been repre-sented on an appropriate training programme. However, inone in eight LEAs, 50% or fewer of primary schools had hada member of sta� at any appropriate training. And in one in®ve LEAs, half of their secondary schools had not beenrepresented. Individual schools have responsibility for theirbudgets and for managing their sta� and in the end theymake the ®nal decision. One result has been that in 10% ofLEAs fewer than a quarter of their schools had beenrepresented on child protection training in the past 3 years.Grant-maintained schools came into existence in the late

1980s and ceased to exist in the autumn of 1999. BecauseLEAs did not retain any responsibility for these schools inrelation to child protection, it is impossible to know theextent to which grant-maintained schools have been involvedin child protection training. However, a signi®cant pro-portion of grant-maintained primary, secondary and specialschools have not taken part in LEA sessions, although it ispossible that they had bought in independent trainers orused other providers. Even more uncertainty surrounds theextent to which appropriate training has occurred inindependent schools, although Oxfordshire ACPC and theNSPCC's pack for independent schools, `Developing theProtective Culture; Child Protection Training for Indepen-dent Schools', is being widely used.A great deal of training was supported by the Department

for Education and Employment (DfEE) Grants for Educa-tion Support and Training (GEST), where child protection

`Teachers'

reluctance to get

pulled into

processes which

many did not fully

understand, or

perhaps trust'

76 Baginsky


had been a speci®ed area for such awards in 1995-6 and1997-8. The vast majority of those authorities which hadmade successful bids said that the grant had enabled trainingto take place which would not otherwise have been possibleor had allowed teachers to attend existing training. Althoughthere are LEAs who are very proactive in encouraging andsupporting teachers to attend appropriate training, mostwere pessimistic about their ability to sustain anything likethe overall level of training that had been achieved. There arealso LEAs who have attempted to involve teachers in ACPCsubgroups and other support groups, but a number of themexpressed disappointment at the many pressures whichoperated on schools and which signi®cantly a�ected theirparticipation. In the immediate future most LEAs envisagedcontinuing to train designated teachers; however, in somecases this would be only for those newly appointed to postand would not extend to any updating, higher-level trainingor additional multi-agency training. Although the trainingand updating of designated teachers is absolutely essential,schools have made it clear that it is equally important that allteachers receive some training and that this should also bepart of a planned programme.

Training in Schools

Schools which had previously responded to a NSPCC surveywere asked to complete a questionnaire about their role inrelation to child protection. For the most part it was headteachers and designated teachers who responded, and theirreplies indicate areas where additional training and supportare needed. Although these respondents were reasonablycon®dent that they would be able to recognize signs of abusein children in their care, most (88%) were concerned that thiswould not be the case for all teachers. In fact, one third of allrespondents were extremely concerned that abuse could gounnoticed because of many teachers' inexperience and lack oftraining.In only two ®fths of schools had teachers other than the

designated teachers received any in-service child protectiontraining. It was evident that schools wanted all those whocame into contact with pupils, both teaching and non-teaching sta�, to receive regular training on recognizing thesigns of abuse in children, as well as on how to respond tosuspicions and disclosures.Almost two thirds of those schools replying to the survey

reported some degree of uncertainty about when to contact

Ìt is equally

important that all

teachers receive

some training'

Training Update 77


Social Services in relation to a child protection concern, andfor half of these it was a major problem. And while improvedchannels of communication were needed, the real solutionwas identi®ed as better understanding by teachers and socialworkers of each other's perspective, which could be achievedby more joint training activities.Some schools acknowledged the help which they received

from other agencies and, in particular, the support which hasbeen available from school doctors and nurses over speci®ccases. These schools usually wanted to see closer workingrelationships established with the school health services and,where teachers had bene®ted from such support, they wereanxious to harness this expertise by involving doctors andnurses in training sessions. However, there was a great dealof concern about both the widespread cutbacks in theseservices and the likely consequences.While some schools wanted to see all child protection

training based in schools and conducted by their own sta� inorder to reinforce the importance of the role of the school,the majority wanted to see other professionals involved inorder to raise the awareness of all sta� of the multi-professional dimension. At the same time, concerns wereexpressed about LEA trainers who themselves had hadlimited experience of teaching and schools but who weregiven the responsibility to train experienced teachers. Anumber of designated teachers believed that their expertisecould be appropriately harnessed, especially within a multi-agency approach.

Initial Teacher Training

Many respondents referred to the need to improve the levelof knowledge about child protection of newly quali®edteachers (NQTs) during both their training period and theirinitial years in schools. Some of those involved in trainingand supporting NQTs would clearly welcome advice andguidance on how to approach this.At the present time, the requirement to cover child

protection on ITT courses is covered by Circular 4/98,Teaching: High Status, High Standards (DfEE, 1998), whichstates that, for all courses, those to be awarded Quali®edTeacher Status should, when assessed, demonstrate that theyhave a working knowledge and understanding of teachers'legal liabilities and responsibilities relating to the role of theeducation service in protecting children from abuse (which isset out in DfEE Circular 10/95 and the Home O�ce,

Ùncertainty about

when to contact

Social Services in

relation to a child

protection

concern'

78 Baginsky


Department of Health, DfEE and Welsh O�ce guidanceWorking Together (1991)).A recent survey of initial teacher training courses (see

Baginsky and Hodgkinson, 1999) showed that, in general,while most courses met the basic Government requirement,the coverage of child protection was minimal. Although theNSPCC is in the process of piloting material (Rodgers andSinclair-Taylor, 1999) which goes a long way to address thedemands of many course leaders for guidance on whatshould be covered and how, the fact remains that a greatmany other areas have to be covered on these courses and theinput has to be seen as the ®rst step in a process whichcontinues throughout a teacher's career.

Some Ways Forward

Although there have been suggestions from a small section ofthe teaching profession that they will resist any furtherGovernment moves to deal with what may be de®ned as `theills of society' and calls for a lower level of pastoralresponsibility in line with some European neighbours, thiswas not re¯ected in the responses received from teachers.However, it was clear that they are looking for additionalsupport and training. It is not realistic to look at a singleprovider. Although newly quali®ed teachers should havereceived a basic understanding of what their child protectionresponsibilities are about, the survey showed that there wassome inconsistency regarding what was covered on coursesand the majority of courses were only able to spend between1 and 3 hours on child protection. Material which theNSPCC is in the process of piloting sets out to:

`. . . build on statutory requirements with the explicit aim ofpreparing emergent teachers with the ability to deal appro-priately with disclosures and suspicions about abuse (and raise)wider issues in relation to proactive child protection practices.'(NSPCC, forthcoming)

The stated objectives of the course are to enable thosestudying to become teachers to know what to do:

. If a child or young person makes a disclosure ofabuse

. If they suspect a child or young person might bedisplaying signs and medicalization of abuse

Whatever the preparation student teachers have received,schools should assess their needs in relation to child

`Resist any further

Government

moves to deal with

what may be

de®ned as `the ills

of society' '

Training Update 79


protection on appointment, as they should for all their sta�,and build this into an in-service programme. Many LEAsare supporting their schools in this and some have made aconcerted e�ort to extend their own training to all sta� inschools, and not just the designated teachers. At the presenttime it seems that too much is left to chance, availablebudgets and the need to take account of the enormousdemands which are made on teachers' time. It is vital thatthis ad hoc approach is ended. It may be time to look to someform of certi®cation which would evidence that teachers havereceived training within a certain number of years. It mayalso require a more concerted and rigorous approach on thepart of ACPCs to exploit the resources within theirboundaries to ensure that these training needs are met.It was clear from the surveys that while there were

concerns about how each sector could best carry out theirresponsibilities within the child protection process, andparticularly how to ensure that all teachers were adequatelyprepared to meet these, there was little sign of anyreluctance to accept these responsibilities. However, it wasclear that schools, LEAs and those that train teachers werelooking for additional support. Many individuals andagencies, including the NSPCC, are engaged in providingthis support and in examining how to develop additionalsources. It ®ts well with the principles of Working Togetherto Safeguard Children and a climate where the Governmentis encouraging all its departments to engage in `joined upthinking'. One of the major challenges along the road will beto enable all teachers to have the con®dence to meet theirresponsibilities in relation to child protection, whileacknowledging that it is but one of many aspects of ateacher's life.

References

Baginsky M, Hodgkinson K. 1999. Child protection training ininitial teacher training: a survey of provision in institutions ofhigher education. Educational Research 2: 173±181.

Birchall E. 1992. Report to the Department of Health: WorkingTogether in Child Protection; Report of Phase Two: A Survey ofthe Experience and Perceptions of Six Key Professionals.Stirling: University of Stirling.

Department for Education and Employment. 1995. ProtectingChildren from Abuse: The Role of the Educational Service(Circular 10/95). London: DfEE Publications.

Department for Education and Employment. 1998. Teaching:High Status, High Standards (Circular 4/98). London: DfEEPublications.

Àcknowledging

that it is but one of

many aspects of a

teacher's life'

80 Baginsky


Department of Education and Science. 1988. Working Togetherfor the Protection of Children from Abuse: Procedures withinthe Education Service (Circular 4/88). London: DES.

Department of Health et al. 1999. Working Together to SafeguardChildren: New Government Guidance on Inter-Agency Co-operation. London: Department of Health.

Home O�ce, Department of Health, Department for Educationand Employment and Welsh O�ce. 1991. Working Together: AGuide to Arrangements for Inter-Agency Co-operation for theProtection of Children from Abuse. London: HMSO.

Rodgers Y, Sinclair-Taylor A. 1999. Child Protection in InitialTeaching Training. London: NSPCC.

Training Update 81


Documents

Training teachers in child protection