Conclusions and recommendations
1. We
believe that school staff subject to allegations should be treated
according to acknowledged principles of justice and that a person
accused of wrongdoing should be seen as innocent until proven
guilty. The aim should always be to deal with allegations speedily,
effectively and justly, to minimise the cost and the impact upon
those accused. (Paragraph 6)
The
impact of allegations
2. 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. (Paragraph 21)
2. The
investigatory process
3. We
question whether there is a need for a lengthy investigation of
an allegation by local authority social services if a police investigation
has concluded that no crime has been committed or that there is
no case to answer. (Paragraph 26)
4. We recommend that
representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers, local
authorities and teacher unions meet to agree a protocol for the
recording and sharing of information. (Paragraph 27)
3. The
first stages of investigation
5. We
believe that headteachers should have more discretion to intervene
early in cases and to handle allegations internally if they are
satisfied that there is no prospect of harm being caused to the
child. We recommend that the Department amend guidance to those
working with children to identify circumstances in which headteachers
can justifiably handle allegations internally. We are not convinced,
however, that the same discretion should apply to governors considering
an allegation against a headteacher. (Paragraph 32)
4. Police
use of powers of arrest
6. We
recommend that the Government should undertake a one-off exercise
to find out how many arrests were made over a twelve-month period
of school staff following an allegation of improper conduct. Police
forces should review those cases to assess whether arrest had
been justified. We remind chief constables that it is their responsibility
to ensure that officers use their power of arrest sensitively
and judiciously. (Paragraph 45)
5. Suspension
of staff
7. The
lack of any statement in the Department's draft guidance for practitioners
on keeping the length of suspension to a minimum is an omission
which should be rectified. (Paragraph 49)
8. We believe that
it would be best practice for a headteacher to discuss suspension
with the accused before any decision is taken, while clearly reserving
the right to suspend. (Paragraph 52)
9. We welcome the
steps taken by the Department to reiterate guidance on when suspension
of a member of staff is appropriate and on possible alternatives.
We recommend that guidance should remind users that the lawfulness
of suspension can be challenged and that suspension may be held
by the courts not to be a neutral act. We also recommend that
each decision to suspend a member of staff subject to an allegation
should be reviewed once proceedings have run their course, to
assess whether the decision had, in retrospect, been justified.
(Paragraph 54)
10. Guidance to headteachers
and to governors should specify that any bar on contact between
an accused teacher and other school staff should apply on school
premises only. (Paragraph 56)
11. We welcome the
stress placed by the Department in its draft guidance for practitioners
on making constant and appropriate support available to members
of staff subject to allegations. We remind local authorities,
employers and school leaders of their duty of care to school staff
and of the importance of continuing to treat suspended members
of staff as full-time employees fully involved in the work of
the school. (Paragraph 58)
6. Anonymity
for those subject to allegations
12. We
are not sure that a right to anonymity up until the point of court
decision would deliver a significant benefit to those subject
to allegations. Even if it were to succeed in preventing details
of an allegation from being published or broadcast by the local
media, it might do little to stop details being circulated amongst
children and parents. The argument that anonymity up until the
point of court decision could remove the potential for more witnesses
or fellow sufferers to become aware of the charges and to come
forward is a strong one. On the other hand, exposure of an allegation
under investigation will almost invariably tarnish the reputation
of the member of staff concerned, and the principle of 'innocent
until proven guilty' will be undermined. We recommend that there
should be further consideration by the Department of the case
for statutory anonymity for school staff subject to allegations.
(Paragraph 63)
7. Independent
investigations
13. We
believe that an investigation must not be an exercise purely
to assemble a case against the staff member concerned. (Paragraph
67)
14. We believe that
former senior employees of local authority children's services
departments will often be well placed to conduct independent investigations
as long as they do not carry out that function on behalf of a
school in their former local authority area. We believe that the
criteria qualifying a person to conduct investigations should
be relevant expertise and objectivity. We are not persuaded that
it is conducive to confidence in the process for handling allegations
if independent investigators appear to be sourced from organisations
which might have a particular viewpoint. Nor are we convinced
that this is a task which should be contracted out to unknown
third parties. (Paragraph 71)
15. We recommend that
there should be a clear presumption in all schools that decisions
on whether or not to appoint an independent investigator to gather
any information necessary to inform disciplinary proceedings,
and on who should be appointed, should be taken by the chair of
governors. Local authorities will have a direct interest, given
their statutory role to safeguard children and sometimes in a
non-statutory role as employer. Headteachers may come under especial
pressure when an allegation is made and may in any case be the
subject of the allegation. We believe that governors, properly
trained and equipped with advice, will be more objective than
either local authorities or headteachers. We would expect the
chair of governors to consult closely with the headteacher, who
will have first-hand knowledge of the pupil or parent making the
allegation, and with the local authority, in reaching any decision.
(Paragraph 74)
8. Disciplinary
hearings
16. We
recommend that local authorities form a pool of procedural advisers
to attend disciplinary hearings and to advise school governors
on the conduct of those hearings. (Paragraph 76)
17. We are persuaded
that all school staff subject to an allegation should have the
right to have legal representation or to be accompanied by a trade
union representative, whichever they prefer, in all disciplinary
hearings. (Paragraph 79)
18. Once a decision
has been taken to instigate disciplinary proceedings, employers
should consider carefully what information, if any, should be
communicated to parents and staff. (Paragraph 80)
19. A supply teacher
subject to an allegation should be treated on an equal basis as
a full member of staff and should be investigated by the school
at which the allegation is made. The results of any investigation
should be reported to the employing agency and to the Independent
Safeguarding Authority. (Paragraph 81)
9. Guidance
20. We
recommend that the Department should take the opportunity offered
by the present consultation on guidance for practitioners to rationalise
the guidance which it produces on handling allegations. The Department
should publish a very short handbook, summarising procedures and
the criteria to be taken into account at key decision points,
and containing references to a single authoritative and detailed
volume of guidance drawn up in consultation with local authority
bodies, children's organisations and teacher unions. (Paragraph
84)
21. Employers of school
staff should be more energetic in ensuring that key figures in
each school are trained in how to handle allegations and that
they have access to support services, including a helpline. We
also believe that employers should carry out more systematic reviews
of how individual allegations were handled, to assess in particular:
- Whether a suspension (and the
length of that suspension) was justified;
- Whether the allegation was handled expeditiously;
and
- Whether the accused received the right level
of support.
- We see this as one of the most
important recommendations in this Report. (Paragraph 86)
10. Personnel
records
22. We
commend the Department for making clear, in an Annex to new draft
guidance for practitioners, the distinctions between terms used
to describe outcomes of investigations. However, the phrase 'unsubstantiated
allegation' carries with it a whiff of guilt. It should be used
with particular care and only when no other term will suffice.
The Department should also make clear in the body of the guidance
that those who record outcomes of investigations should use those
terms in describing allegations which lead to no further action,
to avoid any ambiguity. (Paragraph 94)
23. The decisions
of the Independent Safeguarding Authority on the suitability
of individuals to work with children should be made on all available
and relevant information, including that held in their employers'
personnel records. (Paragraph 98)
24. We believe that
the Independent Safeguarding Authority should take responsibility
for deciding whether allegations recorded in a personnel file
of a member of school staff should be retained or expunged. We
therefore recommend that records of all such allegations should
be retained by employers unless and until the Authority authorises
their deletion. (Paragraph 99)
11. Police
records and disclosure
25. The
guidance prepared by the Department for practitioners on the distinctions
in terminology for different outcomes of an investigation has
value for police officers and should be either disseminated to
police forces as it stands or incorporated into existing police
guidance. (Paragraph 105)
26. We recommend that
the Independent Safeguarding Authority assess proposed disclosures
of "soft" information relating to people working or
applying to work with children or vulnerable people. (Paragraph
109)
27. We question whether
an employer should have the right to reject an applicant or appointee
simply on the basis of unproven and quite possibly unfounded "soft"
information supplied by chief officers for Enhanced Disclosure
CRB checks. The Government should examine this practice and either
justify permitting it or take steps to prevent it. (Paragraph
111)
| 
