Suspension Isn't Automatic: KCSiE's 5 Alternatives First

This is the education commute. Both voices on this show are synthesized. The judgment isn't. So it is 20 to 4 on a Thursday. Right. And the head is on the corridor, not in the office, which is how you know. Yeah, that's always the sign. They say, have you got a minute? Just you. And you go in, the door closes. And well, the first sentence includes the words a parent has made. Oh, man. And honestly, before the sentence even finishes, I mean, the immediate thought is just.

That's it. I'm suspended. That's just what happened. Exactly. That is the immediate thought. So I am in the reader's chair today, and we are looking at the document, Keeping Children Safe in Education, 2026, Part 4, Section 1, Concerns or Allegations that May Meet the Harm Threshold. Right. And, you know, this is the section nobody reads until the day they actually need it. No, they really don't. And I am in the staff room chair today. The reason nobody reads it is because we all think we already know how it works.

I mean, I have watched three colleagues go through this exact process in my career. Two came back. One didn't. And in all three cases, I mean, the first thing anyone said in the staff room was, well, they'll be suspended. Because that is the unquestioned staff room orthodoxy. Exactly. We just accept it. So testing this orthodoxy is the focus of the episode today. Right. Well, we need to start by identifying exactly what activates this specific section of the guidance. Because according to the text, this process only triggers under four specific allegations against someone working in the school.

Okay, what are the triggers? So the first trigger is that they have behaved in a way that has harmed a child. or, you know, may have harmed a child. Yeah. The second is that they have possibly committed a criminal offense against or related to a child. And the third is that they have behaved towards a child in a way that indicates they may pose a risk of harm. Right. And those first three are exactly what you would anticipate in safeguarding guidance. Absolutely. I mean, they focus directly on direct harm or the risk of harm to a child.

But we really need to look at the phrasing of the fourth one. Yeah, the fourth trigger is that the person has behaved in a way that indicates they may not be suitable to work with children. See, that phrasing is exceptionally broad. It really is. Behaving in a way that indicates you may not be suitable to work with children. I mean, it does not specify that the behavior has to happen on the school premises or during the school day. You are entirely correct. And the guidance explicitly addresses that breadth.

It specifies that this fourth trigger includes behavior outside of school. Right. The exact term used in the statutory guidance is transferable risk. Transferable risk. Yes. Meaning an allegation about the weekend can land on this desk. If there is an incident or an allegation regarding something you did on a Saturday evening, that transferable risk places you directly into the statutory process on Monday morning. Wow. So you walk into the office, the door is closed. An allegation has been made that fits one of those four categories, perhaps even something concerning a transferable risk from the weekend.

Yeah. Who is actually sitting across from you running this process? So the person in charge is legally defined as the case manager. And in almost all circumstances, the case manager is the head teacher. Okay. But what if the allegation is about the head teacher? If the allegation happens to be about the head, then the case manager is the chair of governors. Ah, got it. But the case manager does not make decisions in isolation. They are required to discuss the situation with the local authority designated officer, the LDO.

Right. And when they have that discussion with a local authority designated officer, the LADU, what exactly are they assessing? Because, well, from the staff member's perspective, it feels entirely one -sided. I can understand that, but the guidance is very clear on this. When the case manager consults the LADU, they must recognize two distinct aspects to every single allegation. Two aspects. Yes. The first aspect is the welfare of the child. And that is the designated safeguarding lead's job. Okay, sure. But the second aspect, and I'll use the exact words of the guidance here, is investigating and supporting the person subject to the allegation.

I have to push back on that word. On support. Yes. The staff room orthodoxy completely rejects the word supporting. Interesting. Why is that? Well, we know the text says you must deal with allegations quickly, fairly, and consistently, and provide effective protection for the child while supporting the person subject to the allegation. Right. But the reality on the ground does not involve support. No? No. The reality is the phone call to the Liderio happens and you are sent home by half past four with your laptop taken away.

Wow. Yeah, that is what quickly means in practice. So the word supporting simply does not match the events of that afternoon for the person in the room. Which brings us to one of the most critical sentences in the entire document. Because the guidance addresses the exact reality you just described. Really? Yes. I am going to read this exact quote. Suspension should not be an automatic response when an allegation is reported. All options to avoid suspension should be considered prior to taking that step. Wait. That contradicts everything school staff believe about the process.

It does? We are completely convinced that suspension is immediate and automatic. It is not. The guidance states that suspension should only be considered if there is cause to suspect a child or other children at the school or college is or are at risk of harm. Or if the case is so serious that there might be grounds for dismissal. Those are the specific thresholds. It is not allegation, therefore suspension. But the reality is that schools often bypass those thresholds and go straight to suspension anyway. Well, the guidance explicitly counters that practice by detailing five specific alternatives the case manager must look at before considering suspension.

Five alternatives. They have to look at them. They must. They cannot just default to sending you home. Okay, what are they? First, they must consider redeploying the staff member within the school so they are not in contact with the child. Right. Second, providing an assistant to be present when the staff member is present. That makes sense. Third, moving the staff member to work without unsupervised access to children. And fourth, moving the child to a different class. Wait. Moving the child to a different class is an alternative to suspending the staff member.

Yes, but with strict conditions. Moving the child is only permitted if it is in the child's best interests, the parents have been consulted, the child's views are taken, and it is made unequivocally clear that it isn't a punishment for the child. Right. Okay. That is a high bar. It is. And if that is not appropriate, there is a fifth alternative, a temporary move to another school in the trust or the authority. So the case manager has five distinct procedural alternatives they're required to examine before they reach for suspension.

They must look at them, yes. And the guidance explains exactly why they are required to do so. Why? The case manager must consider the potential permanent professional reputational damage to employees that can result from a suspension if the allegation is later found to be unfounded, unsubstantiated, malicious, or false. That phrase. Potential permanent professional reputational damage is exactly what we see happen. I mean, I keep thinking of the third colleague I mentioned, the one who didn't come back. She was called in and suspended that exact same afternoon.

Nobody provided her with written reasons. Nobody told her why those five alternatives were not used. She was simply sent home. What does the guidance actually dictate for a school that just suspends someone without working through these steps? The guidance provides very strict instructions for that exact scenario. If immediate suspension is deemed necessary, the case manager must record the rationale and justification. Yes. That written record must explicitly include what alternatives to suspension have been considered and why they were rejected. Oh, wow. And furthermore, written confirmation must be provided to the staff member within one working day containing those exact reasons.

See, my colleague received none of that. Nothing. She had a phone call from HR on the following Monday. There was no written rationale provided within one working day. Then the employer failed to follow the statutory guidance. Right. And we should point out another vital... regarding the suspension process, the guidance states, it is not acceptable for an employer to leave a person who has been suspended without any support. That is huge. A named contact must be provided at the point of suspension, complete with their details. So if they don't do that?

A union representative could challenge a school failing to follow this. That is so important to know. It is. If you are suspended and there is no written rationale, no reasons provided within one working day, and no name contact assigned to you, the employer is breaching the guidance. There is another major misconception in the staff room that drives the fear of suspension. Oh, what's that? We often hear that if the police are involved, the school has no choice. The assumption is that police involvement makes suspension mandatory.

The guidance corrects that directly. It does it. Yes. It states clearly that the police and children's social care can give their view on the situation, but they cannot require a suspension. Really? Police involvement does not dictate the school's response. The power to suspend sits strictly with the employer, and it is decided case by case after a risk assessment. So the police can advise the school. But they cannot demand that the head teacher suspends you. That completely changes how staff understand the process. I bet it does.

But I want to ask about the time spent at home. Because from what I observed with my colleagues, the worst part of the entire process was the silence. Yeah, that isolation. Well, the guidance addresses that silence by outlining a strict duty of care. Employers have a duty of care to their employees. And the document gives six specific bullets detailing exactly what the employee is owed during a suspension. What are the six bullets? Number one, manage and minimize stress. Good start. Number two, inform you as soon as possible about the likely course of action.

Number three, advise you to contact your union representative or a colleague for support. Number four, appoint a named representative to keep you informed of progress. So you aren't just sitting in silence. Exactly. Number five, provide access to counseling or medical advice where appropriate. Also very necessary. And number six, do not prevent social contact with colleagues and friends unless there's evidence it would prejudice the investigation. Wait, we need to pause on that sixth bullet point. Why is that? Do not prevent social contact with colleagues and friends.

That directly contradicts the fundamental unwritten staff room rule. Really? Yes. The unwritten rule whenever anyone is suspended is don't talk to anyone. Well, the written rule requires the exact opposite. Unless the school has specific evidence that social contact will prejudice the investigation, they cannot prevent you from speaking with your colleagues and friends. That is incredible. And, you know, while this social contact is happening and the stress is being managed, is there a timeline for the investigation? Or does it simply stretch on indefinitely while you sit at home?

No, there is a strict clock placed on the process. The guidance mandates that the first review must happen no later than four weeks after the initial assessment. Four weeks. Yes, and following that first four -week review, the subsequent reviews must happen fortnightly or monthly while the process continues. The school cannot just leave you at home without updating you on this schedule. Let us turn to the parents for a minute. In the second case I witnessed in my career, the parent posted about the allegation on the Village Facebook group.

before the weekend even started. Oh, no. Yeah. This immediately publicized the entire situation to the local community. Well, the guidance covers this specific action. That parent is committing a criminal offense under the Education Act. A criminal offense. Yes. There are strict reporting restrictions in place. These restrictions prevent the identification of an accused teacher by or on behalf of a pupil at the same school until they are charged or a regulator decision is published. Right. Furthermore, schools are required to make parents aware of this confidentiality requirement when informing them of the allegation.

Okay. So the school has to tell them. Yes. The school must tell the parents about the allegation as soon as possible, but they must keep them informed only about their own child, share no information about the staff member, and explicitly inform them of the strict requirement to maintain confidentiality. So the school is legally supposed to have warned the parents that posting on a village Facebook group breaches the reporting restrictions and constitutes an offense. Yes, that is exactly what the guidance requires. Wow. And when the investigation process finally ends, how does the guidance categorize the outcomes?

What are the exact terms used on the paperwork? The document details five exact terms that end the process. Okay, let's hear them. The first outcome is substantiated. This means there is sufficient evidence to prove the allegation. Right. The second is malicious. This means there is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation, plus there was a deliberate act to deceive or harm you. Okay, malicious. The third is false. This means there is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation, but without the deliberate intent to deceive. So false is disproved, but not deliberate.

Got it. Yes. The fourth is unsubstantiated. This means there is insufficient evidence either way. And the guidance explicitly states that unsubstantiated does not imply guilt or innocence. That is an important distinction. It is. And the fifth outcome is unfounded. This means there is no evidence or proper basis for the allegation being made in the first place. Substantiated, malicious, false, unsubstantiated, and unfounded. Those are the five. When you receive one of those five outcomes, which of them actually stays with you? What goes into your permanent file?

So malicious and false outcomes are removed from your personnel record entirely. Okay, good. Unless you explicitly consent to keep them there. Right. But the other three outcomes stay on your file. They do. Yes. That record will include a summary of the allegation, how it was followed up, the outcome, and a declaration on whether it will be referred to in a future reference. And how long does that stay? This information is kept on file until you reach pension age or for 10 years, whichever is longer. The file is one thing, but the references are what staff worry about most.

Of course. Does an... Unsubstantiated allegations go into an employer reference when I try to get a new job? Crucially, no. Oh, thank goodness. Only substantiated allegations that meet the harm threshold can be included in employer references. And they can only be included as fact, not opinion. Right. False, unfounded, unsubstantiated, and malicious allegations should not be included in employer references at all. So an unsubstantiated allegation sits on my file, potentially until I reach pension age, but it never goes into my employer reference. That is the exact distinction made in the text.

And, you know, it is a distinction you need to know before you are sitting in the room with the head teacher. Absolutely. Let us look at the application of these rules across three different rooms to see how this works in practice. Okay. First, let us look at the playground restraint scenario. Right. A primary teaching assistant is accused of hurting a child after holding their arm on the playground. This scenario connects directly to paragraph 447. When the allegation involves physical contact, the LaDia discussion must take into account that staff are entitled to use reasonable force.

Right, the reasonable force guidance. Yes, which is exactly why a same -day record matters here. The case manager must present that same -day record to the local authority designated officer, the LADO, to demonstrate the context of reasonable force. Okay, second, let us look at the supply teacher scenario. This happens in a secondary school. When an allocation is made against a supply teacher, the immediate instinct of the school is often to simply not book them again. But the guidance prohibits that instinct. Really? Yes. It states that in no circumstances should a school cease using a supply teacher due to safeguarding concerns without finding out the facts and liaising with the LEDO.

So they still have to run the process? Yes. The school is responsible for running the investigation because the incident happened on their premises, the agency leads on the discipline, and the supply teacher must be advised to contact their union. Good to know. Third, let us look at the specialist plan scenario. In a specialist setting, a member of staff has a behavior support plan that actually anticipates physical intervention. An allegation is made following an intervention. The allegation still goes through the section of the guidance. However, the document mandates basic inquiries first.

Basic inquiries? Yes. Those basic inquiries will look for the specialist plan, the same -day record, the parent report, CCTV, and witnesses. The goal of the basic inquiries is simply to establish the facts. Were you there? And did you have contact? So let us return to 20 to 4 on a Thursday. Okay. The head teacher has asked for a minute. The door is closed. The words a parent has made have been spoken. You are sitting in the chair. Right. There are three questions you must ask before leaving that room.

Just three. Three crucial ones. Question one, who is the case manager? Okay. Question two, who is my named contact? Right, because you need that support. Exactly. Question three. Have you considered the alternatives to suspension? You must ask this third question because the guidance says they must consider them and it says they must write down why they rejected them. And you should also ring your union that evening. Yes. You are not doing anything wrong by calling them. The guidance itself tells the school to advise you to do this.

So we have two questions for you to take away. The kettle question. Ask whoever is next to the kettle at break. If an allegation were made about you this afternoon, do you know who the case manager and named contact would be or would you find out from the silence? That is a tough question. And the governor question. If a governor asked to see the allegations procedure and how many suspensions had a written rationale with alternatives considered, would there be a document to open or a memory to rely on?

Very important. So here are the three things off the drive. One, suspension is not automatic. It requires cause to suspect risk or possible dismissal. And only after five alternatives are considered and reasons recorded. Two, you are owed a named contact, written reasons within one working day, advice to call your union, and a four -week review. The police cannot require suspension. And three. There are five outcomes. Only substantiated ones go into reference. Malicious and false come off your file. A parent posting on social media commits an offense.

Everything is linked in the show notes. And there's a printable one pager at theeducationcommute .co .uk for parents or the staff room. Both voices on this show are synthesized. The judgment isn't. Safe trip in. See you at the gate.