Online Safety within "Keeping Children Safe in Education 2016" - published 26/5/16

[elsiegee40]

Detailed analysis by @esafety_officer of this revised version of the original and its implications for Online Safety in education establishments.

 

Normally I copy and paste these posts directly, but this is a bit long, so you will have to click on the link and read it on her blog page.

 

Online Safety within ‘Keeping children safe in education’ 2016 | Kent Online Safety Blog

 

I did however create a pdf of it and the clickable links seem to work

Online Safety within Keeping children safe in education 2016.pdf

NB

• This is in addition to her later analysis of http://www.edugeek.net/forums/e-safety/174069-online-safety-within-inspecting-safeguarding-education-2016-updated-sept-2016-a.html
  
• Revised Kent AUP guidance can be found here: http://www.edugeek.net/forums/school-ict-policies/174070-kent-acceptable-use-policy-templates-updated-sept-2016-a.html
  

Edited September 18, 2017 by elsiegee40

[elsiegee40]

A couple of bits that caught my eye (Black is quoted from the guidance, blue is esafety_officer's comment and red is esafety_officer's suggested action points)

 

My pages are from the pdf I generated

 

My page 6:

57. In addition to their formal training, as set out above, their knowledge and skills should be updated, (for example via ebulletins, meeting other designated safeguarding leads, or taking time to read and digest safeguarding developments), at regular intervals, but at least annually, to keep up with any developments relevant to their role. (p.16)

 

"As online safety is clearly identified as a safeguarding priority it will not be appropriate for the online safety lead to be another member of staff, for example a computing lead, unless they have also accessed appropriate training (e.g. DSL training). "

 

And from my page 9

 

69. Whilst it is essential that governing bodies and proprietors ensure that appropriate filters and monitoring systems are in place; they should be careful that “over blocking” does not lead to unreasonable restrictions as to what children can be taught with regards to online teaching and safeguarding. (p.18)

 

Governing bodies and proprietors should be making informed decision regarding filtering and monitoring systems and ensure decisions are appropriate to the school’s technology provision as well as the needs of the learners. A reliance on filtering to safeguarding children will not be appropriate, and children will need to be taught critical thinking skills which are appropriate to their age and ability.

 

Schools and colleges may wish to consider developing a risk assessment approach or other process to ensure filtering decisions are made from a safeguarding, technical and educational perspective.

 

Action point:

How does the governing body/proprietor make informed decisions regarding the school/college filtering and

monitoring systems and associated decisions?

How is this captured and recorded?

 

My page 12-14

 

Filters and monitoring

 

Governing bodies and proprietors should be doing all that they reasonably can to limit children’s exposure to the above risks from the school or colleges IT system. As part of this process governing bodies and proprietors should ensure their school has appropriate filters and monitoring systems in place. Whilst considering their responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and provide them a safe environment in which to learn, governing bodies and proprietors should consider the age range of their pupils, the number of pupils, how often they access the schools IT system and the proportionality of costs Vs risks.

 

The appropriateness of any filters and monitoring systems are a matter for individual schools and colleges and will be informed in part by the risk assessment required by the Prevent Duty.

 

The UK Safer Internet Centre has published guidance as to what “appropriate” might look like: UK Safer Internet Centre: appropriate filtering and monitoring Guidance

 

Guidance on esecurity is available from the National Education network (NEN). Buying advice for schools is available here: buying for schools. (p.61)

 

Governing bodies and proprietors must make informed decisions regarding the safety and security of the internet access and equipment available in their settings. Governing bodies and proprietors must ensure that the welfare of children and young people is paramount at all times. Any decisions taken regarding filtering and monitoring systems should be taken from a safeguarding, educational and technical approach and should be justifiable and documented. When reviewing filtering and monitoring systems and approach some governing bodies and proprietors may wish to undertake an approach which includes robust risk assessments and a through comparison which identify both the benefits and limitations of the services.

 

Schools may also wish to approach their broadband provider to consider the range of tools available to them which may enable them to develop strategies to control and supervise their internet use and systems appropriately.

 

Action point:

Does the governing body/proprietor understand the current school/college filtering/monitoring systems?

If not, how can this be developed?

How do the governing body/proprietor work with the technical team (e.g. broadband provider, IT Technicians, Network Managers or IT service providers) to make filtering and monitoring decisions?

If so, how is this documented?

Has the governing body/proprietor accessed the UK Safer Internet centre (and any local guidance) material regarding appropriate filtering and monitoring?

 

Whilst filtering and monitoring are an important part of the online safety picture for schools and colleges to consider, it is only one part. Governors and proprietors should consider a whole school approach to online safety. This will include a clear policy on the use of mobile technology in the school. Many children have unlimited and unrestricted access to the internet via 3G and 4G in particular and the school and college should carefully consider how this is managed on their premises. (p.61-2)

 

Whilst it is essential that governing bodies and proprietors ensure that appropriate filters and monitoring systems are in place; they should be careful that “over blocking” does not lead to unreasonable restrictions as to what children can be taught with regards to online teaching and safeguarding. (p.62)

 

No filtering or monitoring solution can offer schools and colleges 100% protection from exposure to inappropriate or illegal content, so it is equally important that they can demonstrate that they have taken all other reasonable precautions to safeguard children and staff. Such methods may include appropriate supervision, requiring children and staff to sign an acceptable Use Policy (AUP), a robust and embedded online safety curriculum and appropriate and up-to-date staff training etc. A reliance on filtering and monitoring to safeguarding children online could lead to a feeling of complacency which may put children and adults at risk of significant harm.

 

It is vital for all Governing bodies , proprietors and members of staff to recognise that even with the most expensive and up-to-date security systems and filtering, children or staff can potentially bypass them either via using proxy sites or by using their own devices e.g. mobile phones or tablets which would not be subject to the school/colleges filtering. This is why appropriate supervision, policy and procedures and education and training is essential. The Kent County Council online safety policy template and guidance has specific content for schools and colleges regarding filtering and also use of personal devices and mobile phones.

 

Action point:

Does the school/college understand that filtering and monitoring will not always be effective as removing risk?

How do all members of staff ensure that technology in the classroom is used as safely and effectively as possible?

Does the school provide all members of staff with clear expectations regarding use of technology e.g. supervision, prechecking content before use, use of age appropriate tools, understanding of data protection concerns, clear risk assessments etc.

Does the school/college have a policy regarding safe and appropriate use of mobile phones and personal devices?

[elsiegee40]

for new academic year