Child protection experts last night universally condemned a teachers union leader for stating “That staff who have affairs with pupils over 16 years of age should not be prosecuted.”
Chris Keates, general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, said that “Teachers should not face jail for having sex with pupils who are over the age of consent.”
Her comments, due to be broadcast tonight, have angered child protection and parenting experts who accused her of disregarding the protection of children.
Miss Keates states: “There is a real anomaly in the law that we are concerned about.
If a teacher has a relationship with a pupil at the school at which they teach - it could be an 18-year-old pupil in the sixth form – then the teacher can be prosecuted and end up on the sex offenders’ register.’
Teachers who have sex with sixth form pupils are only guilty of an ‘error of professional judgement’ and it is unfair to put them on the sex offenders’ register,” she insists.
Affair: Dean Dainty, left, was 15 when he was seduced by dance teacher Nicola Prentice, below.
Dainty states that the affair, which resulted in her walking free from court having been handed a 12-month suspended sentence, ruined his life.
Miss Keates goes on to say that “Clearly there has to be appropriate disciplinary sanctions in the school where a teacher works to make sure that inappropriate relationships don’t develop, but it does seem a step too far – when there has been a consensual relationship – to put that person on a sex offenders’ register when in fact, they could have a perfectly legitimate relationship with an 18-year-old still enrolled at another school.’
Her criticism of the ‘abuse of trust law,’ contained in the Sexual Offenses Act, which makes it illegal for teachers to have sexual relationships with children in their care, was condemned last night by child safety organizations.
Zoe Hilton, policy advisor at the NSPCC, said ‘The law states very clearly that if a teacher abuses his or her position of trust by entering into a sexual relationship with a student they could be prosecuted even if the child gives their consent.
The law is in place to protect children.”
Author on parenting and children’s rights, Lynette Burrows said: “‘Where is her moral compass?
“Teachers who take advantage of a young girl or boy in their care should certainly face dismissal as well as criminal prosecution.
“If there is no penalty, then what is there to stop teachers taking advantage of children and young people?
This also sends out a message that this is ok for teachers to have a relationship with pupils.”
The former teacher and mother of six, added: “Children deserve our protection and we should expect a standard of behavior in that position of responsibility that should be rigorously enforced in law.”
In 2001 the law was changed to make it illegal for teachers to have affairs with their pupils under the age of 18. But a study by Sheffield University published in 2005 estimated that as many as 1,500 intimate / sexual relationships develop every year between students and teachers.
Dean Dainty, who was 16 when he had a sexual relationship with his 22-year-old drama teacher Nicola Prentice, says the teacher’s abuse of her position wrecked his life.
In an interview for the tv he stated: “Looking back now, I wish it had never all happened. It affected me in a big way, my personality and things, and I started to do stupid things after it and not be myself.
It took me a long time to get myself back together – I suppose it took a piece of my life away really”’
Prentice received a suspended sentence and was made to sign the sex offenders register.
Yesterday Margaret Morrissey, from the campaign group Parents Outloud, said: “It is wrong for a teacher to have a relationship with a student in their school, even one over the age of consent.
I would have been less than impressed if a male teacher had started a relationship with my daughter while she was at school. However, there is a question as to whether they should be classed as a pedophiles and a risk that labeling them as such devalues the term.”
