Full Hearing - Competence - Tania Beg

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” means the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2021;
• the “Standards” means the GTC Scotland Standards for Registration 2012;
• the “SFR” means the GTC Scotland Standard for Full Registration; and
• the “SPR” means the GTC Scotland Standard for Provisional Registration.
• the “Report” is the Case Overview Report submitted by Glasgow City Council.

Recommendation in the Report

GTC Scotland received a recommendation from Glasgow City Council, the local authority (LA) that the Teacher’s full registration be removed because it is alleged that her professional competence falls below the standards expected of a registered teacher. In the Case Overview Report submitted with the recommendation, it is alleged that the Teacher lacks professional competence as she has not maintained and/or met the sections of the Standards as indicated by an “N”. (Standards met are indicated by a “Y” and “NJ” indicates no judgement):

1. Being a Teacher in Scotland (SFR)

• 1.1 Professional Values (Y)
• 1.2 Professional Commitment (Y)

2.1. Curriculum and Pedagogy (SFR)

• 2.1.1 Have knowledge and understanding of Pedagogical Theories and Professional Practice (N)
• 2.1.2 Have knowledge and understanding of Research and Engagement in Practitioner Enquiry (N)
• 2.1.3 Have knowledge and understanding of Curriculum Design (N)
• 2.1.4 Have knowledge and understanding of Planning for Assessment, Teaching and Learning (N)

2.2 Professional Responsibilities (SFR)

• 2.2.1 Have knowledge and understanding of Education Systems (NJ)
• 2.2.2 Have knowledge and understanding of Learning Communities (NJ)

3.1 Curriculum and Pedagogy (SFR)

• 3.1.1 Plan effectively to meet learners’ needs (N)
• 3.1.2 Utilise pedagogical approaches and resources (N)
• 3.1.3 Utilise partnerships for learning and wellbeing (NJ)
• 3.1.4 Employ assessment, evaluate progress, recording and reporting as an integral part of the teaching process to support and enhance learning (NJ)

3.2 The Learning Context (SFR)

• 3.2.1 Appropriately organise and manage learning (N)
• 3.2.2 Engage learner participation (N)
• 3.2.3 Build positive, rights respecting relationships for learning (Y)

3.3 Professional Learning (SFR)

• 3.3.1 Engage critically with literature, research and policy (N)
• 3.3.2 Engage in reflective practice to develop and advance career-long professional learning and expertise (N)

The Report, along with the accompanying written evidence of 34 documents, sets out why the LA had formed this view. The Teacher, a fully registered member, was provided with a copy of the Report and the evidence. Thereafter, she has stated to GTC Scotland in writing that she wished to challenge the recommendation made. Accordingly, the hearing was arranged to consider the matter.

[Witness 1], and [Witness 2] from the school attended on behalf of the LA and they presented the Report.

Preliminary issues – Proceeding in Absence

The Panel noted that the Teacher was not in attendance, nor was she represented at the hearing. The Panel took note that formal notice was served to the Teacher and her representative on 16 May 2025 at their email addresses, advising them both of the date and time of this hearing. Notice was sent again on 15 and 17 October 2025 and delivery receipts were received in respect of the notification sent on 17 October 2025. The Panel was satisfied that proper notice had been given to the Teacher as required by the rules.

The Panel next considered whether to proceed in the absence of the Teacher, and considered the guidance from the Legal Assessor, who referred to Adeogba v GMC [2016] EWCA Civ 162 which makes clear that the first question the Panel should ask is whether all reasonable efforts have been taken to serve the Teacher with notice. Thereafter, if the Panel is satisfied, the discretion of whether or not to proceed must be exercised having regard to all the circumstances of which the Panel is aware, with fairness to the Teacher being a prime consideration, but balanced with fairness to the regulator and the interests of the public also considered. Adeogba was clear that, “where there is good reason not to proceed, the case should be adjourned; where there is not, however, it is only right that it should proceed”. The Legal Assessor also referred the Panel to the GTC Scotland Practice Statement.

The Panel was mindful of the importance of fairness to the Teacher. The Panel found proper notice has been given and that all reasonable steps had been taken to provide that notice. The Teacher was represented, and they also received notice of this hearing. GTC Scotland heard from the Teacher in emails dated 7 and 11 November 2025 when she enquired about possible postponement of the hearing for personal reasons stating, “the hearing would have to be postponed regardless as in not in correct mind frame.”

GTC Scotland replied by email to the Teacher, and her representative, on 7 and 11 November 2025. GTC Scotland referred the Teacher, and her representative, to the guidance on postponement stating:

I can confirm that no request to have the Hearing postponed has ever been received by GTC Scotland. Case Management Directions in respect of this were issued to your representative, Stephen Smith, on 29 August 2025 and no response to this was received.

If you require the Hearing to be postponed, I will require you to discuss this with your representative, Mr Smith. I would ask that the attached procedural application form be completed and returned to me as a matter of urgency. Please only complete Section 1 of the form. Below is a link to the Practice Statement which provides further information on applying for a postponement.

GTC Scotland has received nothing further from the Teacher since 11 November 2025. There has been no application for postponement from the Teacher, and there has been no further engagement. Her representative has not contacted GTC Scotland. There is a strong public interest in proceeding and avoiding further delay in the regulatory process. The Panel decided that it was fair in all the circumstances to proceed in the absence of the Teacher. She has waived her right to attend. The Panel will draw no adverse inference from her absence and will conduct the hearing as fairly as is possible in her absence.

The Panel noted that its options in this case were:

• subject the Teacher to a conditional registration order, with conditions specified, for a specified period of time, which may be unlimited; or
• remove the Teacher from all or parts of the Register.

Evidence and submissions

The Panel received the Report from the LA which stated, in summary as follows:

Having considered all the supporting reports and documentary evidence the local authority considers that the main areas of concern regarding [the Teacher’s] professional competence are:

• Understanding of the curriculum in Literacy and Numeracy
• Planning
• Pupil Assessment
• Failure to utilise pedagogical approaches and effective resource management
• Professional Reflection

The above areas were consistent themes of concern throughout [the Teacher’s] journey through LNCT11. These concerns were continually documented and shared with [the Teacher]. All of which have been provided as evidence for this referral. Since May 2021 when I carried out my first observation of [the Teacher] it was evident that she had significant gaps in her knowledge and understanding of both the Literacy and Numeracy curriculum and that her subject knowledge was not in depth enough for her to be able to teach effectively. We initially set out a support package to address both these areas however as [the Teacher] was unable to improve in her ability to teach Numeracy from August 2021 until December 2022, we were not able to move onto Literacy. Throughout the process time and again mistakes were evident in her teaching of Numeracy. These were identified by her mentor when monitoring jotters, by pupils who raised concerns during lesson observations, by parents who questioned feedback and comments made to their children and by professional observers who pointed out mistakes in subject knowledge during and after observations. These all led to confusion and frustration for the pupils in her class.

Planning for lessons was a difficulty for [the Teacher] and she relied heavily on the support from our PT and her mentor through the process. Her mentor regularly highlighted the need for [the Teacher] to take more

ownership over her planning and preparations for lessons and was frustrated that [the Teacher] would often not act on advice given to improve the planning for teaching and learning. Often [the Teacher] would make the same or similar mistakes to those that had gone before displaying her inability to reflect and see a need for change.

[The Teacher] often found it difficult to talk about the planned learning and to share what the learning intentions and success criteria were. This meant she was unable to support pupils through these planned learning experiences effectively. Assessment for learning is key and [the Teacher] found it really difficult to use assessment as an integral part of the teaching process to support and enhance learning. Jotter monitoring, feedback from parents and observations highlighted that children were often unclear about what [the Teacher] was teaching and indeed comments in jotters would indicate a pupil was correct even when the answers were incorrect.

[The Teacher] struggled to see these errors when they were pointed out to her. This again highlighted gaps in her own subject knowledge and the subsequent ability to teach it. The teaching and learning approaches used by [the Teacher] were not fit for purpose in either curricular area. She was then supported for a number of weeks, by a Challenge Leader of Learning for Numeracy in Glasgow who modelled how to effectively teach a Numeracy lesson. This included support with the content and structure of the lesson, the writing of learning intentions and success criteria, differentiation and assessment. [The Teacher] was able to use this framework to plan subsequent linked Numeracy lessons but could not transfer this skill into other curricular areas to improve the teaching in them too. She also struggled with utilising the correct resources and with her ability to model the use of numeracy resources to pupils which again led to confusion for learners.

Lastly, it can be said that [the Teacher] was involved in a lengthy supportive process to encourage reflective practice, being supported with developmental areas against the standards to bring her competence in line with SFRs identified. Intensive support was offered to [the Teacher], and we were responsive to any concerns [the Teacher] raised. [The Teacher] had two absences during her support period which were managed appropriately under our maximising attendance policy, including a referral to occupational health and a phased return to facilitate her return to work.

Furthermore, [the Teacher] raised some concerns around the feedback from her professional observers. We were responsive to this, and further observers were identified to provide an impartial view, however the same themes emerged from the lessons observed and little improvement in her performance was demonstrated despite this. [The Teacher] further contested the evidence against her at a stage 2 final review meeting and was considering leaving the teaching profession. We offered a final opportunity for her to undertake an extension to stage 2 at another establishment where the final round of evidence would be completely impartial with no relationship barriers impacting on her perceived outcome. [The Teacher] declined to complete LNCT11 at another GCC establishment outwith the current learning community and she subsequently submitted her resignation. As head teacher I advised her that due to my outstanding levels of concern and the stage in the LNCT 11 process she was at, that I would be making a competence referral to the GTCS.

The LA accordingly made the following recommendations in the Report:

It is with regret that the local authority recommends that [the Teacher’s] name be removed from the Register. Multiple measures were put in place in order to support and guide [the Teacher] over a period of two years. In particular, weekly meetings with [the Teacher] and a mentor, [Witness 2], professional input and improvement cycle from a Glasgow Challenge Leader of Learning in Numeracy and visits to observe examples of good practice in other establishments. Despite all of the guidance and advice given to [the Teacher], she appeared reluctant to accept the professional opinions of her observers, identify areas for her development and take appropriate steps to address those areas.

Over a sustained period of time, [the Teacher] made limited improvement, to the detriment of her pupil’s ability to learn appropriately. There were a number of mistakes made in the teaching and learning of

Numeracy implemented by [the Teacher] which led to confusion for some children and led to parents contacting the school to query this. The local authority is of the view that there were no other measures that could have been taken that would have encouraged or supported [the Teacher] in overcoming the actions identified. The biggest concern was that [the Teacher] seemed unable to reflect on her own teaching and to see that there were any issues with regards to her competence to teach. This meant it was impossible for her to improve. Given the lengthy period of time during which the concerns were expressed and the measures put in place to support [the Teacher], the local authority is of the view that conditions would not be effective in encouraging and resulting in improvement.

The written evidence submitted to the Panel was as follows:

• The Case Overview Report
• 34 documents submitted in evidence by the LA in support of the Report, including Review Reports and Classroom observations.

No submissions or evidence were provided by the Teacher.

The Evidence from the LA

The Panel considered the Report and questioned both representatives of the LA under oath. [Witness 1] briefly set out her career history and said she took up her present post [redacted]. She described the school as one in a mixed catchment area with a high level of engagement from pupils and a good school ethos. There are 390 pupils in 15 classes with a high level of additional support needs. She explained that the Teacher had been at the school for about 9 years, before she had joined.

[Witness 1] told the Panel about the letter to the Teacher dated 30 August 2021 regarding the concerns. She said she had received HR advice, and they had drafted the letter and that had led to the use of the phrase “It is assumed that this is a problem of short-lived underperformance.” She said that was not how she would have expressed it.

In regard to the final review meeting on 13 October 2022, [Witness 1] explained that the Teacher had been prompted to respond to the review, but her responses had not been noted, and she could not recall them. On the lesson observations no feedback from the Teacher had been recorded. Neither [Witness 2] nor [Witness 1] could recall specific details, but they both felt generally that the Teacher was not always able to pinpoint her areas for development, and she was not aware of how to reflect on her teaching. [Witness 1] said that during general observations she had noted concerns about the Teacher’s performance and when she raised them, the Teacher had not understood her concerns about the observed lesson.

[Witness 2] said that she supported the Teacher in 2021 and 2022. Both local authority witnesses wished to place on record that the Teacher had a positive relationship with her pupils, who clearly wished to do their best for her and behaviour within the classroom was good.

LA Evidence on particular SFRs in the Report not met by the Teacher

SFR 2.1 Curriculum and Pedagogy

• 2.1.1 Have knowledge and understanding of Pedagogical Theories and Professional Practice
• 2.1.2 Have knowledge and understanding of Research and Engagement in Practitioner Enquiry
• 2.1.3 Have knowledge and understanding of Curriculum Design
• 2.1.4 Have knowledge and understanding of Planning for Assessment, Teaching and Learning

The Panel inquired as to the evidence in support of the Report regarding the particular SFR’s that had not been met. [Witness 1] explained that an experienced Quality Improvement Officer (QIO) for the school had also been involved. They had also observed a number of lessons and had highlighted concerns about the knowledge and understanding of theory and practice of the Teacher across several areas, including numeracy. [Witness 1] said that they supported the Teacher in this area, but they were never able to get beyond concerns around numeracy.

[Witness 2] said the support was “highly scaffolded” but that, despite support the Teacher was not able to apply the theory in practice and she was not acting on feedback and failing to make progress, all as noted in the final review meeting in October 2022. The Teacher seemed unable to apply the key principles. [Witness 1] said that despite the support provided to the Teacher they could not get beyond Standard 2.1.1 and never got to 2.1.2.and 2.1.3 or 2.1.4. None of the lesson observers were able to say the Teacher was competent. She referred the Panel to the final review in October 2022.

As regards 2.1.2 [Witness 1] said that in her professional judgement the Teacher could not reach this standard as she “could not get to it”. There was not a specific piece of evidence she could point to. She said concerns were also expressed by parents and by the QIO. They found “many gaps” in the Teacher’s basic performance.

SFR 2.1.3 was similar as the Teacher did not have the capacity to get to this standard. [Witness 1] referred to the scaffolding and understanding development skills, as noted in the October 2022 review in and in several lesson observations, including on 6 October 2021 and on 17 January 2022. [Witness 2] echoed that in her observations. The Teacher could not give clear explanations of lessons in general. [Witness 2] said that the Teacher was not stretching or challenging the more able learners in her class, and she did not seem able to grasp the basics of the need to do so.

SFR 2.1.4 – The implementation of lessons was an ongoing issue. [Witness 2] referred to her notes about the lesson she observed on 6 October 2021. She said that the same themes arose again regarding the Teacher’s inability to properly plan and teach despite considerable support. The tracking documents kept coming back to issues over numeracy and they could get no further as the Teacher had a confused approach to both content and delivery of the lesson and go off at a tangent. An example was in the QIO feedback about the lesson on 17 January 2022. Further confusion was evident at the lesson observation on 10 October 2022. This lack of coherence in lessons was a concern, and it was discussed with the Teacher. There was no evidence of improvement despite the support and feedback from observations.

SFR 3.1, 3.2 & 3.3: Curriculum and Pedagogy

3.1 Curriculum and Pedagogy

• 3.1.1 Plan effectively to meet learners’ needs
• 3.1.2 Utilise pedagogical approaches and resources

[Witness 2] referred to the parental complaints which highlighted engagement issues. She understood that complaints would have been raised with the Teacher but there was no record of her response. [Witness 1] said that HR became involved, and the Teacher was advised. The observation on 30 September 2021 had raised concerns about active listening and the need to reduce the Teacher’s talk time.

The two QIO observations on 17 January 2022 and 10 October 2022 detailed that the Teacher had not formed clear learning groups and there was a lack of planning and differentiation of children’s needs. It was also noted that there was too much inactive listening time and key learning points were missed. There was a lack of clear communication with the children. At the observation on 10 October 2022, it was noted by the QIO observer that “Children required further modelling in order to fully understand the learning…..teaching needs to be more explicit..make sure teaching points are not missed.” These issues were also covered in the earlier observation on the 6 September 2022.

With regards to SFR 3.1.2 [Witness 2] explained an example of the Teacher not using resources appropriately. She said she had to return to that issue with the Teacher repeatedly. [Witness 1] noted the

same issue in the lesson, and it is noted in the observation on 27 September 2022. The Teacher did not seem able to act on the feedback about use of resources or read up on the resources readily available.

In the final review in October 2022, it was noted that, “In two observations mistakes were made during teaching inputs which made the explanations unclear. You failed to spot or indeed correct mistakes and use as teaching points. Both professionals have indicated that you need to develop your modelling, questioning and use of effective feedback to drive learning forward and highlight crucial teaching points. Your use of resources has also been highlighted as an area for development whether that be relating to physical or digital resources, PowerPoints, counting sticks, concrete materials, worksheets etc. You have often not selected appropriate resources for the teaching or follow up in lesson.” Despite significant support observers continued to raise the use of resources by the Teacher.

3.2 The Learning Context

• 3.2.1 Appropriately organise and manage learning
• 3.2.2 Engage learner participation

This SFR was largely covered in the evidence from the LA as set out above. [Witness 2] stated that the Teacher was a very nurturing teacher who cared deeply about the children. However, the environment was an issue despite the Teacher receiving support on setting up the classroom and organising resources. The numeracy specialist had also raised the need for a better display. The classroom was often untidy.

With regards to SFR 3.2.2 there was evidence in observations that the children had a good relationship with the Teacher, but she was not connecting with them. There was a parental concern expressed about her engagement with children despite having a good relationship with her. The Teacher was a champion for wellbeing but there was a sense of frustration at the lack of progress she made.

3.3 Professional Learning

• 3.3.1 Engage critically with literature, research and policy
• 3.3.2 Engage in reflective practice to develop and advance career-long professional learning and expertise

[Witness 2] said that the Teacher was always open to visiting other schools. However, the Teacher seemed to become overwhelmed and was not able to make progress with what she had learned.

In respect of SFR 3.3.2 [Witness 1] said that the Teacher seemed unable to identify what had gone wrong either at the time, or later. She would challenge and deny issues had occurred and so more observers were brought in. She seemed unable to recognise the issues despite them being explicitly pointed out to her. She and [Witness 2] said that they both felt “stuck”.

They both said that they knew nothing about the Teacher’s reflective records, but they understood that it was signed off each year.

Findings in Fact on the SFR

The Panel had in mind that the standard of proof required is the balance of probabilities. It accepted advice from the Legal Assessor on the assessment of all the evidence and the standard of proof. He also referred to the GTC Scotland Practice Statement on Professional Competence. The Panel considered all the oral and written evidence presented at the hearing in making its findings in fact.

The Panel found both witnesses were open, professional and credible. They both gave their evidence in a balanced manner. They had conducted many of the observations and the Panel found that they had considered the issues fairly, thoroughly and objectively. When they could not recall or did not know they did not speculate. They both made positive comments about the Teacher and spoke of her genuine concern for the children. The Panel found nothing to suggest that either witness had any ulterior motive or bore any ill will to the Teacher.

The Panel was mindful that very little of the Teacher’s own voice was reflected in the evidence. There was no record of the Teacher’s background, any previous assessments, and there was no record of any of the Teacher’s responses to the observations. This lack of any records of the Teacher’s position was not helpful.

SFR 2.1.1

The witnesses spoke about the Teacher’s concerns for the children. However, the observers reported that the children were often lost and that the Teacher struggled with differentiation. [Witness 1] stated in her live evidence stated that “knowledge and understanding of pedagogical theories was not there”.

On the 17 January 2022 observation it is noted, “The ‘Chilli Challenge’ approach was not effective in terms of differentiation and ensuring all children were supported and challenged appropriately”.

On the 22 February 2022 it is noted, “The lesson was confusing and too easy for most pupils. Teaching points continued to be inaccurate throughout the lesson and the practical activity was confusing and did not support learning and challenge”.

On the 29 August 2022 it was observed that, “Your explanations were not clear in this lesson”. The Panel found that these observations were clearly stated and largely consistent on these concerns and issues on all these dates. The Panel found that on the balance of probabilities this standard was not met.

SFR 2.1.2

The witnesses appeared in their evidence to accept that it was not clear whether or not the Teacher had met this standard. The Panel could not find sufficient evidence to support a finding of this standard not being met, and it therefore decided that this is not proved.

SFR 2.1.3

In the letter of 15 December 2022, it is stated that, “….support has been robust, and you have engaged well with the supports on offer and have taken on board the feedback given from each observation scheduled so far. Unfortunately, this high level of support has been unable to assist you in achieving the standards of registration which are not being met”.

The evidence in the observations and from both witnesses was that there was continuing confusion by the children. The Panel found that this was a common theme throughout the observations and both witnesses stated repeatedly that “the absolute basics and fundamentals, the evidence was not there…”

On 17 January 2022 the observation reported, “Learning Intentions and Success Criteria were not clear and specific and were confusing for learners. They were shared but they were not specific and identified tasks rather than being based on skills, knowledge and understanding”.

On 22 February 2022 the observation reported that, “Explanations and directions could have been much clearer and more concise”.

On 29 August 2022 the observation reported, “Your explanations were not clear in this lesson. In the introduction you used playing cards to illustrate the Thousands, Hundreds, Tens and Ones – one of these cards was a 10 which did not work so the whole example was incorrect, and you did not notice this and carried on with the teaching. This was confusing for the children and incorrect information”.

The Panel concluded that there was sufficient, clear evidence that this SFR was not met across the observations over a lengthy period. This SFR is not met.

SFR 2.1.4

The Panel took account of the 1 December 2021 observation report that the learning experience was “Poor – children had little time to complete task and not enough direction/modelling to carried out task successfully. Very frustrating experience”.

[Witness 2] said that although planning was supported, the Teacher would go often go “off script” and confuse the children. At the 10 November 2021 observation there were reported developmental needs, “We will focus on reworking the structure of the lesson. I recommend that you do a similar lesson for SLT in a week’s time but rethinking your organisation and how you present it to your pupils”.

At the observation 22 February 2022 it was noted, “ …Teacher has a good relationship with children, but feedback was ego related and not linked to success criteria, planned assessment and next steps in learning”. It was also noted that the Teacher gave inappropriate feedback.

At the observation on 10 October 2022, the Teacher was recorded as not identifying mistakes and causing confusion. Some of the areas of development were noted to be, “Teaching needs to be more explicit. You need to be clearer about what you are asking of the children in order to prevent confusion. As before”.

The Panel found that these concerns were consistently and clearly expressed in several observations, and little or no improvement was noted after almost one year. The documentary and live evidence from both witnesses was clear and consistent and the Panel found that this SFR had not been met.

SFR 3.1.1

The Panel noted this standard included communication and promoting progress. There was evidence of difficulties in modelling and at the final review meeting on 13 October 2022 it was noted:

“Although [redacted] noted that you had differentiated tasks [redacted] also highlighted that you had not acted on her advice from the first lesson in the second as you still had not formed clear groups or differentiated in the way she described. When engaging with support groups [redacted] noted you were not teaching or revising previous points you were just sitting with them, facilitating not leading/driving the learning”.

This is consistent with an expressed parental concern about engagement and with the observation on 6 September 2022 where it is noted, “Teaching needs to be more explicit. You need to be clearer about what you are asking of the children in order to prevent confusion”.

On 10 October 2022 it is noted that, “Children required further modelling in order to fully understand the learning” and in areas of development, “Make sure that important teaching points are not missed. You need to model strategies to the children”.

The Panel found that these concerns were consistently expressed across several observations, and little or no improvement was noted. The documentary and live evidence from both witnesses was clear and consistent and the Panel found that this SFR had not been met.

SFR 3.1.2

The Panel found the use of resources was a consistent concern. On the 6 October 2021 observation it is noted that the Teacher needed to, “Check quality of printed materials. Some of the base 10 images were unclear and the wrong shape and this caused some confusion for pupils”.

At the observation on 17 January 2022 it is noted, “Teacher was referring to the CPA approach however, there were not adequate materials to give learners support and choice in their learning… There was a lack of direct teaching and over reliance on worksheets which were not well chosen or high quality”.

At the observation on 29 August 2022 the QIO stated in areas for development, “Look at use of resources to ensure children are actively engaged in learning and teaching”.

In the final review in October 2022, it is noted that, “You have often not selected appropriate resources for the teaching or follow up in lesson. We also need to note here that we have not been able to move onto Literacy planning or teaching and learning as there was significant need and support required just for Numeracy”.

The Panel found that there was a consistency across the documentary and oral evidence about these issues which showed no sign of improvement. The Panel concluded that this SFR had not been met.

SFR 3.1.4

The evidence as to resources and pedagogy are also relevant here. It was noted in the evidence that there was a caring and nurturing environment in the classroom. However, [Witness 2] said, “there was a frantic feel in the classroom with the children not having the tools to access the lesson”.

At the observation on 5 October 2022, it was noted, “Numeracy working wall – Display more strategies/ learning tools on wall for children to use”. The findings and evidence set out above in relation to SFR 2.1.1, 2.1.4 and 3. 1.1 and 3.2.1 overlap with and are relevant to this SFR.

The witnesses also told the Panel about concerns with the children being unclear about what the Teacher was teaching. This is consistent with the evidence from many of the observation findings and the Panel found that this SFR was not met.

SFR 3.2.2

Learner participation is reflected in this SFR and is crucial. The observations reflected a disorganised and “chaotic” classroom and that undermines the ability of the children to learn. Parental concerns were expressed in a complaint letter dated 14 June 2022.

At the observation on 10 November 2021, it is noted, “You planned a variety of learning experiences for your class but approached them all very similarly so the pupils did not engage as fully with the learning as they could have”.

At the observation on 16 November 2021, it is recorded that, “there was too much inactive listening”. At the 17 November 2021 observation it is noted that, “The execution of the main task could have been carried out differently to ensure all children were engaged with task and then collaboration with one another built in in a meaningful way”.

At the observation on 29 August 2022 it is stated, “The children were not very engaged in the plenary and this was because you did not refer back to your success criteria…. The majority of children, at some points during the lesson, were not actively engaged”.

At the 10 October 2022 observation it was recorded, “You modelled an example for 15x4. Some children were not engaged at this point. This was perhaps too simple for them as they clearly had experience of this strategy before when they could share the SC without you modelling. You asked for all learners’ response but did not act upon it. When one child admitted not doing it, rather than asking what was preventing him from completing the task you simply said, “That’s ok”. This was not going to support the child in completing the next one”.

The Panel found that these concerns about engagement and participation were consistent themes throughout the observations. The evidence is consistent and clear over the course of the observations and that, despite support, there was little improvement. This was also consistent with the live evidence from the witnesses, who conducted several of the observations themselves. The Panel decided that there was clear, consistent and coherent evidence to support a finding that this SFR was not met.

SFR 3.3.1

The Panel noted that both witnesses said there was an openness by the Teacher to learn and to develop, but that she did not seem able to apply what she had learned. There were no CPD records and the evidence on this standard was rather anecdotal.

The Panel found that there was a lack of evidence about this SFR, and it found that, on the balance of probabilities, it was not proved that this SFR was not met.

SFR 3.3.2.

Both witnesses stated throughout their evidence that the Teacher did not seem to be able to grasp, understand and develop her teaching. Despite considerable support and engagement, there was no evidence over a lengthy period that she had improved her practice. Whilst there is some evidence of the Teacher’s willingness to engage, there was a lack of evidence of consequent insight, development or improvement.

The same concerns arise at the beginning and at the end of the support process. The Panel noted that at the first observation on 30 September 2021 it states, “Show working, Use concrete materials, Talk about strategies.” At the final observation on 10 October 2022 it is recorded, “Make sure that important teaching

points are not missed. You need to model strategies to the children”. The same concerns arise a year later after consistent and intensive support.

At the observation on 6 October 2021, it was noted that, “All contributions from the pupils were relevant and reflected well on the lesson you had planned for them, but you were often very quick to talk over them”.

The Panel considered these to be basic teaching skills, but which do not appear to have improved over a period of a year during which the Teacher was intensively supported and guided. The Panel was satisfied that SFR 3.3.2 had not been met.

The Panel therefore concluded that all the SFR’s in the Report had not been met, apart from SFR 2.1.2 and 3.3.1

Fitness to Teach

Before proceeding the Panel revisited the decision to proceed in absence. It decided that there is nothing to suggest that pausing at this point to contact the Teacher would result in her attendance. There is a public interest in proceeding and it is fair and appropriate to do so.

The Panel was mindful of the need to assess current fitness to teach. In principle, the Panel found that the concerns are remediable. However, despite intensive support over a lengthy period of time there was little evidence of improvement by the Teacher. The same issues and concerns continued to arise at the end of the process as those at the beginning. Further, there is evidence of a lack of insight by the Teacher and an inability to put learning into practice. The Panel decided that there was therefore a likelihood of repetition of the deficiencies and shortfalls from the required standards.

The evidence derives from several teaching professionals, including two live witnesses and from their observations and those of several external observers, including a QIO. All of these professionals conducted observations and reached largely consistent and reliable outcomes. These outcomes remained strikingly similar over the course of the year and took place whilst the Teacher was intensively supported. The findings are of persistent and repeated failure to meet fundamental and core teaching standards.

The Teacher has not provided any evidence to contradict the outcome and recommendations made in the Report, nor to contradict any of the evidence before the Panel. There is mention by the Teacher of some difficult personal circumstances, but the Panel had no evidence as to the impact of any such issues on the Teacher’s practice and on the required professional standards. The Panel found there were no evidence on which to find any mitigating factors.

In all these circumstances, the Panel decided that the Teacher fell significantly short of the standards expected. As a result, the Panel decided that the Teacher is currently unfit to teach.

Disposal

Given the finding of a significant falling short of the standards, the Panel decided, as required by the Fitness to Practise rules, to remove the Teacher from the register. It decided that deregistration for two years was appropriate given the significant shortfalls from the required professional standards and the lack of improvement, despite significant support.

Once the Teacher’s name has been removed from the Register, her name remains so removed unless and until an application for re-registration is made by her and a Fitness to Teach Panel considers that the Teacher is fit to teach at that time and directs that the application be granted.

In this case, the Panel has directed that the Teacher should be prohibited from making an application for re-registration for a period of two years from the date of its decision. For clarity, this is not a period of removal, meaning that the Teacher will not be automatically reinstated to the Register at the end of this period. It sets out how long the Teacher has to wait until an application for re-registration can be made, which may or may not be granted. To be granted, a Fitness to Teach Panel would require to decide that the Applicant is fit to teach at that time.

Right of Review/Appeal

The Teacher will receive written notice of this decision as soon as reasonably practicable (normally within 28 days) and has the right to ask for the decision to be reviewed where there are grounds for such a review in terms of the Panel that reached the decision concerned having either:

• a) failed to act in accordance with the Rules; or
• b) made an error in law or in fact,

that has had a significant impact on the decision made.

Any such review request must specify the grounds on which it is based and be made within 28 days of the date of service of the notice of the decision.

In addition to the right of review as set out above, in accordance with Article 24 of the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011, the Teacher also has the right to appeal to the Court of Session against the decision within 28 days of the date of service of the written notice. The Teacher’s name will remain on the Register until the appeal period has expired, and any appeal lodged within that period has been determined.