KCSIE v ABE: Challenges in School Safeguarding Record-Keeping

There has been recent discussion regarding the significant challenges in safeguarding, stemming from a misalignment between Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) and Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings (ABE) guidance.

Legal experts warn that this disconnect compromises how teachers record disclosures of abuse, potentially undermining justice for victims and placing educators in precarious positions.

The Challenges

Educators are required to follow KCSIE, the statutory safeguarding guidance which advises writing summaries after conversations with children. While this approach prioritises the child’s comfort and attentiveness during disclosures, courts uphold ABE standards used by the Police and social workers, which require verbatim accounts often captured via video. This divergence creates discrepancies in evidence, making it difficult for schools to meet the evidentiary expectations of the judicial system.

A Court Case Example

In 2023, a court case highlighted the consequences of this disconnect. A judge criticised teachers’ records of a child’s disclosure as ‘vague’ and ‘confusing and shifting’, noting that they failed to provide a clear and consistent account. The judge pointed out that they were not verbatim accounts of what the child said and that they contradicted statements the teachers made later.

However, the DSL had followed KCSIE statutory guidance, and written up a conversation had with the child in line with paragraph 477 which states:

'Best practice is to wait until the end of the report and immediately write up a thorough summary. This allows the staff member to devote their full attention to the child and to listen to what they are saying. It may be appropriate to make notes during the report (especially if a second member of staff is present). However, if making notes, staff should be conscious of the need to remain engaged with the child and not appear distracted by the note taking.'

The judge concluded that the child’s account was ‘muddied and tainted’ by the teachers’ evidence, adding that it was 'an unfirm foundation on which all subsequent investigations have been built.' Based on this, the judge ruled there was no evidence of sexual abuse when reviewing the teachers’ records alongside other accounts.

The Impact of Misalignment

Despite following government-mandated KCSIE guidance, criticism of teachers’ recording practices unintentionally contributed to potential outcomes where justice was not served. Misrecording specific terms or details can introduce inconsistencies that undermine evidence in court.

The core issue lies in the differing purposes of KCSIE and ABE. While KCSIE is tailored for practical, school-based safeguarding, ABE is designed for forensic investigations. This misalignment places educators in a difficult position, where adherence to KCSIE may inadvertently undermine cases in court.

Proposed Solutions

• Introducing ABE principles into KCSIE to align guidance without overburdening teachers.
• Mandatory national qualifications for DSLs, ensuring consistent training.
• Utilising trained external investigators to conduct ABE-standard investigations in schools.
• Developing accessible, practical guidance for educators.

The safeguarding disconnect between KCSIE and ABE creates significant challenges for educators, risking failures in protecting children and supporting victims effectively.

Sara Spinks

SSS Author & Former Headteacher

3 March 2025