Flour as a Sensory Tool/Resource in School.
I brought a concern regarding the above to Greenacre School on the 11th of December 2023, I officially highlighted it after being disregarded by e-mail on the 8th of April - it went through their 'complaints process' and I received a less than satisfactory response yesterday (19th April 2024). Below I have broken down their argument to my complaint (8th April 2023) with which I will be responding back to them directly. Still, in the best interests of all children, I would sincerely appreciate your cooperation in resolving this matter.
Yours faithfully,
Lucy Connor
Complaint 1: Flour/flour dust falls under COSHH regulations and should not be used as such under any circumstances ('as such' - *SENSORY TOOL/RESOURCE as e-mail 8th April addresses.
Point 1 from the Wellspring Academy Trust Director of Operations
● The complainant has provided in-depth information to support the concerns raised. All the information provided has been produced to support organisations that operate in a commercial environment. I would like to reassure the complainant that due to our catering function, which is managed in-house, we are aware of our duties under COSHH which includes the risks around flour.
From my e-mail dated 8th April
'During the annual review held on December 11th 2023, at Greenacre School, I raised a serious concern regarding the use of flour as a sensory tool/resource as soon as I was aware it was present in the setting and used as part of the curriculum. I explained to Laura Oxley (DSL), Karen Hodson (SENDCO), Emily Wilson (EHC Phase Manager) & Ruth Cone (Aaron's Class Teacher) in attendance that flour/flour dust falls under COSHH regulations and should not be used as such under any circumstances.'
'It stands to reason that if such strict regulations are mandated for adults in the workforce, it would be reasonable to assume one would expect even more stringent measures apply to children, and again even more so for those with special needs attending a specialised educational provision (who may/may not have additional vulnerabilities).'
Response from Lucy Connor
Firstly, thank you to the Director of Operations for acknowledging Flour/Flour Dust is under COSHH. That point has been up for debate.
My concern is around the preventable use of flour as a 'sensory tool/resource'; under COSHH this is against regulations as is preventable (it is not necessary, and an alternative, safer sensory tool/resource could be equally used in place of).
See 'The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002', Section 7 - Prevention or control of exposure to substances hazardous to health
7.—(1) Every employer shall ensure that the exposure of his employees to substances hazardous to health is either prevented or, where this is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled.
COSHH Regulations 2002 - Section 3
‘3.—(1) Where a duty is placed by these Regulations on an employer in respect of his employees, he shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be under a like duty in respect of any other person, whether at work or not, who may be affected by the work carried out by the employer except that the duties of the employer—
(a)under regulation 11 (health surveillance) shall not extend to persons who are not his employees; and
(b)under regulations 10, 12(1) and (2) and 13 (which relate respectively to monitoring, information and training and dealing with accidents) shall not extend to persons who are not his employees, unless those persons are on the premises where the work is being carried out.’
Section 3 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 relates specifically to the protection of persons other than employees. This means that COSHH obligations extend not only to employees but also to individuals who may be affected by work activities involving hazardous substances, such students in educational settings.
Under Section 3 of COSHH, employers have a legal duty to prevent or control the exposure of non-employees to hazardous substances arising from work activities.
Point 2 from the Wellspring Academy Trust Director of Operations
● There is no supporting guidance or information provided by the HSE regarding the use of flour in school cookery lessons and sensory activities as the levels of flour dust produced are well below the Workplace Exposure Limit (WEL) comprising a long-term exposure limit of 10mg/m3 (averaged over 8 hours) and a short-term exposure limit of 30mg/m3 (averaged over 15 minutes).
Response from Lucy Connor
'There is no supporting guidance or information'
As per COSHH 2002, Section 2
(e)
‘which, not being a substance falling within sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), because of its chemical or toxicological properties and the way it is used or is present at the workplace creates a risk to health;
“workplace” means any premises or part of premises used for or in connection with work, and includes:
a)
any place within the premises to which an employee has access while at work; and any room, lobby, corridor, staircase, road or other place used as a means of access to or egress from that place of work, or where facilities are provided for use in connection with that place of work, other than a public road.’
It is clear within legislation, that regardless of WELs under COSHH employers have legal obligations beyond WELs in regard to substances hazardous to health.
'and the way it is used or is present at the workplace creates a risk to health'
(Interpretation verified also through the BOHS - The British Occupational Hygiene Society)
'There is no supporting guidance or information provided by the HSE regarding the use of flour in school cookery lessons and sensory activities as the levels of flour dust produced are well below the Workplace Exposure Limit (WEL)'
Has the Director of Operations consulted with the HSE? If not it is only on an assumption, from our findings whilst contacting the HSE and speaking to an officer.
'The HSE expects schools to use their own professional judgment and adhere to legislation/regulations.' as above - COSHH 2002, Section 7, COSHH 2002, Section 2 & COSHH 2002, Section 3.
Therefore, while specific guidance from the HSE website may not exist for every conceivable scenario, the overarching legal requirement to prevent or adequately control exposure to hazardous substances, including flour dust, remains applicable in COSHH Section 7, Section 2 & Section 3 - 'all workplaces'. In situations where exposure to flour dust can be prevented or reasonably minimised through the use of alternative resources, schools should take appropriate measures to ensure compliance with COSHH regulations and protect the health and safety of students and staff.
'Workplace Exposure Limit (WEL) comprising a long-term exposure limit of 10mg/m3 (averaged over 8 hours) and a short-term exposure limit of 30mg/m3 (averaged over 15 minutes).'
WEL is in place and is by reasonable deduction expected of careful, considerate use, understanding of the risks, and for conscientious employers/employees. It is fair to assume employees have an understanding that WEL is in place and of their employer's responsibilities by legal obligation.
A stark contrast to children (vulnerable with special needs) of which some have limited understanding (Section 3 – essentially others affected by an employer’s work).
Where children cover themselves 'head to toe' with flour or 'pour and cover themselves with it', they are inadvertently exposing themselves to higher concentrations of flour dust than what's typically encountered in a controlled workplace environment which the WEL is designed for (COSHH 2002, Section 2 - 'and the way it is used or is present at the workplace creates a risk to health').
This increased exposure could lead to respiratory irritation, allergic reactions, inhalation, and/or/ indigestion of large quantities of flour dust, risking discomfort or serious harm to the child/ and or children within the vicinity.
Under COSHH 2002, Section 10 - Monitoring Exposure at the Workplace;
Legal Obligation - 'levels of dust produced are well below the Workplace Exposure Limit (WEL)'
Is exposure being measured? 'a short-term exposure limit of 30mg/m3 (averaged over 15 minutes)'
with children (special educational needs/ extra vulnerabilities) covering themselves 'head-to-toe', 'pouring it over themselves' - '30mg/m3 (averaged over 15 minutes'
I reasonably feel this is achievable in these circumstances.
By WEL measurement or not, Greenacre School under WAT in the manner described to me of which my complaint was pertaining to are in breach of SECTION 7, SECTION 2 & SECTION 3 of COSHH 2002.
Point 3 from the Wellspring Academy Trust Director of Operations
● In line with Health and Safety legislation and as covered in our Health and Safety policy we assess risk and activities to ensure staff and pupils alike are kept safe from harm and reasonable measures are in place.
Response from Lucy Connor
I am confident that (special needs) children covering themselves 'head to toe' and 'pouring over themselves' does not qualify for acting 'so far as is reasonably practicable' and 'limiting exposure/risks' as in a risk assessment. The behaviour and (regular) usage described to me on the 11th December 2023 by reasonable deduction presented unregulated, not adequately controlled, and negligent through allowing avoidable and preventable risks of exposure; inhalation (especially those of which have compromised and/or developing respiratory tracts), ingestion, and unnecessary exposure to the skin (allergies).
*Ingestion - neither Karen Hodson nor Laura Oxley between 11th December 2023 & April 7th 2024 have provided reassurance of any nature regarding the use of flour within the curriculum.
'Raw' or otherwise.
Point 4 from the Wellspring Academy Trust Director of Operations
● Flour features on the Trust COSHH assessments, which are adopted by all schools within the Trust- it is noted that dust levels are below the exposure limit, it highlights as well as other raw products that hygiene / regular hand washing should be observed during and after handling and were young people identified at risk of eating 'raw' products when handling these they should be cooked beforehand.
Response from Lucy Connor
The manner of which 'Karen Hodson (SENDCO) responded in a light-hearted and gleeful manner, recounting the example of one boy who attended Greenacre who used to play with it regularly, covering himself from 'head-to-toe' and emphasised how much of an 'enjoyable experience it was for him.' in RESPONSE to me raising the concern suggests there are NO KNOWLEDGE/NOR RISK ASSESSMENTS IN PLACE FOR FLOUR USED IN THIS CAPACITY OR IN ANY CAPACITY FOR THAT MATTER (though hereby recognised under COSHH 2002 by the Director of Operations).
'In an attempt to emphasise the seriousness of the issue, I proceeded to retrieve the relevant information on my phone via 'Google' and placed the mobile on the table, gesturing for her to read.'
If there were risk assessments and recognition for flour under COSHH Mrs Hodson would have offered reassurance that such was in place, notably as a member of the Senior Leadership Team.
Mrs. Hodson nor Mrs. Oxley offered reassurance (and behaviour was reasonably interpreted as 'clueless'); it is reasonable to assume there are not many hazardous substances children play with, surely with the procedures and compliance the DoO implies with 'hygiene/regular washing hands' after handling flour and ‘young people identified at risk of eating 'raw' products when handling these they should be cooked beforehand’? Mrs. Hodson or Mrs Oxley should reasonably have had that knowledge to dispense?
Of course, also as part of 'head-to-toe' and 'pouring over themselves' we are at risk of those children ingesting potentially 'raw' products, correct? If the Senior Leadership Team are interpreted as 'clueless' and with Karen Hodson's determination
'no further action was taken on the basis of - 'as pertaining solely to factories/workplace environments rather than schools.'
then how can this information be with those handling the curriculum on a day-to-day that the flour must be cooked?
(And just to correct, COSHH 2002 is as above for ‘all workplaces’.)
How did 'my complaint' have to make its way all the way up to the Director of Operations for 'reassurance' and to educate me on what is in place? I would reasonably expect this information ‘on the ground’.
From my e-mail dated 8th April
'Nevertheless, as above, I have been advised investigations have concluded and no further action was taken on the basis of - 'as pertaining solely to factories/workplace environments rather than schools.'
Disregard for the application to schools in its ENTIRETY.
Point 5 from the Wellspring Academy Trust Director of Operations
● In line with health and safety legislation and guidance we are not expected to eliminate all risks but do everything 'reasonably practicable' to protect people from harm. This means balancing the level of risk against the measures needed to control the real risk.
Response from Lucy Connor
School is expected (not even by 'erring on the side of caution' but by minimum legal requirement) to adhere to COSHH regulations (Section 7, Section 2 & Section 3).
See 'The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002', Section 7 - Prevention or control of exposure to substances hazardous to health
7.—(1) Every employer shall ensure that the exposure of his employees to substances hazardous to health is either prevented or, where this is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled.
There is no justifiable or reasonable argument for the risks associated why flour has to be used as a sensory tool/resource in setting.
Point 6 from Wellspring Academy Trust the Director of Operations
● Flour is a common product used in sensory activities across a range of educational, early years, and health care settings. The NHS publishes a number of documents on activities involving the use of flour and other food products for use by parents, schools, and other organisations.
Response from Lucy Connor
Hearsay: I speak to many 'health care settings', care homes, nurseries, and educational facilities as part of my day-to-day remit with 'care supplies' and often ask the question.
All I've encountered is knowledge of their legal obligations to flour/flour dust & other potentially hazardous dust under COSHH 2002.
Many stipulate the use of 'dustless chalks' as 'traditional chalk dust' can present similar risks in terms of inhalation (falls under Sections 2 & 3).
'This dust may contain allergens or irritants, causing respiratory issues or exacerbating conditions like asthma. Dustless chalk significantly reduces airborne particles, creating a healthier environment.'
NHS 'publishes a number of documents' v. legal obligations
NHS 'publishes a number of documents' v. The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, Section 7, Section 2 & Section 3.
Reasonably picture a court scenario, if an employee/student suffered harm due to exposure - inhalation, ingestion, or through an allergic reaction could Wellspring Academy Trust reasonably believe they could use 'NHS publishes a number of documents' as a credible defence, especially after I have raised this matter? Where the use of flour is not even necessary as a sensory tool/resource as per my original complaint? Where does it promote in these 'documents' that covering themselves 'head-to-toe' and 'pouring it over themselves' is recommended?
Does the 'NHS documents' address 'as well as other raw products that hygiene / regular hand washing should be observed during and after handling', 'WEL', or associated risks which the Director of Operations has already established? This presents exactly why these 'documents' CANNOT be relied upon for Health & Safety guidance.
Legal obligation and professional judgment by what are reasonably expected, HSE officer,
'The HSE expects schools to use their own professional judgment and adhere to legislation/regulations.' as above.
Ignorance is not a defence.
My statement and concerns of April 8th, 2024 still stand and still remain unremedied;-
'The lack of professional judgment, ability to safeguard, ability to risk assess, to follow own policies and negligent behaviour are extremely concerning and infuriating of an 'outstanding' provision to say the least.'