'Safeguarding issues' caused by timetable changes

[nedchester]

I agree with most of your (very sensible) posting. However I would qualify the above to point out that the TOC has no obligation or responsibility beyond ensuring the railway is operated safely. If they are attacked on the train that isn’t down to the TOC.

All rail passengers, including schoolchildren, who are travelling alone need to be competent to travel completely unsupervised. Otherwise they should be accompanied by a responsible chaperone.

Apologies. I worded my post incorrectly; I was referring to the Railway’s duty of care.

 

[yorkie]

Bayum expresses some valid concerns.

People may disagree but I would ask them to bear in mind that if someone in his position disregarded these rules they would be in a lot of trouble.

Schools are effectively forced to accommodate students with serious convictions which may be hidden from staff, parents and students.

If something happens in what is supposed to be a safe environment and staff were found to not have acted correctly, then an argument that the altercation would have happened out of school another time would not wash.

The school could say students cannot enter until a certain time, but that may not really be practical. It's easy for people to say any incidents that occur outside the school are not the school's problem, but if it's at the start of the day just outside the entrance that just isn't going to be the reality.

The school probably does already run breakfast clubs at the start of the day, but the numbers will currently be manageable.

They could offer to employ staff in a supervisory role for an extra 20 minutes per day, but the school may struggle to afford the cost (and the rate of pay is usually low, so they might not get enough volunteers).

As someone who was a teacher and now works in the Rail industry I have to say that the “safeguarding” issue has taken on a life of its own.

Safeguarding was initially all about rightly protecting children from abuse (sexual, mental and physical) and I don’t think anyone on here can in anyway object to that. Like many things it has become a bigger issue than just the issues listed above. A bit like health and safety which obviously is important but is cited at every opportunity in case an issue of litigation occurs.

The problem is that now many children feel cosseted so much that they actually do not see danger when it occurs (look at the instances of kids staring into their phones while crossing the road or railways lines). Effectively this safety blanket is actually, to an extent, making children less safe as they are not aware of the dangers that lurk in everyday life.

This is very true.

But no-one can dare challenge what it has become, sadly.

 

[Bayum]

Sorry but that is an absolutely ridiculous mindset.

As a teacher you seriously believe children make a classroom a potentially dangerous environment?!

Wow!!! I find that both staggering and sad.... yet sadly unsurprising!

A true sign of the times.

I'm sorry, but how many more examples do you want me to give? Things only get worse at secondary.... Playing tig on rooves, equipment thrown across the classroom, rage from a boy bordering on six foot... I'm sorry, but the world has changed since you were at school. It isn't just a belief that children can make a classroom potentially dangerous, it is happening daily across the country. Are you one of these that sees a news report whereby parents are upset their child has had to be restrained because they were being physically violent to others, yet sit back and think, 'Isolated case.'?

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm sorry, but how many more examples do you want me to give? Things only get worse at secondary.... Playing tig on rooves, equipment thrown across the classroom, rage from a boy bordering on six foot... I'm sorry, but the world has changed since you were at school. It isn't just a belief that children can make a classroom potentially dangerous, it is happening daily across the country. Are you one of these that sees a news report whereby parents are upset their child has had to be restrained because they were being physically violent to others, yet sit back and think, 'Isolated case.'?

You say the world has changed and imply the behaviour of school children has got worse over time.

What factors do you think have influenced that, I wonder?

 

[yorkie]

You say the world has changed and imply the behaviour of school children has got worse over time.

What factors do you think have influenced that, I wonder?

A combination of various factors including poor parenting, poor lifestyle choices, poor diets...

And a general emphasis in our society on rights over responsibilities

It's a minority, but the problem is that it's a very disruptive, visible minority, and they have to be given many, many chances...

 

[AlterEgo]

Poor parenting, poor lifestyle choices or poor diet. Or a combination of these.

And a general emphasis on rights over responsibilities

It's a minority, but the problem is that it's a very disruptive, visible minority.

I agree.

The general emphasis of rights over responsibilities is the core theme of this thread. I wish as a society we were more alert to this.

 

[Bayum]

You say the world has changed and imply the behaviour of school children has got worse over time.

What factors do you think have influenced that, I wonder?

I know the factors, as do you. This is what we have to work with. We're not going to be able to hold a consultation evening and say, "These are the reasons children are behaving badly, we need a consistent approach towards behaviour management by a, b and c." because it just isn't going to be followed through on. We can use behaviour management in schools, but there are always those children for who the behaviour management systems do not work for. It doesn't matter what we put in place, behaviour is increasingly becoming a bigger issue.

 

[Darandio]

And yet this whole discussion stems from the re-timing of a train that is arguably better timed and no longer makes them late for school!

 

[pt_mad]

And a general emphasis in our society on rights over responsibilities

It's a minority, but the problem is that it's a very disruptive, visible minority, and they have to be given many, many chances...

Although I would say that at work, the balance has tipped more towards responsibilities than rights. Across the population in general, workers rights seem to have deteriorated in the timescale we are talking about. And responsibilities in terms of you must produce x an hour or you'll be quickly warned, sacked, or receive no shifts in zero hour contracts have increased.

So it quickly changes when people get into employment, which might be a big shock.

Can I just question the bit mentioned a few posts ago where a poster said the TOC has no responsibility whatsoever for the personal safety of those onboard expect for the safe operation of the railway. And they have no responsibility to make sure a passenger is not attacked onboard or stolen from.
I'm not sure the tocs would quite put it like that. Surely the duty of care means that prevention should be used where possible. I.e. if someone has threatened someone else onboard and staff are alerted, they should take action such as contact the police and hold the train in the station. They shouldn't simply say I have no responsibility to ensure anyone's personal safety and carry on as normal. Likewise if a group of youths were misbehaving onboard and upsetting say an old lady, there is every chance fellow passengers would complain to the guard .There is also every chance the guard may have a quiet polite word with the group or ask them to move, or offer to move the old lady. It's unlikely the guard would say they have no responsibility for anyone's safety and ignore a situation like that.

If an incident occurred and the guard was alerted to something escalating earlier on and did nothing, I'm not sure the TOC would say they were right in taking no responsibility, if that was their view. Please note I think this would be very unlikely and most guards would take action when required.

I still can't understand why the parties involved in the Northern earler train situation are worried about the kids arriving at the school gates early, bit are not worried about them travelling in the train unsupervised and unsafeguarded. They are no more at risk in a classroom than they are on a train unattended. There may not be anyone else in that coach other than the kids from that school. So there'd be nobody to watch their behaviour there.

I would suggest the parties concerned perceive that because there is usually order onboard a train, especially in that area, that there is next to no risk onboard the train. They are taking it that they are safer there than in a classroom unattended.
And if the train were cancelled, they may end up on the platform unsupervised for half an hour or an hour with no safeguard.

 

[Bayum]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...g-mainstream-schools.html?ito=social-facebook

Schools now have a legal duty to accept pupils with special educational needs, who make up about 13 per cent of children in mainstream education, although in some schools the number is closer to 40 per cent. Meanwhile, about 158 special schools were closed between 1998 and 2007.

Yet there are many — teachers, parents and charities — who believe the inclusive system is not working.

[..]

'When children throw chairs and tables, you have to evacuate the whole class because it's not safe,' she says. 'One climbed on a cupboard when he was having a wobbly. He hurt himself and another child when he jumped down.

And as if by magic, the Daily Fail has provided more evidence...

Granted, these are children who are severely affected by autism/ADHD... But when you've got that going on, be it at primary or secondary, in addition to those children whose behaviour is just plain disgusting, you've got a good case for why students should not be left in classrooms unsupervised.

 

[Chris M]

A little rude, no?

No.

Not simple (perhaps), but still possible.

Not simple (definitely), but still possible (probably) is the entire point I'm making. It (probably) can be done but it requires planning. That planning takes time and money.

A school near me is thinking of stopping the school day at 13:00, but then have a large amount of extra curricular activities until about 4:00 that aren't in the syllabus but would be great for kids to learn/do. Not too much consultation required and it seems pretty popular with parents.

I know many people who work in a school who would prefer to start earlier and finish earlier.

You miss the point - the school are "thinking about it" - i.e. taking time planning a change - indeed at the moment they are probably determining if it is practical, what consequential changes would be needed and how to go about making those changes if needed. Consultation is only one aspect of the chnage.

Yes, the school crossing patrols, parking restrictions blah blah blah would all need moving, but as someone else has suggested, 10/15 mins is hardly going to be a huge inconvenience.

How do you know it is not going to be an inconvenience?
In all likelihood some things will be trivial to change and some things less so. There are three schools (primary, middle and upper) where I grew up. Any change to the school day at any of them would have to be done in consultation with the other two.

It is simple, but some people are just against change and don't want to give something a try to see if it works.

Whether something is simple or not is completely independent of whether it is a good idea or not and both are completely independent of whether people want it.
You can't "try something to see if it works" without doing exactly the same planning required for a permanent change - in some cases even more.

As someone who was a teacher and now works in the Rail industry I have to say that the “safeguarding” issue has taken on a life of its own. [...] A bit like health and safety which obviously is important but is cited at every opportunity in case an issue of litigation occurs.

You've very nearly understood a key issue, which is with both safeguarding and health and safety what the law actually requires is for:

1. risks to be identified
2. these risks assessed and scored based on the likelihood and severity.
3. possible mitigation measures identified for those risks assessed as having a high score.
   
4. the identified possible mitigation measures scored on effectiveness and cost
   
5. The (combination of) mitigation measures identified as being reasonable based on effectiveness and cost to be implemented.

However many uninformed and poorly informed people (and I include untrained or poorly trained staff in this group) often identify a risk and then cite H&S or safeguarding as a reason that it cannot be done.

 

[whhistle]

As you're so dead against it (does it affect you?), why not ask the TOC why they made the change?
I mean, most TOCs don't change things for fun - there will be a reason, and probably a very good one.

 

[nedchester]

You've very nearly understood a key issue, which is with both safeguarding and health and safety what the law actually requires is for:

1. risks to be identified
2. these risks assessed and scored based on the likelihood and severity.
3. possible mitigation measures identified for those risks assessed as having a high score.
   
4. the identified possible mitigation measures scored on effectiveness and cost
   
5. The (combination of) mitigation measures identified as being reasonable based on effectiveness and cost to be implemented.

However many uninformed and poorly informed people (and I include untrained or poorly trained staff in this group) often identify a risk and then cite H&S or safeguarding as a reason that it cannot be done.

I am more than aware of the issues regarding H&S / Safeguarding and their interpretations (or misinterpretations)

 

[Bromley boy]

Can I just question the bit mentioned a few posts ago where a poster said the TOC has no responsibility whatsoever for the personal safety of those onboard expect for the safe operation of the railway. And they have no responsibility to make sure a passenger is not attacked onboard or stolen from.
I'm not sure the tocs would quite put it like that. Surely the duty of care means that prevention should be used where possible. I.e. if someone has threatened someone else onboard and staff are alerted, they should take action such as contact the police and hold the train in the station.

I was discussing the railway duty of care versus safeguarding as some posters appear to be conflating the two and to believe that children can be regarded as supervised or “safeguarded” when they are on the railway. That is not the case.

The duty of care owed by the railway is fundamentally the same as that owed by any other business - to ensure it operates in accordance with relevant health and safety law. Safeguarding obligations to vulnerable groups, as I understand them, go way beyond this. TOCs themselves point out that young children shouldn’t travel alone and the railway doesn’t not supervise them:

https://www.virgintrainseastcoast.c...ldren/minimum-age-for-unaccompanied-children/

At what age can children travel on your trains unaccompanied by an adult?
Children should not travel on their own on Virgin Trains East Coast until they are mature enough to understands the risks involved with rail travel. It is the responsibility of the parent or guardian to make this decision.

Virgin Trains East Coast Staff are unable to provide a chaperone service and if we notice a child travelling on their own and we are worried about their safety we will contact the British Transport Police for assistance.

In contrast to teachers who seemingly now have a duty to protect their pupils from each other, report concerns about abuse etc. railstaff have absolutely no duty to protect passenger A from passenger B.

In fact intervening in an argument or fight is the absolute last thing I’d want to do as a uniformed staff member. In this day and age I wouldn’t want to risk being accused of something myself, or finding a video of my actions uploaded to YouTube.

Of course if any member of staff becomes aware of someone who is vulnerable they will do what they can to assist but the point is that person should not be travelling alone on the railway in the first place. Staff are certainly not going to intervene in fights or provide any protelction from anyone else beyond calling the police.

In fact there was an attempted mugging of some school children on one of my (DOO) trains recently. Someone had pulled a knife on some school kids and searched them for valuables. Some other school kids reported it at a staffed station. The only thing that could be done was for platform staff to wander along the outside of the train to ensure the alleged perpetrators were no longer aboard (they weren’t) and call BTP who were present at the next station but obviously weren’t able to do anything.

 

[Steve Harris]

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.

Sorry for the belated reply. But,

It happened to me with a company which employed 1000 people and had a strong union presence.

Unfortunately the department which I and my 19 colleagues worked in, (who had the start and finish of shift times changed,) indeed had it enforced. As we were given 3 months notice or told our employement would be terminated !! (Unless you call being sacked/made redundant not enforcement).

The union advice was you could take industrial action (after a ballot) but they doubted that the other 900 odd union members would be prepared to go out on strike for 20 members !

 

[pt_mad]

I was discussing the railway duty of care versus safeguarding as some posters appear to be conflating the two and to believe that children can be regarded as supervised or “safeguarded” when they are on the railway. That is not the case.

The duty of care owed by the railway is fundamentally the same as that owed by any other business - to ensure it operates in accordance with relevant health and safety law. Safeguarding obligations to vulnerable groups, as I understand them, go way beyond this. TOCs themselves point out that young children shouldn’t travel alone and the railway doesn’t not supervise them:

https://www.virgintrainseastcoast.c...ldren/minimum-age-for-unaccompanied-children/





In contrast to teachers who seemingly now have a duty to protect their pupils from each other, report concerns about abuse etc. railstaff have absolutely no duty to protect passenger A from passenger B.

In fact intervening in an argument or fight is the absolute last thing I’d want to do as a uniformed staff member. In this day and age I wouldn’t want to risk being accused of something myself, or finding a video of my actions uploaded to YouTube.

Of course if any member of staff becomes aware of someone who is vulnerable they will do what they can to assist but the point is that person should not be travelling alone on the railway in the first place. Staff are certainly not going to intervene in fights or provide any protelction from anyone else beyond calling the police.

In fact there was an attempted mugging of some school children on one of my (DOO) trains recently. Someone had pulled a knife on some school kids and searched them for valuables. Some other school kids reported it at a staffed station. The only thing that could be done was for platform staff to wander along the outside of the train to ensure the alleged perpetrators were no longer aboard (they weren’t) and call BTP who were present at the next station but obviously weren’t able to do anything.

Although from my experiences the police themselves often expect staff to have interviened to some extent themselves before calling the police.

For example if calling the police because a person being anti social and threatening won't leave the railway the police will more than likely first ask on the phone 'have you approached them, asked them what they're doing and told them to leave?' .Which lets be honest when lone working can, if theyre aggressive, violent and or intoxicated lead to trouble for the staff member from the off.

They often expect members of staff to try and verbally calm things to some extent before calling the law.

 

[Chris M]

As you're so dead against it (does it affect you?), why not ask the TOC why they made the change?
I mean, most TOCs don't change things for fun - there will be a reason, and probably a very good one.

I am neither for or against the change - I don't know enough about all the factors involved to know whether the change is necessary and/or good (or vice versa). My point is simply trying to educate those that think changing the hours of operation of a school is a trivially simple thing to do that can be implemented at the drop of a hat, and that this is therefore the trivially simple solution to the issues raised by the school.

 

[Bayum]

In contrast to teachers who seemingly now have a duty to protect their pupils from each other, report concerns about abuse etc. railstaff have absolutely no duty to protect passenger A from passenger B.

You've misinterpreted. Staff have a duty to protect pupils through H&S and safeguarding. It isn’t ‘seemingly’. I’d suggest looking up a few of the local schools in your area, primary, secondary, any SEND (PRU) and see what they have to say on their safeguarding procedures. You’ve chosen a bad example to compare to as well. Railstaff generally don’t have a personal bond or relationship with people travelling. Teachers who have large hours of contact time with their students are in a much more precarious position in terms of safeguarding and their emotional involvement in wanting the best for their pupils. Train staff generally want their passengers to get from A-B with as little problem as possible.

 

[underbank]

You've misinterpreted. Staff have a duty to protect pupils through H&S and safeguarding. It isn’t ‘seemingly’. I’d suggest looking up a few of the local schools in your area, primary, secondary, any SEND (PRU) and see what they have to say on their safeguarding procedures. You’ve chosen a bad example to compare to as well. Railstaff generally don’t have a personal bond or relationship with people travelling. Teachers who have large hours of contact time with their students are in a much more precarious position in terms of safeguarding and their emotional involvement in wanting the best for their pupils. Train staff generally want their passengers to get from A-B with as little problem as possible.

In law, schools are "in loco parentis" whereas train staff aren't, hence why schools have a greater responsibility to children in their care than a train operator has.

 

[Bromley boy]

You've misinterpreted. Staff have a duty to protect pupils through H&S and safeguarding. It isn’t ‘seemingly’. I’d suggest looking up a few of the local schools in your area, primary, secondary, any SEND (PRU) and see what they have to say on their safeguarding procedures. You’ve chosen a bad example to compare to as well. Railstaff generally don’t have a personal bond or relationship with people travelling. Teachers who have large hours of contact time with their students are in a much more precarious position in terms of safeguarding and their emotional involvement in wanting the best for their pupils. Train staff generally want their passengers to get from A-B with as little problem as possible.

Yes. I’m not in disagreement with you on this. I only said “seemingly” because that’s how it seems to an outside observer. As a teacher you will know a lot more about the safeguarding obligations of schools than I do.

My point was simply that it is impossible to regard (as some posters appeared to) children as “safeguarded” when travelling on trains unaccompanied simply because they are owed a duty of care by the railway.

The railway duty of care relates to health and safety. It is completely different to, and much less onerous than, safeguarding.

 

[Agent_Squash]

It seems like the school has admitted that it's the financial pressures causing more concern. Northern said that they couldn't move the service back without skipping all stations between Ulverston and Lancaster.

Interesting to read about 'a member of staff to encourage students not to go to town'...

PRESSURE will be placed on an Ulverston school's finances and staff as repercussions continue to be felt after a rail timetable shakeup.

Just a few weeks ago a bombshell was dropped on UVHS when Northern announced new earlier morning services to the town.

To ensure more than 200 children who travel to school daily are kept safe the school will now have to open its doors earlier, a move which could cost "thousands."

At an emergency meeting held at the Coronation Hall on Friday (27), UVHS assistant head teacher Richard Butler addressed parents and local officials on what would have to change.

We will have to put things in place which will have a significant monetary cost to us
He said: "We will have to put things in place which will have a significant monetary cost to us to ensure there are no safeguarding issues. We will have to employ staff from 8 in the morning to 8.30am. We will possibly put a member of staff at the train station to encourage students not to go to town and then safeguard them on the school site as well.

"We are the second worst funded school in south Cumbria but now we are having to find several thousand pounds to do that."

This issue is just the latest in what has become a long list of grievances on the way Northern run the Furness and Lakes lines.

MP John Woodock said he would push the government for solid action on rail services in south Cumbria. He also suggested uniting all of Cumbria's MPs to push for a debate in parliament on the issue.

Emma Corkill, a parent governor for UVHS at the meeting worried children would miss the train during a mad rush at the end of the day.

She said: "How are they going to get up to 259 children on a train from a practical point of view? They all have to buy tickets or show their passes to get on the train."

Another parent, Janine Price, whose child travels from Roose said there very few options when it came to getting their children to school.

She said: "There is a bus for £10 a week. That is our only other option. Other than going ourselves."

Northern were unable to attend the meeting at the Coronation Hall, but a statement on its new timetable was included in an agenda.

It read: "Our original timetable plan for May had 10 direct services from Barrow to Manchester on the Furness Line however all but four of these have had to be deferred until at least December because of the Network Rail infrastructure delays between Preston and Manchester.

"We fully appreciate that the arrival time in Ulverston is earlier than the current timetable but having reviewed the overall schedule there is nothing we can do to delay the departure without removing all the stops between Ulverston and Lancaster which is not acceptable."

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/ulver...sands-537f9edb-5650-4771-93f0-147f70b12ecf-ds

 

[Bletchleyite]

Putting a member of staff on the station? I never heard of such nonsense. Sounds like someone pursuing an agenda.

 

[exile]

That's the School's and Parents problem not Northern's.

If we want a summary of what is wrong with the railway industry, this sentence is it.

 

[pt_mad]

Why do the kids have to travel to a school in another town. Is there not a senior school in Barrow?


If they (school) place a staff member at the station, will they be insured to have the station platform as their workplace supervising kids? Even though they have nothing to do with the TOC?
And if they walk the kids to school from there, and an incident happens on the way, will the school staff member be blamed and they're taking full liability for the kids on a walk in a public street?

And again, why aren't the school concerned about potential lack of safeguarding on the train itself, and when waiting for the train in the morning, when the train could end up cancelled and they're all on a platform waiting for the next one?

They're only bothered about the kids once they step off the train. Not their safeguarding during the train journey itself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd venture the view that what this member of "station staff" is for is to stop them receiving complaints from the rather genteel population of Ulverston about noise and vandalism in the town centre rather than anything to do with Safeguarding.

 

[pt_mad]

I'd venture the view that what this member of "station staff" is for is to stop them receiving complaints from the rather genteel population of Ulverston about noise and vandalism in the town centre rather than anything to do with Safeguarding.

I think they meant the school employing someone and sending them to the station to meet the kids and walk then to school didn't they? The person won't have any powers of enforcement outside the school anyway. They would only be able to ask the kids to stop misbehaving. And if any undesirable members of the public approached the kids they would presumably ring the police.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think they meant the school employing someone and sending them to the station to meet the kids and walk then to school didn't they? The person won't have any powers of enforcement outside the school anyway. They would only be able to ask the kids to stop misbehaving. And if any undesirable members of the public approached the kids they would presumably ring the police.

Walk them to school?

Now I have heard it all.

 

[pt_mad]

He said: "We will have to put things in place which will have a significant monetary cost to us to ensure there are no safeguarding issues. We will have to employ staff from 8 in the morning to 8.30am. We will possibly put a member of staff at the train station to encourage students not to go to town and then safeguard them on the school site as well.

Apologies I misread it and thought it said safeguard them to the school site rather than on the school site.

Although has anyone heard of a non railway connected member of staff being placed at a station to supervise kids on a daily basis before?

 

[TUC]

The answer is quite frankly tough.

I agree that the safeguarding issue is nonsense, but to say 'tough' is scarcely a customer-friendly response if there is a genuine demand for an alternative time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although has anyone heard of a non railway connected member of staff being placed at a station to supervise kids on a daily basis before?

Nope.