Saturday, May 20, 2006

NO SUB-JUDICE PROTECTION FOR ACCUSED BRITISH TEACHERS?

An attempt to introduce anonymity for teachers facing serious accusations from pupils will be opposed by ministers, despite strong support from schools, The Times understands. The protection would include those involved in court cases - until conviction - because of the low conviction rate for teachers accused by pupils.

The Conservatives are seeking to secure confidentiality for all school staff facing claims that they have harmed a child. David Willetts, the Shadow Education Secretary, said that an amendment to the Education and Inspections Bill was needed because of the dramatic rise in malicious and unfounded allegations that have wrecked teachers' careers. The NASUWT union recorded an increase from 41 allegations of physical and sexual assault in 1991 to 192 in 2004. Conviction rates fell from 12 per cent (five teachers) in 1991 to 3.6 per cent (seven teachers) in 2004.

The Tories hope that the amendment will be given a chance to be debated when the Bill returns to the Commons next Tuesday. But even though they took legal advice in framing their amendment, the Government looks set to reject it on legal and practical grounds. Officials fear that it would trigger demands from other public sector employees, as well as proving difficult to enforce in close-knit school communities where details of serious claims are difficult to conceal.

At present, police are urged not to release the names of school staff unless they are charged. A spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills said: "There was recent guidance to the Association of Chief Police Officers making clear that anyone under investigation but not charged should not be named or details provided to the media."

The National Union of Teachers urged the Government to try to use the Tory amendment to introduce extra legal protection. Steve Sinnott, the union's general secretary, said: "The question the Government should be asking itself is whether there is a workable way of protecting teachers from mass publicity."

Mr Willetts said: "I hope they do not object to this on fundamental grounds because it is what a lot of teachers are concerned about. This is something the teacher unions have been calling for and it is a growing problem."

Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT, said: "I think the level of accusations has gone up simply because children now are very aware of their rights but not their responsibilities. It has become one of the weapons in the armoury of children to make teachers' lives difficult over some sort of perceived injustice. "It has become common to have reported to me that children respond to teachers by saying, `I am going to make an allegation against you and you will lose your job'. An allegation is seen as proof of guilt and people's family lives and jobs are affected by that."

In one dramatic case this year, Charlie King, a senior technology teacher, said that his 30-year career was ruined by allegations from two teenage girls that led to a 13-month public ordeal. A jury took 30 minutes to clear him of indecent assault. Mr King said: "Any hope of resuming my career has been dashed by the adverse publicity. After all I have been through, the prospect of going back into teaching is very worrying."

Weeks earlier a judge said that the case against Lydia Gane, 63, was "weak and muddled" after she was cleared of assaulting a six-year-old pupil she had tried to restrain. The teacher, who had a 30-year unblemished record, said: "I don't know if a younger teacher would have coped with this. It is incidents like this that stop people from entering the profession."

In another dramatic case of false allegation, a music teacher who died in prison while serving an eight-year sentence for raping a pupil was posthumously cleared last month. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction of Darryl Gee after a long campaign by his mother, Molly, 88. The alleged victim made similar allegations against another man, John Hudson, who was jailed for 12 years. His conviction was quashed last year after a psychiatric expert concluded that his accuser's recollection was "implausible".

Source

An editorial from "The Times" on the above:

The rising tide of unfounded malicious allegations against teachers has a host of consequences. It can wreck the lives of innocent teachers who are forced to endure lengthy suspensions in the glare of publicity. It makes people even more wary of teaching as a career. And it fuels the impression that children and parents can lie and get away with it.

Schools are right to take allegations seriously. Children with a genuine grievance must know that they will always be heard. But it is time to redress the balance between teachers and those who set out to wreck their careers: by granting teachers anonymity while they are under investigation.

The figures are staggering. Of 2,210 accusations of physical or sexual abuse recorded by the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers in the past 15 years, only 88 - less than 4 per cent - have led to a conviction. More than 80 per cent of cases have never come to court: the police have decided there is either insufficient evidence to mount a case, or no truth in the allegation. The vast majority of cases are utterly without foundation.

Allegations are made not only by pupils but also by parents, some of whom hope for compensation. Others wilfully misunderstand their child's story and go straight to the police without checking with the school. In the case of Pamela Mitchelhill, the head teacher whose case attracted enormous publicity when she was accused of slapping a six-year-old girl three years ago, the pupil did not mention any assault in her police interview.

Once an allegation is made, a head teacher has no choice but to alert the police and social services. While these bodies investigate, teachers endure suspension, alienation and ridicule. There is surely no reason for them also to endure the glare of publicity. Teachers should be accorded the same privilege as their pupils, whose identities are kept confidential. Only if they are found guilty should they be named. It is a tragedy that teachers have killed themselves while under investigation, protesting innocence but unable to bear the stigma.

Government guidance currently advises schools, local authorities and the police to keep names private. But teacher unions feel this does not go far enough. A Conservative amendment to the Education and Inspections Bill seeks to provide statutory anonymity. Ministers are understandably concerned about creating a precedent for teachers. But there are very strong grounds for considering them as a special case.

If anonymity is not guaranteed, the National Association of Head Teachers says that it will support teachers who sue for defamation. But few will want to take that step. It is, nevertheless, quite wrong that there are no repercussions for those who make these allegations. They should surely be treated as serious disciplinary offences that could lead to expulsion.

Last month a jury took less than an hour to clear a teacher who had been suspended for 18 months after being falsely accused of groping a pupil. The girl is thought to have made up the claims in an attempt to postpone an exam for which she had not prepared properly. This is an unacceptable state of affairs. Cases should be resolved more speedily, and teachers should know that at least they will not have to suffer public ignominy as well as malice at the school gate.

Source






POLITICKING PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

Comment by a student

There are those who say universities are festering grounds for liberal propaganda, places where teachers regularly try to indoctrinate students - covertly or openly - with their radical leftist viewpoints. I've always been a little skeptical of this theory. I don't deny that university professors, including my own, overwhelmingly lean to the left. But after spending four years in the political science department at a super-liberal university in a super-liberal city, I can honestly say that if my teachers have been trying to get me to renounce the free market, demand an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and worship at the feet of Ralph Nader, I haven't noticed it.

And not because I'm oblivious to such propaganda. Rather, the professors I've had the privilege of learning under are professionals who recognize that politics play no role in the classroom. Perhaps I just wasn't looking in the right places, however.

I received an e-mail from an economics professor, one whom teaches a class in which I am enrolled this semester, late Sunday night alerting students that class on Monday morning would be canceled. The reason, as he put in the e-mail: "Tomorrow there will be a nationwide protest of mostly hispanic [sic] immigrants against some proposed legislation that would declare illegal immigrants criminals. I am not an "illegal" immigrant and my opinion in favor or against restrictions to immigration is irrelevant. The problem is that many hispanics [sic], myself included, feel that there's a substantial racist motivation behind the proposed bill, which is not only insensitive an [sic] cruel, but also insulting."

As I wrote in a column three weeks ago, I disagree with this opinion. Illegal immigrants flagrantly disregard the laws of our society, pose potential security risks and - while filling unpopular low-wage jobs - leach on governmental services without always paying their full share in taxes and civic responsibilities (jury duty, for instance).

But that's not the point here. The bottom line is that it is wholly inappropriate for a professor to voice his opinion on a matter that bears no relation to the class subject matter, much less cancel class because of it. And it cuts both ways: while I might personally find arguments for a hard-line stance on illegal immigration more palatable, it would be no more appropriate in the context of a professor communicating to his class.

The professor even seemed to realize as much, claiming his opinion on immigration is "irrelevant." Of course, irrelevance in his book apparently necessitates the accompanying claims that immigration legislation is "insensitive," "cruel" and "insulting."

He certainly is allowed that opinion, and if he wants to shout it from the top of his lungs and drown out the religicos on Library Mall, by all means he should. But don't do it in the classroom (or via a class e-mail list).

What's vital to remember is that professors at UW are paid to teach. They are state employees in charge of educating students at Wisconsin's flagship university. To cancel class for overtly political reasons is a blatant dereliction of duties. In doing so, a professor cheats not only the students who expect to learn from him, but also the taxpayers of Wisconsin who foot his salary.

Imagine, for instance, if a police officer assigned to Monday's immigration rally at the Capitol had decided the night before that, due to his ideological views, he wished to join in the protest, as opposed to enforcing the law at it. That wouldn't fly.

Sadly, this isn't the first time such an incident has occurred at this university. In 2003, UW women's studies lecturer Susan Pastor canceled her class due to an anti-Iraq War protest occurring the same day, leading former Badger Herald columnist Matt Modell to declare that "instructors have an obligation to teach the subjects they are being paid to teach - and no more." Mr. Modell's words ring just as true today.

Part of the problem is the lack of any concrete university policy on when and for what reasons professors may cancel regularly scheduled classes. While attempting to indoctrinate students on issues irrelevant to the class's subject material is generally frowned upon, there is no policy prohibiting teachers from canceling classes for political - or indeed, any - reason.

Rather, professors are merely charged with covering the material they set out to teach during the semester. If they can still cover the syllabus despite canceling a class here or there, so be it. In a sense, this is reasonable - outside academic opportunities, such as research, speaking engagements and the like, may sometimes pop up. In another, more accurate sense, though, there need to be clearer rules - starting with a prohibition on ever canceling, rescheduling or devoting class time for political purposes.

To be fair, Assistant Professor Juan Esteban Carranza didn't have to worry about such a policy earlier this week. And that's a shame, because actions like his are unfair to the vast majority of professors on this campus who maintain their professional integrity, uphold their job responsibilities and keep their personal politics where they belong - out of the classroom.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"


Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here. My home page is here

***************************

No comments: