• Latest news
  • RSS feeds
• Find recent news
• Ofsted News
• Media Centre

Press release: Poor record-keeping and confusion over some checking arrangements undermines procedures for safeguarding children in schools

The Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) today publishes Safeguarding children: an evaluation of procedures for checking staff appointed by schools. The report sets out findings from a survey, carried out at the request of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, to investigate education and care providers’ procedures for checking the staff they appoint. It also highlights examples of good practice.

Inspectors found that all those involved in the recruitment of staff express their commitment to safeguarding and protecting children, are highly motivated to make thorough checks, and almost always demonstrate good practice. Maintained schools rely on local authorities to make any necessary checks on those staff not directly employed by governors, and cross-referencing schools’ statements about checks with those of local authorities revealed good practice in carrying out the checks made when staff are appointed.

However, once staff are in place, few schools and local authorities keep a secure, reliable and accessible record of List 99 or Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks. Schools surveyed said staff were suitably checked, and local authorities surveyed said they had checked staff, but neither had comprehensive evidence that this was so. The best schools held all List 99 and CRB information on one file so headteachers could see at a glance if and when further checks were needed.

The report found that overall procedures for checking the suitability of staff working in day care settings are good. The colleges surveyed had robust practices in place to carry out checks on teaching staff who normally come into contact with children, although this was not always the case with non–teaching staff. Procedures to check the suitability of staff employed in independent schools were robust in most of the schools surveyed.

Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools, Maurice Smith, said:

"Schools and local authorities must keep up-to-date and reliable records to prove that the necessary checks on staff have been carried out. Currently, everybody thinks that somebody else is doing this or that it is somebody else’s job when, in fact, hardly anybody has secure evidence that any of the simplest tasks have been completed at all, or when.

"The repeated recommendations of inquiries into the deaths of vulnerable children urge secure procedures and good record-keeping as the backbone of safeguarding such children. While it is highly likely that checks have been made, schools which do not have robust record-keeping in place cannot demonstrate that the safeguarding of children is secure."

In most of the 58 schools surveyed records are ‘very patchy’ and ‘often non existent’ for staff employed before the CRB system was introduced in 2002. This does not mean, of course, that the compulsory List 99 and police checks were not made. The recording of checks made on governors or volunteers was poor and good practice only exists in a small minority of schools. The report reveals that there is a lack of clarity in many schools about requirements for carrying out checks on staff who were already in post prior to 2002.

The report finds that not all schools and local authorities have revised their procedures for CRB checks to reflect the wide range of extended provision offered at the beginning and end of the school day which is a major concern. Schools say that they seek CRB checks on volunteer staff who work regularly in the school, including governors, but the criteria for defining ‘regular’ are unclear. However, all schools surveyed were cautious about those who had access to children. Fifty request List 99 checks on any volunteers they use regularly and all ensure that parent helpers or volunteers who have not had List 99 checks are supervised by vetted personnel.

All supply agencies interviewed claimed that robust checks, which included enhanced CRB checks, were made on the staff they offered to schools, but they confirmed that supply staff were rarely asked by schools to provide evidence that checks had been made. Supply agencies must take ‘reasonable practicable steps to confirm that the work-seeker is not unsuitable for the position concerned’. They only have to carry out specific checks such as CRB if schools request them. Inspectors found that schools were not aware they could make specific requests for CRB checks and that they rarely asked for proof that checks had been made. In practice, those agencies that are known to the government or who are members of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation do carry out CRB checks. However, the report concludes that these requirements are not tight enough.

Inspectors found that local authorities sought appropriate checks on teachers from overseas and that schools took all precautions available to them to ensure that candidates were suitable. However, local authorities and schools expressed concerns that assurances given by police in some countries were not robust.

Mr Smith, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools, added:

"Ofsted has responded to the Secretary of State’s request to provide an independent, rigorous report on whether schools are meeting their obligations to safeguard children and keep adequate records. Ofsted as the independent inspectorate is well placed to respond to such a request. I am pleased that the government has indicated, both in legislation and intention, that it is responding positively to our findings and taking further action to ensure that all involved in the world of education meet their obligations.

"At Ofsted, we shall be checking in future whether such good intentions translate into secure action. As the Chief Inspector, and as a parent, I want to walk into any school next term and, if I ask for a list of staff, and secure evidence that their identity, qualifications and criminal records have been checked, the school will be in a position to show me that record."

Schools and, where appropriate, colleges should:

• establish and be secure in the identity of staff; or assure themselves that others who employ or supply staff have done so;

• verify the authenticity of the qualifications of staff;

• establish which staff require checking against List 99 and with the CRB, then do so, or secure that others have done so;

• maintain an up-to-date record of staff which displays evidence that the three tasks above have been carried out, and when.

Local authorities, where they are the employer of staff, should:

• carry out all the above tasks and maintain matching records for staff they employ;

• check that schools are secure in their procedures and record-keeping: they should insist on seeing evidence of these records regularly, not accept assertion that they exist.

The DfES should:

• provide clear guidance, (defining "regular contact", with examples) as to who should be checked, against which lists, at what level, and how frequently;

• make a clear and specific statement about checks on school governors;

• provide clearer guidance, regarding schools’ responsibilities when employing staff from abroad, or through supply agencies;

• provide guidance on suitable employment practices (if employed at all) for those who are not checked, or are awaiting checks;

• speed up the handling of cases of misconduct that are reported to them.

Notes For Editors

1. Safeguarding children: an evaluation of procedures for checking staff appointed by schools, is available on the website today.

2. Ofsted is a non-ministerial government department established under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 to take responsibility for the inspection of all schools in England. Its role also includes the inspection of further education, local authority children’s services, teacher training institutions and some independent schools. During 2001, Ofsted became responsible for inspecting all 16-19 education and for the regulation of early years childcare, including childminders.

Share this

Google Plus One