Developing a culture of safeguarding

In September 2023, following a pupil at a school in North Wales showing staff images and explicitly sexual messages on her phone which had been sent to her by the headteacher, Neil Foden was arrested, and subsequently convicted of 19 charges against four female pupils at the school where he was headteacher, including counts of sexual activity (of note is that in his summary, the judge hearing the case noted his view that Foden had been under-charged).

This wide-ranging review considers the period between January 2017, the time of the first documented incident, and September 2023 when Foden was arrested. Very early on in the report the scene is set through the report noting:

“Foden was a powerful figure within the Education community in Wales, including high profile union involvement, association with the WJEC and presenting to Welsh Government and the Senedd. Many of those who had not met him may have known of his wide-ranging reputation as a bully.” (p.4)

Foden had joined the school in 1988 as a teacher, working his way up to become head in 1997. In 2018 circumstances led to Foden appointing himself Pastoral Lead with oversight of safeguarding (even though he had no expertise or experience in this field). In 2021, Foden was appointed to the Executive / Strategic Leadership of a second school – this was done via a process which the review considered to lack due diligence and a clear audit trail. The review notes that Foden was also able to draw up his own terms for the appointment, noting, “This arrangement meant that he was not accountable to the Governing Body of School” (p.20), instead being accountable to the Head of Education in the Local Authority. This further blurred lines of accountability and was found to be used by Foden to his advantage, for example to disguise his whereabouts to his own gain.

Missed opportunities

A chronology in the report shows that, whilst the earliest known incident involving Foden dated back to 1979 (disclosed in 2023), from 2017 onwards there were a number of concerns recorded about Foden’s behaviour, his relationship with staff (for example in 2017 he was taken to tribunal for bullying behaviour), his attitude towards authority (in 2017 he was subject to of a complaint about manipulation of exam results), his inappropriate relationships with some pupils, disproportionate use of force towards other pupils, coupled with an ignorance of professional boundaries (numerous concerns from 2018 onwards).

The chronology highlights 24 missed opportunities over the six-year timeframe, with common themes appearing such as concerns being addressed in isolation, or concerns being seen as professional issues as opposed safeguarding matters. The report identifies that there was no professional curiosity across a number of professionals both in the settings and externally, no consideration of the bigger picture and an apparent reliance on the need for a complaint to be made in order to evidence abuse. Some contributors to the review spoke about raising concerns and these being dismissed by the local authority, or having their concerns being labelled as Foden being “silly” in his actions (e.g. repeatedly having vulnerable female pupils in his office without any other staff present).

The reviewers are clear in their view about what their views, stating: “During the course of the review, it became clear that Foden was a sophisticated and opportunistic predator who had developed his strategy for sexual offending undetected over a long period of time. Foden had cultivated and refined an environment where, by normalising his behaviours and by abusing his power and position of trust, he was able to make himself inviolable to challenge and thus able to offend in plain sight.” (p.35) In addition to this the review also notes that there was “evidence of considerable and repeated abuse of power and position of trust in Foden’s physical interventions with young male pupils. Of particular concern was Foden’s repeated and public use of restrictive processes and unorthodox methods of restraint when ‘managing’ the behaviour of male pupils at the school. As with his sexual offending, Foden’s actions in this respect were normalised and carried out in plain sight.” (p.35)

A closed culture, both within the schools and wider

Accepting that through the review we have the benefit of hindsight and were not living in the day to day of what was happening, what is evidenced is deliberate behaviour by Foden to mask his behaviours as normal, coupled with creation of a culture where, as the head, he was unassailable. These themes and approaches are not new, with serious case reviews into the actions of William Vahey and Vanessa George to name just two demonstrating similar behaviours by the perpetrators.

Foden groomed those around him, normalising inappropriate behaviour and operating in plain sight. When challenged he would seek to use systems, policies and support from other senior members of staff to evade scrutiny. Coupled with this, he created a culture of fear and misogyny involving intimidation, developing a distrust of children and “actively promoted the belief that children are dishonest and would likely make false allegations. Foden simultaneously assured staff that he would ‘have their back’ if an allegation was made against them by a child, and he circulated messages to staff that named and deliberately undermined the credibility of children.” (p.37) Through his actions he would seek to push boundaries (with the review evidencing that this happened throughout his time as head), with each success reinforcing his position of strength and power. Victims would find themselves discredited or ignored, and safeguarding concerns would be reframed as professional boundary issues.

“Pupils and staff recognised that Foden had favourites, that he referred to these female pupils as his ‘waifs and strays’, that they (the female pupils) were perceived by other pupils and staff to be treated differently and that they ‘could get away with anything’. Some of these female pupils had already been identified by Foden to his colleagues as being likely to make false allegations, thus actively undermining their credibility.” (p.47)

Running alongside were gaps in training for staff around recognising grooming and abuse by professionals, little or no safeguarding training, even amongst senior leaders, and policies and procedures that Foden developed which deviated significantly from national guidance and standards.

The review also identified that the governing body was ineffective, overly reliant on Foden and consistently failed to challenge or monitor his conduct. The Chair was considered to have acted outside of proper process by refusing to suspend Foden despite recommendations to do so from the local authority. The review considered that governors had failed in their duty to ensure that there were effective policies and procedures in place in relation to safeguarding, and that there was an effective and functional complaint procedure in place.

The culmination of this was that whilst there were many people who had concerns, there was effectively nowhere for them to go. This shut down professional curiosity, meaning key questions were not asked, for example was Foden appropriately trained to counsel pupils (which is what he said he was doing in his 1:1 sessions with them)? Why did he only counsel vulnerable female pupils? Why was the head of a large secondary school taking the counselling role on personally and not delegating this so that he could focus on running the school? On occasions when someone did blow the whistle, this was not recognised as such and it is suggested that Foden was then able to engineer the whistleblower out of their role.

Ultimately, within all this, the voice of the child was lost. The review is clear that pupils at the school were wary of Foden, with individual pupils telling staff through direct conversation, their behaviours and their actions that they were not happy, but this was not heard as it was not a direct disclosure of abuse.

“The fact that a child, children (or parent) had not made a specific or direct complaint was used to close down any further inquiry. Very few cases included any attempt to discuss the concerns with the child or children who were the subject of the concern.” (p.47)

What can we do?

The emphasis throughout has been on culture in the setting. Safeguarding Network’s December materials (available to members) provide a presentation, handout, quiz and scenarios to train and update staff in relation to abuse by professionals and what to do if they have concerns. Our governor membership provides safeguarding lead governors with support around how to evidence that there is a safeguarding culture in the setting.

Some key considerations for DSLs, DDSLs, members of the senior leadership team and governors are as follows:

• Look at your policies and procedures – do they align with national standards? Does the approach in the school follow these, or is it a case of “the way we do it round here …”? What is staff awareness and understanding of such procedures?

• Complaints and whistleblowing – do pupils, parents and staff know the complaints process? Do staff know who to speak to if they have concerns about a member of staff? Do they know how to escalate their concerns?

• Staff training – do staff know what to do if they have low level concerns? Do they know what they should expect by way of next steps if they raise a concern?

• Pupils – do they feel safe in the setting? How can we triangulate this?

• Safer recruitment – do you follow safer recruitment processes? Do you follow-up references with a phone call and check the referee has been able to put everything that they wanted to on the reference? Do you have robust safer recruitment procedures for internal appointments?

• Attendance – are your registers an accurate record of what is happening? Are they monitored for any patterns? In this case, the review found that Foden was taking children out of class and getting staff to mark them as present.

• Governors – do you know your responsibilities in relation to safeguarding? How can you triangulate information that you are given in relation to safeguarding oversight? Do you know what to do if you have concerns? Is the governing body open to issues being raised?