As a risk management professional, I have examined the approach to safety in early learning and childcare (ELC) settings. Tragedies continue to occur, and an obvious question is ‘Why?’. Another is, ‘Is improvement possible?’
Of the starting points, one is the safety record of nurseries. Historic government statistics show there are around 9,000 accidents to birth to four-year-olds inside nurseries each year. Most are minor, though not all. Nonetheless, it is immediately evident that nurseries cannot be described as ‘safe’ unless the word has a particular meaning. One enlightening definition is: ‘Safety – freedom from unacceptable risk, but not safe’! The point made is there is seldom a complete absence of risk, and some must be tolerated. Thus, although a popular concept of ‘safety’ is zero risk, risk professionals think differently. The implication is that accidents will occur in places described as safe.
A second approach is to examine policy statements on nursery safety. Of late these have tended to emphasise safety while eating, though the most vulnerable time in nurseries is during play. The EYFS requires providers to take all necessary steps to keep children safe and well, reminds that a child dies in the UK every month from choking, and advises that infants and young children should never be left alone while eating. From a risk perspective there is an element of vagueness – what exactly is ‘not being alone while eating?’. Further guidance states, ‘Children must usually be within sight and hearing of staff and always within sight or hearing.’
Overshadowing all, however, is the staff to child ratio. There are inherent trade-offs here between the benefits of a ratio and its cost implications. The main motivation behind ratios has been described as quality care and learning experiences. A secondary benefit is safety from harm. In specifying a ratio, a choice is made about both.
With respect to mealtimes, it is recognised that sitting with children can enhance social interaction. However, in some nurseries there has been a tendency to reinterpret and ramp up this advice as a requirement for an adult to sit at table throughout mealtime for safety purposes. This reinterpretation, as with the gradual shift in the perceived rationale behind ratios, has significant implications for how nurseries are managed. A maximally safe environment is not necessarily the best learning environment.
There is also the question of how practical these evolving perceptions of requirements are. My observation of nurseries reveals how demanding a job it is, and how difficult to always satisfy the ratio and sit at table during mealtime. This is confounded by record keeping demands, some of which seem to be for the purpose of secondary risk management, i.e., managing the risk of being prosecuted.
There are things which warrant consideration:
- A review of risk in nurseries. What causes harm and how seriously?
- Provision of an easily understood document setting out safety expectations
- Evaluation of procedures in terms of practicality and practicability
- Improved training in risk including dynamic risk assessment
- Recognition that front-line workers should have some freedom to make decisions based on experience, training and dynamic risk assessment
- Awareness that, sometimes, bad things happen in a risk-based society with no individual to blame