A former teacher and headmaster at various Melbourne schools has been convicted and fined $8000 in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for charges including teaching while unregistered.

The facts

The Age reported on the judgment by Magistrate Franz Holzer which related to charges against Mr Neil Lennie including:

• teaching at a secondary college while unregistered; and
• holding himself out to be a registered teacher.

A range of facts were heard by the Magistrate in support of the charges. Those facts, as reported by The Age, included that Mr Lennie:

• ‘had repeatedly refused for years approaches by the Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) to produce his qualifications to be registered’;
• did successfully renew his registration in 2008, but that his ‘conduct in obtaining his registration’ then became the subject of an investigation by the VIT; and
• as a result of that investigation, he withdrew his application for renewal, meaning that he was unregistered to teach from May, 2009.

Mr Lennie had been a principal of the Melbourne Senior Secondary College, where he also taught unregistered following his resignation from that position.

He had also been a principal and deputy principal at other non-government schools in Victoria, however its unclear whether he was an unregistered teacher during his times at the other schools.

Legal requirements

All teachers in schools in Australia must be registered or accredited with a relevant State or Territory registration or accrediation authority. In Victoria, the VIT is given authority under the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic) (the Act) to administer the registration of teachers in that State.

Teachers must be registered with the VIT before they can be employed in any Victorian government or non-government school and it is an offence under the Act for a person who is unregistered to ‘undertake the duties of a teacher’ in a school. A persons who falsely represents that they are a registered teacher (‘holding themselves’ out to be registered) will also contravene the Act.

Mr Lennie admitted to both these offences.

Both offences carry financial penalties, with the offence of teaching while unregistered carrying a maximum penalty of a $18,200 fine.

As part of their annual renewal of registration requirements, teachers in Victoria must make declarations about their maintenance of professional practice and suitability to teach, including having a current and satisfactory National Police History Check.

School obligations

Schools can also be liable if they employ an unregistered teacher.

It’s an offence under the Act, carrying a maximum penalty of a $18,200 fine, for a school to employ an unregistered person to teach in a school.

It’s also a condition of a non-government school’s registration that all employed teachers are registered and that the maintain information about their registration status. The Victorian Registration & Qualifications Authority requires that for registration purposes, a non-government school must have a register of teachers, containing information about their registration number, date of expiration and other details, as evidence of a school’s compliance with their staff employment obligations.

Similar requirements exist for non-government schools in other States and Territories.

What does this mean for schools?

It goes without saying that a school must ensure its teachers are appropriately registered or accredited to teach. However, as this case shows, schools cannot always rely on the mere honest of teachers, and must ensure they exercise diligence in respect of their staff.

To avoid the risk of contravening the Act, or equivalent legislation in other States and Territories, and threatening their registration status, schools should ensure that they have policies and procedures in place to monitor and maintain information on the status of staff registrations.

Given that maintaining police checks is a common feature of teacher registration requirements, it’s clear that monitoring the registration status of teachers is important for a school to ensure it meets its child protection obligations and also, to avoid damage to its reputation which can result from media coverage of court cases such as that involving Mr Lennie.