“Was that okay, what I said?” The question came from a mother of a Year 4 child, and it wasn’t about a maths worksheet. She was standing in the corridor after a meeting about her son, and she was second-guessing whether she’d been too forceful, or not forceful enough, when describing a pattern of behaviour she’d noticed in the playground.
I was on the other side of that conversation, in my role as a school governor, and it struck me how the word “safeguarding” is thrown around in school communications so often that it loses its edges. It sounds like a process—a checklist, a policy on a website. But for that parent, it was a knot in her stomach. She wasn’t talking about a physical injury or a stranger danger incident. She was talking about the grey space: her son being isolated by a group of friends, and the one boy who seemed to orchestrate it, and whether she should have used the word “harassment” to get the school to take it seriously, or whether saying that word would make her look dramatic.
That meeting is a useful snapshot of a gap in how we talk about child safety. We are very good at teaching children about “stranger danger” and we are very good at having fire drills. We are less good at handling the murky, daily breaches of trust that happen between children, or sometimes, between an adult and a child, that don’t leave bruises but leave a lasting mark.
I remember the deputy head, Mr. Hodges, listening to the mother. He was patient. He used the phrase “rough and tumble” and talked about “social dynamics.” From his chair, he was looking at a puzzle of conflicting accounts from a dozen different children. From her chair, she was looking at a son who had started to dread going to school. Neither of them was lying, but they were speaking different languages.
The term “breach” is a serious one, usually reserved for data protection—a breach of privacy, a breached firewall. But when we talk about a child’s sense of safety, a breach is just as real. It might be a teacher who casually dismisses a child’s complaint as “just a joke,” thereby breaching their duty of care to listen. It is the moment when a parent notices that their child’s confidence has quietly been eroded by a friend who uses exclusion as a weapon. That is negligence in its quietest form—not inaction, but inattentiveness.
We all know the cliché of the parent who rushes in, demanding action. But the more common reality is the parent who rushes out, unsure if they’ve painted a target on their own child’s back.
So, how do we handle this? It starts with validating the fear without inflating it. The mother in that meeting didn’t need Mr. Hodges to agree that the other boy was a bully; she needed him to agree that her son’s perception of the world was real. We forget that a child’s reality is shaped by small power plays. When you are eight, being excluded from a birthday party is not just a minor social hiccup; it is a seismic event that can feel like an expulsion from society.
The practical shift I have seen work in schools isn’t a new software or a stricter behaviour policy. It is teaching staff—and parents—the art of observation without immediate reaction. So often, we jump to fix the problem, but a child doesn’t always want the problem fixed. They want to be believed.
There is a specific phrase that changed my own interactions with my kids: “Tell me what you were doing when it felt uncomfortable.” It’s a subtle shift from asking “What did he do to you?” which puts the child in a vulnerable victim role, to asking them to recall the sensory details of the moment. It helps them build a narrative without the fear of being judged.
In school, we also had to unlearn the idea that “safe guarding” is only about adults. There is a growing awareness of peer-to-peer abuse, which often masquerades as “banter.” In the staff room, we started to ask a difficult question whenever a child was reprimanded for being a bit “hands-on” with another child: “Is this a safeguarding issue, or is it a discipline issue?” It’s a hard question, because if you get it wrong, you either criminalise a child for being clumsy, or you normalise harassment.
Take the case of the Year 6 boy who was “playfully” flicking the skirt of a Year 4 girl. The duty teacher saw it, called it a “silly infatuation,” and sent him on his way. The girl stopped going to the library because that is where it happened. That is a breach of safeguarding. The behaviour might be minor, but the impact is not. The negligence isn’t in the boy’s action—he is a child, he is learning—the negligence is in the adult’s failure to connect the action to the consequence.
Being “child-safe” doesn’t mean wrapping the school in bubble wrap. It means being relentlessly curious about the quiet moments. It means the lunchtime supervisor asking the child who is sitting alone, “Are you okay?” and then actually listening to the answer, rather than assuming they prefer their own company and needing a rest from the noise.
There is a degree of over-caution that is emerging now. We had a parent complain that a teacher hugged a crying child in the corridor. That isn’t safeguarding gone wrong; that is safeguarding gone weird. We have to be careful not to make kids feel like they are radioactive. The goal is to create an environment where a child feels secure enough to say, “I feel weird when X does Y,” and to know they will be taken seriously.
That mother in the meeting eventually got a result for her son. Not a grand punishment for the other boy, but a seating plan change. It sounds so small. But for her son, the table change was a lifeline. He could breathe again.
The process remains messy. We haven’t solved the problem of the “grey zone.” We still rely on the judgement of overworked staff and anxious parents. But the most important thing is that the conversation has started. The parent left that meeting not with a guarantee that her son would have no more problems, but with a promise that future observations would be noted. The school, in turn, got a valuable piece of intelligence about the “social dynamics” that hadn’t been visible from the teacher’s desk.
It is a bit like clearing fog from a windscreen. You don’t eliminate the weather, but you improve visibility. And in that moment, improved visibility is the greatest safety we can offer.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » “Was that okay, what I said