Ofsted, LBWF, and the Whitefield School CCTV cameras

This post examines how Ofsted and LBWF investigated allegations of child abuse at Whitefield School, and in particular what use they made of evidence provided by CCTV cameras.

At first sight, it might be assumed that such a matter would be straightforward, but in fact, as the following paragraphs show, it turns out to be rather convoluted, and puzzling.

Here’s the story.

As previously reported by this blog (see links, below), the Whitefield scandal first became public in January 2017, when, following a complaint by a parent, Ofsted inspectors visited the school and found that a ‘small number of pupils’ had been placed ‘against their will’ inside ‘calming rooms’, in reality ‘three secure, padded and bare spaces’, for ‘long periods of time’.

In the immediate aftermath of Ofsted publishing its inspectors’ findings, all the parties involved scrambled to respond. Working closely with the school, Ofsted supervised the production and implementation of an action plan, while LBWF staff visited and provided advice.

The upshot was that the ‘calming rooms’ were swiftly shut down, and when Ofsted inspectors returned in December 2017, they rated the school ‘outstanding’.

Nothing more was said in public about the Whitefield scandal until, in October 2021, the BBC’s Noel Titheradge blew the story open by reporting that pupils in the school had not just been left alone in the ‘calming rooms’ for long periods of time, as Ofsted had reported, but also had been ‘physically assaulted and neglected’.

And the key piece of evidence, Mr. Titheradge revealed, was recently discovered video footage of the ‘calming rooms’, shot by CCTV cameras, which showed in detail the violence that had occurred.

This underlined that the Whitefield scandal was a great deal more serious than previously thought, and also inevitably raised questions about past investigations.

For the existence of the CCTV cameras had never been made public before, which now more than ever looked decidedly odd.

As might be expected, in 2021, Mr. Titheradge wondered about this, too, and questioned the key players about it, but found them to be largely unhelpful, reporting:

‘[Whitefield School] declined to say if the CCTV had been disclosed to Ofsted during its inspection.

Ofsted also declined to say if it had observed CCTV cameras during its inspection or asked to review footage…

The London Borough of Waltham Forest said it visited the school after Ofsted’s January 2017 inspection “to ensure the safeguarding concerns raised were acted on immediately” but only learned pupils had been filmed in the seclusion rooms when footage was discovered in…2021’.

That appeared to be that, but recently, renewed questioning under the Freedom of Information Act has persuaded Ofsted to reconsider its position, with a staff member commenting:

‘I can confirm that inspections did note in the evidence that Whitefield School did have CCTV cameras.

The evidence is not clear whether inspectors viewed any CCTV footage, however they checked the line of sight of the camera in one room and viewed multiple records relating to the use of the “calming” rooms’.

Separately, it also has been established that in 2017 Ofsted fully shared all its findings with LBWF. 

In a nutshell, then:

1. In January 2017, both Ofsted and LBWF became aware that Whitefield had CCTV cameras, and understood that these might be a source of evidence (why else would the Ofsted inspectors have ‘checked the line of sight of the camera in one room’?).

2. Yet it seems that neither Ofsted nor LBWF pursued this lead with much vigour, and indicatively, when the Ofsted report appeared, it made no mention of the CCTV cameras at all.

3. Crucially, this meant that the footage which Mr. Titheradge later made use of, and then became so notorious, lay unexplored.

How could this opportunity have been missed?

It’s possible that Ofsted and LBWF staff who visited the school were misled. For example, perhaps someone in the know had earlier removed those cameras that focused specifically on the interiors of the ‘calming rooms’, otherwise misrepresented their importance, or insisted that no historic footage had been retained. 

Or perhaps the underlying problem was pressure to complete, to get a result, and with the action plan implemented, and the ‘calming rooms’ closed, it was jointly decided that any further investigation would be a disproportionate use of time and money.

But there is no doubt that the consequences of what happened in 2017 have been woeful. 

Both LBWF and the police have spent large sums of public money on investigations in search of the truth.

Much worse, the parents and carers of the abused children have been forced to fight longer and harder to get justice, with agony piled on agony.

The Local Children Safeguarding Practice Review is ongoing, and due to report towards the end of the year. It will be interesting to see how the conundrums discussed in this post are covered.

Indeed, it will be a litmus test of whether, finally, the authorities are being fully open and honest.