Guide

The DfE filtering and monitoring standards, explained

A plain-English guide for school IT staff, DSLs and business managers. Last checked against the DfE's guidance on 4 October 2026.

Every school in England is expected to have filtering and monitoring that keeps children safe online, and to be able to show it. The expectation comes from Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE), the statutory safeguarding guidance; the filtering and monitoring standards are the DfE's description of what “good” looks like. Ofsted inspectors and governors increasingly ask about them.

There are four standards. Here is what each one asks for, who usually owns it, and the evidence that answers it.

1. Somebody is clearly responsible

What it asks. Named people with clear roles: a member of the senior leadership team and a governor who are accountable, the designated safeguarding lead (DSL) for the safeguarding side, and IT staff or your IT provider for the technical side. They are expected to work together.

Who owns it. The governing body and SLT decide; everyone named needs to know they are named.

Evidence that answers it. A short written statement of who does what, signed off by SLT and the governing body, and kept up to date when people change roles.

2. Filtering and monitoring are reviewed at least once a year

What it asks. A review at least every academic year — and sooner when something changes: a new safeguarding risk, new devices or software, a change in how pupils work. The review should look at your pupils' ages and risks, what you actually have in place, and whether it is doing its job.

Who owns it. SLT and the DSL lead it, with the responsible governor and IT involved.

Evidence that answers it. A dated review record: what was checked, what was found, what changed as a result, and when the next one is due. A review that only says “all fine” is weak evidence; one that shows checks were made is strong.

3. Filtering blocks harmful content without getting in the way of teaching

What it asks. Filtering that blocks illegal and inappropriate content — including the Internet Watch Foundation and Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit block lists, which nobody in school should be able to turn off — on every school-managed device, and on pupils' own devices when they use the school network. It should treat different users appropriately (pupils and staff, different age groups), stop the common ways round it such as VPNs and proxies, lock safe search on, and record attempts to reach blocked content in enough detail to follow up. At the same time it should not block so much that teaching suffers.

Who owns it. IT staff or your provider set it up and check it works; SLT and the DSL decide what it should block and allow.

Evidence that answers it. The name of your filtering product and its settings; regular checks that it is actually working (for example with the free testing tools filtering providers and safety organisations offer); records of what was blocked and what was done about it.

4. Monitoring meets your school's safeguarding needs

What it asks. A way of noticing when a pupil may be at risk from what they do online — which can be supervision in the room, technical monitoring software, or both, depending on your setting. Concerns must reach the right person quickly: the DSL should get regular reports (weekly is the usual expectation) and immediate alerts for anything high-risk, in a form they can understand, and identifying the pupil involved. Pupils and staff should know that monitoring happens, and staff should know what to do when they see a concern.

Who owns it. The DSL owns the safeguarding response; IT owns the technical side; all staff play a part in supervision.

Evidence that answers it. Your monitoring approach written down; proof that reports and alerts are reviewed (dated); staff training records; and an incident log showing concerns were followed up.

The questions governors and inspectors tend to ask

• Who is responsible for filtering and monitoring here, and do they know it?
• When was it last reviewed, and what changed because of the review?
• How do you know the filtering is actually working on every device?
• Who sees the monitoring reports, how often, and what happens with a high-risk alert?
• Have staff been trained, and when?

If you can answer each one with a name, a date and a document, you are in good shape.

Where Groundskeeper helps — and where it does not

Groundskeeper is IT monitoring for schools, not a filtering or safeguarding monitoring product. It does not filter web traffic, read pupils' activity, or test whether your filter blocks the right things. What it does do for these standards:

• Keeps the record in one place. Its DfE readiness page holds who is responsible, your filtering and monitoring products, and the dates of the last review and the last staff training — and flags either as overdue once it is more than a year old, so the annual review cannot quietly slip.
• Checks your filtering and monitoring services are up. If your provider is one it knows (such as Smoothwall, Lightspeed or Senso), it checks their service is reachable from your school and tells you when it is not. That is a sign the service is running, not proof it is blocking the right things.
• Produces a PDF for governors setting out each standard, what is measured and what you have confirmed, with the date.

Groundskeeper is free for schools to use.

The official guidance: Filtering and monitoring standards for schools and colleges (GOV.UK) and Keeping children safe in education (GOV.UK). This guide is a summary to help you find your way around them; where they differ, the DfE's guidance is what counts.