nikaso Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 So we've just had a safeguarding audit at school looking at all aspects of safeguarding including e-safety. We got a red warning because the auditor hopped on the headteachers PC and searched for the term 'beheadings' and got some returned results on Google, most of these links were then filtered but a couple took you to extremist sites. Its worth mentioning the headteacher has some of the highest access rights for filtering. This generated the following red action on the report: "System tested – not complaint firewall allowed “beheadings” search to be accessed by a member of staff. Governing body /SLT need to ensure that the school filtering and monitoring systems are fully compliant with expectations set out in Annex C of Keeping Children Safe in Education (DfE) 2016" Now first off it's nothing to do with the firewall but that's just a minor inaccuracy. What I am more concerned about is I can't find any mention in Annex C or even in the wider document about the same level of safeguarding/restrictions having to be applied to staff as well? Am I completely wrong?
mikeprice Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 Just tried that on our 'totally complaint with all regulations and advice' LEA filtered system search went through fine images etc came up as expected I suspect this will be the case on many systems
nikaso Posted September 26, 2017 Author Posted September 26, 2017 Our is also fully DfE compliant allegedly (Lightspeed)
mikeprice Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 could it be that the reference to Annex C is to do with the possibility that a child could see what is on a staff computer/login if it is in class however this would presumably not apply to the Head's computer. I have looked at Annex C - and you are right - there is no reference to what staff should have access to and what should be blocked from them
hallb15 Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 I think there is an issue here as much of the content of the document is guidance, not hard and fast rules, so is open to a degree of interpretation and judgement as to how far you take that guidance. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/550511/Keeping_children_safe_in_education.pdf For example, staff here are allowed access to youtube, but not children. Staff are told to pre-screen any youtube videos they want to use in lessons, however how many of them actually do that? What if an inappropriate video came up in the recommended videos feed at the end of a video? Fine if the staff member is in the staff room, not fine if they are in class with the video shown on the SMARTBoard... BTW The search term beheading is blocked here by default for everyone, we're using Surfprotect from Exa.
mikeprice Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 Out of interest - where did the safeguarding audit come from?? who did it and who triggered it thanks
nikaso Posted September 26, 2017 Author Posted September 26, 2017 Out of interest - where did the safeguarding audit come from?? who did it and who triggered it thanks It was requested by the school and was carried out by the head of LA safeguarding. I'm not sure what triggered it, I think it is just because we hadn't had one done for quite some time and the school wanted a health check.
PotNoodleTech Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 So what exactly does the "head teacher's level of internet access, on the head teachers PC, in the presumably locked head teachers office" have to do with "Annex C of Keeping Children Safe in Education (DfE) 2016"
TechMonkey Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 Sounds like the classic "Auditors gotta audit". Either challenge it with facts and proof and have it removed from the report or let it go, explain to the head that it is stupid and put it down as someone showing they are doing a worthwhile job. 1
nikaso Posted September 26, 2017 Author Posted September 26, 2017 So what exactly does the "head teacher's level of internet access, on the head teachers PC, in the presumably locked head teachers office" have to do with "Annex C of Keeping Children Safe in Education (DfE) 2016" Exactly, I can't find any reference saying we've got to safeguard staff in the same way as students anywhere. Whats worrying is this is meant to be a Local Authority safeguarding lead who presumably should know their stuff back to front...... Anyway, I am tightening up all our keyword block lists and applying it to everyone. I'm sure I'll have complaints from staff but I can point to the audit and say 'blame them!' .
jmak Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 So remind me, what happened to Henry VIII's wives? Presumably children in your LA will never find out... 4
PotNoodleTech Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 So remind me, what happened to Henry VIII's wives? Presumably children in your LA will never find out... Lol! Ouch! They may be lucky enough, like us, to still have a library stacked full of books!
Popular Post DJ-1701 Posted September 26, 2017 Popular Post Posted September 26, 2017 So remind me, what happened to Henry VIII's wives? Presumably children in your LA will never find out... Lol! Ouch! They may be lucky enough, like us, to still have a library stacked full of books! Divorced, Blocked, Died: Divorced, Blocked, Survived? 10
pete Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 Ours (SW) blocks "beheading" because it triggers the "Gore" regex. I suspect if you added context (Henry VIII, for example as above) it would let it through and just give you history results.
gshaw Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 Also ensure you have SSL inspection on for *everything* rather than the default on some filters that just decrypt categories like "Social Media", "Web Search" etc.
DJ-1701 Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 Also ensure you have SSL inspection on for *everything* rather than the default on some filters that just decrypt categories like "Social Media", "Web Search" etc. Word to the wise though, some websites don't seem to function correctly if they have SSL inspection enabled. For example, ones I have listed here Sites requiring bypass to SSL Interception - Blogs - EduGeek.net
nikaso Posted September 27, 2017 Author Posted September 27, 2017 Quick update, I have a call in with the Safer Internet Centre who were provided as an exemplar of what e-safety should look like. The person I initally spoke to agreed with me about the absence of a requirement for staff filtering but has escalated it to her manager who happens to be one of the people who wrote the Keeping Children Safe document for the Government! Should have a definitive answer from the horses mouth so to speak....... 4
beany1 Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 Hi @nikaso, did you get any further with this? Just had the same audit, Leeds too! 1
nikaso Posted October 19, 2017 Author Posted October 19, 2017 Hi @nikaso, did you get any further with this? Just had the same audit, Leeds too! Still going back and forth at the moment, Safer Internet agree it is a breach but have expressed concern some aspects of our filtering system. I'll update as I get more. For my part I have tightened up on keywords and getting a proxy put in to allow the https searches to be blocked as well 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now