how the fuck can she be a judge?

[bemused]

,snip>? No, I really don't get why parents should be concerned. I know a couple were and withdrew their children from her school, but they gave no coherent reason for their concern. I understand why the guidelines are there, because sometimes a cohabitee can facilitate abuse, but there was no suggestion of it here. The fuss seems to be simply about guilt by association. Why should that be indulged?

I'm going to make the huge assumption that the school actually did the risk assessment in December when he was convicted and thought she represented no risk. Rather than think about it only when the parents started to make noise. I agree it shouldn't be indulged if the process has been followed, however, if they are able to find an accommodation that removes her from that situation isn't more likely it's going to be better for her and the parents? It won't be a nice environment for her to work in and end up just being a running sore in the school. I'm just being pragmatic.

 

[toggle]

,snip>? No, I really don't get why parents should be concerned. I know a couple were and withdrew their children from her school, but they gave no coherent reason for their concern. I understand why the guidelines are there, because sometimes a cohabitee can facilitate abuse, but there was no suggestion of it here. The fuss seems to be simply about guilt by association. Why should that be indulged?

because standing by a convicted sex offender raises questions about how she might handle child protection issues herself.

 

[bluescreen]

Fair enough about her judgment. But that's not how the guidelines work, is it? I'm not particularly defending her, because I know nothing about the case except what I've read in the press, but it still seems harsh. Most teachers will never have their judgment put to that sort of test (thank god).

 

[equationgirl]

Oh good grief. This is a perfect example of tickbox anxiety. There is zero evidence that he is a risk to primary school children. For the record, he has been convicted of being a teen-creep and his wife has all kinds of shit to deal with, but this seems wholly unnecessary. Can't we please just tick the box No and move on?

Unfortunately not. Here is the Best practice guidance on the topic:

4
Best Practice Tip
Although there is no duty on the provider to monitor the ‘suitability’ of persons living in staff households, you do need to check with your staff that they are not living with a person that is disqualified from working with children. If a member of staff is living in a household with someone who is disqualified then they too are disqualified from working with children by association. This applies to household members including partners, children including foster children, houseshare colleagues and lodgers.

However there are two points to bear in mind:
First the person is not guilty of an offence if they do not know a person they are living with is disqualified. For example,
a member of staff may live in shared housing and may not have any knowledge about the people they live with including whether those people are
disqualified. Neither the member of staff nor the provider has any legal requirement to seek this type of information.

Second the law is clear that this is about ‘knowingly employing’ someone who is disqualified. Providers who regularly ask staff to confirm there are no changes in their circumstances and act on any information received that brings into doubt a staff member’s suitability are taking
appropriate steps to make sure they do not knowingly employ someone who is disqualified. If you become aware of information which may lead to the disqualification of a member of staff you must report it to Ofsted as soon as reasonably practicable but at the latest within
14 days. Failure to do so would be a breach of Early Years Foundation Stage (Safeguarding and Welfare Requirements) Regulations 2012.

They can, however, apply for a Waiver which will allow them to continue working:

Applying for a waiver-
If a member of staff is disqualified from working with children (through an offence committed by themselves or because someone they live with is disqualified) then they would need to obtain a waiver from Ofsted to allow them to continue working with children. Application to have disqualification waived must be made by the disqualified person and not the employer.
Each waiver application will be considered on its own merits and a waiver may be granted with limitations, e.g. a waiver may apply to one particular type of employment or to particular premises. If a waiver is granted then the employer must make a decision as to whether they wish to employ/continue employing this person.
For more details on applying for a waiver see Ofsted’s Compliance, Investigation and Enforcement Handbook, Chapter 5 1a on disqualification
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/...forcement-handbook-childminding-and-childcare

There is even guidance on this specific situation and it ir clearly laid out what the employer should do:

Scenarios and guidance
A member of staff discloses that a partner who is disqualified has moved back into their household. This means the staff member is also
disqualified. What course of action should the employer take?

•Report to Ofsted as soon as reasonably practicable – in any event within 14 days
•Suspend the employee on full pay pending a full investigation
•The member of staff would need to apply for a waiver from Ofsted to allow them to continue to work with children
•If a waiver is granted the employer must make a decision as to whether they wish to continue to employ the person. If they do, invite the employee back to work on full pay with preserved continuous service
•If a waiver is not granted the employer should invite the individual to a disciplinary meeting in accordance with the company disciplinary policy, specifying:
o the date, time and place of the meeting
o the allegation in advance, i.e. that they live with a disqualified person and a waiver has been declined by Ofsted, and proving evidence of this fact
o informing the staff member of their right to be accompanied by a union official/work colleague at the meeting, and that if the allegation is proven it
could lead to a sanction up to and including dismissal.
•Following the disciplinary hearing and the outcome, the employee would have a right of appeal against any disciplinary sanction.
•The potentially fair reason for any dismissal would be illegality – i.e. it is illegal to continue to employ, as it contravenes a statutory provision.

There is a legal framework that employers have to work within which is set out in various regulations and acts. It's not a case of a tick box exercise, it's a case of statutory provisions that employers of teachers must follow.

http://www.ndna.org.uk/Resources/NDNA/Public Factsheets/DisqualificationFS.pdf

The document I took this from is in the context of early years provision rather than primary and has extra regulations associated with that, but the other legal frameworks still stand as does the employer guidance.

There is more detailed guidance here, which comes from a document released by the government:
http://www.essex.gov.uk/Business-Pa...nts/ChildcareDisqualificationRequirements.pdf

The Regulations prohibit anyone who is disqualified themselves under the Regulations, or who lives in the same household as a disqualified person, from working in a relevant settings, including in schools.

What are relevant staff and relevant settings?
The following categories of staff in nursery, primary or secondary school settings are covered by the Childcare (Disqualification) Regulations 2009.
• staff who work in early years provision (including teachers and support staff working in school nursery and reception classes);
• staff working in later years provision for children who have not attained the age of 8 including before school settings, such as breakfast clubs, and after school provision;
• staff who are directly concerned in the management of such early or later years provision.
The Regulations refer to employing a person “in connection with” these provisions and we therefore conclude that:
In Infant and Nursery Schools - All staff will be covered
Primary/Junior Schools - All staff are covered as it is unlikely in such settings that staff are always exclusively working with those over the age of 8.
Secondary Schools - will need to undertake checks on relevant staff (including managers) where any services are provided where under 8s may be in attendance eg childcare facilities, before or after school clubs

 

[equationgirl]

PLus to reduce liability, it's not just a case of doing it once, it's recommended that employers do this on a regular basis, such as when situations change. So they may well have done an assessment when he was convicted, and had to do it again when the sentence was handed down.

 

[bluescreen]

Thanks, equationgirl. Blimey. That's harsh.

 

[toggle]

Fair enough about her judgment. But that's not how the guidelines work, is it? I'm not particularly defending her, because I know nothing about the case except what I've read in the press, but it still seems harsh. Most teachers will never have their judgment put to that sort of test (thank god).

nope, but there appears to be provision to investigate those who do. andf from the looks of what eg posted above, it isn't optional to suspend her while that investigation goes on.

 

[Pickman's model]

anyway anyone who wonders how she can be a judge should google "judge pickles"

 

[bemused]

nope, but there appears to be provision to investigate those who do. andf from the looks of what eg posted above, it isn't optional to suspend her while that investigation goes on

Those regulations come into force when he was convicted, which was in December. Surely they should have suspended her then to investigate rather than almost six weeks later?

The school handled that badly.

 

[bluescreen]

anyway anyone who wonders how she can be a judge should google "judge pickles"

what a nightmare that man was.

 

[bemused]

what a nightmare that man was.

He got interviewed by Ali G, I'm sure it's on youtube somewhere.

 

[equationgirl]

Those regulations come into force when he was convicted, which was in December. Surely they should have suspended her then to investigate rather than almost six weeks later?

The school handled that badly.

It's not clear from either link posted exactly when she was placed on suspension to be fair. It's making the headlines news but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened close to when she was appointed head, depending on when the trial result came back. The timeline isn't clear but as there is a requirement to suspend within 14 days of information becoming known (i.e. that he partner was disqualified) then that must have happened.

 

[bemused]

It's not clear from either link posted exactly when she was placed on suspension to be fair. It's making the headlines news but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened close to when she was appointed head, depending on when the trial result came back. The timeline isn't clear but as there is a requirement to suspend within 14 days of information becoming known (i.e. that he partner was disqualified) then that must have happened.

It's clear she was made acting head in December when the old one retired, just seems a mess.

 

[toggle]

It's not clear from either link posted exactly when she was placed on suspension to be fair. It's making the headlines news but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened close to when she was appointed head, depending on when the trial result came back. The timeline isn't clear but as there is a requirement to suspend within 14 days of information becoming known (i.e. that he partner was disqualified) then that must have happened.

oh, think ii got it, sex offenders registration is the thing that triggers suspension and dosen't that form part of sentencing?

 

[bemused]

oh, think ii got it, sex offenders registration is the thing that triggers suspension and dosen't that form part of sentencing?

No, the regulation says it's based on conviction not sentencing.

 

[equationgirl]

It's clear she was made acting head in December when the old one retired, just seems a mess.

As best I can make out, he was convicted w/c 7th December 2014. She was on suspension by the time he was sentenced. Other than that it's not clear but I suspect she was suspended automatically within 14 days of him being found guilty, which would have been w/c 21st December.

 

[Orang Utan]

I've just been checking Kerner out on Rate My Teacher:
http://uk.ratemyteachers.com/stuart-kerner/126595-t
"He tickled my bottom hole and i didn't like it at all. And also he bought me an orange goat and he riped me"
"Genuinely cares about pupils."

 

[equationgirl]

I've just been checking Kerner out on Rate My Teacher:
http://uk.ratemyteachers.com/stuart-kerner/126595-t
"He tickled my bottom hole and i didn't like it at all. And also he bought me an orange goat and he riped me"
"Genuinely cares about pupils."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that.

 

[bluescreen]

I've just been checking Kerner out on Rate My Teacher:
http://uk.ratemyteachers.com/stuart-kerner/126595-t
"He tickled my bottom hole and i didn't like it at all. And also he bought me an orange goat and he riped me"
"Genuinely cares about pupils."

Sounds as if neither entry was made before his notoriety but what was 'orange goat' before predictive text got hold of it? (Unless it is a thing.)