As you will know, there have been big changes in Ofsted inspections in recent months, particularly in safeguarding.
These shifts – driven by the tragic death of headteacher Ruth Perry – include mental health awareness training for inspectors and support for those being inspected, as well as allowing schools with ineffective safeguarding, but strengths elsewhere, to receive a graded inspection within three months.
The major change, of course, is the removal of single-phrase judgements, which has been warmly welcomed by many in education.
Those modifications are praiseworthy but the decision to remove the commentary on safeguarding strengths for schools with effective safeguarding has in my experience had a mixed reception, especially from schools addressing significant safeguarding challenges who feel their work is not being recognised. The changes basically mean that the inspection reports will now simply read that “arrangements for safeguarding are effective”.
Learning safeguarding lessons from Ofsted reports
We have been analysing the safeguarding section of Ofsted reports since the introduction of the latest framework in 2019, focusing specifically on reports where safeguarding had been judged “not effective”.
From the patterns we have found, we can learn about the common reasons behind these judgements and offer help and advice so that other schools don’t make the same errors.
When we first carried out this analysis, in 2022, we combed through reports where safeguarding was judged to be ineffective and categorised the reasons for this into 12 main areas. These are:
- Site safety.
- Alternative provision.
- Understanding/training of staff.
- Record-keeping.
- Single Central Record (SCR).
- Registration and exclusion.
- Leadership/governance.
- Pupils unsafe/bullying.
- Pupils don't raise issues.
- Following up concerns.
- Risk assessment.
- Safer recruitment.
To clarify, if a report criticised poor record-keeping and stated that inappropriate alternative provision was being used, it would tally in both the “record-keeping” and “alternative provision” categories.
In February 2022, the top three reasons for ineffective safeguarding were:
- Record-keeping: Not recording in sufficient detail or having inappropriate recording systems. Older reports found that many schools were using paper record systems ineffectively, though these are increasingly rare with the growth of accessible digital systems (31/59 schools).
- Leadership and governance: Governors being unaware of how to strategically challenge leaders around safeguarding and simply taking their word for things (30/59 schools).
- Inappropriately following up concerns: Not referring serious concerns or not referring concerns promptly (28/59 schools).
Since 2022, the number of Ofsted reports noting ineffective safeguarding has more than doubled from 59 to 135 schools, so we now have a much more detailed dataset with which to understand inspections.
These three primary reasons for ineffective safeguarding were unchanged in our latest analysis. Record-keeping remains the most common reason referenced in Ofsted reports (53% of schools with ineffective safeguarding have this), followed by leadership and governance (45%), and inappropriately following up concerns (44%).
Other frequently mentioned areas include understanding/training of staff (42%), where staff have not received training in line with statutory guidance or have inadequate safeguarding knowledge, and pupils being unsafe or bullied (42%), relating to children being at risk from the behaviour of other children or inappropriate physical intervention from staff.
Emerging issues
Some areas have become more prominent in Ofsted reports recently. A school is now more likely to have ineffective safeguarding due to an unsafe site. Just five schools were pulled up on this by Ofsted in the 2022 data, but that has now risen to 16. Site safety is often related to medication being stored incorrectly or children climbing onto the building itself.
The SCR (single central record) is another. This has risen from 4 schools in 2022 to 11 in 2024. This is often down to required checks not being recorded on the SCR, or significant errors.
Both site safety and the SCR feed into the “remit versus responsibility” challenge that all designated safeguarding leads (DSLs) face. It is very unlikely that a DSL will directly manage the physical environment or personally oversee the SCR, as they are rarely in their remit. Yet these may be seen as the responsibilities of the DSL – to build and maintain a culture of safeguarding, ensure staff are suitable to be working with children, and that where they learn is physically safe.
They would certainly be mentioned in the safeguarding section of an Ofsted report. So how does a DSL maintain effective oversight of these areas of responsibility?
It is hard for a single person or even a team to oversee all areas of safeguarding responsibility, as these are so huge. Safeguarding encompasses all areas of school life and is everyone’s responsibility.
In my experience working with schools, we find that some of these peripheral areas are the ones where DSLs are least confident. For example, the DSL is rarely confident in leading us through the SCR, but when we reviewed our safeguarding audits of schools, we found that the SCR was a risk area in 1 in 4 of our audits.
In the academic year 2022/23 we set an average of five actions in relation to the SCR and safer recruitment practices per safeguarding audit that we carried out.
In addition, this academic year we have seen the highest use of our advice line, particularly for questions relating to site safety, hirings and lettings, and HR issues such as risk-assessing staff, the SCR and safer recruitment.
Avoiding common safeguarding pitfalls
So, how can schools put in place good practices to avoid some of these common pitfalls? Here are five pieces of advice:
Retain your focus on continuously improving record-keeping: Review your safeguarding records on a regular basis. Sit down with an appropriate professional and get them to read through the record. Can they understand what is happening from the record alone? If you find yourself having to explain what happened, then the record probably isn’t detailed enough. Also consider making the record anonymous so that the matter remains confidential. Most digital systems allow this.
Invest in your governance: Make sure that your governors/trustees have received appropriate safeguarding training and are able to ask difficult questions. It is better they ask these questions than Ofsted! In particular, the safeguarding governor or trustee should feel confident in executing their strategic challenge function. When I speak to governors many find balancing their desire to support with their responsibility to challenge tricky.
Follow up concerns appropriately and promptly: This goes for all staff and not just the DSL, who should know to share this information with the safeguarding team immediately and record it in detail. The safeguarding team should also ensure they have good contacts around the local authority and are aware of locally available support.
Provide high-quality training for staff: They should know about the key issues facing children in your setting and what to do when they encounter them. They also need a good understanding of the systems used to report concerns at your school.
Listen to your pupils: Pupil voice should be routinely gathered in your setting, but are they asked if they feel safe and if there are any areas where they feel at risk? How do they feel bullying is addressed at your school? You may be hitting compliance in every area but if staff and pupils don’t feel the same, then do you truly have a strong safeguarding culture?
Final thoughts
It is clear that safeguarding remains front of mind for schools and DSLs and that the recent Ofsted changes have only reinforced that situation. The stakes are high for our pupils and for our schools, but with care, planning and support we can ensure that those common pitfalls are avoided, and effective safeguarding becomes a reality for every pupil in every school.
- James Simoniti is a former police detective with a background of child protection policing and investigations into individuals with a position of trust. He is now a senior safeguarding consultant at Judicium Education, which supports schools with their safeguarding matters and carries out safeguarding audits. Visit www.judiciumeducation.co.uk/safeguarding-service and find his previous articles for SecEd via www.sec-ed.co.uk/authors/james-simoniti