Head teacher kills herself over OFSTED

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.

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.`

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.

No it gave him access to many others.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Galaxy

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.

In that case, the head was an idiot. I was working in the authority at the time and I remember well that EPM was criticised for its failure and I remember meeting the woman who had cut corners. I remember reading the review before CRBs (now DBS) were introduced.

Yes, great post Lucky- THAT. I support what you say as a parent and grand-parent, teacher, Head of Faculty, Union Leader and Governor.

Joseanne

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.

Joseanne It was EPM who was responsible for checks. Cambridgeshire schools had outsourced its HR function. Schools weren't expected to be responsible for the checks and if more information had needed to be provided, EPM should have told the head.

Sorry, but I have insider knowledge of what happened. There was a lot of back covering, but the it was never the responsibility of the head of the school where Huntley was employed to provide evidence he was never asked for, even though with hindsight warning bells might have rung.

In any case, it would have made no difference to the outcome. If Hundley had been employed in a factory, he could still have had the same girlfriend, who was the one who gave him access to the girls.

Ironically, Caversham Primary School voluntarily participated in an inspection in 2019 to pilot the new Ofsted framework. Amanda Spielman, the Ofsted head, attended the inspection. Although no final grade was given, the school received a glowing report.

So what happened in the intervening 3/4 years?

When you say "checks", growstuff are you also talking about a Head picking up the phone and actually talking to a previous employer? I have never employed anyone in school without a phone conversation with one of the referees conversation, you learn so much more that way from someone who knows the candidate personally. That was in the 90s and and early 2000.

So what happened in the intervening 3/4 years?
A lot can happen in 3 or 4 months if a Head takes her eye off the ball. In the Caversham case I believe the error was due to the Head not having checked demesne who worked abroad.

*someone not demesne

growstuff

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.

Another ex teacher here. I agree with growstuff.