Page 10
False allegations: a crime against teachers
When a pupil made a false allegation against him, Henry Blenkinsop found the support of the NUT invaluable.
To confront false or malicious allegations is a life-changing and, for some, a permanently damaging experience.
I have worked in special needs education for almost 33 years, having started my pedagogical career in 1971. All teachers experience complaints and concerns, from the justifiable to the ridiculous. Serious allegations – such as abuse, sexual assault, professional misconduct, and behaviour likely to bring the service into disrepute – are, however, thankfully rare.
Yet I was presented with all of these charges in a comparatively short space of time. To say the next four months or so were stressful is an understatement.
Fortunately, the NUT was outstanding from the start, providing excellent advice and guidance, and organising a solicitor when I was arrested and placed in police cells.
I was required to attend an interview at a central police station, which I was not mentally or emotionally prepared for. I was cautioned, arrested, searched, locked up in a holding cell (with baked beans on the ceiling and faeces on a wall), questioned by two officers and recorded on audio tapes. A few hours later I was released on police bail to present myself in a few weeks’ time.
This all happened some 12 weeks after the allegation. (You would get a parking ticket quicker!) The police later accepted that there had been a delay in questioning me. (Was I a threat to society or not?!)
Three weeks later I received a phone call saying no further action would be taken because the young person concerned had said he made it all up – and, by the way, “he thinks you are a great teacher”.
My head teacher, deputy, other members of the senior management and my staff team were extremely supportive during this time. Part of the problem of being suspended is that you are told you cannot communicate with staff or colleagues, even though many may be personal friends.
My employer (the local authority and its human resources department) was far from helpful. No one replied to my weekly letters trying to find out what was going on and urging them to speed the process up.
My employer saw me on three occasions: to suspend me (a three- minute exercise), to lift the suspension (eventually), and for a return-to-work meeting predicated on an occupational health examination.
There was an expectation that I would return to work immediately with no period of consolidation or transition. This was not possible because I was being treated for hypertension and anxiety-related conditions that I still take medication for. I did not have them before the allegation. The review of my conduct was concluded in seconds.
After the allegations were proved false, my exemplary head teacher, chair of governors, the NUT and I wrote collectively to the chief executive of my local authority, questioning the process, methods employed, unacceptable timescales and the role of other agencies and statutory bodies. We jointly received a holding letter and eventually a spurious reply.
I did not find this acceptable. After objecting, an ‘independent’ review of my case and the procedures employed was conducted by a chair from a neighbouring authority, which employed the same procedures because it shared the same police jurisdiction. The investigation led to the publication of a report that I was not initially privy to.
In frustration at being denied access to papers, I went to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) with full support and guidance from the NUT.
The ICO made request after request to my employer, but it was only after the threat of legal action that documents were released to me – 14 months later.
(CONTINUES ON PAGE 11)
The NUT is updating its guidance on how teachers and schools should deal with allegations. Look out for details in The Teacher later this term.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16