Moral Panics

Fear of perverts teaching

 

peterellis.org.nz

 

Moral Panics Index

 

Teachers Index


        
2006 Index




The Nelson Mail
September 27 2006

Okay to touch - when appropriate
Editorial

Children's safety is among the most primary responsibilities of society

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.