Quote:
Hundreds of teachers and support staff have been suspended amid confusion over child protection rules in England's schools, say unions.
Some 300 school staff who live with someone with a conviction for a violent or sexual crime face disqualification, says public sector union, Unison.
It wants the government to clarify guidance to primary schools introduced late last year.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30897127
Quote:
The government says schools must "use their judgement" in applying the rules.
The regulations were brought in for childminders and day nurseries in 2009 but at the end of last year, the government said they also applied to primary schools.
As a result, staff are being asked to complete disclosure forms and immediately suspended if a member of their household has committed a disqualifiable offence.
|
It's all very well asking schools to 'use their judgement' but it's a big ask when the repercussions for getting it could be very serious. Surely they're bound to take the safe option, suspend staff and put the ball in Ofsted's court.
It reminds me of all the guff surrounding money laundering which, according to the regulators, shouldn't impinge on our daily banking needs but nevertheless increasingly involves providing a passport to do just about anything more than withdrawing a few quid. If you're going to impose severe penalties on companies/organisations for not complying with the rules, the rules need to be clear and don't be surprised if those companies etc. add on their own additional requirements just to be on the safe side.
Looks like another fine mess to me. Unintended (but predictable) consequences and all that...