'Safeguarding issues' caused by timetable changes

[Bayum]

Yeah pretty much.

Let's see how much the school governing body do in respect of these concerns in the next few weeks, eh? I'm interested in seeing what would be done in the event Northern's timetables cannot be changed, which they can't now.

Time to put words into actions.

It would be the school's policy to put action and put forward to Governors, who would then pass it or say it needs more work or whatever.

 

[All Line Rover]

For an employer to enforce a change in working conditions (i.e. change start / finish times) they must give 3 months notice to the people affected (i.e. employees), that is in law.

If however, the employees agree to the change (via a ballot), the 3 month rule does not apply !!

After having my start / finish times changed twice now by private sector companies i now have a fair knowledge in these matters.

I'm not sure where you get this from. If an employer hasn't expressly reserved the right to unilaterally change terms, they can't 'enforce' any changes regardless of how much notice they give (although the option is available to dismiss - for which notice periods may apply - and offer a new contract with the desired changes).

On the other hand, if an employer has expressly reserved the right to unilaterally change terms, they can make any changes they wish, giving whatever notice they wish.

Collective bargaining agreements (inter alia) might affect the above, but do not change the generality of the above. And I'd take government 'advice' pages on employment rights in this area with a pinch of salt - rarely do they make clear just how poorly protected workers can be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Safeguarding is not just about abuse. Safeguarding is about prevention, identifying those at risk, and reporting those instances. We don't safeguard children against abuse solely, we safeguard them in school through safe staff: pupil ratios, by having policies in place to prevent situations where children may come into harm within school itself. If the school deem it a risk through one reason or another, if it harms the child it is a safeguarding concern.

Precisely what harm do you think will come to the kids from having to sit chatting with their mates for an extra hour per day?

Have we really gone that soft? I used to deliberately get an earlier train to school than necessary so I could do that.

I'm afraid I think your post proves my point completely about the self-perpetuating Safeguarding industry going way too far and moving away from things that will cause actual, genuine harm to young people. This is not one of them. An 11 year old or above is capable of sitting somewhere chatting with his or her mates for half an hour. It is really a non-issue.

 

[Starmill]

And I'd take government 'advice' pages on employment rights in this area with a pinch of salt - rarely do they make clear just how poorly protected workers can be.

The advice here does not seem too poor to me:

Making a change without agreement
If an employer makes a change to a contract without getting agreement (including by using flexibility clauses unreasonably), employees may:

• have the right to refuse to work under the new conditions
• say that they’re working any new terms under protest, and are treating the change as a breach of contract
• resign and claim constructive dismissal
• be able to take a case to an employment tribunal

In Northern Ireland an employment tribunal is known as an ‘industrial tribunal’.

If an employee disagrees with new terms and conditions but doesn’t say or do anything, this may count as agreeing to the changes.

Re-employment on new terms and conditions
Employers may, as a last resort, end a contract and re-employ someone on new terms and conditions.

Employers who are dismissing employees must follow the legally required:

• redundancy procedure in England, Wales and Scotland
• statutory minimum dismissal in Northern Ireland

If an employer does dismiss and re-employ someone, they may be able to take a case to a tribunal and claim:

• breach of contract
• unfair dismissal

Breach of contract claims
If an employee claims breach of contract and they can’t solve things informally with their employer, they may be able to take their case to a civil court or an employment tribunal (or an industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland).

Their employer may be able to make a counter-claim.

Claims and counter-claims can only go to a tribunal if they:

• are related to an employment contract issue
• still haven’t been solved when the employee ends their employment

The claim or counter-claim can’t be related to a personal injury, or certain types of contract term like intellectual property rights.

Time limits
Usually, employees must make a claim to a tribunal within 3 months of ending their employment. The employer gets 6 weeks from receiving a copy of the claim to decide whether to make a counter-claim.

Compensation limits
If the tribunal agrees with the employee’s claim, they may award compensation. This can only be for financial loss (for example, non-payment of wages) up to a maximum of £25,000.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thus speaks somebody who clearly has no understanding of what safeguarding actually is...

I complete regular Safeguarding training through Scouting. Fortunately in Scouting we look for things that cause genuine harm, not things like this that don't - indeed a key part of our method for young people of the kind of age we are talking about (this is a high school, so 11+) is them having the opportunity to do things under very light supervision - for instance, going out hiking in the countryside with adults supervising from some distance unless needed, or camping again with adults "on call" but not present directly - two things that have much more potential to go awry than kids sitting in a small, safe, low-crime town like Ulverston for half an hour before and after school having a chat. And young people grow because of it, not come to significant harm.

(I know Ulverston fairly well, my sister lived there for about 10 years and I visited regularly)

I sometimes feel that in Scouting we wave a banner of common sense while fighting against this kind of nannying. Reading this kind of thing worries me even more greatly of what children who are nannied to this extent will grow up to become.

 

[AlterEgo]

Safeguarding is not just about abuse. Safeguarding is about prevention, identifying those at risk, and reporting those instances. We don't safeguard children against abuse solely, we safeguard them in school through safe staff: pupil ratios, by having policies in place to prevent situations where children may come into harm within school itself. If the school deem it a risk through one reason or another, if it harms the child it is a safeguarding concern.

Do you think leaving teenage children in a classroom unsupervised for ten minutes is a safeguarding issue?

These are high school pupils, not infants. They can cope with being in a room.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you think leaving teenage children in a classroom unsupervised for ten minutes is a safeguarding issue?

These are high school pupils, not infants. They can cope with being in a room.

They can, as I said, cope with hiking and camping pretty much alone, too (no, I'm not breaking rules or running close to the wind with this in Scouting - we actually have a document used to authorise exactly this - it's called an Event Passport - Google it). I think some people really do get over-concerned about things that aren't a problem really.

 

[AlterEgo]

I complete regular Safeguarding training through Scouting. Fortunately in Scouting we look for things that cause genuine harm, not things like this that don't - indeed a key part of our method for young people of the kind of age we are talking about (this is a high school, so 11+) is them having the opportunity to do things under very light supervision - for instance, going out hiking in the countryside with adults supervising from some distance unless needed, or camping again with adults "on call" but not present directly - two things that have much more potential to go awry than kids sitting in a small, safe, low-crime town like Ulverston for half an hour before and after school having a chat. And young people grow because of it, not come to significant harm.

(I know Ulverston fairly well, my sister lived there for about 10 years and I visited regularly)

I sometimes feel that in Scouting we wave a banner of common sense while fighting against this kind of nannying. Reading this kind of thing worries me even more greatly of what children who are nannied to this extent will grow up to become.

Well said.

When I was a teenager (sorry for repeat nostalgia on my part) I completed all three DoE awards without direct supervision. Adults were only on call. I was also on 48 hour exercises with the cadets, in the freezing cold, without any adults around except over a radio.

You absolutely do not *need* a teacher to sit in a classroom with high school students to ensure they don’t die or something.

My generation was nannied quite a bit and most of the boys my age did their best to shake off the mollycoddling.

 

[transmanche]

I complete regular Safeguarding training through Scouting.

Although I'm not certain that said training has been properly understood.

I sometimes feel that in Scouting we wave a banner of common sense while fighting against this kind of nannying.

And in Scouting, like schools, it's important to plan activities with the appropriate adult-to-child ratios. You wouldn't leave a bunch of 11 year-olds completely unsupervised and activities would be risk-assessed.

It's the same in schools. You wouldn't leave a bunch of 11 year-olds roaming around the school without any staff supervision whatsoever. Imagine what could happen if there was a fire and no-one knew who was on-site...

 

[Starmill]

Just because some people have nostalgia about what it was like when they went to school that doesn't mean that the Head / Governors can make what your school was like their official policy. They must consider their legal obligations and the way they need to act to protect the reputation of the school. If they don't, and if an unfortunate event then occurs, they may find themselves no longer in their position. Their choice of words may be sub-optimal and the way the local media have reported on the matter is clearly very sub-optimal. But fundamentally they still have those responsibilities as anyone who actually works in a school environment would be familiar with.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although I'm not certain that said training has been properly understood.

Yes, it very much has.

And in Scouting, like schools, it's important to plan activities with the appropriate adult-to-child ratios. You wouldn't leave a bunch of 11 year-olds completely unsupervised and activities would be risk-assessed.

Yes, all activities are risk assessed, either written or dynamically or a combination of the two. And yes, you absolutely can leave 11 year olds without *direct* supervision in Scouting (I refer you again to the Event Passport, rare though it is to use that with kids that young the rules do allow it). It sounds like you are familiar with Scouting, so please tell me where in POR (I assume you know what that is; for the uninitiated it's the rulebook) it says you can't.

We do have ratios, but those are used to ensure adequate staffing of an event, it doesn't mean you can't supervise remotely (the latter is very much encouraged to develop independence). An equivalent is having N adults on site in the school before unlocking the gate. (And before that, it isn't an issue that the kids are outside the school - they got the train there unsupervised, after all!)

The online version of the training is public, by the way, if you'd like to complete it and see what it is. 30 seconds with Google will find it for you.

It's the same in schools. You wouldn't leave a bunch of 11 year-olds roaming around the school without any staff supervision whatsoever. Imagine what could happen if there was a fire and no-one knew who was on-site...

Just about every other business has a fire procedure that manages to cope with the idea that people, often children, are on site, in known areas of the premises, without knowing precisely who or how many.

 

[tiptoptaff]

So if I have followed this correctly, the current train arrives 0827, new train will arrive 0804. School begins 0830. I don't really see the issue here. Surely a train that arrives 0827 is too late for an 0830 start at a school that on paper is 5minutes away from the station anyway? 0804 seems to me an eminently sensible time to arrive for school. How many times have pupils been late because the train has been just a few minutes late in. When I was in school, my mother would have told me to get an earlier train to give myself time to get in!

As for coming home in the evening, assuming school finishes at 1530 - there is ample time to walk to the station for the 1544!!

These are after all teenagers, many of whom will spend far more time looking after themselves socially than this change will require them to do before or after school.

 

[whhistle]

Is the school not an academy?
And as such, can move the school day to whatever times they see fit?
That could solve the problem.

 

[Bromley boy]

I can remember being dropped at primary school early on occasion. Never did me any harm! I was also able to get to and from school on my own from year 5 at junior school, as were most of my class mates.

I’m astonished people are apparently worried about senior school kids, old enough to travel to and from school unaccompanied, having a slightly extended day.

I despair at threads like this. How have we become so pathetic in this country?!

 

[hwl]

Yeah pretty much.

Let's see how much the school governing body do in respect of these concerns in the next few weeks, eh? I'm interested in seeing what would be done in the event Northern's timetables cannot be changed, which they can't now.

Time to put words into actions.

Well they could do what my former school has done for decades (and still does):

School Grounds open 0700-1900, library and toilets open 0700-1800 all of which also suits pre and after school activities.
When I was there circa 250 pupils would arrive by train (was 2tph during my era now 4tph) and a good 650 by school organised coach (zero on board supervision).


... but I'm guess they won't!

 

[Deafdoggie]

That's more than three months. Which a lot more than six weeks - closer to 15 weeks. Or are you just one of those people who incorrectly assume that nobody works in schools when the pupils are on holiday?

It was all done before the children broke up for summer holidays! They weren't left wondering when to turn into school in September!! so a six week half-term. You could argue there was also the half-term week, but as nothing happened then, I don't see the relevance, but if you insist it is 7 weeks at most

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can remember being dropped at primary school early on occasion. Never did me any harm! I was also able to get to and from school on my own from year 5 at junior school, as were most of my class mates.

I’m astonished people are apparently worried about senior school kids, old enough to travel to and from school unaccompanied, having a slightly extended day.

I despair at threads like this. How have we become so pathetic in this country?!

Completely agree.

I suspect what the school *might* be concerned about is worrying about residents complaining about kids making noise and causing nuisance, which they then feel pressured to address, but think it's more likely the TOC will change their minds if they play the "Safeguarding card", which is often used to shut down any kind of rational discussion on the issue.

 

[Bantamzen]

So if I have followed this correctly, the current train arrives 0827, new train will arrive 0804. School begins 0830. I don't really see the issue here. Surely a train that arrives 0827 is too late for an 0830 start at a school that on paper is 5minutes away from the station anyway? 0804 seems to me an eminently sensible time to arrive for school. How many times have pupils been late because the train has been just a few minutes late in. When I was in school, my mother would have told me to get an earlier train to give myself time to get in!

As for coming home in the evening, assuming school finishes at 1530 - there is ample time to walk to the station for the 1544!!

These are after all teenagers, many of whom will spend far more time looking after themselves socially than this change will require them to do before or after school.

If anything I'd say these times are an improvement, as you rightly say the train gets them to school in good time with some padding for any delays, and the first train after chucking out is better timed as they have only 15 minutes between leaving school and their train as opposed to the current 45 mins. And for those partaking in after school activities, the next trains gives them an hour's worth of this with a steady 25 mins to get to the station. There's really no need for the school to change its times, nor the local media to get agitated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If anything I'd say these times are an improvement, as you rightly say the train gets them to school in good time with some padding for any delays, and the first train after chucking out is better timed as they have only 15 minutes between leaving school and their train as opposed to the current 45 mins. And for those partaking in after school activities, the next trains gives them an hour's worth of this with a steady 25 mins to get to the station. There's really no need for the school to change its times, nor the local media to get agitated.

Nor indeed for the school to get agitated!

 

[Bantamzen]

Nor indeed for the school to get agitated!

Absolutely, in fact you'd think they'd welcome having 200 (or 50-60 as the local poster states) of their kids off on their way home 30 minutes earlier, even if they might have to chuck open the gates to the school ground a bit earlier in the morning. Assuming of course that the gates are not already opened when the re-timed train is due to arrive.

 

[Deafdoggie]

As a parent, I take responsibility for my children till they are at school. School inform us that they take responsibility from 08:10 (school starts 08:30) and if a child arrives at school pre-08:10 the school are not responsible. Simple. I can send the children in, but they remain my responsibility (I don't have to be there!) If I don't want that responsibility, I don't send them to get in before 08:10! If I has sent them in on a bus/train I have already decided they are OK on their own, so whatever time they arrive at school is fine. I just don't get the fuss about this. If the school are that bothered they need to alter the school day times.

 

[Chris M]

They sent home the "Consultation" letter on last day of half term before the May holiday, for the change to take effect from September, so 6 working weeks

6 teaching weeks is very much not 6 working weeks, it was three and a half working months. Very different to the 5 weeks in this case.

Is the school not an academy?
And as such, can move the school day to whatever times they see fit?
That could solve the problem.

While they can in move the school day, in practice there are many things that need to happen for this to be possible - see page two for some of the things you have failed to think about.

I just don't get the fuss about this. If the school are that bothered they need to alter the school day times.

See the rest of this thread for why this is not a simple thing to do.

 

[Deafdoggie]

6 teaching weeks is very much not 6 working weeks, it was three and a half working months. Very different to the 5 weeks in this case.

I really don't know how to put it any more simply. Letter sent home 26th May 2017 "We want to alter the school day" Letter on 21 July 2017 "We are changing the school day". That is 8 weeks in total. Not months and months, If that is still to difficult to understand, do let me know and I will try to make it simpler still.

 

[Highlandspring]

When I was at secondary school, which was not that long ago*, the day finished at 1555 and the council didn’t provide a bus to the village I stayed in so my bus home was at 1645 (the previous bus having helpfully left at 1545). The kids from my village just used to hang around the town for that time; there wasn’t an option for us to stay in school. If any of us had been hurt or run over or abducted or whatever I’m sure they would have just washed their hands of any responsibility for us.

*1998 - 2004

 

[Chris M]

That's two months to do a consultation and start making provisions for changing and then a further month and a half to finish making all the changes necessary - so three and a half months. It is also almost certain that before the consultation started there would have been work done to determine whether it would be practical to change the school times, what things would need to change in consequence of a change, how and whether those things could be done and what alternatives were available for those things that couldn't. Let's be extremely conservative and say that this took 1 month to do (in reality it was probably closer to 3 months, if not longer). So what we have here is an example of a school taking between about four and eight months to change the school day. Please explain how this demonstrates it is simple to do it in five weeks?

 

[AlterEgo]

I don’t understand why changing the school day is necessary here. The kids are fine to just hang around.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Please explain how this demonstrates it is simple to do it in five weeks?

The date from the start of the process is eight weeks before the date of the end of the process. One of those weeks (half term) little happened in. But certainly there wasn’t months and months. Can you please explain how you arrived at this conclusion? I fear you’re just making it up. The head teacher responsible wasn’t even there months before!

 

[PeterC]

Somebody mentioned the risk of fire in the school with unattended pupils. We had a simple answer to that, we were allowed into the grounds but the building didn't open until 8:45

 

[Chris M]

The date from the start of the process is eight weeks before the date of the end of the process. One of those weeks (half term) little happened in. But certainly there wasn’t months and months. Can you please explain how you arrived at this conclusion? I fear you’re just making it up. The head teacher responsible wasn’t even there months before!

You are assuming that the first letter to parents was the start of the process, but it would be ludicrous for that to be the case. You do not formally consult on something you haven first determined will be possible to do and ascertained how it will be implemented if approved*. And you most certainly do not consult about changes to a school without first having got approval from the board of governors (and the LEA if appropriate, which it probably isn't in the case that started this thread).
You are assuming that nothing happened during half term, which is almost certainly incorrect. Just because teachers were not teaching pupils does not mean that admin staff were not making preparations for the change (in addition to their normal duties).
You are also assuming that the head teacher was the sole person responsible for the change. In reality changes like this are the responsibility of the board of governors. Obviously the head teacher will have input, and might have been the person to suggest it but they might have suggested this as early as the day they were interviewed, and there will have been a period of time between their being appointed to the role and their first day on site where they will have been working with the school. It's equally possible that the impetus for the change came from the preceding headteacher. At my old school there was a major refurbishment of the reception area and offices of the school, this was first proposed by the headteacher but the construction did not start until circa 9 months after they had retired.

However, even in the excruciatingly unlikely case that your school did manage to make the change in 8 weeks from idea to implementation, that does not demonstrate that this school could easily do it in 5 weeks.

*Unless the consultation is a referendum on leaving the European Union of course.

 

[Deafdoggie]

It is of course perfectly possible that back in the victorian era they were discussing changing the school hours, and it took till now to happen. However, I don't believe that, frankly the suggestion is as stupid as it is ridiculous.

All I can go on is what the people involved said. It could be they are all lieing, and I accept that. But it would be odd for them all to lie, and about this too!

The new "Head" or Chief Principle as the Academy like to call them, was dropped in after the Easter holidays, a couple of weeks into term. They straight away implemented many changes. However, there was an "All-staff" meeting on the morning the letters were sent home, which is the first they knew about it, as the staff then had to implement the changes and do all the "consulting" it seems unlikely anything had been done previously. Little was done in half term, as they were waiting for the letters to come back from parents, noone did any extra work on this, as the responses were needed first. There were not many people (outside of the staff team and parents) to consult, the other local schools were not consulted. I guess the Chief Principle had already spoken to the Trust so Governors would be no problem, but that is one phone call.