On 5 October 2017, on the morning of the last day of school before the October break, five staff at a primary school in the Scottish Borders went to a manager with concerns about the behaviour of complex-needs teacher, Linda McCall.

They said that Ms McCall’s behaviour had changed since the summer and that they were concerned she was “overly heavy-handed with children, rough with them, shouting at them when not doing as requested or touching something”. It was also noted that some children had been left crying.

In particular, Ms McCall’s colleagues said that she had “roughly pushed a child into their chair causing the child to cry”; that she had “dragged a child across a gym hall on the child’s knees”; and that she had “held a child’s head and chin while telling the child to be quiet”.

But it wasn’t until over a year later - and after inquiries from the press about a “cover-up”, complaints from parents and the intervention of an MSP - that the allegations were reported to the Scottish Borders Council child protection unit.

In May 2021, Linda McCall was convicted of assaulting five children with additional needs over a 14-month period, from August 2016 to October 2017. She avoided jail but was sentenced to 150 hours of unpaid community work.

Yesterday, an independent inquiry into any deficiencies in the council’s handling of the concerns was published. It found that Ms McCall’s conduct “clearly crossed the threshold of concern of harm”, was “anathema to a supportive learning environment” and “one year (if not longer) was a reprehensible period of time for intimation to the child protection unit to take place”.

It concluded that the delay “may have caused unnecessary harm to children” and that it “undoubtedly caused unnecessary distress for parents”.

So why did it take so long for Ms McCall’s conduct to be reported to child protection, and what lessons can be learned?

Assumptions were made that ‘others acted on the concerns’

“Child protection is everyone’s responsibility”, stated the Scottish Borders Child Protection Procedures in 2016 and 2017. They also stated that: “Although it is important to share your worries and ask for advice, you should not be dissuaded by other staff or a line manager if you remain concerned.”

However, the inquiry - which was conducted by Andrew Webster QC - found that “there was a widespread failure to appreciate the importance of individual responsibility in relation to child welfare concerns” and that “assumptions appear to have been made that others had acted on the concerns and had raised child protection concerns, with the result that no one did so for over a year”.

Council policy could have contributed to this, the inquiry report suggested, because when it came to allegations against staff, line managers were required to make initial enquiries ”to clarify the nature of the allegation”.

The report said that “the apparent requirement simply to raise concerns with a line manager dilutes the message of personal responsibility on the part of the employee reporting”.

Ultimately, the inquiry found that, after the concerns were initially raised on 5 October 2017, there were at least 10 other occasions when opportunities were missed to report the allegations to the child protection unit.

What constitutes harm

The inquiry concluded that the allegations about Ms McCall’s conduct “ought to have been brought to the attention of the child protection unit by the council at the time they were said to have been witnessed”, and that “they clearly crossed the threshold of concern of harm”.

However, the inquiry found there was not a proper understanding among staff of “what may constitute harm” and there was a widespread failure “to recognise the significance of the conduct being alleged”.

The inquiry report said it is “easy to identify egregious examples of physical harm: burning, poisoning, scalding or hitting a child” but that “abuse can arise in many ways, physically and emotionally”.

It continued: “References to harm as entailing only physical harm and momentary conduct as insignificant were alarming. It seems to me that whatever training had been provided to staff, it had failed to embed an understanding of the rights of children not to be subjected to conduct such as was alleged. It had also failed to embed an understanding that such conduct, at the very least, is conduct that is of concern requiring appropriate consideration.”

The report also found that advice and training from the council referred to “significant harm” as the threshold for child protection action.

It said this may have “contributed to hesitancy in reporting”.

Child protection is not just about managing immediate risk

The inquiry found that the October school break “may well have had an influence” on how the complaint was handled, because, “with teaching at an end, immediate future risk of harm was not an issue”.

However, the inquiry report stressed that “child protection is not merely about immediate risk, but also long-term welfare of children and past accountability”.

Ms McCall was initially moved to a non-teaching post in the wake of the allegations but in 2018, the inquiry report noted, she was “deployed to another teaching post elsewhere within the SBC [Scottish Borders Council] education estate, with pupil contact”.

The inquiry report said: “It is of note that on or about 27 September 2018 concerns arose as to LMs’ ‘manner’ towards a child in that new post.”

The inquiry report continued: “The prospect of an earlier removal from a pupil facing role gives rise to the possibility that the alleged conduct of concern might have been impossible due to removal. Therefore I cannot exclude the possibility that the delay in reporting may have caused unnecessary harm to children.”

Child protection in the workplace

The inquiry found that council staff training concentrated on looking for child protection concerns arising from outside an education setting, such as at home.

The inquiry report said: “No one recalled training specific to child protection issues arising in an education setting.”

Overall, the inquiry found that ”there were significant failings in child protection training within the Council in 2016 and 2017”.

Responding to the report, Carol Hamilton, the council’s executive member for children and young people, said: “The report authored by Andrew Webster QC, which will be published today, is of acute interest to me and to many people across the Borders. Although the report addresses the response of the council as a whole, I will be considering the detail and paying particular attention to the recommendations as they apply to education.

“For my part, I too am deeply saddened by the contents of the report. It makes for very uncomfortable reading.

“I am clearly sorry that the matters were not referred to the child protection unit early on, and I am sorry that communication with the parents was so clearly wrong. It should never have happened and we should have done much better.”

The council will meet to discuss the inquiry’s findings on Friday and look at any changes required as a result of its recommendations.