There has been a surge of interest this week in the role of social media checks on teaching applicants. At least one person appears to have fallen foul of the practice, and we can’t afford to miss out on any high-quality applicants. So how can we ensure we get it right?
Understandably, there is some discomfort around this. Where do we draw the line between due diligence and becoming the thought police? What purpose does it serve? Is this about culture or control?
Most importantly, what frameworks and approaches need to be in place to ensure this does not become toxic but instead acts as a valid tool in our recruitment toolkit?
This all requires careful consideration of the prevailing legal and ethical guidelines.
Legal framework
Changes to the Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance that suggest including online searches for prospective staff first came into effect on 1 September 2022.
Coincidentally, that’s exactly a week before Will Quince left the role of minister for school standards. It’s entirely possible his short-lived successor in the role missed it amid the flurry of reshuffles.
What the guidance says is that social media checks for education applicants are permissible, but must comply with data protection laws, particularly GDPR.
Obtaining consent
Of course, safeguarding candidates is just as important as safeguarding young people and our organisations. So this can’t be an “I’ve had a snoop on Facebook” situation. The practice must accord with the Nolan principles and the legal framework that underpins them.
Essentially, any employer using this practice must:
- Inform candidates that social media screening will be part of the hiring process
- Obtain explicit written consent from the applicant
- Clearly explain what information will be accessed and how it will be used
Consent ensures openness and transparency, and reduces any likelihood of malpractice.
Conducting the check
The onus is on the employer to get this right, and a primary concern must be to ensure candidates aren’t discriminated against. (Though nothing can stop a determined candidate from feeling that way.)
To that end, the credence for the check is in contextualised safeguarding, not in professional gossip. We should act accordingly.
A number of professional service providers already exist who specialise in this work (at a cost). They will ensure checks only take in publicly available information relevant to the position and that all candidates undergo a consistent, automated and unbiased process.
What to look for
Typically, the purpose of these checks (as defined within KCSIE) is to ensure the employer is aware of potential risks to students, staff or the school’s reputation. These may include, but are not limited to, inappropriate content such as extreme opinions, hate speech or unprofessional behaviour.
More broadly, they can be used to assess whether a candidate aligns with the employer’s behavioural guidelines.
The professional services on offer have a fairly standard set of specific categories that they consider: extremist groups, hate speech, nudity, swearing and profanity, toxic language, violent imagery, drugs and weapons.
Reporting and decision-making
To further avoid error and bias, a right of response can allow candidates to explain any concerning content that emerges.
To avoid any claims against the process, employers must make decisions based on job-relevant information only and have an audit trail of decision-making and a clear framework that has been used for it to document the sources and reasoning.
Doing it right
This practice cannot be informal. Employers must develop a clear policy that reflects all of the above.
Nor should it necessarily be a cliff-edge judgment. Context and relevance matter, and social media checks are part of a comprehensive screening process, not the sole determining factor.
Sounds like a bit of a minefield? Well, it is. But in an increasingly online world this is going to become the norm.
Remember: the goal is to identify potential risks, not to make judgments about personal lifestyle choices unrelated to the job.
It is not ok to reject a candidate based on their politics; it is ok to do so based on hate speech, toxic language and profanity – as some attempting to return to the profession appear to be finding out.
Your thoughts