Should parents be told about new safeguarding measures enacted after primary school principal investigated by police for sexual assault on pupil over 8 weeks at the school?

[bernadette1984]

We recently had a parent publicly out, via the school Mum's WhatsApp group, that my Year 5 daughter's primary school principal was accused recently of sexual abuse against a year 6, 11 year old, school girl inside his office at the school over an 8 week period (every Friday). It is alleged by the two girls that in the office with the Principal that he regularly stroked the arm, held her hand, and played with her hair, after pulling the blinds, locking the door and using his coat to cover the view through the door. And that he complimented her and in the 11 year old girl student's words, made her "feel special". He denied the allegations, and says they were only studying.

The police were called. The school and police both found the allegations were not malicious but could be neither proven, nor disproven, and the girls have now left the school and the Principal continues in his role.

The police have said in a written email to the alleged victim's Mum, that it doesn't "pass the threshold of evidence to prosecute", "but the behaviour remains of concern", and "the information remains retained on his file, and may be referenced in future safeguarding processes". The school, after the parent divulged what was alleged to have happen, and the police's view on it, finally confessed an "incident" had happened. And it says they have now "introduced a new range of safer working practices" but refuse to say what they are. And that they have also introduced a policy that says "all small group work should be visible" but refuse to show any parents the policy or disclose why small group work only needs to be visible now.

I have emailed the school 4 times asking to meet with the school informally (as is their policy on their website) about my daughter's safeguarding at the school and safeguarding in general (but not the allegations as they say these are confidential which I accept) and they ignored all my emails (unlike any other general email I've sent over the years). The school also removed the Principal from the year 6 residential 3 night trip due to parent complaints and concerns (but won't confirm he will be banned from future trips, so that concerns me, that my girl will likely be in the trip with him overnight from school grounds for 3 nights unsupervised, considering his behaviour that police are "concerned about" carried on for 8 weeks without any staff raising concern, as it was the girls that finally reported him).

Should I be concerned? And be unhappy with this response, and feel that they should tell us what these "safer working practices" that they wrote to us about are? And should they provide us with a copy of the new small groups working policy they have introduced? And should we just let him go on next year's trip with different 11 year old girls? For context, most parents seem happy enough that new safeguarding measures (the new "safer working practices", and new "small groups working" policy), which remain a secret, are said to have been introduced.

Or should I just carry on with my life, like most parents, and forget about it, now the police are not pursuing charges, and the girls accusing the principle have now left the school?

If not, what do I do now, considering the school just ignores any email I send asking politely to meet to discuss my child's safeguarding and current safeguarding in general at the school. I know approx 30 parents (out of 300) are not happy, so do we collaborate somehow, or tell Ofsted? Or how else do we get the school to even discuss, let alone reply to an email asking them to discuss safeguarding, or to even tell us what the current safeguarding measures or arrangements are at the school now, or should I just trust them, and let these new measures remain a secret?

Help please

OP, you haven’t responded to questions about why you are so concerned for your daughter in particular. Does she regularly meet the head teacher in a 1:1 or small group setting?

@ThisAmpleCriticyou might "expect it" but history is littered with millions of cases where this has not happened. In the case after a few weeks one of the girls reported it to her parents who dismissed it "because he's the principal and wouldn't do that" and they have now apologised to the other girl's parents for not taking it seriously. A month later the other girl reported it to a teacher, and the 221 "studying" in his non visible office stopped, and the police were called.

@ThisAmpleCriticI have no direct immediate concerns for my child other than she is of the same gender and similar age and if plans for next year's residential trip are the same a man with a police record with "behaviour that still concerns" the police will be going on that trip with the girls. I also know that for 8 weeks the parents of the girls did not know she was studying with him in a 221 situation as she was never informed, so I assume I would not be informed also if the principal decided he wanted to do 121 or 221 sessions with my daughter, or anybody others daughter, which he obviously has the right to do. He may also wish to discipline my daughter or somebody else's daughter, or have her alone in his office for any reason he seems suitable, and have her out of sight (as he has don't previously) and again we would have another situation of she said versus he said, another child leave the school, and so on so on. At what point would you say enough? Jimmy Saville was never convicted, let alone charged, but was a prolific predator, so this shows not being charged doesn't make it safe.

Feel free to go ahead and be sick then. You don’t seem to agree with the notion of "innocent until proven guilty", or even be willing to consider the possibility that he could be innocent. Of course any allegations should be taken seriously and investigated as thoroughly as possible, but an allegation does not automatically mean someone is guilty and their life should be ruined. That’s how witch-hunts and vigilantism are born.

Parents are not always informed when their children get extra help in school for a few weeks (and you don’t know that they weren’t informed anyway).

I have worked in schools for many years and have heard of vile cases of staff abusing children. I have also heard of a teacher killing himself because he was so distraught at accusations made by children, accusations later admitted to be false by one of the children, whose life was deeply affected forevermore by the guilt she then suffered. She was only a young child and didn’t realise the seriousness of making allegations of that nature. Adults should realise, and should be careful.

As far as I can see the facts are these:

The teacher has allegations made against him. They were investigated. And there was no evidence to support the allegations.

As noted by a teacher above, schools are rife with false allegations. Kids can be very devious. Obviously we cannot know nor can the police whether there was any substance to these allegations. All we know is that they were investigated and nothing was found.

Potentially a very grave injustice is being done to the teacher here.

It's no wonder that there are so few male teachers (and thus good role models for our sons) given this witch hunty atmosphere.

Given that any kid, at any time, can invest an allegation, do we really want teachers' whole lives to be blighted?

@Rivertrudgei agree he should not be prosecuted. I support the police and school's investigation and concussion that it could not be proved eithier way but it doesn't follow that he's no risk to children because it can't be proven. And IMO he is not qualified to investigate all safeguarding complaints at the school when he has demonstrated such poor knowledge and application of safeguarding. Would you disagree? He can be not charged yet be unsuitable for Safeguarding roles not because of the allegations but because of his behaviour that lead to the allegations.

@Rivertrudgeboth parents said they were not informed and twice we have not been so the evidence on the balance of probabilities suggests this was highly likely.

@KateSixerthere was evidence. Two reports by two girls to different people a month apart. And both the school and police found the allegations to not be malicious. The fact that he conducted those study sessions with no visibility (unlike all other study sessions at the school). And the fact the police have recorded this behaviour as "still a cause for concern" on his police file and that the school has written up and introduce new safeguarding measures to try to directly counteract his behaviour. And the fact that the school has removed him from the Year 6 trip. So there is quite a bit of evidence and actions taken. But I agree with the police there was not enough evidence for a prosecution. There was still a lot of evidence but as you know conviction rates for sexual assault are very low.

I agree we need more male teachers and my daughter has a very good one current who I trust very much, but I never trusted this man before I learnt he gets himself in his office with 2 young girls and uses the door, blinds and his ciat to make sure he's out of sight. I'm not sure if you feel this is a safe working practice? Why can't all teachers work with door open or blinds open or even cost not blocking view?

@KateSixerbtw no "gave injustice" has been done. The girls have had to move school and his role and life continues exactly as it was. He is still free to have 221s, or obviously 121s if he chooses with 11 year olds in his office with no visibility (as happend).

It is NOT standard safeguarding practice for adults to refuse to be in a room 1:1 with students.

there are various statutory safeguarding policies and they don’t state this,

for example I used to work at a secondary school where we had multiple disabled students who were unable to toilet themselves and needed support. There was an intimate care policy and TAs would be trained to perform these tasks but only one TA would support each student.

for obvious reasons you cannot have cctv in toilets and it’s not reasonable to insist on two adults in the room for a nappy change for a teenager.

if a child has made malicious allegations (and this is genuinely quite common but more normally at secondary level) then it is the case that there will be a policy that no-one is to be alone with the child but that isn’t to protect the child but to protect the adults.

This is the statutory guidance on safeguarding (keeping children safe in education)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-education--2

I wouldn’t want to make that judgment without knowing far more about the details of the case. If he is innocent, the worst that can be said is that he foolishly laid himself open to the allegations. But since the school's safeguarding policies have since been tightened up, I assume he wasn’t actually contravening any policies in place at the time. I don’t see how that makes him unfit to be the school's Safeguarding Lead, and I don’t think it is up to parents to force him out of the role. If there is any question of whether or not he is suitable, I would expect the LADO to intervene.

There were allegations by 2 girls - did he touch both of them or one and the other saw it? I know some 11 years old who would make this sort of thing up, most would not. If the police said the allegations were not malicious then unless I knew the 11 years were capable of invention I'd accept that. Strange that so many here want to think they were.

Difficult to prove stroking a child's arm or touching their hair is actually a sexual assault so not sure what they could have charged him with. I'd hope they checked the hard disc on any computer he used.

A teacher doing 1-2-1 or 2-2-1 with a closed door is at best a fool. These are not disabled girls needing private help, no reason for a door to be closed. I think it unlikely his behaviour will now escalate since he will know that the police will be harder to convince if there are more allegations. I wouldnt let my child go on a residential with him.

Your wording shows that you are determined to interpret his actions in the most damning way possible. There are alternative interpretations.

he gets himself in his office with 2 young girls = he uses his office to give coaching to two of his pupils (very common in primary schools, which are often short of small-group teaching spaces)

and uses the door, blinds and his coat (to make sure he's out of sight) = he closes the door to avoid distractions, lowers the blinds to reduce distractions or screen out the sun (clue: that’s what blinds are for), and hung his coat on the coat-peg on the door when he arrived at work that morning.

to make sure he’s out of sight is pure invention on your part. You have no proof at all that that was his intention, and neither do the police.

Yes, the subsequent events have proved that if he was innocent, he was still very silly to have put himself in that position with closed door etc., and I agree that it should not happen again, for the protection of staff as well as pupils.

@anyolddinosauryes both in the room, and many weeks if touching and striking ones arm, and playing with her hair and complimenting her. What I guess I would term "grooming". I mean they may not have him go on any residential trips in the future to avoid the possibility of some parents withdrawing their children but I am certain the opposition will be less than this years 6 parents as it was quite raw and fresh.

@Rivertrudgeyes nobody knows notice but we can agree his actions made him not visible. That's what happened and was the result of his actions. Would you be happy knowing what Yiu do know for your 11 year old daughter to do 221 study for sats with no visibility? Or would you be asking questions? I suspect you will avoid answering the question.

You suspect wrong. Yes, I’d be happy for my daughter to do 221 study with a headteacher in his office with the door closed. But I gather the school's new policies wouldn't allow that anyway, which is in the best interests of all concerned.

To count as sexual assault I think there would need to be evidence he got a sexual thrill from it. If it was grooming he didnt take it very far and he's unlikely to try it again because another allegation could finish his career. @Rivertrudge Would you actually be happy for this headteacher to be alone with female children when the police felt there was reason to record concern about his behaviour?

What’s wrong with you? The lengths some people go to justify such behaviours.

What’s wrong with me? I don’t like witch-hunts, vigilantism and the possibility of innocent people having their lives ruined because even a police investigation isn’t enough to satisfy those panting to impute malign motives to what could be normal everyday behaviour, and hound someone from their job. That’s what’s wrong with me.

It isnt normal everyday behaviour though. Anyone who works with children knows that you dont stroke their hair or even their arm. You dont do that even in the open with their parents next to you and certainly not behind a closed door.

Maybe he disputed that he’d done that. We don’t know.

Theres no point in carrying on this argument, so I won’t reply again.

You'd expect the man to dispute he had done it. You would also expect the police to question the girls pretty hard.

Maybe this guy didnt do it and is guilty of nothing more than being a fool. It's also how predators get away with it for years though, no-one believed the children.

Any teacher/ head teacher has to (quite rightly) go through substantial safeguarding training throughout their career. There is no way that a male teacher in this day and age wouldn’t know this behaviour would be at minimum frowned upon.

@SixtySevenLabubusi wouldn't have thought so. Doesn't add up to me that he'd put himself in that position. But then many here are telling me it's perfectly normal and I'm "ruining his career" for being concerned, and even that I shouldn't be comcetned about my daughter doing 221 sessions behind closed doors with her (which I agree are now probably not allowed under the new school policy though we are guessing and assuming as the school refuses to tell us what the current safeguarding and small group policies or measures are).

Fair enough there's not enough evidence to go down the criminal route but I'm surprised that the school doesn't have it's own internal investigation/misconduct procedures to ultimately get rid of him as head teacher...