God I hate to agree with Cameron Slater – but he’s right – the NZEI has some explaining to do
One of the most disturbing elements of the horror that is child rapists Robert Burrett’s 30 year reign of terror in NZ schools is the way the NZEI seems to have protected his rights…
Steve Parry, former chairman of the board of trustees of Pukenui School, where Burrett became deputy principal in the late 90s, said the school had tried for some time to get rid of him but ran into stiff opposition from the teachers’ union NZEI.
“They were quite evasive and defensive of the guy – it frustrated us to a high level,” Parry said.
Eventually in 2001 the board reached a confidential settlement with Burrett. Stuff understands he walked away with about $8000.
…and the manner in which schools settled secretly to push him out so that their reputations weren’t damaged.
It seems on the face of it, Burrett’s employment rights and the desire to protect the reputations of the schools outweighed the safety of the children Burrett molested, sexually assaulted and raped.
I hate to agree with Cameron Slater – but he’s right here. The NZEI needs to explain itself and the schools who chose their reputation over the safety of their pupils need to urgently be investigated.
That a man as damaged and as much of a predator as Burrett was allowed to continue anywhere near children is disgraceful enough, that schools and unions may have been complicit in giving him that opportunity is abhorrent.
I am a huge supporter of public education and see teachers as an under paid, under resourced sector who are immensely important to society and don’t buy into Slater’s hate campaign against them, but serious questions have been raised by Burrett, and those involved need to explain themselves.
With all due respect for the survivors of Burnett’s abuse, it’s not the unions role to investigate criminal allegations against their members, that’s the job of the Police. The role of unions is to advocate for the employment rights of their members, and that’s what the NZEI appear to have done here. When abuse accusations were made, the school should have reported them to the Police, and both the Board and the union should have cooperated with their investigation. The real problem here seems to be that abuse accusations were handled in-house.
“The role of unions is to advocate for the employment rights of their members, and that’s what the NZEI appear to have done here.”
Read the article linked to by Martyn. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/77703452/concerns-raised-about-child-rapist-robert-burrett-more-than-30-years-ago. You’ll see the NZEI did more than advocate for his rights, they deliberately obstructed the efforts of schools to remove a hopeless (not my word) teacher, who also happened to be a child rapist.
They did not obstruct the efforts to remove a hopeless teacher who happened to be a child rapist.
At the time he wasn’t a child rapist. He was a rapist when he was a school caretaker.
That logic implies that someone who lets someone pass their driving licence should not have let them pass if some time later, maybe years and years afterwards, they kill someone with bad driving.
That logic is not logic at all. If you read my post I emphasised the ‘hopeless teacher’ part. Yet you seem to think that being a school caretaker is ok for a child rapist! Sick.
Kudos for agreeing with Slater, if we all worked harder at finding compromises with those we are diametrically opposed to then perhaps we could progress at a faster rate.
Hey Mike and Daniel your not Catholics are you?
Ok I’ve been banned. I’ll wear that as a badge of honour.
As a teacher and an active union members, and a teacher at the school concerned for a short time after this man left Te Kuiti, I can tell you that neither the school nor the union would have let a man who was knowingly molesting children continue in the profession unchecked. At the time this process happened, it was not his sexual conduct called into question, it was his fitness to be a teacher who was effective in delivering the curriculum and being responsible for the wellbeing of the students in his class and the school. Due to his drinking and erratic behaviour he was not fit for either. His sexual conduct appears to only have been an issue in recent years, although there is still the possibility that new and older claims may be brought to light. Changes have happened to how things are reported and investigated since the incidents in the 90s and early 2000s. As seen by the recent trial of a former principal from a school near Putaruru, schools, the union and the Education Council have acted promptly.