Who has the final say on what happens to private school teachers? Here’s how the system works
Parents weighing up which school to send their child to will often consider its reputation, cost, and academic results.
But there’s another key question that relates to the safety of every student.
How does the school handle allegations made against one of its teachers?
The query is particularly salient in the wake of the ABC’s Four Corners investigation into Cranbrook.
It led to revelations the independent school principal decided no disciplinary action was required against a teacher accused of sending sexually explicit emails to a former student, when she was a young adult, admitting he saw up student’s skirts in class.
The teacher was later promoted by the same headmaster.
The federal education minister Jason Clare earlier this month labelled the teacher’s alleged behaviour as “extremely serious,” however it had been investigated by peak body the Association of Independent Schools New South Wales (AISNSW) in 2015.
The school’s body found it was not “reportable” conduct, and the outcome was reviewed by the NSW Ombudsman.
At the time of its investigation into the Cranbrook teacher the AISNSW also had a convicted child sex offender on its board.
For parents trying to work out how each school system handles child safety allegations, it quickly becomes convoluted.
We’ve mapped out the key differences, and who ultimately decides what action should be taken.
Who makes the final call within each school system and why does it matter?
Around one in five students attend Catholic schools in NSW. A similar cohort are educated at Independent schools and the rest attend public schools.
Regardless of the system, all must alert the NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian (OCG) of any allegations of “reportable conduct” before launching an investigation.
The NSW Police and Department of Communities and Justice also need to be alerted if there is a risk of harm to a child.
“Reportable conduct” covers sexual offences such as grooming, sexual misconduct which includes inappropriately watching a child undress, ill-treatment, neglect or the assault of a child.
In each case, the ‘Head of Relevant Entity” (HRE) makes the call about what disciplinary action is required, if any.
But that crucial role varies between institutions.
Public:
In the public system, the probe into the teacher’s actions is conducted at arm’s length from the school.
Any allegation of “reportable conduct” is elevated to the Department of Education, which appoints an investigator from its Professional and Ethical Standards (PES) team.
The decision about the teacher’s fate rests with the HRE, in this case the Secretary of the Department of Education.
The Secretary can also delegate this role to a deputy secretary.
Independent:
Independent schools, which report to their own school board rather than the state government, can investigate smaller matters internally, or refer serious incidents to their peak body, the AISNSW.
The schools also have the option to engage law firms and private investigation companies, according to the peak body.
AISNSW can make recommendations, but ultimately, the school principal is the “head of relevant entity”, who decides whether the allegation has been proven, and if disciplinary action should be taken.
Catholic:
Catholic systemic schools in NSW will conduct internal investigations, which are co-ordinated by the relevant Catholic Education Office.
They can also “outsource” the investigation to an external agency, but that does not include the peak body, a spokesperson for Catholic Schools NSW said.
All allegations within the Catholic system also need to be raised with its “safeguarding team”, which was established in the Archdiocese of Sydney in 2015 to oversee child protection actions.
The schools fall under one of 11 diocesan offices in NSW depending on their location, each with their own bishop.
The “HRE” in the Catholic system is either the relevant bishop for that diocese, or the executive director of schools.
There are also Catholic Independent Schools that have a different governance structure.
In all non-government systems, employees that investigate school incidents are trained as a child protection officers.
“The legislation does not stipulate who investigates an individual matter. It is up to the individual entity itself to decide this,” a spokesperson for the Office of the Children’s Guardian said.
Is there government oversight?
All HRE’s — whether school principals, bishops or government officials, must provide a report on the investigation to the OCG within 30 days for review, which details the findings, rationale, and disciplinary action.
Each year the OCG is flooded with thousands of reports across its remit, which also extends to foster care and religious bodies.
Most allegations of a sexual nature (53 per cent) were notified by education services, according to its annual report.
Last financial year there were 360 allegations of “reportable conduct” investigated in government schools and 177 in non-government schools, which is roughly proportionate to the number of students attending each.
While the OCG does have the power to dispute the findings made by principals, bishops, or government investigators, it was unable to tell the ABC if it had done so.
Who are these peak bodies and are they important?
Peak body Catholic Schools NSW has 10 board members from a range of professions and covers 550 catholic schools.
Peak body AISNSW has 15 board members, 10 of which are also on the board of member schools.
Both bodies receive millions in federal funding each year to administer school programs on behalf of the government.
Because the peak bodies are non-profit entities, they must provide annual financial statements to the national regulator of charities, but beyond that oversight by federal government agencies is limited.
In the last decade, AISNSW conducted around 300 investigations into allegations of reportable conduct on behalf of member schools.
It was unable to provide data on how many resulted in reportable conduct findings against a teacher.
“Believe me, we’re not trying to hide anything,” a spokesperson said in an email to the ABC.
“But these reports are sensitive and the only people who should be looking at them are the investigators, and they’re busy doing other stuff.”
The OCG was also unable to say how many allegations had been substantiated following more than 500 school-based investigations last financial year.
Is it a conflict of interest if a peak body investigates its own members?
According to its website, the primary goal of AISNSW is to “promote a positive narrative to increase awareness and understanding of the independent sector”.
Last year the AISNSW received more than $10 million in “membership subscriptions” from more than 500 member schools, which include Cranbrook, King’s School and Shore among other prominent Sydney institutions.
The pro-rata fee is calculated on student numbers but is roughly $20,000 per school.
Cathy Humphreys, a professor of social work at the University of Melbourne, questioned whether there was a “perceived conflict of interest” if a peak body which is funded by member schools is also tasked with investigating them.
Professor Humphreys said she would prefer all child safety allegations, whether within the independent, catholic, or public education system, to be investigated in the same way, preferably by an “arms-length government body.”
“I don’t think there should be a specialist investigation that’s run by the independent private sector.”
AISNSW said it is “held to the same standards as every other child protection investigator.”
“Staff are accredited through the Security Licensing Enforcement Directorate of NSW Police to undertake child protection investigations,” chief executive Margery Evans said in a statement.
“At all stages of the investigation, the school remains the decision-maker.”
The Catholic school peak body, which does not conduct investigations, has 11 members, which are the diocesan bishops of NSW. The body relies almost exclusively on federal funding.
If a principal, bishop or official decides not to act, is there anything else that can be done?
A further step the OCG can take is to revoke a teacher’s Working with Children Check (WWCC), regardless of whether the allegations against them have been upheld by the principal.
“If a reportable conduct finding is not reached, but we form the view that information needs to be assessed relating to the safety of children, this will be referred to Working with Children Check assessors,” a spokesperson said.
“If this results in a WWCC bar, the employer can no longer employ the person in a child-related role.”
The OCG can also overrule school-based investigations and run its own probe, but was unable to confirm how many times, if any, it had taken this step in the last financial year.
A spokesperson for the OCG said it takes a “pro-active approach” and in the past year has “provided advice and guidance relating to well over 1000 matters for the purposes of protection children and ensuring procedural fairness to all involved.”
SOURCE: ABCNEWS