Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Mrs Anna Johnson: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the
Secretary of State for Education
November 2018
2
Contents
A. Introduction 3
B. Allegations 4
C. Preliminary applications 4
D. Summary of evidence 5
Documents 5
Witnesses 5
E. Decision and reasons 6
Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9
Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11
3
Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on
behalf of the Secretary of State
Teacher: Mrs Anna Johnson
Teacher ref number:
Teacher date of birth:
TRA reference: 16903
Date of determination: 8 November 2018
Former employer: Phoenix Centre, Carrwood Primary School, Bradford (“the
School”)
A. Introduction
A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the
TRA”) convened on 7 to 8 November 2018 at Cheylesmore House, Quinton Road,
Coventry, CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mrs Anna Johnson.
The panel members were Mr Paul Hawkins (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr John
Armstrong (lay panellist) and Ms Jean Carter (lay panellist).
The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Nick Leale of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors.
The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Ian Perkins of Browne Jacobson LLP
solicitors.
Mrs Johnson was not present but was represented by Mr Jack Rylatt of Counsel.
The hearing took place in public and was recorded, other than those parts of the hearing
that made reference to Mrs Johnson's [redacted], at which times the panel went into
private session.
4
B. Allegations
The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 13
August 2018.
It was alleged that Mrs Anna Johnson was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct
and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as
Unit Manager for the Phoenix Centre, Carrwood Primary School, Bradford, she:
1. Displayed aggressive and/or inappropriate behaviour towards Pupil A on or
around 14 March 2017, including by:
a. pulling his hair;
b. pulling his head back.
2. Provided false and/or misleading information regarding the incident involving Pupil
A on or around 14 March 2017 when completing the accident record, including by:
a. failing to mention that she had made physical contact with Pupil A;
b. stating that Pupil A had walked backwards into a wall and hit his head when
this was not the case.
3. Her conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1(a)-(b) amounted to a failure
to adopt the Positive Handling Policy and/or Team Teach practice in safe restraint
of a child.
4. Her conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 2 (a)-(b) was dishonest and/or
lacked integrity.
All of the allegations were denied by Mrs Johnson.
C. Preliminary applications
Mrs Johnson's representative Mr Rylatt and the presenting officer effectively jointly
applied for the hearing to proceed in Mrs Johnson's absence. Mr Rylatt stated that he
was able to receive instructions from Mrs Johnson but due to her [redacted] brought
about by [redacted] she did not wish to attend the hearing and was content for matters to
proceed in her absence.
Mrs Johnson's apparent [redacted] issues were supported by a letter from her [redacted]
confirming her [redacted]. In the circumstances, the panel were content that it was in the
interests of justice for the hearing to proceed in Mrs Johnson's absence. She was
represented by Counsel and it was confirmed by Mr Rylatt that she would not attend the
5
hearing should it be adjourned to a later date. Mrs Johnson had also provided a
statement in her defence which was contained within the bundle of documents.
D. Summary of evidence
Documents
In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included:
Section 1: Chronology and List of Key People – pages 2 to 3
Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 5 to 16
Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 18 to 33
Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 35 to 318
Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 320 to 443
In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following:
i) Letter of [redacted] relating to Mrs Johnson's [redacted] which had been put forward
in support of the application to proceed with the hearing in absence (page 444).
ii) Two references and attached e-mail exchange (pages 445 to 451).
The panel were also informed that the documents in the bundle at pages 323 to 347 (Mrs
Johnson's statement), 348 to 352 (coloured photos) and 424 to 426 (statement of
Individual A) had not been disclosed in accordance with paragraph 4.20 of the procedural
rules. The panel granted permission for the documents to be admitted in evidence.
The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the
hearing.
Witnesses
The panel heard oral evidence from:
i) Individual B – Pupil Inclusion Mentor at the School;
ii) Individual C – Behaviour and Inclusion Manager at the School;
iii) Individual D – Class Teacher at the School.
6
E. Decision and reasons
The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:
The panel has carefully considered the case before us and have reached a decision.
The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance
of the hearing.
This is a case relating to the Head of a Behaviour Centre (the Phoenix Centre) which is
attached to the School in Bradford. It was alleged that the teacher, Mrs Anna Johnson,
had attended upon two of her colleagues and a pupil during a period of restraint of the
pupil in the 'quiet' room. Having taken over direct care of the pupil in the room it was
alleged that, when the pupil made an attempt to bite her, she pulled his hair and thereby
pulled his head back in contravention of the School’s policies. It was further alleged that
thereafter she dishonestly prepared a false and misleading account of events in an
accident report form in which she failed to mention the physical contact that she had
made with the pupil, and falsely and dishonestly stated that the pupil had hit his head as
a result of walking into a wall.
Findings of fact
Our findings of fact are as follows:
The panel has found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for
these reasons:
1. Displayed aggressive and/or inappropriate behaviour towards Pupil A on or
around 14 March 2017, including by:
a. pulling his hair;
b. pulling his head back.
The panel found the two witnesses (Individual B and Individual C) to these events to be
credible and consistent witnesses. Their evidence was tested under oath by way of
cross-examination and further questions from the panel. The panel found their evidence
to be reliable. They acted entirely as would have been expected of them in a dynamic
and difficult situation. They were very close to Mrs Johnson and Pupil A as they left the
room and had an unobscured view. Throughout these proceedings, they have maintained
their account that Mrs Johnson pulled Pupil A's hair and pulled his head back as he
attempted to bite her. The panel has no doubt that they have recounted an accurate
account of what happened. This compares to the lack of credibility in how Mrs Johnson
has described the incident at various times. The panel does not find credible her
suggestion that Pupil A, who was at all times in close proximity to her, hit his head
against the wall in the room. There are substantial inconsistencies in how she describes
7
the incident in her investigation interview and thereafter describes the incident in her
written statements for the purposes of these proceedings. Her evidence has not been
tested under oath or cross-examination. The panel therefore prefers the evidence of
Individual B and Individual C and finds that it is more likely than not that Mrs Johnson
pulled Pupil A's hair and in doing so, pulled his head back as they were leaving the room,
as a result of Pupil A's attempt to bite her.
The panel further finds that this amounted to inappropriate action in all the circumstances
by Mrs Johnson and the panel considered it to be aggressive behaviour, albeit in a way
that was reactive to a child presenting in a difficult manner, and is best described as
assertive and disproportionately forceful. The panel accepts that Mrs Johnson put herself
in a difficult situation and was faced with a child who was trying to bite her.
2. Provided false and/or misleading information regarding the incident involving
Pupil A on or around 14 March 2017 when completing the accident record,
including by:
a. failing to mention that you had made physical contact with Pupil A;
b. stating that Pupil A had walked backwards into a wall and hit his head
when this was not the case.
Having considered all of the evidence very carefully and having made the findings at 1.
above in relation to the pulling of Pupil A's hair and the pulling back of his head, the panel
concluded that Mrs Johnson's account of what happened on the accident form was
fabricated and therefore false and misleading. The panel is satisfied, having carefully
considered the evidence of those witnesses who provided tested evidence under oath
and the inconsistent written evidence of Mrs Johnson that has not been tested under
oath, that there was no incident that led to Pupil A hitting his head against the wall. The
accident record states that Pupil A 'walked backwards into wall and banged his head'.
This description of events bears no resemblance to the events described by the
witnesses nor to the events described by Mrs Johnson herself at other places in the
hearing bundle. In addition, Mrs Johnson fails to mention the existence of any physical
contact between her and Pupil A during the period of restraint, as the panel has found
factually occurred. Mrs Johnson herself accepts that the Accident Record Form (record
form) is inaccurate (bundle page 321). The events simply did not unfold as described by
Mrs Johnson in the accident record. It is therefore a false and misleading record of
events.
3. Your conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1(a)-(b) amounted to a
failure to adopt the Positive Handling Policy and/or Team Teach practice in
safe restraint of a child.
8
It must follow from the panel's findings at 1. above that Mrs Johnson pulled Pupil A's hair
and pulled his head back at the material time, that this amounted to a failure to adopt the
school's Positive Handling Policy and Team Teach practice in safe restraint of a child.
4. Your conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 2 (a)-(b) was dishonest
and/or lacked integrity.
The panel has concluded that Mrs Johnson can only have produced the false accident
record (as the panel has found by way of its findings in relation to factual particulars
paragraph 2) with dishonest intent. It was produced on the same day as the incident took
place and, as the panel has found, amounts to a wholly inaccurate account of what took
place. It was a clearly dishonest attempt to mislead any reader into believing that events
unfolded as described within it. The incident did not take place as described. Mrs
Johnson therefore acted dishonestly when she prepared the accident record. Any
ordinary decent person would conclude that such conduct is dishonest. It must also
follow that such dishonest conduct lacks integrity as judged by the expectations of a
teacher and leader.
Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute
Having found a number of the allegations to have been proven, the panel has gone on to
consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amount to unacceptable
professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
In doing so, the panel has had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: the
prohibition of teachers, which the panel refers to as “the Advice”.
Unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into
disrepute is made out when serious misconduct occurs that falls significantly short of the
standard of behaviour expected of a teacher.
The panel has carefully considered the proved facts at allegations 1. and 3. and has
concluded that this one-off incident was not so serious in and of itself as to amount to
unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into
disrepute.
Mrs Johnson was in a difficult situation in a challenging educational setting. Pupil A was
attempting to bite her and she reacted, on this one occasion, in an inappropriate way.
She was reacting in some way to Pupil A's attempts to bite her, which came about
immediately after she had intervened in the ongoing and justifiable restraint of Pupil A.
Notwithstanding that she reacted in an inappropriate and unnecessarily assertive way,
the panel is satisfied that in these circumstances, her conduct was neither grave enough
nor lacking moral opprobrium to such an extent as to amount to serious misconduct and
therefore unacceptable professional conduct. The panel is satisfied that there was a
9
breach of Part Two of the Teachers' Standards but the breach was not serious enough to
pass the required threshold to amount to unacceptable professional conduct.
The panel is however satisfied that the conduct of Mrs Johnson in relation to the facts
found proved at allegations 2. and 4., involved significantly more serious breaches of the
Teachers’ Standards. As Part Two states, teachers must uphold public trust in the
profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour.
In preparing a fabricated accident report form in the way described above, the panel is
satisfied that the conduct of Mrs Johnson amounts to misconduct of a serious nature
which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The record was
prepared inaccurately with dishonest intent. That is a grave and serious thing for any
professional person to do, particularly when responsible for the welfare of vulnerable
children.
Accordingly, the panel is satisfied that Mrs Johnson is guilty of unacceptable professional
conduct in relation to the facts at allegations 2. and 4..
The panel has taken into account how the teaching profession is viewed by others and
considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the
community. The panel has taken account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can
hold in pupils’ lives and that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the
way they behave.
The findings of misconduct are serious and the conduct displayed at allegations 2. and 4.
would likely have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher, potentially
damaging the public perception.
The panel therefore finds that Mrs Johnson's actions also constitute conduct that may
bring the profession into disrepute.
Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State
Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct/conduct that
may bring the profession into disrepute, it is necessary for the panel to go on to consider
whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the
Secretary of State.
In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order
should be made, the panel has to consider whether it is an appropriate and proportionate
measure, and whether it is in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be
given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they
are likely to have punitive effect.
10
The panel has considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the
Advice and having done so has found a number of them to be relevant in this case,
namely: the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and
upholding proper standards of conduct.
In light of the panel’s findings against Mrs Johnson, which include a finding of dishonesty,
the panel considers that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened
if conduct such as that found against Mrs Johnson were not treated with the utmost
seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.
The panel considered that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper
standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against
Mrs Johnson was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated.
In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered
carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order taking into
account the effect that this would have on Mrs Johnson.
In carrying out the balancing exercise the panel has considered the public interest
considerations both in favour of and against prohibition as well as the interests of Mrs
Johnson. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition
order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proven. In the list
of such behaviours, those that are relevant in this case are:
serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the
Teachers’ Standards;
dishonesty especially where there have been serious consequences, and/or it has
been repeated and/or covered up.
Even though there were behaviours that would point to a prohibition order being
appropriate, the panel went on to consider whether or not there were sufficient mitigating
factors to militate against a prohibition order being an appropriate and proportionate
measure to impose, particularly taking into account the nature and severity of the
behaviour in this case.
Mrs Johnson did have a previously good history as a teacher and as a leader of the
Phoenix Unit and the panel accepts that the incident was out of character. This was a
one-off event and she was dealing with a complex and stressful situation. The panel
believes that her actions in relation to the accident record were not pre-meditated, but
rather a reactionary decision to prepare a document that was a gross misrepresentation
of the facts. Whilst the content of the accident form was inaccurate and there was a
dishonest intent in its compilation, there was, fortunately, no long term adverse impact on
the pupil's well-being. Mrs Johnson did in fact seek first aid immediately after the incident
and did speak to one of Pupil A's parents. These factors reduce the seriousness of the
dishonesty that occurred.
11
The panel has read, at the end of Mrs Johnson's statement, some insight by her into her
behaviour and she has therefore demonstrated some limited reflection on what
happened. The impact of the mitigation is limited by her failure to accept responsibility for
her actions. She also questioned the integrity of the witnesses. The panel found these
collective features to be disappointing.
On balance, the panel considered the declaration of unacceptable professional conduct
and conduct which may bring the profession into disrepute to be sufficient sanction for a
teacher of the previous good standing of Mrs Johnson, as cited in the two previous
OFSTED inspections of the School and the positive character references put forward on
her behalf.
The panel considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no
recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made
by the panel is sufficient.
The panel is of the view that applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen
recommending no prohibition order is a proportionate and appropriate response. Given
that the nature and severity of the behaviour is at the less serious end of the possible
spectrum and in light of the mitigating factors that were present in this case, the panel
has determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order will not be appropriate in
this case. The panel considers that the publication of the adverse findings it has made is
sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher, as to the standards of
behaviour that are not acceptable and meets the public interest requirement of declaring
proper standards of the profession.
Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State
I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the
panel in respect of sanction.
In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the
Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers.
In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that some of
those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may
bring the profession into disrepute. In this case, where the panel has found the facts
proven do not amount to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct likely to bring the
profession into disrepute, I have put those matters from my mind, other than that the
incidents led to the behaviours where unacceptable conduct has been found.
The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mrs Anna Johnson
should not be the subject of a prohibition order. The panel has recommended that the
findings of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession
12
into disrepute should be published and that such an action is proportionate and in the
public interest.
In particular, the panel has found that Mrs Anna Johnson is in breach of the following
standards:
teachers must uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of
ethics and behaviour.
I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in
the public interest. In considering that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a
prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the
profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would
achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher.
I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published
finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession
into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider
whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have
considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mrs Johnson, and the impact that will
have on her, is proportionate and in the public interest.
In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect
children. The panel has observed, “The record was prepared inaccurately with dishonest
intent. That is a grave and serious thing for any professional person to do, particularly
when responsible for the welfare of vulnerable children.”
A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I
have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which the
panel sets out as follows, “ some insight by her into her behaviour and she has therefore
demonstrated some limited reflection on what happened. The impact of the mitigation is
limited by her failure to accept responsibility for her actions. She also questioned the
integrity of the witnesses. The panel found these collective features to be disappointing.”
I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision.
I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public
confidence in the profession. The panel observe, “the conduct displayed at allegations 2.
and 4. would likely have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher,
potentially damaging the public perception.”
I am particularly mindful of the finding of dishonesty in this case and the impact that such
a finding has on the reputation of the profession.
I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of
all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a
failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to
13
consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed
citizen.”
I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional
conduct, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as
being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this
case.
I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mrs Johnson. The panel
report “the previous good standing of Mrs Johnson, as cited in the two previous
OFSTED inspections of the School and the positive character references put forward on
her behalf.”
A prohibition order would prevent Mrs Johnson from teaching and would also clearly
deprive the public of her contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force.
In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning the
fact that this conduct was at the less serious end in part because, there was “ no long
term adverse impact on the pupil's well-being. Mrs Johnson did in fact seek first aid
immediately after the incident and did speak to one of Pupil A's parents. These factors
reduce the seriousness of the dishonesty that occurred.”
For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate and in
the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order.
I consider that the published findings of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct
that may bring the profession into disrepute is sufficient to conclude this case.
Decision maker: Alan Meyrick
Date: 9 November 2018
This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of
State.