10 - KCSIE Guidance Ignored — Even by Those Tasked with Enforcing It

A statutory safeguarding document intended to protect students and guide staff conduct was misunderstood, and in key areas ignored, by the very people at Bury College tasked with enforcing it, a recent employment tribunal has revealed.

At the centre of the case is Keeping Children Safe in Education 2023 (KCSIE), statutory guidance issued by the Department for Education and binding on all schools and colleges in England. Its aim is to create safe environments for children, while also establishing fair and proportionate responses to concerns about staff behaviour.

But during the tribunal, Bury College’s Deputy Principal and disciplinary chair, Becky Tootell, admitted under cross-examination that she was unaware KCSIE requires concerns that do not meet the “harm threshold” to be handled through a low-level concerns policy.

Even more troubling was the conduct of Sarah Walton, the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), who also failed to initiate the low-level concerns process. Walton had earlier referred the case to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), but when the LADO concluded that the harm threshold was not met, the matter should, under KCSIE, have been downgraded and managed informally.

Instead, it was escalated to formal disciplinary action without explanation.

The failure to follow KCSIE wasn’t theoretical. It had real consequences. A long-serving teacher was suspended, investigated, and dismissed, all for behaviour that, under statutory guidance, should have been handled with internal support or reflection rather than punishment.

The Claimant’s representative says “KCSIE 2023 contains the framework for how schools and colleges manage staff conduct fairly and proportionately. If the DSL and Deputy Principal don’t understand it, then who at the College does?”

Compounding the issue, the DSL admitted at tribunal that she knowingly used the same offensive term with the same student, behaviour that should have triggered a concern. Yet her own conduct was not recorded, reviewed, or even discussed as a safeguarding matter.

The tribunal must now consider whether this lack of awareness of statutory guidance, from those in senior safeguarding roles, contributed to a fundamentally flawed disciplinary process.

Observers say the case highlights a deeper concern: that schools and colleges may be quick to enforce discipline, yet ill-equipped to follow the very rules designed to keep their processes fair.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Headlines: What the Tribunal Really Showed About Bury College’s Case

Recent local coverage of the unfair dismissal tribunal involving a Bury College lecturer painted a simplified picture: a teacher used the “R-word” in class, the College acted, and a tribunal found the dismissal unfair only because of procedural flaws. But the deeper reality is more complex and far more troubling for the College’s credibility. [original article here:  Bury Times ]   Shifting Student Accounts The central complaint was not consistent. The initial allegation from Student B was that the maths lecturer had called the entire class “retards.” Later, she changed her account to say he had called just her the word. Still later, the complaint shifted again; now alleging he had called a different student, and then two students. Such shifting accounts should have raised immediate questions about reliability. Instead, the College treated the complaint as fact. Credibility of the Complaint Serious questions also arise about the credibility of the original complaint....
Read more

38 - Bury College Principal Endorses DSL’s Use of the Word “Retard”

Bury College Principal, Charlie Deane, has openly supported the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), Sarah Walton, after she repeated the word “retard” directly to a student with a learning disability. This position is remarkable given the College’s own characterisation of the word. In formal proceedings, the College has described “retard” as “offensive,” “derogatory,” “inappropriate,” “bullying,” “harassing,” “alienating,” “hateful,” “unacceptable,” “not used in society,” “a hate crime,” “a disgusting word,” and “linked to a protected characteristic.” The College also acknowledged that its use would cause damage to a student. Despite this, when Walton repeated the word to a vulnerable learner, she faced no sanction, no criticism, and was instead fully supported by Deane. By contrast, another member of staff who repeated the word in a classroom context was vilified and dismissed. Deane’s backing of Walton exposes a troubling double standard. If the word is so damaging tha...
Read more

08 - Safeguarding Lead at Bury College Repeated Harmful Language to Student, Tribunal Hears

The Designated Safeguarding Lead at Bury College admitted to repeating a derogatory slur to a vulnerable student, despite knowing it could cause harm, according to evidence heard at a recent employment tribunal. Sarah Walton, the College's safeguarding lead, made the admission under cross-examination while giving evidence in a three-day hearing concerning the dismissal of a former staff member. The former employee had been dismissed for gross misconduct after allegedly using the word "retard" in a classroom context. Ms Walton told the tribunal that she repeated the slur during a phone call with Student A, a student with a recognised learning disability, so the student would "know exactly what word" she was referring to. When pressed, she accepted that her use of the word could cause the same harm as when the dismissed teacher had used it. However, unlike the Claimant, no disciplinary action was taken against Ms Walton. Her conduct was not investigated, cri...
Read more