David Tucker, head of policy at the NSPCC, is right to say
that we need to understand what was happening between the school and Children's
Social Care in the lead up to Daniel’s death.
The crucial questions will concern whether or not a child protection
referral was made to Children’s Social Care and, if so, what decisions were
taken.
At this stage we are told that a previous concern, involving
a broken arm, had been investigated. Apparently no cause for concern was found
at that stage. Subsequently Daniel’s condition is said to have deteriorated
substantially during his first six months at school. He was said to have lost a
great deal of weight and to have been found searching bins for food. We are
told that his mother told the school he had a rare eating disorder.
Reports speak of various medical and education professionals
being involved, but we are not given the details. It is not clear at this stage
whether Children’s Social Care became involved as a result of the concerns
expressed by the school.
I was sorry to read that a representative of the teacher’s
union NASUWT is reported as already blaming the reduction in the amount of
government child protection guidance. The BBC quotes her as saying: "Since
2010, when the government reduced red tape in the child protection system, a
number of things have hit the floor that were there to protect not only
children but teachers as well.”
