Tag Archives: Teaching Regulation Agency

Banning teachers

Posted on by
4

Between January and the start of August this year, the body charged with regulating the teaching profession announced decisions on the futures of just over 90 teachers. Outcomes have ranged from ‘No Order Made’ to indefinite prohibition from working as a teacher anywhere in England to prohibition with the opportunity to seek reregistration after a set period of time, although a return to the Register of Qualified teachers isn’t guaranteed.  In passing, it should be noted that the term ‘teacher’ isn’t restricted in its use only to those on the Register: anyone can call themselves at teacher.

Men outnumbers women in those barred from teaching in these announcements, by around two to one, even though men are in the minority in the profession as a whole. The overwhelming majority of men barred from teaching were as a result of an issue to do with sex in some form or another; usually involving someone underage. More than 40 men were barred from teaching for this reason in announcements just in this seven-month period of 2022; along with just three women.

Two women were barred for misconduct associated with assessment. This low number may well reflect the nature of schooling and assessment since the start of the pandemic. Similarly, there were only two barring for financial reasons. There were however, a number of barring resulting from inappropriate behaviour towards pupils. This ranged from actual assaults to other behaviour seen to have crossed the line from what is acceptable.

Two teachers were struck-off for running an unregistered school, while there were a couple of cases of false references supplied by teachers in connection with job applications.

Not all incidents took place in or even involving schools. Teachers can be barred for incidents outside schools, including their use of social media and who they live with.

If you live with someone caught supplying drugs then you must tell the school authorities and your line manager straight away, especially if your premises is searched for drugs. Similarly, if you end up in court for almost any reason it is wise to declare the fact as soon as possible and indeed normally well before charges are brough if you are arrested and placed on bail. If you are remanded in custody, the school will likely know, as you won’t be able to turn up for work but you should still inform them.

Two issues arise from considering these judgements. Firstly, what about others working in schools that commit similar acts. Presumably, they are sacked for gross misconduct, but should there be a way of barring them from working with young people even if they are not professionals?

Secondly, there seem to be some areas where perhaps ‘sentencing guidelines’ might now help both panels and teachers to judgements. One such area is driving under the influence of alcohol. The small number of cases this year did seem to produce a range of outcomes. Aggravating factors might be ‘on school premises’ or ‘in the presence of children’ while mitigating factors could be ‘declared treatment started before the incident’ and ‘extreme stress in work and home life’. Clearly, letters of support do seem to swing the judgement about outcomes, and the weight of ‘being an excellent teacher’ should be signalled clearly in guidance.

The Secretary of State must sign-off panel judgements, with an appeal to the high court being the only further outcome. Should the Secretary of State, or in reality a civil servant, have this right of judgement of the panel’s decision or should panel outcomes only be subject to an appeal to a court?

Why are teacher struck-off?

Posted on by
Reply

Anyone looking for a depressing read need go no further than a perusal of the reports of hearings at the Teacher Regulation Agency Teaching standards, misconduct and practice – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) regarding teacher misconduct.

The Agency decisions are ratified by a civil servant called a ‘decision maker’ on behalf of the Secretary of State. The teacher has a right to appeal to the High Court within a limited timeframe following the decision.

 In the period between the start of August and the end of December 2021, the Agency heard nearly 50 cases. Almost threequarters of the hearings were regarding male teachers. This despite the fact that there are far fewer male teachers than female teachers in the profession.

The Agency can hear cases relating to actions by teachers both inside and outside schools where the actions might be deemed unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and breach acceptable standards required of a teacher as a professional. This included being found guilty in a criminal court or even being cautioned by the police. Teachers can also be working in the state or private school sectors.

The recommendations handed down after a hearing can range from the ‘not proven’ to ‘No Order Made’ – where the publication of the findings is considered adequate admonishment as an outcome, to either an ‘Order’ where after a specific time period the teacher may apply for reinstatement as a teacher or an ‘Order with an indefinite ban’ allowing for no return to the profession and is usually couched in the following terms

“… prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, I have decided that ….  (named person) shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach.”

The teacher’s date of birth is provided and gender can be inferred from the name on the report of the hearing. Where the misconduct occurred on school premises, the school is named in the report of the hearing in most cases. Although in certain circumstances it may be redacted.

Cases seem to fall into three groups – sex related, where an indefinite ban would seem to be the most likely outcome. A very high proportion of the male teachers that came before the Agency were there for behaviour involving inappropriate behaviour. In far too many cases this involved a child that was often a pupil at the school.

The second group of cases involves irregularities either in examination procedures or financial matters. The case of three senior staff at one school involved the latter and the issue of off-rolling and census numbers. Most of these cases seem to result in bans of between two to five years. There seem to be fewer of such cases than might have bene expected although that may be due to the circumstances of assessment over the past two years.

Cases of personal conduct seem to result in an indefinite ban where there is dishonesty in areas such as application forms, but a wider range of penalties where the matter is possession of a Class A drug for personal use or failing to report a relationship with someone on the Sex Offenders Register. Bringing such a person onto school premises may be seen as an aggravating factor.

Panels seem to recognise the challenges of working in settings such as PRUs, especially for young teachers with little support, and the cases where they relate to handing of pupils may result in a ‘No Order’ outcome, but just the possible glare of publicity that might result from the publication of the hearing outcome being seen as sufficient deterrent.

As a proportion of half a million professionals working as teachers these cases represent a very small percentage summoned for unprofessional behaviour. However, the high incidence of cases involving inappropriate behaviour with children does mean that both training in the standards expected is necessary for new teachers, and the recognition by all that any teacher might face situations where they put themselves at risk of losing their professional status and their employment if their conduct falls below an accepted standard.

Teacher Conduct: maintaining high standards

Posted on by
Reply

With little by way of statistics to consider, I thought that I would pay a return visit to the Teacher Regulation Agency site, and see whether they were being kept busy dealing with cases of teacher misconduct. So far, in 2021, there have been 21 judgements reported by panels appointed by the Agency, of which 6 resulted in ‘No Oder’ being made, and the remainder in ‘Prohibition Notices’ being served on teachers.

Despite the huge imbalance between men and women in the teaching profession, almost exactly the same number of men and women have been the subject of hearing so far in 2021. However, four men compared with two women have had ‘No Order’ outcomes. Although many of these involved behaviour deemed unacceptable, in relation to the teacher standards, the level of infringement and the past history of the teacher seemed to justify the panel making a ‘No Order’ decision that was supported by the Secretary of State.

Teachers need to be aware that their private life, and who they live with matters in maintaining appropriate professional standards. There were a number of ‘Prohibition Orders’ made this year as a result of a teacher having a sex offender at their premises, and not reporting the fact to the school authorities.

A number of teachers also failed to either keep up their safeguarding training or to report incidents where a vulnerable child might have been at risk and as a result these teachers incurred a ban from teaching, including a headteacher.

A criminal conviction for an offence including a ‘Class A’ drug also lead to a ‘Prohibition Order’ against a teacher. Teachers also need to ensure that they don’t conceal incidents in their employment record when applying for a teaching post.

Sadly, the most common reason for banning a person from the teaching profession remains the development by a teacher of a relationship with a pupil or former pupil.  This has been the most common reason so far in 2021 for male teachers being banned. In one case, the incident was ‘historic’ and related to events more than a decade ago and at a different school to where the teacher was working when the incident came to light.

Interestingly, there seem to be fewer contested hearings this year. It may well be that the length of time since the commission of the behaviour cited plus the weight of evidence makes it no longer worth a teacher contesting a hearing where case law would suggest the outcome was a ‘Prohibition Order’. Indeed, one suspects that many of these teachers will have left the profession for other work after being dismissed by their school.

I have long maintained that, if there are going to be these exacting standards for professional life that a teacher must adhere to, then the quid pro quo should be that the term ‘teacher’ is a reserved occupation. The fact that anyone can call themselves a teacher, presumably even if banned by the Teacher Regulation Agency, is an anomaly that needs correcting.

Why teachers are banned

Posted on by
Reply

The BBC has published an interesting analysis of the number of teachers barred from the profession over the past few years. You can read Laurence Cawley’s story at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44643267

Creating such a story has been on the list for future posts on this blog, after I commented in December 2016 about the trends in hearing for misconduct by teachers that year. You can read that blog at https://johnohowson.wordpress.com/2016/12/

As I pointed out in 2016, men outnumber women in terms of those coming before the Teaching Regulation Agency and also in being barred from teaching and work with young people either for a fixed period or for life. Those barred for a fixed period do not automatically regain the right to teach but, as teaching is still not a reserved occupational term, may presumably still call themselves a teacher if they want to do so. Whether they can work in the less regulated markets of teaching language students or tutoring is an interesting question and how they would be found out if they do so is also a potential issue for debate.

The rules on conduct between teachers and pupils are now very strict and what was acceptable when I started in teaching in the 1970s would now in some cases almost certainly be grounds for being barred for life from the profession. The BBC story says sexually motivated, inappropriate conduct is the reason for a third of teaching bans and goes into some details that you can read on their site by following the link above.

London has the lowest rate of barring per 10,000 teachers. This is possibly because there are a higher percentage of young and more recently trained teachers in London and they are aware of the tightening of the rules, especially in relation to conduct between teachers and their pupils.

I believe that the police still have the responsibility to report anyone who states their occupation as a teacher, if they are involved in a criminal act.  Some of the alcohol cases will have come about because of a drink driving charge, sometimes during the Christmas holiday period.

The BBC story doesn’t look into the trends in severity of outcomes in terms of length or bans received. There is a study to be undertaken to ensure that panels are consistent in their general approach even after acknowledging that the facts of each case are unique.

Requiring high standards of those that are teachers is obviously important and I hope that rigorous checks at the application stage prevent some from entering the profession. That’s one reason why I have always believed that interviews of potential applicants to teaching is a critical part of the process: mere study of a form is not good enough.

A number of the cases in the BBC story were historical in nature when dealt with and it is to be hoped that the caseload of the Agency will fall as more teachers recognise the requirement laid upon them and the standards they need to uphold. However, if an MP can only be banned for 30 days for a failure to declare two holidays, we need to ensure that teachers are not being punished more severely for their transgressions than our lawmakers.

 

Welcome: Teaching Regulation Agency

Posted on by
Reply

Welcome to the Teaching Regulation Agency. I mentioned part of its role in my recent post about Induction. Those interested can now read this new Agency’s Corporate Plan at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/696833/teaching-regulation-agency-corporate-plan.pdf I am delighted to see that Alan Meryick has become its first Chief Executive. He has two female deputies, but, perhaps, it was a missed opportunity to have a women at the top of the organisation. Alan’s name will be familiar to anyone that has read the outcomes of teacher misconduct panel decisions, where his name has regularly appeared as the civil servant that acted on behalf of the Secretary of State in exercising the final judgement on the decision – subject of course to either a Judicial review or an appeal to an upper tier court.

We now know, thanks to this Corporate Plan, that the budget for the TRA for 2018-19 is just under £9 million. This money is needed not just to administer not just the misconduct section, but also all the other work of the Agency. This work includes a whole raft of administrative tasks involved in managing the State teaching workforce qualification and registration system. For example, the Teacher Qualification Unit operational delivery will include:

  • the award of QTS and EYTS to approximately 34,000 teachers who complete either a course of ITT or EYITT in England
  • processing approximately 9,000 applications from overseas trained teachers requesting recognition as a qualified teacher in England
  • delivery of up to 75,000 new online certificates to teachers through the teacher self -service portal (TSS)
  • processing more than 380,000 pre-employment checks through the online employer access service
  • recording approximately 32,000 NQT induction passes onto the database of qualified teachers
  • issuing up to 35,000 teacher reference numbers (TRN)
  • answering up to 30,000 telephone and responding to approximately 35,000 email helpdesk enquiries.

The Agency will also deal with around 1,000 referrals of serious misconduct and hold around 150 hearing of misconduct panels that can lead to a teacher being barred for the profession, but not from being able to use the title teacher.

It is interesting to see that the TRA has a vision statement as I thought that they were now somewhat tout of fashion. The TRA vision is:

We will strive to achieve excellence in all that we do, delivering a fair and consistent regulatory system for the teaching profession on behalf of the Secretary of State. We will assess applications for recognition of professional status fairly and efficiently. We will support the teaching profession by ensuring high standards of conduct are maintained, by fair, rigorous and timely teacher misconduct investigations, that where appropriate, prohibit teachers guilty of serious misconduct. We will work to maintain the high quality standards of the profession, allowing every child access to high quality education.

Sadly, nothing there about protecting who can use the title ‘teacher’.

The tasks of this new Agency are vital in securing a workforce for schools, but it cannot do anything about the shortfall of trainee numbers. The DfE is now fully responsible for any shortcomings in that direction.

Finally, the Agency still has work to do to purge the references to NCTL that still litter its information documents about teacher misconduct hearings. The Agency might also wish to consider whether it is appropriate for the panel’s legal adviser to sit alongside panel members at hearings, in case it makes them look as if they are a member of the panel itself. But, maybe their diagram doesn’t reflect the reality of the situation.