Any teachers out there who can answer a curiosity question?

rozmister

Bettybigboobs wrote: »

I'm going to sing from the other song sheet, why WOULDN'T the teacher mention it? He has nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed of, and therefore why "hide" the fact? I would tell your superior as a matter of course, its much better coming from you than other folk, which would question the fact of, why wasn't it mentioned in the first place?

I think hiding it is the wrong phrase. The fact his nephew is a violent thug won't come up in day to day conversation unless it's in the press. I mean you don't hear conversations like this in the staff room

Teacher A: Yeh so we went to the Lake District in the summer holidays and went fishing, what about you Bob?

Teacher B: Well I spent most of my holidays renovating the house but I did take a 5 day break to go to court to watch my nephew get a custodial sentence for child abuse.

Talk about a mood killer. It's just oversharing.

I have a cousin in prison indefinitely for a violent crime (one of a long list due to drug addiction) and occasionally I make a joke about it in the office I work in but I wouldn't bring it up all the time. It's just not relevant or interesting and doesn't add anything to my working relationships.

Tropez

cgk1 wrote: »

This is simply wrong - unless the teacher is suspected or convicted of some wrong-doing himself, it makes no difference to him. The teacher could have a close brother who is found naked in the high street humping a pit pony and it makes absolutely no difference to the teacher's legal position.

Sorry, but that is not even close to what I said. I said close to the abuse, not the family members involved - ie. close enough to be required to answer questions/provide evidence in an investigation.

Anyway, having spoken to a relative, who is a primary school teacher, she informed me that they are obligated to disclose any instances of child abuse that occur in their own household due to the fact that any criminal investigation would need to establish whether the teacher were aware of the abuse taking place or guilty of offences of neglect, so I was correct on that part.

As for the second part, I shall admit that I was wrong, although the LEA or school itself may have policy requirements that teachers who are interviewed by police, even as a witness rather than suspect, in relation to a child abuse case quietly disclose this to the school for various reasons.

Fiddlestick

peachyprice wrote: »

Why would anyone, in any profession, have to declare what another member of his family has been convicted of if they were not living under his roof?

That depends on the nature of the job and the industry in which one is employed.

I work in the IT industry and there are a lot of contracts (typically MOD and other branches of the government) that are only open to those who hold a current Security Clearance.

It can take some time to be vetted and a family member who has been convicted of a criminal offence is absolutely of interest to the vetting team and in fact, they are more interested in things like that (and indeed any debt you have) than the fact that you stole some sweeties when you were 5 or that you smoked a joint at University.

Basically the team will want to know about any skeletons in the closet that might leave you open to influence or blackmail in the future. That's not to say that someone would be refused an SC because their relative was convicted of an offence, but if it would leave them open to blackmail due to the fact then it's of material interest.

For reference, none of this is in itself secret information

http://www.securityclearedjobs.com/HowToBeSecurityCleared.aspx

TBagpuss

If the teacher were part of the nephews household at the time of the abuse then he would have been investigated (failure to protect can be an issue)
However, if he was not part of the household and had no reason to know or suspect that the abuse has taken place he would not be a connected person at all.

However, as others have said, it might be sensible for him to notify the head teacher not least so that if it does become public the head already knows it is nothing to do with the teacher, and can reassure any parent who starts to panic about whether 'their ' Mr X is the same Mr X who is up in court...

The only other reason to report it would be if there was a clause in the teacher's contract of employment requring him to do so, which seems fairly unlikely...