Another "bad 'un" for Cressida?

[Nick_G]

From numerous family members who teach, both now and going back decades. I'll take their views over yours.

From that it's pretty clear that the police do not need to be involved because a pupil smells of cannabis!

The system really is broken. What an awful ordeal for that girl to go through. There seems to be a lack of empathy on display by some here.

 

[stevec67]

From that it's pretty clear that the police do not need to be involved because a pupil smells of cannabis!

The system really is broken. What an awful ordeal for that girl to go through. There seems to be a lack of empathy on display by some here.

It was indisputably an ordeal at the hands of the police. If you are suggesting I have a lack of empathy, no. What happened the girl was dreadful. However the teachers have a duty of care to all pupils,and they made a judgement. A wrong one, given what the police then did, but they weren't to know that at the time. As for "teachers have the right to search, using reasonable force if necessary" , good luck with that one. The teachers I know will absolutely not touch a child under any circumstances unless they are physically attacking another. If you would in their shoes, good luck. Make sure you join the union.

 

[Dogberry]

The parents believe the action was racist.

"Those who carried out the review were in agreement, concluding that racism was likely to have been an “influencing factor” in the strip search"
I find it difficult to believe the same scenario would
occur for a white girl pupil.

 

[paulfromcamden]

That's not the main takeaway I got from the report. ISTM the main cause was adherence to a set of rules that were out of date but worse, ambiguous.

I don't disagree. I don't think the teachers themselves are the issue here so much as poor guidance.

From the report:

1.2 Teachers told the review that on the day of the search they believed Child Q was smelling strongly of cannabis and suspected that she might be carrying drugs. On questioning Child Q, she denied using or having any drugs in her possession. A search of her bag, blazer, scarf, and shoes revealed nothing of significance.

1.3 Remaining concerned, teachers sought advice from the Safer Schools Police Officer. Due to the restrictions arising from Covid-19, this officer was not on site. He recommended that the school call 101 and ask for a female officer to attend.

1.4 A male and female officer subsequently arrived at the school, followed by another two officers (one of whom was also female). After discussions between the police and teachers, Child Q was escorted to the medical room. She was subsequently strip searched.

Perhaps we can say that the school ****ed up because of out of date ambiguous (and in my view inappropriate) procedures?

It would be interesting to see what changes have been made in the school but it's (understandably) not been named so hard to know.

 

[Seeker_UK]

I don't disagree. I don't think the teachers themselves are the issue here so much as poor guidance.

From the report:

1.2 Teachers told the review that on the day of the search they believed Child Q was smelling strongly of cannabis and suspected that she might be carrying drugs. On questioning Child Q, she denied using or having any drugs in her possession. A search of her bag, blazer, scarf, and shoes revealed nothing of significance.

1.3 Remaining concerned, teachers sought advice from the Safer Schools Police Officer. Due to the restrictions arising from Covid-19, this officer was not on site. He recommended that the school call 101 and ask for a female officer to attend.

1.4 A male and female officer subsequently arrived at the school, followed by another two officers (one of whom was also female). After discussions between the police and teachers, Child Q was escorted to the medical room. She was subsequently strip searched.

Perhaps we can say that the school ****ed up because of out of date ambiguous (and in my view inappropriate) procedures?

It would be interesting to see what changes have been made in the school but it's (understandably) not been named so hard to know.

Guidance that's been shared above is not the DfE guidance and, if the school only used the DfE guidance (which I assume to be the authoritative source), then it's very unclear on what the procedure should be once the search in bold turned up nothing.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...4416/Searching_screening_and_confiscation.pdf

The law from which the guidance comes from (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/chapter/II/crossheading/powers-to-search-pupils) states what sort of search may be conducted by teachers but doesn't state (or at least I can't see it) what to do in the event of the permitted search revealing nothing, but the teachers remain suspicious that a prohibited item is on the pupil's person. I guess at that point the only people allowed to conduct a more intimate search are police officers; it is possible that's the thought process the teachers in this incident followed.

 

[Cav]

From numerous family members who teach, both now and going back decades. I'll take their views over yours.

I think I would take the advice of the Police who printed the pamphlet...

 

[Seanm]

I don't disagree. I don't think the teachers themselves are the issue here so much as poor guidance.

From the report:

1.2 Teachers told the review that on the day of the search they believed Child Q was smelling strongly of cannabis and suspected that she might be carrying drugs. On questioning Child Q, she denied using or having any drugs in her possession. A search of her bag, blazer, scarf, and shoes revealed nothing of significance.

1.3 Remaining concerned, teachers sought advice from the Safer Schools Police Officer. Due to the restrictions arising from Covid-19, this officer was not on site. He recommended that the school call 101 and ask for a female officer to attend.

1.4 A male and female officer subsequently arrived at the school, followed by another two officers (one of whom was also female). After discussions between the police and teachers, Child Q was escorted to the medical room. She was subsequently strip searched.

Perhaps we can say that the school ****ed up because of out of date ambiguous (and in my view inappropriate) procedures?

It would be interesting to see what changes have been made in the school but it's (understandably) not been named so hard to know.

It’s a pretty clear demonstration of how embedding the police in schools criminalises schools. Having police around as part of the fabric of school life is bound to lower the bar on what qualifies as a police matter. The report notes repeatedly that the teachers deferred to the police in a way that compromised the safety of the child, and, wrongly, treated the incident in terms of criminality rather than safeguarding.

I don’t see where poor guidance comes into it, really. What is it that seems out of date and ambiguous to you? I take Seeker’s point about there being no guidance as to what to do if a search fails to reveal anything, but in my view that’s only a notable absence if the priority is proving a crime is being committed. If the priority is safeguarding the child then you’d simply use the ordinary range of actions available to teachers where they think serious rules have been broken or the child is at risk, such as calling a parent.

My focus is on the teachers because frankly I expect no better from the police. The report wasn’t designed to assign blame but it does make it very clear that teachers failed in their duty of care. The issue for me though is less their individual failings than the kind of institutional setting that allowed such terrible decisions - completely at odds with the basic ethics of teaching - to seem reasonable. I just can’t see it happening without the police being a much bigger presence in the daily life of the school than they should have been.

 

[Ginger]

https://www.churchillgroup.com/resources/news-insights/is-knife-crime-rising-in-uk-schools/

 

[Spraggons Den]

Flags, NATO, crush "the Trots". That's it from Team Starmer.

Not true. On R4 yesterday morning- Labour derided Johnson as an embarrassment running cap in hand from Dictator to Dictator in the middle east in his search for oil.

 

[droodzilla]

Not true. On R4 yesterday morning- Labour derided Johnson as an embarrassment running cap in hand from Dictator to Dictator in the middle east in his search for oil.

Indeed. He also said some half-sensible things about what Labour's energy policy might look like during his visit to Huddersfield yesterday.

Good. He is the leader of the opposition (clue's in the title). He should be hammering the Tories and - more importantly - setting out Labour's alternative vision all day, every day, not fighting a spiteful factional war within the party.

Starmer himself is a bland man, a creature of the establishment with no firm political convictions. The people advising him are among the most cynical shits in British politics - easily as bad as the Tories. Sorry, but I'm not voting for that.

 

[droodzilla]

To be fair to the police, they're great at doing the job they're paid to do:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60736583

A real show of strength there. Protecting the private property of wealthy individuals is clearly a top priority.

 

[Tony L]

In fairness the oligarch was probably a Tory donor.

 

[ks.234]

It’s a pretty clear demonstration of how embedding the police in schools criminalises schools. Having police around as part of the fabric of school life is bound to lower the bar on what qualifies as a police matter. The report notes repeatedly that the teachers deferred to the police in a way that compromised the safety of the child, and, wrongly, treated the incident in terms of criminality rather than safeguarding.

I don’t see where poor guidance comes into it, really. What is it that seems out of date and ambiguous to you? I take Seeker’s point about there being no guidance as to what to do if a search fails to reveal anything, but in my view that’s only a notable absence if the priority is proving a crime is being committed. If the priority is safeguarding the child then you’d simply use the ordinary range of actions available to teachers where they think serious rules have been broken or the child is at risk, such as calling a parent.

My focus is on the teachers because frankly I expect no better from the police. The report wasn’t designed to assign blame but it does make it very clear that teachers failed in their duty of care. The issue for me though is less their individual failings than the kind of institutional setting that allowed such terrible decisions - completely at odds with the basic ethics of teaching - to seem reasonable. I just can’t see it happening without the police being a much bigger presence in the daily life of the school than they should have been.

I would be more specific that ‘teachers’. Classroom teachers do not have the authority to call the police into a school, that would be down to the Head and or whoever is in charge of reporting concerns, usually a deputy head.

 

[Seanm]

I would be more specific that ‘teachers’. Classroom teachers do not have the authority to call the police into a school, that would be down to the Head and or whoever is in charge of reporting concerns, usually a deputy head.

Good point although I think this is on everyone who clocked what was going on and didn’t step in.

 

[flatpopely]

I thought the safeguarding lead would contact the LEA first with any concerns before calling the police.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

If she smelt of cannabis but there was none found, that might suggest her home environment involves exposure to cannabis and it's on her clothes. Surely that's a safeguarding risk the school shouldn't ignore?

 

[flatpopely]

If she smelt of cannabis but there was none found, that might suggest her home environment involves exposure to cannabis and it's on her clothes. Surely that's a safeguarding risk the school shouldn't ignore?

Agreed, but police first may not have been the correct protocol.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Agreed, but police first may not have been the correct protocol.

Yes, completely agree. My point is that if a permitted personal search drew a blank, but the smell was there, did nobody think it might have been on her clothes, before they decided to call the police for a strip search?

 

[Seanm]

Yes, completely agree. My point is that if a permitted personal search drew a blank, but the smell was there, did nobody think it might have been on her clothes, before they decided to call the police for a strip search?

The report says she was treated by school staff *as* the risk, rather than *at* risk. The suggestion is that she was criminalised before the police became involved. Actively involved, I should say. When police are embedded on site they’re always already involved.

 

[Andrew C!]

Agreed, but police first may not have been the correct protocol.

Are we aware of the schools intervention policy pertaining to this school, and the trigger conditions for the police needing to be informed?

In my old role I was responsible for this kind of community policing policy i.e. the paperwork describing thresholds etc, and ensuring reported incidents complied with this policy.