This article is in response to the 2023 paper ‘Men Changing Nappies: Dismantling a key barrier to gender-diversifying the early years workforce,’ (hereafter named ‘Dismantling Barriers’) by Joann Wilkinson and Jo Warin, both of the University of Manchester, and Jeremy Davies, of The Fatherhood Institute, UK.
In this paper the authors note the continuing low numbers of men working in the childcare sector and suggest that one reason for this can be attributed to discriminatory practices around men changing nappies. They view the two ‘sides’ of the debate as being “parents’ concerns” on the one hand and “gender equality, the rights of early years practitioners and the need for legally sound, non-discriminatory practices” on the other, and ask what is the best way to move towards a “de-gendered early years education workforce”.
While the paper references the good practice we wrote about in our September 2019 article, they appear not to have understood it, and rather than focussing on safeguarding and building relationships with parents, protest about some parents’ discomfort with men changing nappies.
In this article, we detail the following concerns with the paper:
- The complete omission of references to safeguarding frameworks, both statutory and guidance.
- The complete omission of references to key Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews (formally Serious Case Reviews or SCRs, until 2023).
- Failure to address weak supervision of practitioners and failure to speak up, whistleblow, discipline or dismiss staff who breach procedures.
- The paper’s elevation of practitioners’ feelings above safeguarding principles.
- The paper’s elevation of equality laws above safeguarding principles.
Wilkinson, Warin, and Davies assert that the task of changing nappies ”remains an area of tension within men’s presence in early years settings” and this is because male nursery staff believe they are “being watched by others through a lens of abuse in their place of work.” This is a misguided attempt at emotional manipulation, weaponises equality laws and betrays a total lack of understanding of what safeguarding is.
Safeguarding is an ever-evolving practice, assisted by Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews, whose purpose is to identify learning that could potentially prevent similar abusive situations occurring. In relation to changing nappies, there are two cases the paper should have mentioned: i. Vanessa George’s abuse of children at Little Ted’s nursery in Plymouth, in 2009, and ii. ten years later, Jayden McCarthy’s rape and assaults of infants at Jack and Jill Childcare in 2019.
The Serious Case Review of George’s abuses highlights a number of failings, not least that nappy changing presents a significant risk to children when procedures are not followed correctly. It found that:
- George exempted herself from the expectations placed on other staff. Whereas most staff changed nappies on the main nappy changing area easily visible to others, George selected a toilet cubicle with a full-sized door, saying she could not bend down due to her size. Although the door was open her body blocked others’ line of vision.
- Although George was not senior in her position, other factors such as her age, personality and length of service could have created an illusion of position of power and encouraged a sense of trust.
- George was able to gain the upper hand through skilful manipulation of her colleagues. It must be noted that children cannot be abused unless all the adults around them have been groomed into accepting substandard practices.
The SCR into abuse perpetrated by Jayden McCarthy, a 16-year-old who raped and sexually assaulted infants, identified similar failings. He also opportunistically abused babies and infants in the toilets whilst changing their nappies. Despite the nursery policy stating that “No…. intimate care routines take place behind closed doors,” the toilets were contained within a room that had a closable door. The SCR details how “this door opened in a direction that partially blocked sight of some of the room.”
Based on the George and McCarthy SCRs, our own professional practice and understanding of the law, at Safe Schools Alliance we believe:
- that two members of staff should be present during intimate care, regardless of their possession of a required DBS certificate. Standard DBS certificates merely show that a practitioner has not been convicted of an offence – indeed George and McCarthy both had one, despite McCarthy having previously perpetrated rapes. This fact is recognised by the existence of safer recruitment procedures, which are designed to run alongside official searches and provide managers with the opportunity to decline employment to any applicant.
A clear protective factor is ensuring that staff do not carry out tasks that involve undressing children or intimate care out of the sight of others.
- all staff should operate on an intimate care rota, with the proviso that the same members of staff should not always supervise each other. Studies by Kenneth Lanning, special agent for the behavioural science unit at the FBI, notes in his report ‘Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis’ that daycare centres may be targeted by “multiple offenders” in “sex [abuse] rings.”
- the omission of rules regarding visibility of toilet areas in the Early Years Statutory Framework is an oversight. In both cases highlighted here, perpetrators exploited this loophole while changing nappies. This must be resolved to prevent further abuse by opportunists.
Notwithstanding George’s sex, it remains a fact that males as a sex class represent a statistically significant danger in terms of their potential to perpetrate sexual violence, because the majority of paedophiles are male. Moreover, men with a sexual interest in children are more likely to work with children. Research jointly undertaken by the Australian Human Rights Commission, the University of New South Wales, Jesuit Social Services, The Men’s Project, and Stop It Now Australia highlights the importance of safeguarding in settings such as nurseries. They found “men who have sexual feelings and are offending against children were more likely to work with children compared to other men.” The FBI’s Kenneth Lanning also states that men attracted to children “may seek employment where [they] will be in contact with children.” Therefore, male practitioners should not be treated with lesser suspicion until such time as male rates of offending are as low as women’s. As stated in the statutory guidance Keeping Children Safe in Education, the Children Acts of 1989 and 2004 make it clear that “the welfare of children is paramount.”
These are all reasons to implement the three ideas outlined above (two members of staff changing babies and infants, instituting a rota and visibility of the changing area) for all practitioners – not to weaponise complaints of sex discrimination in a cynical attempt to remove men from safer recruitment and ongoing scrutiny. Rather, it is better for practitioners to instil confidence in parents by implementing universally applicable tighter procedures. Practitioners themselves should be pleased to demonstrate, by their compliance, that they are worthy of parental confidence – it is in their own best interests. If a parent finds an injury to their child in the nappy area, the person – man or woman – who changes the child’s nappies will be the first suspect. Stronger and more stringent procedures, therefore, not only protect infants and young children from sexual abuse, but they also provide practitioners with protection against accusations. Conversely, it is no solution to attempt to force key workers on parents who have concerns; this violates the principles contained in the safeguarding document Working Together To Safeguard Children.
Furthermore, we are alarmed that the authors have not drawn attention to the problem of trust placed in staff. In an interview quoted in their paper one manager states that she “…trust[s] all [her] staff.” But ‘trust’ is not a sufficient basis for effective safeguarding, which is an ongoing process that must be applied to all aspects of practice, every day. Further still, categorical statements can only inhibit the reporting of concerns, and thus may prove antithetical to safeguarding, significantly increasing the possibility that an environment will become unsafe. Sarah Lawrence, Independent Reviewer and author of the McCarthy SCR recommends that childcare settings should view safeguarding through a lens of “it could happen here.” We strongly agree.
Given the lack of safeguarding references, we are unsurprised to see that Dismantling Barriers sees value in ‘rough play’ between children and adults. The authors note uncritically that men are both considered more suitable for, and are more likely to engage in, traditionally masculine forms of play such as ‘rough and tumble’ or ‘risky play’. However, anyone with experience or knowledge of Early Years settings should be aware that over tickling, over boisterous behaviour is inappropriate and needs to be discouraged.
Indeed, such supervision may have provided a warning to McCarthy that his practice was being scrutinised. Witnesses attested that he “had a tendency to get children overexcited” by, for example, “throwing them up in the air.” Although rough and tumble play should not take place between staff and their charges, such prohibitions do not imply a ban between peers, which is a normal part of development.
The authors state that although “masculine and feminine qualities” are “located in specific male/ female bodies” they do not believe that sex is a “fixed corporeal base.” In other words, they think that sex is a kind of free-floating essence independent of biology. There are problems with this ideology. First, it is firmly within the realm of fantasy. Second, it is antithetical to safeguarding because it teaches children to ignore the evidence before their eyes.
With respect to safeguarding, we agree with Amy Souza, a psychologist who speaks about safeguarding and child development. Souza is extremely concerned about the implications of adults lying to children about material reality. Citing what is known about children’s developing psychology, she states that “children should be affirmed in reality” and not taught to “ignore the evidence of their own body’s signalling.” She says that teaching children that it is possible to be born in the wrong body is “effectively teaching them that they cannot trust the authority of their own bodies…a fundamental disruption of a developmental process.” Souza tells us:
“…around 15 months to 2, kids go through an authority building process of ‘naming and claiming’ or ‘see and say’…in which they learn they can trust their bodies to tell the truth about the world, which is a part of healthy body autonomy, and which sets the groundwork for healthy boundaries.”
Teaching children to ignore their bodies is antithetical to safeguarding because it puts them in danger, exemplified by the tale of Little Red Riding Hood, articulately outlined by De Souza, who summarises it thus:
“Any movement that preaches to…children to ‘trust what the strange man tells you about his identity’ before trusting your own instincts, is a predatory movement.”
Furthermore, the authors’ refusal to engage with biological reality supports trans activists’ attempts to obfuscate offending rates between male and female people. We reiterate here that statistics on sexual offences cannot be manufactured by redefining female/woman to include male/ man. Indeed, that is a superficial solution that discriminates against women and favours offenders. The irony of attempting to do so in a paper whose focus is sex discrimination against men in the workplace can hardly be missed.
Effective safeguarding ensures that everyone’s professional practice is thoroughly and continuously scrutinised – regardless of their sex. If the authors of Dismantling Barriers are serious about ending what they believe to be discrimination and parental scepticism around intimate care, then it is incumbent upon them to campaign for better safeguarding practices that apply to everyone. Furthermore, all early years practitioners should engage in reflective practice. Anger arising from parental requests is always an inappropriate response and it rightly raises red flags. Objections against being ‘watched by others,’ when changing nappies or performing other intimate care duties with children in the Early Years, should not be permitted in an environment that values safeguarding best practice. Best practice exists to safeguard the best interest of the child – not to protect the feelings of Early Years practitioners, which come a distant second.