To think it wrong to punish someone for their partner's criminal past

[ReallyTired]

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/teachers-to-be-barred-for-living-with-criminals-9893209.html

Barring teachers and TAs from living with someone who has a criminal conviction is desperately unfair. If someone has no criminal record then they should not be punished by association. Such extreme rules will undermine rehabitiation of offenders as they will lead to a breakdown in relationships.

For example if a teacher has a teenage son who gets into a fight and a caution for assult then the teacher will have to either kick out her child or lose her job.

Young teachers who live in house shares are not in a position to know whether their housemates have a conviction.

Totally agree, MrsT.

Betweenmarchandmay what do you mean not particularly.

Do they yes or no.

I know dd and Ds school reports have thier address on the envelope ( but I suppose that could be done in school)

Between it's not about them announcing their partner's a rapist is it? Stretch your mind a little. It's about their inability to see the RIGHT thing from the WRONG thing.

Piper - gosh, did you mean to sound like I was being quizzed in a court of law?

To answer your question, it would depend hugely on what constitutes sensitive information.

Mrs my mind is fine thanks. I think an adult has got the right to make decisions for themselves and that includes with regards to their partner of choice. Policing that is completely and utterly pointless. If someone has bad judgement then they have bad judgement: unless this extends to their teaching in some way it's really no one else's business.

I might think someone living with a person with a conviction for gbh is an idiot - it doesn't mean I have the right to dictate to them that they should sacrifice either partner or career.

Also school reports have children photos on them.

I wouldn't feel comfortable that a sex offender could have access to my DC pictures.

A sex offender can see pictures of children just by clicking a mouse and looking on any school website.

Between yes and as I said it WOULD extend to their teaching because teachers teach moral codes as well as academic subjects. If a teacher thinks it's ok to live with a rapist or similar then they're not fit to teach.

Seems to me it's not about child protection; it's just another stick with which to beat teachers.

It's a bit of a "hard cases make bad law" situation, isn't it? Very few teachers are living with convicted paedophiles but lots are now in breach of contract for living with their husbands, wives or children.

And teachers may be there for "moral guidance" (I disagree, that's my job as a parent, but whatever), so does that mean a teacher can't get pissed at a hen party and end up with a ferocious hangover (poor judgement there, surely?) Or cheat on a spouse (that doesn't end up being an issue in the classroom either, or the Daily Fail would have alerted us). Living with someone convicted of sex offences against children should be the only disqualifying condition, IMO.

I am a teacher . I wouldnot want to see a teacher who would live with a convicted rapist or a sex offender working with children. What does it say about their judgement?
Similarly a teacher who lived with someone with a record of violence- what does that say that they find that behaviour acceptable? I would not want them teaching my child so why would it be ok for them to teach anyone else's?

I'm a TA and recently had to sign a declaration that no one I live with has convictions. I object on a couple of levels - firstly that they have nothing to do with my work, and secondly that I may not even me aware of any convictions.

Never I didn't know there were other sticks? What sticks? I'm not a teacher so wouldn't know but forgive me for being blunt, that comment sounds pettish and whiny.

and of course they're there for moral guidance. Do you imagine NO moral dilemmas come up in a child's long years of education?? Of course they do...daily. Theft, bullying...are both moral issues and I expect there's a long list of others which come up daily.

And as for getting "Pissed at a party" nothing to do with living with a rapist. Very normal and completely ok in a teacher's own time....whereas fraternizing with killers or rapists is not.

The problem is that currently all previous convictions are being treated equally and they quite simply are not.

Oh for goodness sakes.

How does a teachers personal and above all private life have any bearing whatsoever on Maths or French or whatever?

I am sure I have some questionable morals myself but they had absolutely nothing to do with teaching. Ultimately, the only reason people can give is a rather vague 'they must have poor judgement so they must be a poor teacher.'

I think good judgement is important in a number of other jobs - medicine being the obvious one that springs to mind but no one is telling doctors who they can live with. I think you need spectacular judgement as a lawyer or indeed a judge. Airline pilots need very precise judgement. There are jobs where literally people's lives are at stake yet these individuals are trusted. Teachers are not. Why is that?

I think one reason is that it's female dominated. Women aren't just a teacher, they are saints too. They're also stupid, hence why these safeguards have to be in place (I wonder how many teachers actually are living with sex offenders? Not many I bet.)

I bet a manager of a care home can live with who they want, a judge can, a doctor can, an MP can. Teacher? No; we will tell you who you can live with as you're just too stupid to make that judgement yourself, dearie.

There is a spectrum of offences covered here though...

Like it might be appropriate for a teacher and their partner to care for one of their elderly fathers in their homes. That father could have, 50 years ago, got a conviction for being involved in a fight in a Pub, once. He then lived a respectable life for 50 years and is now, old, frail and registered blind.

Does that teacher pose a threat to the under 5s?

Ridiculous piece of legislation that actually removes scope for good, professional judgement.

Alis are they? So the new guidelines are just for sexual or violent crime?

BMO Did it say what the consequences for you would be if you didn't know?

Personally, I wouldn't give a shit of my daughters teachers husband had punched someone 29 years ago, but if it was a sex offence or recent and serious violence then yes, I agree with the possibility that the career or that teacher might be affected.

The unions are apparently looking into these forms and they way they are being used/applied across all staff at schools. It would appear that the forms may not be being used/completion requested in the way they are meant to be.

Basically, the consequences can mean a teacher/TA can be disqualified from being allowed to work in a school due to association, so therefore being asked to leave their post.

There are some grounds to appeal and have the disqualification waivered, but it is not straight forward.

No one can be forced to find out information either. So, for house shares - if you don't know, then you do not have to ask your flatmates and you can answer no on the form.

I wouldnot want to see a teacher who would live with a convicted rapist or a sex offender working with children. What does it say about their judgement?

I think the logic behind the current rules is more about the offender gaining credibility and opportunities to groom children from their clear and close association with a childcarer.

I can't quite see how this applies to offences of a violent, rather than sexual nature.

hulababy is it automatic disqualification no matter how minor the offence or how long ago?

And what happens if you answer no and your partner/father/flat mate does have a previous offences?

I understand it's safeguarding but would the teacher then be informed of a conviction? I'm not comfortable necessarily with that.

I can to a point understand that argument gold but the problem is that there are so many people in a child's life who just might be credible - especially when we bear in mind that a crb only shows something when someone has been caught - that all we can do is keep up the message to our children.

Legislation like this is far more damaging in its way: fooling everyone that sex offenders are far removed from their children and breathing a sigh of relief that Mrs Jones goes home to a safe man when all the while it's really uncle Len the kids need to watch out for.

MrsT, according to the BBC (this comes via my teacher DH) there are currently hundreds of teachers and TA's suspended on full pay whilst they apply to Oftsted for waivers so they can continue teaching.

One teacher has been interviewed has been suspended because her DH has a 20+ year old gbh conviction after getting involved in a pub brawl when he was young. She didn't even know him then. That is ridiculous and I suspect far more have been suspended due to those kinds of convictions rather than because they're living with convicted paedophiles/racists.

Children absolutely should be protected but it seems this update of the Child Protection guidelines/laws is being used with an extraordinarily wide net.

*that was meant to say rapists but I would imagine convictions related to racism would also be problematic.

My husband was convicted of gbh when he was 19 - it was after a night out, a fight between a handful of young men (did not go to prison, fine only); I did not know him at this point.

I met him when he was 30, he had never been in any sort of trouble since that fight.

He is now 45 - he has never been in any trouble since that one time 26 years ago; according to people on this thread my judgement is questionable and I should not be trusted around their children?

Bollocks, quite frankly.

It's a metaphorical stick, MrsT

My point is, teachers make judgement calls all the time about aspects of their daily lives which (a) don't spill over into the classroom and (b) may not be in agreement with your ethical principles.

What about a UKIP voter? Should teachers have to declare political affiliations? That time they didn't point out that they'd been undercharged to a cashier? Absurd. And those are personal things the individual chose. We cannot be held responsible and made to suffer for the mistakes of others, and this legislation is far too broad in its scope. Not all cautions and conviction for violent crime pertain to children or put anyone else at risk.

It's a metaphorical stick, MrsT

My point is, teachers make judgement calls all the time about aspects of their daily lives which (a) don't spill over into the classroom and (b) may not be in agreement with your ethical principles.

What about a UKIP voter? Should teachers have to declare political affiliations? That time they didn't point out that they'd been undercharged to a cashier? Absurd. And those are personal things the individual chose. We cannot be held responsible and made to suffer for the mistakes of others, and this legislation is far too broad in its scope. Not all cautions and conviction for violent crime pertain to children or put anyone else at risk.