2020

Thousands of children’s futures were jeopardised by a salesman who blagged his way into a job running state schools, a tribunal has revealed.

When Johnson Kane co-founded the Education Fellowship Trust in 2012, he presented an impressive CV suggesting he was more than up for the job.

He claimed the Government had put him on the board of the British Airports Authority before it was privatised, that he had run a venture capital bank and that he was high up in John Lewis, when in fact he was a shop floor salesman.

Mr Kane, 67, earned a £160,000 salary for six years as chief executive of the trust, which collapsed after leaving five schools with disastrous exam results and millions of pounds in the red.

In 2017 the trust became the first in the country to give up all of its schools, after several failed inspections damaged the prospects of 6,500 students.

Files from an Information Rights Tribunal released this week show the Department for Education’s (DFE) failure to check Mr Kane’s credentials or handle whilstleblower disclosures properly.

Internal emails showed Government officials couldn’t verify the qualifications he had in 2014, but they sat on their hands until it was all too late.

One message said the DfE had ‘taken this as far as they can’ and would need Mr Kane’s written consent for a more in depth check, the Times reports.

An Information Rights Tribunal allows people to appeal against the Information Commissioner’s Office if their Freedom of Information requests have not been answered.

Mr Kane did work for the BAA as a commercial services director for 18 months having lied about his qualifications, but he was never on the board, the tribunal heard.

Former personnel director for the BAA John Mills told the tribunal how something about his claims didn’t add up.

He said: ‘The lies included naming a secondary school he had not attended and falsely claiming educational exam results.’

In 2014 the trust’s co-founder Sir Ewan Harper, who played an instrumental role in the academies policy in Tony Blair’s government, stood down from his post.

The decision to quit came after the Department for Education found ‘unusual payments’ and that Sir Ewan’s daughter had been working for a press officer.

They also found the trust had been renting its offices from his wife.

After the trust’s eventual downfall regional schools commissioner Martin Post forged a deal which meant all 12 of the trust’s schools were in the hands of central government.

Mr Kane got to stay in his job for one more year while new sponsors were found for the schools in Wiltshire, Northamptonshire and Berkshire.

The DfE said: ‘The Education Fellowship Trust has now closed. Since the introduction of regional schools commissioners, the department’s processes for sponsor approval have been strengthened, while senior appointments are a matter for academy trusts.’

Protesting against issuing of five lakh fake degrees by two private universities in Himachal and inaction by the state government and Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission (HPPEIRC), the ABVP locked the HPPEIRC office.

District convener Sachin said the government and regulatory commission have failed to rein in private universities. As a result, a big fake degree scam has surfaced.

He said such scams have brought a bad name to the state and the student community condemns such acts. The UGC had sent a letter to the government in August 2019 but no action was taken, he stated.

The ABVP state secretary Rahul Rana warned that the ABVP would intensify its agitation and even gherao the Vidhan Sabha in the coming days.

The Shimla police have registered a case under Sections 147,149,341, IPC, on the complaint of HPPEIRC secretary Poonam alleging that a protest was held by 20-25 people, headed by Vishal Verma, secretary ABVP, in front of the commission Office Phase III in New Shimla. The protesters blocked the way to the office and tried to close the office forcibly. The case is being investigated, police sources said.

Image: ABVP activists try to close the door of HP Private Educational Institutions
Regulatory Commission office during a protest at BCS in Shimla on Tuesday.

United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local Union No. 37 v. North Allegheny School District, et al., 49 C.D. 2018, 2019 WL 5556265 (Pa. Cmwlth. Oct. 29, 2019).  Commonwealth Court confirms that school districts can require criminal background checks and/or bar employees from working in certain jobs based on the results of those background checks.

Factual Background:

In the summer of 2015, Pennsylvania Roofing Company successfully bid on a roofing project for the Fox Chapel Area School District. The project manual required each Pennsylvania Roofing employee to obtain criminal background checks as mandated by Section 111 of the School Code and Section 6344 of the Child Protective Services Law (“CPSL”). Eight Union members were denied clearance to work as a result of the background checks.

At about the same time, North Allegheny School District retained Massaro Construction Management Services to serve as construction manager for a roofing project at three project sites. Similarly, the general conditions agreed to by Massaro and North Allegheny required all workers to obtain criminal background checks in accordance with Section 111 of the School Code and Section 6344 of the CPSL. Six Union members were denied clearance to work on the North Allegheny roofing projects as a result of the background checks.

The Union subsequently filed a complaint against the School Districts seeking a declaration that: (1) the Union’s members were exempt from the requirements of Section 111 of the School Code and Section 6344 of the CPSL; (2) the Criminal History Record Information Act (“CHRIA”) prohibits the School Districts from refusing to employ Union members based on criminal background checks; and (3) the School Districts’ exclusion of Union members was a violation of due process.

The trial court agreed with the Union’s first argument and entered an order that allowed the previously disqualified Union members access to the School Districts’ work sites and prohibited the School Districts from conducting background checks on Union members unless the position applied for involved direct contact with children.

Discussion

Section 111 of the School Code, entitled criminal history of employees and prospective employees; conviction of certain offenses, provides, in relevant part:

(a.1) Beginning April 1, 2007, this section shall apply to all . . . independent contractors and their employees, except those employees and independent contractors and their employees who have no direct contact with children.

. . . .

(b) Administrators of public and private schools, intermediate units and area vocational-technical schools shall require prospective employees to submit with their employment application, pursuant to [CHRIA] (relating to criminal history record information), a report of criminal history record information from the Pennsylvania State Police or a statement from the Pennsylvania State Police that the [Pennsylvania] State Police central repository contains no such information relating to that person. . . .

24 P.S. § 1-111 (emphasis added).  Section 111 of the School Code thereafter delineates certain crimes and the corresponding employment ban for the individuals identified in Section 111(a.1) of the School Code.

The Union asserted that because Section 111(a.1) of the School Code contains an exception from the criminal background check requirement for employees who have no direct contact with children, and the School Districts did not present evidence that the Union employees would have direct contact with children, the School Districts violated Section 111 by requiring criminal background checks and barring Union employees from working as a result thereof. 

The School Districts, on the other hand, argued that while Section 111 of the School Code requires school districts to perform background checks for those individuals who have direct contact with children, it does not prohibit school districts from conducting background checks for individuals working on school property who do not have any contact with children. 

The Commonwealth Court agreed with the School Districts.  After reviewing the text of Section 111(a.1) of the School Code, the Court concluded that, as a matter of statutory construction, the statute does not prohibit school districts from requiring criminal background checks and/or barring employees from working in certain jobs based thereon.

The Court therefore reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the matter to address the Union’s CHRIA and constitutional arguments.

Practical Advice

Though the CHRIA and constitutional claims remain, the United Union confirms that the School Code does not prohibit school districts from insisting that all workers working on school property submit background checks and barring workers that fail such checks.  According, while this case should be monitored by District’s and their solicitors, the conditions contained in Fox Chapel’s project manual and North Allegheny’s general conditions are valid and similar conditions, until further notice, may be utilized by all school districts on their projects.