Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL)
— ATL is a union that has a membership
of 160,000. — The membership is made up of teachers,
lecturers and support staff.
— Members work in the four to 19 age
group in the private, maintained and independent sectors.
1. The scale and nature of allegations of improper
conduct made against school staff.
2. ATL members report that allegations of improper
conduct cover a wide spectrum including allegations of verbal
or physical abuse.
3. In a recent survey conducted by ATL 50.2%
of respondents said that they knew of a colleague who had a false
allegation made against them.
4. Anonymity of staff subject to allegations.
5. It is ATL's view that anonymity should be
preserved up to the point of criminal charge. Whilst investigations
are being conducted in situations where an individual has been
suspended then anonymity underscores the principle that suspension
is a neutral act. It is recognised that anonymity within a school
setting is difficult but employers should not make contact with
or respond to the media in such a way that anonymity is breached.
6. Should guidance be revised?
7. The Guidance used by head teachers, school
governors, local authority and police can currently be found in
the Safeguarding Children and Safer Recruitment in Education
Guidance of January 2007. That Guidance needs to be revised generally
to take account of the provisions of the Independent Safeguarding
Authority (ISA).
8. Specific paragraphs in the Guidance in `Chapter
5 Dealing with Allegations of Abuse Against Teachers and Other
Staff' need to be revised in light of its application in practice.
9. Para 5.2—A monitoring procedure needs
to be established to ensure compliance and to comply with the
provisions of the ISA.
10. Para 5.3—The paragraph needs updating
to take account of the revised lists with the introduction of
the ISA.
11. Para 5.6—Should include a requirement
that the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) be obliged
to keep individual informed of progress of review meetings. Cross
reference with Para 5.12.
12. Para 5.7—Schools should be explicitly
required, save in exceptional circumstances, to maintain confidentiality
up until the point at which an individual is charged.
13. Para 5.10—Provision must be made for
an individual to correct any inaccuracies regarding an allegation
contained in their personnel file. There should be guidance to
ensure a uniform way of schools applying such a provision.
14. There needs to be a revision of the way
in which the Criminal Records Bureau records enhanced disclosure.
Currently each local police force records what they consider relevant
to the post an individual applies for. There is no uniformity
in the type or manner in which a local police force records details
of an allegation. To ensure uniformity guidance should be provided
for local police forces on the information to be included in an
enhanced disclosure form. Templates could be drawn up that show
specific outcomes. Templates could ensure a consistency of record
keeping, irrespective of geographic location.
15. Para 5.11—The experience of ATL members
is that an inordinate amount of time can lapse between either
the allegation being made and referral to police and between the
end of a police investigation and the conclusion of an internal
school investigation.
16. Monitoring should take place to ensure that
the suggested time scales in the Guidance are being complied with.
17. Para 5.12—The experience of ATL members
is that the Designated Officer does not keep individuals informed
of progress of developments. The Guidance needs to be revised
to include an obligation on the Designated Officer to keep the
individual informed of the progress of their case.
18. Para 5.14—ATL members report that
it is not rare for employers to refer matters to the police and/or
social services. In a recent ATL survey out of those who were
referred to the police 82.1% resulted in no further action after
the initial police interview. The decision to refer to the police
is a school based one
19. Para 5.17—ATL's members have expressed
concern about the impact on them of having to deal with defending
a false allegation made against them. It would assist if the Guidance
gave examples of false allegations and drew up a flowchart of
the steps an employer should take when faced with any type of
allegation. The steps will differ depending on whether the allegation
is demonstrably false or unfounded or not.
20. Para 5.25—A monitoring process needs
to be established to ensure that the local authority designated
officer is regularly reviewing cases and monitoring progress.
An individual who is the subject of an allegation should be included
in the list of people/organisations that the LADO should liaise
with.
21. Para 5.34—The Guidance should require
that a clear record be made in the personnel file of the individual
who is the subject of the false allegation, that the allegation
was false and of the action taken against the individual who made
the false allegation, and if no action, why not.
22. Para 5.41-5.43—The experience of ATL
members is that the timescales are not being complied with. The
Guidance needs to ensure that there is an adequate system of monitoring
compliance.
23. Para 5.49—Guidance needs to be revised
to take account of the ISA.
May 2009
| 
