The number of allegations
11. We attempted to form a picture of the scale
of allegations. Those who responded to our call for evidence cited
a range of statistics on differing bases, for instance:
- The NSPCC said that in 2007-08,
Childline received 68,758 calls about abuse and bullying; for
1,491 of the children counselled, a teacher was identified as
the perpetrator of abuse;[11]
- The DCSF supplied figures from a one-off survey
for the period from 1 April to 30 September 2007, indicating that
there had been 4069 allegations referred to local authority designated
officers during the six-month period. 52% of those referrals were
from employers in the education sector;[12]
- Allegations of abuse made against NASUWT members
rose from 44 in 1991 (when figures were first collected by the
union) to between 161 and 193 in each year from 1998 to 2007;
but these figures only include cases where the union was required
to instruct solicitors for a police interview;[13]
- The number of NUT members subject to an allegation
of criminal misconduct has remained steady at about 200 cases
per annum;[14] as with
NASUWT figures, these cases include only those in which solicitors
were instructed to attend the police station;[15]
- In 2008, the Teacher Support Network dealt with
132 calls from teachers about allegations.[16]
12. The NUT told us that only 5% of cases led to
a conviction or finding of misconduct.[17]
The NASUWT said that the overwhelming majority of allegations
were found to have had no substance,[18]
and it provided a breakdown of the outcomes of cases in each year
since 1991 (when figures were first collated by the union). Approximately
10% of cases reported by NASUWT members led to court proceedings,
with about half leading to a caution or conviction.[19]
Of the 95% of cases which did not lead to a caution or conviction,
some may have had foundation and may have led to internal disciplinary
action.
13. The Department surprised us by claiming that
it was "rare for an allegation to be deliberately false or
malicious".[20]
This claim was based upon the one-off review conducted by the
Department in 2007, described above, which indicated that the
proportion of allegations which were malicious was 2.8%.[21]
14. Some witnesses did not accept this figure at
all: the Association of School and College Leaders said that the
great majority of allegations of physical violence by teachers
appeared to have no basis in fact or were greatly exaggerated.[22]
Mr Kaufman, a solicitor experienced in acting on behalf of school
staff subject to allegations, agreed, pointing out that the Department
had not supported its statement in any way.[23]
Others suggested that the Department was using a particular interpretation
of the term "false allegation". Amanda Brown, Head of
the Employment, Conditions and Rights Department at the NUT, said
that:
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 waded in 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.[24]
Chris Keates, General Secretary at the NASUWT, said
that local authorities and Government departments could be reluctant
to acknowledge the existence of false allegations "because
it might be seen as trying to protect abusers".[25]
This view was not borne out by other evidence.
15. We raised the matter with Baroness Morgan of
Drefelin, the DCSF Minister with responsibility for child protection.
She agreed that the definitions used by the Government and by
teaching unions were not necessarily comparable, and a Departmental
official clarified that the term "deliberately false"
used in the submission meant "deliberately and knowingly
false" and was intended to describe allegations which were
deemed to be malicious.[26]
16. There is perhaps a distinction between allegations
which are deliberately false, being fabricated and exaggerated
but perhaps with no motive other than to seek attention, and those
which are malicious and calculated to do damage. Nonetheless,
regardless of the debate about definitions, our constituency
experience leads us to doubt that the proportion of allegations
which are malicious is really as low as 2.8%.
The impact of allegations
17. As the union "Voice" pointed out:
The lives and careers of innocent people have been
ruined by false allegations of abuse, even after they have been
acquitted of any offence. Being falsely accused and suspended
can cause severe personal distress and long-term damage to the
accused's career. A large number of our members have left the
profession and suffered damage to their health.[27]
Similar points were made by the Association of School
and College Leaders and individuals who described their personal
experiences.[28] Even
when a member of staff has been cleared by a disciplinary panel
and neither the police nor local authority social services have
found any case to answer, rehabilitation at school after a potentially
long absence can be difficult.
18. In some cases, a teacher's family may become
involved in the investigation and restrictions may have been placed
upon the activities of the accused. The NUT told us of a case
in which a teacher was obliged to certify that he would have no
sole contact with his baby daughter for a year.[29]
In another case, raised in debate in the House, a member of staff
was forbidden to watch his son play rugby for his school, even
at away matches.[30]
19. Allegations with any weight at all have an impact
upon the school concerned, not least in terms of finance. Setting
aside the expenses of any court process, an independent investigation
to inform disciplinary proceedings, if commissioned, may be costly;
and the cost of arranging cover for a member of staff suspended
on full pay can be significant, especially if the suspension lasts
for months. We were told that a bill of £30,000 for cover
by supply staff during a suspension was common.[31]
If members of staff are supporting allegations, for instance against
a headteacher, the effect upon staff morale and confidence in
the direction and ethos of the school may be crippling.
20. There may also be implications for teacher recruitment
if, as was reported to us, anxiety about the possibility of allegations
causes graduates to hesitate to enter the teaching profession.[32]
The NUT spoke of the "chilling effect" for all teachers
whether or not they were the subject of an allegation;[33]
and a witness representing the National Association of Head Teachers
spoke of anecdotal evidence that people, particularly when considering
taking up a headship, were put off by publicity given to allegations
made against headteachers and by the responsibility of managing
allegations.[34]
21. We have considered whether the lack of consistent
data on allegations is significant. The NUT told us that keeping
a register of allegations was important in "knowing the scale
of the problem and being able to define it".[35]
We agree. More importantly, perhaps, a consistent set of data
kept on a regular basis would allow the Department and local authorities
to begin to assess the cost of allegations, financial and otherwise.
We believe that it is unsatisfactory
that there are no comprehensive data compiled on a regular basis
for allegations against school staff. We recommend that the following
data should be collected annually from all schools:
- The number
of allegations referred to local authorities;
- The number of allegations leading
to police investigation;
- The number of allegations leading
to suspension of the staff member concerned; and
- Outcomes, including those that
lead to criminal convictions and dismissal.
As numbers will be small, we do
not believe that this would be an unduly onerous requirement.
22. We urge the Department not to dismiss this recommendation
out of hand. We bear in mind the Report on Bullying published
by the former Education and Skills Committee. In it, the Committee
recommended that the Department should introduce a requirement
for schools to record all incidents of bullying along with information
about the type of bullying incident.[36]
The Government agreed to strengthen its encouragement to schools
to record all incidents of bullying and report the statistics
to their local authority; but it resisted the introduction of
a statutory requirement, arguing that there would be logistical
difficulties and that the introduction of a requirement to record
bullying incidents "will not necessarily persuade more schools
to do so".[37] Our
predecessors were not convinced by the Department's argument,
and we do not believe that a parallel argument can be sustained
in relation to allegations against staff.
1 Section 93 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006.
See also Mr Kaufman Q 32 Back
2
See Chris Keates Q 9 Back
3
Amanda Brown Q 6 Back
4
Ev 62 Back
5
Ev 6 and Ev 38 Back
6
Ev 67 Back
7
Amanda Brown Q 13 Back
8
Ev 13 Back
9
Ev 68 Back
10
Ev 13 Back
11
Not all of the 68,758 were necessarily children or were counselled.
The 1,491 figure may include repeat callers and calls "which
do not appear genuine" but it does not include cases where
the status of a perpetrator was not identified but could have
been a teacher: Ev 71 Back
12
Data supplied by local authority designated officers (LADOs):
returns covered 85% of local authorities in England.
Ev 78-79 Back
13
Ev 18 Back
14
Ev 6 Back
15
Q 5 Back
16
Ev 22 Back
17
Ev 6 Back
18
Q 1 Back
19
Ev 18 Back
20
Ev 78 Back
21
Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence taken before the Children,
Schools and Families Committee on 24 June 2009, on the Training
of Children and Families Social Workers, HC 527-iv, Session
2008-09, Q 320 Back
22
Ev 38 Back
23
Q 12 Back
24
Q 11 Back
25
Q 12 Back
26
Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence taken before the Children,
Schools and Families Committee on 24 June 2009, on the Training
of Children and Families Social Workers, HC 527-iv, Session
2008-09, Q 322 Back
27
Ev 61 Back
28
Ev 38 Back
29
Amanda Brown Q 16 Back
30
Memorandum from Roger Lock [not printed], see HC Deb 2
April 2009, vol. 1125 Back
31
Memorandum from Jenni Watson, paragraph 3 [not printed] Back
32
Chris Keates Q 1 Back
33
Amanda Brown Q 5 Back
34
Kathryn James Q 54 Back
35
Amanda Brown Q 7 Back
36
Bullying: Third Report from the Education and Skills Committee,
Session 2006-07, paragraph 33 Back
37
Bullying: Government Response to the Committee's Third Report
of Session 2006-07, Third Special Report, Session 2006-07,
HC 600, response to Recommendation 6 Back
