Memorandum submitted by Mick Madden
INQUIRY INTO
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST
SCHOOL STAFF
As a member of the public and as someone who
has raised the injustice of the present system in relation to
allegations against staff in schools in other areas, I would ask
that you take up this issue with the Select Committee.
Although my own case is slightly more complicated
than most, I have worked in schools for 27 years and am aware
of some of the many shortfalls in the systems set up to deal with
such allegations.
I have outlined below my general comments in relation
to the terms of reference of the Children, Schools and Families
select committee Inquiry. I have then added a number of specific
points to my own case which I hope will be helpful.
1. Scale and nature of allegations of improper
conduct made against school staff
— Not really able to comment on scale
of problem except that there appears to be many more cases than
ever. — Many of these cases are trivial, unfounded and/or
unlikely.
— These now also involve a wider range
of staff than just teachers as more jobs in schools are taken
on by support staff.
— We need to be clear what is improper
conduct in these cases. Breaking the law, abusing or harming children
etc. Needs to be defined clearer with a range of agreed and more
appropriate responses.
— Severity of allegation needs to be
considered on a case by case level.
— Trawls for negative information should
be outlawed and persons contravening this should be held individually
liable.
2. Should staff subject to allegations remain
anonymous?
— Definitely, although this is not
always possible as many people will be aware of the problems.
Human nature is often "there is no smoke without fire"
and within communities like schools people talk. — Investigations
go on for an unreasonable period of time.
— Staff, pupils and families may need
to be aware of what is happening in terms of the process and that
"it is a neutral act" to suspend. This is often not
made clear and rumours occur.
— The accuser and accused need to understand
the importance of retaining the confidentiality while matters
are being investigated.
3. Is the guidance adequate or should it
be revised in relation to:
3.1 Procedures for Disciplinary panel
— Procedures are wrongly based on the
presumption of guilt. — All information is not always
available to the accused.
— Time limits are far to short in terms
of preparation time.
— Pre-hearings might be considered
as a way of establishing background information and what additional
evidence may be needed.
— In the case of serious allegations
the accused should be able to take a legal representative to the
hearing to speak on their behalf as well as a union representative
or colleague from work.
— Panels should be allowed to make
their own genuine decisions without pressure from LA's or others.
3.2 When is suspension appropriate?
— Where serious allegations have been
made that may lead to legal action. — Where others are
likely to be hurt or injured further.
— Where it is alleged there has been
systematic misconduct (physical, sexual or emotional).
— Where others may be involved and
it is important to preserve evidence.
— Only in a small number of cases.
There should be a clear understanding of why the decision to suspend
has been taken and an opportunity to challenge this before any
investigation/hearings take place.
— All other available options should
be pursued first.
— There should be a strict time limit
and clear updating of information to the suspended person and
their representative (at least monthly).
3.3 When is arrest appropriate?
— Police should only arrest a staff
member when a serious complaint has been made, it is seen to be
plausible/possible and has a likelihood of the law being broken
and could reasonably lead to prosecution. Evidence should be gathered
from complainant and witnesses before any arrest. — Arrest
should not be seen as automatic procedure as appears to be the
case.
— Good reason should be given for the
decision to arrest and this should be approved by a senior officer.
— Head teacher should be asked for
their view.
3.4 Should records of unfounded allegations be
retained?
— No, a clear decision should be reached
in each allegation as to whether records are to be retained or
not. — If records are to be retained this should be
for a specified period and for specified reasons.
— Professional associations and CRB
could be informed of allegations but this information should not
be used against individuals unless a case is proven.
— There should be an appeal/review
process where records retained can be reconsidered at time intervals.
— Only people found to be a risk to
children should be considered for inclusion on any lists.
— There should be a right of appeal
for inclusion on any risk and regular reviews.
— Only records likely to be helpful
in future prosecutions should be retained.
— Cases that do not hold weight or
are not proven should be dismissed.
— Unfounded allegations should not
be used to hound people.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
RELATED TO
MY OWN
CASE
— NSPCC commissioned by LA to carry
out a wide ranging inquiry following an allegation against the
Head Teacher. It is my belief that this was the wrong body to
carry out such an inquiry as this was predominantly an issue of
management and interpersonal skills. — A trawl of information
was carried out against specific staff (including myself as the
Designated Person for Child Safeguarding).
— I was not allowed access to the NSPCC
report (and still have no access).
— I was suspended (neutral act!) several
months later on the suspicion of Gross Misconduct.
— I was not allowed contact with colleagues,
pupils or their families.
— Access to information on pupil files
was difficult to obtain.
— LA did not hold data on referrals
etc, so it was difficult to prove what actions I had previously
taken in relation to Safeguarding.
— A Gross Misconduct hearing was held
by the governors but they were instructed to withdraw by the LA
as they (as well as the LA were implicated in my defence).
— The case against was presented by
the LA.
— A reconvened hearing took place.
— The LA selected a new team of Governors
from other schools (different type of school).
— The LA presented the case against.
— The LA representative advised the
panel, questioned witnesses and myself.
— The policy obliged the panel to accept
the advice of the LA representative or risk being held individually
liable for any future claim.
— I had to try and prove myself innocent
without access to the same range of information or resources as
was available to the LA.
— My union was less than supportive
and were felt to be embroiled with the LA in allowing such an
unfair process to run its course.
— I was dismissed from my job for procedural
and administrative errors.
— No restrictions were put on my ability
to work with children.
— No one had been hurt or injured by
my actions or inaction.
— No previous complaints had been made
or any actions taken against me in 27 years of impeccable service.
— I had no formal or informal supervision.
— I had taken on several additional
roles to assist the school and children (including running the
school for 10 days).
— I successfully applied for and gained
a more junior role at a local mainstream school.
— The LA (HR dept) had assisted the
acting head of my previous school to prepare a reference.
— I was effectively forced out of this
role by the LA putting unfair and undue pressure on the Head Teacher
and Governors to reverse their decision to employ me. The Head
was threatened with suspension.
— I resigned to save any further upset
or pressure being exerted.
— An appeal was set up and on the day
of the appeal I had a letter from the Independent Safeguarding
Authority to say the LA had referred my case for consideration
as to whether I was safe to work with Children and/or vulnerable
adults.
— An appeal was held and I asked the
panel (management board of the school) to make a judgement once
they had heard the case on my ability to work with children and/or
vulnerable adults so that they could guide the LA.
— My appeal was turned down after lengthy
deliberation and strong advice from the LA.
— The panel were not allowed by the
LA to make any recommendation on my ability to work with children.
— The chair of the new Management Board
of the school met with the panel members and requested a meeting
with senior LA representatives to inform them that in the view
of the Board no restrictions should be placed on me working with
children or vulnerable adults.
— The school that appointed me on a
junior role were then made the subject of an inquiry into the
process of appointment, child protection and governance.
— The school visited by a small team
of individuals who interviewed staff, pupils and governors and
the verbal feedback was very positive and the school were reassured
that everything was in order
— Some weeks later the LA again contacted
the Head Teacher to say they wanted to revisit and this time tape
record the interviews with himself and each of the selection committee
involved in my appointment.
— The team revisited, interviewed the
Head on tape and a number of others were re-interviewed but refused
to be taped.
— They await the outcome.
Sorry to be so lengthy in my submission but
I am sure you can see why I feel unfairly victimised by what is
supposed to be a fair and transparent process seeking to establish
the truth.
Please feel free to use all/or part of this
letter in your work with the Select committee.
May 2009
| 
