Underneath are two separate examples. One is about work experience and the other is about the poor hygiene standards in a large percentage of our schools. Ofsted only inspects the learning aspects and not the whole school. I believe buildings and hygiene should be part of there inspection in order to ensure high standards and well maintained buildings.
I respect the teaching profession immensely and agree it can be a difficult career. However, I feel education has lost its way, driven by targets and money. Please read with an open mind and start to question what your schools provide for your child. Education should be the whole package, learning, respect, dignity, a caring environment and not forgetting one of the most important things building confidence.
Sunday, 24 July 2011
Work Experience is supposed to promote self confidence! Not so in this case.
Below is a response back to the work experience co-ordinator from the parents of a year 10(15 year old) student who had their first work experience in July this year. It was undertaken at a Primary School and highlights what surely is poor practice. Any thoughts and opinions welcomed.
StudentX completed his work experience at SchoolX on the 1st July and was quite upset with the comments made by the class teacher on his report. In it is she states that StudentX was uncomfortable around children and that his conduct was poor.
Please click on image/Doc above to enlarge
When StudentX arrived home on the Monday he was extremely upset with an incident that had taken place in the class that day. He reported that during the day the children had a P.E class and that they had been getting changed in the classroom. One of the children called his name and when he turned around one of the female children was completely naked. This behaviour shocked StudentX and he thought that the Teacher would intervene in the situation. He reports that nothing was said to the child at the time and the incident passed without comment to either the child in question or StudentX. It has to be remembered that although on work placement the safety of both children here is paramount and it is the responsibility of the staff present. StudentX reports that a staff member did speak to him some time after the incident about the importance of both his and the child’s safety and not to let the children hug him or be tactile. StudentX mentioned about the little girl getting naked and the member of staff who never introduced herself to StudentX said, “Children do that this day and age!” and laughed it off. This incident impacted on StudentX’s confidence and would have benefited from more discussion and support from members of staff. We discussed the incident with StudentX at home and tried to boost his confidence by telling him to talk to the staff if he felt uncomfortable. He then reported that he saw some members of staff and work experience students hugging the children and was totally confused at this stage.
The rest of the week passed without further incident we thought as StudentX did not say what was happening however, StudentX reports now that staff did not involve him in their conversations and never asked him how he felt the week was going or if he had any concerns. On the last day he was not asked to be involved in the carnival that they had been working on all week and was told to sit with the parents. The rest of the students doing work experience was asked to join in with the class and actively participated in the show. This again impacted on StudentX confidence and he felt shut out and very isolated.
StudentX was not involved in any discussion with the teacher when they completed the employers report and was very upset with the comments made. Work experience is designed to involve the student and boost their confidence. In this instance it did neither. I can understand how StudentX can sometimes seem uncomfortable however, at fifteen a lot of adolescents can be self conscious. I do not feel the comments made in the report reflect StudentX’s character. I am at a loss to understand how they can report his conduct was poor as I am sure anyone who knows StudentX will know they are always polite and good mannered. I also do not understand how the class teacher can write the employers report without doing it jointly with the student in order to evaluate how the student has found the placement.
On reading the report the comments made are not written as constructive criticism and do nothing to find anything positive about the placement. It has to be remembered that this is written by a professional and therefore they should have the necessary skills to do this properly.
I wanted to bring this to you attention as work experience is all about building confidence in our children who are soon to be entering the world of work. I feel if StudentX had been spoken to by members of staff or at least involved in evaluating the week through discussion when completing the employers report then he would have had some benefit.
StudentX successfully completed another work experience within another Primary School where he was encouraged to develop his confidence within a supported environment . However, the first work experience was never addressed with the school in question and the complaint was not upheld by the work experience co-ordinator due to what may have been 'educational or school solidarity'?
StudentX completed his work experience at SchoolX on the 1st July and was quite upset with the comments made by the class teacher on his report. In it is she states that StudentX was uncomfortable around children and that his conduct was poor.
Please click on image/Doc above to enlarge
When StudentX arrived home on the Monday he was extremely upset with an incident that had taken place in the class that day. He reported that during the day the children had a P.E class and that they had been getting changed in the classroom. One of the children called his name and when he turned around one of the female children was completely naked. This behaviour shocked StudentX and he thought that the Teacher would intervene in the situation. He reports that nothing was said to the child at the time and the incident passed without comment to either the child in question or StudentX. It has to be remembered that although on work placement the safety of both children here is paramount and it is the responsibility of the staff present. StudentX reports that a staff member did speak to him some time after the incident about the importance of both his and the child’s safety and not to let the children hug him or be tactile. StudentX mentioned about the little girl getting naked and the member of staff who never introduced herself to StudentX said, “Children do that this day and age!” and laughed it off. This incident impacted on StudentX’s confidence and would have benefited from more discussion and support from members of staff. We discussed the incident with StudentX at home and tried to boost his confidence by telling him to talk to the staff if he felt uncomfortable. He then reported that he saw some members of staff and work experience students hugging the children and was totally confused at this stage.
The rest of the week passed without further incident we thought as StudentX did not say what was happening however, StudentX reports now that staff did not involve him in their conversations and never asked him how he felt the week was going or if he had any concerns. On the last day he was not asked to be involved in the carnival that they had been working on all week and was told to sit with the parents. The rest of the students doing work experience was asked to join in with the class and actively participated in the show. This again impacted on StudentX confidence and he felt shut out and very isolated.
StudentX was not involved in any discussion with the teacher when they completed the employers report and was very upset with the comments made. Work experience is designed to involve the student and boost their confidence. In this instance it did neither. I can understand how StudentX can sometimes seem uncomfortable however, at fifteen a lot of adolescents can be self conscious. I do not feel the comments made in the report reflect StudentX’s character. I am at a loss to understand how they can report his conduct was poor as I am sure anyone who knows StudentX will know they are always polite and good mannered. I also do not understand how the class teacher can write the employers report without doing it jointly with the student in order to evaluate how the student has found the placement.
On reading the report the comments made are not written as constructive criticism and do nothing to find anything positive about the placement. It has to be remembered that this is written by a professional and therefore they should have the necessary skills to do this properly.
I wanted to bring this to you attention as work experience is all about building confidence in our children who are soon to be entering the world of work. I feel if StudentX had been spoken to by members of staff or at least involved in evaluating the week through discussion when completing the employers report then he would have had some benefit.
StudentX successfully completed another work experience within another Primary School where he was encouraged to develop his confidence within a supported environment . However, the first work experience was never addressed with the school in question and the complaint was not upheld by the work experience co-ordinator due to what may have been 'educational or school solidarity'?
Friday, 8 April 2011
my Blog
I have started this blog to try and share some of my experiences and shed some light on the dire condition of the toilets that our children are forced to endure when at school.
I have been trying to get answers since 2008 but have been blocked at every turn. I would like to point out that nobody broke any laws here, I have since found out that many of the regulations in our schools are not legally binding, merely guidelines with the final decision made by the principle and chair of governors.
I took up the position of Cleaning Supervisor/Assistant Caretaker at School X on 29th September 2008 and felt that I had no choice other than to resign on 10th June 2009. I had previously held a Classroom position in other educational establishments for 12 years so it was not an easy decision to leave the job after such a short time.
Hope you take the time to read my blog or scan it. It an honest account.......
Thank you R(-:
Lead life by conscience..
I have been trying to get answers since 2008 but have been blocked at every turn. I would like to point out that nobody broke any laws here, I have since found out that many of the regulations in our schools are not legally binding, merely guidelines with the final decision made by the principle and chair of governors.
I took up the position of Cleaning Supervisor/Assistant Caretaker at School X on 29th September 2008 and felt that I had no choice other than to resign on 10th June 2009. I had previously held a Classroom position in other educational establishments for 12 years so it was not an easy decision to leave the job after such a short time.
Hope you take the time to read my blog or scan it. It an honest account.......
Thank you R(-:
Lead life by conscience..
Monday, 28 March 2011
Part 6: It didn't take me long to realise...
Immediately after starting my post I realised that the condition of the school toilets was well below what I would have expected. I started to report issues via the communications system set up within the school but nothing was being done. By 21st November 2008 I had had enough of being ignored and decided to put my reports in writing. Here is an extract of the email I sent to the Premises Manager and the Senior Site Officer of School X:
‘I reported over the past 6 weeks or more to you that some of the children’s toilets are in need of repair and also the male staff one at the lower site (....)
1. Girls – toilets. One toilet is out of action and from what I have been told has been since April 2008. Two hot water taps are not working and also some of the toilet seats need refitting or possibly replacing.
2. Boys – toilets. One possibly two toilets are loose from the floor and move. More than one toilet seat are loose etc or again may need replacing. One urinal is loose and broken, appears to have been broken or fitted incorrectly? It appears not to be flushing correctly.
3. Male staff toilets have one unstable toilet and both need new toilet seats
4. Please can the children toilets have replacement lockable toilet roll holders?
Upper site -
I do have some issues with this site with the cleaning, particular the children’s toilets. There are some broken toilet seats which again need to be replaced or fixed.’
As you can see from the email, there were very few lockable toilet roll holders in the children’s toilets, there were a large number of toilet seats that required replacing and one of the girls toilets had been out of order for at least 7 months. Perhaps most shockingly however at least three toilets and one urinal were actually loose from the floor and moving – surely a risk to the children?
The lack of toilet roll holders resulted in the toilet rolls being put down the toilet or thrown across the floor meaning the children often had access to no clean toilet roll – not very encouraging when hygiene and continence are such important issues for our children. When new ones were finally purchased they were not really robust enough for school but were better than nothing, however after a few weeks they’d still not been fitted, when I asked why I was told that they were awaiting bolts to fit them but that there was no money to buy them. I am unsure as to whether that was true or not. Tired of finding toilets everyday without usable toilet roll I eventually purchased the bolts out of my own pocket- only then were the holders fitted.
I was satisfied that this had finally been resolved however it was the only issue that I had reported that had been. I had reported broken or missing soap dispensers which had also been ignored despite being outlined as a requirement in the 2009 H&S Act which came into force due to the Swine flu. Any establishment must provide adequate hand washing facilities.
I was also surprised to find that regulations stipulate that for over 5’s only 1 toilet per 20 students is required, with there being so few toilets you would think that it would be more of a priority to maintain them to a high standard.
While I was at School X one of the urinals was removed, I was told that it was not going to be replaced and would instead be used as a storage room – I was also told by the senior site officer that the remaining ’18.5’ were enough (apparently a urinal makes up the .5!) however with the girls toilet having been out of order since April 2008 does it not take it down to 17.5 and therefore under the quota? – I highlighted these points in a letter to a political figure however was told that while they were also shocked, there was no political gain for them in pursuing such an issue
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
I received a letter from my MP...
This is a letter which was written by the MP with regards to the issues I had raised.
15th April 2010
Dear R
Please note during the dissolution of Parliament there are no MP’s until after the General Election on the 6th May. However, I have written to Cllr. X regarding your documents and have asked if whether CllrX wishes to add anything further to your concerns.
Yours sincerely
MP.
...............................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................
Well, read what you like into this! - I did!
Please scroll down and read...
Please scroll down and read...
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Part 5: To CRB or not to CRB...
During my time at School X another issue of concern came to light – CRB checking of contract cleaners. School X have a number of cleaners who are employed by a company rather than the school. I raised a concern about these contracted cleaners when I went to lock up the school site I was nearly always confronted with a new face. I requested from my Line Manager a list of who they were and how many people were on site. The main concern was if they were C.R.B checked, and who was on site in case of emergency. I never received a response. While I was trying to get answers about the toilet facilities in schools I asked about CRB checking for contract staff, again here are some extracts from that correspondence:
(Email between myself, Nickie Brander (ERIC) and a Children’s Safeguarding Policy Officer)
‘Below is the reply I got from X of the Children's Safeguards Policy Unit. It would appear that it is good practice rather than mandatory for contracted cleaners to be CRB checked.(....)
Nickie’
‘In terms of cleaners in schools, as best practice we would expect them to have a CRB check. The issue of whether or not they legally require a CRB check depends on their employment status. If they are directly employed by a school then they are classed as school staff and are legally required to have CRB checks.
If however they are supplied by a contractor, then the requirement for a CRB check should be built into the contract. It would be best practice for contract managers to build in a requirement to have CRB checks done
A copy of the guidance is available to download at www.teachernet.gov.uk/childprotection
Paragraph 4.75 of this guidance, headed PFI and Other Contractors states that “PFI contract staff , for example caretakers and catering staff, must be checked by the contractor in the same way as school employees (i.e. including a CRB Disclosure), and such requirements form part of the contract.
The outcome of such checks must be notified to the local authority. The contractor is also responsible for ensuring that the same procedures are followed by any sub contractors. The contractor must provide the local authority with a list of its direct employees and those of any sub contractors at least 20 working days before they start work on site.”
If cleaners have not been recruited following safer recruitment principles then school managers should ensure that they are not left on their own with children.’
Dear X - of the Children's Safeguards Policy Unit
After considering your response I came to the conclusion that governing bodies like yourselves appear out of reach and completely out of touch. In order to fully perceive the potential child protection and safeguarding risks it may be an idea to do some surprise school visits.
Contracted Cleaning companies who are employed to clean any establishment, schools and factories etc are trusted to show good practice. It appears by your statement that it is not mandatory for them to carry out CRB checks on their staff. These companies run on turnover and as such may not be interested in “good practice” but saving time, cutting corners and making profits. (....)
As both a parent and a member of staff I feel that children have a right to well maintained and hygienic toilets. Maintenance and cleaning staff should be trained properly and know the regulations that are required. All persons coming into contact with children should have a completed CRB check.
Yours Sincerely
R
‘Dear R
We would expect all staff newly employed in schools to have an enhanced CRB Disclosure as required by the School Staffing (England) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2006. Staff supplied under cleaning contracts for schools should undergo appropriate checks, including an enhanced CRB Dislosure if the nature and hours of work mean that they come into contact with children. Guidance on background checks for school staff and contractors is set out in Chapter 4 of Safeguarding Children and Safer Recruitment in Education which came into force in January 2007.
A copy of this guidance can be downloaded from www.teachernet.gov.uk/childprotection.
We would also expect all schools to maintain a clean and hygienic environment for children and staff in line with their responsibility to safeguard and promote welfare, either under health and safety requirements or under the requirements of section 175 of the Education Act 2002.
Yours sincerely,
X
CHILD PROTECTION DIVISION’
(Email from Nickie Brander)
‘I’ve had a look at this link www.teachernet.gov.uk/childprotection. and the most appropriate sections are 4.23 and 4.75. 4.23 specifically mention contract cleaners but say they don’t need CRB clearance if they work before/after school when they don’t come into contact with the children. If they do, then the contractor is also responsible for ensuring the same procedures for CRB checks are followed out by any sub-contractors. You might want to bring these to the attention of the LA’
It causes me huge concern that contract cleaners do not legally have to be CRB checked as they are not employed directly by the school. Even the after hours cleaners can easily come into contact with children attending after school clubs or events, and even if they don’t then they still have access to potentially delicate information contained within the school.
(Email between myself, Nickie Brander (ERIC) and a Children’s Safeguarding Policy Officer)
‘Below is the reply I got from X of the Children's Safeguards Policy Unit. It would appear that it is good practice rather than mandatory for contracted cleaners to be CRB checked.(....)
Nickie’
‘In terms of cleaners in schools, as best practice we would expect them to have a CRB check. The issue of whether or not they legally require a CRB check depends on their employment status. If they are directly employed by a school then they are classed as school staff and are legally required to have CRB checks.
If however they are supplied by a contractor, then the requirement for a CRB check should be built into the contract. It would be best practice for contract managers to build in a requirement to have CRB checks done
A copy of the guidance is available to download at www.teachernet.gov.uk/childprotection
Paragraph 4.75 of this guidance, headed PFI and Other Contractors states that “PFI contract staff , for example caretakers and catering staff, must be checked by the contractor in the same way as school employees (i.e. including a CRB Disclosure), and such requirements form part of the contract.
The outcome of such checks must be notified to the local authority. The contractor is also responsible for ensuring that the same procedures are followed by any sub contractors. The contractor must provide the local authority with a list of its direct employees and those of any sub contractors at least 20 working days before they start work on site.”
If cleaners have not been recruited following safer recruitment principles then school managers should ensure that they are not left on their own with children.’
Dear X - of the Children's Safeguards Policy Unit
After considering your response I came to the conclusion that governing bodies like yourselves appear out of reach and completely out of touch. In order to fully perceive the potential child protection and safeguarding risks it may be an idea to do some surprise school visits.
Contracted Cleaning companies who are employed to clean any establishment, schools and factories etc are trusted to show good practice. It appears by your statement that it is not mandatory for them to carry out CRB checks on their staff. These companies run on turnover and as such may not be interested in “good practice” but saving time, cutting corners and making profits. (....)
As both a parent and a member of staff I feel that children have a right to well maintained and hygienic toilets. Maintenance and cleaning staff should be trained properly and know the regulations that are required. All persons coming into contact with children should have a completed CRB check.
Yours Sincerely
R
‘Dear R
We would expect all staff newly employed in schools to have an enhanced CRB Disclosure as required by the School Staffing (England) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2006. Staff supplied under cleaning contracts for schools should undergo appropriate checks, including an enhanced CRB Dislosure if the nature and hours of work mean that they come into contact with children. Guidance on background checks for school staff and contractors is set out in Chapter 4 of Safeguarding Children and Safer Recruitment in Education which came into force in January 2007.
A copy of this guidance can be downloaded from www.teachernet.gov.uk/childprotection.
We would also expect all schools to maintain a clean and hygienic environment for children and staff in line with their responsibility to safeguard and promote welfare, either under health and safety requirements or under the requirements of section 175 of the Education Act 2002.
Yours sincerely,
X
CHILD PROTECTION DIVISION’
(Email from Nickie Brander)
‘I’ve had a look at this link www.teachernet.gov.uk/childprotection. and the most appropriate sections are 4.23 and 4.75. 4.23 specifically mention contract cleaners but say they don’t need CRB clearance if they work before/after school when they don’t come into contact with the children. If they do, then the contractor is also responsible for ensuring the same procedures for CRB checks are followed out by any sub-contractors. You might want to bring these to the attention of the LA’
It causes me huge concern that contract cleaners do not legally have to be CRB checked as they are not employed directly by the school. Even the after hours cleaners can easily come into contact with children attending after school clubs or events, and even if they don’t then they still have access to potentially delicate information contained within the school.
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
BBC News
I understand that Wales have had issues with hygiene/building maintenance in their schools for many years and found this news story very interesting –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11420825
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11420825
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)