DfES Child Protection: Safer Recruitment and Vetting in the Education Service

12 October 2006

Response from the Independent Schools Council

The Independent Schools Council (ISC) represents 500,000 children in 1,270 independent schools.  ISC exists to promote choice, diversity and excellence in education; the development of talent at all levels of ability; and the widening of opportunity for children from all backgrounds to achieve their potential.  The safety of children at ISC schools is a priority of the highest order and thus ISC welcomes much of the guidance document ‘Child Protection: Safer Recruitment and Vetting in the Education Service' as its clarity on present day best practice is extremely helpful.

ISC is particularly pleased that the document itself, for the largest part, makes mention of and takes account of the position of the independent sector.

General Comments:

The principal general comment to make is that whilst a document set out in traditional hardcopy format to sit alongside the other related documents in this area is useful, it would be even more helpful for the information contained in all these documents to be brought together.  This centralised guidance could be web-based and be searchable such that it would draw out in bold those bits of guidance relevant to a particular sector (i.e. if you searched FE you would draw out the guidance as it relates in this area).

In any event, it needs to be made very clear, as soon as possible, to the reader, perhaps in the main introductory summary to the document, the role that this document is designed to play in relation to that of other guidance documents in this area.

A further general point is that the DfES and other contact details contained in the document will need to be regularly checked and updated as phone numbers, web-links or e-mails are altered.

Specific Comments by guidance document paragraph:

Paragraph 1.2 i

In this paragraph more clarity is needed over exactly what the term ‘the schools workforce' means.  Does it mean the corporate body of all those who work in schools, or the specific employees within any one particular school?  This term is repeated in 1.17. The definition matters when the term is used in 1.21 ii, which states that checks are required on those who have been out of ‘the workforce' for more than three months. If a teacher finishes at one school in July and starts at another in September, the teacher has not been out of the workforce for 3 months, and so, according to 1.21 is not a new appointment.  Does this mean that they do not need a disclosure?  If they do not and the former school have destroyed, as instructed in 1.48, their previous disclosure, how is the new school, in the absence of portability, to ascertain their suitability, as the judgment is made at school level, for work at that school?

Paragraph 1.5

It would be helpful if the relevant regulations could be split into the regulations that relate to all schools and colleges, just maintained schools, just independent schools etc. so that the schools and colleges involved could easily find the regulations that are most appropriate to them.  I am unsure of the basis upon which this list has been drawn up. However, despite making specific provisions in this area The Education (Independent School Standards) (England) Regulations 2003 are not on this list.

Paragraphs 1.8 - 1.11

As stated in the general comments above, these sections, which deal with the relationship between this guidance and other related guidance need to be made more prominent.  Perhaps going before the bulk of the rest of the document, with a clear sub-title marked ‘Further Relevant Safeguarding Guidance' and any document titles pulled out in bold, would help in this respect.

Paragraph 1.11

The penultimate line of paragraph 1.11 references the reader to a ‘document... above'.  There is more than one document mentioned prior to this point in the text, so it would be helpful to spell out which one it means.

Paragraph 1.12

The recommendation that ‘checks should also be carried out on all who seek positions in schools ...which involve contact with children such as volunteers' is not consistently maintained throughout the document. In the case studies in the volunteer section, there are some, though limited circumstances, where the volunteer concerned is not asked for a CRB Disclosure (e.g. Mrs Smith). It would perhaps be better to refer the reader to the case studies whilst saying that unless the risk is assessed as low/minimal, the presumption would be towards conducting an enhanced check.

Paragraph 1.14

It is appropriate that schools should confirm with the agency that appropriate checks have been carried out, but it might be better that confirmation have to be received in writing, for example by e-mail, fax or post.

Paragraph 1.18

It would be helpful to add to the end of the first sentence ‘...and thus a separate List 99 check is not necessary.' The last sentence ‘See Annex B...' might also be in brackets as per 1.20.

Paragraph 1.20

This paragraph states that applicants must be asked to declare any convictions, but it does not say how or at what stage in the recruitment process. It would be useful if it did and also referred the reader to the appropriate passage in ‘Safer Recruitment and Selection in Education Settings'.

Paragraph 1.20 i

Where it reads ‘on day care premises' should it say ‘or on', or is the bullet point correct as it stands?

Paragraph 1.20 iv and 1.63

The Charity Commission has taken the view that all governors have to have disclosures with the level of disclosure required related to their level of contact with children. However, as these paragraphs demonstrate this is not the DfES' view. It would be extremely helpful to have a consistent stance taken by the regulatory bodies that effect ISC schools.

Paragraph 1.21

It would be useful to our member schools if this paragraph could also include the regulatory situation in respect of independent schools.

Paragraph 1.28

This situation should make mention of the conditional nature of a job offer until a CRB disclosure has been received at which point the employment decision can be taken.

Paragraph 1.33

This paragraph needs to note not only that references should be taken up, but also that they should be in original format and verified, usually through a follow-up phone call (as stated in 1.71).

Paragraph 1.40

It should be made clearer, as happens in 1.38, that this paragraph is only relevant where the school is a maintained or non-maintained special school.

Paragraph 1.48

Again, whilst there is nothing unclear about DfES' recommendation in respect of destroying certificates, it would be good if the Commission for Social Care Inspection took an allied approach. At the moment, they require complete disclosure certificates to be kept for their inspection at three yearly intervals, which is six times DfES' maximum recommended retention period.

Paragraph 1.57

These Case Studies fall prior to paragraph 1.62 which explains the status of the case studies.  It would be helpful if, perhaps in italics or brackets, the explanation of the role of the Case Study could be put before paragraph 1.57.

Paragraph 1.60

It is not accepted ‘that schools do not need to check existing volunteers continuing with their old duties'. This will only add to the confusion as to who should or should not be checked. Equally, it runs against the statement in paragraph 1.12 that it is strongly recommended that checks be conducted on volunteers. Perhaps it would be simpler, from the schools' point of view, to say that all those who began to volunteer in positions that involve regularly being in sole charge of and caring for children since the CRB came into being in 2002 should be checked. Thus, the requirements for volunteers would be aligned with those for teachers.

Paragraph 1.77

Annex A concerns permission to work in the UK. However, this paragraph is only about working in England.  Does the whole document relate just to English schools or should there be mention made of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland?

Paragraph 1.83

This paragraph states that applications for work permits for teachers are paid for by DfES. However, it is important, so as not to mislead some of the intended readers of this document, to be clear whether this is work permits for all teachers or just for those that will work in the maintained sector.

Paragraph 1.88

It is suggested that Annex A and Annex B swap places as this information on the Criminal Records Bureau follows more naturally on from the central core of the document as most staff appointed will be UK nationals, not overseas staff.

Paragraph 1.90

This paragraph needs to mention, as 1.101 does, the fact that particularly sensitive information will be sent under separate cover to the Registered Body only.

Paragraph 1.100

Although the statement in this paragraph that Volunteers will not be charged for a CRB Disclosure is correct, it should be remembered that for those schools that will be deregistered as Registered Bodies once the volume threshold of 100 is imposed, every check, regardless of whether the applicant is a volunteer or not, will cost an additional £10 administrative charge payable to their Umbrella Body.

Paragraph 1.125

This paragraph states that the ‘agency should consult the personnel manager of the LEA responsible for the schools in which the applicant is likely to work...if there is any doubt about an applicant's suitability for appointment'.  However, where schools in which the applicant wishes to work are not run by the LEA, it should be requested that this information be sent to the relevant member of staff within the school concerned.

Please do not hesitate to contact ISC if any of the points made in the above are unclear or if there is any further information or assistance ISC could provide, particularly as regards creating a document that is maximally accessible to the independent sector.