|
|
The Christchurch Civic
Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
Children's safety is among the
most primary responsibilities of society said the Nelson Mail in an editorial
on Wednesday. Eight years ago, amid community
dismay and pressure following the Peter Ellis case, the primary teachers'
union introduced strict guidelines warning members against touching their
pupils. Ellis was convicted in 1993 of sexually abusing children at the
Christchurch Civic Childcare Centre. The New Zealand Educational
Institute represents 45,000 teachers and carers at primary schools, early
education and special education centres. Its 1998 code, issued primarily in
response to the Ellis conviction, warned that touching youngsters placed
teachers at risk of assault or indecency allegations. Paedophilia hysteria pushing the
PC pendulum to an extreme limit is blamed for the virtual abandonment of
early childhood teaching as a career by men. A paper released in 2003 showed
fully 99 percent of early educators were female. Early Childhood Council
chief executive Sue Thorne describes the shortage of males working in the
sector as a ``national disgrace''. Given that 33 percent of flight
attendants are male, as are 6.5 percent of nurses, concern over the miniscule
number of male preschool teachers is certainly valid. In Nelson, only eight
of 419 early education workers are male. As this represents 2 percent of the
total, this region is actually better off than many. Richmond preschool owner Anthony
Holder speaks for many in questioning the way society views men. He says the
prevailing attitude put him off from following his father into teaching. ``We
have to be very cautious. You can't be in a room alone with children,'' he
says, adding that all preschools put male applicants under unnecessary
scrutiny. The NZEI's new code, released on
Tuesday, attempts to relax the approach without compromising either child or
teacher safety. It is a welcome measure and long overdue, although it's
difficult to guess what difference, if any, it will make to the massive
imbalance in the nation's primary classrooms and preschools. The union warns staff must still
be mindful of the risks and that schools and centres must develop policies
about physical contact after community and cultural consultation. It suggests
witnesses be enlisted where possible and that rooms have high visibility,
such as appropriately positioned windows. In a climate in which all men are
still regarded by some as potential paedophiles, such advice is simple common
sense. However, it makes no sense if male teachers are leaving hurt children
lying while female assistance is summoned. It makes no sense if they avoid
separating pupils who are fighting for fear of facing assault charges. It makes
no sense if they feel unable to offer a congratulatory pat on the back where
appropriate. What do such actions or, rather, inactions, teach our children? One irony is that much of the
hysteria traces to a case that has, in many minds, been largely discredited.
As solo parenting levels increase, the best chance many youngsters have of
receiving positive male mentoring is at school. Sadly, the drop-off in men in
the classroom makes that less likely, too. Relaxing of the guidelines,
meanwhile, places even greater onus on the applicant screening processes of
schools and centres. And it will do no good at all if it encourages a good
teacher to give a child a supportive hug across the shoulders, only to face
malicious and potentially life-destroying charges. Safety will always come
first, but the pendulum's swing towards normality is most welcome. |
