Auckland teacher censured over rough handling of toddlers

An Auckland childcare teacher accused of smacking and roughly handling young children has been censured by a disciplinary tribunal after five allegations were found to constitute serious misconduct.

The teacher, whose identity remains suppressed, faced a serious misconduct charge before the Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal over allegations involving at least six children at a childcare centre. The case involved 18 alleged incidents of smacking, pushing and pulling children. After examining the evidence, the tribunal found three instances amounted to misconduct, five constituted serious misconduct and 10 were not proven.

Defending her actions, the teacher argued that her physical contact with toddlers was largely part of routine childcare and was intended to guide rather than hurt them. Her lawyer, Hannah Stuart, told the tribunal that, apart from one incident in which her client slapped a toddler's leg, she had not used unjustified force.

Stuart argued that physical guidance was sometimes necessary when managing toddlers, particularly when they were running around or engaging in difficult behaviour. She said there was an important distinction between a frustrated grab and physical contact intended to protect or guide a child. The lawyer also attributed some of the teacher's behaviour to health problems that had caused her pain over a two-month period, describing the rough handling as largely harmless.

Staffing pressures and disputed conduct

Stuart told the tribunal that the childcare centre was operating under considerable pressure and was understaffed, despite maintaining the minimum required child-to-adult ratios. Her client's physical limitations also affected her ability to move around, she said, prompting the teacher to raise her voice to get children's attention.

The lawyer maintained that shouting was not necessarily an expression of anger or an attempt to discipline children, arguing that individual incidents needed to be assessed in their proper context. She also suggested that rumours circulating among staff about the teacher hitting children had influenced how colleagues interpreted her actions.

However, prosecutor Elena Mok rejected that argument, saying co-workers had assured the tribunal they were not influenced by rumours and had given independent accounts of what they witnessed. Mok questioned the teacher's credibility, arguing that she had been unwilling to acknowledge the seriousness of her conduct when questioned. The prosecutor said the rough handling had become an almost habitual way of managing children's challenging behaviour, exposing them to unnecessary physical treatment and causing distress.

One particularly concerning account involved a disabled child who was allegedly pulled out of a playhouse by his legs. Mok said the child had good communication skills and there was no justification for handling him in that manner. Stuart, however, maintained that her client had heard a loud thud followed by the child's crying while he was inside the playhouse with other children. She said the teacher pulled him out gently because she was concerned for his safety.

Tribunal's findings and disciplinary action

In its findings, the tribunal distinguished between allegations supported by evidence and those that could not be established. It found that the teacher had smacked a toddler on the bottom after he and two other children refused to stop digging for worms in the mud.

Although the teacher admitted grabbing and pulling the disabled boy by his legs, the tribunal did not find that the particular incident amounted to misconduct. Following the findings of serious misconduct, Mok sought additional disciplinary conditions, including one year of mentoring and a requirement that the teacher disclose the tribunal's decision to future employers.

Stuart opposed the proposed conditions, saying her client was already receiving mentoring from another teacher and had informed her current employer about the proceedings. The tribunal ultimately censured the teacher, ordering that the censure remain on the public record for two years.

It decided against imposing further conditions, taking into account the steps she had already taken to improve her professional practice, including completing two professional development courses, as well as the time elapsed since the incidents. The tribunal will decide at a later date whether the teacher should receive permanent name suppression and whether she should be required to pay any costs associated with the Teaching Council proceedings.