tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980386376872919931.post8170172233107858482..comments2023-10-29T00:09:34.977+11:00Comments on A State of Mind: Teach our Children WellMr Tiedthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17655292171719390972noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980386376872919931.post-33916591501782211712011-10-06T23:58:43.470+11:002011-10-06T23:58:43.470+11:00@coldsnacks - thanks for the comment mate. The onl...@coldsnacks - thanks for the comment mate. The only thing I want to add is in response to this: <br /><br />"Why is it that if a student comes to me and tells me, of their own volition, that they were beaten by their parent the night before, or that they took illegal drugs, I'm LEGALLY required to report it* - but on the precedent now set by this case, if a student comes to me and admits to committing a crime, I would be in the wrong to report it, despite any welfare concerns that may be evident?"<br /><br />The decision did NOT say you would be in the wrong to report it. All it said is that if you did report it, police would not be able to rely upon said statement to prosecute the child. The decision makes no comment on the fact it was reported and did not criticise the teacher for doing so.Mr Tiedthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17655292171719390972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980386376872919931.post-58715814913942437032011-10-06T23:43:02.241+11:002011-10-06T23:43:02.241+11:00*DISCLAIMER* I am the same "Coldsnacks" ...*DISCLAIMER* I am the same "Coldsnacks" mentioned in the Barry O'Farrell tweet. I am also currently undertaking a Masters of Teaching (Secondary) where I have completed compulsory Child Protection workshops, dealing with mandatory reporting. All views expressed within this comment are my own and do not reflect the views of the university, the Department of Education and Communities or any other professional or official body.<br /><br /><br />Now I've got that out of the way - some of the issues I have with the judgement:<br /><br />Para 31: The judge states that it was "unfortunate" the teacher did not follow his usual method of cautioning a student that what is said is not considered "in confidence" and may be passed on to a higher authority when he believed the student may tell him something incriminating. However, that ignores the fact that the teacher did not believe that the question "Are you planning on coming back next year" would lead to an admission of committing a crime. I don't think the judge applied a "reasonableness" test there.<br /><br />- Secondly, the judge highlights (correctly) that as a teacher AND a year advisor, the teacher in question is responsible for the welfare of the student. I asked a lecturer of mine (someone with many years of experience in teaching high school students) whether a student committing a crime was a welfare issue. The answer was "Yes".<br /><br />Surely, reporting that a student committed a crime is still looking out for that student's welfare, no? Or, from another angle, given that this was the year advisor, this means he was responsible for the welfare of the cohort as a whole. When a student has just told you he took ice and stabbed someone, the argument could easily be made that reporting it is protecting the welfare of that student's classmates.<br /><br />Thirdly, this does send a mixed message to teacher's about reporting (BOF is right on that part). Why is it that if a student comes to me and tells me, of their own volition, that they were beaten by their parent the night before, or that they took illegal drugs, I'm LEGALLY required to report it* - but on the precedent now set by this case, if a student comes to me and admits to committing a crime, I would be in the wrong to report it, despite any welfare concerns that may be evident?<br /><br />Where does the duty of care start and end?<br /><br /><br />* Or if another student comes to me and tells me that they know Student B is being abused, or taking drugs, or any other student welfare concern. To put it bluntly, if a classroom teacher even suspects - no proof required - that there is a welfare issue, we are obligated to report it. If we don't, and it a) turns out there is an issue; and b) it's discovered we had suspected that there was but took no action, again, legal consequences under Mandatory Reporting legislation. Better safe than sorry. Of course, tact is a requirement as well - in this case, note how the court documents show that the teacher gave the student the chance to not say anything?<br /><br />Anyway, that's my rant on this case for the moment. Will be interesting to see what, if anything, occurs from here on out.Coldsnackshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05516572460120066990noreply@blogger.com