A serious post on a serious subject for a change.
Let's make a couple of things clear from the start. I'm a teacher, I have regular Criminal Records Bureau checks, I think CRB checks are, in the circumstances that they were originally intended for, necessary, useful and important things. I have, as I've said before, a few issues with the ways they are organised and administered but none whatsoever with their existence or their use.
Things are changing though. Over the last few months there has been a drip-drip-drip of stories coming through that have seriously undermined the whole CRB process.
First there was the story that writers, poets and anyone visiting schools would need to be CRB checked even if they were supervised for the whole time they were there. Personally I have no particulr problem with that, though many of the writers and poets seemed to, but it started the ball rolling on the stories.
Next came the story of the two women who looked after each other's children when they were on opposite shifts. They had been close friends for many years and trusted each other completely. They were, though it isn't actually relevent, in responsible jobs (as policewomen) in which they would already have been CRB checked. They were told that their arrangement was illegal and that in order to look after their friend's children they would need to be CRB checked as child-minders or to pay to put their children into nurseries to be looked after by strangers.
On the back of that we had a lot of press stories about how this approach to child safety meant that you can't look after your friends kids or your neighbour's kids for more than a very limited time each day, how kids sleeping over at a friend's house would be illegal, about how the rules, if applied in this way would put an end to school exchange trips and so on.
Earlier this week another new story came through. It was suggested that many more employed adults should be required to undergo enhanced CRB checks just in case they ever come in contact with children.
Now comes the news that Watford Borough Council has banned parents from entering play areas with their own children and that only council vetted "play rangers" will be allowed in to supervise the children's play.
This is an unpleasant and pernicious process of extending the scope of the CRB checks. Why don't we simply extend it to cover every adult? Why don't we set up enforced exclusion zones where every adult who fails a CRB check is forced to live segregated from any possible contact with children? Why don't we ban anyone who fails the check from becoming a parent and take the children away from any who already have them?
If you don't think the answer to those questions is obvious then heaven help us all. We don't do those things because they would be ridiculous, unworkable nonsense.
The problem is that these extensions to the scope of the CRB are just as ridiculous and unworkable. The checks are gradually encroaching into areas where they were never meant to be applied and the result is that with every new story they lose credibility. My CRB checks, and those of people like me, are important. I work in an environment that is full of children and vulnerable adults. It's important that I can be trusted with their welfare. These constant news stories undermine the value of the checks in the circumstances where they should be applied.
To suggest that you need CRB checks to look after your own kids is tantamount to suggesting that if you fail those checks you shouldn't be allowed to have the kids in the first place.
It's time to call a halt to the misapplication of the checks and the misinformation about them. Watford's case is basd on a misunderstanding of the law. Parents don't need and CANNOT get a CRB check because you can't apply for it yourself. Its applied for by your employer.
The whole scope and organisation of the CRB needs to be looked at. It needs to be returned to its original purpose of ensuring that people who routinely work with children and vulnerable adults can be trusted to do so. These oddball extensions need to be stripped away from it.
Common sense needs to prevail.
***
And that concludes this serious post. The frivolous stuff will be back soon.
Let's make a couple of things clear from the start. I'm a teacher, I have regular Criminal Records Bureau checks, I think CRB checks are, in the circumstances that they were originally intended for, necessary, useful and important things. I have, as I've said before, a few issues with the ways they are organised and administered but none whatsoever with their existence or their use.
Things are changing though. Over the last few months there has been a drip-drip-drip of stories coming through that have seriously undermined the whole CRB process.
First there was the story that writers, poets and anyone visiting schools would need to be CRB checked even if they were supervised for the whole time they were there. Personally I have no particulr problem with that, though many of the writers and poets seemed to, but it started the ball rolling on the stories.
Next came the story of the two women who looked after each other's children when they were on opposite shifts. They had been close friends for many years and trusted each other completely. They were, though it isn't actually relevent, in responsible jobs (as policewomen) in which they would already have been CRB checked. They were told that their arrangement was illegal and that in order to look after their friend's children they would need to be CRB checked as child-minders or to pay to put their children into nurseries to be looked after by strangers.
On the back of that we had a lot of press stories about how this approach to child safety meant that you can't look after your friends kids or your neighbour's kids for more than a very limited time each day, how kids sleeping over at a friend's house would be illegal, about how the rules, if applied in this way would put an end to school exchange trips and so on.
Earlier this week another new story came through. It was suggested that many more employed adults should be required to undergo enhanced CRB checks just in case they ever come in contact with children.
Now comes the news that Watford Borough Council has banned parents from entering play areas with their own children and that only council vetted "play rangers" will be allowed in to supervise the children's play.
This is an unpleasant and pernicious process of extending the scope of the CRB checks. Why don't we simply extend it to cover every adult? Why don't we set up enforced exclusion zones where every adult who fails a CRB check is forced to live segregated from any possible contact with children? Why don't we ban anyone who fails the check from becoming a parent and take the children away from any who already have them?
If you don't think the answer to those questions is obvious then heaven help us all. We don't do those things because they would be ridiculous, unworkable nonsense.
The problem is that these extensions to the scope of the CRB are just as ridiculous and unworkable. The checks are gradually encroaching into areas where they were never meant to be applied and the result is that with every new story they lose credibility. My CRB checks, and those of people like me, are important. I work in an environment that is full of children and vulnerable adults. It's important that I can be trusted with their welfare. These constant news stories undermine the value of the checks in the circumstances where they should be applied.
To suggest that you need CRB checks to look after your own kids is tantamount to suggesting that if you fail those checks you shouldn't be allowed to have the kids in the first place.
It's time to call a halt to the misapplication of the checks and the misinformation about them. Watford's case is basd on a misunderstanding of the law. Parents don't need and CANNOT get a CRB check because you can't apply for it yourself. Its applied for by your employer.
The whole scope and organisation of the CRB needs to be looked at. It needs to be returned to its original purpose of ensuring that people who routinely work with children and vulnerable adults can be trusted to do so. These oddball extensions need to be stripped away from it.
Common sense needs to prevail.
***
And that concludes this serious post. The frivolous stuff will be back soon.
4 comments:
A minor correction concerning the two policewomen, Bob. The issue wasn't that Ofsted said that they needed CRB checks, but that they should become registered childminders. In a sense, that's a much more bureaucratic procedure involving checks on their homes and a lot more.
The logic was that since they were looking after each other's kids on a sort of rota system they were asking for "payment in kind". That is a complete nonsense to my mind, and it might have been interesting if someone challenged such a contention in the courts.
Luckily Ed Balls, the Children's Minister, saw sense for once (although I suspect he was heavily influenced by the public outcry) and hastily said that the relevant act was never meant to include such instances.
What's your view on these constant stories - accurate or otherwise - about extensions to the CRB checks? Do you agree with me that they are undermining the original purpose of the system?
Also.
Surely they would have needed CRB checks to become registered childminders and as the check goes with the job not the applicant, the ones they had already for the police wouldn't have counted.
Thesae stories tend to be promulgated by those with a political agenda, like the Daily Mail.
There is, however, no doubt that some employers are misreading the rules for CRB checks. Acting on the (misguided) idea that they'd be better safe than sorry, they are asking for checks when in fact they are not required.
Post a Comment