Safeguarding has always been part of any inspection. In the old model, as information, data and intelligence were gathered over the week, the managing inspector, or the designated inspector, who had the required training and expertise in child protection—all inspectors are extremely well trained in safeguarding and child protection, but some, like me, take it forward as their particular interest and specialism—would meet the headteacher to discuss any aspect of child protection that had come up during the inspection that they wanted to discuss in greater detail.
We have expanded that approach and put more emphasis on safeguarding and child protection; indeed, that is the name of the quality theme. The move has been extremely positive, because there are many aspects of safeguarding that are not seen as child protection but which we want to have a discussion about. We may particularly want to have conversations about protected characteristics or to discuss safeguarding and young carers, looked-after children and so on.
A range of data is very important in safeguarding and child protection procedures. Data on attendance, for example, is important. If somebody is not in school, there are clearly concerns about their safeguarding. Data on exclusions is also important, as is looking at how well the young person is attaining and achieving, as that can often be an indication of difficulties or an unmet need.
As part of the safeguarding procedures, bullying logs are looked at in schools. The introduction of that quality indicator ensures that there will be a continued and consistent approach by inspection teams, who will all be asking for and looking at bullying logs. I do that myself—I have looked at many bullying logs. They are important not so much because they provide numbers as because they indicate what the issues are, which enables us to have a detailed conversation with the headteacher about them.
10:00
We spoke earlier about social media. If I see that a number of the incidents recorded in the bullying log involve social media, I can have a conversation about how the school is dealing with that area. We look at whether the school’s personal and social education contains the required focus on positive behaviours around social media and whether the topic is covered in assemblies. We look at whether the school has a separate policy on the appropriate use of social media, and we talk to staff and children to ensure that the subject has been dealt with appropriately.
In all the data, we are looking for themes and for specific issues that emerge. Sometimes an incident is a one-off that the school has dealt with very quickly, perhaps by pulling the parents in, so we do not see it continuing in any way.
Data is important. Inspection teams look at bullying logs and at schools’ anti-bullying policies, which are now called something like policies on promoting positive relationships; the subject is couched very much in those terms. There is a long conversation about safeguarding—my colleagues who are involved with safeguarding will tell you that the process is detailed and thorough.
For a few schools—not many; I have checked the figures—there may a particular concern. For example, the anti-bullying or promoting positive behaviour policy may not have been updated recently. In that case, we would take that information back to Education Scotland and ensure that the authority is informed directly that there is a particular concern, and there will be follow-up to ensure that it has been addressed. That is very much part of the procedure.
To answer the question, consistency and rigour are very important outcomes of the new procedures.