Agenda item

Cabinet Member – Councillor Beca Brown

 

To consider a report on the above.

 

1.    To accept the report and to note the observations.

2.    To recommend that the Education Department provides a simple guidance on referreing any concerns, for use by all who deal with the system, such as governors and parents.

Dylan Owen (Statutory Director of Social Services) and Llion Williams (Assistant Head: Well-being and Equality) were welcomed to the meeting. ⁠ ⁠

 

Submitted – the report of the Cabinet Member for Education in response to a request by the members to receive information on safeguarding arrangements in schools, and on the guidance and support provided in this field by the Education Department so as to give assurance to committee members of the appropriateness of the arrangements.

 

The Cabinet Member for Education set out the context and the Head of Education also delivered a few words at the beginning.

 

Members were then given an opportunity to ask questions and submit observations. 

 

It was noted that a DBS check did not prove that someone was a safe person, but rather stated that a person had not yet been found guilty of a crime. In response, it was noted that:-

·         They agreed with the observation, and as well as the DBS, this Council asked for two references before appointing to any post.

·         There were only 0.07% of staff without a DBS at the moment, and there were specific reasons for that, e.g. long-term illness, a person suspended from work or people on supply lists who no longer wished to work for Gwynedd.

·         Efforts were underway almost daily to meet the 100% target.

·         The Safeguarding Operational Group monitored how many people have had a DBS, and if the percentages were lower than expected, it asked what was the explanation and justification for that.

 

It was enquired how much monitoring took place to ensure that the designated safeguarding person in a school completed all the necessary training. In response, it was noted:-

·         That training was provided by the Authority in the form of small groups, so that people had the opportunity to ask questions that they might not ask in larger groups.

·         That the nature of the training was now more fun and interactive, and that the feedback from these annual sessions was very positive.

·         In terms of monitoring, governing bodies had a responsibility to have a person overseeing child protection on the body, and that person would be expected to meet with the designated safeguarding person to discuss the situation in the school in terms of safeguarding children.

·         That training was also provided for governors on their monitoring role and supporting the designated safeguarding person within the school.

·         That Gwynedd was one of the few authorities in Wales that undertook quality assurance checks, where the designated officer in the county goes to a school and carries out a detailed investigation which then feeds into an authority overview.  By doing so, they could see if there were things that were not being done properly, what they were and whether the training needed to be refined to improve the guidance given to designated persons.

·         That the Safeguarding Operational Group monitored the number of people who had received safeguarding training, etc., and reported regularly to the Safeguarding Strategic Panel.

 

It was noted that it was hoped that a staff member could not be the designated governor. In response, it was noted that there was no desire for this to happen, and if it was seen to happen, the impropriety of the situation would have to be brought to the attention of the governing body.

 

It was noted that level 2 training was extremely valuable and important and should be mandated for designated governors. A member enquired what monitoring took place to ensure governors had received level 1 training and that designated governors had received level 2 training. In response, it was noted that the Authority monitored that designated persons on the governing body had received level 1 and 2 training.

 

It was noted that the report gave a picture of a fairly robust system, but for a system to work the entry point must work, i.e., that a case of potential abuse must enter the system in the first place. A member asked for an explanation of the procedure from the point where e.g. an assistant in a class noticed marks on a child's body. In response, it was noted that this was explained in the policy, but the procedure was as follows:-

·         Staff were encouraged and trained to listen to the child, to ask questions that were not closed questions, to record what was being said in the child's words and to refer this to the attention of the designated person within the school (most often the headteacher or a member of the management team).

·         The designated person had a responsibility to contact the Reception Team in Pwllheli to receive appropriate advice.

·         The safeguarding process becomes active from this point on. A social worker might visit the school to look at the marks on the child, or possibly the police could be called.

·         The school was required to submit an accurately completed referral form as soon as possible, but there was no obligation to complete it before bringing the matter to the attention of the Reception Team.

·         That staff would look after the child in the meantime and continue with the care surrounding safeguarding after the child had been seen by the social worker.

 

It was further noted:- 

·         That a safeguarding question was asked in every teacher job interview, and although the Head of Service had interviewed tens, if not hundreds of teachers over the years, he had never come across any candidate who was unsure of the safeguarding procedures.

·         In a case of concern about a potential safeguarding issue, schools were advised to leave everything and contact the Reception Team immediately, no matter how busy the school day.

 

A member enquired who was responsible if a situation emerged which was not necessarily a complaint or concern, but there was information that suggested there was a risk to children. In response, it was noted:-

·         That safeguarding children was everyone's responsibility, but within a school and school context, the responsibility rested with the headteacher and the designated person within that school.

·         That there were arrangements and models in place for schools to record low-level concerns about children, e.g. holes in shoes etc, and recording the same concerns for days or weeks at a time might merit referral.

·         If a school had genuine concerns about children, e.g. marks on their bodies, they had no choice but to refer the matter to the Reception Team.

·         That schools had to make decisions on a daily basis to either refer a case or record a concern. The Authority could not intervene in the process because, with so many schools in the county, the Authority was not required to do so, nor was it practicable or reasonable for the Authority to do so.

·         That the training provided guidance on identifying the threshold between low level concern and genuine concern and that the number of referrals received by the Children's Referrals Team was testament to the fact that Gwynedd schools knew how to identify and act on risks.

 

Concern was expressed that the Authority's processes were not clear enough to allow people who were not part of the educational establishment, but who came into contact with children, such as parents, catering staff, etc. to make a complaint. A member asked whether they could ensure that the safeguarding guidance was clear in the safeguarding policy. In response, it was noted:-

·         That every staff member who worked in a school in Gwynedd, from the catering staff to the management team, received appropriate training for safeguarding children.

·         That it was a requirement for every school to display the name of the designated person at authority level on posters in the school.

·         That every school had their own version of the safeguarding policy and that the version on the website was an example of a policy shared with schools, and based on national practice.

 

It was noted that it would be beneficial if a concise guide on how to file a complaint was readily available from any safeguarding policy.

 

An enquiry was made as to how, e.g. an assistant at a school submitting a complaint, could ensure that the process had been followed. It was noted that a training system could be put in place for everyone who was part of the system, but the chain would only be as strong as the weakest link in it. In response, it was noted:-

·         As with any procedure, 100% certainty could not be given, but that the system was as perfect as it could be.

·         DBS was a check of a staff member's situation at a point in time and was updated in accordance with national guidance.

·         That it was good practice for staff who had raised a concern about a child to check if the referral had been made.

 

It was suggested that the one important thing missing amongst the burden of the training material for governors was the small number of simple things governors really needed to know, namely that an average governor should refer concern about school staff or a parent to the headteacher, or refer a concern about the headteacher to the authority. In response, it was noted that this was covered in the policy, but possibly needed to be simplified and highlighted a little better.

 

It was noted that the recent case was likely in the back of the minds of all members when discussing this field. It was likely that the headteacher in question had a DBS and that everyone around him had done the training, etc., but there was a failure nevertheless. The Head of Education was being honest in saying that no system could be perfect, and it was important to have a self-critical attitude towards the system. It was further noted that this committee had received a report from Estyn on the Education Department which stated that the system was, by and large, sound, when it was not.  A member enquired to what extent the Department was discussing this with Estyn, and to what extent the discussion with the independent inspection body would be used to strengthen the Department's arrangements. In response, it was noted that the Authority had responded completely sincerely and honestly to the Estyn questions as part of the inspection, and the report highlighted that we followed the safeguarding guidelines appropriately at that time.

 

It was suggested that there was a place to further discuss the report with Estyn since this committee, and also the Governance and Audit Committee, relied on external regulating body reports to form an opinion on the arrangements of the Authority. It was noted that such reports could be defective as the questions asked were insufficient questions in terms of the information they captured, therefore leading to a deficiency in the process. It was believed that this was a matter to go after to try and prevent a systematic failure.

 

It was suggested, specifically in relation to a complaint about a headteacher, that the matter should be referred more than once to more than one party so as to ensure that nothing was missed. In response, it was noted:-

·         That there was an agreed arrangement in terms of dealing with allegations against people in a position of trust, and that the Authority followed that arrangement.

·         That the Headteacher and the Education Department would be committed to any lessons and changes that may emerge from the practice review.

 

A member sought assurance that there was a robust training programme for the next level of people, i.e. education officers, and possibly GwE advisors, as they also received concerns about safeguarding matters. In response, assurance was given that the training was being provided to officers of the Education Department and all the other services.

 

It was noted that, from a parent's perspective, it would be extremely beneficial if there was a fairly simple interactive infographic available to help parents / governors to know what to refer, when to refer and where to refer. Each school could be asked to place the infographic on their website and perhaps refer to it every term, to highlight that there was now a robust process in place. It was noted that parental confidence in the system had been dented and there was work to be done to raise awareness of the inspection and the new way of doing things to ensure children were safe in schools. In response, it was noted that the point was fair and that the Head of Education would ask the officers to construct a model infographic for the individual schools to refine and place on their website.

 

RESOLVED

1.    To accept the report and note the observations.

2.    To recommend that the Education Department provides a simple guide on referring any concerns for use by everyone who is involved with the system, such as governors and parents.

 

At the end of the discussion, the Chair noted that the report gave comfort to the committee that there was a robust system in place. However, it was also true to say that public faith in the system had been undermined. He suggested, possibly, that the committee might wish to look further into this field in the near future which could be discussed further at the informal meeting of the committee following this meeting.