"Safeguarding" - I don't get it.

[DavidinSouthampton]

God dammit Bob. Get them out the sun.

I was just going to post "one obvious answer is to keep them in out of the sun, but people wouldn't like that, would they."

And sun-cream is not cheap if the school is paying for it. As a former school governor, you need to watch every penny...... quite literally.

And teachers deserve a break from the kids they teach during the day. They can't mollycoddle every child all day. They could have an institutional spplying of sun-cream, I guess, before every playtime - regimenting the children to do it themselves.

 

[scamander]

an earlier poster mentioned that suncream may have not been administered perhaps due to a medical concern. A lot of kids are allergic to various things, there's also the parent(s) who might object to suncream being used on other grounds (no idea why but I imagine there's one or two).

Cue angry parent, compensation claim and feature in the local paper.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

A lot of abuse does happen within families, true. But it's also true that abuse can happen within institutions like schools, sports clubs and the like: anywhere where adults have free rein to be alone with large numbers of children is a potential risk (a small risk, perhaps, but one still worth guarding against). Look at all the scandals that have come out over the years of abuse in schools (mainly private schools, true), childrens' homes, young offenders institutions, and youth sports clubs including football clubs.

I agree that it's sad that one side effect of society's awareness of this, and greater willingness to protect young people from it, has meant a certain amount of safeguarding paranoia which militates against adults showing natural care and affection (especially showing it physically) to youngsters in its care. Perhaps the pendulum will swing back a bit in due course, and we'll get better at distinguishing between genuinely risky situations and more normal ones, but until then, if the price we pay for protecting children from real abuse, is occasional sunburn or fewer cuddles between teachers and children, it's probably on balance a price worth paying.

The scandals are coming out now because it is being reported and talked about. 50 years ago, everything was swept under the carpet, but there is no more risk now than there was then. As you say the pendulum will swing back, but abuse is still far more prevalent in a family, than anywhere else.

 

[bWize]

Absolute NONSENSE

It really isn't. Many schools are being ran a business model these days and they would rather safeguard themselves rather than the children in a lot of cases.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

I think I've found the answer. It's a two part plan that if everyone adheres too should sort the problem.

1) Schools shouldn't employ paedophiles.

2) Parents shouldn't whinge so much or sue schools.

Boom!

Job done.

 

[drew]

Absolute NONSENSE

Sorry I but I disagree. Take the FA Safeguarding course. It is more about coaches being protected against accusations etc. Yes, there are elements where you are identifying signs of abuse and each club has a welfare officer that matters get reported through but on balance it is about the FA protecting themselves. If the FA were so concerned about child welfare why didn't they do anything when all the Jimmy Saville evidence started to come out. Anyone with half a brain would have guessed that something was likely to have been going somewhere bearing in mind the amount of kids spending time with coaches. In fact every sport should be looking at their procedures.

 

[bhanutz]

Sorry I but I disagree. Take the FA Safeguarding course. It is more about coaches being protected against accusations etc. Yes, there are elements where you are identifying signs of abuse and each club has a welfare officer that matters get reported through but on balance it is about the FA protecting themselves. If the FA were so concerned about child welfare why didn't they do anything when all the Jimmy Saville evidence started to come out. Anyone with half a brain would have guessed that something was likely to have been going somewhere bearing in mind the amount of kids spending time with coaches. In fact every sport should be looking at their procedures.

The procedures are protecting the children....

 

[Gabbafella]

I wish Miss Wilkinson from my old middle school had been allowed to cuddle me, I'd have been expelled by the age of 10 for motorboating.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Had to attend one of these lectures at Stafford CC same stuff plus Radicalisation and what happens three weeks later 'Manchester' after HM Government allowed a known 'risk' back into the UK. F=====g pointless.

 

[bhanutz]

It really isn't. Many schools are being ran a business model these days and they would rather safeguard themselves rather than the children in a lot of cases.

really?

 

[Seagull85]

My daughter is 9 months old and gets her bum changed at nursery, that certinanly will fall under the intimate care umbrella, Isn't it all about each situation and moderation within that.

To answer the OP I would suggest the school will have a duty of care to ensure the children were wearing suncream and provide some for the children to apply to themselves, it IS the schools fault the child got burnt, in the same way if my daughter had a dirty nappy all day and they failed to change her then it would be their fault, whilst she is with them she falls under their duty of care.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Some probably don't realise the real safeguarding by the teachers goes unnoticed. Reporting worrying traits with the child or suspicions about issues at home, protecting from parents who are not allowed access.

All the nonsense that they are restricted to in regards to physical interaction at school is certainly to cover themselves from legal action. It's quite sad.

Teachers want to protect children. They are as frustrated as anyone by some of the stupid restrictions.

 

[Bob'n'weave]

I was just going to post "one obvious answer is to keep them in out of the sun, but people wouldn't like that, would they."

And sun-cream is not cheap if the school is paying for it. As a former school governor, you need to watch every penny...... quite literally.

And teachers deserve a break from the kids they teach during the day. They can't mollycoddle every child all day. They could have an institutional spplying of sun-cream, I guess, before every playtime - regimenting the children to do it themselves.

Is the correct answer. Thank you.


A little bit of thought about how to manage the risk of burning is all that is required. Parents are quite happy to supply their own cream, contribute to a school supply, or accept that their child cannot play out in the sun without proper protection. All perfectly reasonable measures, it just takes a little thought and a willingness to put the child's wellbeing first.

 

[bWize]

really?

Yes, really. A lot of these academies are privately owned chains.I have raised a couple of complaints in the past and the response isn't "we will discuss it with the staff" it's been "we will discuss it with the directors"

 

[maltaseagull]

Why didn't you as the child's parent put suncream on your child?

Read his post again before posting?

A few months ago one of the kids at my youngest's junior school ended up getting a nasty bit of sunburn on her face and arms.

 

[Bob'n'weave]

My daughter is 9 months old and gets her bum changed at nursery, that certinanly will fall under the intimate care umbrella, Isn't it all about each situation and moderation within that.

To answer the OP I would suggest the school will have a duty of care to ensure the children were wearing suncream and provide some for the children to apply to themselves, it IS the schools fault the child got burnt, in the same way if my daughter had a dirty nappy all day and they failed to change her then it would be their fault, whilst she is with them she falls under their duty of care.

This indeed.

 

[Bob'n'weave]

Some probably don't realise the real safeguarding by the teachers goes unnoticed. Reporting worrying traits with the child or suspicions about issues at home, protecting from parents who are not allowed access.

All the nonsense that they are restricted to in regards to physical interaction at school is certainly to cover themselves from legal action. It's quite sad.

Teachers want to protect children. They are as frustrated as anyone by some of the stupid restrictions.

Very good point, and I understand completely teachers frustrations. I feel though, that if you can demonstrate following a hierarchy of measures that identify 'significant' risk, then that takes president over the lesser risk of being sued for actions that protect the child from immediate danger. Fear of litigation is usually a symptom of not figuring out where the significant risk lies and applying simple effective measures.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

The procedures are protecting the children....

Half true, the safeguarding course gives guidance and advice about avoiding finding yourself [the coach] in a position to be accused.

Quick example: Never be alone with a child, always have another coach or at least 2 other kids about so that if kid 1 says you touched him inappropriately, its not your word against his. I've been in this situation [not accused of anything], a match finished earlier than expected and so one kid was left waiting to be picked up by his parents who'd gone off to do something [we'd phoned to tell them to come and get him] - this meant that both me and my assistant coach had to wait for the parent to come and pick up his kid. If just one of us had stayed, and the kid made an accusation, how can you defend one word against another. The safeguarding course gives loads of example to make sure you have the right mindset to avoid being in a potential situation.

ECB Safeguarding Young Cricketers

 

[Stat Brother]

My kids, at separate secondary schools, have started doing 'stop and drop'.

What to do when there's a perceived threat on the premises.
Alarm rings.
Stop what you're doing.
Drop to the floor.
Move away from windows.
Find safety under a table.
Don't video it on your phone!

Anyone would think we lived in downtown Detroit or the 1950's.

 

[beorhthelm]

Kids can be allergic to suncream, could bring on a separate condition in an individual child etc. therefore a school cannot apply a generic bottle of sun cream to every child - medically inadvisable.

So, do the school then hold an individual bottle of suncream for each child? Again, logistically is a teacher seriously supposed to apply sun cream to each of their 30 pupils during a hot day? How do they determine which child had it applied at home?

Parents seem to want to shift responsibility and blame institutions. Apply sun cream before they leave home, send them in with a hat and suitable covering of clothing. Shouldn't be too difficult.

and when the trip is in the afternoon, and the kids want to take off their teeshirt at the beach? its not about shifting responsibility, or shouldnt be, it should be about sensible sharing of responsibility.