- Part 1 for all staff has no changes.
|
- This means the statutory guidance should already be familiar to the majority of staff after at least a year (though some principles have been the same for many years).
- How are you going to move from mere knowledge to embedded practice? How do you know staff are doing what they should be doing?
- Testing that is the only way you can be confident you have a strong safeguarding culture. Do you check upon which staff record and report concerns, who ask for further guidance, who check actions have been completed?
|
- If new RSHE guidance comes out by Sept it will be signposted to in para 128 in the section about teaching Safeguarding.
|
- Why wait? Consider the strength of safeguarding in your curriculum now.
- Use the specific safeguarding issues and information about safeguarding in the curriculum that is in KSCIE and cross-reference it with the current statutory guidance on R(S)HE.
- Audit what you have currently – in terms of curriculum but also in terms of staff confidence, as messages are only adequately conveyed if staff have adequate knowledge and pedagogy. That will give you a stronger starting point when the new R(S)HE guidance is released.
|
- Para 135 – this talks about the four Cs in teaching about online safety. There is particular emphasis that includes that misinformation, disinformation (including fake news) and conspiracy theories are harmful.
|
- How strong is your current teaching about online safety including the 4 Cs of content, contact, conduct and commerce?
- If you trained about it a few years ago when it was introduced, have new staff joined since then who might not have the knowledge?
- How often do you talk about fake news, conspiracy theories and misinformation? Do staff know the difference and know the risks?
- Is it covered in a cross-curricular way?
|
- Para 142 – there is a link to a government service called “plan technology for your school” – about assessing yourself against filtering and monitoring standards – it’s an online tool that then gives recommendations on how to meet the standards.
|
- Filtering and monitoring is no longer a “new” part of KCSIE, so it should be established practice.
- Prior to using this link, self-assess your practice – where might there be gaps. What say do you have, as a setting, in what words are flagged by your filtering?
- Who monitors this – and if not a DSL (so potentially an IT technician), does this person have a full understanding of the contextual safeguarding risks in your area?
|
- Para 143 – this talks of AI and links to DFE guidance on use of generative AI in education (2024) at the end of the filtering and monitoring sections.
|
- AI is something we cannot ignore. Like it or not, it is used for good and for bad.
- Who is going to be tasked to complete this over the summer if they haven’t yet?
|
- Para 144 – this alerts us that there is changed wording in cybersecurity standards which clarifies it has been created to help schools improve their cyber resilience.
|
- The cyber security standards were first mentioned in KCSIE a couple of years ago. Who is familiar with them in your setting?
- How robust and resilient are your systems?
- Multi-national corporations have been frozen due to cyber-hacks. Would your staff recognise suspicious links? Would your pupils?
|
- Paras 169-170 – this talks about Alternative Provision and the fact that, very much, it is schools who need to take responsibility to safeguard the child – they need to know employment checks have been done on staff, including when new staff are appointed, and schools must always know where the child is during school hours, so if they go on any placement etc. during the school day. Schools need to undertake at least half termly reviews that the child attends and that the placement is safe and meets the child’s needs. If there are safeguarding concerns the placement should be immediately reviewed and ended if needs be.
|
- What AP do you use and who vetted it from your setting? Was it the SENCO or perhaps a deputy head ? – if so, what was the liaison with the DSL team about the suitability of the provision.
- This makes it clear that schools retain responsibility for the physical and emotional well-being of any child placed in AP, so do your procedures robustly cover this?
- What if the child goes on a trip with the AP or completes a unit of work off-site – would you know where?
- If staffing changed, how do you capture that?
- Do staff in your setting know that a change of behaviour or attitude could be due to a safeguarding concern from the day a week a child is at the AP setting and if so, do they know they have a duty to report to you anything they see or hear that causes concern.
- APs can be a melting pot of children with additional concerns – I know one who learnt from a fellow pupil at an AP how to pick locks! Do your staff still use your safeguarding systems fully to record?
|
- Para 177 – this clarifies that “Working together to safeguard attendance” is statutory – but it isn’t called that, it’s called “Working Together to improve school attendance” 2024.
|
- The link between safeguarding and attendance is one we’ve known is crucial for a long time.
- This draft version talks of a document that became statutory in 2024 that we need to be aware of. Who takes the lead and when is this shared with the DSL team?
|
- Para 199 – it reinforces that Virtual School Heads are now responsible for the educational achievement of children in kinship care is clarified.
|
- There may be some staff who are not aware of what kinship care is, and the vulnerabilities this may present, so that is a training need for staff.
- For the DSL team it’s also important to know who these children are and know the name of the Virtual School Head and any lead practitioner to support these children who are potentially more vulnerable than peers due to their lived experience.
|
- Para 204 – this says that expect guidance on gender questioning children is to be published in the summer – if so it will be added to final version in Sept 2025.
|
- As we await the new guidance, it is a good time to clarify in your setting what the procedures are for any child who may be transitioning socially.
- What is the procedure regarding contact with parents? The recommendation is currently that parents should be involved – but with the usual safeguarding caveat that if it would put the child at further risk of significant harm, then do not make contact with the parents.
|
- Para 205 – this removes words spectrum and disorder to align with SEND code of practice – just says “autism”.
|
- This is interesting as we need to check whether we have language that needs amending in our other policies where we discuss vulnerability and susceptibility, in case we also talk of ASD etc.
|
- In part three on safer Recruitment – 3 references to the TRA’s employer access service have been replace in new link to gov.uk page.
|
- This is just for information and for governors, SLT and also useful for the DSL team to read.
|
- Para 331 – this repeats info about AP from earlier on – that school is responsible for the sg of the pupil in AP.
|
- As above these recommendations about Alternative Provision are repeated here.
|
- Para 422 – correction title of Information Commissioner’s employment practice guidance.
|
- This is just for information.
|
- Para 545 – adds new link to Lucy Faithful Foundation website Shore Space which is for teens worried about their sexual behaviours and thoughts.
|
- This is interesting to know – but you would probably need to use caution before signposting a child to it as depending on the child’s reason for their concerns about their sexual behaviours, you may have a child who has been sexually abused themselves, which needs a far more robust safeguarding response than this signpost.
|
- Annex B has 2 new links – CSA Centre education resources and a Children’s Society link on Preventing Child Sexual Exploitation.
|
- This is for information and to upskill staff it can be useful.
|
Statutory Safeguarding Courses for 25/26
