 | | Question: Our governing body's pupil discipline committee met recently with the parents of a year 7 child who had been made the subject of a fixed-term exclusion for showing and sending offensive video material to fellow pupils by mobile phone. The school's investigation of the case had included sensitive and proper questioning of the child and of other pupils, and it was clear beyond reasonable doubt that the boy had done what had been alleged - indeed, the child had freely admitted matters, which stood much to his credit.
At the meeting the parents observed that the teachers involved had not looked at the video. The head conceded the point, adding that he would not reasonably expect staff to do so, and that he had had no need or desire to expose himself to the material given the clear acknowlegement by the child of the content and of his actions. This was accepted by the meeting. However, it does raise a question for the future: what is the evidential burden of the investigating staff, including the head, in cases involving the possession of allegedly offensive material? Should a teacher look at it? What would his / her professional position be if this were, say, child pornography?
Joan Sallis replies: I think you need legal advice on your last question. Possibly the teachers’ unions have considered it. On the question of disciplining the child it is obvious that those who make the decision on the child’s punishment and future should be fully aware of the nature of the material, and the same applies to governors who may be on an appeal panel.
| | |
