Head teacher kills herself over OFSTED

There is something about that isolation that concerns me, and which is not the case in social care management of organisations (or certainly didnt feel that way to me), if there needs to be reforms then I think that needs to also be addressed.

Yes, Galaxy, he knew he had made an error and broke down in tears.
You wrote earlier about the isolation of Heads, any Head. It is the loneliest, most responsible of jobs, and at the end of the day the school is pretty much a reflection of that one person. That is why they can't afford to get anything wrong. That is why they have to be prepared to accept the failings and carry the can, distressing though it is. .... back to Monica's observations earlier.

The head took full responsibility for not 'phoning in' to check validity of references in all the reports of the case at the time.
I dont think it led to their murder I think it gave him access to children though, if he hadnt been caught, he would have continued to have that access to children.

Galaxy

No it gave him access to many others.

Indeed! But it is entirely wrong to claim that his working in a school was a factor in the girls' murder.

Galaxy

The head did not check his references, I think he was using a different name as well.

That wasn't the head's responsibility. Checks had been outsourced to a company called EPM in Cambridge. However, his job didn't give him access to the girls anyway. It was his girlfriend who worked at the school.

Joseanne

^It was an outsourced agency in Cambridge which did the checks. Apparently an address wasn't checked properly.^
Yes, the system at the time failed.

But even if the checks had been carried out correctly, it would have made no difference. Huntley worked at a different school.

PS. I'm not saying checks shouldn't be carried out, but this Ofsted report wasn't about checks. It was about not actioning concerns about pupils' home lives.

No Oreo I'm not setting myself up as an authority. However, as a former teacher, I have experience of how Ofsted works and the effect it has on individuals. Do you have that experience?

I have also repeatedly stated that I don't know for sure the circumstances surrounding the lady's death or the reason the school was given inadequate.

What I do know is that Ofsted is not fit for purpose, if its purpose is to drive school improvement.

growstuff you seem to be setting yourself up as the absolute authority on this case when there’s much that none of us knows for certain.
The whole thing’s got out of control now, Heads wanting to refuse entry to inspectors and others suggesting wearing black armbands when inspections are being carried out.
OFSTED inspectors will be very nervous about their visits and I hope it won’t stop them doing a proper job of it.
Unions getting in on the act and social media acting as a kangaroo court.
Safeguarding is a really important aspect of school life and downgrading a school won’t be done lightly.
Give them a break!

The school will now have the chance to put things right. They have until May to be re inspected. If it hadn't been inspected, then that situation could have carried on indefinitely leading to far worse consequences.

It was an outsourced agency in Cambridge which did the checks. Apparently an address wasn't checked properly.
Yes, the system at the time failed.

growstuff

DBS checks wouldn't have stopped Ian Huntley. He didn't work at the same school. I don't think his girlfriend had any kind of criminal background.

References? From his previous employer? He was known to be dodgy. As I understand it information wasn't shared and this was the trigger for tighter checks being introduced. A DBS can now disclose confidential information that the police hold.
I'd sooner live in a world where we know children are absolutely safe.

Either layers of safeguarding are important or they are not. I think there is something as I have said previously about the isolation of heads, but that is not particularly to do with the Ofsted system. I can only compare it to my own experience of managing a social care service, where yes the inspection result and any other issues would have reflected on me, but there were layers above me which provided some protection so to speak.

The head did not check his references, I think he was using a different name as well.

No it gave him access to many others.

Galaxy

They would most likely have stopped him getting a job at the school, where he would have had access to children, unless you think he was an appropriate person to be a caretaker. They missed a burglary conviction as far as I am aware which would probably have been enough, considering security was part of the job.

It was an outsourced agency in Cambridge which did the checks. Apparently an address wasn't checked properly.

Nevertheless, it still wouldn't have stopped what he did. The fact that he was a caretaker in a different school didn't give him access to the children he murdered.

Joseanne You obviously interpreted the report differently from me. I didn't see the emphasis on pre-employment checks, but on the reporting of concerns about SEND children, some of whom have a higher rate of absence. The latter is included in safeguarding guidelines.

In the "olden days", schools had access to welfare officers, who had responsibility for children with a high rate of absence and who followed up cases where children came to school in dirty clothes and maybe hinted they hadn't had breakfast. These days, the onus is on the schools and if they don't follow up, it's regarded as a safeguarding issue.

Secondary schools have any army of people responsible for attendance, welfare, liaison with families, the police, etc etc. Primary schools just don't have the same resources. Somebody will have responsibility for safeguarding, but it's probably been tagged on to other duties such as KS2 maths and field trips (or whatever).

It seemed to me that there was an online system for reporting concerns, but staff weren't all using it consistently. Having had experience of the neanderthal nature of school IT systems, that doesn't really surprise me.

If it was really about pre-employment checks, get them done, instantly sack anybody who fails, make sure all the staff have their three yearly (?) updating on safeguarding. Send out regular reminders about reporting welfare concerns. Job done! Sorted! Consider knuckles have been rapped. And make bloody sure that it's a priority from now on.

I honestly don't know what the specific reasons for the inadequate grade were, but it seems very wrong to me that a school which is generally successful can receive the same damning grade as one where behaviour is poor, bullying is rife and the children are underperforming.`

They would most likely have stopped him getting a job at the school, where he would have had access to children, unless you think he was an appropriate person to be a caretaker. They missed a burglary conviction as far as I am aware which would probably have been enough, considering security was part of the job.

DBS checks wouldn't have stopped Ian Huntley. He didn't work at the same school. I don't think his girlfriend had any kind of criminal background.

^Luckygirl3

So .... they found inadequacies in certain areas. And what do they do about it? Absolutely zilch. They march in, make a judgement, and march out again. The judgements made can make it hard to recruit good staff - so the result is a deterioration in quality staff and a drop in standards all round.

Constructive support going forward is the key - a key that is lacking. This is the major flaw in the system that people are complaining about.^

👏👏👏 Exactly - well said Luckygirl

Thank you Joseanne. I was beginning to think everything I understood about safeguarding (30+ years) was wrong.

For anybody who is interested, this is what is meant by safeguarding. It isn't just pre-employment checks.
No it isn't, but every part of safeguarding is very important. This case specifically references
the pre employment checks which were incomplete. These particular regs were implemented after what we learnt from the Soham murders. We never ever want to see another Holly and Jessica case. There is no excuse case for school leaders not being totally on the ball where this is voncerned

Read: Keeping children safe in education 2022. It is 179 pages on the Dfe website, updated every year. This is how we rightly protect our children - mine and your grandchildren - in schools.
All school leaders are required to read and understand ALL parts.

Constructive support going forward is the key - a key that is lacking. This is the major flaw in the system that people are complaining about.
It's all very well being constructive which they actually have been in the full Ofsted report because it includes action points as to what the school must do to improve. However, all these concerned safeguarding.
I don't believe pupils were in danger from lack of safeguarding.
OK so if a school fails to take up a reference very clearly the kids are at risk. Ian Huntley?
It is a regulatory requirement to obtain 2 references containing suitability to work with children for ALL new staff before they start work. The Head did not do this.

For anybody who is interested, this is what is meant by safeguarding. It isn't just pre-employment checks.

blog.insidegovernment.co.uk/schools/roles-responsibilities-for-safeguarding-in-primary-schools#:~:text=These%20can%20include%20dirty%20clothes,always%20confined%20to%20the%20classroom.

What I meant is that it might have been "right" 13 years ago, but the goalposts have changed.

Joseanne

^The school was judged "good" in most areas, so it wouldn't have been an impossible task.^
Not impossible, but how long do the inspectors have to systematically go through every document with a fine tooth comb? Once they find an error in paperwork and recording they would have to dig through every employment contract, DBS check, references, health declarations etc in order to make sure there were no further errors. It takes hours, days even. Then an equal amount of time to get things sorted by drawing up a new plan for the Head to follow. When all the Head had to do was to get it right - and it must have been right at the previous inspection.

No, it wasn't necessarily right at the the last inspection, which was 13 years ago. The regime has changed since then and it's about more than pre-employment checks. Without knowing what the specific concerns were, I can't really comment.