Safeguarding: Online Safety Including Filtering and Monitoring

This blog is based on Judicium’s Safeguarding ‘Sofa Session’ from the 27th of September, with our resident expert Joanne Bocko. This session focused on what policies should include, what procedures should be in place, and what students, staff and parents should know.

Online risks 

Let’s first look at the risks online and the considerations we need to have in order to support students effectively with online safety.

Keeping Children Safe In Education refers to the 4 C’s, which staff should be familiar with. They are Content, Contact, Conduct and Commerce

Content

This is the risk of being exposed to illegal, inappropriate, or harmful content, i.e., pornography, fake news, racism, misogyny, self-harm, suicide, anti-Semitism, radicalisation, and extremism.

The risks vary between countries. A UNICEF Global Kids Report (referencing Albania, Bulgaria, Chile, Ghana, Italy, Philippines, South Africa and Uruguay) found the below percentages of content children were exposed to:

• Sexual content 33%
• Violent content 30%
• Hate speech 23%
• Self-harm content 18%
• Suicide content 15%

Contact 

The risk of being subjected to harmful online interaction with other users. This includes child-on-child abuse, commercial advertising, and scenarios where adults pose as children or young adults with the intention to groom or exploit them for sexual, criminal, financial or other purposes.

The State of the World Girls 2020 report surveyed over 14,000 girls and young women. It found that more than half of respondents had been harassed and abused online while 25% felt physically unsafe.

Conduct

This is online behaviour that increases the likelihood of, or causes, harm. For example, making, sending and receiving explicit images (e.g., consensual and non-consensual sharing of nudes and semi-nudes and/or pornography, sharing other explicit images and online bullying.

Commerce

Risks such as online gambling, inappropriate advertising, phishing and financial scams.

There are around 55,000 “problem” gamblers aged 11 to 16 in the UK, according to the National Audit Office, with a further 85,000 estimated to be at risk.

A 2019 Gambling Commission survey found 11% of 11- to 16-year-olds said they spent their own money on gambling in the past week.

Spoofing is another common online scam targeting teens. It involves scammers creating fake social media profiles to pose as an acquaintance, popular celebrity, or corporate brand. They trick users into sending them money, gain access to personal information, or spread malicious software onto the victim’s devices.

How can your policies combat these risks?

Online safety, and the school or Trust’s approach to it, should be reflected in the child protection policy. The policy should include appropriate filtering and monitoring on school devices and school networks. You may also prefer to have a separate Online Safety Policy.

Your policy should include:

• An outline and the administration of the school approach, governor oversight and references the 4C’s.
• The DSLs responsibility around online safety
• Acceptable use of technology (this may also be a separate policy)
• An outline of how the school supports parents to reinforce messaging at home
• Filtering and monitoring
• The curriculum and how online safety is taught, including SEND children
• Staff training
• Staff conduct

For Judicium safeguarding clients, we have template policies available and a policy review service. We can also offer one-off policy reviews for non-clients.

What does good parental engagement look like? 

We know that engaging parents with online safety can be difficult. Some parents may have an attitude that their children are more technically capable online, which may be true. However, a parent’s role in online safety is to support their children with the critical thinking skills needed to identify risks online.

It’s easy to become overwhelmed with the different apps and games available, but the risks of contact, content, conduct and commerce can apply across all. You don’t need to know the ins and outs of a game or app to know the potential risks.

Suggestions to engage parents in online safety:

Our suggestions:

• • Coffee drop-in mornings with parents on online safety.
  • Live demonstrations of apps and games to help parents understand the risk.
  • Supporting parents to have an awareness of PEGI ratings.
  • Transition events from primary to secondary.
  • Piggy backing online safety with parents evening, or school plays
  • Have the children deliver an online safety assembly to parents.
  • Have a parent’s drop-in session to engage in online safety with their children.
  • Conduct a survey with students and use the information as evidence to encourage parental participation.
  • Maximise local and national media to highlight a particular area of concern (ensuring you don’t mention names of trends, but general themes).
  • Utilise local organisations, including the police, for input.
  • Consider digital and online safety champions and panels.
  • Peer mentoring of older students with younger students (Studies show that children learn best from their peers and those with lived experience).

Some suggestions from the live session contributions:

• • NSPCC workshops
  • Offering food at the event
  • Weekly online safety updates on bulletins
  • Utilise a captive audience - updates before Christmas performances (and fits in well with new phones/devices)
  • Offer a competition or prizes
  • Ask classes to create skits that parents come to watch on IT safety
  • Podcast from the digital leaders
  • Using a display for online safety highlighting age rating for apps as a little guessing game (parents were very surprised)
  • A 'bring a parent' session where parents come to their child's class and the teacher does an e-safety session
  • Utilising children as Digital Ambassadors
  • Inviting a guest speaker to host a session
  • Engaging with fathers utilising topics with mutual interest such as gaming
  • Introduced a `Parent Matters Forum` with clear areas to focus such as online safety

Key points for Online Safety

1. Is online safety reflected as required in all relevant policies? If so, how?
2. Do policies contain all relevant information?
3. Has online safety been considered whilst planning the curriculum? Is it only covered in IT, or is it discussed across the wider curriculum?
4. Have teachers received appropriate training?
5. Does the DSL understand their role and responsibilities of in relation to online safety and filtering and monitoring?
6. Do governing bodies and trustees understand their responsibilities in relation to online safety?
7. How is your school engaging in online safety with parents?

Filtering and Monitoring

KCSIE has a strong focus on filtering and monitoring largely due to the death of Frankie Thomas, in which a child was able to access self-harm and suicide content on the school computers on the day she took her own life. The school incorrectly believed appropriate filters were in place. A review of this sad event prompted the DfE to provide schools with further guidance on filtering and monitoring Meeting digital and technology standards in schools and colleges.

KCSIE and Digital and Technology Standards provides with a full overview of the new expectations for schools around filtering and monitoring which I’ll detail for you now.

Identify and assign roles and responsibilities to manage your filtering and monitoring systems:

KSCIE states the DSL should take lead responsibility for safeguarding (including understanding the filtering and monitoring systems and processes in place).

Furthermore, Meeting digital and technology standards in schools states:

“A member of the senior leadership team and a governor, should be responsible for ensuring your filtering and monitoring standards are met.”

The general advice would be that filtering and monitoring falls under the lead role of the DSL, although some schools delegate this role to an alternative member of SLT.

NB: We recommend that if you delegate this responsibility, ensure the DSL still has a firm grasp on filtering and monitoring.

As per the recommendations, it stands to reason that filtering and monitoring should be the responsibility of your safeguarding Governor; however, there may be flexibility here.

Action To Takeaway:

• Ensure your school has allocated these responsibilities and it is shared with school staff and the wider Governing Board/Trustees.

Your filtering system should block harmful and inappropriate content, without unreasonably impacting reaching and learning.

Filtering is not a one size fits all system. You may source your filtering company and be led by them, but you need to consider your particular cohort and request edits to this where required:

• Is your setting a primary or secondary school? Filtering will vary depending on the age group and maturity of your students. Also, consider your year 7s access, vs your year 11s access.
• Are you confident that children can access support without unreasonably being blocked. For example, consider self-harm and anorexia.
• Are staff provided advice and access to release material, i.e., if the history teacher is covering WW2, can they access material on the Nazis without putting children at risk of radicalised material?
• How does filtering factor in students or staff bringing their own devices into school. NB: There will be limitations on your control for these devices.
• Have you also considered what languages are blocked? If your school has students who are EAL, do the systems protect these children?

But if your school’s filtering system is great, is there anything you should be worried about?

As good as your filtering systems might be, you must be mindful that they might not be able to block everything. Filtering shouldn’t replace honest and supportive conversations with students about risk online.

Action to Takeaway:

• Review your filtering system.
  • What is blocked? (Many companies will use IWF list on blocked search terms)
  • Is this appropriate for your school, year group? Is this tailored or do you have a blanket approach? Can you justify this?
  • Have you considered contextual risks? A local hate group, a recent crime involving someone from the school, or students with additional needs?

Have effective monitoring strategies that meet the needs of your school.

Consider what is monitored in your setting:

• search words
• emails
• live chat

What is sufficient for you and what do you need to be mindful of? (include staff too).

How is monitoring achieved? Some systems will allow you to control and view children’s devices live, while others produce a report.

How often do you receive a report? Is this set to daily, weekly, or monthly? Choose an appropriate timescale for your setting and the appropriate person to receive this report.

We recommend your full safeguarding team receive any reports, because it is not guaranteed that your IT team will have the sufficient safeguarding knowledge to make a risk judgement on a child’s search. 

Have you considered who receives the report when the designated recipient is off sick? Ensure relevant people still receive the report.

Also, is your report understandable? A report that is difficult to decipher is not of much use. If this is the situation, you may need to have a conversation with your provider.

The main considerations for schools regarding monitoring are:

• Your school should receive an URGENT alert where a child searches for harmful content (such as suicide and self-harm) so this can be acted upon immediately.
• With regards to identifying a student at risk, can you identify a specific student, or is this a wider year group? Consider what is appropriate for your setting.

Action to Takeaway:

• Ensure you and your Governing Board are confident in your monitoring decisions, e.g., frequency, effectiveness, and staff responsibilities.
• Check all staff who are set to receive reports receive them
• Ensure staff and Governors are confident that if a child searched for inappropriate content, you would be alerted immediately.

Review your filtering and monitoring provision annually at a minimum.

As is the guidance is new for everyone, we suggest reviewing systems more frequently at present to ensure they are working appropriately and to amend, adjust and improve as children use devices in your school. NB: You should also consider a review should a safeguarding risk be identified.

You may want to test filters. If so, we recommend you make colleagues aware if you are searching for inappropriate content, and record any tests you complete. Also, consider checking across several student accounts as each may have different access.

Programs we recommend for checking your filtering is working:

• The SWGFL provides an internet filter tool to support you - Test Your Internet Filter | SWGfL Test Filtering.

Action to Takeaway:

• Consider when you will review your systems and how you will do this?
• Consider including filtering and monitoring in your report to your Governing Board.

Additional recommendations (including both mandatory and best practice).

• Training- The safeguarding team, school staff and Governors should know what filtering and monitoring systems you have, generally how it works, and what to do if they have any concerns.
• Is your safeguarding recording system set up to appropriately categorise any incidents of filtering breaches or monitoring alerts so incidents can be reviewed, and trends identified.
• Dedicate some time to reading Filtering and Monitoring Standards for Schools and Colleges to ensure your school has fulfilled the criteria.
• Ensure your Governing Body is aware of the guidance and can provide appropriate strategic challenge.
• Ensure your policies and procedures reference filtering and monitoring where appropriate.

5 Top Tips 

1. Get to grips with your 4 C’s.
2. Assign roles and responsibilities.
3. Consider filtering requirements for your particular setting.
4. Ensure your monitoring system alerts you to risks urgently.
5. Review your systems regularly.

You can follow us on Twitter: @JudiciumSG       @JudiciumEDU

If you’d like to review Judicium’s forthcoming sofa sessions please click here

© This content is the exclusive property of Judicium Education. The works are intended to provide an overview of the sofa session you attend and/or to be a learning aid to assist you and your school. However, any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form is prohibited. You may not, except with our express written permission, distribute or exploit the content. Failure to follow this guidance may result in Judicium either preventing you with access to our sessions and/or follow up content.