Memorandum submitted by the NSPCC
SUMMARY OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
— The NSPCC agrees with and endorses
current media reporting guidelines from the Association of Chief
Police Officers (ACPO) which state that information about someone
under investigation should not normally be released to the public
unless and until the person is charged with a criminal offence.
The NSPCC believes that extending anonymity to the point of conviction
could provide less protection for children and young people in
schools. The NSPCC recommends: — All governors should
have training and support on how to deal with allegations and
disciplinary procedures. This should include support from local
authorities, for schools within and outside local authority control,
on how to establish disciplinary panels to manage allegations.
— The suspension of a staff member against whom an allegation
has been made should be left to the discretion of the school during
an investigation. In deciding when to suspend a staff member,
the protection, safety and best interests of the child at the
centre of the investigation should be paramount.
— The guidance on the appropriate time
to arrest a member of school staff should not be changed.
— Schools should designate allegations
as either "unfounded", "unsubstatiated" or
"malicious" rather than using the term "false"
which suggests that the allegations are of no further concern
and should be disregarded.
— Schools and staff responsible for
dealing with allegations made against school staff should be familiar
with the guidance for the barring decision making process developed
by the Independent Safeguarding Authority.
— Guidance on managing allegations,
which is currently being consultated on by the DCSF shortly, should
state that any allegation relating to a child protection concern
made against a staff member or volunteer, whether or not it has
been found to be malicious, unsubstantiated or unfounded should
be kept whilst that person is still employed by the school where
the allegation was made and also referred to a central point in
the school's local authority.
— Any allegations made against staff
in independent schools should also be held by the school and referred
to the local authority within which the school resides.
1. GENERAL COMMENTS
1.1 We welcome the opportunity to submit
evidence to the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee
inquiry into allegations against school staff. This is a complex
and controversial area which the Department for Children, Schools
and Families has attempted to tackle over recent years.
1.2 The starting point of this debate must be
putting the child's best interests at the centre and ensuring
a system that protects children and enables them to come forward.
Every child has a right to be safe and protected, a right to be
listened to and a right to be involved in decisions which directly
affect them as stipulated in Articles 3 and 12 in the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child.
1.3 The events of January 2006, when a number
of sex offenders were found to be working in schools, underline
how important it is to ensure that schools have a culture of vigilance
and a child protection mindset.
1.4 Alongside the guidance we recommend
the introduction of measures in schools and other settings to
help reduce the risk of false allegations. These should include
safeguarding policies and guidelines covering one to one meetings
with children and young people and what constitutes inappropriate
behaviour and the introduction of value based interviews into
the recruitment and selection process to do everything possible
to minimise the risk of recruiting unsuitable people to a school
setting. Child Protection training, which is a key component of
teacher training, can also provide school staff with the confidence
and expertise to deal with any allegations that may arise.
2. THE SCALE
AND NATURE
OF ALLEGATIONS
OF IMPROPER
CONDUCT MADE
AGAINST SCHOOL
STAFF
2.1 Scale of allegations
In 2007-08, ChildLine received 68,758 calls
about physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, unspecified
abuse, school problems and bullying. Records show that in 11,705
calls the perpetrator of the abuse was unknown. However, a collation
of the number of calls on this issue show that 1,491 children
counselled, a teacher was identified as the perpetrator of the
abuse. This figure (1,491) includes all calls where a teacher
was mentioned as the perpetrator of abuse and could include repeat
callers or calls which do not appear genuine in their presentation.
The figure also only includes the number of children and young
people who positively identified a perpetrator of abuse, many
did not; thus the actual number of children and young people abused
by a teacher or another member of the school staff could potentially
be larger. We would be happy to provide the inquiry with a more
detailed analysis of calls upon request.
2.2 Nature of allegations
The calls from children and young people to
ChildLine highlight some of the abusive and improper conduct by
staff in the education service. These range from emotional, psychological
and physical abuse and bullying to sexual abuse and serious violent
sexual crimes including rape. For example:
"My teacher is being horrible to me, I don't
know what to do—he keeps picking on me. He keeps saying
"I don't like you". It has been going on for a couple
of weeks. It is making me feel sad. It happened again today. He
shouted at me and smacked me."
"I'm being hit by a teacher. I'm being smacked,
punched. I'm not telling any teachers because they don't believe
us. I've already told people but they've done nothing."
"I am 15 and I have been raped by my teacher.
I feel scared. I don't want anyone to know."
Other calls from young people state that:
"A teacher has been texting me for months
and has given me detention for no reason. The teacher has been
chatting me up and touching me. Last time he asked me to have
sex with him. I'm afraid to tell anyone."
"The headteacher hit me on my head. I don't
want to tell my parents as they will not believe me."
"My teacher keeps me behind in class and
is trying to have sex with me. He calls me his `special student'".
"My teacher is telling me that I am always
going to be a failure and that I am not bright. It is really depressing
me".
"I was raped by my teacher last Friday.
I haven't told anyone about it. There is no-one that I can talk
to".
3. WHETHER STAFF
SUBJECT TO
ALLEGATIONS SHOULD
REMAIN ANONYMOUS
WHILE THE
CASE IS
INVESTIGATED
3.1 Current media reporting guidelines from
the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) state that information
about someone under investigation should not normally be released
to the public unless and until the person is charged with a criminal
offence. The NSPCC agrees with and endorses this guidance. We
do not believe that extending anonymity will improve safeguarding
or protection for children and young people in schools, as it
could send out a message to children and young people that genuine
allegations will not be believed.
3.2 We have not found any evidence to show that
teachers are any more likely to have allegations made against
them than any other professional who works with children and young
people. Introducing this change for teachers and education staff
would thus create a two-tier system and potentially have serious
implications for the anonymity of other perpetrators in other
professions who work with children and young people of abuse.
3.3 We do not agree with proposals put forward
by some teaching unions that school staff should remain anonymous
up to the point of conviction. The starting point of this debate
must be the child's best interests. We need a system that protects
children, enables them to come forward to disclose abuse and enables
the fullest consideration of the allegation. Importantly, the
current system allows the potential for more witnesses to an incident
or other instances of abuse perpetrated by the same individual
to come to light.
3.4 It is very difficult for children to
bring a successful prosecution against people whom they know well
and relatively few children make allegations about abuse. For
example, latest available figures show that in 2006 in England
and Wales only 38% of individuals who were prosecuted for the
rape or attempted rape of a child under the age of (a) 13 and
(b) 16 received a conviction.[3]
3.5 Anonymity beyond the point of charge
could result in fewer successful convictions, as it would remove
the potential for bringing forward more witnesses to an incident
and/or others who have been abused by the same person.
3.6 The NSPCC recommends that allegations
of abuse need to be dealt with robustly, quickly and efficiently.
Safeguarding children and young people requires broader action
including a culture of vigilance about risks to children and clear
understanding about appropriate interaction with children, challenging
unacceptable behaviour, providing examples of good conduct and
ensuring children know who they can turn to if they are being
abused. We also recommend that value based interviewing should
be implemented and used in the selection and recruitment process
to recruit school staff who support the safeguarding agenda in
protecting children from harm and minimising the risk of recruiting
unsuitable people to the school.
4. WHETHER THE
GUIDANCE AVAILABLE
TO HEAD
TEACHERS, SCHOOL
GOVERNORS, POLICE
AND OTHERS
ON HOW
TO HANDLE
CLAIMS OF
IMPROPER CONDUCT
BY SCHOOL
STAFF SHOULD
BE REVISED,
WITH PARTICULAR
REFERENCE TO:
(a) the procedures to be followed by disciplinary
panels
4.1 Evidence gathered from NSPCC practitioners
and staff with expertise on managing allegations suggests that
the current procedures for handling claims of improper conduct
by school staff are sufficiently robust and rigourous. The NSPCC
recommends that there should be no change in the procedures to
be followed by disciplinary panels dealing with alleagations made
against school staff.
4.2 However, NSPCC practitioners and staff have
reported that schools sometimes do not properly implement the
procedures set out in Safeguarding Children and Safer Recruitment
in Education[4]
which can cause distress to the different parties involved. In
some cases, NSPCC practitioners have reported that schools have
developed their own process for managing allegations made against
school staff which have been very lengthy and opaque.
4.3 Schools are often unfamiliar with managing
procedures for dealing with allegations. Evidence from practitioners
suggests that schools sometimes do not follow procedures set out
in guidance issued by the Department for Children, Schools and
Families, preferring to develop and implement their own procedures.
4.4 In some areas, such as East Sussex,
local authorities are providing support for governors in establishing
disciplinary panels and guidance and training on procedures to
be followed by disciplinary panels. Governors should have training
on how to deal with allegations and disciplinary procedures and
support from local authorities on how to establish disciplinary
panels to manage allegations.
(b) when suspension of the staff member concerned
is appropriate
4.5 The NSPCC recognises that suspension
of a member of staff whilst an allegation is being investigated
is sometimes interpreted as an admission of guilt by the wider
school community. However, their continued presence in the school
can also be prejudicial to a fair and thorough investigation of
the allegation as the member of school staff may still have access
to the child or young person who made the allegation.
4.6 Schools can often find it difficult to identify
the most appropriate point in an investigation when a staff member
should be suspended if an allegation has been made against them
by a child or young person, but this should be left to the discretion
of the school. However, in deciding when to suspend a staff member,
the protection, safety and best interests of the child at the
centre of the investigation should be paramount.
4.7 The suspension should be done in a non-prejudicial
way and it should be made clear to both the staff member and the
child or young person who has made an allegation that there should
be no contact between them.
4.8 As mentioned above in paragraph 4.5,
suspension of a staff member can sometimes be viewed by the wider
school community as an admission of guilt which often makes it
difficult for them to return to the workplace if an allegation
is unfounded or if there is insufficient evidence to prosecute.
It is important that when a member of staff returns to school
after an allegation has been declared unfounded or there is insufficient
evidence for a prosecution, that it is managed carefully and that
both the child or young person who made the allegation and the
staff member are appropriately and sufficiently supported. This
should include effective communication between all parties.
(c) when arrest of the staff member concerned
is appropriate
4.9 Arrest of an individual is a policing
matter and Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
1984 (PACE) as amended by section 110 of the Serious and Organised
Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCAP) provides a constable with the
power of arrest for an offence. The exercise of this power requires
the officer to apply the necessary criteria set out in PACE Code
G and show that the arrest is necessary.
4.10 PACE Code G sets out the requirements for
a lawful arrest. If either of the requirements for a lawful arrest
are fulfilled during an investigation then it would be appropriate
for the police to arrest a member of staff for further investigation
and questioning as necessary to the inquiry. We do not recommend
any change to the guidance on when arrest is appropirate.
(d) the retention of records of allegations
found to be false
4.11 The nature and complexity of allegations
made against school staff can mean that allegations can be unfounded,
unsubstantiated or malicious, but it is too simplistic to describe
allegations which are not criminally prosecuted to be false. Allegations
may be unsubstantiated, but this can be because of a lack of evidence
or because allegations have been withdrawn by the person who made
them. There were nine separate allegations against Ian Huntley—from
sexual assault to rape—and all except one were investigated
by Humberside Police between 1995 to 1999. The murder of two young
girls in Soham by Ian Huntley demonstrates the importance of retaining
allegations which have not been substantiated or unfounded. The
case also highlights it is essential that information is shared
properly between agencies and that staff who are responsible for
this know how to do it and in a timely and appropriate manner.
4.12 The NSPCC recommends that schools should
designate allegations as either "unfounded", "unsubstatiated"
or "malicious" rather than using the term "false"
which suggests that the allegations are of no further concern
and should be disregarded.
4.13 The retention of records of allegations
found to be false must be consistent, reasonable and proportionate
for all of the parties involved. We recommend that guidance on
managing allegations which is due to be published by DCSF shortly
should state that any allegation relating to a child protection
concern made against a staff member or volunteer, whether or not
it has been found to be malicious, unsubstantiated or unfounded,
should be kept whilst that person is still employed by the school
where the allegation was made and also referred to a central point
in the school's local authority.
4.14 Any allegations made against staff
in independent schools should also be held by the school and referred
to the local authority within which the school resides.
4.15 The NSPCC operates a system whereby
any allegation relating to child protection that is made against
either employed staff or volunteer independent visitors is kept
on record. We release the information to future employers if we
have reason to believe that the individual poses a risk to a child
or young person.
4.16 The introduction of the new vetting
and barring scheme operated by the Independent Safeguarding Authority
in 2010 poses a number of challenges. Specifically, determining
how and when "soft" information, such as police intelligence
or details about allegations made against school staff which were
not referred to the police, should be disclosed and/or where there
are (continuing) concerns about the appropriateness of an individual
working with children and young people.
4.17 The NSPCC recommends that schools and
staff responsible for dealing with allegations made against school
staff should be familiar with the guidance[5]
for the barring decision-making process developed by the Independent
Safeguarding Authority. This guidance sets out details and clarifies
the collection, retention, deletion, use and sharing of information,
and when and what type of information should be disclosed and
entered into the ISA registration of a member of school staff
if an allegation is made against them. Guidance should also be
developed for those against whom allegations are made to ensure
that the process is transparent and that information is passed
on and/or shared with other parties in an open and accountable
manner.
4.18 As highlighted above, some allegations
are malicious in nature and although this can be distressing for
the person against whom they are made, it can also be a cry for
help or a sign that a child or young person is being abused at
home or elsewhere. There should be full exploration of why the
child or young person made the allegation, including an assessment
of whether they need any extra support.
May 2009
3 Court proceedings database-Criminal Justice Evidence
and Analysis-Office for Criminal Justice Reform. Back
4
http://publications.everychildmatters.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&PageMode=publications&ProductId=DFES-04217-2006& Back
5
http://www.isa-gov.org.uk/pdf/GuidanceNotesforBarringDecisionMakingProcessweb.pdf Back
| 
