According to the Independent, Children’s charity Barnardo’s called the move a “victory for common sense”. Its chief executive Anne Marie Carrie stated “There is already enough safeguarding in place for people who have unsupervised, substantial access to children”, and emphasized that “No system will ever entirely protect children … safeguarding is everybody’s business”.

In Aprl 2010, The Tutor Pages attracted national media coverage with its poll which demonstrated overwhelming opposition to the VBS among private tutors. The government views tuition as a private contract between parents and a tutor, and therefore self-employed private tutors are under no obligation to undergo Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks. Although a CRB check may be useful (and tutors can at their own expense apply for one), parents will often prefer other checks, such as talking to parents of current or former students, or following up a tutor’s references.

To further clarify best practice for tutors and parents, The Tutor Pages is currently collaborating in academic research into child protection in the private tuition sector. Results and recommendations will be published later in the year.

With the imminent results of the Coalition Government’s major review of the Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS), which regulates contact between adults and any child not their own, independent think tank Civitas releases a new edition of Licensed to Hug, which insists the Government must get rid of the VBS once and for all. The dramatic escalation of child protection measures, such as the VBS, has created an atmosphere of suspicion that actually increases the risks to children and damages relations between the generations.

In April this year, a poll by The Tutor Pages also revealed widespread opposition to the Scheme among private tutors.

In a recent blog post on Saturday, I summarized the major arguments against the VBS and drew attention to alternative bureaucratic measures for child protection in the private tuition industry, including CRB checks and the recent roll-out of ‘Sarah’s Law’.

The ISA was set up under the Labour government as a measure to try to protect young people and vulnerable adults by placing around a quarter of the UK’s adult population on a database. The ISA’s Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) received severe criticism from many quarters and from diverse perspectives, including:

• a community perspective (‘vetting breaks down informal relations of trust and judgement between adults and children, and ultimately damages child welfare’);
• a civil libertarian perspective (‘vetting is an unjustified intrusion of a centralised state, and assumes all adults are guilty until proven innocent’);
• a financial/ workability perspective (‘no estimate has been made of the likely number of children who will be saved from abuse, and the money could be better spent on improving social work’); and
• a security perspective (‘if (unproven) database information is released in error, it will be personally, socially and financially ruinous for individuals’).

Despite the disadvantages of the VBS, some of those involved in private tuition saw it as a useful measure to replace the so-called CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) disclosure certificate which, although generally accepted as valid for 3 years, is by its nature out-of-date the moment it is issued.

An alternate bureaucratic measure now being rolled out across the UK is the enactment of what the media have termed ‘Sarah’s Law’. In the words of the government guidance on this, the so-called ‘child sex offender disclosure scheme’ means that ‘If you are worried about someone in your child’s life, you can get them checked by the police to see if they have a record of child sexual offences’ and that ‘anyone can ask for a police check on someone they are worried about’.

On the face of things, this may seem like a reasonable alternative for parents to check the background of a tutor before employing them. However, I can see three major flaws in such an approach:

1. for parents to actually make an application, they have to visit their local police station in person with some ID (such as a passport or driver’s licence) – how many parents are seriously going to want to do that?
2. the government guidance on this consistently states that the system is set up for individuals to enquire about ‘someone they are worried about’. A private tutor you’ve never met before is not someone you are worried about – he or she is simply someone you don’t know about. How many police forces up and down the country are going to be happy about processing possibly multiple applications on a single tutor on a ‘just in case’ basis, when they are no grounds for suspicion in the first place?
3. the final, related and perhaps most important point is that all enquiries about an individual will undoubtedly be recorded by the police. Are innocent tutors really comfortable with the idea of multiple checks being processed on them by the authorities? Since the system is set up for the investigation of those whom members of the public are ‘worried about’, any application is likely to result in bureaucrats deciding that the activities of these individuals may need to be monitored. In an even stronger sense than with the VBS – because this new disclosure scheme is an active rather than passive process – innocent people may suddenly find that they are under suspicion.

Ultimately, as we pointed out in our interim statement on child protection in the private tuition industry, the vast majority of child sex offenders are not known to the authorities at all. This means that bureaucratic measures such as the VBS or Sarah’s Law will always be comparatively weak tools in the fight against abuse. Concerned parents must instead take responsibililty themselves for the welfare of their children. Measures such as asking for two references from a tutor and following them up, and sitting in on lessons or leaving the door open are a sensible start.

Concerned parents are encouraged to read our Safety Advice, the link to which is prominently displayed on our homepage. Further advice on this topic will be available soon, but in the meantime, we recommend the Stop it Now! campaign, including their 5-minute introductory video.

There were interviews with two people who have detailed knowledge about this industry: Janette Wallis from The Good Schools Guide and James Turner, Policy Director at the Sutton Trust.

Below is a handy summary of what I think are some of the key points from their discussion. I hope you find it useful!

Why do parents hire a private tutor?

Janette mentioned there are two reasons why parents hire a tutor: firstly, a child who is struggling in a particular subject can improve their confidence and grades through tutoring. Secondly, there is the more negative aspect where tuition can be ‘contagious’, leading to the so-called tutoring ‘arms race’ among parents.

James agreed with the latter problem, noting there is more competitiveness and pressure than ever before. More children are getting top grades at GCSE and A-level, there’s a squeeze on university places and a squeeze on graduate careers. Parents naturally want to do the best for their child, and so will try to give them the edge.

Who hires private tutors?

James referenced a survey by The Sutton Trust which shows that a fifth of all children have had some form of private tuition over the course of their school careers, rising to more than 40% in London.

Parents of various financial means will make sacrifices to pay for a tutor, but there will still be many parents who can’t afford private tuition at all. As a charity, James mentioned how The Sutton Trust is concerned about those families from poorer backgrounds that miss out.

Janette talked about the type of parent who can’t afford £5000/term for private education, but who does have enough to pay £500/term for private tuition. In other words, these parents will go the state route but ‘top it up’ in certain subjects with a private tutor. She also stated that demand in some circumstances is driven by children themselves who are influenced by their classmates having tutors.

Does all this tutoring mean there is something fundamentally wrong with the state education system?

James noted that although private tuition is most popular in London, state school standards have actually risen faster in London than in other urban areas, so the amount of tuition isn’t necessarily correlated with the standards in state schools. He said how it’s more about an increasing consciousness of the issues and the competitiveness already talked about.

Tuition isn’t regulated in the UK: so how should parents choose a tutor safely?

Janette mentioned three key points in this regard. Firstly, parents should look for a tutor with a CRB check as a basic minimum. Secondly, some parents feel more comfortable if a tutor comes to their house because they feel that it’s a safer environment (although it’s a more expensive option). Finally, she recommended speaking to others who’ve used the tutor to help build up a picture of someone who’s trustworthy.

Does private tuition work?

James mentioned how research proves quite conclusively that private tuition provides the best way of boosting a child’s results. For that reason The Sutton Trust is currently piloting a tuition programme for children from poorer homes, not only to help those children but also to assess exactly effective one-to-one or small group tuition can be.

Janette mentioned there is research that shows how it’s the one-to-one nature of tutoring that works so well, and not necessarily whether a tutor is highly qualified or not. In that respect, parents often underestimate what they can do for their children themselves (on this point see Tutoring: A Tool for the Masses).

On tuition scare stories

A final word from Janette: Whenever I hear that ‘everyone in the class is getting a tutor’, you’ve got to be a little sceptical – it’s like ‘everyone in my class has an iPhone’ – I don’t think it’s always true.

The VBS was seen by some tutors and parents as a positive move, because it would have allowed private tutors to register voluntarily and hence ‘prove’ that they were no risk to children and vulnerable adults. In contrast, there were also many who opposed the scheme (for too many reasons to list here – see our interim statement p.2 for details).

Self-employed private tutors have never been under any legal obligation to join the VBS, or to pay for a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) Enhanced Disclosure certificate to demonstrate their suitability to work with children.

Some would argue that the regulations are not tight enough in this regard. We’ve decided to withold judgement on this issue until there has been some academic research to establish the risk and consequently the necessity for such measures. It is extraordinary that there has never been any such research, and The Tutor Pages is therefore in the early stages of a collaborative project with a British university designed to investigate this area fully.

In the meantime, there have been a couple of interesting developments.

Firstly, the government has recently indicated that the so-called ‘Sarah’s Law’ will be implemented across England and Wales by March 2011. This controversial measure gives parents the right to check with the police if anyone with regular access to their children has a criminal conviction for child sex offences. In simple terms, it is the ‘inverse’ of the flawed VBS system which was originally going to hold the details of millions of innocent people. Though not without its problems, Sarah’s Law may turn out to be a useful tool for parents to check the background of a potential tutor.

Secondly, the government has just launched today its ‘Big Society Deregulation Taskforce’. This taskforce, chaired by Lord Hodgson, will examine how red tape and bureaucracy can be reduced for charities and community organisations. The focus will naturally include the aborted Vetting and Barring Scheme. According to an interview in Third Sector with Nick Hurd, the Minister for Civil Society, ‘the move was part of a wider attempt to rethink the state’s attitude towards risk, which was generating too much regulation’.

In the wake of the disaster which was the VBS, it is encouraging to see moves towards a sensible approach to the management of risk in child protection. I am hopeful that there is indeed a different kind of thinking at Whitehall which will bear fruit for the private tuition industry.

The confusion will cause a major headache for organisations which have been preparing for the July kick-off of the scheme.

Self-employed private tutors, for whom the VBS is not a statutory requirement, will be no doubt be watching the ensuing chaos with a sense of relief that they don’t need to get involved. Other tutors won’t be so lucky: they’ll still be affected because of their employment by schools or other so-called Regulated Activity Providers (RAPs).

The good thing is, the information in our recent interim statement on private tuition and the VBS still holds true.

We therefore urge all parents, tutors and others concerned about child protection in the private tuition industry to familiarize themselves with the issues by reading it at:

http://www.thetutorpages.com/media-room/june-2010-child-protection-interim-statement.pdf

Find it on The Tutor Pages website under our Media Room, or at the following link:

http://www.thetutorpages.com/media-room/june-2010-child-protection-interim-statement.pdf

We urge all parents, tutors and anyone else involved in private tuition to read it. We hope that our perspective will be informative and that it will encourage debate on the topic (soon we’ll also have a forum on The Tutor Pages so you can voice your comments too).

Child protection is a complex area, and the more you look at it, the more you realise that what is perceived as helpful may not actually be so.

The statement should help clarify the issues for those parents and tutors who are no doubt concerned or confused about this whole area.

Finally, we’ve no idea yet what the new government is going to do about the VBS scheme, so much of this information may change.

Watch this space!

It also mentions an academic research project we’re in the intial stages of colloborating with on this subject.

Any feedback v welcome!

Henry

The legal challenge also follows concerns that the VBS would affect nurses’ relationships at work, making them “overly cautious about comforting or being left alone with patients”. Howard Catton of the RCN said: “Nurses might be scared something as simple as putting a hand on a patient’s arm will be misinterpreted. Or they could become more conscious about talking to patients on their own. If people are acting in a defensive way it might hold back their practice.”

The VBS was set up by the last government to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults, and has caused controversy right across the professional and voluntary sectors where the welfare of children and vulnerable adults is paramount.

As the scheme stands, private tutors are not obliged by law to register with the VBS because tutoring is a private arrangement.

In a separate interview with Children & Young People Now, Tim Loughton, the new minister in charge of children’s social care and young people’s services, announced that the government is launching a review of the VBS and the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) to be headed by Professor Eileen Munro. “We’ll be making announcements very shortly about the whole future of the vetting and barring system,” Loughton added.

Along with scrapping ID cards, the most significant scheme to be dismantled will be the ContactPoint Database which was to hold the details of of 11 million under-18s. However, there has been no mention of the controversial Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) which was designed to prevent unsuitable adults working with children and vulnerable adults.

Will this scheme also be up for political reform?

Before the election, the Conservative Party promised to “scale back” the VBS to “common sense levels”. But we have no indication to date of what shape that reform might take.

Meanwhile thousands of organisations up and down the country are only just starting to get to grips with what the VBS means for them. Last week the Incorporated Society of Musicians (ISM) and the Association of British Orchestras (ABO) ran a superb seminar on the VBS and the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) which is administering the Scheme. Yvonne Spencer and Con Alexander of Veale Wasbrough Vizards must be commended for their clarity and patience in explaining the very complex issues which surround the implementation of the Scheme.

Admitting that the VBS is difficult even for lawyers in this field, it was suggested that with the change of government came a chance for organisations to make representations to try to simplify the system.

So how are organisations coping so far?

The overwhelming impression I had from the seminar was that accurate interpretation of regulated activity (i.e. who must join the ISA database) was so confusing that organisations would probably simply take a belt and braces approach and sign everyone they could up to the Scheme. This is despite the costs involved. To give a concrete example, a musician playing in a professional British orchestra would probably be compelled to sign up, because he or she may at some point have ‘frequent’ or ‘intensive’ contact with children during a community outreach programme.

Extraordinary details (at least to me) came to light during the seminar. For example, how, even with the ISA Scheme in place, performing an Enhanced CRB check on a new member of staff is currently a requirement (even Sir Roger Singleton has seen the absurdity of this, and has suggested that this requirement be relaxed). Moreover, with our attention so firmly focussed on the implications of working with children, there was a warning that many are likely to neglect the definition of ‘vulnerable adult’ – which can (amongst countless other things) include a person who is ‘receiving any form of healthcare’! One of the few lighter moments came as one questioner asked whether the £64 ISA registration fee might be tax deductable (well, why not?).

As the details of their statutory obligations begin to sink in, thousands of organisations are having to decide how to orientate themselves in respect of the wider issue of child protection. Not only must they make sure they’re not breaking the law, but they have to decide what other measures might be necessary to demonstrate their commitment to safeguarding and the promotion of child welfare. As far as I am aware, only schools currently have an obligation to put in place child protection policies and procedures, but organisations of all types are increasingly becoming concerned about reputation management. According to Veale Wasbrough Vizards, a safeguarding policy should cover aspects such as: roles and responsibilities; recruitment of staff; safe working practice for staff (including a Code of Conduct); definition and signs of abuse; procedures for reporting concerns; dealing with allegations against staff; and review and monitoring of policy. The Incorporated Society of Musicians’ (ISM) Code of Practice was held up as a very helpful example of good practice in this area.

It might legitimately be asked what relevance all this has to private tutoring when private tutors have no legal obligations to join the VBS? Well, firstly, a large percentage of private tutors will be affected because their work in schools and for other Regulated Activity Providers (RAPs) will mean that they will have to sign up anyway. But secondly, this legislation will have strong repercussions for the society we live in. As the Scheme is rolled out over the coming years, there may be an increased climate of fear surrounding private tuition. Tragically, this attitude would be in denial of all that’s known about the risk of child abuse from teachers and other professionals.  The most comprehensive study that’s ever been conducted into child abuse in the UK reported that, of those children who experienced sexual abuse outside of the family, very few (less than 1%) experienced abuse by professionals in a position of trust, for example from teachers, doctors, social/care workers or religious leaders.

Although the survey results don’t appear to be up yet on their website, eGov monitor covered the story yesterday.

In line with the rules of the VBS, 88% of those questioned thought that vetting should take place where the activity is weekly or more. However, 66% supported vetting where the activity is monthly or more, 66% wanted schools to check authors and other similar visitors to schools, and 61% said that parents involved in school exchanges should also register with the VBS.

Ironically, these are the very areas of the VBS which were scaled back last December amid a storm of protests from parents, teachers and volunteers that the government had gone too far. At the time, the seven main representative organisations for school and college leaders wrote a letter to Ed Balls saying that the newly introduced system was “disproportionate to risk”. The result was a government climbdown involving a reduction in the number of adults who would have to register from around 11 million to 9 million.

It is hard to know what to make of the new Fairplay For Children survey. Jan Cosgrove, its National Secretary, is one of the few outspoken supporters of increasing the scope of the VBS. Sitting firmly on the other side of the fence are campaigners such as Josie Appleton and the Manifesto Club. Personally, I’m impressed by the views of Mark Easton, BBC News’ home editor, who has described the VBS as “a child of moral panic” and “a textbook case of how media hype, political expediency and bureaucratic process lead to conclusions that can later appear disproportionate”.

Last month, we published our own survey which suggested that there was widespread opposition to the VBS among private tutors, for whom signing up is voluntary.

We’re now doing some research into the risk of child abuse within the private tuition context. We’ll be asking questions such as How big is the risk? Is there any evidence that a voluntary system for tutors will actually reduce the risk of abuse, or is it just something good for the tutor’s CV? Could the VBS actually increase the risk of child abuse? John Adams (expert in risk compensation, Emeritus Professor of Geography at University College London and Honorary Member of the Institute of Risk Management) recently raised this spectre in his blog:

Leaving aside the mind-boggling expense and bureaucracy required to perform this feat [introduction of the VBS], its effect is almost certain to be perverse. A CRB check will be seen as an insurance policy; behaviour that might previously have aroused suspicion is now less likely to be questioned because some superior authority has certified the suspect as “safe”.

John Adams states on his website that he is “intrigued by the persistence of attitudes to risks” and laments “disputes about issues for which conclusive evidence is lacking”. Quite. We’re hoping to get some more evidence together on the subject of risk in private tuition, for the benefit of parents, tutors and other interested parties. Watch this space!