Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MICHAEL BARNES,
AMANDA BROWN,
PAUL KAUFMAN,
CHRIS KEATES
AND JULIAN
STANLEY
17 JUNE 2009
Q1 Chairman: I welcome our witnesses
to the Committee: Amanda Brown, Chris Keates, Julian Stanley,
Paul Kaufman and Michael Barnes. We always appreciate it when
people come and help us with an inquiry. Unusually for us, as
we seem to be in the middle of a series of long inquiries at the
moment, this a very short inquiry. We believe that there is a
lot of interest in this subject, both in the teaching profession
and elsewhere. So, it is something that we think needs an airing
in front of the Committee. Thank you for volunteering to assist
us. We have had about 30 written submissions on this subject and
they have been most useful as well. We have been a little disappointed
by the lack of evidence from one or two sources that we expected
to be more helpful, particularly the Department. We are reasonably
well informed, but we will end up better informed after today.
I am going to ask all of you this question, but I am going to
start with Chris Keates; some of you will have to wait to catch
my eye. How much of a problem is this?
Chris Keates: This has been an
ongoing problem. The NASUWT has been tracking this since 1991,
we have done 18 years of work on this. I think I am right to say
that we are the only union that has a database that goes back
that far showing the issues relating to allegations made against
staff. It is a problem and if you have had the opportunity to
look at our statistics, bearing in mind that we are only one of
the five teaching unions, you can see that this has been on the
increase since 1991 in terms of allegations that have been made.
The overwhelming majority of the allegations were found to have
had no substance; only a tiny percentage of allegations have substance.
As far as the profession is concerned, it is something that teachers
raise as a concern—it is actually raised by graduates thinking
of entering the profession, who have heard of allegations being
made—and it is something that crops up quite frequently.
When we go into schools where there are behavioural issues, staff
tell us that pupils frequently say to them that if they were to
make an allegation then the member of staff could lose their job.
There is a real issue and climate in the schools and I think teachers
and head teachers will welcome the fact that you are looking at
this detail.
Q2 Chairman: Paul Kaufman, there
is a smack of guilty until proven innocent in some of the cases
that have come across my desk. Is that right?
Paul Kaufman: In my experience,
teachers certainly feel that they have been found guilty before
the case has been heard. In the way that they are treated—by
being suspended, by being arrested, by being fingerprinted, photographed
and having their DNA taken—the whole approach suggests to
them that they are assumed to be guilty and they have to prove
that they are innocent.
Q3 Chairman: Julian, I am also
picking up, certainly in the cases that I have been involved with
as a constituency MP, that there are so many waves of investigation.
One that I was involved with started with a police investigation,
which found that there was no case to answer. When that was finished,
the children's services had an investigation, which after many
months found that there was no case to answer, and then there
was a school governors' inquiry. Three inquiries, all of which
said that there was no case to answer. The person involved was
off school for a very long period of time; their health, particularly,
was impaired. The upshot was that he had no case to answer from
any of the investigations, but he still has all of that on his
police criminal record. Is that typical?
Julian Stanley: Yes. There is
a number of issues. Last year, at the Teacher Support Network
we took around 132 calls on this subject. That is consistent with
recent years. We are finding that people experience incredible
emotional and psychological distress through this process. One
of the things that the trade unions have worked very hard to do
is provide adequate advice. We would like to see more of the kind
of support that we offer, which is counselling and coaching, through
the process, because, as you point out, it can be very long and
protracted. One of the other issues that the council has often
come up against is that people are often concerned about what
appears on a criminal records check later on and the damage—the
potential damage—to careers later. So what is recorded,
and how it is recorded, is particularly significant. I notice
that the DCSF has begun to accept that the guidance might be amended
in the longer term to improve education about what needs to be
recorded for the sake of references in the future. We believe
that, really, teachers need to have a part in what is recorded,
particularly—obviously—if they are found innocent.
We don't want to return to a situation where children are not
believed and parents' concerns are not addressed, but clearly
the length of time that the processes take is of considerable
concern, as is the distress it causes to families and friends,
and teachers' standing within the school. Returning to work, if
someone is found innocent, is quite a difficult process, because
reputations are already damaged, relationships are already impaired,
and coming back into that environment can be extremely difficult.
Q4 Chairman: Michael, what is
your take on this? The fact is that certain people, like some
of the children's charities—the NSPCC—don't agree
with the views of most of the panel here. We have not got them
in front of us today but they are very strong on child protection
and children's rights and would hate to see any change in the
situation. Does it worry you that the NSPCC is not with you?
Michael Barnes: It does worry
me, but of course it is not just an issue for the NSPCC. It is
a wider issue for the child protection sector. Unfortunately,
as has already been suggested, there is an overwhelming presumption
of guilt in the accused, and an overwhelming presumption of truth
in the accuser. Simply by the law of averages there are going
to be occasions when people make truthful allegations and there
are going to be occasions when they make untruthful allegations.
What I think would be more encouraging is if the child protection
social workers and the NSPCC acknowledge that false accusations
do occur. They are very reluctant to do so and I think that is
a great pity. If I could just comment on the CRB issue, the important
thing about it is the way the information is fed into the police.
Q5 Chairman: Can we hold on that
one, because we are going to drill down on it. I am only the warm-up—the
real questions come in a minute. Amanda, I am not going to let
you escape. The NUT is not so worried about this as other unions—or
are you?
Amanda Brown: Oh, we are worried
about it, certainly. We would say that probably the number of
allegations—certainly over the last 10 years, we feel—has
stayed about constant at about 200 a year; but that 200 is the
number of times we instruct solicitors to attend the police station.
There are all sorts of other allegations that don't meet those
criteria, so there are a lot more than that. But it is not just
those. As Chris has said, the number that are actually found to
be at fault, either in terms of a criminal allegation, or, otherwise,
a professional allegation and misconduct, is very small. But it
is the chilling effect it has for all teachers, and certainly
particular groups of teachers, who are concerned, depending on
their job and exactly what their role is in school, that they
may be the subject of an allegation. The impact of that can be
so great, as others have said, that even if people are not themselves
the subject of an allegation, the fear is there. We are worried
both for those who are accused and for the effect on the profession
as a whole.
Q6 Chairman: So, Amanda, we don't
really know the numbers—the Department doesn't know the
numbers—if we take all allegations, because what you are
saying, and what I think Chris Keates was saying in her written
evidence, is that we know if it goes to the length of the police
being involved and someone being charged, but we don't know those
ones that have been settled more locally, perhaps in-house or
by the local authority doing a quick investigation. We actually
don't really know the full numbers, do we?
Amanda Brown: We may well not
know the full numbers, and there is also difficulty in definitions,
because when people talk about child protection everybody assumes
it is something to do with sexual misconduct, but almost all the
allegations that are made against NUT members, and I would guess
against all teachers, are actually about physical restraint issues
and discipline issues. A tiny number have anything to do with
sexual misconduct, and most of those are around computer issues—downloading
of information, that sort of thing. There is a real difficulty
in knowing the scale of the problem.
Q7 Chairman: It is interesting
that when we did the inquiry into bullying, we pushed for there
to be a register of all incidents of bullying in the school. The
Department was very reluctant to keep a register. But it would
seem that it is quite important to keep a register of allegations
of any type in a school, so we actually know what the level is.
Amanda Brown: Very much so, because
of knowing the scale of the problem and being able to define it.
Also, particularly with child protection issues, if there is a
large number of false allegations, which we say there is—I
know that there is a dispute about that—there might actually
be other issues behind that, which need to be dealt with. For
example, we know that where there have been constant, or continual,
allegations made by a few pupils, sometimes there is another issue
behind that, which really ought to be looked at. If it is only
dealt with in terms of the teachers and the people facing the
allegations, there might be a real problem that we are missing.
Chairman: So, we are quite clear from
the evidence we have had already that we all want children to
be protected fully, but we also want a balance and a fair system
by which allegations are effectively and, hopefully, quickly resolved.
I have warmed you up, and Graham is going to do the serious questioning.
Q8 Mr Stuart: The Association
of School and College Leaders has said that allegations are very
rare in some schools and colleges but frequent in others. According
to its report, it is less to do with the behaviour of teachers
and more to do with the attitude of children and their parents.
How can we resolve that particular issue?
Chris Keates: First, I am not
sure that there is a strong evidence base for that. I know the
Department for Children, Schools and Families did some work when
they were reviewing the handling of allegations on where in local
authorities allegations were actually from, and there did seem
to be some schools that have more of these than others. That is
absolutely true. I don't think we have got absolutely concrete
evidence. I think the issue is not to get too sidetracked with
that but to make sure that what we have got is a fair, open and
transparent system for how these things are dealt with. They are
all dealt with in a way that protects the interests of all involved,
including the children and young people. There are clear procedures
that are consistently followed. The Department's guidance on handling
allegations of abuse has been refined over the past few years.
We were instrumental in getting the fast-track part of that. It
has recently been reviewed and that has been published. It shows
that it has made some improvement, but the big problem is that
there is no consistency of application. People use their own procedures,
and I think there is a case for making some of the procedures
statutory at the school level as opposed to statutory at some
of the child protection levels that are across local authorities
with area protection boards and so on.
Q9 Mr Stuart: But a reason to
focus on this particular issue would be if schools with the biggest
discipline problems—perhaps with the lowest performance
and with the greatest challenge of attracting good teachers—also
had the highest number of complaints. Is there any evidence of
that?
Chris Keates: I have certainly
not seen any evidence that there is that correlation, and I have
not seen any strong evidence of a correlation necessarily with
behaviour problems. Our experience of casework shows that we can
get allegations in a school where our members have not reported
any particular difficulties as far as behaviour is concerned.
What we are dealing with is a very complex issue of what motivates
some children and young people to make the allegations. With some
it is a cry for help. They are in serious need themselves. For
others, it is quite a calculated move to try to undermine a particular
teacher for a real or perceived slight that they feel they have
had, or the fact that they have been challenged for misbehaviour,
so you have got those at both ends of the scale. I think we could
get too focused on, "It is certain schools and it is another
indicator of poor performance in this school." I don't believe
that is the case.
Q10 Mr Stuart: You said that in
many cases it might be a cry for help. You would think that that
would be more likely to occur in a school that already had the
most challenging intake. Obviously, if there is an impact on the
ability to attract and retain the best teachers because of a perceived
lack of discipline, you would be further entrenching disadvantage.
Does anyone disagree with Chris? Does anyone believe that there
is no correlation, or is it simply that we don't have the data
because there is not a definitive set of figures produced to show
where complaints occur?
Michael Barnes: I think there
is another issue here. In those schools where there appears to
be a culture of complaints one needs to ask why that is so. It
may well be that there is more to complain about, but it equally
may be that within those schools the young people themselves—the
students—have cottoned on very quickly to the fact that
by making complaints they can achieve the outcomes they desire.
There is a knock-on effect in some instances.
Q11 Mr Stuart: The Department
says it is rare for an allegation to be deliberately false and
malicious and yet the NASUWT numbers show that of 2,231 concluded
allegations cases among its membership, only 105—approximately
5%—resulted in any action being brought against the teacher.
The NUT numbers, although smaller, produced exactly the same result.
Is the Department wrong, or am I reading the wrong things into
your figures?
Amanda Brown: I think there is
an issue about the definition here. We would take a false allegation
as being one where there is no outcome that lays blame on the
teacher. The DCSF, as I understand it, looks at a situation and
asks whether there was anything that could have resulted in an
allegation. So, for example, in a discipline issue, if a teacher
has intervened to break up a fight in a playground, the DCSF won't
treat it as a false allegation if they are cleared of any misconduct,
but say that there was an issue. There was a nugget of factual
information, which means that it was not a false allegation. There
is a difference of definition there.
Q12 Mr Stuart: Does anybody prefer
the Department's definition?
Paul Kaufman: The Department does
not provide any evidential basis for the presumption that it is
rare. It just states it as a fact, without supporting it in any
way. In my experience the great majority of allegations are exaggerated
and fabricated by pupils.
Chris Keates: I think the DCSF's
attitude highlights what I think is a real political tension.
The political tension for a Department for Children, Schools and
Families is being seen to accept that false allegations are being
made against teachers in this highly charged area of child protection
issues, which, of course, recently have been very much to the
fore in the focus. There is sometimes a reluctance by authorities—be
it local authorities or government departments—to be seen
to come out and say, "Yes, there is this problem of false
allegations," because it might be seen as trying to protect
abusers, which the NASUWT has been accused of doing over the years
by various groups. That is not the case at all. It is about making
sure that there is justice for people and a proper investigation.
That is one of the reasons why they dance on the head of a pin
about what is a false allegation.
Q13 Mr Stuart: Are the majority
of allegations against male teachers and if so, do we need any
form of gender-specific response?
Amanda Brown: Certainly in our
experience they are generally made against male teachers. I don't
know whether they are seen as an easier target or whether it is
because of their greater involvement in playground watching duties.
Certainly our experience is that most of the allegations are against
male teachers.
Q14 Mr Stuart: To what extent
are disciplinary procedures more likely to be implemented and
used against troublesome members of staff or supply teachers?
I have a constituent who felt that because they were in a very
poorly performing school in a neighbouring authority and they
raised their doubts about that with the management of that school
they were hung out to dry when they left the room for 20 seconds
and something happened in the classroom. They were drawn out by
a lack of discipline in the corridor and yet they were suspended
and effectively banned from teaching in two local authority areas.
Is there any evidence to back up those fears?
Chris Keates: There is no doubt
that some school managers are more receptive to complaints about
some teachers. That is probably a fact of life across all organisations,
and it becomes particularly important when it happens here. As
we say in our written evidence, the whole issue of supply teachers
needs separate consideration. I hope the Committee will look at
that. There are some grievous injustices against supply teachers.
Often they don't have what you might term their day in court.
They are simply sent away from a school and never used again,
their agency does not follow up with any procedures and there
is nothing of any substance in the Government's guidance to schools
and local authorities about how supply teachers should be dealt
with. So there are real issues about supply teachers being able
to clear their name, in a context where even teachers on the staff
of a school have difficulty in clearing their name once they have
been the victim of an allegation.
Chairman: We have to move on, only because
we have so many questions to ask you.
Q15 Annette Brooke: It is my job
to ask you about procedures. Please don't see this as a test,
but the Committee would find it helpful if you would talk us through
a typical sequence of events. We have a chart in front of us,
so it does look like a test, but I am not sure this is right,
so we really want to get a feel of what would typically happen.
I presume you have a hierarchy of responses, depending on the
severity of the case, but that might not be the case. Our chart
starts with "allegation made and communicated to head teacher".
I was looking at the unions to start with, just to give us a feel
of what typically happens.
Amanda Brown: Although you have
the chart of what is supposed to happen and the procedures as
they are supposed to work, it doesn't always happen in that way.
One of the problems that started to be flagged up earlier is that
head teachers, who may, hopefully, deal with this once in their
career, if that, won't necessarily be au fait with what they are
supposed to do and will be looking at a quick guide. We would
say that they should have much more training on how to deal with
these things, because they will have to respond in an emergency
situation where there are heightened fears and heightened tension.
They need to prepare for that in advance, rather than having to
work out what to do at the time. As to how it might go, yes, an
allegation might be made to the head teacher, or to another teacher,
and it might be made to a designated teacher in the school who
has responsibility for child protection, which could be the head
teacher or somebody else. Occasionally, a parent will go direct
to the police and we find that sometimes those situations are
much more complicated because it raises the stakes very early
in the game if the parent goes directly to the police rather than
raising it through the school. If the allegation is raised with
the school, the head teacher will then have to consider how to
take it further and they will be told that they should be talking
to the LADO, the local authority designated officer, and they
will talk through the issues with the local authority officer.
We are concerned that head teachers are not allowed to exercise
more professional judgment at that time, because there will be
times when a head teacher could say, "I know that this is
manifestly absurd, I know that this could not possibly have happened
and I am not going to raise the stakes by moving on to the next
step in the procedure." We would like there to be, as there
used to be, more of a role for head teachers to make a professional
judgment. Was the teacher even on the school premises at the time?
What happened? That sort of judgment. The head teacher will talk
to the LADO and decide what level of case it is: whether it needs
to go to a multi-agency approach, whether other people need to
be involved, whether it is a matter for the police and whether
there is a potential criminal offence. That is another key point
because, as I said, most of these cases are about restraint, about
reasonable use of force, and if a dispute between a pupil and
a teacher is over whether the use of force was reasonable, there
is almost always a potential criminal offence there, because if
a teacher could, potentially, have used too much force, that is
a potential criminal offence immediately. That needs to be further
clarified—if this was a playground problem, or a removal
from class, where there is no real issue about assault, that should
not necessarily be referred immediately to the police. You might
want to talk it through, but it would not be a proper criminal
referral.
Q16 Annette Brooke: I shall go
all the way through, if that is all right, Chairman. The whole
hierarchy.
Chairman: Go through the whole hierarchy,
but don't call every witness for every one.
Annette Brooke: Just talk us through
quite quickly.
Amanda Brown: Generally, after
that there will be a question of whether or not the police are
involved, whether or not social services or any other agency are
involved and how it is dealt with at the school. The criminal
investigation usually takes priority and will be considered first.
The teacher will have been considered for suspension; I hope we
will have the opportunity to talk to you about what happens in
suspension, because that is critical for the individual. Some
of what happens at the moment is not in accordance with good practice,
and is not even in accordance with what is currently set out.
An improvement to the guidance is currently planned, which is
better, but suspension is certainly one of the real issues. If
a teacher is suspended, they may be called to a police station.
As you will have seen in evidence that has already been submitted,
attendance at a police station will usually be voluntary, although
there is then an issue about whether the teacher will be arrested
at that stage. Our view is that that should not be the case. The
criminal investigation will continue and witnesses will give statements
that will be kept, which leads to another issue about whether
those statements are then given to a later investigation at the
school or, before that, at the social services'. If there is a
school investigation, which is where we at the unions are usually
most involved apart from the general support that we give to our
member, a new tendency is for the investigation to be subcontracted
to an external body much more frequently. We feel that such cases
should be dealt with in-house, as there are experienced people
on child protection matters within children's services and local
authorities. I think that the subcontracting of cases to children's
charities or other agencies that have an interest in child protection
is a response to the heightened concern and fear in view of the
series of tragic, terrible situations that have happened in child
protection. Again, that raises the fears and heightens the tensions
around the whole issue, so that, in our experience, our members
very much feel, when they are put in front of an investigator,
bullied by the way in which they are treated by such investigations.
As others have said, the process of suspension can take a very
long time. There is a criminal investigation, and there may be
another social services investigation that can, in some cases,
involve the teacher and their own children, so it may have an
impact on their own family life because social services have concerns
about their attitude towards, and behaviour with, pupils at school.
We have had a member who had to sign a form stating that he would
have no sole contact with his baby daughter for a year. He was
not allowed to change her, be with her or feed her if the mother
was not present. That was because of an allegation made at school,
so there are considerable concerns about that and its impact on
family life as well. Finally, there will be a further investigation,
namely the school disciplinary investigation, following which
the teacher will be able to return to school if, as we hope, they
are cleared. But again, as people have said, there is a real issue
about rehabilitation at school. There are also concerns about
people knowing that something happened and that somebody was away
from school for a long period, but not knowing what has really
happened, and voicing concerns such as, "Is there ever smoke
without fire?" I think that that affects all teachers, but
it particularly affects small schools in rural areas where the
school is so much part of the local community that a teacher will
almost be hiding behind their front door if they are suspended.
If somebody sees them on the street, they will know that something
has gone wrong at school.
Q17 Annette Brooke: Thank you
very much for that. I am sorry that I made you speak for so long,
but that was really helpful and you made some important points
along the line. Following on from that, I would like to ask a
question to the other members of the panel. There is potential
for umpteen different investigations; is there any way of streamlining
the investigation process so that the teacher is not faced with
quite so many investigations? They could even end up being investigated
by the new Independent Safeguarding Authority at the end of the
day.
Chris Keates: The key part of
the process is what happens during the initial stages and the
decisions that are made at that point. That is the area in which
we did the deep review of the 12 cases with the Department for
Children, Schools and Families. We did the analysis, and all the
issues that arise around those cases hinge on how well and quickly
they are handled at the initial stages. Quite often, if those
stages were more thorough and consistent, some of the cases would
not move on to a later stage where they are found not to have
the substance that would take them, for example, to a court. From
our point of view, each of those organisations that Amanda has
mentioned has a role to play in certain aspects of the issue.
What tends to happen is that if there has been a very messy start
to the process—if it has been long drawn out, if there has
been an inappropriate referral—that is when you start to
get people becoming involved at the wrong level. Also, if parents,
or whoever is making the allegation, have gone to external sources
first—such as the police or social services—then you
are actually not starting on a progressive process; you are starting
in the middle of a process and everybody is already involved at
a high level before you have had that initial investigation.
Julian Stanley: From a mental
health point of view, one of our counsellors said it is a bit
like having a driving accident: the longer it takes to get to
the point where you are back at the wheel, the harder it is to
get back. The whole thing about the start of the process is about
providing some kind of support system, and that is what we aim
to do. It is about people being robust enough to be able to engage
in the process as it starts and to query and question. A number
of people have raised the issue of training and the level of training
that is available for head teachers and support and so on—training
local authorities has been referred to. It is about taking the
right action at the very beginning of the process and not knee-jerk
reactions.
Q18 Annette Brooke: May I come
in on a related point? Is the current guidance from the DCSF satisfactory,
or does it need changing? Or if it is okay, is it just a matter
of training everybody and making sure that it works properly in
practice? In the first instance, do you think the guidance needs
amending?
Julian Stanley: It certainly seems
as though the process takes longer than the guidance actually
sets out; that is the critical thing. It is taking much longer
than is already in the DCSF information. As has been pointed out
by Chris—the unions are very good on this and it would be
important to work with them on this—it is really important
to strengthen the guidance in a more detailed process so that
a more analytical approach is taken at the very beginning.
Chris Keates: In our written evidence
we put in a series of key points where we think the guidance needs
strengthening. There is no doubt that this current guidance is
an improvement on what has happened in the past, but first of
all it is non-statutory and secondly, there are areas that do
need to be strengthened. But also, it is not just guidance; there
must be support and training. Training is critical for governors,
local authority people and head teachers right across the piece.
That is missing at the moment.
Q19 Chairman: Shouldn't there
be a simple little guide for every head teacher as to what to
do in a case of this kind?
Amanda Brown: There used to be
a simple—well, fairly simple— guide, certainly a shorter
document, which was an agreement between all teaching unions and
local authorities as to what head teachers should actually do
if somebody comes into the office and says, "We have a child
abuse problem".
|
