Mrs Pauline Ann Bailey: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the

Secretary of State for Education

June 2018

2

Contents

A. Introduction 3

B. Allegations 4

C. Preliminary applications 5

D. Summary of evidence 5

Documents 5

Witnesses 5

E. Decision and reasons 5

Findings of fact 6

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15

3

Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on

behalf of the Secretary of State

Teacher: Mrs Pauline Ann Bailey

TRA reference: 016684

Date of determination: 13 June 2018

Former employer: Ravens Wood School, Bromley ('the School')

A. Introduction

A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the

TRA”) convened on 11 June 2018 – 13 June 2018 at The Study Inn, 175 Corporation

Street, Coventry, CV1 1GU to consider the case of Mrs Pauline Ann Bailey.

The panel members were Mr Sathi Ariya (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Luke Graham

(teacher panellist) and Ms Kathy Thomson (teacher panellist).

The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Danks of Blake Morgan LLP.

The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Samantha Paxman of Browne Jacobson LLP.

Mrs Bailey was present and represented by Ms Annie Railton.

The hearing took place in public and was recorded.

4

B. Allegations

The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 24 April

2018.

It was alleged that Mrs Pauline Ann Bailey was guilty of unacceptable professional

conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that:

Whilst employed as a Mathematics Teacher at the Ravens Wood School from September

2001 until July 2017 she:

1. Engaged in inappropriate contact with Pupil A in or around 2017 in that she:

a. Hugged and/or put her arms around Pupil A whilst alone with Pupil A in the

classroom on or around 29 June 2017;

b. Hugged and/or touched Pupil A whilst alone with Pupil A in the classroom on or

around 30 June 2017;

c. Communicated with Pupil A by text message and/or email;

d. Made arrangements to meet Pupil A on a School music trip on or around 10

July 2017.

2. Failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with one or more pupils in that

she:

a. exchanged mobile phone numbers with them;

b. exchanged text messages with them;

c. blind copied Pupil A into emails that were not intended for him.

3. In undertaking allegations 1c, 1d, 2a and/or 2b, as may be found proven, she failed to

follow advice and/or warnings given:

a. on or around 7 July 2017 by the Head Teacher which related to not making

contact with Pupil A;

b. on or around 12 September 2016 by the Designated Safeguarding Lead in

relation to not contacting pupils using personal mobile phones;

c. on or around 6 October 2015 by the Deputy Head Teacher in relation to not

contacting pupils using personal mobile phones.

4. Were dishonest, in that she suggested to another member of staff that you had seen

Pupil A wandering and caught up with him by chance on the School music trip, when in

fact she had made arrangements with Pupil A to meet.

5

Mrs Bailey admitted parts of some of the allegations but not the entirety of any. As a

result, each allegation was taken as denied as was unacceptable professional conduct

and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

C. Preliminary applications

There were no preliminary applications.

D. Summary of evidence

Documents

In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included:

Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 1 to 2

Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response and Notice of Referral Response –

pages 3 to 14

Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 16 to 29

Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 31 to 346

Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 348 to 475

The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the

hearing.

Witnesses

The panel heard oral evidence from

Witness A on behalf of the TRA – Head Teacher at the School; and

Pauline Ann Bailey

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.

6

Mrs Bailey had been employed at Ravens Wood School since September 2001 as a

Mathematics teacher. In July 2017, during a routine check of CCTV cameras, Mrs Bailey

was witnessed hugging or touching Pupil A in a classroom and was warned by the Head

Teacher that professional boundaries needed to be maintained between teachers and

pupils.

Coincidentally, shortly after this incident, Mrs Bailey was due to be in [redacted] for a

personal holiday that coincided with a School music trip there, on which Pupil A was

attending. Whilst Mrs Bailey was also to have some professional involvement in this trip

in terms of supervision, as a result of the warning, this involvement was revoked although

permission remained for her to travel to [redacted] or her personal leave.

Whilst in [redacted] Mrs Bailey and Pupil A met in public, a meeting that was witnessed

by other members of staff. As a result, a report was made to LADO, which led to Mrs

Bailey's initial suspension and then resignation from the School.

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. You engaged in inappropriate contact with Pupil A in or around 2017 in that you:

c. Communicated with Pupil A by text message and/or email

The panel had sight of photographs of text messages exchanged between Pupil A and

Mrs Bailey over the time of the trip to [redacted]. In the panel's opinion, these

photographs were conclusive evidence that text messages had been sent from Mrs

Bailey and received by Pupil A.

Similarly, in the bundle the panel had sight of a number of emails that had been sent to

and from Pupil A's School email account and that of Mrs Bailey.

The panel heard live evidence from the Head Teacher of the School, Witness A, who

confirmed that Mrs Bailey had previously been warned in 2016 that the use of mobile

phones to contact pupils was inappropriate. The panel was also directed to the School's

Code of Conduct ('the Code') that explicitly stated:

"Staff must not give students their personal phone number….and must not engage

in text message correspondence with students."

The panel heard live evidence from Mrs Bailey in which she accepted that text messages

had been sent by her to Pupil A during 2017 but that, as he held a particular role of

responsibility for the Sixth Form Leadership Group ('SFLG'), such contact was

reasonable. Mrs Bailey had previously raised the issue of having to use her personal

7

mobile phone to contact pupils with those more senior but in the absence of any other

viable option, had no alternative but to continue doing so.

Mrs Bailey also accepted sending Pupil A emails over the School email system but

reiterated that this was only being done in order to support a pupil with great potential but

some vulnerability.

In the panel's view, sending messages to a pupil using a method untraceable by the

School is clearly unwise and in clear breach of the Code. Some of the texts contained

kisses and were of such an informal nature to undermine any professional context that

may have been present. As a result, the panel determined the texts to be inappropriate.

In relation to the emails, whilst this was the appropriate method by which to communicate

with a student on a limited basis, there were over 230 emails sent during a six-month

period. These emails were more than an exchange of information and there was

evidence within the bundle of the emails effectively being conversations sometimes

taking place late at night with references to "love" and "sweet dreams".

In the light of the frequency, timing of the emails and the content, the panel found that

these too had been inappropriate and therefore finds this allegation proven.

d. Made arrangements to meet Pupil A on a School music trip on or around

10 July 2017.

Witness A explained that, as a result of the CCTV footage showing Mrs Bailey and Pupil

A hugging, she had given Mrs Bailey a clear and unambiguous management directive

that she was not to contact Pupil A.

The panel had sight of photographs of Pupil A's phone that showed text messages

between him and Mrs Bailey that were exchanged on 10 July and evidenced a plan being

arranged to meet in the resort outside [redacted]. Pupil A, in his witness statement and

interview notes, explained that he needed paper and thought Mrs Bailey would know the

best place to get some.

Mrs Bailey confirmed in evidence that the management direction was clear to her. She

stated that Pupil A had indeed contacted her by text regarding his need for paper and her

initial plan was to drop this paper at Pupil A's hotel. However, when he described his

location to her, she realised he was around the red-light district and she thought it best to

physically meet to ensure his safety.

Whilst the panel accepted that the meeting was not clandestine in any manner, in the

light of the recent unambiguous management direction and there being teachers on the

trip with an authorised safeguarding role, there were clearly more appropriate actions that

could have been taken than to arrange to meet Pupil A. As a result, the panel determined

the text messages exchanged to arrange a meeting where inappropriate and find this

allegation proven.

8

2. Failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with one or more pupils

in that you:

a. exchanged mobile phone numbers with them

b. exchanged text messages with them

For the reasons given in 1c and 1d, the panel determined that text messages had been

exchanged between Mrs Bailey and Pupil A and also, necessarily, found that the two had

exchanged mobile phone numbers.

In the panel's opinion, the term 'exchange' requires information to pass both ways.

Therefore, whilst the panel has seen evidence of Mrs Bailey providing her mobile number

to pupils in an email, there is no evidence of any reciprocal passing information to her.

In the light of the warnings previously given to Mrs Bailey in 2016 and that the text

messages were of an informal nature that could not be considered professional between

a teacher and student, the panel finds these two particulars of allegation proved as far as

they relates to Pupil A.

c. blind copied Pupil A into emails that were not intended for him.

At pages 252 onwards of the bundle, the panel had sight of emails to which Pupil A had

been blind copied. Witness A confirmed that each pupil had a designated pupil number

and Pupil A's number could be seen in the top left corner of the appropriate pages.

Mrs Bailey confirmed that she had indeed blind copied Pupil A into some emails but it

was appropriate in his role of [redacted]. She explained that blind copying was actually

an attempt to avoid any inappropriate information being passed to Pupil A in the event

that a 'CC recipient', 'replied to all'.

Mrs Bailey went on to explain it was necessary for Pupil A to be kept abreast of other

students' progress and to ensure the smooth running of the group. Other teachers would

have been aware of Pupil A's inclusion as Mrs Bailey would have told them orally or

electronically and parents would have been similarly aware.

Whilst the panel accepted that there were emails within the bundle that contained

information that Pupil A should have been aware of because of his role, there were also

emails that contained personal medical information of other pupils. By way of example, at

page 254, Mrs Bailey had replied to a parent's email and blind copied in Pupil A. The

parent's email contained information explaining their daughter's absence from school due

to her health and asking the School to inform "…all of her teachers as well as her tutor." It

was clear there was no intention on the part of the parent for other pupils to be informed.

Similarly, at pages 244 and 245, Mrs Bailey had blind copied Pupil A into a reply to a

parent that allowed him access to emails not originally sent to him, which contained

personal information regarding another pupil.

9

In the panel's view, some emails within the bundle that were comprised of a single email

from Mrs Bailey into which Pupil A was purposely blind copied, did not meet the wording

of the allegation and were discounted.

However, there is no legitimate reason for any pupil to know the medical position of

another pupil. Even if Mrs Bailey was doing this with a misplaced sense of Pupil A's

responsibility, it was clearly inappropriate and crossed the professional boundaries.

The panel therefore finds this particular of allegation proven.

3. In undertaking allegations 1c, 1d, 2a and/or 2b, as may be found proven, you

failed to follow advice and/or warnings given:

a. on or around 7 July 2017 by the Head Teacher which related to not making

contact with Pupil A

The panel heard evidence on this allegation from Witness A who was clear in her

recollection that she had given Mrs Bailey a "firm and robust" warning to not contact Pupil

A. This recollection was corroborated by correspondence to Mrs Bailey of the same date,

which confirmed the extent of the warning. The panel accepted this letter would not have

been received by Mrs Bailey until her return from [redacted].

Mrs Bailey accepted that such a warning had been given but that it was her concern for

Pupil A's safety that led to her effectively being forced to meet him.

In the panel's view, a clear warning had been given by Witness A and the explanation

given by Mrs Bailey was insufficient in the light of the planning evident from the texts. The

planning was aggravated by the fact that Pupil A was in his room at the hotel and the

meeting encouraged by Mrs Bailey.

As a result, the panel finds this allegation proven.

b. on or around 12 September 2016 by the Designated Safeguarding Lead in

relation to not contacting pupils using personal mobile phones

Whilst the panel was disappointed that Witness A was unable to give any particular

evidence on this allegation, it did have sight of the notes of investigation at page 91,

which confirmed that the Designated Safeguarding Lead ('DSL') had spoken to Mrs

Bailey about not using her mobile phone to contact pupils. Mrs Bailey had apparently

answered "…I will try not to do it anymore."

Mrs Bailey accepted in her evidence that such a warning had been given but reiterated

that she could not to her job without resorting to using her mobile phone.

In the panel's view, a clear warning by the DSL carries weight. The evidence confirms

that this warning was given but text messages, as already referred to, continued

afterwards. As a result, the panel finds this allegation proven.

10

The panel has found the following particulars of the allegations against you not proven,

for these reasons:

1. Engaged in inappropriate contact with Pupil A in or around 2017 in that you:

a. Hugged and/or put your arms around Pupil A whilst alone with Pupil A in

the classroom on or around 29 June 2017

b. Hugged and/or touched Pupil A whilst alone with Pupil A in the classroom

on or around 30 June 2017.

The panel heard evidence on these allegations from Witness A. She explained that

during a routine inspection of a CCTV camera from Mrs Bailey's classroom, a technician

had seen a recording of Mrs Bailey's hugging Pupil A just after 7am on both of the

relevant days.

Witness A confirmed that she would be at School just after 6am and that Pupil A would

often attend soon after. At around 7am, there would be some other people present at

School, but relatively few. She also confirmed that there were three CCTV cameras

within the classroom, which was effectively split into three separate parts, with doors at

the front and rear.

The panel had sight of only one of the CCTV recordings, which indeed showed a clear

hug between Mrs Bailey and Pupil A on both days.

Mrs Bailey accepted that there had been hugs on both of the relevant days but there

were extenuating circumstances. However, the panel agreed with Witness A that such a

situation left Mrs Bailey in a vulnerable position.

Mrs Bailey also stated that she thought it possible that there were other people at the

rear of the classroom, albeit out of sight of the relevant CCTV.

In the panel's view, whilst it was separated into three different areas, the classroom was

the entire room rather than a particular part. Therefore, in the absence of CCTV footage

from the other two CCTV cameras and Mrs Bailey's assertion that someone may have

been present at the back of the room, the panel was not convinced that the Agency had

discharged their burden of proving that Mrs Bailey and Pupil A were alone on either

occasion and therefore finds both particulars not proven.

3. In undertaking allegations 1c, 1d, 2a and/or 2b, as may be found proven, you

failed to follow advice and/or warnings given:

c. on or around 6 October 2015 by the Deputy Head Teacher in relation to not

contacting pupils using personal mobile phones.

11

Whilst Mrs Bailey confirmed that some sort of warning had been given in some manner,

the only evidence the panel was directed to was at page 91, which stated she was no

longer to use the 'procedure' of having her mobile phone number on the classroom wall.

In the light of this ambiguous statement (which contrasted to the clear warning on the

same page in relation to the 2016 warning), the panel was not convinced that Mrs Bailey

was told on 6 October 2015 that she should not use her phone to contact pupils and

therefore finds this allegation not proven.

4. Were dishonest, in that you suggested to another member of staff that you had

seen Pupil A wandering and caught up with him by chance on the School music

trip, when in fact she had made arrangements with Pupil A to meet

The panel was directed to a photograph of a text message in the bundle at page 19,

which stated:

"Hiya just to say I saw Student A wandering and have caught up with him. His team r

doing lots in my absence to get ready for Wednesday, then Thursday/Friday. Not sure I

am ready for it yet but have my laptop with me so will do some tomorrow. Thanks for

caring xxx".

It was accepted between the parties that this message was sent by Mrs Bailey to her

Head of Department, an accompanying teacher on the music trip, just after Mrs Bailey

had met Pupil A. It was also accepted that two separate members of staff had seen Mrs

Bailey and Pupil A sitting outside a café opposite the hotel where the school party was

staying.

Mrs Bailey adamantly denied being dishonest. The text had been sent so that the staff on

the trip knew Pupil A was safe at the hotel and was not an attempt to mislead anyone as

to how she had met Pupil A. She accepted that the language used was, at worst,

economical but that it was a quick text. Mrs Bailey also stated that she had tried to call

the School to inform the Head Teacher of the meeting but had been unable to get

through.

The panel bore in mind that Mrs Bailey was a person of good character and found her

oral evidence consistent with her written statement. Whilst there were alternative options

she could have taken in the circumstances, the panel also accepted, on balance, she

was informing a relevant teacher of Pupil A's whereabouts rather than attempting to

obscure the truth.

As a result, the panel does not find this allegation proven.

12

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”.

The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mrs Bailey in relation to the facts found proven,

involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considers that, by reference to

Part Two, Mrs Bailey is in breach of the following standards:

Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of

ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by;

o …at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher's

professional position;

o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with

statutory provisions;

Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and

practices of the school in which they teach;

Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory

frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mrs Bailey amounts to misconduct of a serious

nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession in relation

to proven allegations 1c, 1d, 2c, 3a and 3b.

In relation to allegations 2a and 2b, in the panel's opinion these were relatively minor

breaches that were not so serious to amount to misconduct.

The panel has also considered whether Mrs Bailey's conduct displayed behaviours

associated with any of the offences listed on pages 8 and 9 of the Advice and the panel

has found none of these offences to be relevant.

Nevertheless, the panel is satisfied that Mrs Bailey is guilty of unacceptable professional

conduct because of the serious nature of the proven allegations.

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 and also finds that the proven allegations would bring the profession

into disrepute.

13

Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State

Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and 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.

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 protection of pupils;

the maintenance of public confidence in the profession

declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct; and

the interest of retaining the teacher in the profession.

In the light of the panel’s findings against Mrs Bailey, which involved electronic

communication over a lengthy period of time with Pupil A despite warnings being given,

and arranging to meet him outside of school trip in a foreign country, there is a strong

public interest consideration in ensuring that pupils remain protected.

Similarly, the panel considers that public confidence in the profession could be seriously

weakened if conduct such as that found against Mrs Bailey 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 Bailey was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated, especially when some

of the conduct arose after warnings had been given to her by senior staff.

However, the panel considered that there was a strong public interest consideration in

retaining the teacher in the profession. Witness A confirmed that Mrs Bailey had been an

excellent teacher who had introduced some innovative ideas to the sixth form. The panel

also had sight of references from a pupil (and his mother), which were explicit in their

description of the positive influence Mrs Bailey had had on the pupil's education and, as a

consequence, later life.

14

The panel had been left in no doubt of Mrs Bailey's commitment to teaching and indeed

felt that the majority of the conduct that arose was as a result of over-zealous

commitment and dedication to the profession and particularly to Pupil A's well-being. For

instance, whilst there was reference to 'love' and kisses in the emails and texts, in the

panel's opinion, this was indicative of Mrs Bailey's poor judgement in attempting to

support him. Similarly, whilst the panel was concerned about the meeting in [redacted]

and how it arose, the panel did also accept, on balance, it took place due to Mrs Bailey's

concerns, albeit misplaced, for Pupil A's safety.

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 Bailey.

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

Bailey. 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, the only relevant factor in this case is:

abuse of position or trust (particularly involving vulnerable pupils) or violation of the

rights of pupils;

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.

Whilst the panel has found there to have been inappropriate contact between Mrs Bailey

and Pupil A, the panel interpreted this contact to have arisen from her motivation to

support a pupil whom she perceived as being vulnerable. The panel had no concerns

that there was any other intent on Mrs Bailey's behalf and her actions, whilst misguided

on occasion, were based on the best intentions for her pupils. Further, Mrs Bailey did

have a previously good history.

Nevertheless, there was no evidence that the teacher’s actions were not deliberate nor

that she was acting under duress. Indeed, Mrs Bailey admitted she had blind-copied

Pupil A into correspondence regarding other pupils' health although the panel did also

accept she had done this due to her exaggerated view of Pupil A's responsibility.

The panel first 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.

Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour is at the less serious end of the

possible spectrum (and arose from Mrs Bailey' best, albeit at times misguided, intentions)

15

and in the light of the mitigating factors that were present 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.

As a result, the panel is not of the view that prohibition is a proportionate and appropriate

response.

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 is

published by the Secretary of State concerning the prohibition of teachers.

In this case, the panel has found a number of the allegations proven and found that those

proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring

the profession into disrepute. Where the panel has not found facts proven I have put

these matters from my mind. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of

State that Mrs Bailey should not be the subject of a prohibition order.

In particular the panel has found that Mrs Bailey is in breach of the following standards:

Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of

ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by;

o …at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher's

professional position;

o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with

statutory provisions;

Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and

practices of the school in which they teach;

Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory

frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mrs Bailey amounts to misconduct of a serious

nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession in relation

to proven allegations 1c, 1d, 2c, 3a and 3b.

In relation to allegations 2a and 2b, the panel’s view was that these were “relatively minor

breaches that were not so serious to amount to misconduct.”

16

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 or not 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 Bailey, and the impact that will have

on her, is proportionate.

In this case I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect

children. The panel has made, “ findings against Mrs Bailey, which involved electronic

communication over a lengthy period of time with Pupil A despite warnings being given,

and arranging to meet him outside of school trip in a foreign country, there is a strong

public interest consideration in ensuring that pupils remain protected.” A prohibition order

would therefore prevent such a risk from being present.

I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on mitigating factors which the

panel sets out as follows, “Whilst the panel has found there to have been inappropriate

contact between Mrs Bailey and Pupil A, the panel interpreted this contact to have arisen

from her motivation to support a pupil whom she perceived as being vulnerable. The

panel had no concerns that there was any other intent on Mrs Bailey's behalf and her

actions, whilst misguided on occasion, were based on the best intentions for her pupils.”.

The panel go on to say, that “the nature and severity of the behaviour is at the less

serious end of the possible spectrum (and arose from Mrs Bailey' best, albeit at times

misguided, intentions)”.

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 panel considers that public

confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found

against Mrs Bailey were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the

conduct of the profession.”

I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of

all teachers and that failure to impose a prohibition order might be regarded by the public

as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations I have had

to 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

17

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 Bailey herself. The panel

heard from the Head Teacher of the School who, “ confirmed that Mrs Bailey had been

an excellent teacher who had introduced some innovative ideas to the sixth form.” The

panel also had sight of references from a pupil (and his mother), which the panel say

were, “explicit in their description of the positive influence Mrs Bailey had had on the

pupil's education and, as a consequence, later life.”

A prohibition order would prevent Mrs Bailey from continuing in the teaching profession.

A prohibition order 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

nature and severity of the behaviour and the mitigating circumstances the panel outlines.

The panel also say, “The panel had been left in no doubt of Mrs Bailey's commitment to

teaching and indeed felt that the majority of the conduct that arose was as a result of

over-zealous commitment and dedication to the profession and particularly to Pupil A's

well-being. For instance, whilst there was reference to 'love' and kisses in the emails and

texts, in the panel's opinion, this was indicative of Mrs Bailey's poor judgement in

attempting to support him. Similarly, whilst the panel was concerned about the meeting in

[redacted] and how it arose, the panel did also accept, on balance, it took place due to

Mrs Bailey's concerns, albeit misplaced, for Pupil A's safety.”

I note that the panel has also considered whether Mrs Bailey's conduct displayed

behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 8 and 9 of the Advice and

the panel found none of these offences to be relevant.

In my view, taking into account the above mitigating factors and in light of the nature and

severity of the behaviour being at the less serious end of the spectrum, it is not

necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the

profession.

The publication of adverse findings, where proven, of this behaviour is sufficient to send

an appropriate message to the teacher, as to the standards of behaviour that are

acceptable. Furthermore I believe this meets the public interest requirement of declaring

proper standards of the profession.

Decision maker: Dawn Dandy

Date: 19 June 2018

This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of

State.