After a report of child-on-child sexual violence or sexual harassment, the DSL should review whether protective and support arrangements still fit the children's needs, are happening in practice and preserve access to education. A timetable, completed action or attendance pattern can sharpen that review. None establishes what happened or whether a child is safe.
This guide starts after the initial report and response. It is for DSLs and deputy DSLs in schools and colleges in England, with sources checked on 30 September 2026. Use the immediate safeguarding or emergency route whenever needed. Don't wait for a planned review, a fuller record or a software update.
Keeping children safe in education 2026 is the final statutory guidance in force from 1 September 2026. Part five distinguishes an immediate DSL risk and needs assessment following a sexual violence report from considering the need for a risk assessment case by case after sexual harassment. Recorded assessments need regular review. School assessments support, and cannot replace, relevant specialist professional assessments.
The walk-through below is a recommended way to inspect delivery and changing needs. It is not a statutory form, a risk score or a threshold tool. The DSL applies Part five, the school's child protection policy and local safeguarding procedures, involving agencies and specialist services as required.
Open the arrangement that was actually agreed
Several invented records have been combined for this example. They describe no real child, family, school or customer. A DSL has already responded to a report of sexual harassment and recorded their assessment, immediate actions and decisions about other services. No details of the report are needed here.
The protected record contains an agreed arrival arrangement, a check-in with a trusted adult and a review point. Support for the other child is recorded separately. Each action has an owner, the information each implementing adult needs, and a route for reporting a change. These arrangements illustrate this case only; they are not a response prescribed for every report.
The DSL opens the dated decision and its rationale before reading a summary. That preserves what was agreed, who authorised it and what information was available then. A later change belongs in a new attributed entry. Keep the original decision and any unresolved facts visible.
These connected records cannot establish guilt or credibility, diagnose a child, determine a statutory threshold or select a referral. They prompt a DSL decision about the arrangements now. Any new concern goes through the safeguarding route without delay.
A room changes, but the record has not caught up
In the example, a room change has altered the arrival route. The timetable shows the new location. It doesn't establish that pupils crossed paths, that supervision was available or that any further harm occurred. The DSL asks the implementing adults to confirm what changed and checks it against the protected arrangement.
Where the change affects an agreed protection, the school acts through its safeguarding procedure immediately. Staff don't leave an arrangement unchanged until a weekly meeting because its action card still looks complete. The responsible adult confirms receipt of the revised instruction and reports what was implemented.
Apply the specific Part five requirements where relevant. During a criminal investigation into rape, assault by penetration or sexual assault, KCSIE says the alleged perpetrator should be removed from classes shared with the victim. This guide cannot relax that requirement or turn other arrangements into an automatic rule.
Keep sensitive narratives in their authorised source records. A timetable administrator may need an instruction about a room or route. That operational need does not give them access to the disclosure or the whole safeguarding file.
An assigned check-in has no delivery evidence
The support record shows a check-in was assigned. One entry confirms it happened; another has no outcome. The missing entry leaves an unanswered question. It cannot be counted as delivered support, a missed appointment or a child refusing help.
The DSL checks with the action owner: was the adult available, did the child know where to go, was the arrangement accessible, and what was recorded at the time? If support was unavailable, record the reason and the replacement agreed through the appropriate route. A late entry should show when it was added and the source it relies on.
Attendance records show two afternoon absences in the review window. The register supplies session evidence, not a reliable account of every lesson or movement around school. These absences prompt sensitive enquiry alongside the delivery gap. They don't prove that the report, room change or support arrangement caused the absence.
The July 2026 statutory attendance guidance expects schools to understand barriers with pupils and families and review agreed support. Keep attendance follow-up and the DSL's safeguarding decisions coordinated, with their purposes and owners clear. An attendance target must not pressure a child into an unsafe arrangement.
The child explains what the arrangement feels like
The child says the changed route is unclear and asks to keep speaking with the same trusted adult. Staff record that feedback as the child's account of the arrangement. They don't ask the child to repeat the original report to prove the need for support.
Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026 is statutory guidance for England, published on 18 March 2026. It expects children's wishes and feelings to be sought, heard and responded to. Explain what can change, who decides and how the child can raise a fresh concern. A parent's contribution stays separate from the child's words.
In this example, an existing communication plan records processing time and a familiar communication method. Check that those arrangements were available. The statutory SEND code of practice supports participation in decisions and attention to individual support needs. SEND or health context cannot establish abuse, explain a child's behaviour or decide their credibility.
KCSIE's ongoing-response guidance prioritises the reporting child's needs and wishes, including their normal routine where possible. Reports must be taken seriously. The child must not feel blamed, ashamed or treated as having created a problem by reporting. Review delivery and accessibility without retesting the child's credibility or shifting the administrative burden onto them. Check whether an arrangement isolates them from supportive peers.
Support needs also remain relevant for the other child and anyone else affected. NSPCC Learning's professional practice guidance discusses short- and long-term support for affected children and safeguarding support for children reported to have displayed harmful behaviour. This is non-statutory advice. It does not determine the facts of this report or replace the DSL's responsibilities.
Close the review with a decision someone can carry out
The invented review now has a defined delivery gap, a changed route and attributed feedback. The DSL records the response, rationale, action owner and next review point, drawing on local procedures and relevant professional advice. The record says which arrangement continues, what changes, who receives the instruction and what new information requires earlier action.
The next review checks implementation and the children's experience alongside source records. A completed task proves only the completion recorded. Improved attendance or fewer entries cannot prove protection succeeded, settle the report or justify ending support.
Use the statutory information-sharing guidance updated on 10 September 2026. It addresses the duty under section 16LA of the Children Act 2004, which comes into force on 30 September 2026. The legislation and statutory guidance govern sharing decisions; this worked record is a recommended review aid. Apply the duty's conditions and data protection requirements, record sharing decisions and restrict access to what is necessary. It is not blanket permission to copy narratives into general records.
Where enabled and configured, Student Radar's DSL Action Board supports authorised action ownership and review points. Chronology keeps attributed records available in sequence. Open the underlying evidence and check delivery. These features cannot substantiate harm, diagnose, score risk, determine a threshold or make an autonomous referral. The DSL and local procedures own the decisions.
At the next review, select one agreed arrangement and trace it from the protected decision to actual delivery, the child's feedback and the next human decision. Any gap should have an accountable response. Urgent safeguarding action continues throughout.
Sources and further reading
- Department for Education, Keeping children safe in education 2026, final statutory guidance in force from 1 September 2026. Part five, paragraphs 568 to 570 and the ongoing-response sections.
- Department for Education, Working together to safeguard children 2026, statutory guidance for England, published 18 March 2026. Chapter one covers child-centred practice and participation.
- Department for Education, Information sharing to safeguard children and young people, statutory guidance updated 10 September 2026 for the section 16LA duty commencing on 30 September 2026. Read the duty's scope and conditions alongside its data protection requirements.
- Department for Education, Working together to improve school attendance, statutory guidance updated 9 July 2026. Chapter two addresses understanding barriers and reviewing support with pupils and families.
- Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care, SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years, statutory guidance for England. Chapter one covers participation; chapter six covers school support and review. Publication page last updated 12 September 2024.
- NSPCC Learning, How to manage incidents of harmful sexual behaviour, non-statutory professional practice guidance on support for affected children. Sources checked 30 September 2026.