Keeping Children Safe in Education requirements

[Jobos]

I know there are a number of monitoring solutions out there and PCE is the least liked (and for good reason) but that said we use PCE because nothing can touch it on price.

 

Just been given the renewal notice for PCE or Futures Cloud as it's called now and it says

This subscription covers your use of Online Monitoring safeguarding software which is a statutory requirement within Keeping Children Safe in Education 2016

Is it really a requirement to have software that monitors safeguarding? I thought as long as there is adequate supervision, software is not required.

[pete]

Are you asking if marketing would use Fear Uncertainty and Doubt in a bid to make sales? Like most government guidance it's:

 

1) How you define "monitoring system" is down to the individual school and whether they can back up their decisions with sound reasoning.

2) Using technology is one way of ticking a KCSIE box because it doesn't rely on a human who has N+1 other things to do too.

 

Page 17, Section 67 of KCSIE states:

 

Online safety

67. As schools and colleges increasingly work online, it is essential that children are safeguarded from potentially harmful and inappropriate online material. As such, governing bodies and proprietors should ensure appropriate filters and appropriate monitoring systems are in place. Additional information to support governing bodies and proprietors is provided in Annex C.

 

Annex C (relevant info on page 62) essentially repeats the above using more words without really clarifying what they mean:

 

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 college’s IT system. As part of this process, governing bodies and proprietors should ensure their school or college has appropriate filters and monitoring systems in place. Whilst considering their responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and provide them with 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 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.88

 

We (for example) use a combination of automated monitoring at the client (on-screen content) and also automated reports from the web filter. The two combined give us decent coverage, relying on just one we'd miss things.

[Al_NetSupport]

Hi @Jobos

 

Guidelines did change in September last year, we did a document that I hope might be of help as it highlights your obligations.

 

http://www.netsupportdna.com/pdf/kcsie.pdf

 

I hope it's helpful.

 

Al

[elsiegee40]

Is it really a requirement to have software that monitors safeguarding? I thought as long as there is adequate supervision, software is not required.

 

 

Please see this sticky thread in our eSafety forum @Jobos

 

http://www.edugeek.net/forums/e-safety/171051-online-safety-within-keeping-children-safe-education-2016-published-26-5-16-a.html

 

Rebecca Avery the KCC eSafety Officer has been through it with a fine tooth comb detailing school obligations

Edited February 8, 2017 by elsiegee40

[Jobos]

Thanks all.

 

Looking at the Kent safety site this caught my eye and answered my question.

 

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. Kent schools and settings using the EIS School Broadband system will be using the LightSpeed system which already has a range of tools which may enable schools to be able to demonstrate they have an understanding of appropriate filtering and monitoring and have systems already in place.

 

So of course it depends on pupil age and size of school, but if your filter has good reporting then no, extra software is not mandatory.

[elsiegee40]

Thanks all.

 

Looking at the Kent safety site this caught my eye and answered my question.

 

 

 

So of course it depends on pupil age and size of school, but if your filter has good reporting then no, extra software is not mandatory.

@esafety_officer is probably quite busy this week with Safer Internet Day commitments, so I'm not expecting any response in this thread. However, she writes with incredibly good knowledge!

[esafety_officer]

Yes, SID tends to mean February is a busy month for me, so please forgive a fairly brief reply!

 

The UK Safer Internet guidance on appropriate monitoring is really useful

 

They identify three of the most common types of monitoring:

• Physical monitoring aka adult supervision (this relies heavily on staff training and policy!)
  
• Internet and web access aka logfiles etc.
  
• Active/Pro-Active Monitoring
  

KCSIE 2016 says that schools need to have an approach towards monitoring that is appropriate to the school's specific needs. For example what is considered to be "appropriate" for a small rural primary with a only few laptops is likely to be very different to a large urban secondary with 1:1 devices or BYOD!

 

One of the main things I'd encourage is for Headteachers and leaders (including Governors) to be aware of the filtering and monitoring systems in place in their setting. What I sometimes find is that leadership staff occasionally have a very limited understanding about how filtering/monitoring actually works in the school and therefore they rely heavily on technical staff to answer questions. I'm hearing more and more often that Ofsted are beginning to challenge this practice as online safety (and therefore filtering and monitoring) is now clearly viewed as a safeguarding and leadership issue. I wouldn't expect school leaders to necessarily understand the finer technical details but they need to have a basic understanding and certainly the Designated Safeguarding Lead must be involved in monitoring and taking action if/when concerns arise. This could include working with the technical team to review logfiles on a regular basis (such as daily or weekly) or they are the nominated person to receive and take action based on reports generated by physical or active/pro-active systems.

 

Leaders need to be able to justify the decision making process they went through when deciding which solution was felt to be the best option. This would include issues relating to the age range of pupils, the number of pupils, the vulnerability of pupils (such as children with SEND, EAL etc.), how often pupils access the school IT system and the proportionality of costs vs risks. Budget is definitely a factor to consider however leaders must ensure that the welfare of children and young people is paramount at all times and this should be reflected in the decision making process.

 

The UK Safer Internet Centre guidance covers some of this in much more depth and leaders have told me that they found reading it to be really helpful when making decisions.

 

If the school has appropriate filtering in place, which is supported by robust systems to monitor internet use that are appropriate to the school's needs based on the above approach, then yes, it is quite possible that additional software may not be required.