Outstanding nursery closure

[bunyip]

It seems like 18,000 people have signed a petition to get the grade changed. But, having staff taking pictures of the children on their personal mobile phones is a big safeguarding issue. It only takes 1 member of staff to share those pictures with someone and anyone could get hold of them.

As a parent I wouldn't want staff taking pictures of my children with their own personal phones, wonder why 18,000 people cant see that?

(Although looking at the petition , I think the mums website means 1,800 not 18,000)

I agree, but nearly every EY practioner is blind to an even bigger issue: bluetooth devices.

Any phone or other electronic device running active bluetooth can have its entire contents remotely harvested from someone outside the premises on the street 100 yards away, and you wouldn't even know they were doing it. Now if Ofsted took action on that threat, there'd be a lot of inadequate EY settings.

[rickysmiths]

I don't think it is being made a scapegoat at all. The Nursery had poor procedures to keep the children safe and that was one of the reasons they were downgraded.

[FloraDora]

Sorry, I hadn't seen this thread and have just out poured my thoughts about this on another thread!

[Maza]

I don't think it is being made a scapegoat at all. The Nursery had poor procedures to keep the children safe and that was one of the reasons they were downgraded.

No I know, I couldn't think of a more appropriate word and that's why I put 'so to speak' in brackets. I totally agree that it was a big safeguarding issue and that lessons hadn't been learnt from that horrible incident in a different nursery. I wasn't defending them in any way.

At my daughter's swimming class on Saturday one mum started filming the lesson on her camera! The swimming teacher was onto it right away - saved me from having to approach her. All the kids were there in their swimming costumes - how can people think that it is ok to do that these days? I know not everyone works in professions like ours but surely they must know that it isn't appropriate.

[k1rstie]

No I know, I couldn't think of a more appropriate word and that's why I put 'so to speak' in brackets. I totally agree that it was a big safeguarding issue and that lessons hadn't been learnt from that horrible incident in a different nursery. I wasn't defending them in any way. At my daughter's swimming class on Saturday one mum started filming the lesson on her camera! The swimming teacher was onto it right away - saved me from having to approach her. All the kids were there in their swimming costumes - how can people think that it is ok to do that these days? I know not everyone works in professions like ours but surely they must know that it isn't appropriate.

We had a similar thing at swimming before Christmas, with a Dad filming his kid while they were doing a race. The teacher quickly jumped into action and stopped it.

BUT at swimming lessons, how many parents spent the entire lesson on their phone is iPad, or brothers and sisters playing on an iPad on poolside.

I had reason to complain after I stopped boys aged under 8 in the girls changing rooms , ( while waiting for mum and sister), sitting on the bench on an iPad. Having a phone or iPad out poolside is so common and accepted.

[Maza]

We had a similar thing at swimming before Christmas, with a Dad filming his kid while they were doing a race. The teacher quickly jumped into action and stopped it.

BUT at swimming lessons, how many parents spent the entire lesson on their phone is iPad, or brothers and sisters playing on an iPad on poolside.

I had reason to complain after I stopped boys aged under 8 in the girls changing rooms , ( while waiting for mum and sister), sitting on the bench on an iPad. Having a phone or iPad out poolside is so common and accepted.

Your swimming lessons sound like ours! All the parents/siblings are on their phones/ipads and I was shocked at first. We all sit on a bench alongside the pool. My only thought was that we can all see what the person next to us is doing on the computer/phone and so maybe that is why it is allowed?

Using them in the changing rooms, even if it is children under 8, is just not on. Why can parents not see how inappropriate that is?

[bunyip]

No intention to cause offence or hurt here, but there are a lot of things tagged as "safeguarding issues" which, to my mind are nothing of the sort. In many cases, "moral panic" might be nearer the mark.

I totally agree that filming/photography in a changing room is unacceptable. But what's so wrong about filming a swimming race? When did seeing a person in a swimming costume become in any way pornographic? Will the swimming events at the Brazil Olympics have to be shown on a late-night adults-only subscription channel? Can we look forward to camera/phone bans on the beaches at popular seaside resorts?

I think this sort of nonsense makes it harder to safeguard children.

We should not be criminalising perfectly normal and innocent activities. We should not be training children to believe every adult is a threat. We should not be restricting civil liberties for all just because a tiny minority will abuse them (and would do so anyway, irrespective of such ridiculous rules.)

[Maza]

No intention to cause offence or hurt here, but there are a lot of things tagged as "safeguarding issues" which, to my mind are nothing of the sort. In many cases, "moral panic" might be nearer the mark.

I totally agree that filming/photography in a changing room is unacceptable. But what's so wrong about filming a swimming race? When did seeing a person in a swimming costume become in any way pornographic? Will the swimming events at the Brazil Olympics have to be shown on a late-night adults-only subscription channel? Can we look forward to camera/phone bans on the beaches at popular seaside resorts?

I think this sort of nonsense makes it harder to safeguard children.

We should not be criminalising perfectly normal and innocent activities. We should not be training children to believe every adult is a threat. We should not be restricting civil liberties for all just because a tiny minority will abuse them (and would do so anyway, irrespective of such ridiculous rules.)

No offence taken. I do mostly agree - whatever 'mostly agreeing' means!

[Simona]

It maybe worth checking the Daily Mail article against NWorld ....the DM has a habit of embellishing reports.
The 2 articles differ a lot on what happened in this preschool.

Outstanding nursery's 'inadequate' downgrade over mobile snaps | Nursery World

if anyone remembers the Vanessa George Child Protection case it recommended 'staff's mobiles' must not be used to take photos of the children or any other use at all....only the nursery official mobile can be used
Any cm working in a nursery or preschool would be asked to lock theirs away on arrival? I certainly was asked to do so.
Worth looking at DfE Safeguarding publication as well.

Staff's mobile should be stored in a locker during nursery hours...please check this out....and there must be a policy backing this procedure.

Also maybe worth listening to the BBC this morning on what has happened on FB and why there is a new drive to make safeguarding more effective.

[Maza]

It maybe worth checking the Daily Mail article against NWorld ....the DM has a habit of embellishing reports.
The 2 articles differ a lot on what happened in this preschool.

Outstanding nursery's 'inadequate' downgrade over mobile snaps | Nursery World

if anyone remembers the Vanessa George Child Protection case it recommended 'staff's mobiles' must not be used to take photos of the children or any other use at all....only the nursery official mobile can be used
Any cm working in a nursery or preschool would be asked to lock theirs away on arrival? I certainly was asked to do so.
Worth looking at DfE Safeguarding publication as well.

Staff's mobile should be stored in a locker during nursery hours...please check this out....and there must be a policy backing this procedure.

Also maybe worth listening to the BBC this morning on what has happened on FB and why there is a new drive to make safeguarding more effective.

To digress a little...As I've mentioned in other posts, I'm now working in a primary school. We have recently had a reminder from he Head to not use our phones for photos or calls/texts BUT in light of the recent bomb threats/evacuations in some schools in our borough we were asked (by the Head) to keep our phones on us if possible. This was to make communication easier if we had to keep moving to different evacuation points, which one poor local school had to do. Also, we might have taken a child with us who wasn't in our class etc.

[Simona]

To digress a little...As I've mentioned in other posts, I'm now working in a primary school. We have recently had a reminder from he Head to not use our phones for photos or calls/texts BUT in light of the recent bomb threats/evacuations in some schools in our borough we were asked (by the Head) to keep our phones on us if possible. This was to make communication easier if we had to keep moving to different evacuation points, which one poor local school had to do. Also, we might have taken a child with us who wasn't in our class etc.

Thank you for your reply Maza

I am not sure of a school procedure in this matter ...it maybe that they are different and teachers allowed to carry own mobiles but not take photos from it. I am sure you are right on that
I know a few people that work in schools in my area and I will ask them

The preschool mentioned in this thread is ....I believe.... a private one.
The safeguarding they must adhere to are those for EY and childcare under Working Together to safeguard children 2015

The Ofsted report states that staff were using their own mobiles to take photos...that is the reason for the downgrade in that area...in others they were Good or Outstanding.

Nicky Morgan has recently announced a review of safeguarding by Alan Wood and he says the legislation may have to be changed.
Hopefully this issue is clarified for all our sakes.

[bunyip]

I understand why Ofsted made the judgment on Cherubs nursery. I understand how the Daily Mail article was flawed in that it concentrated solely on the one photo, when the Ofsted's issue was more about the whole policy.

But I can also understand the parents protesting................... because the bottom line is there is absolutely no evidence that any child was ever at risk. Conversely, even so-called "robust safeguarding policies" can leave children vulnerable and adults in a position to abuse or take inappropriate photos. Why? Because bad people can hide behind good policies. Indeed, policies can provide a very handy smoke-screen for them.

There's been parallels drawn with the Vanessa George case: I shall draw alternative parallels. One of the biggest errors made at Little Ted's was complacency. Everyone believed that George was perfectly safe because she was a mother and held a clean CRB disclosure. This idea still persists in EY childcare: someone is DRBed/CRBed so therefore they "must" be safe. That's one lesson the childcare sector has yet to fully learn.

George took indecent photos of children when alone with them, in a private area of the nursery building with a concealed camera.

Whilst they were reportedly using their own phones, the Cherubs staff were snapping fully clothed children in a shared area, so all the staff could see these pictures were in no way indecent. I think that's largely what the parents are up in arms about: and I can very much see their point.

Tbh, it would be the easiest thing in the world to conceal a camera or phone for inappropriate use in the changing areas, considering how small such devices are these days. Take my inspector frinstance. On arrival, she showed me her phone and showed me she was switching it off so everyone was 'safe'. Now even I lacked the bottle to ask whether she might be carrying a second phone for nefarious purposes, let alone demand she strip down to her knickers so I could confirm this with a full body search.

Ok, a little extreme. But that's exactly what a person would be prepared to do if they really did have criminal intent. Someone who is determined to abuse will find a way which is far smarter than the most "robust" of EY safeguarding policies.

Another ludicrous idea is that staff's private phones put children at risk whilst the official 'nursery phone' is safe. How very easy for an abuser to obtain an identical phone so it looks like they're using the nursery's phone. Better still, use the actual nursery phone, transmit the pictures to your own phone, delete the image and delete the call history. How many managers or inspectors would even be aware?

If I can think up such devious means (and I've no motivation to do it) how smarter could a real abuser be?

You see, we, Ofsted, et al see a "good" safeguarding policy and think "job done". No-one is looking for the loopholes and the possibility of someone getting past the policy. In a sense, everything has become a bit too policy-centric. But people are perpetrators, not policies or the lack thereof. Children did not suddenly become safer in September 2012, just because the policies were put in place, even if (somewhat ridiculously) what was perfectly fine in August was suddenly unacceptable in September.

When it comes to safeguarding policies/procedures, the most important question should always be: "does this measure protect children?"

.......Which brings me onto consequences. The Ofsted judgment against Cherubs could - cruel irony - be the very thing that puts children at risk. Cherubs nursery's LA funding is now in jeopardy. Without funding, parents will look elsewhere: that may very well drive them into the arms of unregistered/illegal providers. Should this exodus reach critical mass, Cherubs nursery could become financially unviable and be forced to close. This potentially pushes even more children into unregistered/illegal 'care'.Will that make them safer or more vulnerable? Who will be taking responsibility for making these unintended consequences happen? Ofsted? Not on your nelly.

[blue bear]

It maybe worth checking the Daily Mail article against NWorld ....the DM has a habit of embellishing reports.
The 2 articles differ a lot on what happened in this preschool.

Outstanding nursery's 'inadequate' downgrade over mobile snaps | Nursery World

The comments on the nursery world piece (comments at the bottom) are an interesting read, it's claimed they are protesting against the report that it is not accurate,that the inspector assumed the photos were taken by staff mobile phones when In fact they were not.

[bunyip]

The comments on the nursery world piece (comments at the bottom) are an interesting read, it's claimed they are protesting against the report that it is not accurate,that the inspector assumed the photos were taken by staff mobile phones when In fact they were not.

Certainly an interesting read, as you say. A few comments there rang bells with me.

On appeals and parent-power. Despite the fact that EY settings have to work with parents, Ofsted are happy to ignore parents' views. As far as Ofsted are concerned, when it comes to raising children or keeping them safe, well, what do parents know??? Our local preschool got an 'inadequate' some years ago (before I registered, but when one of my grandchildren was there.) Reason: the inspector had failed to even open the policies folder and the training folder. She then stated in her report that there was no adequate policies and no evidence of any staff training. She said this at the 'wash-up' at the end of the inspection, and still refused to look at them when the manager pointed out the mistake "because the inspection is now over." Preschool appealed and parents wrote in support of the appeal, but Ofsted's response didn't even mention parents' views. The inspection was upheld: what else do you expect when Ofsted act as judge and jury in any complaints against their own organisation? Preschool had a few stressful months waiting for re-inspection, at which they were graded 'good' - but they hadn't changed a thing in that time: all they did was make darned sure the manager stayed right on top of the new inspector to ensure she did her job properly and read the paperwork.

On the subject of inspector's reports being "centrally edited". At my first graded inspection, the inspector told me at the outset she'd be with us about 2 hours. After that time had elapsed, she apologised and said she'd have to stay considerably longer: I wasn't to worry (which, naturally, I did) and she'd explain at the end. After a further 4 hours, give or take, she said she was recommending me for 'outstanding', a decision she'd reached within the first 2 hours. But she also knew that her office-bound manager, without ever visiting my setting, would make every effort to drag the grade down to 'good'. Reason: "because we don't really give 'outstanding' to CMs at first inspections." She'd had to waste a further 4 hours in order to build a watertight case for her judgment.

[Maza]

Bunyip I had the same experience, almost word for word, at my last (first) inspection.

Some of you may also remember a horrible case in a nursery a few years ago where a little girl had a fatal accident in the outdoor area. Two of the nursery workers had been using their mobile phones for personal reasons while they were on outdoor duty at the time of the accident. It's obviously not just the camera on phones which can be the cause of a failure to safeguard children.

[Simona]

it is obvious that people do not agree on this topic and have various explanations/interpretations for what happened ...or did not happen...fair enough
The DM and NW certainly differ ...up to us to which press we believe

I have read the article in NW...the bottom paragraph mentions 'claims'...a claim is not a fact
The Ofsted report was published in October 2015...is the nursery appealing against this?
a petition will not really do anything because Ofsted have to be proved to be wrong...are they?

Could it be possible that the Inspector on the day 'assumed' the photos were taken? I would not be happy with that assumption if there ever was one.
what happened when feedback was given to the manager at inspection? did she appeal against it?....speculation will not help because none of us were there....also it says the manager was not well aware of safeguarding procedures...were the staff unaware as well? it takes a team to protect children not just one person.

If I was an employee in a nursery and I was allowed to take photos on my phone I would raise this as a concern to the manager/owner

If I were a manager and my staff were taking photos on their mobile then texting parents I would certainly not be too happy and certainly very alarmed

It appears to me that maybe staff were not really aware of their statutory duties? did they read the Statutory guidance? some don't as they just do as told....why did they not ring the EY team for help...or attend training to refresh themselves?

It would be worth looking into the Nursery World LinkedIn thread on this issue where members take a very different view from this forum as they are addressing this matter with pertinent questions and facts and no reference to the often sensational Daily Mail


Thanks for your input Bunyip....George was not the only one ever found to be taking photos of children in nursery
Regardless of what/how Vanessa George did or how she did it ...the statutory guidance changed and staff are banned from using own mobiles....cms can of course do so as long as they are covered by their own strong safeguarding policy......that is all that really matters

until the guidance is changed those are the steps we need to follow and Ofsted has to judge us on that as safeguarding is set by the DfE

I wonder how many will now contact their EY team to check the LSCB guidelines against their own policy....that would be a very productive step
I also think our associations may come up with a timely reminder to refresh our training.

[Simona]

Just to clarify that this preschool did complain against Ofsted but it was not upheld....hence the petition.

[bunyip]

Just to clarify that this preschool did complain against Ofsted but it was not upheld....hence the petition.

Tbf this is par for the course since Ofsted act as judge and jury in all complaints against them.

[Simona]

Tbf this is par for the course since Ofsted act as judge and jury in all complaints against them.

Totally agree with you
That is also the reason the Scrutiny Panels are now being set up Bunyip....so the process is checked for fairness

Ofsted will include Cms on these panels...would you be interested?

[bunyip]

Totally agree with you
That is also the reason the Scrutiny Panels are now being set up Bunyip....so the process is checked for fairness

Ofsted will include Cms on these panels...would you be interested?

Only if they meet in the seedier sort of pub such as I frequent.