Church Schools Study

Safeguarding policy analysis for church schools – completed by Lucy Duckworth

Here are our initial findings for a variety of church schools across the country. While more time consuming than originally thought, this is an excellent analysis and I intend  doing many more schools, including non faith schools. As a teacher/working with survivors, I was genuinely shocked and appalled at inadequate policies so I assume parents would be too- they simply are not armed with this information. The schools that scored zero did not have their policies online, which is breaking the law. I called them to confirm this was the case.

Name and status of school

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Total

/10

Safeguarding statement in inspection report
Worth School,

West Sussex,

RH10 4SD

Roman Catholic, Co-ed,

Boarding and Day,

Independent.

ü

 

 

ü

ü

ü

 

ü

ü

 

6

“Procedures for dealing with child protection issues are thorough” 

Full report September 2007

 

“All the required checks to ensure the suitability of adults to work with children are undertaken and recorded in a central register. Staff are well trained in safeguarding matters that are overseen by senior colleagues.”

Interim report January 2012

AmpleforthCollege,

North Yorkshire,

YO62 4ER

Co-ed

Roman Catholic

Boarding and Day,

Independent

ü

ü

 

 

 

ü

 

 

ü

 

4

“Comprehensive and robust child protection measures are in place and are implemented successfully. The nominated child protection officer has received enhanced training which is updated regularly.”

ISI full report April 2008 day school

 

“The school has a clear procedure for staff to follow about child protection concerns…..The school places a high importance on child protection….This is excellent practice. When incidents have taken place, these have been responded to in a professional manner in line with established procedures.”

Ofsted boarding report 01/09

DownsideSchool,

Bath,

BA3 4RJ

Co-ed,

Roman Catholic

Boarding

Independent

ü

ü

 

ü

ü

ü

 

 

ü

 

6

“Systems for the safeguarding of pupils however are insufficiently robust to meet the required standard.”

ISI interim report November 2010 day school

 

“there are significant failings in how the school keeps boarders safe. There is poor and inconsistent practice in respect of staff recruitment and in how the school manages risk. These procedures are not sufficiently robust to ensure that boarders are fully protected from harm. The school has been judged inadequate in its provision for ‘protecting children from harm or neglect and helping them stay safe”.

Ofsted boarding report December 2010

Sexey’s School

Somerset,

BA10 0DF

Co-ed

Church of England

State Boarding, Voluntary Aided

ü

 

 

ü

 

ü

 

 

ü

 

4

“The school has a clear child protection policy in place that is made available to all staff and recent training for staff has maintained their awareness”

CSCI report February 2007

BishopLuffaSecondary School

West Sussex,

PO19 3LT

Mixed, Voluntary Aided

Church of England

Specialist Status – technology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

“Other aspects of the school’s work were not investigated in detail, but the inspectors found no evidence to suggest that the school’s own assessments, as given in its self-evaluation, were not justified, and these have been included where appropriate in this report.”

Ofsted October 2008

 

Note: No safeguarding inspections were carried out but the school was judged ‘outstanding’ based on the school’s self-assessment. SAFEGUARDING POLICY NOT ONLINE

St Bartholomew’s primary school

Sydneham,London,

SE26 4LJ

Mixed

Day

Church of England

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Procedures for child protection and pupils’ safety are robust.

Ofsted full report 2008

 

Note: Safeguarding policy has one paragraph on child protection, which refers to a separate CP policy, however this policy is not available online.

ChichesterPrebendal School,

West Sussex,

P019 1RT

Secondary

Co-ed,

Church of England

Independent

Day and Boarding

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

ü

 

 

2

The child protection policy is comprehensive, understood by staff, and given priority in staff annual training. It incorporates appropriate procedures for the safe appointment of staff. Arrangements have been made for the pre-preparatory section to have its own child protection officer and for the recently inaugurated health and safety committee to begin work.

ISI Report, February 2009

St Mary’sJuniorSchool,

Surrey,RH8 0NP

Mixed,

Day

Church of England

Voluntary-Aided

ü

 

 

 

 

 

ü

 

 

 

2

“Safeguarding procedures are thorough and meet all requirements. Health and safety checks are rigorous and the arrangements for protecting pupils from harm are regularly reviewed.”

Ofsted Full Report, September 2011

Bishop Bell Mathematics and Computing specialist school.

East Sussex

BN23 7EJ

Mixed,

Day

Church of England

Voluntary Aided

Secondary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

“The school’s very caring ethos and excellent systems for support enable pupils, especially those who are potentially vulnerable, to make the best of opportunities provided in the school….pupils value the way they are supported and say they feel very safe at all times”

Ofsted Full Report, May 2010

St AndrewsSchool

Eastbourne,

BN20 7RP

Co-ed

Boarding and Day

Preparatory

Independent

 

 

 

ü

 

ü

ü

 

ü

 

4

“health and safety are excellent overall, though a small number of checks relating to staff appointments had not been carried out prior to the initial visit. The school has appropriate procedures for dealing with any child protection issues and is fully aware of the need to work with other agencies when necessary. Staff have received appropriate training.”

ISI report June 2010

 

Key to columns labelled 1 to 10

 

  1. The policy is written in plain accessible English
  2. It has clear descriptions of the kinds of abuse that are the subject of the policy, clearly describing 4 main categories of abuse (emotional, physical, sexual, neglect)
  3. Makes a commitment to safer recruiting practice (CRB checks, a minimum of two former references etc)
  4. Makes a commitment that every incident or allegation of abuse will be reported to the LADO, promptly, by telephone and in writing. No exceptions for any reason.
  5. Avoids dependency on external, third party, documents (e.g. local safeguarding children’s board documents) for describing the school’s own reporting procedures.
  6. Includes or makes reference to guidance for staff on avoiding situations where abuse might occur or allegations might arise (e.g. ensuring that there is an open door policy)
  7. Ensure that all safeguarding issues and incidents are fully recorded, the records being copied and kept separate from other school records in locked cabinets, and that these records are made available to the inspectors and provided to each new Headteacher on his or her appointment. (known as the Red Book procedure)
  8. Commits to ensuring appropriate levels of safeguarding training for all staff: All staff must have external training every three years, designated person must have external training every two years, and in house child protection training must be delivered annually.
  9. Has a named member of teaching staff who is the Designated Senior Person for Safeguarding Children and a named member of teaching staff who is Deputy Designated Senior Person for Safeguarding Children
  10. Has a named member on the board of Governors who is Designated Safeguarding Governor and has a named member on the board of Governors who is Deputy Designated Safeguarding Governor.

 

DOCUMENTS

Download Campaign Summary (word doc.)
click here ↓

Download Evidence Document (word doc.)
click here ↓

CAMPAIGN UPDATE 2012/13
Click here – Updating Report for SCCA Campaign 19.02.13

Contact Us

For more information contact:

David Greenwood, Chairman
STOP CHURCH CHILD ABUSE.
enquiries@stopchurchchildabuse.co.uk - tel : 01924 882000

Working Party

Anne Lawrence, MACSAS

Sue Cox, Survivors Voice Europe

Richard Sorer, Pannone LLP Solicitors

Graham Wilmer, The Lantern Project

Peter Saunders, NAPAC

David Greenwood, Switalskis LLP solicitors
Disclaimer

Neither STOP CHURCH CHILD ABUSE ! nor our members can accept responsibility or liability (express or implied, contractual, tortious or otherwise) for any material contributed to this website. The views and opinions expressed by any contributor to this page are not necessarily ours or those of our members.

This website is administered in the United Kingdom. Disputes concerning the website shall be governed by the laws of England and Wales. The Courts of England and Wales are to have exclusive jurisdiction and venue for any dispute arising out of or in connection with the use of this website.

©StopChurchChildAbuse.co.uk - all rights reserved