Staying Safe: consultation responses from Naace

In our response we have used the term e-safety to refer to safe and responsible use of communication technologies and services, including mobile phones and the internet, recognising that children and young people generate content and messages as well as receiving them and that they can and should contribute to the e-safety of others as well as protecting themselves from online harm.

It is Naace's view that e-safety should be a standard part of the agenda for any organisation that is concerned with the well being of children and young people. For example, anti-bullying policies should include the use of communication technologies to offend, upset or intimidate children or adults working with them. Personal safety programmes would be incomplete without adequate coverage of e-safety issues.

Are children and young people taught enough in school about how to manage risks and stay safe?

Naace considers that e-safety should be an integral part of schools' planning about personal safety and well-being. We strongly favour an approach based on risk management, with practitioners and children developing an understanding of risk, knowing how to reduce both the likelihood and the impact of unfortunate online experiences, while keeping these in proportion and not losing sight of the benefits of communication technologies in learning and in the wider world.

Naace welcomes the increased emphasis on internet safety in the revised KS3 programme of study for ICT, and we hope that this will be reflected in the on-screen assessment tasks for ICT which are being developed by NAA.

While the revised Programme of Study will address e-safety and staying safe online, there remains a risk of variable practice in schools. In addition to the revised framework, clear guidance on possible contexts and teaching sequences would reduce the possibility of some young people getting a minimal entitlement. This could be a project led by Becta, National Strategy or CEOPS.

In primary schools, there is a need for a similar renewed emphasis on e-safety, with clear guidance as to what children should be taught and in which years. The scope of e-safety teaching in both primary and secondary phases should encompass the wide and ever-developing range of activities that young people undertake online, for example voice and text chat in gaming, safe use of web cams and games console cameras, as well as familiar tools such as instant messaging and mobile phone text messaging.

It is important to recognise that many children and young people have significant experience and expertise in the use of communication technologies. They may also be naïve, adopt safe practices or display a misplaced sense of confidence. In every case, good teaching will take advantage of their experience and enable them to contribute.

Naace is pleased that Ofsted's Self-Evaluation Form for schools includes a reference to learners adopting "safe and responsible practices in using new technologies, including the Internet". It is important that inspectors rigorously test this element of self-evaluation in their visits to schools, and Ofsted should brief their teams accordingly, ensuring that they have sufficient knowledge of ICT to make a secure judgement.

Is teaching safety education in PSHE a good way to increase children and young people's resilience to harm? Are there other ways we could do this?

Naace considers that PSHE is an important and appropriate but not exclusive context for developing the skills and self-esteem needed to promote personal e-safety and responsibility for the well-being of others. Some aspects should certainly be dealt with in ICT lessons, and there will be opportunities in other subject contexts and cross-curricular events.

There is a wealth of publications, websites and online resources for different age groups, and ensuring easy access to online sources of information, support and guidance if children and young people have concerns about what has happened to them online is important. We refer below to the risk that the growth in e-safety resources could become confusing. Naace would be keen to see stakeholders agreeing to a common signposting system which would make it easier for users to find the most appropriate resources among all those that are available.

What information would parents welcome about risks of harm faced by their children and how to manage them? What areas mentioned here would parents like more specific information about?

Naace is clear that e-safety for children is a whole-community issue, and that schools and children's services have a role to play in sharing their expertise with parents and others who are concerned with the well-being of the young.

Many parents have anxieties about their lack of knowledge in the area of e-safety, often underpinned by a lack of confidence about ICT generally. Besides increasing parents' understanding of the online activities which children and young people enjoy, and the associated risks, it would be helpful to raise their awareness of features in software products that can be used to reduce any danger that their children might be exposed to. For example, parents could be better informed about using parental controls in games consoles to restrict online voice chat. At the same time, like practitioners in schools and other settings, parents need to understand that filtering and other controls can reduce but not eliminate the risk of inappropriate encounters with people or materials online and that other strategies for fostering e-safety are needed.

How can e-safety be promoted to all professionals who are responsible for children's safety?

Naace was heavily involved in the development of the Self-Review Framework for ICT (SRF) and of the ICT Mark, which is awarded to schools who reach a high level across all eight elements of the SRF. We wish to highlight elements 1c-4 (Security and safety) and 1c-5 (Data protection). Both of these reinforce that it is a management responsibility to ensure that ICT practice, whether in classrooms or offices, does not compromise children's safety. Those who are supporting schools' use of the SRF or assessing their application for the ICT Mark should encourage a rigorous approach to these sections of the standards.

If managers in all settings for children and young people take an appropriate lead, training and information sharing for their staff will be more effective. All professionals in the children's workforce need to be well informed about the issues and understand the relevance of e-safety to their own role. Training should outline typical and atypical use of ICT by different age groups both in and beyond school and how these activities may expose children and young people to risks. While much can be achieved using reference material, there is no doubt that a live event with input from experts can be a powerful means of helping practitioners and managers understand the reality and importance of the e-safety agenda. Naace is committed to the development of e-learning as a part of the professional development repertoire, but would nevertheless wish to see all organisations raising the profile of e-safety by committing staff time to awareness-raising events.
Many public service organisations and some businesses have produced a variety of guidance material for different audiences covering most aspects of e-safety; much of it is available online. Most of this material has been of an impressive standard, and has a valuable role to play in developing the knowledge and professional development of practitioners. Contributors include local authorities and regional broadband consortia, charities and national agencies, broadcasters and government departments.

The sheer scale and diversity of this guidance material now risks creating problems for its key audiences. For example many web pages with links to e-safety resources can appear bewilderingly long or be restricted to a seemingly random selection of what is available. There is a danger that those in need will not find their way quickly and easily to the most appropriate sources of information and advice.

It is unrealistic to think that any one website will be seen as a universal one-stop shop for e-safety guidance. Different audiences will always take different routes according to habit and preference. Naace is keen that all the major stakeholders consider whether they can agree to a common set of standards for organising, signposting and annotating links to e safety guidance material. These standards would of course be voluntary and sufficiently flexible to cater for different target audiences. By presenting a familiar structure to readers, there would be a much greater chance of the most appropriate being used. Naace would be happy to contribute to a stakeholder meeting to investigate this proposal further.