1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Should a teacher have to follow this DfE guidance to avoid being found guilty of misconduct?

Discussion in 'Workplace dilemmas' started by anne.jago, Nov 29, 2011.

  1. I gave up my free time to lead over 25 residential trips for my school in Kent.


    Then one year, I asked to be relieved of the leadership of a trip to an outdoor education centre when my head insisted that a pupil, who received full time support for his violent behaviour, remained "on the list", despite it being physically impossible for him to receive his support at night.


    I wrote an individual risk assessment for this boy on the advice of the authority. When the centre rang me for information about his behaviour I told them of his support (which was part of my risk assessment). I was found guilty of misconduct at a disciplinary hearing for doing this. The finding said that I had been insensitive and unwise to have shared this information, when I knew my head?s view. My head?s view was that my 11 year old pupils should be left in a dormitory, without adult protection from assault by this boy, so that he could have the fun of collective living. Fred Sharrock, a top mandarin at the DfE, says that this disciplinary finding was not unreasonable.


    The government has pledged to reduce the bureaucratic burden involved in both child protection and on teachers leading school trips. Despite this, Fred Sharrock circulated within the DfE these Byzantine procedures he says I should have followed to avoid a disciplinary.


    Firstly, when the centre rang me for information about the behaviour of this boy, I should have refused to give it to them. Next, I should have raised my concerns with my head teacher. I had already done this, as had the SENCO, the child?s teacher and his LSA. My head had ignored my request for her to take over the leadership of the trip, even though I was her deputy and could have done her work in school.


    Next, I should have escalated the matter to my employer. I had already done this, and had been told categorically that my pupil must not be residential, if he could not receive his full support at night: the risk would be too great. My head teacher had declared her intention of ignoring this guidance.


    Finally, Fred Sharrock said that, to avoid a disciplinary, I should have escalated the matter to the Health and Safety Executive. I believe this guidance is unreasonable. I think the HSE would have been amazed to have received a request from me asking for permission to tell other professionals that a pupil of mine had a Statement, which gave him full time support in school for his violent behaviour.
     
  2. I gave up my free time to lead over 25 residential trips for my school in Kent.


    Then one year, I asked to be relieved of the leadership of a trip to an outdoor education centre when my head insisted that a pupil, who received full time support for his violent behaviour, remained "on the list", despite it being physically impossible for him to receive his support at night.


    I wrote an individual risk assessment for this boy on the advice of the authority. When the centre rang me for information about his behaviour I told them of his support (which was part of my risk assessment). I was found guilty of misconduct at a disciplinary hearing for doing this. The finding said that I had been insensitive and unwise to have shared this information, when I knew my head?s view. My head?s view was that my 11 year old pupils should be left in a dormitory, without adult protection from assault by this boy, so that he could have the fun of collective living. Fred Sharrock, a top mandarin at the DfE, says that this disciplinary finding was not unreasonable.


    The government has pledged to reduce the bureaucratic burden involved in both child protection and on teachers leading school trips. Despite this, Fred Sharrock circulated within the DfE these Byzantine procedures he says I should have followed to avoid a disciplinary.


    Firstly, when the centre rang me for information about the behaviour of this boy, I should have refused to give it to them. Next, I should have raised my concerns with my head teacher. I had already done this, as had the SENCO, the child?s teacher and his LSA. My head had ignored my request for her to take over the leadership of the trip, even though I was her deputy and could have done her work in school.


    Next, I should have escalated the matter to my employer. I had already done this, and had been told categorically that my pupil must not be residential, if he could not receive his full support at night: the risk would be too great. My head teacher had declared her intention of ignoring this guidance.


    Finally, Fred Sharrock said that, to avoid a disciplinary, I should have escalated the matter to the Health and Safety Executive. I believe this guidance is unreasonable. I think the HSE would have been amazed to have received a request from me asking for permission to tell other professionals that a pupil of mine had a Statement, which gave him full time support in school for his violent behaviour.
     
  3. becktonboy

    becktonboy New commenter

    what does your union think are the next steps? how about taking out a grievance?
     
  4. snowstorm

    snowstorm New commenter

    To the OP
    Didn't this happen sometime ago? I recall reading about something similar in a newspaper a while back. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
     
  5. Karvol

    Karvol Occasional commenter

    One and the same it appears. The OP has used her actual name.

     

Share This Page