Why we need a mandatory safeguarding qualification

“When we’re talking about safeguarding, we’re talking - in some circumstances - about life and death. So the fact that safeguarding in education hasn’t been recognised to the level of a qualification…it’s baffling.”

Heather Fowler, director of safeguarding at Endeavour Learning Trust, is reflecting on the reality that despite safeguarding being a vital part of the work schools do, there is no mandatory qualification a designated safeguarding lead should achieve for the role.

This is doubly surprising when you consider not just how important safeguarding is, but that the Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) guidance says DSLs (and any deputies) should undergo training for their role, and this training should be updated “at least every two years”.

Of course, there are numerous courses safeguarding leads can attend that cover plenty of the requirements.

But without a clear qualification to aim for and a framework around that, it means there can be huge variation in the standard of DSL training, Fowler explains.

“There is nothing [in KCSIE] about the length of that training or who has to deliver that training. Some local authorities will offer half a day’s training; others might offer a day; others offer two days - but that’s unusual. So, the quality of training is really inconsistent.”

• Guidance: The safeguarding disconnect affecting children and teachers
• Leadership: My week as...director of safeguarding at Endeavour Learning Trust
• Training: The 5 key priorities for the NPQ and ECF reviews

Dai Durbridge, a partner at law firm Browne Jacobson, which specialises in safeguarding, has also seen this issue. “There is inconsistency in quality, content, duration and cost [of training],” he says, adding that over the years, his school and trust clients have expressed “concern and disappointment with the standard of training”.

This inconsistency has consequences, Fowler says: “The outcome is children aren’t receiving the right support at the right time - so kids aren’t kept safe.”

For example, she says that as part of her role in a working group in Lancashire that looks at improving relationships between social care and education, she often audits many DSL referrals and sees clearly where some staff “haven’t necessarily had the appropriate training”.

Meanwhile, in her previous role working for a local authority, “sometimes I would have calls from [DSLs] when they really shouldn’t have been phoning me - they should have been phoning children’s social care or the police”.

At other times, “they would be involving statutory partners when there wasn’t actually a threshold met for that”.

The consequences of inconsistency

Jon Needham, director of safeguarding at Oasis Community Learning, also notes that the impact of a lack of standardised training can be seen in high-profile cases relating to youth violence or child sexual abuse, “which too often feature in child safeguarding practice reviews and the media when it goes wrong”.

He says that, given such cases, it seems strange that a mandatory qualification for safeguarding has never been created - especially as other areas of school provision do require a dedicated qualification.

“You have to do a Sendco qualification if you’re going to be a Sendco,” Needham says. “You have to do a national professional qualification if you’re going to be a headteacher. But the group of people who are looking after our most vulnerable - you can do any degree of training in it.”

Durbridge echoes this, saying the lack of consistency is particularly shocking given the seriousness of the DSL role. “Would parents be surprised to find out that the person making decisions about the wellbeing of their child has no such qualifications? Yes, I think they would be very surprised.”

So, what can be done? Well, a growing number of safeguarding leaders are calling for the introduction of a compulsory qualification.

“It should be absolutely mandatory that DSLs either have or are working towards that qualification, so schools are best placed to have a strong safeguarding culture,” says Fowler.

Anne Longfield, executive chair of the Centre for Young Lives, agrees, pointing out that “one in five referrals to children’s social care services is made by schools, second only to the police”.

Therefore, “a standardised safeguarding qualification…would give that extra support to teaching staff, ensuring they are equipped with the skills, latest knowledge and confidence to continue to keep children safe”.

An urgent matter

Durbridge adds that this matter is more urgent than ever, since the responsibility put on DSLs “has grown and grown” and “shows no sign of slowing down”.

This urgency is also apparent to Delyth Lynch, director of safeguarding at the independent school Wellington College, who says the DSL job description continues to lengthen, referring to the 2023 addition of guidance on online filtering and monitoring as one example. “Safeguarding has evolved so much over the past 15 years,” she says.

What’s more, the government has proposed education becoming a fourth statutory safeguarding partner - something Needham says means things must change.

“If we’re going to be seen as a significant player in that field, we’ve got to get a qualification that standardises what it means to safeguard in education.”

Professionalising the DSL role

Fowler says doing this would have numerous benefits, not least ensuring that “children would be safer, and families would be safer, and they would have the right level of support at an earlier stage”.

Meanwhile, Andy Goodwin, trust safeguarding and attendance lead at Education South West, says a qualification would give DSLs “greater confidence in the execution of their duties” and help drive up standards in the overall training given to those in the role.

Lynch agrees and says that standardising the required training would help increase the professionalisation of the DSL role. “Everyone already knows safeguarding is important. But it would raise the awareness of everybody in leadership and governance that it should be given due time to be done properly.”

‘Would parents be surprised that the person making decisions about the wellbeing of their child has no such qualifications? Yes’

A qualification could also promote the job more widely, she says: “It would elevate the role and might attract individuals from different sectors.”

Durbridge suggests, too, that a qualification could offer clearer career progression for DSLs. For example, the qualification could offer three tiers, including a standard level, a management level and a leadership level. This would help an individual envisage a “career pathway” in the role, which “will help with retention”, he says.

International perspective

Looking further afield, the introduction of such a qualification is also appealing to leaders of British international schools, where safeguarding is equally of utmost importance.

Robert Millar, principal of Shrewsbury International School Bangkok Riverside in Thailand and a member of the Tes Global Advisory Board, tells Tes that “anything that provides a standard benchmark for DSL training would be very useful”.

He adds that while the school is not required to follow UK standards, it would take note of a new qualification because “it is seen by our communities as a hallmark of quality to have a UK-recognised standard to work to”.

The NPQ model

While any such qualification would be new for the sector, Fowler points to the September 2024 introduction of the NPQ for Sendcos, which must be completed within three years of taking on the role, as a model that shows how it could be done.

“I would be really happy to see something like the NPQ for Sendcos introduced for safeguarding leads,” she says.

It’s a view shared by Nicola Law, director of safeguarding at Liberty Academy Trust. “It would make absolute sense with such an important role to have a similar expectation to undertake a statutory qualification within your first couple of years of stepping into that role.”

Children’s commissioner Rachel de Souza concurs, telling Tes: “There must be better support for DSLs with a qualification created, akin to…the qualification for Sendcos. This will ensure that every DSL has the knowledge, skills and confidence to respond effectively to the complex challenges they face in protecting children.”

Goodwin at Education South West adds his voice to this, too: “An NPQ that is similar to those that are available to other school roles would be a good place to start.”

However, not everyone agrees that an NPQ would be the way forward.

Hilary Spencer, CEO of Ambition Institute, a leading NPQ provider, says while she agrees there is a need for a mandatory qualification, she is “not sure there is enough content in safeguarding to fill an 18-month NPQ” - the standard length - at present.

“A safeguarding qualification would lend itself much better to a short course,” she argues, saying this would be “more intensive” but could be “delivered over a term”.

This would also make it more realistic to get through the sheer number of people working in safeguarding roles who would need to gain this new qualification.

What’s more, Spencer adds that the current requirements for a DSL to undertake training every two years “would not mechanistically lend itself to an NPQ, because that would mean having to go through an 18-month programme and then renew that almost immediately”.

Different routes

Meanwhile, Needham at Oasis points out NPQs are specifically for qualified teachers, which wouldn’t help DSLs who come from other professions, including health, social work and the police.

As such, he says that “putting a teaching professional qualification to it will limit access. Either we go down an NPQ route, but open it up to non-teachers, or we go down a different route”.

Hannah Senel-Walp, director of Tes Institute, adds that even if there were a mandatory qualification for DSLs, there would still be a need for other safeguarding training courses because other school staff, say those in catering, would benefit from training that is not an “intensive qualification”.

Funding for training

Of course, even if a new qualification was created and all safeguarding leads were expected to achieve it, there would be another major issue: who would pay for all these staff to attend the required courses?

Millar, the headteacher in Bangkok, says his school would “support [staff’s] work towards it and that over time it would become an expectation of people in the role, much like a Sendco”.

Meanwhile, others are clear that schools should not be made to absorb this cost: “I firmly believe the government should be funding it,” says Lynch, adding that while she understands “the financial burden…there is no more important thing in our schools than safeguarding”.

‘I would be really happy to see something like the NPQ for Sendcos introduced for safeguarding leads’

However, Durbridge says he struggles to see how the government - any government - “would find the sort of capital required to train 25,000 individuals”. He adds: “I think we will probably find that schools will have to get a bit creative with how they find funding to do that.”

These concerns are shared by Julie McCulloch, director of strategy and policy at the Association of School and College Leaders, who says that while the introduction of an NPQ in safeguarding would be “very sensible”, it would have to be “funded in a way that doesn’t put more pressure on schools”.

Despite these barriers, McCulloch adds that ASCL would be “very happy to work with the government to scope out what that might look like and make it work effectively”.

The Department for Education declined to comment on whether it would consider the creation of a DSL qualification, pointing instead to the guidelines around DSL training as stipulated in KCSIE.

A competency-based framework

But rather than waiting for government, some are trying to take on this idea themselves - and that itself may spur action from the centre.

For example, the National Association of Academy Safeguarding Advisors (NAASA) has developed a competency-based framework that its members believe could be a foundation for a qualification, chair Sarah Bloomer tells Tes.

The framework focuses on the skills, behaviours and knowledge needed for operational and strategic safeguarding, explains Bloomer, herself a former multi-academy trust safeguarding lead. “We want to promote ongoing learning for our DSLs.”

Law from Liberty Academy Trust is also part of NAASA and has worked to develop this framework. She tells Tes that, as a result of this work, the association is “in discussion with the DfE, and the DfE is interested in this model” - although she insists it is currently just a “first draft”.

The next step is to trial the framework within NAASA, with a controlled group trial of five to 10 trusts planned for the summer term. The group then aims to run further trials in local authorities next academic year.

A mission-critical role

Whether such work leads to a mandatory qualification is unclear. But those directly involved in safeguarding are clear that change is needed if we are to truly deliver on the aim of ensuring children are as safe as possible.

“We should absolutely dedicate time and real thinking into making sure DSLs have everything they need to do their job successfully,” Law says. “This role is mission critical.”

For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter