Memorandum submitted by the NASUWT
SUMMARY
NASUWT data collected since 1991 demonstrates
that the number of allegations has increased and that the majority
of allegations made against teachers are false or malicious. Case
studies are provided alongside this evidence to illustrate a number
of the points of concern raised in this evidence.
There is no place for those who abuse children
and young people in children's services. All allegations made
by children and young people must therefore be taken seriously
and properly investigated. Those accused, however, are entitled
to be treated fairly. Investigations should not be conducted on
the basis that a person subject to the allegation is guilty until
they can prove themselves innocent.
Since the NASUWT began campaigning in 1991 on
the issue of allegations against staff, considerable progress
has been made on improving the relevant procedures but more needs
to be done.
The abuse of technology as a vehicle for making
allegations against staff is a relatively new and increasing problem
and despite extensive guidance from the Department for Children,
Schools and Families (DCSF) is still not taken seriously by employers
and managers.
A legal provision should be introduced to provide
anonymity for staff up to the point of a court decision.
The current Allegations Guidance should be strengthened
by incorporating specific provisions to:
— address the position of supply teachers
and student teachers on teaching practice against whom allegations
are made;
— provide more detailed advice for
governors serving on disciplinary panels;
— discourage the routine referral of
allegations by schools to external agencies, irrespective of their
nature and severity;
— deter automatic suspension of staff
without consideration of alternative strategies and secure a regular
review of any suspension made;
— make clear the responsibilities of
schools and local authorities to ensure confidentiality of investigations;
and
— advise on the weight which should
be given by employers to `soft-information' on CRB disclosures.
Training should be introduced for police officers:
— in the application of the arrest
provisions set down in Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act 1984 (PACE) to prevent teachers being arrested when they voluntarily
and willingly co-operate with an investigation into an allegation
made against them; and
— with regard to the provisions of
the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which enable staff to
use reasonable force in specified circumstances and on the right
of staff to use reasonable force in self-defence or to prevent
another person or property from being damaged.
The inconsistencies in the recording and disclosures
of non-conviction and internal disciplinary information, so called
"soft information", is a serious problem which must
urgently be addressed to prevent teachers and other staff who
have been falsely accused having their careers permanently blighted.
1. The NASUWT believes this is a critical
Inquiry and welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence.
2. This response draws on the Union's extensive
experience of handling casework involving allegations against
teacher and headteacher members and the Union's work on collecting
data and working with Government to address concerns relating
to allegations against staff. The NASUWT has maintained a national
database of allegations against members since 1991.
3. The chronology in Appendix A shows the
work undertaken by the Union over the past 18 years and the significant
progress made. However, there is still much more that needs to
be done to protect staff.
4. The NASUWT wishes to emphasise at the
outset that there is no place in the profession for those who
abuse children. All allegations made by children and young people
must be properly investigated. However, investigations should
be conducted in a way that is fair and transparent and protects
the rights of all those involved, particularly in light of the
fact that the overwhelming majority of allegations against teachers
turn out to be false or malicious.
THE SCALE
AND NATURE
OF ALLEGATIONS
OF IMPROPER
CONDUCT MADE
AGAINST SCHOOL
STAFF
5. Appendix B contains the NASUWT's statistics
on allegations of physical/sexual abuse made against NASUWT members
since 1991. These figures show that the number of allegations
has risen significantly. However, it must also be noted that this
table only includes cases where the allegation was referred to
the police and it was necessary for the Union to instruct solicitors
to represent the member at a police interview and therefore the
figures only represent the "tip of the iceberg". There
are many more cases where teachers are taken through an internal
disciplinary process without police involvement. These teachers
may or may not be dismissed, but many, regardless of the outcome
of these procedures, leave the profession as a result of the stress
of the process.
6. NASUWT casework reveals continuing and
increasing problems with pupils making allegations against teachers.
There is an increasingly prevalent attitude of pupils challenging
teachers with comments asserting their legal rights and threats
that they will make an allegation against the teacher if s/he
seeks to reprimand them for misbehaviour.
7. A relatively recent additional dimension
to allegations against staff is the use of websites, such as YouTube
and Bebo, by pupils to make false and malicious allegations against
teachers anonymously. Publicly available derogatory remarks about
teachers' practice affects their self-esteem and health and leaves
them vulnerable to damage to their careers when current and prospective
employers trawl the sites. In 2008, the NASUWT presented 100 examples
to the Minister of State for Schools and Learners, Jim Knight
MP, collected over a five-day period.
8. As a result of the growing body of evidence
of technology abuse, the Union launched its Cyberbullying Campaign
in 2007, calling for:
— examination of legislation and/or
regulatory provisions that could be introduced to make more accessible
avenues of redress for victims against the website hosts;
— a review of the child protection
investigation procedures that require all allegations against
teachers, including those that are anonymous, to be investigated
and for guidance to be issued to schools on handling allegations
that specifically appear on websites;
— legislative change for anonymity
for teachers accused of abuse to be given serious consideration
in light of the frequency of false allegations on these websites;
and
— measures to encourage schools to
treat these incidents very seriously, including making specific
reference in school behaviour policies to the use of the most
serious sanctions for misuse of technology, either in school or
off site, including a clear statement of zero tolerance.
9. Despite extensive guidelines from the
DCSF to schools, it is the Union's experience that employers and
managers are often reluctant to become involved when websites
are misused by pupils. Given the potential damage that can be
caused to teachers' health and careers, the NASUWT believes the
Allegations Guidance should be expanded to cover allegations made
through forums such as the Internet, e-mails and mobile phones.
This needs to address what an employer should do when an allegation
is made online anonymously.
10. Also of concern is a developing trend
where, when allegations of common assault are made against teachers
by pupils, this then results in external investigations being
instigated into the welfare of the teachers' own children. The
NASUWT believes that the instigation of a Section 47 investigation
into teachers' domestic and family circumstances arising from
an allegation made against them by pupils is inappropriate, unacceptable
and a disproportionate response. One-off allegations of physical
assault are being treated with the same severity as serious allegations
of sexual abuse. Two examples are given in Appendix C (see Case
Studies (i) and (ii)).
WHETHER STAFF
SUBJECT TO
ALLEGATIONS SHOULD
REMAIN ANONYMOUS
WHILE THE
CASE IS
INVESTIGATED
11. The NASUWT initiated the campaign for
anonymity in 2003 because of the injustice of teachers being publicly
named when accusations are made against them, whilst the pupils
who make the allegations remain anonymous. The Union has been
seeking changes to the law to give anonymity up to the point of
a court decision. Victims often endure intrusive and lengthy investigations,
which trigger trial by media. Their family life, health and professional
confidence deteriorate. In extreme cases, teachers have committed
suicide. The NASUWT launched a postcard campaign in 2004 to gather
support for this legislative change. Over 60,000 responses were
received and delivered to Downing Street. Claire Curtis-Thomas
MP (Labour) presented 30,000 of the responses to the House of
Commons. The Conservative Party also supported the Union's campaign.
12. The Government responded positively
and, whilst not being prepared to grant anonymity, it did revise
the guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers
(ACPO), advising police forces not to release the identity of
individuals to the media prior to formal charges being brought.
The ACPO position is referred to in the Allegations Guidance,
but the NASUWT believes that the guidance needs to make it clearer
to schools and local authorities that they have responsibilities
to try to ensure that confidentiality is maintained at all stages
of the process. The Government also brought in a fast-track investigation
procedure of allegations as it was clear that the longer an investigation
took, the more likely there was to be media coverage. This guidance
was recently reviewed by the DCSF to evaluate its effectiveness.
WHETHER THE
GUIDANCE AVAILABLE
TO HEADTEACHERS,
SCHOOL GOVERNORS,
POLICE AND
OTHERS ON
HOW TO
HANDLE CLAIMS
OF IMPROPER
CONDUCT BY
SCHOOL STAFF
SHOULD BE
REVISED, WITH
PARTICULAR REFERENCE
TO:
(i) The procedures to be followed by disciplinary
panels
13. The current Allegations Guidance does
not include advice for disciplinary panels on the procedure they
should be following when hearing allegations of a child protection
nature. In the Union's extensive casework experience, many employers
approach investigations and disciplinary hearings from the point
of view that the teacher is guilty of the alleged misconduct unless
s/he can prove otherwise (see Case Study (iii) in Appendix C for
an example of this).
14. The NASUWT continues to have concerns
about the role of governors on disciplinary panels. As volunteers,
many governors have no training, experience or expertise in disciplinary
procedures. They often also receive poor advice from Human Resources/Personnel
providers.
15. The Allegations Guidance should include
a section advising schools, and particularly disciplinary panels,
of the approach to be taken when considering child protection
allegations. This should draw to their attention the crucial principles
of natural justice and "innocent until proven guilty".
The information could be similar in nature to helpful guidance
that is available to members of General Teaching Council Disciplinary
Committees, the General Medical Council panel chairpersons and
decision makers in circumstances where barristers have breached
the Bar Code of Conduct (see Appendix D).
16. The NASUWT believes that headteachers,
as a result of the Allegations Guidance, are generally now less
inclined and lack the confidence to deal even with low-level allegations
internally, instead erring on the side of caution and referring
all cases to the local authority. Local authorities are much more
inclined to treat the matter as a child protection issue involving
"significant harm" irrespective of the nature of the
allegation. As a result, cases that may involve, for example,
a minor restraint incident where a teacher has acted in accordance
with the reasonable force guidance, are treated in exactly the
same way as serious allegations of sexual abuse.
17. The Select Committee may wish to consider
the independent investigation service introduced in Wales under
the Staffing of Maintained Schools (Wales) Regulations 2006. This
has brought more objectivity and impartiality into the investigatory
stage of child protection allegations.
18. The NASUWT is concerned about the specific
difficulties faced by supply teachers. Generally, when an allegation
is made against a supply teacher, the teacher is just sent away
by the school and asked not to return. This is not a "suspension"
and they are not paid. The school has no responsibility towards
them as they are not on the staff of the school. They are then
often left in limbo, unable to work and without pay, sometimes
permanently removed from the agency's books. Often neither the
supply agency nor the school actively seek to investigate the
allegation. The teacher is therefore not able to clear his/her
name. Case Study (iv) in Appendix C is an example of such a situation.
The Allegations Guidance should make it clear what responsibilities
the agency, school and local authority have when an allegation
is made against a supply teacher and must stress that the necessary
investigation needs to be completed within a reasonable timescale.
19. The NASUWT also has concerns about the
position of student teachers on teaching practice in schools when
allegations are made against them. In the Union's experience,
confusion can arise between the various organisations involved,
namely the school, the higher education institution and the local
authority, about who has the responsibility for investigating
any allegation. Case Study (v) in Appendix C illustrates these
problems.
20. The only reference to supply teachers
in the current Allegations Guidance is very brief and hidden away
in footnote 10 on page 58. No reference at all is made to the
position of student teachers.
(ii) When suspension of the staff member
concerned is appropriate
21. The Allegations Guidance states that
suspension should not be automatic and that alternatives should
be considered. However, many employers do not take this into account
and suspend automatically, regardless of the nature of the allegation
and without even considering any appropriate alternative option.
22. The Union is aware of a very small number
of local authorities with policies that do specifically follow
the guidance in relation to not suspending automatically and considering
alternatives. Examples of the relevant extracts from two such
procedures are included in Appendix E. It would be helpful if
"best practice" examples could be included within the
Allegations Guidance. The Union also believes that the guidance
should require the employer to be able to justify any suspension,
perhaps by way of conducting a formal risk assessment, before
the decision is taken to determine whether there are any other
alternative options available.
23. The Allegations Guidance needs to state
that any suspension should be subject to regular review. Suspension
is seen as a neutral act in law, but in a school environment,
the sudden absence of a teacher fuels gossip and the prevailing
"no smoke without fire" attitude means the teacher is
invariably tainted by the suspension. For this reason, many teachers
find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to return to work
after a lengthy period of suspension, even where they have been
completely exonerated following criminal and employer investigations.
Given the devastating effect a suspension can have on the individual
teacher, the guidance should stress more strongly that any suspension
should only be the last resort and for the minimum duration.
24. The Union's casework experience suggests
that employers are failing to keep in touch with members whilst
they are suspended. Members are routinely informed that they must
not contact any colleagues or pupils in the school, and this,
combined with little or no contact with the employer, leaves them
completely isolated. The guidance needs to stress that employers
must keep in regular contact with the suspended individual, not
just in terms of the suspension and progress of the investigation,
but also to keep them informed about general developments in the
school. Employers should also provide suspended teachers with
access to occupational health and counselling services.
25. Some employers impose draconian conditions
on suspensions, such as barring the teacher from attending any
authority premises (including public swimming pools and libraries).
The guidance should advise against this unreasonable and unnecessary
practice.
(iii) When arrest of the staff member concerned
is appropriate
26. The NASUWT has long been concerned about
the insistence of police officers on arresting teachers when they
attend a police station voluntarily and are willing to co-operate
with an investigation into an allegation made against them. The
Union does not believe that this approach meets the necessity
test for arrest in Section 24(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act 1984 (PACE). The Union lodged judicial review proceedings
against the police in two cases (see Case Studies (vi) and (vii)
in Appendix C). The outcome of which supported the Union's view.
As a result of this, fewer teachers should now suffer the humiliation
of being arrested and having their DNA, fingerprints and photographs
taken and retained when attending police stations following allegations
by pupils. It should also mean that they are not subject to adverse
information on CRB Enhanced Disclosures.
27. The NASUWT asserts that police should
be better trained to apply the arrest provisions set down in Section
24 of PACE.
28. In addition, police officers often appear
to be unaware of Section 93 of the Education and Inspections Act
2006, which specifically enables teachers to use reasonable force
in specified circumstances, or the common law right of any citizen
in an emergency to use reasonable force in self-defence, to prevent
another person from being injured or his property from being damaged.
(iv) The retention of records of allegations
found to be false
29. Paragraph 5.10 of the Allegations Guidance
advises schools to retain a clear and comprehensive summary of
any allegations made, how they were followed up and resolved and
a note of any actions taken and decisions reached, with a copy
kept on the individual's personnel file. The NASUWT continues
to have concerns about the inconsistent way information is being
recorded and disclosed.
30. The NASUWT has longstanding concerns
about the nature of non-conviction and internal disciplinary information
("soft-information") being disclosed by local police
forces and reproduced on teachers' CRB Enhanced Disclosures.
31. Information is not being recorded fairly
and consistently by the police or employers. Resolving this issue
is of increasing importance in light of the new Vetting and Barring
Scheme (VBS) under the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA),
as information recorded by an employer about an allegation may
be referred to the VBS and be considered under the discretionary
barring procedures.
32. The Union's casework experience demonstrates
that it is rare for an allegation to be formally recorded as being
"false". In many cases, even if the police find the
allegation to have been fabricated, the formal outcome is recorded
as being "insufficient evidence to prosecute" or "no
charges brought but the matter was referred to the employer to
deal with internally". This type of recording can be extremely
misleading as it implies that the police believed the alleged
incident occurred but did not have enough evidence to successfully
prosecute. The Union believes that where an allegation is proven
to be false, the police should formally record the outcome as
"allegation found to be fabricated" or "no case
to answer", to avoid the matter being recordable on a CRB
Enhanced Disclosure.
33. The Allegations Guidance and the sections
on recruitment and vetting checks (chapters 3 and 4) in Safeguarding
Children and Safer Recruitment in Education need to include
guidance as to what weight employers should attach to "soft
information" on CRB Enhanced Disclosures, given that this
often relates to allegations that have been unproven or found
to be false. Many employers simply refuse to employ a teacher
who has been subject to an allegation regardless of the outcome,
erring on the side of caution rather than considering whether
there was any substance to the allegation.
34. Paragraph 5.34 of the Allegations Guidance
states that where an allegation is shown to be deliberately invented
or malicious, the headteacher should consider whether any disciplinary
action is appropriate against the pupil. The NASUWT believes that
this should be strengthened. Further, the NASUWT is concerned
that the guidance states the police should only be involved when
the accuser is not a pupil. The Union firmly believes that where
a pupil, particularly in a secondary school, has made a demonstrably
false allegation, the matter should be referred to the police
by the employer as a matter of course. The Union is aware of just
one case where the police have cautioned a pupil for fabricating
an allegation, but this was as a result of pressure from the member,
not the school (see Case Study (viii) in Appendix C).
The NASUWT has provided appendices to this evidence
separately.
May 2009
| 
