Safeguarding - how far do we need to go

[mikeprice]

I have been looking at Safeguarding and our web filter etc recently

 

We currently have our firewall and web filter via the LEA - however I am worried that as a result we cannot respond quickly to any incident

 

For example - if we report a dodgy unblocked web site to the LEA it will be blocked - but only within 24 hours

 

on asking - I found that the LEA 'think' that if we asked for evidence of whether or not a PC (presumably I could get the IP address via DHCP) had or had not accessed a specific web site - and could let us know within 3-5 days

I don't think that is good enough

 

SO - QUESTION 1 - am I right

 

and - going forward

 

We seem to have 2 options

 

a) something like Smoothwall - which will intercept ALL network traffic and logs/filters it - but expensive

 

b) something like NetCtrl / AB Tutor etc - which can log everything it is installed on - but misses out Apple (yuk) stuff and anything connected to the wifi by staff or kids

 

 

 

I would like advice/opinions about what we NEED to do and what we SHOULD do

 

I would like something like SMoothwall but it's a case of justifying it

 

TIA

 

Mike

[elsiegee40]

You are going to get many many answers to this question. In the grand scheme of things it all depends on how you risk asses things, and how well your teachers monitor students in class. If you have effective classroom management, where a student chatting on a forum to a sexual predator or a Syrian recruiter stands no chance of slipping under the radar then you could get away with a low cost solution. It all depends on how many safeguards you have in place for all the risks.

 

Some schools have no computers ... some schools have 1to1 deployments and byod. Clearly the risks and need to safeguard has a large spectrum and 1 solution does not necessarily meet all needs or budgets.

 

I would make sure the person(s) responsible for safeguarding guide you and not the other way round. The concerns you have should be made to them as it is them who will need to answer should the bell toll, and if they don't heed your advice and expertise then on their head be it.

It all depends on how your school assesses things. It's a decision for SLT and govermors NOT the IT team.

[bossman]

It all depends on how your school assesses things. It's a decision for SLT and govermors NOT the IT team.

 

Absolutely spot on!

[IrritableTech]

It all depends on how your school assesses things. It's a decision for SLT and govermors NOT the IT team.

 

Absolutely true - but the SLT and governors may well ask the advice of the IT team as it is quite possible they are the most qualified to answer questions around filtering and monitoring.

 

There are basically two elements to this - what you legally required to do and what you feel as a school is the morally correct approach. Legally you now must monitor digital communications within Prevent. You need to highlight concerns that someone is being radicalized or is radicalizing, planning or promoting hate or violence. Much of this will be monitored in the classroom - but only if your staff have had relevant training. This can also be monitored digitally and looked over - but only if the reviewer has had the training.

 

I have heard that Ofsted will be asking more around questions around Prevent. How would you identify an issue, what systems have you in place to identify a concern etc?

 

You also have a responsibility to safeguard the children in your care - both in school and externally. The external bit is usually covered within teaching them the do's and don'ts rather than installing software on their mobile though! Whether you think current systems are adequate to safeguard your pupils will depend on the schools curriculum, the pupils ability, their maturity etc. even before looking at the technology.

 

Your provider sounds much like our old LEA provider. Don't worry they said - your pupils are safe because we have blocked everything that isn't - if anything does happen to slip through the net let us know. This simply doesn't work in 2016, as it didn't when we left them in 2013. I asked the head of the service in a public meeting - if I had a concern about a pupil, was he confident he could present the logs in a timely manner to prevent harm. He said he could - I wasn't convinced.

 

If a pupil is searching for a way to harm themselves and there is real desire to do so - isn't there a high chance that harm will happen within the three to five working day response? And if that pupil was on that computer in the library which is slightly round the corner which people struggle to keep an eye on - without an alerting system of some sort, what chance do you have as a school to intervene and prevent harm? Forget the backlash that would come from parents, the authorities or even the public - someone has come to harm and school missed an opportunity to safeguard.

 

Schools should be using filters which alert trained staff on potential dangers and actually sometimes that means you allow pupils to be exposed to a little more risk - you might be a little more lenient in your filtering because you are monitoring more closely - and that in it's self yields more opportunities to safeguard. It's always worth remembering that risk doesn't automatically mean harm however and people sometimes need to be exposed to a little risk to build resilience. Getting the balance is tricky and it should be a whole school approach.

[pete]

@elsiegee40

 

Yes, but the IT team need that decision it in writing* to prevent RGE when the finger-pointing starts. The problems occur when everyone's ad-libbing.

 

*set out in the Safeguarding / eSafety / Child Protection / WhateverYouCallIT policy.

[elsiegee40]

@elsiegee40

 

Yes, but the IT team need that decision it in writing* to prevent RGE when the finger-pointing starts. The problems occur when everyone's ad-libbing.

 

*set out in the Safeguarding / eSafety / Child Protection / WhateverYouCallIT policy.

 

It is helpful but not essential. The safeguarding buck stops with Leadership and Management... and they do know it, whatever they pretend

[Fazza]

The best safeguarding method is classroom management by the teachers.

[bossman]

The best safeguarding method is classroom management by the teachers.

 

Really?

 

Have you seen most teachers in an IT environment? They simply don't have a clue or pretend not too so the IT staff end up having to monitor!

 

This is why IT teams find it difficult because of the inconsistencies in education, one rule for one group and one rule for another group, in essence the left hand doesn't know what the right hand wants or does!

 

So much confusion in schools nowadays due to this fact, shame really

[Fazza]

Really?

 

Yes! The Teachers are (supposed to be) trained professionals - something some seem to have forgotten and think it's the job of the IT Services department to safeguard the children they have been trained to teach, look after and safeguard!

 

That doesnt mean an IT Services department doesnt have it's part to play, but the only part they should be playing is implementing technology solutions (such as web filtering and monitoring) that the safeguarding person (or persons) have requested.

[synaesthesia]

I've found one thing that seems to make the ears of most leadership types prick up in interest.

 

"It's good for sales".

 

No, we're not businesses, we're schools being run by/like businesses. We have to sell our schools to customers (children's parents/guardians), and one buzzword that many of those parents will look out for these days is safeguarding. Will their children be safe? What measures does the school have to prevent them being exposed to nasty material and/or people online?

 

"We use the industry leading content filter called Smoothwall which intercepts all internet data and can actively check the content" is a great sales pitch.

 

It's a horrible way to do things but it works...

[Lonix]

I have been looking at Safeguarding and our web filter etc recently

We currently have our firewall and web filter via the LEA - however I am worried that as a result we cannot respond quickly to any incident

For example - if we report a dodgy unblocked web site to the LEA it will be blocked - but only within 24 hours

on asking - I found that the LEA 'think' that if we asked for evidence of whether or not a PC (presumably I could get the IP address via DHCP) had or had not accessed a specific web site - and could let us know within 3-5 days

I don't think that is good enough

SO - QUESTION 1 - am I right

and - going forward

We seem to have 2 options

a) something like Smoothwall - which will intercept ALL network traffic and logs/filters it - but expensive

b) something like NetCtrl / AB Tutor etc - which can log everything it is installed on - but misses out Apple (yuk) stuff and anything connected to the wifi by staff or kids

I would like advice/opinions about what we NEED to do and what we SHOULD do

I would like something like SMoothwall but it's a case of justifying it

TIA

Mike

 

 

1. No I don’t think that is good enough if I’m honest. 24 hours to filter a website that potentially can cause not only safeguarding issues but allow that Student to spread it like wildfire? What about parent fury? Having dealt with a similar issue where a parent wasn’t happy about something – it involved Governors/Police too. No I wouldn’t accept 24 hours to block a website. If it’s a simple games website needing categorisation I can understand but an actual safe guarding one?... We have access to our own Lightspeed management GUI and we can categorise/block pretty instantly. As a result of the work I’ve pushed for we have seen a lot less “Block this site” and because Students primarily have access to what they need for education, we also see a lot less “please unblock”. Having had to sit down and talk to a Governor for an hour explaining what we do/don’t do – he felt very confident in our job that we are doing everything possible to safe guard.
   
2. I believe Lightspeed is cheaper than Smoothwall, I’d have to look back through all my pricing.
   

They will log every website unless a “ByPass Proxy” is used and again we rarely have had an issue with this in a number of years because of how well we keep a tight lid on the internet.

 

1. We use AB Tutor here for the ICT Staff, my technician occasionally uses it as well to keep an eye on general usage of the suites. Very useful at spotting any naughty websites or software the kids are loading which they shouldn’t be. – Again though we generally don’t have issues with kids accessing what they shouldn’t.
   

 

Smoothwall – justification.

You have control over your own filtering, you can set it easily internally. So Students can gain/deny access pretty instant plus there is all the reports you have access to and additional features.

 

Not cheap though but depends if you pay for what you get through the LEA?

[bossman]

Yes! The Teachers are (supposed to be) trained professionals - something some seem to have forgotten and think it's the job of the IT Services department to safeguard the children they have been trained to teach, look after and safeguard!

 

Doesn't mean that they will actually do this though so we as the IT team end up monitoring the system because of this, as you have stated we as the IT technical staff should only implement but because of the inconsistencies within education this does not happen, we are left holding the baby so to speak.

 

That doesnt mean an IT Services department doesnt have it's part to play, but the only part they should be playing is implementing technology solutions (such as web filtering and monitoring) that the safeguarding person (or persons) have requested.

 

This should be how it is but is often not the case!

[Opendium_Steve]

For example - if we report a dodgy unblocked web site to the LEA it will be blocked - but only within 24 hours

 

I think that all this depends a lot on the size of school and how their internal ICT staff handle stuff. As an example, if you're a tiny school who has decided to outsource to a part-time third party instead of having your own ICT staff, you need to look at how quickly those staff will respond. There's no good complaining about the LEA being slow to block a site if most of the time is actually taken up waiting for your ICT people to even tell the LEA there's a problem. On the other hand, if your school has a good staff who can react quickly, complaining about the LEA's speed might be justified.

 

That said, obviously you can't let a single school have control over the global block list that is applied to the whole LEA, but it does seem a poor system if a school can't block or allow a site for their own network, without waiting for the LEA staff to get their finger out.

 

on asking - I found that the LEA 'think' that if we asked for evidence of whether or not a PC (presumably I could get the IP address via DHCP) had or had not accessed a specific web site - and could let us know within 3-5 days

I don't think that is good enough

 

The DoE's draft Keeping children safe in education: Statutory guidance for schools and colleges document specifically says that you need to be able to "identify children accessing or trying to access harmful and inappropriate content online". I think this calls into question any system that doesn't automatically link a user (rather than IP address) with their web accesses.

 

Identifying what a specific workstation has been accessing should be easy, so it's concerning that the LEA doesn't know if they can do that. But it's probably more important to go the other way - filters automatically producing reports of concerning behaviour so that staff can follow up with the individual users involved. Producing these kinds of reports is much harder of course. If those reports only identify IP addresses rather than users, that makes following them up much more difficult. True, you can probably trawl through the logs and figure out which user is responsible, but that's a lot of work and is surely going to reduce the number of reports that will actually be followed up. Systems such as Iceni, Smoothwall, Lightspeed, etc. will produce these kinds of reports, it seems that many LEA filters won't.

 

a) something like Smoothwall - which will intercept ALL network traffic and logs/filters it - but expensive

 

My opinion is that this is the best way to go, and there are cheaper options than Smoothwall (but I'm probably biassed, since that's the line of business I'm in). As other people have pointed out, this is a decision for the people at the top, rather then the ICT team. But the decision makers should certainly be taking input from the ICT staff, and people from outside the school - people like the Internet Safety Centre, for example. Or even the filtering providers themselves, so long as you take their obvious biases into account - we're always happy to talk to folks about this stuff, even if they aren't actively looking to buy from us.

 

b) something like NetCtrl / AB Tutor etc - which can log everything it is installed on - but misses out Apple (yuk) stuff and anything connected to the wifi by staff or kids

 

Whether or not you do BYOD at the moment, it's something that isn't going away so I think you're setting yourself up for pain if you opt for something that requires apps to be installed on the myriad of hardware that might be connected to your network in the not so distant future. Any filter that intercepts HTTPS traffic (and you really should be using one) will require a certificate to be installed on each device, but that is at least something that all devices support.

 

Remember that whatever system you use, it is never a "fit and forget" thing - realistically, safeguarding children requires staff to work proactively. You need to keep an eye on the reports that these systems generate, and actually follow up any concerns that they flag.

 

I believe Lightspeed is cheaper than Smoothwall, I’d have to look back through all my pricing.

 

They were a similar price last time I checked. Its worth noting that the filtering market has become quite competitive of late though and prices have dropped across the board.

[locoparentis]

You'll get too many variations on here, so I won't add!

 

Just to say I wouldn't leave my protection policy decisions on safeguarding to ICT teams, they are great as mine are but "bless him" can be a little more focussed on systems than the child! I took my decision based on advice from the school leads in conjunction with the ICT team..