Schools and MATs have a clear responsibility to help protect pupils from harmful online content and concerning digital activity.
With pupils spending more time on school networks, cloud platforms and connected devices, filtering and monitoring systems are now a core part of a school’s safeguarding approach.
The current Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) statutory guidance highlights the essential need for school leaders to maintain clear oversight of filtering and monitoring systems. For leadership teams, this means online safety needs to be a shared language across safeguarding, IT and governance.
While having the right technical tools is fundamental, the daily processes are just as important – knowing who handles alerts, how risks are escalated, and where evidence is logged.
With KCSIE updates coming in September 2026, oversight will require greater structure. The DfE Filtering and Monitoring Standards set expectations around roles, responsibilities, reporting and an annual review of effectiveness, so schools need a consistent way to complete checks across devices and maintain an auditable compliance log.
KCSIE sets the expectation; schools need to evidence the process
Leaders should understand what is in place, how it works and how it is reviewed
Rather than prescribing a specific software solution, KCSIE leaves the decision to schools and MATs, allowing them to choose systems that match their distinct operational environments.
Leadership teams must evaluate filtering and monitoring tools based on pupil age demographics, SEND provisions, device deployment and remote access capabilities. This must be carefully balanced against existing IT infrastructure, localised safeguarding risks and internal staff capacity.
This, then, places responsibility on leaders to understand their current setup and document how decisions have been made. A school should be able to explain what filtering is in place, which users and devices it covers, how monitoring alerts are reviewed, who receives them and what actions follow.
Ownership gaps are often one of the biggest challenges we see in schools. While the software itself is up and running, daily responsibilities can easily become isolated.
Your DSL, for instance, might handle immediate alerts; IT manages system settings; an external provider generates reports; and governors only see a brief summary at the end of the term.
KCSIE focuses heavily on eliminating such blind spots, encouraging a joined-up approach in which every part of the process is clear, connected and visible to the whole team.
For multi-academy trusts, establishing clarity is essential to managing risk at scale. Trusts frequently inherit a patchwork of different software platforms, localised practices and varying device policies across their academies.
Conducting a centralised, trust-level review eliminates inconsistencies, providing executive teams with the clear visibility required to deploy targeted support and resources effectively.
Monitoring needs to lead to action
Alerts, reports and human judgment all need to work together
Discourse on AI misuse is often framed simply as cheating, but the classroom implications go beyond that.
Monitoring software is only useful when the right information reaches the right person at the right time. Schools need a clear process for reviewing alerts, recording actions and escalating concerns through safeguarding routes.
Finding the right balance is particularly important for DSLs and pastoral teams. If alerts are set too broadly, staff can quickly get overwhelmed by the noise; if they are too narrow, vital early warning signs can slip through unnoticed.
Taking time for regular reviews ensures your monitoring stays accurate, proportionate, and – crucially – useful for your team.
The process should also be practical. Staff need to know which concerns require immediate escalation, which should be logged for review and which may point to a wider pattern. Rather than replace, monitoring should always support professional judgement.
Through Computeam Connect, schools can access online safeguarding, filtering and monitoring support designed for education settings. This includes tools that help flag concerning online activity and provide safeguarding teams with more meaningful information.
Filtering should protect pupils without blocking learning
Appropriate controls should reflect age, risk, curriculum use and user groups
Effective filtering should block harmful and inappropriate content while still allowing staff and pupils to access the digital resources needed for teaching, learning and administration.
A single blanket filtering approach is unlikely to reflect the needs of a whole school community. Staff may need access to resources that pupils should not be able to reach. Older pupils may need carefully managed access to more complex research materials. SEND settings, primary schools and secondary schools may all need different levels of control and visibility.
An effective review should examine how filtering applies across school-owned devices, shared devices, staff accounts, pupil accounts, guest access, remote learning and any bring-your-own-device arrangements.
It should also consider how attempts to bypass filtering are identified and handled.
The aim is a setup that supports safe, purposeful use of technology. Filters should reduce risk exposure while allowing teachers to use digital tools confidently in the classroom.
Generative AI adds a new layer of risk
Schools should include AI tools in online safety reviews and staff guidance
To keep pace with new technology, KCSIE explicitly links the DfE’s generative AI product safety expectations to your broader filtering and monitoring setup. It reminds school leaders that safeguarding duties apply just as much to AI platforms as they do to traditional websites.
If you are wondering how your current setup stacks up, the DfE’s digital self-assessment tool is a great resource for benchmarking your infrastructure and getting advice on where you might need to make adjustments.
This is an important development for schools and MATs. Generative AI tools can create inappropriate, misleading or harmful content – as well as raise school data protection concerns if pupils or staff enter personal, sensitive or school information into public tools.
Schools should decide which AI tools are approved, which are restricted and how pupils should be guided in their use.
Staff also need clear guidance on using AI safely and appropriately, particularly when handling pupil information, lesson materials, assessment support or safeguarding-related content.
Generative AI should be considered within acceptable use policies, online safety training and monitoring reviews. It should also be viewed alongside cybersecurity, as AI can make phishing, impersonation and social engineering attempts more convincing.
Staff training is central to an effective setup
Staff need to know what the systems do and what their responsibilities are
KCSIE states that safeguarding and child protection training should include online safety, including expectations and the applicable roles and responsibilities regarding filtering and monitoring.
Training should reflect the school’s actual systems and procedures. Staff should know what filtering is in place, what monitoring covers, how to report concerns and what to do if a pupil appears to bypass controls. DSLs, senior leaders, governors, IT staff and third-party providers should all understand their role. Indeed, a named lead for filtering and monitoring oversight – often working alongside the DSL – is now considered best practice.
Consistent staff training keeps your digital safeguarding resilient, ensuring your response is never siloed within IT departments. Sharing clear guidance, regular refreshers and easy-to-use learning resources takes the pressure off individuals. It builds collective confidence across your whole team, helping everyone use and manage technology safely and effectively.
Learning Locker is an incredibly useful platform for schools looking to make staff training more manageable and transparent.
It gives teams a space for flexible, self-paced micro-learning, while providing leadership with clear, automated dashboards to track completion.
In addition to standard cybersecurity and data compliance, it offers specific modules such as AI in Education – A Beginner's Guide, helping staff feel confident using tools like Google Gemini safely, while ensuring you have a permanent record of their training.
Generative AI adds a new layer of risk
Schools should include AI tools in online safety reviews and staff guidance
To keep pace with new technology, KCSIE explicitly links the DfE’s generative AI product safety expectations to your broader filtering and monitoring setup. It reminds school leaders that safeguarding duties apply just as much to AI platforms as they do to traditional websites.
If you are wondering how your current setup stacks up, the DfE’s digital self-assessment tool is a great resource for benchmarking your infrastructure and getting advice on where you might need to make adjustments.
This is an important development for schools and MATs. Generative AI tools can create inappropriate, misleading or harmful content – as well as raise school data protection concerns if pupils or staff enter personal, sensitive or school information into public tools.
Schools should decide which AI tools are approved, which are restricted and how pupils should be guided in their use.
Staff also need clear guidance on using AI safely and appropriately, particularly when handling pupil information, lesson materials, assessment support or safeguarding-related content.
Generative AI should be considered within acceptable use policies, online safety training and monitoring reviews. It should also be viewed alongside cybersecurity, as AI can make phishing, impersonation and social engineering attempts more convincing.
Using Computeam Compass to review the DfE standard
Compass helps schools turn filtering and monitoring expectations into clear actions
The DfE filtering and monitoring standard sits within the wider Department for Education’s digital and technology standards for schools and colleges. It helps schools understand what should be in place to reduce exposure to harmful content and identify concerning activity when it occurs.
For many schools, the real challenge comes down to visibility – about being able to show exactly how systems are configured, who owns each step, when reviews happen, how actions are tracked and how evidence is securely logged.
Computeam Compass gives schools and trusts a structured way to review their filtering and monitoring arrangements against the DfE digital and technology standard. It helps leaders see what good practice looks like, spot gaps and turn those gaps into actions with named owners.
This is particularly useful when schools are preparing for annual reviews, governor updates or trust-level safeguarding oversight. Instead of keeping information across emails, spreadsheets, contracts and separate policy documents, Compass provides a clearer record of decisions, actions, reviews and improvements.
For MATs, Compass can also support a trust-wide view. Central teams can see where practice is consistent, where individual schools need support and how progress is developing across the trust.
Computeam Compass
Are you aligned with DfE filtering and monitoring expectations?
Quick confidence check (5 mins):
Ownership: Can you name who owns filtering settings, who reviews monitoring alerts and who signs off on changes?
Process: Is there a clear route for alerts → review → safeguarding action → recording what happened?
Oversight: Can you show how SLT and governors get meaningful assurance?
Review: Do you have a regular review point documented (what was checked, what changed, what actions were agreed)?
Evidence: Could you pull together your evidence quickly (review notes, reports, training records, policy updates) without chasing people?
How Compass can help: Compass helps you turn these expectations into a simple, shared checklist with owners and an evidence log – especially helpful for annual reviews, governor updates and trust-wide safeguarding oversight.
Reviewing your filtering and monitoring setup
Computeam can help schools strengthen online safety with clearer systems and support
KCSIE presents an ideal window for schools and MATs to audit their digital safeguarding structures. True compliance hinges on the operational governance behind the technology – specifically, the clarity with which the system is understood, managed, routinely evaluated and formally documented by leadership.
Computeam supports schools with online safeguarding, filtering and monitoring through Internet Safeguarding for Schools and Computeam Connect. For schools and trusts looking to review their position against the DfE digital and technology standards, Computeam Compass provides a structured way to identify gaps, assign actions and maintain a clearer record of progress.
If your school or trust would like support reviewing its filtering and monitoring provision, get in touch with Computeam today.
Learning Locker
Climate project
Updating page...