The Safeguarding Tool Sitting Right in Front of You

When did you last think of a reference as a safeguarding tool?

Not a formality. Not a box to tick before the start date. A genuine opportunity to build a safeguarding picture of the person you are about to place in a position of trust with children.

A DBS check is essential — but it tells you about the past. A well-constructed reference can tell you about conduct, character, professional boundaries, and patterns of behaviour that no certificate ever will. The question is whether we are using them to inform our safer recruitment — or just filing them as proof that we asked.

Under Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSiE 2025) — statutory guidance for all schools and colleges in England — reference practice is not optional. Schools must confirm whether they are satisfied with an applicant's suitability to work with children, and include the facts (not opinions) of any substantiated safeguarding concerns that meet the harm threshold.

But here is the nuance many miss — and where schools go wrong in both directions.

KCSiE 2025 is explicit: only substantiated concerns at the harm threshold should appear. Unsubstantiated allegations must not be included. And low-level concerns are explicitly excluded from references too.

It does not mean say nothing. It means be precise.

When a school provides a reference, it owes two distinct duties:

A duty of care — to ensure the reference is true, accurate and fair.

A duty not to defame — not to create an impression, positive or negative, that the facts do not support.

This was brought into sharp focus by Smith & Anor v Surridge & Ors — a case concluded by final judgment in January 2025. Two teachers sued their former school after it stated there had been "some safeguarding issues" during their employment, when no safeguarding findings had ever been made. Job offers were withdrawn. The High Court found the reference defamatory.

The lesson is not "say nothing." It is: be precise, be factual, be substantiated.

Vague language — "there were some concerns" — carries serious legal risk when it implies something that was never formally found.

✔ Confirmation of employment dates and role ✔ A clear statement on suitability to work with children ✔ Facts of any substantiated safeguarding concern at the harm threshold ✔ Whether a formal capability procedure was undertaken

✘ Vague language about "concerns" where no finding was made ✘ Low-level concerns (explicitly excluded under KCSiE 2025) ✘ Unsubstantiated allegations

And the harder question: what about the pattern of behaviour that was never formally investigated? The professional boundary issues managed informally? The resignation at a convenient moment?

This is where documentation before the reference matters most. Schools that have recorded concerns accurately and escalated appropriately are in a far stronger position. Those that managed people out quietly have created a problem — for the next employer, and potentially for themselves.

A misleadingly positive reference, omitting known substantiated concerns, can expose a former employer to liability.

Despite all of this, the reality in many settings is:

✔ Employment dates confirmed ✔ Job title confirmed ✔ "Would re-employ" checked

And that's it.

The most important safeguarding information about a person is not always on their DBS certificate.

Sometimes it is in what a previous employer was willing — or unwilling — to say.

#Safeguarding #SaferRecruitment #KCSiE #ChildProtection #SchoolLeadership #DBS #Education #ThoughtLeadership