12. [Teacher B] was employed at the School from 1st September 2007 and was suspended on 3rd December 2008 following written complaints from two groups of sixth form pupils on 1st and 3rd December 2008. He responded to the complaints by e-mail received on 5th December 2008 and subsequently, having sought advice from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, resigned on 18th December 2008. The Headmistress decided that under the statutory and guidance provisions then applicable referral was not required or appropriate.This is a masterpiece of obscurity. You have to admire the work of whoever drafted this document. We aren't told what the complaints were, and we aren't told whether the complaints were justified. We also aren't told whether Teacher B's email response contested the allegations. All that is stated is that the teacher subsequently resigned. On the basis of the information provided, we are in no position to make any judgement as to whether a referral to the Independent Safeguarding Authority was appropriate.
After speaking to Mrs. Culligan, the Headmistress made inquiries of the Independent Safeguarding Authority and was informed that it was "up to her" whether or not she made a referral in respect of [Teacher B]. The Headmistress decided in all the circumstances to do so. The Headmistress subsequently informed Mrs. Culligan of these matters.
However, the ISI is aware of the nature of several allegations against teacher B. These include derogatory comments about women, refusing to allow a girl to go to the toilet, blocking her way and then presenting her with nappies and a dummy, saying he could have fathered lots of children, blocking and locking the door so girls had to reach round him, inappropriate remarks about his Nigerian girlfriend (who would do anything he
wanted), saying he would rather have AIDS than children, and other inappropriate comments including that he was looking for a girlfriend.
By any reasonable standard this is abusive and unprofessional behaviour for a teacher to display towards pupils, and offers a clear case for considering whether he is unfit to work with children and so should be placed on List 99. Such allegations should have been reported immediately to the LADO on coming to the school's notice, and should have been reported to the ISA within a month of the teacher's resignation. It would then be the job of the ISA to decide what action was needed.
However, the ISI established that a letter sent to Ealing Children's Services on 24th March 2010 (i.e. the second day of the first ISI visit, and over 2 years after the alleged incidents occurred) about Teacher B did not contain the complete story about the various allegations, and that a referral to the ISA was not made until after the ISI had visited. The ISI concluded that, contrary to what the school stated in its complaint, there was sufficient evidence to indicate that a referral should have been made.
It is a legal obligation for the school to make referrals within a month to the ISA concerning teachers who leave or are sacked when the school considers that they may be unfit to work with children. This is vitally necessary, so that if the teacher subsequently applies for a job elsewhere, CRB and List 99 checks will highlight the problem. Mrs Gumley Mason didn't do this.
So, we have here allegations of abuse by a member of staff towards pupils. It was not reported to the LADO at the time. An incomplete report was made to Children's Services after the matter was uncovered by the ISI, and a referral made to the ISA again only after the matter was uncovered by the ISI.
If the ISI had not uncovered this case during their inspection, there is no reason to think that any reports would have been made to anybody, no matter what the law requires.