|
REF |
ITEM |
RED |
AMBER |
GREEN |
RESOURCES |
|
The setting is compliant with the Public Sector Equality Duty and the Equality Act 2010. |
RED Knowledge of the public sector equality duty is not known about by leadership or governance. |
AMBER Knowledge of the public sector equality duty is limited to the governing body and some members of the senior leadership team. The public sector equality duty is tokenistically reflected in the setting’s values and ethos. |
GREEN The public sector equality duty is well embedded in practice and known about by all members of staff. All staff can connect and identify this duty in relation to their day-to-day work. |
||
|
The setting publishes information about their compliance with the General Equality Duty under the Public Sector Equality Duty and reviews this at least on an annual basis.
|
RED The setting is not compliant with the Public Sector Equality Duty and does not have an equality statement that is reviewed at least on an annual basis. |
AMBER Knowledge of the setting’s equality statement regarding the setting’s compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty is limited within the setting’s community. A statement has been published on the setting's website and is reviewed an annual basis. For Early Years settings this will be reflected in their Equalities Policy. |
GREEN The setting’s position is clearly known by all members of staff and this is regularly revisited. All staff are clear about their duties in relation to this statement and how it relates to their work. All policies have explicit reference to the setting’s Public Sector Equality Duty. This is to avoid negative discrimination against those with protected characteristics and to consider taking positive action such as making reasonable adjustments for this cohort. The setting has referenced the concept of intersectionality in their statement in recognising that children, families, and their communities may have multiple disadvantages. |
|
|
|
The setting has published their Measurable Equality Objectives and reviews them at least every four years. |
RED The setting is not compliant with the Public Sector Equality Duty and does not have Measurable Equality Objectives that are reviewed at least every 4 years. |
AMBER The setting has Measurable Equality Objectives which are reviewed at least every 4 years which are published on the setting’s website. Knowledge of these is limited to some members of the senior leadership team. |
GREEN The setting has Measurable Equality Objectives which are reviewed more regularly than every 4 years. Objectives are informed by regularly reviewing equalities data and are co-owned, co-constructed and acted upon by all members of staff. This can include having an awareness of what is available contextually to meet the needs of different communities represented in the cohorts. |
||
|
The setting has an awareness and application of anti-oppressive practice through development of a whole setting approach to embedding the Human Rights Act 1998 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
|
RED The setting has not raised awareness of human rights or the rights of the child either through the curriculum or school values. |
AMBER The setting has measures in place to review its compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the setting’s community are aware of the rights of children and their families. Some members of the senior leadership team are aware and considers human rights on behalf of the school. |
GREEN The setting has completed an audit tool such as UNICEF’s ‘Right Respecting’ accreditation (or equivalent) which embeds rights in policy, practice, and culture. There is a consensus and understanding by all members of staff around their duties to comply with the Human Rights Act 1989. There is evidence that awareness of human rights is embedded across the setting, including amongst staff, learners and their families. There is evidence that the setting reviews its practice at least on an annual basis where human rights may have been compromised (e.g. effectiveness of exclusions and suspensions). |
|
|
|
The setting has identified safe spaces for learners who experience additional barriers to accessing support due to protected characteristics.
|
RED The setting has not identified safe spaces for learners or staff with protected characteristics. |
AMBER The setting has developed safe spaces for learners who identify as lesbian, gay, bi, or trans (LGBTQ+) to share their concerns with members of staff in line with Part 2 of Keeping Children Safe in Education. |
GREEN In addition to conditions set out in the Amber; The setting has taken proactive steps to develop safe spaces for other prominent protected characteristics for learners and staff in their community. Senior leadership provide spaces to listen, centre and promote the voices of those who are marginalised by policies due to their protected characteristics. Members of staff champion equality work and have undertaken additional training to consider developing inclusive spaces. |
||
|
|
There is a Statement of Principal and Practice that reflects the theoretical or therapeutic models underpinning the practice of the setting. The statement includes an outline of provision for learners with special educational needs or disabilities.
|
RED The setting does not have a statement in place that is reviewed on a regular basis. |
AMBER There is a statement in place which is publicly available and is known by members of the setting’s community. This is reviewed at least every 2 years. |
GREEN The statement has been co-constructed with learners, families, and members of staff. It has been written in a way which is accessible. The statement is embedded in the setting’s practice, policy, and culture. This is reviewed at least on an annual basis. |
|
|
The setting has mechanisms in place to ensure that children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities can access appropriate and proportionate support according to their presenting needs through a graduated response. |
RED The setting does not have a graduated response. SEND provision is not well planned or regularly monitored. |
AMBER There is an identified SENCO who is undertaking the relevant national training. A clear, costed whole setting plan outlining Ordinarily Available Provision in all four areas of the code of practice. A clearly demonstrated graduated response is evidenced. There are monitoring cycles for school based support for children. This takes place 3 times a year and includes parent and child's voice. There is a commonly understood criteria for identifying additional need and adding children to the SEND register. |
GREEN In addition to conditions set out in the Amber; The setting has a qualified SENCO who is part of Senior Leadership Team. There is a designated SEND governor who oversees the effectiveness of performance in line with local and national expectations. A Special Education Needs and Disability information report which has been co-constructed with learners and families. This is reviewed annually and published on the setting's website. |