Jody O’Callaghan at Stuff reports:
Secrecy surrounding disciplining teachers is under scrutiny by MPs, with a lawyer asking that teachers face as much transparency as doctors and lawyers.
Wellington barrister Graeme Edgeler’s complaint about the Teachers Council’s blanket suppression on disciplinary decisions was heard by a parliamentary select committee yesterday.
Teachers Council rules state that no-one, media or otherwise, can publish details of a decision on a teacher’s bad conduct. The council argues that that avoids deterring victims, particularly children, from coming forward to give evidence.
But Mr Edgeler said the presumption should always be openness.
“These rules are wrong. It’s the Teachers Council taking upon itself something that Parliament should be doing and has done in other situations.”
The Regulations Review Committee can effectively rescind the regulation made by the Teachers Council. Hopefully the Council will amend its own rules but …
Teachers Council director Peter Lind said: “Changing the rules . . . could have the unintended consequence of people, particularly children, not coming forward to give evidence.”
Oh nonsense. You really think that the 12 year old lid won’t tell their parents about something bad a teacher did because they’re aware of the rules around name suppression that the Teachers Council has?
PPTA president Angela Roberts said the suppression of disciplinary details was to protect vulnerable victims, particularly in small communities.
Oh, yes of course it is. To protect the victims. How about you don’t name the victims, but do name the teachers.
The point Edgeler is making is that a blanket rule is wrong. Sure if the teacher is the sole teacher in a small school of 10 pupils, then you might consider name suppression is necessary to protect the victims. But you don’t need a blanket rule, such as the Council has. Suppression should be the exception – not the rule.