Last week saw yet another story highlighting the gaps in safeguarding laws and regulations, this time within tutoring, which is putting children at risk.
When will regulators and lawmakers realise that a child could be at risk regardless of their setting?
Why are our laws based on where children are and not simply on the fact that they are children interacting with adults?
This example truly highlights the backwardness of our laws.
We've mentioned this context before, but it's never been more relevant - A teacher suggesting one-on-one time with a pupil outside of a classroom would be seen as inappropriate by both children and adults. A tutor suggesting the same thing is usually viewed as less of a concern by the child or parents, as they've developed a more trusting relationship. Therefore it's safe to say,
Where a child is most vulnerable, there is the least regulation.
We don't usually get emotional, but we're becoming increasingly tired of the continual excuse of "but there are guidelines."
As always, we want to emphasise that there are many incredible, safe tutors doing incredible work. However, if someone intends to harm or abuse children, this is one easy way to gain access to them.
What if rugby only had ‘guidelines’?
At this point, we're going to make a somewhat strange parallel, but please bear with us. You've likely seen the start of the international women's rugby tournament, WXV, recently (mainly because women's rugby is finally on mainstream TV). We strongly support children playing sports, especially girls participating in sports.
The reason for the parallel is rugby is a highly inclusive sporty that encourages confidence, teamwork, and community. Importantly, it comes with a set of ‘laws’. These ‘laws’ are so called (according to myth at least) because rules are made to be broken and laws are not.
In its simplistic form, on the pitch, referees and officials manage these laws. If you break a law, you're penalised. Any serious incidents are additionally handled off the pitch by a governing body, where evidence is presented and guilt or innocence is determined. Appropriate punishments are then given or reduced to players and managers.
Each team has qualified coaches, even at an amateur level, trained to ensure that standards are met and the game is played within the laws. These qualifications are set and managed by governing bodies, and clubs and teams work closely with referees to ensure proper understanding of the laws. Especially as new ones are brought in most seasons
The entire system is built around these laws and operates within them... because they’re refereed.
The fundamental issue with “but there are guidelines” is that if there is no one to monitor that the guidelines are a) understood and being followed correctly or b) being followed at all, they’re redundant.
Despite they're being plenty of help, there is no urgency to ensure that you do understand them correctly because no one is marking your homework.
If there's no rugby referee to ensure the laws are being followed, there's no match. And we wouldn't have the delight of watching the likes of Kildunne, Dow, or Breach scything through the defence or Packer, Ward, and Muir driving up the pitch in a great result against the Black Ferns this weekend England Rugby
To take the analogy further, without a referee the match would be chaotic and players might find they're not insured and are therefore at even greater risk. There would be no need for coaching qualifications or any systems in place to maintain standards as anything goes. Injuries would increase, the quality of the game would decline, viewership would decrease, and income would fall.
It's important to note that the Tutor’s Association does excellent work, with 50,000 registered members, ensuring that standards are met. However, without regulation and monitoring, anyone can start their own tutoring business without having to be a member of the TA, have qualifications or have a DBS check. This will lead to more stories like the one we discussed, with individuals devaluing the great work and trust created by the wider tutoring industry.
We encourage parents and guardians to ensure any tutor they engage are full members of the TA to ensure they're suitably qualified.
How can we ensure standards are being set and met?
We cannot continue to have a situation where children are knowingly being put at risk while hiding behind "but there are guidelines." This recent story, along with the 90 or so similar cases we know about, proves that this system doesn't work! There are too many opportunities for children to be harmed with no accountability to protect them other than by the parents or guardians.
Government, regulators, local authorities, and governing bodies need to come together, agree on minimum safeguarding standards regardless of setting, and decide who will monitor these standards - acting as ‘referees’ for any offenses.
When will regulators and lawmakers realise that a child could be at risk regardless of their setting?
Why are our laws based on where children are and not simply on the fact that they are children interacting with adults?
This example truly highlights the backwardness of our laws.
- A child in a classroom, surrounded by many children and adults with ample supervision, is regulated.
- A child with a tutor, often in a one-on-one setting within a family home, is less likely to be supervised and is not regulated.
We've mentioned this context before, but it's never been more relevant - A teacher suggesting one-on-one time with a pupil outside of a classroom would be seen as inappropriate by both children and adults. A tutor suggesting the same thing is usually viewed as less of a concern by the child or parents, as they've developed a more trusting relationship. Therefore it's safe to say,
Where a child is most vulnerable, there is the least regulation.
We don't usually get emotional, but we're becoming increasingly tired of the continual excuse of "but there are guidelines."
As always, we want to emphasise that there are many incredible, safe tutors doing incredible work. However, if someone intends to harm or abuse children, this is one easy way to gain access to them.
What if rugby only had ‘guidelines’?
At this point, we're going to make a somewhat strange parallel, but please bear with us. You've likely seen the start of the international women's rugby tournament, WXV, recently (mainly because women's rugby is finally on mainstream TV). We strongly support children playing sports, especially girls participating in sports.
The reason for the parallel is rugby is a highly inclusive sporty that encourages confidence, teamwork, and community. Importantly, it comes with a set of ‘laws’. These ‘laws’ are so called (according to myth at least) because rules are made to be broken and laws are not.
In its simplistic form, on the pitch, referees and officials manage these laws. If you break a law, you're penalised. Any serious incidents are additionally handled off the pitch by a governing body, where evidence is presented and guilt or innocence is determined. Appropriate punishments are then given or reduced to players and managers.
Each team has qualified coaches, even at an amateur level, trained to ensure that standards are met and the game is played within the laws. These qualifications are set and managed by governing bodies, and clubs and teams work closely with referees to ensure proper understanding of the laws. Especially as new ones are brought in most seasons
The entire system is built around these laws and operates within them... because they’re refereed.
The fundamental issue with “but there are guidelines” is that if there is no one to monitor that the guidelines are a) understood and being followed correctly or b) being followed at all, they’re redundant.
Despite they're being plenty of help, there is no urgency to ensure that you do understand them correctly because no one is marking your homework.
If there's no rugby referee to ensure the laws are being followed, there's no match. And we wouldn't have the delight of watching the likes of Kildunne, Dow, or Breach scything through the defence or Packer, Ward, and Muir driving up the pitch in a great result against the Black Ferns this weekend England Rugby
To take the analogy further, without a referee the match would be chaotic and players might find they're not insured and are therefore at even greater risk. There would be no need for coaching qualifications or any systems in place to maintain standards as anything goes. Injuries would increase, the quality of the game would decline, viewership would decrease, and income would fall.
It's important to note that the Tutor’s Association does excellent work, with 50,000 registered members, ensuring that standards are met. However, without regulation and monitoring, anyone can start their own tutoring business without having to be a member of the TA, have qualifications or have a DBS check. This will lead to more stories like the one we discussed, with individuals devaluing the great work and trust created by the wider tutoring industry.
We encourage parents and guardians to ensure any tutor they engage are full members of the TA to ensure they're suitably qualified.
How can we ensure standards are being set and met?
We cannot continue to have a situation where children are knowingly being put at risk while hiding behind "but there are guidelines." This recent story, along with the 90 or so similar cases we know about, proves that this system doesn't work! There are too many opportunities for children to be harmed with no accountability to protect them other than by the parents or guardians.
Government, regulators, local authorities, and governing bodies need to come together, agree on minimum safeguarding standards regardless of setting, and decide who will monitor these standards - acting as ‘referees’ for any offenses.