More on KentOnline
More on KentOnline
Education bosses ruled a primary school failed to provide sufficient safeguarding measures, after a child was repeatedly bullied and subjected to "incidents of a sexual nature".
A Department for Education report recorded how a pupil at Holy Trinity Primary School in Gravesend had become increasingly distressed after a catalogue of alleged attacks and staff caused further distress by asking him to identify the bully in person, while standing in front of his class.
The mother of the child, who we have chosen not to identify, came forward to reveal the case after the school hit the headlines for introducing controversial plans to charge parents if they are late to pick their children up from school.
Her complaint - filed after a series of incidents in 2017 - led to an investigation by the Department for Education, who produced a report in 2019 stating the school had failed in its duty of care and demanding action be taken to ensure safeguarding procedures were adhered to.
The report outlined how the pupil's mother had become concerned her son had become reluctant to attend school in the first half of 2017, and he had suffered from nightmares and anxiety.
During the school holiday her son revealed that a pupil, referred to as Child A, had been "flicking" his penis, and that she had then informed school staff, said the report.
It added: "Staff confirmed that as other 'incidents of a sexual nature' had taken place at the school, pupils had recently been spoken to about their 'private parts'.
"(The victim's mother) stated she had not been informed of the previous incidents, or that (her son's) class would receive this talk."
Staff reportedly said the victim's disclosures were the result of 'confusion' surrounding the matter, but he went on to tell his mother of other occasions.
The victim reported he was followed into the toilet and touched inappropriately, said the report.
Staff then reportedly said no action could be taken unless the victim identified Child A, and his mother was assured this process would be done using photos.
But the report added: "Instead on June 15, 2017, staff asked (the victim) to identify the child in person, and in front of his entire class.
"(The victim) felt unable to do so, until another pupil mentioned the child's name.
"Child A allegedly had a history of behaving aggressively towards the victim."
The mother was then reportedly told no action would be taken as the incidents had not been witnessed.
Her son then made the further disclosure that Child A had threatened to "cut his willy off with a pair of scissors", which she reported but as no action was taken she withdrew her son from the school.
She then delivered a formal letter of complaint to the school, which she was told was being dealt with by the headteacher and chair of governors, but the school later stated they had no record of receiving her letter of complaint.
Summarising its findings, the Department for Education report stated the school had failed to discharge duties and failed to adhere to policy, and that remedial action should be undertaken.
Outlining the breach, it added: "No evidence has been provided to suggest staff completed a yellow 'cause for concern' form following any of (the victim's) disclosures.
"No evidence has been provided to suggest that staff informed the Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) of (the victim's) disclosures, considered whether he or other pupils were at immediate risk from Child A or considered whether Child A may have been at risk or suffering abuse themselves."
They said there was also no evidence to suggest the school's DSLs referred the matter to other agencies, recorded their decision making regarding the situation, or monitored the victim's and Child A' behaviour or appearance for any length of time.
And the report said it found the school had numerous opportunities to take appropriate action, and that a referral was only made to Kent County Council 15 months from the time of the victim's disclosures and 12 months after his mother's formal complaint
Even then, the referral was found to lack key information - including the name of Child A, that the victim had made separate disclosures, that the disclosures followed previous 'incidents of a sexual nature' and that Child A's behaviour was "sexualised, repeated over time, escalated in nature, and included the threat of physical violence."
The report listed "actions required", stating: "We require assurances from the governing body that all staff are reminded of their duties in terms of safeguarding the welfare of pupils, in line with arrangements set out in the school's safeguarding policy.
"We require the governing body to provide assurance that, in future, any disclosures staff receive will immediately be recorded on a yellow 'cause for concern' form, and the DSL will be informed."
"We acknowledge receipt of the report, the findings of which were also discussed to ensure the appropriate safeguards had been actioned and were effective"
Furthermore, in any such future cases, the school should consider the Kent Safeguarding Children Board threshold document and procedures, referring to other agencies as appropriate and recording its decision making and actions taken.
Assistant head teacher Louise Edwards said: "When we first became aware of the incidents relating to this particular complaint it was discussed by the school's safeguarding team and referred on to the safeguarding team at Kent County Council as is normal protocol.
"Appropriate safeguarding measures were then put in place to ensure the safety and well-being of all pupils going forward.
"We acknowledge receipt of the subsequent report, the findings of which were also discussed to ensure the appropriate safeguards had been actioned and were effective."
Read more: All the latest news from Gravesend
