School photography - Child protection

SerialComplaint

I hope some of you photographers might be able to help me with a query from a parent's point of view (seeing as I got some great advice on this thread.

When doing school photography, are there any guidelines or codes of practice around child protection? I thinking of things like the photographer being garda vetted, not being alone with a child, arrangements for adjusting clothing or hair if necessary etc.

I found an interesting UK document titled
PSPA Code Of Practice v1.8 on http://www.pmai.org/PSPA/ (can't link directly as it's an MS Word document). It has the kind of things I was looking for, e.g.

5. Child Protection Policy
PSPA Members recognise the vital need to protect and safeguard children and their photographs.
5.1 Photographers will have been checked by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and CRB Enhanced Disclosure certificates will be available for inspection.
5.2 Photographers must not have sole access to children; a member of staff must be present at all times.
5.3 Photographers must not pass on or elicit personal information or contact details.
5.4 Photographers will not photograph a child when informed that a parent or guardian has not given their consent.
5.5 Photographers must treat all children with respect and sensitivity and will give clear and precise instructions regarding posing without touching the child.
5.6 Photographers will not drink alcohol, smoke or use inappropriate language or gestures in front of children.
5.7 The Photographer will use his best endeavours to ensure that images of children are held securely which may include password protection of images and disabling of functions to prevent unauthorised copying of images.
5.8 The photographer will delete all images of a child when requested to do so by the child or their parent or guardian.
5.9 The Photographer shall not sell, trade or give any image of the child to the local, national or international press.

Is there any similar guidelines for photographers in Ireland?

Paulw

There are no set guidelines. They vary from school to school.

There is no specific requirement to be Garda vetted, since the photographer would never be in charge of children, but a teacher should always be present.

jcf

Political correct bull**** .....


EVERYONE's a Paedophile ..... owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

your kids got more chance of being hit by a fat lazy moron driving his fat kids to school in his 4x4 ....

DaireQuinlan

jcf wrote: »

Such bollix !!!!!

password protect the images ??? of the kid ?? in his school uniform ??

oh yeah that will be a hit with paedos ... jesus f*cking christ the world is going mad ....following those satan countries USA and UK down the ****ing toilet...

Incoherent rant is incoherent.

OldGoat

jcf wrote: »

Political correct bull**** .....


EVERYONE's a Paedophile ..... owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

your kids got more chance of being hit by a fat lazy moron driving his fat kids to school in his 4x4 ....

Infracted for incivility. Don't post unless you have something sensible (and civil) to say.

SerialComplaint

I guess we know who's not going to get the contract for the school photography then!

Any further advice or comments are most welcome.

tororosso

jcf wrote: »

Political correct bull**** .....


EVERYONE's a Paedophile ..... owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

your kids got more chance of being hit by a fat lazy moron driving his fat kids to school in his 4x4 ....

Apart from the rant part I actually agree with the sentiment of what you are getting at. Some of this stuff is plain hysteria and an unfortunate aspect of the response to the dangers of paedophiles. If one takes a photo of people in the street and some happen to be females does that automatically mean the photographer is a sexual predator. Some of this stuff is hysterical politically correct nonsense.

Yes controls that actually protect children are good but some of the talk regarding children and photography is total paranoia.

This guideline from a post above:
"5.6 Photographers will not drink alcohol, smoke or use inappropriate language or gestures in front of children."

I don't like smoking but since when is a photographers behaviour supposed to be a part of the educative upbringing of a child? (obviously written by an anti smoking type). If the photos are indoors the school serves as a workplace so the tog can't smoke anyway.

Just out of interest, and looking at what the OP wrote, the issue seems to be a photographer in a school and there are simply 2 criteria here:
A. the photographer might be alone with the child
B. The photos taken by the photographer are seen as somehow suspicious.

In response to A, simple solution. A photographer visiting a school will obviously have to have some reason to be there. Either he (because we all know that the slant of suspicion falls mostly on males) will have been hired for a job or will be sent by an agency etc. In this case a well run school would have at least one teacher present at all times.

The response to B should be also straight forward. A photographer hired to be in a school would be taking photos of things in front of supervision (as per A) so most likely candids and/or portraits (most likely for a school journal or else for a local newspaper article). With a standard supervised room of children what exactly is the danger posed from the photos?

SerialComplaint

Just to clarify, the scenario I'm talking about is where a photographer is coming into the school by arrangement to take individual portrait-style photos, which will be sold to parents. The photographer will indeed have been invited in, or be coming by arrangement. I heard of one recent case where parents were uncomfortable with a male photographer adjusting the clothing of girls getting their first communion photos taken. He was obviously trying to make sure he got the best shot, but that level of contact was at best, unexpected. The kind of precautions that I'm suggesting are as much about protecting the photographer and the school from unfounded allegations as they are about protecting the children.

Given that every other adult who comes into contact with children through the school needs to be Garda vetted, it makes sense that this would apply to the photographer too. Where you have parents helping out in the school library or with a walking bus, Garda vetting is generally required. The exposure to the photographer is far more intimate than either of these scenarios, so vetting would seem to be justified.

It also makes sense that there would be another adult present at all times. It seems a bit of a waste to tie up a teacher for a number of hours, so maybe this would be a parent. 'At all times' has to mean 'at all times' - no popping to the loo or bringing a child back to class if that means leaving the photographer alone with another child. Maybe a couple of parents would be required to make this happen.

The smoking/drinking/bad language seem sensible to me too. Many schools are non-smoking campuses - no smoking anywhere for teachers, parents or other visitors.

thebaz

no amount of money could entice me to do this, not that i would be any good at it anyway - i have kids (teens myself) , so I am aware of protecting children , but sadly the internet has made photographing children for all the right reasons , in to some kind of creepy past time - or that is the perception i find, in many quarters

magicbastarder

tororosso wrote: »

This guideline from a post above:
"5.6 Photographers will not drink alcohol, smoke or use inappropriate language or gestures in front of children."

I don't like smoking but since when is a photographers behaviour supposed to be a part of the educative upbringing of a child? (obviously written by an anti smoking type). If the photos are indoors the school serves as a workplace so the tog can't smoke anyway.

to a child having their photo taken in a school, the photographer would come across as a figure of some authority in a school context. therefore the same rules above which undoubtedly apply to teachers should also apply to the photographer.

dave66

The school contracting or inviting the photographer to take the photographs, should (must) have a Child Protection Policy, the photographer should be made aware of the policies & procedures and required to adhere to the policy.

I would think that when the photographer is on the premises, the school, who have a duty of care for the children are obliged to ensure that the policies are being adhered to, which would likely mean that a member of staff (doesn't have to be a teacher) would be present.

Generally, if a photographer (or other adult) is going to touch a child or adjust clothing, the common policy is that another adult is present AND that the person adjusting the clothing says something like "Is it ok if I move your hair" or such.

If you are suggesting that parents be involved in supervising the photographer, who is to say the parents are suitable?

Really the place to start is with the school they should (must) have a child protection policy in place and that needs to be referred to and adhered to, which will then form the basis of who will be present, where the photographs will be taken etc. Garda vetting may not be necessary and do bear in mind that if parents feel the photographer should be vetted, then any parents assisting on the day should also be vetted, just because they're parents shouldn't make them exempt from vetting if it's being applied to the photographer.

While I see where people are coming from about the Male photographer adjusting clothing, I do think it's a very sad indication of where our society is today. There is a near automatic jump to conclusions and/or discomfort where a man, a camera and a child are combined. But that's a whole other discussion.

magicbastarder

it's a sad indication of where society is today, but seen in the context of the child abuse scandals which have come to light over the last couple of decades, it's not surprising. a bit more understandable than in britain, say, which avoided the level of scandal that ireland has experienced.

SerialComplaint

I have to say that I'm a bit surprised by all the negativity around simple risk reduction measures. Do people really feel that they are being labelled as a terrorist when going through airport security? Or labelled a drug dealer when passing a bouncer at a pub entrance? Or labelled as a murdering maniac driver when passing a cyclist wearing hi-vis?

These are all simple risk reduction measures. Any organisation that involves children (GAA, scouts) have solid child protection policies that ensure (for example) that no adult is left alone with a child - it should always be two adults. These measures protect the children in the organisation, and protect the adults from having to deal with false allegations.

Dave is right to point out that the onus is on the school to have a good policy in place. Indeed, that's the objective of my research - to ensure that my kids school does put a policy in place. They have a broad child protection policy, but I feel we need something more specific for photography. That's why I've been searching to see if other relevant policies exist. He is also right to say that any parents involved would also need to be Garda vetted - this is standard practice for any parent involved in activities that have direct contact with children.

I'm not quite sure the 'asking for permission' when required to touch the child is enough on its own. There is a real question about whether a 6-year-old child can give informed consent to these situations. At a minimum, parents should informed beforehand that this situation might arise, and given the option to be present if they wish.

thebaz

SerialComplaint wrote: »

I have to say that I'm a bit surprised by all the negativity around simple risk reduction measures. Do people really feel that they are being labelled as a terrorist when going through airport security? Or labelled a drug dealer when passing a bouncer at a pub entrance? Or labelled as a murdering maniac driver when passing a cyclist wearing hi-vis?

maybe I'm slighlty Paranoid , but I'd answer yes at certain times, to all the above questions

rainbowtrout

SerialComplaint wrote: »

I have to say that I'm a bit surprised by all the negativity around simple risk reduction measures. Do people really feel that they are being labelled as a terrorist when going through airport security? Or labelled a drug dealer when passing a bouncer at a pub entrance? Or labelled as a murdering maniac driver when passing a cyclist wearing hi-vis?

These are all simple risk reduction measures. Any organisation that involves children (GAA, scouts) have solid child protection policies that ensure (for example) that no adult is left alone with a child - it should always be two adults. These measures protect the children in the organisation, and protect the adults from having to deal with false allegations.

Dave is right to point out that the onus is on the school to have a good policy in place. Indeed, that's the objective of my research - to ensure that my kids school does put a policy in place. They have a broad child protection policy, but I feel we need something more specific for photography. That's why I've been searching to see if other relevant policies exist. He is also right to say that any parents involved would also need to be Garda vetted - this is standard practice for any parent involved in activities that have direct contact with children.

I'm not quite sure the 'asking for permission' when required to touch the child is enough on its own. There is a real question about whether a 6-year-old child can give informed consent to these situations. At a minimum, parents should informed beforehand that this situation might arise, and given the option to be present if they wish.

That's not practical if 40 or 50 kids are getting their photo taken. Having 40 or 50 parents hanging around while this is going on is not going to happen, and none of them are going to take time off work (if parents are working) for something as trivial as a photo.

While I appreciate the concern that the children should not be left alone with an adult they don't know etc, many of those parents have countless photos of their kids in all sorts of situations plastered across facebook everyday for the whole world to see and have no problem putting up all those photos without any thought for their child's privacy, yet would have a hissy fit about a photographer taking a photo of their kid in school uniform/communion outfit....

SerialComplaint

thebaz wrote: »

maybe I'm slighlty Paranoid , but I'd answer yes at certain times, to all the above questions

Well, maybe they are out to get you? But seriously, do you want to fly in a plane where no-one has been security checked?

rainbowtrout wrote: »

That's not practical if 40 or 50 kids are getting their photo taken. Having 40 or 50 parents hanging around while this is going on is not going to happen, and none of them are going to take time off work (if parents are working) for something as trivial as a photo.

There is indeed a practicality issue. At least parents would have the choice of being present if they have particular concerns. Or they might get the granny or grandad to be present. And there are lots of families with one parent not employed these days.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

While I appreciate the concern that the children should not be left alone with an adult they don't know etc, many of those parents have countless photos of their kids in all sorts of situations plastered across facebook everyday for the whole world to see and have no problem putting up all those photos without any thought for their child's privacy, yet would have a hissy fit about a photographer taking a photo of their kid in school uniform/communion outfit....

That's true too, but the school can't take the lowest common denominator approach. Just because some parents take a casual approach to data privacy doesn't mean that the school can take a casual approach for ALL students.

In my experience doing such work, generally the teacher accompanies their class, and makes adjustments to the kids as they go along (fixing ties, jumpers, etc.).

Rarely have I had to come into contact with the child themselves, but when I did, it was to make a minor adjustment and no one batted an eyelid.

Storm in a teacup. If the photographer starts offering hugs, or adjusting bras, then it's probably time to question what he's doing. If he's fixing a hair band or tie or removing a name tag/sticker, etc. chances are he just wants to get the best possible photograph.

Splinters

Must say if I was doing a job like this Id be happier with a more defined set of rules as mentioned. Its sad to say but thats the level of paranoia we live in these days in a number of areas, not just when it comes to children. As a photographer Id take these as much for my own protection as the childs.

I dont have kids myself but Ive even seen my sister display this level of paranoia with her own kids, completely unfathomed, unjustified paranoia that every stranger is out to abuse, kidnap or do whatever to her kids. Maybe its a case of me not understanding because I dont have kids, thats entirely possible. But I must admit if I was ever to take on a job like this Id be happier sticking to a simple set of rules, guidelines etc and not have something as simple as a hairband adjustment or something trivial end up as a courtcase because of some over paranoid parent.

Also it seems most of those are common sense anyway. Is there really photographers out there that would need to be told not to drink alcohol, smoke or use bad language while working with children??

mrboswell

Splinters wrote: »

Also it seems most of those are common sense anyway. Is there really photographers out there that would need to be told not to drink alcohol, smoke or use bad language while working with children??

Common sense issue, clearly.
Child protection issue, not really.

Drinking alcohol on the job, smoking or using bad language in front of children is not specifically a risk to children but certainly unprofessional. How many parents do the above on a regular basis with absolutely no regard for their kids?

Schools have a duty of care to student to supervise them at all times.
If the school are doing their job there should be no issue. School should screen all potential professionals that enter the premises.

Simple

SerialComplaint

mrboswell wrote: »

School should screen all potential professionals that enter the premises.

True, though screening doesn't mean 'job done'. Supervision is also required.

Deleted User wrote: »

In my experience doing such work, generally the teacher accompanies their class, and makes adjustments to the kids as they go along (fixing ties, jumpers, etc.).

Rarely have I had to come into contact with the child themselves, but when I did, it was to make a minor adjustment and no one batted an eyelid.

Storm in a teacup. If the photographer starts offering hugs, or adjusting bras, then it's probably time to question what he's doing. If he's fixing a hair band or tie or removing a name tag/sticker, etc. chances are he just wants to get the best possible photograph.

The incident that sparked this off involved the male photographer adjusting the first communion dress of an 8 year old girl, which is just a bit more intimate than fixing a tie. There was a parent present, and he seemed a bit miffed when the parent indicated that they'd prefer to do the adjusting themself.

Splinters wrote: »

Must say if I was doing a job like this Id be happier with a more defined set of rules as mentioned. Its sad to say but thats the level of paranoia we live in these days in a number of areas, not just when it comes to children. As a photographer Id take these as much for my own protection as the childs.

That's a great point - a good policy will protect the photographer from spurious abuse allegations as well as protecting the child.

Scruffles

just want to add a point to this,if it wasnt obvious enough already be very careful of taking photos in schools without the childs parents.

am living in a residential centre with an attached special school; for adults,kids and teens and as a hobbyist photographer its written in the guidelines of mine that staff use for each other; that am not allowed to get photos of other adults,or the kids and teens [theyre in our adjoined building] because we are all classed as being impaired in mental capacity and some people are low enough in m/capacity to be unable to decide for themselves that they agree or do not.

we are all on the centres website gallery and they had to get permission for those of either ourselves,both selves and parents or parents.
the reason being is it woud probably violate POVA [protection of vulnerable adults] and CQC and specificaly kids itd violate POCA [protection of children act] and OFSTED.
however from an irish perspective am not sure if are as barmy as us for over protection.

SerialComplaint

Scruffles wrote: »

just want to add a point to this,if it wasnt obvious enough already be very careful of taking photos in schools without the childs parents.

am living in a residential centre with an attached special school; for adults,kids and teens and as a hobbyist photographer its written in the guidelines of mine that staff use for each other; that am not allowed to get photos of other adults,or the kids and teens [theyre in our adjoined building] because we are all classed as being impaired in mental capacity and some people are low enough in m/capacity to be unable to decide for themselves that they agree or do not.

we are all on the centres website gallery and they had to get permission for those of either ourselves,both selves and parents or parents.
the reason being is it woud probably violate POVA [protection of vulnerable adults] and CQC and specificaly kids itd violate POCA [protection of children act] and OFSTED.
however from an irish perspective am not sure if are as barmy as us for over protection.

Thanks for the reminder of the importance of getting parents permission.

mrboswell

SerialComplaint wrote: »

True, though screening doesn't mean 'job done'. Supervision is also required.

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Thanks for the reminder of the importance of getting parents permission.

If the school is doing their job then both points above should be covered.

A lot of schools seem to inform parents when their children join the school that photos will be taken for specific purposes such as x,y and z.

If parents disagree then it is probably something similar to when they want their kids withdrawn from religion class - parents are responsible for supervision when they don't want their kids to be involved in the activity that all other students are involved in.

Fairly reasonable stuff re OP as we said already. Common sense should prevail.