16 - Safeguarding for Whom? When College Policies Protect Institutions Over People

Bury College’s handling of safeguarding procedures has come under sharp scrutiny following a recent employment tribunal that highlighted how the same policies meant to protect students and staff were used selectively and, some argue, to protect the institution rather than the individuals within it.

The College dismissed a long-serving teacher for gross misconduct, claiming his repetition of a student’s use of the word “retard” in class posed a safeguarding risk. Senior staff pointed to various policies, including Keeping Children Safe in Education 2023 (KCSIE), the College’s Code of Conduct, and its bullying and harassment procedures; all cited as justification for the dismissal.

But during the tribunal, the College’s own Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), Sarah Walton, admitted under cross-examination that she used the same word to the same student during a phone call. Even more concerning, she acknowledged knowing the word could cause harm but used it anyway.

Despite her position and her admission, Walton was not disciplined or even investigated. The word, described by the College as “offensive,” “humiliating,” and “derogatory” when used by the Claimant, was, in this context, brushed aside.

The Claimant’s representative says that this inconsistency goes beyond poor judgment; it reveals a safeguarding system applied in a fundamentally unequal way. When a safeguarding lead repeats the same harmful language and avoids scrutiny, it sends a clear message: safeguarding rules are not about what is said or done, but about who says or does it.

The College’s response to this contradiction was telling. Asked why the DSL’s conduct wasn’t treated as a safeguarding concern, witnesses pointed to “context”, claiming her use of the word occurred during an investigation. But KCSIE is clear: safeguarding isn’t suspended because of context; it is strengthened by caution, particularly when dealing with vulnerable students.

Even more striking, the College’s Deputy Principal admitted at tribunal that she was unaware KCSIE 2023 states that concerns not meeting the harm threshold should be handled through a low-level concerns policy, a core provision of the guidance. The policy is not optional; it is statutory.

Critics say this is where the real danger lies; in safeguarding practices weaponised against certain staff while quietly overlooked when senior leaders fall short. When policies designed to protect are applied unfairly, they become tools of exclusion, not safety.

As one education observer noted: “Safeguarding must never be selective. If it's about protecting children and creating safe environments, then it has to start with accountability at the top.”

The tribunal’s judgment is pending, but the College’s selective application of its own standards has already raised troubling questions about how safeguarding is understood and enforced.

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