You may or may not have been aware, but the government announced plans this year to introduce a ‘vetting’ scheme, where all adults who had regular contact with children would have to undergo a criminal records check, to help ensure they weren’t a danger to the kids they were working with.
A lot of people were unhappy about this, with some children’s authors even announcing they would stop visiting schools all together, rather than go through the vetting process. Many of them acted as if the entire scheme had been set up solely to annoy authors, and it seemed they believed we should have some sort of immunity from being checked.
In the last few days, it has been announced that the scheme is to be watered down. Rather than applying to adults who potentially work with the same groups of children on a monthly basis, only those who work with the same group at least once a week need to be vetted.
This means that authors visiting schools do not need to be vetted, and this is being hailed as a ‘victory for common sense’ by some of those same authors who were protesting about the scheme.
But is it, though?
Like most people, I’m not a fan of needless bureaucracy, and I don’t relish the idea of forking out a fee so I can get a slip of paper telling me I’m not a danger to children. But I – along with many other authors I have spoken with on the subject – believed the vetting scheme was a good idea.
The big-name authors who were against the scheme argued that they have been visiting schools for years and have never been left alone with children in all that time. Well, I’ve been visiting schools for about six months and I have been left alone with children. Twice. I can’t believe for one second that I am the only author to have had this happen to them?
More importantly than that, though, when a school introduces someone to their pupils they are making the implication that the person they are introducing can be trusted. We warn our children not to talk to strangers, but once someone is in the classroom interacting with the children, they stop being a stranger.
Suddenly it becomes OK to talk to that person in the street. Suddenly there’s no danger in walking several hundred yards along a quiet street with that person after you bump into them in the library. Suddenly it’s fine to add that adult on Facebook or Bebo, to email them your home address so they can send you a signed copy of their latest book.
All those things above have happened to me. During one school visit I did, a six-year-old girl gave me detailed, step-by-step instructions on how to find her house, in the hope that I would go and talk to her four-year-old brother about Ben 10. Another author I know had a boy strike up a conversation with him in a public toilet, a few weeks after that author visited the boy’s school.
Kids are naturally trusting, and when a teacher introduces them to a new person they have no reason not to trust them. As a parent, I want to know that – where possible – any adult being introduced to my children as a ‘person of trust’ has undergone at least some basic background checks.
I laughed when I read a comment from one author that the vetting scheme should be abandoned because it couldn’t possibly catch out every dangerous person. Surely that’s like saying cars should be built without brakes because sometimes brakes don’t work? No scheme is foolproof, but one that works even 75% of the time is better than no scheme at all, surely?
If the original version of the Vetting and Barring scheme prevented even one child from being hurt or taken advantage of in some way, then in my mind it would have been worth it. Now, though, with this revised, watered down version, we’ll never get a chance to find out.
Related posts:
- Event-a-palooza Just got back from Kilchuimen Primary School in the Highlands,...
- 24 Years Later… 24 years, that’s how long it took. 24 years (give...
- Reading Partners Roadshow As mentioned in yesterday’s blog, I’ve been down in Newcastle...
- Abject failure and a favourite site And yet again I forgot to write a blog post...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
December 17th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I was the author in the toilet – actually, that sounds quite sleazy, so I’ll explain what happened…
On a family shopping trip to the supermarket, I nipped to the gents and, while standing there, a voice piped up, “Hello, Tommy Donbavand!”
Beside me was a boy of around 7 or 8 who I didn’t recognise at all – but (it turns out) was in one the classes I had worked with at a recent school event. He therefore believed he knew me well enough to chat to me in a public toilet.
The potential consequences of a similar situation with a less trustworthy adult don’t bear thinking about.
I shall still be applying for the vetting scheme. It’s in my own interests to have something to show the schools who book me.
December 20th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I work for an ambulance service and have been vetted for that work. I have also visited schools both to say “hello” and to attend patients.
My concern about the vetting process is that it shows very little. All it will show is if I have been convicted of an offence.
I could be committing that offence and be a danger to the children in a school and still pass the vetting process.
My concern is that the process will be seen as a panacea and remove some of the more practical obstacles that protect our children. An understanding of the risks.
I have a friend who is a children’s author, I have seen him working with children and I have seen, and responded, to posts to him from children.
Some of the children have posted enough information for me to be able to find them (should I be inclined). They do this because they know no better. They trust the teacher, that introduced my friend, and they trust my friend, because he has been introduced by a teacher. They have never met me.
And the fact that neither the teacher, my friend, or myself have been prosecuted does not mean we are not committing offences only that we have not been caught.
Children are smarter that they get credit for. Teach them to look after themselves, let them understand that real monsters look and talk just like the rest of us.
Some checks must be done and those convicted of some things must be kept away from our children but the best protection will only come from the children themselves.
December 20th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Thanks for the comment, Robin. For the most part I couldn’t agree more with what you’ve said. The only thing I would say is that asking a five-year-old to be responsible for their own safety is unrealistic. We, as adults, must do everything possible to reduce the risk of them coming into contact with anyone with malicious intentions.
As you say, there’s no way of eliminating that risk entirely – the vetting scheme would only catch those people with previous convictions – but at least that’ll mean those people don’t get the chance to freely work with children.
December 20th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
I suspect we are both using the same hymn sheet on this.
I agree with the vetting but it concerns me that it will be seen as the gold standard and therefore allow for a reduction in the education of risks.
A five year old will not understand all the risks but they understand a number of risks. For a number of years they have known that hot things are not good for you. They can have a basic understanding of not going with a stranger. The definition of a stranger need reinforcing occasionally and as they grow so can their understanding of risks.
Education will always offer the best protection and it will last a lifetime. That is true for all of us.
December 21st, 2009 at 10:32 am
We’re definitely on the same page on this, Robin. It is indeed a worry that people could potentially think that anyone who has passed the vetting is automatically ‘safe’ and 100% trustworthy. And yes, I think you’re probably right in that education + common sense + general awareness on behalf of teachers, parents and the children themselves is the only way to really minimize the risk of children being hurt or taken advantage of in some way.
And as you said on Twitter, regardless of the outcome of all this, the debate about it is very interesting indeed.