[Education For Tomorrow: No 102, 2009]Time for prosecutionAn increasingly livid British public asked this of their MPs last summer: How much can you take from the public purse before you go to jail? Whilst we may have been unsurprised by the greed displayed by our MPs, the people of the London Borough of Brent did not expect to have to also ask the same question of their trusted local Headteacher, Sir Alan Davies. Sir Alan, from Copland School in Wembley, was implicated by whistleblower Hank Roberts, a local teacher trade-unionist, in a scandal that has featured heavily in the London media for several months and exposed unlawful payments of £1.9 million to senior staff at the school — including £300,000 to Sir Alan in one year on top of his already £100,000 salary. Large payments were made to his caretaker son. Also implicated was Dr Richard Evans, Deputy Head of Finance and failed Tory candidate for Hendon at the past two elections, who received substantial amounts beyond his normal salary.Mr Roberts cannot be accused of whistleblowing quietly. Choosing a keynote address at a national teachers’ union conference to alert the world to his concerns, the wheels were put in motion for an extraordinary series of events. This included the personal intervention of the Secretary of State, Ed Balls, Mr Roberts’ and two other colleague’s suspension and eventual re-instatement, and now, the resignation and dismissal of several members of the Copland staff, including Sir Alan. To understand how this came to pass one must look at the increasing fragmentation of British education. Over the last several decades, schools have been given more and more control over their budgets. The Audit Commission considers schools money ‘amongst the least scrutinised’. As teaching was a vocation, it was always assumed that the teachers and governors in control of school finances would be an honest lot — it was, after all, the children’s money. Events however, have proven this assumption wrong and increasingly, school corruption is hitting the headlines. This scandal, however, looks to have dwarfed them all and the powers that be at Brent Council are now faced with the question asked of the authorities at Whitehall over the summer — when to prosecute? The answer, they say, will come from their legal advisors. Does this pass the buck? The authorities have a responsibility to press ahead with prosecutions where a clear wrongdoing has occurred. To rely upon an obscure interpretation of the infamous British fraud laws is, some say, unacceptable. Other charges such as misconduct in public office exist to cover such desperate and unlawful activities. It is true that British law has a long tradition of political interference where common sense has failed. No one is likely to blame Brent if the prosecution fails. A failure to prosecute is to some, however, unforgivable. Shane Johnschwager NASUWT Rep at Copland |