governor monitoring visit report safeguarding · governor monitoring visit report – safeguarding...

Governor Monitoring Visit Report – Safeguarding

Safeguarding report 14/03/2017 of 15

Name: Mary Webster

Date of Visit: 17th November 2016 and 1st March 2017

Focus of Visit: Safeguarding

Purpose of Visit: To ascertain the status of all procedures related to the safeguarding of students in line with best practice as outlined in the updated DFE “Keeping children safe in education – (July 2016)”.

Links with School Improvement: To meet the statutory requirements of governors to monitor and review the effectiveness of the school in safeguarding and caring for the welfare of its students.

Classes / Staff Visited Meeting with DSL, DT (Head Teacher) and Business Manager and Student Panel

Summary of activities (e.g.: observing classes, talking to staff and pupils, resources etc.): This was my first visit in the role as Safeguarding Governor. Met with DSL (Greg Bellmore) to:

Discuss recent safeguarding incidents and the actions taken.

Review 2015 visit against any changes

To look at any actions from 2015 visit. This was followed by a second visit where I met with Anne-Marie Blewitt (DT) and Tracy Winfield (Business Manager and hosted a student panel. It was agreed that the Safeguarding visit is to be followed by a separate visit to Student Support on the subject of behaviour before the end of this academic year.

Actions arising from Previous Safeguarding Visits

1. Principal will improve the document control issue and ensure greater visibility of approved policies along with greater clarity of review dates and the process of approval. Policies are now much easier to find on web site – I checked this before my visit. Principal now has a schedule with all policies and dates for review that each committee Chair has been made aware of.

2. SLT intent is for Ivanhoe College and Ivanhoe U5’s to have separate procedures and policies, but this needs to be clearly documented and a location identified for the storage of both sets of policies. Ongoing.

3. SLT commitment that no staff should start work at the college until all background checks have been completed (unless supported by a risk assessment in extreme cases and authorised by Governing Body). This issue was extensively studied during March visit. See comments. Measures to improve are in place and the risk based approach is still taken and considered appropriate for casual visitors.

4. Principal will chair monthly meetings (or more frequent) with DSL and other senior staff to maintain a pulse of the safeguarding cases and actions, review SCR status etc. This was put in place and continues.

5. Ivanhoe has no formal policy on educational visits, although evidence suggest that the staff generally follow good practice. Policy in this key subject should be set by the Governing body, so a policy would be appropriate. Policy approved by C&L committee in February 2017.

6. Governing body training on safeguarding seems very sparse, with only 1-2 Governors (excluding staff) trained in this important topic. Addressed with training at last FGB meeting of 15/16 academic delivered by GB. MW to enrol on DSL course.

7. Safeguarding item to be added to the agenda of each FGB meeting with a report tabled by the DSL to keep FGB informed of this key issue. Done.

8. DBS and identity checks made on unsupervised contractors could be improved to ensure we know who is working on site with access to students. Measures in place to provide an electronic system for signing in. Still recognised as an issue.

9. Allegation records may not be being maintained in personnel files in accordance with DFE guidance for “false” or “unsubstantiated” allegations made against staff. Clarification should be sought from HR service for the correct procedure. Records are kept unless the allegation is malicious. Where an allegation is proven then the appropriate disciplinary procedures are followed.

10. Chair of Governors requires training on how to manage allegations made against the principal (GMcK is fully aware of how to manage allegations and has produced a guide for the previous chair on the subject).



11. Improve parental confidence in school’s procedures to protect students from bullying by ensuring parents understand school’s approach to tackling/preventing bullying. Special newsletter covering this issue was published in October 2016.

Legal Policies & Documents (as they apply to Safeguarding)

Date

Safeguarding policy 14/09/2016 Up to date

Health and Safety policy 09/02/2016 Up to date

Behaviour policy 04/05/2016 Up to date

Policy re: allegations against staff Included in Safeguarding Policy

Single Equality policy 09/09/2015 Up to date.

Safer recruitment policy Included in Safeguarding Policy

Staff induction policy Included in Safeguarding Policy

Whistleblowing policy 25/11/14 Due for review.

Anti-bullying policy 14/09/16 Up to date

E-safety policy 24/02/2016 Up to date

Staff ICT acceptable use policy 11/11/2015 Up to date

Discussion with DSL

i. A child protection policy and procedure in place that is reviewed annually? Date of Last Review? Approval Process?

Yes – Latest version 14th September 2016 approved by C&L committee and available on web site for parents to see/

ii. Does it have regard to Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) guidance and DfE guidance “Keeping Children Safe in Education”?

Yes and takes account of July 2016 guidance.

iii. Is it freely available to parents? Yes – available without logging on.

iv. Is there a wider suite of safeguarding guidance to include

I. Health and safety

II. Use of Reasonable force III. Meeting the needs of pupils with medical

conditions. IV. Intimate Care V. First Aid

VI. Educational Visits VII. Internet and/or eSafety

VIII. School Security IX. Bullying X. Harassment and discrimination

XI. Issues specific to local population XII. Whistleblowing.

I. Yes – Separate Policy II. Yes – Separate Policy

III. Yes – Policy IV. No – Policy now needed and draft prepared for

approval. V. No policy but college has team of trained 1st Aiders

that operate on rota basis to ensure cover. VI. Yes – there is now a policy on educational visits.

VII. Yes. VIII. No policy. Key issue. DSL looking into improving

school security. Ability to enter school at front unchallenged. Site is not as secure as it should be. Quotes being obtained.

IX. Yes – Separate Policy. GB working on and to apply for “Beyond Bullying” accreditation in Spring 2017.

X. See ix. XI. No policy but clear understanding of the types of

issues that affect the local population – in the NWLDC area this is principally issues around the Far Right movement.



Discussion with DSL

XII. Policy dated November 2014. To be reviewed.

v. A staff behaviour Policy (code of conduct) Staff Code of conduct is issued to all staff. All staff required to sign and date to confirm that this has been read and understood.

a. Have leaders, managers and governors taken regard of the latest version of “Keeping Children Safe in Education 2016”?

Yes – All leaders, managers and governors have read the guidance and received training. Every member of staff has received training from GB with new members of staff receiving the training in November 2016. Everyone is required to sign to say that they have read and understood. Also a standing item in the staff newsletter with different issues addressed to “drip feed” information.

b. Have all staff been asked to read the summary of “Keeping Children Safe in Education?”

Yes. All staff have received training.

c. Are policies and procedures adopted by the governing body implemented and followed by staff

Policies are shared via SLT and MLT and distributed via Moodle. AMB now has much stronger control over the review schedule. Improvement in this area is clear to see.

d. Does the headteacher or the designated safeguarding lead (DSL) report annually to the governing body on the effectiveness of safeguarding procedures?

DSL now prepares a brief report tabled at each FGB. This action was put in place early in 2016 and is also presented at C&L Committee. Reports comprise statistics and some details but no compromise in confidentiality.

e. Does the governing body take effective and prompt action when deficiencies/weaknesses are identified?

Yes – good communication between relevant Governors and SLT ensures that prompt action is always taken.

f. Are staff and governors given the opportunity to discuss safeguarding matters on a regular basis? (i.e. staff meetings/ whole governing body meetings)

There are weekly meetings between AMB, GB and TW on safeguarding matters so it is always a key issue. An attitude of “it could never happen here” was recorded by the Safeguarding Governor in November ’15 but GB has challenged this in the last year and ensures that all staff understand that this is not the case.

g. Are contractors subject to enhanced DBS checks and identity checks when working on site unsupervised?

h. If not, how does college supervise them when working on site?

Jeanette Harris deals with DBS checks for contractors. All contractors are required to provide evidence of DBS checks (these are not necessarily “enhanced” checks) and where these are not available they are accompanied at all times by a premises officer when on site. TW considers there to be more work to be done and the system is outdated. Funds have been applied for via the CIF (condition improvement fund) to install and electronic system which will enable contractors to sign in and to confirm whether they have a DBS check and to provide the number. The school will find out whether the funding application has been successful in March. The application also includes fencing, CCTV improvements, lighting improvements and better door security. There is an element of risk assessment with this for example if faulty electrics are identified and need urgent attention sometimes an (accompanied) non DBS checked contractor



Discussion with DSL

may be necessary. All regular visitors receive a full induction but this takes approximately 1 hours. It is not possible to extend this to the many casual visitors given the resource constraints. There is no definition of what constitutes a “regular” visitor and this needs to be clarified. Other than the DBS checks all contractors are required to provide evidence of identity and relevant certificates e.g. Corgi for gas engineers. I viewed the electronic and paper DBS files that the school holds. The paper version is used for casual employees e.g. short term supply teachers (long term supply are on the system). Records are kept of every employee and past employee, the latter for 7 years. It should be noted that the school is not required to carry out DBS checks for volunteers e.g. Governors although elects to carry out checks on all Governors when they join the GB. For potential employees, where a DBS returns a declaration then a risk assessment is carried out before a decision is made whether to appoint. AMB has the final decision and there have been incidents where someone has not been appointed as the result of a declaration. Foreign DBS checks are also carried out where appropriate e.g. if a member of staff has been out of the country for a protracted period. The cost of 3 yearly DBS checks is £65 per request. With 150 employees and given the financial and resource constraints, the cost and time involved is prohibitive. Checks are always made if an employee changes role, is absent for a while (e.g. maternity leave) or if there is any reason to request an ad hoc check. Given the constraints on resources this seems a sensible, risk based approach. TW ran through the safer recruitment checklist that the school complete for all new employees. This stays in a “pending” file until the employee has completed their probationary period.



Leadership & Management

Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL)

a. Is there a senior member of the leadership team who has the role of DSL in their job description?

DSL is Vice Principal and has adequate authority to act in the event of CP issues.

b. Is there a named deputy (or deputies) to cover the DSL in their absence?

Deputies are Anne-Marie Blewitt (Prinicipal), Dave Berrow (Assistant Principal) and Tracy Winfield (Business Manager). Deputies assume the role in the absence of the DSL.

Designated Teacher

a. Is there a designated teacher (DT) to promote and support the education achievement of children who are looked after?

AMB i.e. the Principal is the Designated Teacher The DT currently supports 9 students in varying situations. All have a PEP which is reviewed termly with the relevant social worker. The additional funding available for LAC is used according to the individual’s needs. It can be for extra tuition in the core subjects or it can be to support attendance at extra curricula activities such as clubs. In all cases, the funding is used to focus on improving academic outcomes whether this be by direct teaching of activities that improve the child’s wellbeing enabling them to learn more effectively. AA has produced a breakdown on where the funding is used. This presented in draft to C&L and once finalised to be put on Moodle.

b. Has the DT had the appropriate training Yes. The DT is also very experienced in this area. She has received training from two virtual schools and on the DFE guidance for the DT. She is also booked on course with the Local Authority.

c. Has the DT provided the DSL with details of the named social worker and virtual head for each looked after child?

All of this information is held in a locked filing cabinet in the Vice Principal’s office. Access to the filing cabinet is only available to the DSL and deputies.



Allegations

a. Are there procedures in place for dealing with allegations against staff and are they in accordance with LSCB procedures and DfE guidance?

Yes, Safeguarding Policy includes these procedures. Where there is an allegation by a student against a member of staff the DSL phones LCC and does nothing until instructed to do so. Clear understanding of the procedure is clear. No allegations have been made against staff in 2016.

b. Are there adequate records of action taken in respect of concerns about an individual member of staff in their confidential personnel file?

Yes. There have been no allegations this year. As a matter of course records are kept on personnel files unless the allegation is proved to be malicious. Once the allegation has been dealt with it is also taken off file – if the allegation has substance then the normal disciplinary procedures are used.

c. Have the governing body nominated a governor to liaise with the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) for allegations against the head teacher

Yes - Graham McKay (Chair) GMcK as chair has confirmed to me that he understands what constitutes and allegation, what the LADO role is and how to contact them. He produced a guide for the previous Chair on the issue to which he is now working.

d. Are there procedures in place for dealing with allegations against staff and are they in accordance with LSCB procedures and DfE guidance?

Yes. If an allegation with substance is made then AMB will refer it to the local authority allegations officer who will inform the school what to do next. If it is a serious allegation then the police may be involved or the allegations officer will investigate independently.

a. Is there a protocol for dealing with allegations against children?

Yes, these would be dealt with under the behaviour policy unless a criminal act had been committed in which case it would be referred to the policy and/or social services.



Curriculum

a. Are safeguarding issues appropriately incorporated into the school curriculum?

Yes – Year 9’s will be viewing the Kayleigh Haywood video made by Leicestershire Police before the end of November and Year 8’s will be viewing Chelsea’s Choice. Also covered in the extensive and much improved “Life Skills” Curriculum.

b. Are pupils encouraged to adopt safe and responsible practices and deal sensibly with risk?

Yes - Life Skills Curriculum across all three years.

c. Do pupils feel able to seek support if they feel unsafe and know when and where to get help?

Student feedback shows they really value the Student Support Service which is a great source of support for dealing with their problems and concerns. Agreed at November 2106 C&L Committee after a presentation from Student Support that a Governor visit should be undertaken to understand the work of the unit in more detail and a student panel discussion (MW).

d. Is an open culture where all individuals feel able to talk freely about their concerns believing that they will be listened to and valued promoted?

Student feedback shows they are comfortable going to Student support with most problems. SLT promote the vision that students will be listened to and valued and this starts at Year 6 induction evenings. The head of Student Support reports that she is still visited by some Year 10 students which demonstrates the impact that the staff in the unit have.

e. Are safeguarding issues appropriately incorporated into the school curriculum?

All areas highlighted are covered and the Ofsted short inspection in November 15 confirmed this. GB reported that since the Brexit vote there have been more hate incidents in the local area. School is aware of this and covers the issue in Life Skills and targeted assemblies. Anti-bullying week has just gone.



Training

a. Have the DSL and deputy(ies) undertaken the required initial training and refresher training on a two year cycle?

DSL – Original 23/5/12; refreshers 6/5/14 and 17/06/16 A Blewitt – Original 9/5/12; refreshers 10/1/15; 10/01/17 D Berrow – Original 23/3/09 refreshers 07/02/2012, 05/11/2014, 13/10/2016 T Winfield – Original 06/11/15

b. Have all staff and other adults who work within the setting undertaken appropriate training during last 3 years?

GB delivered the training to all staff at the beginning of the academic year. The feedback was positive and staff commented that it was very user friendly.

c. Are all new staff, temporary staff and volunteers given induction which includes information on safeguarding procedures and their responsibilities?

GB delivers safeguarding and Prevent training as part of the induction programme for new staff within two weeks of commencement. All staff receive annual refreshers. The Business Manager maintains an induction checklist that records this. This was viewed during the visit.

d. Is the child protection / safeguarding governor familiar with LSCB and national guidance relating to safeguarding?

New Governor in role. Agreed that would be beneficial for me to attend DSL training at Beaumanor – to be arranged.

e. Has a member of the governing body attended safeguarding training and/or are aware of the roles and responsibility of the governing body?

Yes. Training delivered by GB at July 16 Governors meeting. Also attended a session as T&D Governor in Autumn ’16.

f. Is all safeguarding training for staff /volunteers recorded and regularly monitored?

Staff safeguarding training records are monitored by DSL and records are kept. Governor training records are not maintained centrally and rely on each Governor keeping their own. The T&D governor is working on this. GDS keep a record which is available but does not cover all training e.g. on line or training received where Governors have the same role in another school.



Safer Recruitment

a. Are there procedures for safer recruitment and vetting in place and do they have regard to Keeping Children Safe in Education 2016?

Yes, included in the Safeguarding Policy

b. Is every interview conducted by at least two people? Yes – typically two member of staff and one Governor.

c. Are you compliant with the “Disqualification under the Childcare Act 2006” guidance (DfE 2015)

Yes. SCR was extensively checked by OFSTED in November 2015 with few comments. Viewed SCR during visit on 01/03/17 as detailed earlier in this report.

d. Is there a Single Central Record in place? Does it include: Yes

Identity checks carried out, when and by whom? Yes

All staff and volunteers working in regulated activity either have a DBS check or have been checked against the Childrens Barred List

Yes. Note no requirement to check Volunteers for DBS but governors are checked anyway

All staff appointed on or after 01/03/02, who come into regular contact with or have unsupervised access to children, and who have had a break in continuous service of more than 3 months immediately prior to appointment have a DBS check ?

Yes.

A NCTL Prohibition check undertaken for all teaching staff?

Yes.

Written confirmation from supply agency, where relevant, that all the appropriate checks that the school would otherwise perform have been carried out and are satisfactory

Yes. Kept on paper file unless regularly teaching at school in which case added to the electronic database.

Dates of all completed checks are recorded Yes.

Record of qualifications where a requirement of the job e.g. QTS?

Yes.

Evidence of Right to Work in the U.K.? Yes.

Lived Abroad / Overseas Police check where applicable? Yes.

All staff and volunteers working in regulated activity either have a DBS check or have been checked against the Childrens Barred List

Yes.



Behaviour and Safety

a. Are staff aware of pupils who are persistently absent or missing, and have they taken appropriate action, especially regarding most vulnerable?

Yes. There is an efficient tracking system in place that uses SIMS to notify staff, particularly form tutors, that any student, especially those that are vulnerable is followed up.

b. Has action been taken to ensure that all staff and volunteers feel able to raise concerns about unsafe or poor safeguarding practice?

This is part of the safeguarding training that is delivered annually. It is made clear to staff that the first port of call is GB but equally it is made clear that if they are not happy it is their right to contact Social Services instead.

c. Is the DSL aware of indicators of specific safeguarding issues highlighted by the Keeping Children Safe in Education?

Yes. All of these issues are covered in the Keeping Safe in Education guidance July 2016.

- Child sexual exploitation

- Forced marriage

- Female genital mutilation

- Trafficked children

- Domestic Violence

- Alcohol and Drug use

- Mental Health

- Faith abuse

- Fabricated and Induced Illness

- Private Fostering

- Gangs and youth violence

- Gender based violence

- Radicalisation

- Sexting and Esafety

- Teenage relationship abuse

- Bullying

d. Is the LA notified of children removed from roll where confirmation has not been received that they have transferred into another setting?

A “child missing education” report is completed every month and sent on to the Local Authority. Children who are on roll but are missing education are not removed from roll until there is absolute proof of their whereabouts and that they are in education elsewhere.

e. Are reasonable force procedures and/or policy consistent with DfE guidance “Use of Reasonable Force in Schools” (July 2013)

Yes. GB and all members of Student Support area restraint trained.



Are Students Safe on Site?

a. Are there adequate security arrangements for the grounds and buildings?

Security is an issue that the DSL is addressing. The grounds are generally secure but the front of the site is easily accessible including reception and the walkway up to the Science Block. We generally know who is on site and why through signing in procedures but there are entrances that can be used to bypass this.

b. Are visitors or volunteers or those using premises monitored during the ‘school day’?

Non DBS checked visitors are required to be accompanied around the school by staff members.

c. Is assurance sought in writing from users of the premises that they have appropriate policies (vetting, health and safety, insurance) in place to safeguard children?

Yes. This is part of our letting procedures.

Interagency Working

a. Is the setting working with the early help hub to provide timely intervention?

Yes. Social services has a wing “strengthening families” which comprises social workers and “supporting Leicestershire families” who are not social workers but use early intervention to try and resolve issues before they need referral to a social worker.

b. Are there effective and prompt systems in place for referring safeguarding concerns about pupils to relevant agencies?

Yes. The systems at Ivanhoe are prompt but with the large cut backs the response from the agencies is very slow. GB showed me evidence that he always chases regularly on particular cases and each has an email chain from start to finish.

c. Is the DSL allocated sufficient time and resources to discharge their responsibilities, including taking part in inter-agency assessments and meetings?

Yes. DSL has the Student Support team who have taken on a lot of the responsibilities under GB’s supervision

d. Is the DSL aware of children in school who are or who may be living in a private fostering arrangement?

There are none at the moment but he is aware.



Reporting and recording

a. Are child protection (CP) records stored securely and separately from pupil records?

CP records are securely stored in the Student Support area. Student records are flagged to indicate to all staff that a student has a CP record associated.

b. Are the records of good quality and up to date; and do they indicate action that has been taken?

Records were not inspected on this occasion but a visit to Student Support is to be arranged for the Spring term and they will be looked at then.

c. Is appropriate summary information shared with the governing body for monitoring purposes at least annually?

Yes.

d. Where pupils have left has the CP record been copied and transferred separately from the main pupil file

Yes – all data and accompanying information is all passed on. Raw data is kept too e.g. hand written statements and all notes where there is a CP issue. When were these files shared?

e. Staff are confident about reporting CP concerns and know what action to take if their concerns are not acted on appropriately

Any CP issues are reported to GB and it is made clear to staff that if they are not satisfied with the outcome they can report direct to Social Services.

f. The setting encourages a clear culture of open communication between pupils, staff, parents and other adults working with children?

DSL is very knowledgeable, very approachable and highly regarded. Adding Safeguarding to SLT and FGB agenda has helped to improve communication and understanding and removed the potential for a “it could never happen here” attitude.

Keeping pupils safe outside of normal provision

a. Are appropriate arrangements in place to safeguard children who take part in, or are affected by, extended services and other activities outside normal “school” hours?

Risk assessments exist for all off site sporting activities, which include all aspects of safeguarding.

b. Are appropriate safeguarding arrangements in place for those on work experience and educational visits, where relevant?

Records show that the suggest college follows good practice and is very thorough in planning for educational visits and safeguarding. There is now a formal policy dated Feb 2017 that covers this.



Bullying

Does the school’s log show any incidents of bullying and/or harassment in the last 12 months? Is there evidence that these have been appropriately followed up?

Yes. In 2015/16 there were 20 incidents that met the definition of bullying comprising 17 verbal, 2 physical and 1 cyber. All incidents are recorded and an allegations sheet prepared. An action plan is agreed and a letter is sent home. All incidents are followed up. The records are up to date and include handwritten statements and details of actions taken. In 2016/17 so far there have been 3 verbal and two physical incidents.

Does the school’s log show any racist incidents in the last 12 months? Is there evidence that these have been appropriately followed up?

Yes. In 2015/16 there were 3 incidents with no repetition.

College currently has 46 open files on Child Protection. This time last year there were 25. The increase is explained by the number of children with files that have come up to Ivanhoe this year and the cut backs in Social Services.

2 students have a Child Protection Plan, 2 have a Child In Need Plan, 18 are in respect of neglect, 4 domestic violence, 2 CSE, 1 Prevent and 11 Miscellaneous.



Discussion with Students (mix of Year 7/8/9 students)

During the visit on 1st March 2017 I met with 6 students, two from each year and from a range of backgrounds. We held a 30 minute discussion around safeguarding issues and I asked a number of questions of the students. I discussed the findings with GB and the follow up is included below: Do students feel safe in school? All of the students said they felt safe and that generally unauthorised entry was difficult. They commented that the hedge at the back of the school has a gap in it through which trespassers could access school and, conversely, students could leave to go to the corner shop. The security of this boundary is under review, particularly as there is planning permission for new housing in the fields beyond the boundary. School is waiting to see if it has successfully secured funding for additional fencing in this area. The issue of leaving the school grounds will be taken up by GB. Not clear if this is actually happening as the owner of the corner shop normally phones school if someone from Ivanhoe goes in during the day. Do students feel safe on their way to school? The students all said they felt safe. One student said that they were verbally bullied on the way to school but that the issue was dealt with Student Support and has not happened again. The school busses were raised as being far too old and in poor condition (i.e. potentially unsafe). The double decker busses in particular (McPhersons) were cited as very poor. A couple of the students said the drivers could be nicer. Students also reported that they felt it was unfair if they were given late marks if the bus is late. GB said that should not be happening and he goes through the late marks on those days. Do the students feel that the school raises awareness regarding their personal safety? (eg: stories/films in assembly, talks from visitors, discussions in class etc) Yes. The year 9 students spoke around the video of the Kayleigh Haywood case which they said was very hard hitting. They were concerned as to whether the issue had been discussed with year 7 and 8 students. Staff were thought to have said that the video was not suitable for younger students, which they accepted, but they still felt that the issue should have been discussed with the younger years. GB pointed out after the issue is addressed more generally through e safety teaching in Year 7 and also through the life skills curriculum which has changed significantly (for the better) since the current Year 9’s started at Ivanhoe. Has anyone in the room been bullied or have they seen any bullying? Yes. They had all seen bullying and some of the students had been victims themselves, not just in school but also, in one instance getting off the school bus. How does school deal with bullying and is what they do effective? The students were all aware of the work of Student Support and they were very complimentary about how they handle allegations of bullying. Students who had been victims of bullying said that the intervention of Student Support was effective in stopping the problem. Any other issues? 1. Students complained that they felt reception were a bit too “soft” on students who presented themselves as unwell and wanting to go home. They said that some students do this and then they go into town for the rest of the day rather than going home. GB is aware that this is a weak point and is being looked at. He agrees that school may let children go to quickly and he is investigating whether the school can put a “gatekeeper” in place, perhaps someone with nursing training, who can take this responsibility and decide whether a student is ill enough to send home or whether they can be kept in school for the day. 2. Students thought that assemblies could be better. There was a lot of emphasis on uniform, equipment and litter around the premises and this was getting a bit boring (but the fact they know about it suggests that the message has got through!). They want assemblies to be fun and would like to hear less about growth mindset. They suggested more assemblies about life skills e.g. wellbeing. The particularly liked the Shrove Tuesday pancake assembly! 3. Students thought that Student Support staff could be a bit more consistent in their approach. One particular individual is very strict and shouts a lot at students whilst another is “too soft”. GB is aware of this already and is looking at it. 4. Dinner queues were cited as too long. During lunch time once they have queued there is only 10 minutes left to eat (given that the lunch hour does not start until 1320 students area not eating until early afternoon in these circumstances). Students suggested staggered lunch times. This issue is being considered by the Governor with responsibility for catering at the school.



Summary

Was the information for doing this monitoring visit available, easily accessible and well organised?

Yes.

Overall, do you feel the school is following its own policies for safeguarding, albeit possibly with some attention to detail?

Yes. There is a clear understanding of Safeguarding and the statutory requirements. Students feel safe in school and any incidents of bullying are dealt with promptly and appropriately.

Comments and Recommendations:

1. Items identified in the 2015 safeguarding report have been largely addressed. 2. DBS and identity checks still remains a recognised issue. As things stand, given the resources, the risk based approach including

targeted DBS checks and accompanied visits by contractors without a valid DBS check remains the most appropriate approach. 3. It is clear that security is an issue, particularly with the new housing at the back of the school site and a lack on fencing. There is a

need for better door security and fencing at points on the front of the site to prevent unauthorised access and this is being addressed. To be reviewed.

4. Lack of funding and support from outside agencies is having an impact on the help that can be offered to students in need. 5. Students report that they feel safe in school. This is to be followed up by a visit to Student Support. 6. The attitude of “it couldn’t happen here” has been recognised and addressed and there is clear evidence that all staff are properly

trained and area aware of what is required of them. With 46 open files it is clear that safeguarding is a key issue. 7. It is reassuring that the school takes a proactive approach considering the challenges that might impact on safeguarding in the

future, in particular the impact of Brexit. 8. Overall, I am satisfied that all necessary measures are being taken, and adequate records kept, to ensure that the school meets is

statutory requirements in respect of Safeguarding. Students are well cared for in school and any issues are dealt with promptly and seen through to a conclusion. Staff are to be congratulated on the work that they do with individual students and with the school population as a whole.

Points requiring further discussion at full governors: To present report to Governors for information.

Signed________________________________ (Governor)