Full Hearing – Subsequent Registration Application – Michael Hendry

Definitions

Any reference in this decision to:

• ‘GTC Scotland’ means the General Teaching Council for Scotland;
• the ‘Panel’ means the Fitness to Teach Panel considering the case;
• the ‘Rules’ (and any related expression) means the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them;
• the ‘Register’ means the GTC Scotland register of teachers;
• the ‘SPR’ means the GTC Scotland Standard for Provisional Registration;
• the ‘SFR’ means the GTC Scotland Standard for Full Registration; and
• ‘COPAC’ means the GTC Scotland Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012

Preliminary issues

There were no preliminary issues for the Panel to consider.

Background

On 25 February 2015, a GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Panel directed that the Applicant be removed from the Register. That Panel, having heard the evidence, found the following allegation proved in full:-

“1. Between 1 April 2013 and 13 June 2013, both dates inclusive, whilst employed as a teacher by Glasgow City Council, you did send emails and text messages to two female pupils that were inappropriate in that they did contain:

a. Inappropriate sharing of business;

b. Inappropriate language;

c. Compliments regarding the pupils’ appearance and personality;

d. Inappropriate discussions about school matters and comments regarding other staff  members;

e. An inappropriate response to one of the said pupils when she divulged that she may have been subjected to violence;

f. An inappropriate response to one of the said pupils when she divulged that she was consuming alcohol;

g. Requests to meet the said pupils out with school hours.

And in light of the above it is alleged that your fitness to teach is impaired and you are unfit to teach as a result of breaching the GTCS Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012 Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 and 4.2.”

By way of disposal, that Panel concluded that “the Respondent is unfit to teach, in accordance with the terms of Article 18(2)(b) of the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011, it directed that the Respondent be removed from the Register.” The Panel concluded that the Applicant should be prohibited from reapplying for registration for a period of 2 years from the date of notification of the decision.

In accordance with Part 4.4 of the Rules, an application made for registration subsequent to the removal from the Register as described above is required to be considered by a Fitness to Teach Panel at a hearing.  

Evidence and submissions

The Panel heard oral evidence from the Applicant and admitted all the documents listed below as evidence for the purpose of the hearing:

1. Applicant’s Subsequent Registration Application, dated 1 August 2023 with appendices including:
   • Paper Apart Statement on Fitness to Teach
   • Reference from Colleague 1, dated 22 August 2023
   • Reference from Colleague 2, dated 10 September 2023
   • Law Degree Certificate
   • Future Learning Certificate of Achievement – Exploring Teaching and Assessment for Higher Education
   • Future Learning Certificate of Achievement – How to Develop a Personal Teaching Philosophy in Higher Education
   • PVG Certificate
2. Full Hearing Decision Annex, dated 25 February 2015
3. Virtual Hearing Decision Annex, dated 26 October 2023
4. Notice of Subsequent Registration Application Hearing, dated 14 December 2023
5. Hearing Response Form, dated 24 December 2023

Oral evidence from the applicant

The Applicant took the oath, and he told the Panel about his respect for the regulator and the standards in COPAC and he referred to the written submission he had provided with his application for registration. He told the Panel that he has an interest in teaching those with dyslexia and that he has researched that issue and also has an interest in the delivery of effectively teaching English grammar. He said he was now working as a tutor. In that role he tutors English and Maths to both primary and secondary pupils across a range of schools and settings in Glasgow. He assists at Kelvin College in Easterhouse which seeks to support parents and pupils. He said that he keeps learning logs and that he requires to tailor learning for the pupils to assist in their engagement. He works with pupils with special needs and those who do not attend school. He has developed good relationships with colleagues and parents. He stated that he seeks to be an ambassador for lifelong learning and is presently looking into development of learning for pupils with dyslexia. He is also undertaking an online course on teaching grammar. He told the Panel that he was seeking full registration and that he considered he had reached the standards required by GTC Scotland.

In response to Panel questions, the Applicant said that he regretted and was ashamed of his conduct.  It had a significant impact on his family. He said he had ‘fully let down’ the pupils, and his professional duties and standards. He said his past conduct was constantly with him and he had been in a difficult place at the time. He said he needed to learn from it and move forward. He said that he has sought to understand why he had behaved that way, but he was now in a better place but frequently reflects on it.

The Applicant said he had undertaken therapywith [redacted]. He said he felt at fault, and his therapy had helped him to understand his conduct and attitudes. That therapy had allowed him to better understand his behaviour which had resulted from pressure in his own life.  He said that it would never happen again as he had made adjustments in his life. He had taken responsibility for his conduct, and he said that he had learned about himself and how he valued himself. He said that at the time of the allegations he was in crisis and was seeking validation. He understood the conduct had been a breach of boundaries and the pupils would have been shocked, and that it must have been difficult for them to come forward. He was ashamed of the impact his conduct had had on the lives of the pupils, particularly at that stage in their lives.

The Applicant told the Panel that he had over two years of therapy. He said he felt that he had rehabilitated himself and he was looking to rebuild a professional life which he now appreciated he had to earn and demonstrate the qualities he has He said he wanted to show excellent professional character. He said his employment in the hotel and retail trade in the last few years had helped him realise that trust, good practice, good quality relationships and communication were important. He had learned not to bring ‘emotional baggage’ in to the work place.

With regard to the parts of COPAC he had breached, the Applicant said that he was ashamed and understood why they were so important, and that adherence needed to be constant and consistent.  He said he now had good support from his friends, family and his partner, and he felt he now had a solid foundation that he worked to build up over the last ten years. He said he was conscious of the need to have checks and balances in his life to ensure that they do not contaminate his professional role.

The Applicant told the Panel about his current one-to-one work with pupils and the importance of boundaries. He explained the importance of listening to pupils and the importance of giving pupils their own space and dignity. He understood that it was never appropriate or necessary to enter into any issues about personal life, either his or the pupil’s life. He said that you must operate within your own field and not step outside that area of competence and expertise.

The Applicant said that a major lesson he had learned from therapy was always to consider what is healthy and good for you and for those around you. That was a constant check and balance. He said his therapy and the law degree he had obtained had taught him about professional boundaries. He said he had gone to the source of why professional boundaries were a requirement through his subsequent professional experience and therapy. He told the Panel that both of his referees knew all about the findings and the reasons for his removal from the Register, and that one of them is a teacher. His referees had been mindful of the need for him to rehabilitate himself, they had been a constant support and he had been open and truthful.

In closing, the Applicant told the Panel that he had genuine passion for teaching and learning. He said he had considered that he had undertaken a full therapeutic recovery, and he was keen to learn and would undertake any training required. He said he was well supported by his partner, his family and his friends.

Findings on fitness to teach

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence before it. In making a decision, and with reference to the evidence before it, the Panel was required to consider whether the Applicant is now fit to teach. The Panel was mindful throughout its decision-making process that the onus was on the Applicant to demonstrate that he is now fit to teach.

The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel of the GTC Scotland Practice Statement on Subsequent Registration Applications and on Fitness to Teach. He advised the Panel to assess all of the evidence and to consider the important issues of insight, reflection and remediation by the Applicant, as well as the wider public interest issues.

The Panel found that the Applicant gave his evidence in a genuine, open and truthful manner and that he was not defensive. The Applicant did his best to assist the Panel and it found that he was credible and reliable. He was cogent and clear when telling the Panel about what had motivated his conduct in the past and the negative impact that would have had on the pupils and the profession.

The Panel was satisfied that the Applicant demonstrated good insight and reflection into his conduct at the time. He explained his thoughts and need for validation at that time, and how subsequently his therapy has assisted him to understand his thinking and his motivation. He did not seek to avoid or deflect any responsibility for his conduct, and he expressed remorse and regret for his conduct and its impact. He meaningfully explained his reflections on, and understanding of, professional boundaries.

The Panel considered that the conduct is remediable, and it found that the extensive therapy and reflection the Applicant has undertaken has sufficiently remedied his conduct. The Panel found that the Applicant is clearly invested in returning to teaching, having waited 9 years since removal to apply for re-registration, and having also in the meantime completed a law degree.

The Applicant explained fully to the Panel about the ’solid foundation’ he now has with regards to his mental health and in his support mechanisms. The Panel found that he was thoughtful and genuine when explaining his approach to his past and current conduct, and the constant need for checks and balances in his behaviour. The Applicant is currently tutoring pupils in a range of settings, and he explained his thinking around professional boundaries. The Panel was satisfied, given what it has heard from the Applicant, that he has developed good insight and has taken real and meaningful steps to remedy his professional practice and understand his past conduct. In all these circumstances, the Panel concluded that there was a low risk of reoccurrence of the conduct that led to his removal from the Register.

The Applicant explained that he had worked voluntarily within an Adult Learning Centre, and in the Visitors Centre at Barlinnie Prison.

As regards the public interest, whilst the original conduct was serious, the Panel was confident that a reasonable and well-informed member of the public would not be concerned were the Applicant to be permitted to returned to professional practice. It concluded that he has remedied his practice and that there is a low risk of him repeating his conduct. As such, his return to the Register would not undermine public confidence in the profession or fail to uphold proper professional standards.

In light of all of the above, the Panel concluded that the Applicant had sufficiently remedied his professional practice and that he is now fit to teach.

Disposal

As the Panel decided that the Applicant is fit to teach, subject to him otherwise meeting the GTC Scotland registration requirements (as specified in the Registration and Standards Rules), it directed that the Applicant’s application for registration be granted.