So how many sex offenders are working in schools?
That's the question many wanted an answer to, but today they didn't get it.
The education secretary did reveal something rather different - that 88 known sex offenders had NOT been barred from working in schools since 1997, and she detailed how the police either had or were checking that they posed no danger to children.
A further 210 offenders had been allowed to work in schools under certain restrictions.
This will not be enough to silence all of Ruth Kelly's critics, but there's no doubt that at Westminster most thought she delivered a comprehensive and a confident explanation of how past cases were being checked and how future problems would be avoided.
Those wanting certainty that their children will not come into contact with sex offenders at school will be disappointed. Those accepting that there can be no certainty - and happy to trust the assurances of the police - will hope that this time the system will give children the protection that we all hope can be delivered.
I'm 
Comments
The delivery might have been confident, but there were glaring holes in the arguments, first of all, there was no clear mention as to whether the numbers of offenders included the three in Northern Ireland that Angela Smith Admitted were working in schools on Wednesday; and while there were conditions imposed on some offenders (e.g. whether they worked in all-male schools if the offences were against girls) what about how other teachers might feel about working with, for example a convicted rapist.
I have no particular axe to grind...or for that matter to stick into Ruth Kelly's back...but I cannot quite understand how we have got into this situation.
As an ex-teacher...of 25 years and who quit simply because he didn't wish to do the job for his entire working life...I remember the times when I first started. There was almost a gentlemen’s agreement between head teachers (headmasters, as they were inevitably called), teachers and local education authorities. No-one who offered themselves as a teacher could possibly be anything other that a thoroughly good guy. I remember staff who were appointed to posts purely on the basis of being drinking buddies with the head of lower school. Goodness, there was even the PE teacher known for stealing clothes out of the lost property box!
Incidentally, he was definitely not one of the head of lower school's drinking mates as he had never been known to stand for his round. He eventually got put away for fiddling the ski trip money...but I digress.
But I also remember when that all changed. Amazingly topical considering another news story currently being featured on the 91Èȱ¬â€™s web site; and everywhere else. Following the first Shaun Jenkins trial, suddenly I was expected to find my degree and other certificates and to submit to a CRB check whenever moving on to a new post.
I am left with two questions... Firstly, whatever did Kim Howells think he was doing letting anyone with such a record work in school?
Second, whatever was the headmaster of the school in question (and those in the other schools where the others with such records were employed) think he was doing?
As I say, I have no particular problem with Ruth Kelly over this...but if she was to be proven to have been incompetent, then perhaps she should be on her way. But there has been a system in place for several years that should have prevented this from arising.
Why ever would anyone think of ignoring or overruling this.
I'm sorry if someone on the register is denied o job in teaching. They may be a brilliant, inspiring teacher but these are our children we arte talking about. You just don't take chances!!!
I find it quite concerning that a teacher might loose there job and be unable to work again if he recieves a caution that could be based on a false alligation from a child. There should be a police investigation and a charge before ending a teachers career.
The guardian reported ( ) that 60% of claimes by children are untrue.
Ruth Kelly also had this concern in Nov 2005 ( ), but I fear that this latest witch hunt has put honest and good teachers at risk from flase claims, and will effect the amount of people considering teaching as thier career.
Another Case:
I feel as if I am in a minority of one with this issue because I had no idea that more than one list exists and even then a decision on employment is possible! Somehow, and now I don't know where this came from, I thought that sex offenders were added to a list and anyone on that list is banned from working with children or vulnerable people. That's it, no argument. However did I arrive at that belief when it is so far from the truth? Does anyone else feel the same?
The question should properly read "how many convicted sex offenders are working in school". People have a tendency to think that if you ban convicted sex offenders from working in schools, then children will be safe. This is a very dangerous assumption.
There are undoubtedly more sex offenders working in schools than we know about, just are there are more in the community at large. They just haven't been uncovered and are far more of a risk than the ones who have been caught and convicted.
Similarly when schools, and other bodies working with children, do their checks. They are only checking against lists of convicted sex offenders and to think that anyone who is not on those lists is there okay is also dangerous.
Instead of focusing on convicted sex offenders, the authorities should be taking more action ensure there is adequate monitoring within schools of all staff and opportunities for children to report back allegations of abuse. Obviously, there need to be checks and balances as children can and do make false accusations, but there needs to be a much wider focus than the targeting of convicted sex offenders.
Are parents entitled to certainly?
Surely there can be no certainty that children at school will never, ever ever come into contact with offenders. All human agencies can do is to minimise that risk. If Kelly's proposals are put into effect, that risk will be significantly reduced.
Children are at much greater risk of abuse in their homes; their abusers far more likely to be their parents, uncles and aunts.
t
why has this important issue only been about schools?
how many sex offenders are now working in the church scouts etc
will all these organizations now have the same level of protection from sex offenders as schools?
jack
It's all to easy to jump on the band wagon, assuming that 'sex offender' means paedophile.
A caution for one, is not a conviction. It has not been tested by a jury, and hence it surely should not be the basis to end someone's career.
Even for real convictions there has to be a sensible way of reevaluating the conditions. A vulnerable teacher who makes an error of judgement, and ultimately marrys and starts a family with the 15 year old girl he was convicted of indecently assulting. Is this person a paedophile? A danger to children? Or his he really a victim of a vindictive attack based on a technicality?