Protected disclosure at a Co Wexford primary school

MEMBER OF STAFF RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT ALLEGED APPOINTMENT OF AN UNQUALIFIED TEACHER

A County Wexford primary school has been the subject of a protected disclosure to the Department of Education and Science and other bodies about the alleged appointment of an unqualified person to a teaching post.

The ‘whistleblower’ made anonymous disclosures twice over the past six months and claimed that on each occasion, no action was taken.

The allegation made under the Protected Disclosures Act of 2014, initially concerned the appointment of an unqualified person to a permanent teaching post, pending sufficient enrolment numbers.

When the enrolment numbers didn’t reach the expected level, the job was withdrawn by the Department of Education.

A number of weeks later, the same person resumed working in the school in another post. A fully qualified substitute teacher worked in that role while the allegedly unqualified person completed a teaching practice module in another school.

The whistleblower made official complaints to an inspector in the Department of Education and Science and the Catholic Primary Schools Managers Assocation, alleging that the registered but unqualified teacher was appointed provisionally to an additional permanent post, under the ‘developing schools’ initiative, pending confirmation of adequate enrolment numbers.

The enrolment numbers were not sufficient to continue the job, and the teacher was not assigned to a class.

A teacher then retired from the school and the vacancy caused by this retirement was never advertised, according to the whistleblower. The vacancy was covered by a qualified registered substitute teacher from the supply panel.

The allegedly unqualified teacher then commenced teaching in the school and the other teacher returned to subbing duties.

The whistleblower claimed the teacher in the post is not fully qualified, having not completed the prescribed probationary period as a teacher and is now working in a position that was never advertised.

‘Qualified, probated teachers have been denied the right to apply for a position through the advertisement/interview process outlined in the Department circulars that Boards of Management are mandated to abide by,’ they alleged.

The whistleblower claimed the episode posed questions about the interview board that initially shortlisted the allegedly unqualified teacher for interview and then recommended them for appointment, and also the board of management which sanctioned the employment of the teacher to the post.

When vacancies arise, Department of Education guidelines require schools to first seek to employ an appropriately qualified teacher who is not retired and where all efforts to so fail, the school may employ a retired, appropriately qualified, teacher.

If it is not possible to recruit a teacher under either of these categories, the school may employ a registered teacher who is not appropriately qualified on a short term basis, giving preference where possible to one who is not retired.

The whistleblower said the teacher is continuing to sub and asked if this can be considered shortterm as it will last until the end of this school year.

It is also a stipulation that all vacancies anticipated to be of a duration of 24 calendar weeks or more should be advertised on at least one of the websites approved by the management bodies and this was not done, according to the whistleblower who called on the Department of Education to question why an interview board deemed this teacher suitable for appointment and also to arrange for an audit of the relevant written interview reports and markings.

They claimed the board of management confirmed on the required Appointment Form that all legislation and circulars had been followed.

The whistleblower asked the Department to examine all records relating to the appointment under the terms of the Protected Disclosures Act which allows workers to raise concerns.

‘That an unqualified person was shortlisted for interview, actually interviewed and then appointed, raises very serious questions’, they alleged, adding that it also posed questions about the oversight role of the Diocese of Ferns.

‘Are the pupils (of this school) not entitled to fully qualified, probated teachers and not deserving of the best qualified, most experienced teachers available?’ they asked.