Supplemenatary memorandum submitted by
the NSPCC
This memorandum provides supplementary information
to accompany the oral evidence given to the Education and Skills
Select Committee by director and chief executive of the NSPCC,
Ms Marsh, on 10 January 2005.
The paragraphs below are arranged to correspond
with the question number of the session transcript and the broad
area and/or specific quote to which the supplementary information
relates.
Q. 199
Inspection framework
Ms Marsh: "we are concerned about the proposed
inspectorate framework of the Education Bill, about which we know
a little more now than we did when you received the written submission
from the NSPCC".
The NSPCC, in partnership with a number of other
organisations sought to extend the duty to co-operate in the Children
Act 2004 to schools. The collective view of these organisations
was that the duty to co-operate should not only exist between
strategic bodies but also between operational or delivery agencies,
including schools. In response to the amendments put down during
the parliamentary passage of the Children Act 2004, the Government
stated that one of the "levers of influence" to ensure
co-operation takes place would be inspection.
Whilst the NSPCC welcomes the provisions in
the Education Bill to inspect the contribution made by schools
to the well-being of its pupils, there are no explicit provisions
for inspection to ensure that co-operation with other strategic
and operational agencies takes place in schools. Therefore, it
is unclear how the lever of inspection is to apply as the Government
stated it would during the passage of the Children Act 2004. Without
a legal expectation on schools in either the Children Act 2004
or the Education Bill, the NSPCC is concerned that it will be
difficult to ensure the co-operation of those (few) schools unwilling
to play a part in the wider children's agenda. Whilst the current
consultation on the duty to co-operate list schools under the
partners "expected" to co-operate, we do not believe
exhortation alone will be sufficient.
Q. 206
Universal v targeted services
The NSPCC strongly supports the move towards
preventative services, with early identification and early intervention
through universal services. However, the majority of child protection
services currently provided are targeted not universal and are
reactive not preventative. The transition to preventative services
will require a great deal of additional resource and investment
from the outset. The NSPCC is concerned that without this initial
investment, scarce resources which might otherwise be used to
support the most vulnerable children and their families will be
transferred from targeted services to provide for the transition
to universal services.
Q. 207
Baseline research
The NSPCC strongly supports Mr Newell's assertion
that without detailed baseline research about the prevalence and
incidence of abuse, it is not possible to measure the success
of child protection systems. A large amount of child abuse goes
unreported, therefore conviction rates and reporting rates will
never be able to give a true measure of success in dealing with
the problem. The NSPCC funded an authoritative prevalence study,
which reported in 2000. This needs to be followed up. In addition,
the Government should be piloting the collection of baseline incidence
data.
Q. 215
School Workforce and Early Intervention
It is clear that schools will need to play a
central role in early identification if preventative services
and early intervention are to be achieved. This is not a role
that teachers and other members of the school workforce have historically
been accustomed to doing although it is increasingly being asked
of them. As a result of section 175 of the Education Act 2002,
schools are now under a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare
of their pupils. This is an important new role for schools and
it should not be underestimated the investment that is required
to support schools properly.
NSPCC research demonstrates the anxiety among
the school workforce about child protection issues: 88% of designated
teachers for child protection were concerned that not all teachers
would be able to recognise the signs of abuse of children in their
care and act on them; one third of all respondents were extremely
concerned that abuse could go unnoticed because of colleagues'
inexperience and lack of training (Child protection and education,
Mary Baginsky, NSPCC, 2001). The same research also found that
most initial teacher training courses offered child protection
training for between only one and three hours in total, on both
one year post graduate (PGCE) courses, and on three and four year
degree courses.
It is for these reasons that, as part of the
Education Bill currently going through Parliament, the NSPCC would
like to see the objectives of the Training and Development Agency
amended to include a general function to ensure that the school
workforce is well-fitted and trained to safeguard and promote
the welfare of children. We see this as a natural extension of,
and prerequisite to support, the duty on schools under section
175 of the Education Act 2002. The Government has so far proved
reluctant to accept the need to amend the Education Bill.
January 2005
| 
