AR’s online activity at school

AR’s online activity at school

¶18. AR’s online activity at The Acorns School was concerning. It appears that the content he accessed about school shootings, and the London Bridge terror attack were news articles. One can understand that press reporting may not readily trigger a firewall and, in addition, this usage was identified and addressed by those supervising AR. However, AR’s internet browsing history suggests that he was able to view images of degloving injuries, despite the school having a firewall in place.⁵⁹⁷⁵⁹⁷ T/S: 27/172/1-174/22. Those searches were not identified by the teaching staff at the time. This illustrates that supervision of online usage alone is unlikely to be a complete answer where a student is determined to view concerning material. Mrs Joanne Hodson, now headteacher of The Acorns School, stated that the school was relying on what they viewed to be a reputable firewall system which, in her experience was effective, although the school now uses a strengthened system.⁵⁹⁸⁵⁹⁸ T/S: 27/183/9-184/1.

¶19. Ms Kate Dixon, of the Department for Education (DfE), stated that DfE issues guidance, including Keeping Children Safe in Education, which requires schools to have appropriate filtering and monitoring systems in place. These systems are to be regularly reviewed to limit exposure to harmful content. Ms Dixon noted that the filtering will never be perfect and that it is necessary to both monitor and filter.⁵⁹⁹⁵⁹⁹ T/S: 28/91/6-20. Further detail on the standards required is set out in DfE’s Filtering and Monitoring Standards for Schools and Colleges and via self-assessments (plan technology for your school).⁶⁰⁰⁶⁰⁰ Department for Education (2025), ‘Meeting digital and technology standards in schools and colleges’, GOV.UK. Available at: www.gov.uk/guidance/meeting-digital-and-technology-standards-in-schools-and-colleges,⁶⁰¹⁶⁰¹ Department for Education (2024), ‘Plan technology for your school’, GOV.UK. Available at: www.gov.uk/guidance/plan-technology-for-your-school

¶20. Ms Dixon stated that the DfE “quite purposefully” does not quality assure filtering systems and instead sets out what is to be expected, rather than exactly how to deliver it.⁶⁰²⁶⁰² T/S: 28/92/2-94/12. She explained that DfE’s system is to give autonomy to individual schools. However, I note that her statement says that it is “an ongoing and active priority to increase software compliance with the filtering and monitoring standards, and to make it easier for schools to identify suitable systems”.⁶⁰³⁶⁰³ Witness Statement of Ms Dixon DFE000256/§339.

¶21. I remain concerned that individual schools may lack the technical knowledge to assess whether they have appropriate filtering systems in place. This was demonstrated by the fact that The Acorns School believed that they had an effective filtering system, but it appears that AR was nevertheless able to access violent content and by the fact that The Acorns School have since moved to a strengthened system. I return to this issue in the recommendations at the end of this chapter.

AR’s online activity: involvement of the police, Prevent and The Acorns School

¶22. In Chapter 7: Policing, I have addressed failures by the police to take forward sufficient searching of AR’s devices following AR’s attack at Range High School, and the fact that there would have been grounds to search his home and his devices following AR being found with a knife and mentioning poisoning in March 2022.

¶23. In Chapter 8: Prevent and Counter Terrorism Policing and Chapter 11: Education, I have addressed failures by Prevent to ensure that there was adequate scrutiny of AR’s school internet history, and The Acorns School for not ensuring that the school internet history was provided to Prevent as they had intended it would be.

¶24. I reference these features now because it should not be thought that Lancashire County Council, addressed below, was the only agency who should have taken more action in relation to AR’s online activity.