Before September, a DSL should test whether each live chronology lets an authorised reviewer understand what was reported, what was checked, what was decided, why, who owns the next action and when it will be reviewed.
Fix factual gaps without rewriting history. Keep the original concern, later information and professional decisions distinct. An audit must not delay urgent action or become a new route for deciding thresholds.
This guide is for schools and colleges in England and is accurate on 9 August 2026. Follow your current child protection policy, local procedures and escalation route.
Which guidance applies on 9 August 2026?
Keeping children safe in education 2025 is the current statutory guidance until 31 August 2026.
It says concerns, discussions, decisions and reasons should be recorded in writing. Records should include a clear summary, follow-up, resolution, action, decisions and outcome.
KCSIE 2026 was published on 7 July 2026 for preparation. It does not come into force until 1 September 2026, so it is not described here as the current duty.
Working together to safeguard children 2026 is current statutory guidance in England, published on 18 March 2026.
It explains that no single practitioner holds the full picture. Missed opportunities to record, understand and share information promptly can have severe consequences.
The DfE's May 2024 information-sharing document is non-statutory advice. It says to record the reason for a sharing decision whether information is shared or not.
A separate change also starts on 1 September 2026. The regulated-activity supervision exemption remains in place today, then is removed for roles meeting the specified conditions.
Run a seven-part chronology audit
Sample live cases according to your school's policy, assurance plan and access controls. Include different stages and owners, but do not copy narratives into an audit spreadsheet.
| Check | What usable evidence looks like | Safe correction |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Factual signal | Source, date, time, author and factual wording are clear | Add a dated clarification; do not silently rewrite the original |
| 2. Provenance | Observed, reported and professionally interpreted material are distinct | Name the source and mark uncertainty or missing context |
| 3. Response | The record shows who reviewed the concern and what happened next | Add a factual follow-up entry linked to the source record |
| 4. Decision | The decision and its rationale are recorded, including no-referral decisions | Record the accountable decision; do not invent retrospective certainty |
| 5. Ownership | Every open action has a named role or professional and due date | Reassign explicitly and preserve the change in the audit trail |
| 6. Review | The next review point and evidence needed are visible | Set a proportionate date and state what would change the judgement |
| 7. Access | Need-to-know permissions, access history and exports match local policy | Use the approved governance route; keep staff records separate |
Test whether the sequence supports accountable review
Read the sampled chronology forward without relying on the DSL who knows the case by memory. Ask whether each new entry changes the known facts, the professional question or the action.
A list of incidents is not automatically a useful chronology. Sequence matters because a later decision should be traceable to the information available at that time.
Do not tidy contradictory accounts into one smooth narrative. Preserve who said what, when it was recorded and what remained uncertain. Add later clarification as a later entry.
Check inactive-looking cases as well as visibly busy ones. A quiet chronology may reflect a stable plan, but it may also hide an ownerless action, overdue review or missing outcome.
Where a referral was or was not made, the record should show the DSL's decision and reasons. Software must not infer the route, threshold or outcome from categories or record counts.
Audit ownership and ageing without creating a risk score
Start with open actions, not a league table of pupils. Group by action state, owner and review date, then open the authorised source record before making any professional judgement.
Ask who is responsible now, what they have agreed to do, when it is due and what happens if they are unavailable. A shared team name is not enough when a live action needs one owner.
Ageing can reveal process drift, but it cannot establish harm or urgency. An older action may be complete but poorly closed; a new concern may require immediate action.
Use local policy and professional review to decide what needs action. Do not let an audit colour, automated label or deadline replace the DSL or local safeguarding route.
Read the records together
Consider a minimal fictional composite. A concern record notes a factual change in a pupil's presentation. The entry is attributed, but the follow-up field has no owner or date.
Attendance metadata shows a recent pattern change. A communication log shows contact was attempted, but not what the family circumstances are. SEND metadata shows an upcoming review.
The DSL reads the authorised source records. The question becomes: what is known, what is missing, who should make the next enquiry and does local procedure require action now?
The DSL records the decision, owner and next review point. The safeguarding narrative stays in the child protection record rather than being copied into attendance or SEND trackers.
Attendance, communication and SEND records cannot prove abuse, neglect, motive, parental capacity or a statutory threshold. Their role is to sharpen professional enquiry.
If there is immediate danger or an urgent concern, follow the school's procedure and the relevant emergency or local route now. Do not wait for a fuller dataset or a scheduled audit.
Share the minimum necessary information and record why
Data protection law does not prevent necessary safeguarding sharing. The ICO describes it as a framework for fair, proportionate and lawful sharing.
Decide the purpose, recipient, lawful basis and minimum information needed. Record what was shared, with whom and why, or why a request was declined.
The DfE advice says sharing an entire case file is rarely necessary. A chronology audit is therefore not permission to widen access or export every record.
Use the school's approved secure process. Keep staff safeguarding concerns separate from pupil chronologies, and follow the distinct procedure for allegations and low-level concerns.
The part Student Radar can support
In Student Radar, Chronology shows attributed entries in sequence and surfaces action state, including missing due dates.
The DSL Action Board supports case assignment and scheduled review dates. Permission checks control chronology actions and exports.
These features help authorised staff find gaps and open the underlying record. They do not substantiate harm, score risk, determine a threshold, make a referral or replace local procedure.
Leave each sampled record in a safer state
- Act immediately on any concern that cannot wait.
- Add dated corrections rather than rewriting historic entries.
- Record the decision, rationale and outcome that are actually known.
- Name one owner for each open action and confirm the due date.
- Set the next review point and the evidence it will use.
- Resolve access or export concerns through the approved governance route.
- Recheck the sample in September and challenge repeat gaps.
Use the separate SEND record retention and transfer guide for educational records. Child protection files follow their own secure controls and transfer route.
Sources and further reading
- Department for Education, Keeping children safe in education, page updated 7 July 2026. KCSIE 2025 applies until 31 August 2026.
- Department for Education, Working together to safeguard children 2026, statutory guidance published 18 March 2026.
- Department for Education, Information sharing advice for safeguarding practitioners, non-statutory advice updated 1 May 2024.
- Information Commissioner's Office, A 10 step guide to sharing information to safeguard children, published 14 September 2023.
- Department for Education, Data protection in schools: sharing personal data, updated 9 July 2026.
- Department for Education, Working or volunteering in regulated activity with children, updated 29 June 2026. The change starts on 1 September 2026.
Student Radar can help authorised DSL teams review chronology, ownership and next actions together. Book a demonstration to test the workflow against your policy and access model.