Full Hearing - Conduct - Julie Pirie

Definitions

• ‘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; and
• the ‘Register’ means the GTC Scotland register of teachers.

Executive Summary

The critical part of the Panel’s decision lies in the case cancellation application it granted on day three of the hearing. Nonetheless, in the interests of open justice and transparency it is necessary to record its decisions on the preliminary issues which arose during the first two days of the hearing, together with its decisions on two case cancellation applications made on day one and two, respectively. The evidence given by the witnesses during the hearing follows below as this evidence was considered in each of the case cancellation applications.  

Preliminary issues – Day 1

There were a number of preliminary issues dealt with one day one, which were as follows:

1. Reference to a learner in the hearing papers
2. Late papers
3. Case cancellation application
4. Amendment of allegation 1(a)(ii)

Pupil reference  

The Panel highlighted that in the papers a learner is mentioned in certain allegations. It sought to refer to the child as Pupil A. The Presenting Officer and the Teacher’s Representative confirmed there were no objections to this.  

The Teacher’s Representative raised that he may refer to [redacted] in the case cancellation application. The hearing was not being observed, and clarification was sought from the Panel which confirmed that there was no formal need to go into private session. However, the Panel checked with parties if the GTC Scotland observers could attend in private session, a course to which neither party objected.  

Late evidence/productions

The Teacher’s Representative made an application for late evidence to be admitted into process. The evidence comprised the following:  

1. [redacted] Disciplinary Statement 2/12/22
2. [redacted] SQA Malpractice Statement (undated)
3. [redacted] letter 20/10/22
4. [redacted] Report 1/10/20
5. [redacted] Report 13/9/21
6. Support [redacted] Meeting Outcome letter 12/1/22
7. [redacted] Report 25/4/22
8. Email from [redacted]l HT 31/3/22 re Nat 5 Study Leave
9. Email from [Witness 1] DHT 11/10/22 with list of pupils denied study leave
10. Email summary of meeting between [redacted] and [redacted] held on 13/9/22
11. Letter from [redacted], [redacted] Coordinator 16/3/23

It was submitted that, since outset of disciplinary investigation, the Teacher had been figuratively fighting with one hand behind her back. She was sought to be blamed for departmental issues. Perth and Kinross Council (‘PKC') had been selective in the evidence it submitted to GTC Scotland to prosecute the case, omitting to provide relevant information on the Teacher’s employment case and its settlement.  

The Teacher’s Representative took responsibility for the late papers. They had been provided to PKC in its investigation. He thought they had been provided to GTC Scotland, but they had not been lodged. It was submitted that the evidence was not new and the Teacher should not be prejudiced by his error. The evidence spoke to the Teacher’s [redacted], together with PKC’s failure to support her, together with [redacted]. It was submitted that without sight of them a full and fair decision could not be made on allegation 2.

In addition, there was a statement from [redacted] which PKC had only provided post-investigation. The GTC Scotland statement from [redacted] was submitted to be brief and generic. He could not attend as a witness, so reliance would be placed on his written evidence.

The final evidence was emails between the headteacher and the depute headteacher and were relevant to allegation 1A(iii).

The Presenting Officer did not oppose the application to lodge late productions. It was accepted that the evidence sought to be lodged was both relevant and fair.  

The Presenting Officer also made an application for late evidence to be admitted into process. It was as follows:  

1. [redacted] Doctor’s Note, dated 8 May 2026

The GP letter was submitted to explain why he could not attend in person. It was submitted to be relevant to any submissions for case cancellation. This application was not opposed by the Teacher’s Representative.  

Private session

The Panel met in private to discuss, reminding itself of Rule 1.7.17 concerning the relevance and fairness of the proposed evidence. It had regard to Rule 1.3.8 in dealing with cases fairly and justly and flexibly, see Rule 1.3.8(b):

1.3.8 Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes, so far as practicable, dealing with it in ways which:

(a) are proportionate to the complexity of the issues;

(b) seek informality and flexibility in proceedings;

(c) ensure that parties are able to participate fully in proceedings; and

(d) avoid delay, so far as compatible with the proper consideration of the issues.

The Panel considered that the Teacher’s proposed papers provided an insight into [redacted] around the time of the allegations. There were multi-factorial [redacted] which were relevant, as was the statement of [redacted] as it spoke to the allegations and provided context. His statement was taken in the disciplinary proceedings, as was [redacted] and had not been included in GTC Scotland’s papers pack. The emails proposed to be lodged were contemporaneous to the events in question and the circumstances prevailing at the school. The [redacted] reports again provided helpful context to the Teacher’s [redacted].  

The Panel considered it was relevant material and fair to admit it, noting that it was not opposed by the Presenting Officer. The late application was not the fault of the Teacher, more an oversight by her representative, which he accepted. In all the circumstances it was fair to the process, having regard to rule 1.3.8 in dealing with cases fairly and justly and flexibly to admit the late evidence. On this basis, the Panel determined to admit the late papers.

The Panel then considered the Presenting Officer’s application. [redacted].

The Legal Assessor directed the Panel to the practice statement on [redacted] and the requirements that the [redacted]. It was relevant and fair and avoided the witness having to attend, with there being no prejudice to GTC Scotland.

Public session

The Panel provided its decision on both applications for late evidence, which was to exercise its discretion in terms of Rule 1.7.17 and admit the evidence in the Teacher’s application, together with the Presenting Officer’s application.

In public session, the Legal Assessor confirmed that as the Presenting Officer’s application concerned a [redacted].

First Case cancellation application

Teacher’s submissions

The Teacher’s Representative relied upon Rule 2.10.9 and its requirements that the Panel must be satisfied that it is in accordance with the general objective within GTC Scotland’s rules and in the public interest to do so. It was submitted that the Teacher had been treated egregiously. She had been scapegoated by PKC and blamed for the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) malpractice finding. Reliance was placed upon the Teacher’s written submissions on page 303 of the Panel’s papers which spoke to the genuine errors made by the Teacher, arising in the context of systemic problems faced by the department, and which did not support allegation one or two.

There was no credible likelihood of an impairment or a finding that the Teacher was unfit to teach. It was not in the public interest for the case to proceed. The Teacher had endured a horrific few years and it was only fair and reasonable for the Panel to cancel the case, appreciating that was difficult to achieve. The fact that [redacted] was no longer a witness to the proceedings due to [redacted] increased the inability for the Teacher to have a fair hearing.

The Panel should afford a greater weight to the witness attending and if they do not attend then their evidence is given less weight and treated as hearsay. The Panel may take the view that less weight should be given to [redacted] evidence as [redacted] to the Teacher, which left [Witness 3] and the remaining witnesses from the school’s leadership team.

The Panel was directed to the Teacher’s oral statement at disciplinary hearing (page 163 -167 of the bundle) highlighting the mitigating circumstances contained over those sections detailing her [redacted]. She had returned to work in September 2021 and [redacted] She again returned to work on 7 January 2022. Thereafter [redacted].

The Equality Act 2010 considerations were then relied upon. GTC Scotland had no regard to equality or discrimination issues in Fitness to Teach process. If the Teacher had made errors, those [redacted] with reference made to Section 15 of 2010 Equality Act. The submission did not expand upon the application of Section 15, or its relevance.

It was submitted that no weight had been given to [redacted]. There had been a selective use of evidence, and disregarding evidence which cannot support allegation 2 concerning a lack of honesty and integrity. It was accepted that the Teacher had made errors of judgment. However, she had been left in an impossible position due to systemic issues caused by her employer. Reliance was placed on [Witness 3’s] acceptance in his statement that no marking had taken place and the Teacher’s line manager [Witness 1] had no basic understanding of how SQA marking worked and did not understand the working of the Green SQA slip system.

Key points from the SQA findings in its investigation were relied upon. These focused on the steps the school should have taken to comply with its obligations, with no dishonesty or lack of integrity found. The Teacher had faced a difficult situation, but there was submitted to be no prospect of impairment or unfitness to teach, regardless of outcome at stage 1 and the facts established.  

The Teacher should be treated with some compassion and not discriminated against. The public interest was not served here by proceeding given the significant mitigating circumstances. The submission was that PKC had instigated a witch hunt, with the SQA report making clear that the marking issue was not the fault of one individual.

The Panel was finally reminded that in 2020/21 Covid measures had been put in place. The Teacher had erroneously put these in place for 2021/22, which was a mistake but, nonetheless, the only fair and reasonable outcome would be to cancel the hearing.

Presenting Officer’s submissions

The Panel was invited to refuse the case cancellation application. Rule 2.10.9 governed the application and that applies to the case and, in terms of Rule 2.5.1(c) an application can be made at any stage.

The Panel was reminded of the overall objectives of GTC Scotland, which were to maintain standards and protect the public. Reliance was placed on the practice statement on case cancellations, with section 1.3 highlighting that an application should be considered on its own facts and circumstances individually, with there being no prescribed list for case cancellations (paragraph 2.4). It can be utilised if there has been a serious material procedural or other irregularity that can lead to a cancellation (paragraph 3.2.2).  

The Panel was invited to consider the guidance at paragraph 5.2 of the practice statement, to consider the submissions and evidence, alongside the general objective of the rules 1.3.7 and the public interest. Reliance was placed on rule 1.3.8, requiring that cases be dealt with fairly and justly which included dealing with matters flexibly and proportionately. The Panel must be satisfied, in terms of paragraph 5.3 of the guidance, that it is in the public interest to cancel the case.

There was sufficient evidence to proceed. The Panel would hear evidence from [Witness 1], the Teacher’s line manager on her discussions with the teacher, from [Witness 3] on the allegations and the SQA process; from [Witness 4] regarding her role as SQA coordinator and her discussions concerning the allegations and [Witness 2].

There was a possibility of the Panel finding the allegations proven. Allegation 1(a)(i) was admitted. There was a prospect of a finding of impairment. The Teacher would be able to attend on day four and [redacted] will be heard in private. The Panel would be able to consider the Teacher’s [redacted] both before and at the time of the events and take this into account in any impairment and sanction.

The statement from [redacted] taken by GTC Scotland was relied upon. This spoke to his role, SQA standards and processes, together with the events in the allegations. It was accepted that the statement provided limited detail and it was for the Panel to determine what weight to attach to the statement lodged.  

[redacted] was attending to provide evidence and his recollection of events. GTC Scotland had considered whether to take a statement from [redacted], but a decision was taken not to take a statement given he was [redacted], and the Teacher could lead him as a witness. He has provided a statement, and his oral evidence will be heard and can be considered.

The public interest is a key consideration for the Panel. GTC Scotland has a duty to regulate Teachers and maintain teaching standards, protect children and young people, all of which sit at the heart of its rules. The allegations were serious and merited a full hearing to test the reliability and credibility of the evidence.  

The Panel would hear evidence from four GTC Scotland witnesses, together with the Teacher and [redacted]. It could make its own assessment of the evidence and the weight to attach to it. It was not unfair or disproportionate to hear the case, with there being no serious procedural irregularity identified by the Teacher.  

The Panel was accordingly invited to refuse case cancellation and allow the hearing to proceed.  

Private session to discuss questions for parties

The Panel discussed case cancellation guidance, being mindful that it should not be a vehicle for a party to re-run the panel consideration outcome. The material relied upon by the Teacher was not new information.  

The advice from the Legal Assessor was that the decision was a discretionary one for the Panel. It had heard from parties, and the Panel must be satisfied that case cancellation is both in accordance with the general objective and it is in the public interest to do so, the test being conjunctive. The Panel’s attention was directed to the general objective at rule 1.3.7 and 1.3.8 of GTC Scotland’s 2017 Rules.

The task for the Panel was a weighing up or balancing exercise, with the application capable of being made at any stage of the proceedings (Rule 3.4.1). The advice to the Panel was that, in terms of the practice statement, there were no prescribed list of circumstances. The Panel should have regard to the considerations outlined in paragraph 2.4 of the practice statement.

The case cancellation application should not be used as a means by which a party seeks to re-run the Panel Consideration stage and the Panel should be mindful of the guidance in this practice statement when addressing such applications as at the Panel Consideration stage, the Panel will have taken into account the evidence available to it, including any response provided by the Teacher, and made a decision that a full hearing is required.    

Further, the Panel must have regard to the public interest, in addition to the general objective and consider Section 5.3 of the practice statement.

Finally, the Panel was advised that the Teacher’s Representative’s submission that Section 15 of Equality Act 2010 had been breached, was a matter for proof and not apposite for consideration. The submission was vague and the Panel was cautioned on the weight to attach to it.

In public session, the Panel addressed that it had no questions for parties, but it invited comment on the legal advice tendered to Panel in private session, which the Legal Assessor outlined. The Presenting Officer had no comments, with the Teacher’s Representative’s position being that there was an ongoing duty for GTC Scotland to comply with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

Decision – case cancellation

The Panel fully considered the Rules and practice statement, recognising the discretionary nature of the application. It was mindful not to re-open the panel consideration.

The Panel paid close regard to Rules 1.3.7 & 1.3.8 and the general objectives of dealing with cases flexibly, fairly, and proportionately.  

In making that assessment, the Panel reviewed whether there was an insufficiency of evidence to proceed with the case, on the face of it, in the evidence in the witness statements, GTC Scotland statements and PKC disciplinary outcome. It had regard to the additional evidence lodged, in particular [redacted] statement.  

Nonetheless, in the round, there was a sufficiency of evidence, and it would not be unfair or disproportionate to allow the case to proceed in light of the information available to the Panel at this point.  

The Panel further considered that if the allegations, if proved, could reasonably be said to amount to a current impairment, in particular submitting grades without supporting evidence and not in line with SQA standards. The Panel could not conclude that the allegations if proven could not amount to current impairment and it was mindful that a panel consideration had considered it could amount to an impairment.

The [redacted] relied upon did not disclose new information which was not founded upon or available at the panel consideration stage. Nor was it advanced for the Teacher that [redacted] the case should not proceed. She intended to give evidence. In any event, the [redacted] mitigating factors relied upon would be relevant for the purposes of stage two.

In terms of public interest, the Panel considered section 5.3 of the case cancellation practise statement and in particular to declare and uphold teaching standards and maintaining confidence in the regulator; maintenance of the public’s confidence in registrants; and the teaching profession; and militated in favour of refusing the case cancellation application.

The Panel considered the Teacher’s Representative’s submission that GTC Scotland had breached Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 in its investigation. The Panel did not consider there was a serious procedural irregularity, nor that there was an error of law which had a material effect on the case. It considered that any allegation of a breach of Section 15 could be relevant to stage 2 considerations, and the submission was a mixed question of fact and law on which evidence would have to be led. In regard to this, a case cancellation would not be appropriate or proportionate at this stage.

Finally, the Panel considered whether there was any other matter which has had or could have a material and profound impact on the fair running of the hearing. In this regard, it was mindful of [redacted] additional evidence. This was before the Panel. However, the absence of his evidence in person would not have a profound or material impact on the hearing. Its view was that it would be hearsay and legal advice would be taken regarding the weight to attach to it at the appropriate point in the proceedings.

In public session, parties were advised that the case cancellation was refused, with reasons to follow in writing, which they duly are now.

Allegation 1(a)(ii) which may be admitted if a form of wording could be agreed  

The Panel raised with parties whether there was a further preliminary matter over amending one of the allegations. The Presenting Officer confirmed there was no amendment from her perspective.  

The Teacher’s Representative confirmed that allegation 1(a)(i) was admitted. The Teacher was willing to admit 1(a) (i). Whilst its wording was problematic, she would admit it for expediency.

His position was that allegation 1(a) (ii) would be admitted if the wording ‘the relevant standard of’ was included between ‘course’ and ‘evidence’.

The Presenting Officer confirmed that discussions had taken place between the parties over an amendment to the allegation. GTC Scotland was not suggesting that there was no evidence at all but appreciated that may lead to an ambiguity into the reading of the allegation. The proposed amendment by the Teacher could change the flavour of the allegation to it being changed to competency instead of honesty. The Presenting Officer opposed that particular amendment. She had proposed including ‘the’ between ‘without’ and ‘evidence’ in the allegation.

The Teacher’s Representative was not aware of evidence speaking to the deliberate submission of a higher grade knowing it merited a lower grade. The point here was that the Teacher has not followed the 2021/22 SQA procedure. He disputed that the evidence would speak to intention/deliberate actions. However, if the Panel was not in agreement, then the Teacher would accept the Presenting Officer’s proposed amendment.

Legal advice was tendered to the Panel that it should have regard to Rule 2.8.4. This was a discretionary decision, and Panel should consider the factors in that rule over relevance and fairness. The Panel may consider that it needs to hear the evidence before it can form a view on whether to amend the allegations and it may wish to consider the utility of an amendment and whether there would be a time saving in accepting the allegations as amended.

The Panel considered the parties applications in private session. It took legal advice on whether altering the wording would aid in the efficient dealing of the case, which was a matter for the Panel to consider in accordance with the general objective, rule 1.3.8. The evaluation and weighting of evidence was a matter for the Panel and the wording could be read either way, conduct, or competence, which would be a determination made by the Panel on the evidence.  

The Panel resolved to refuse the Teacher’s Representative’s proposed amendment. In terms of the Presenting Officer’s proposed amendment, the Panel was not minded to amend allegation 1(a)(ii) as it stood but that it may revisit it under rule 2.8.4 at a later point in the proceedings.

Allegations

The allegations were read into the record by the Presenting Officer. The allegations were as follows:

1. Whilst employed by Perth and Kinross Council as a Principal Teacher at Perth Academy, the Teacher did: 
   
   • (a) On or around 20 April 2022:  
     
     • (i) submit grades to the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) for pupils undertaking the National 5 practical woodworking course without the practical activity being marked and verified in line with SQA standards before submission.  
     • (ii) submit grades to the SQA for pupils undertaking the National 5 practical woodworking course without evidence from the practical activity to support the grades submitted at that time; and 
     • (iii) invite pupils to come into school to complete their projects after the marks had been submitted to the SQA in order that the practical activity warranted the marks given and submitted to the SQA. 
   • (b) On or around 30 May 2022 complete the practical activity assessment records for pupils undertaking the National 5 practical woodworking course to justify the marks that the Teacher entered on the Internal Assessment Mark forms on 19 April 2022, which were then submitted to the SQA on 20 April 2022.
2. The Teacher’s actions at allegations at 1(a) and (b) were dishonest or, in the alternative, lacking in integrity. 

And in light of the above it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired, and she is unfit to teach as a result of breaching Parts 1.4, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 3.1 and 3.2 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC). 

Teacher’s admissions

The Teacher admitted allegation 1(a) (i). Allegation 1(a)(ii) was admitted by the Teacher on day two of evidence. Allegation 1(a)(iii) was denied. Allegation 1(b) was admitted to the point of the word ‘course’.

Allegation 2 was denied.

Impairment to teach was denied.

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers  

1. Presenting Officer’s Case Form, dated 26 May 2025  
2. Local Authority Investigation Report, dated August 2022 with appendices:  
3. Appendix 1 – Commissioning Officers letter to the Teacher (not dated)  
4. Appendix 2 – Note of an initial discussion with [Witness 1] and the Teacher, dated 12 May 2022  
5. Appendix 3 – Note of meeting with the Teacher, dated 17 June 2022  
6. Appendix 4 – Note of meeting with [Witness 4], dated 23 June 2022  
7. Appendix 5 – Note of meeting with [Witness 1], dated 23 June 2022  
8. Appendix 6 – Note of meeting with [Witness 3]], dated 24 June 2022  
9. Appendix 7 – Email communications between [redacted] and [Witness 2], dated 24 June 2022  
10. Appendix 8 – Email communications between [Witness 1] and [Witness 3], dated 7 June 2022  
11. Appendix 9 – Email communication between [Witness 1] and the Teacher, dated 11 and 12 May 2022  
12. Appendix 10 – Email communication from [Witness 4] (dates not clear)  
13. Appendix 11 – Email communication from [Witness 1], dated 6, 17, 27 May and 24 June 2022  
14. Appendix 12 – Internal Assessment Mark Form and N5 Practical Woodwork Assessment Records  
15. Appendix 13 – Teacher’s Timetable  
16. Appendix 14 – Perth and Kinross Disciplinary Procedures for Teachers  
17. Letter from [redacted], Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) at Perth and Kinross Council to the Teacher advising of outcome of Disciplinary Hearing, dated 12 January 2023  
18. Teacher’s response to Notice of Investigation and appendix, dated 2 June 2023  
19. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of [Witness 1], dated January 2024  
20. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of [Witness 3], dated February 2024  
21. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of [Witness 2], dated June 2024  
22. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of [redacted], dated August 2024  
23. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of [Witness 4], dated September 2024  
24. SQA National 5 Practical Woodworking Course Specification  
25. SQA National 5 Practical Woodworking Practice Activity  
26. SQA National 5 Practical Woodworking: Practical Activity Candidate logbook  
27. SQA Guidance on conditions of assessment for coursework  
28. SQA National 5 Practical Woodworking NQ Verification 2021-2022 Summary Report  
29. SQA National 5 Practical Woodworking Course Report 2022  
30. SQA Malpractice Panel Decision Letter, dated 31 October 2022  
31. Further response from Teacher, dated 14 January 2025  

Teacher’s hearing papers

1. Teacher’s Case Form, dated 13 June 2025  
2. Statement of [redacted], dated 27 August 2025  

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers  

1. Notice of Full Hearing, dated 10 December 2025 with cover email and delivery receipt  
2. Privacy Decision, dated 22 September 2025
3. Remote Hearing Decision, dated 6 August 2025
4. Signed Joint Minute, [redacted] statement

Summary of the evidence

Witness – [Witness 1]

The first witness was [Witness 1]. She is employed as [redacted]. She had been registered with GTC Scotland for 31 years. She identified her signed witness statement and read this statement into the evidence, confirming that it remained true and accurate.

She had been a qualified teacher since 1996. She was employed by PKC at Perth Academy at the time of the allegations. She took over the role [redacted] at Perth Academy in January 2021 where she [redacted] the Teacher. The Teacher’s role was principal teacher in Technology and Art which consisted of line managing staff in the department and being responsible for all aspects of leadership and management of the department. This included overseeing all aspects relating to SQA procedures for senior phase subjects. The SQA co-ordinator who was [Witness 4] at that time, oversaw all the school’s procedures and administration related to SQA.

Her role was to manage department heads, support with staffing issues, and deal with any concerns. She met with the link principal teachers every two weeks and discussed reporting. Her role was to facilitate their work, and she spoke to trying to attend the department as often as possible and met with the Teacher weekly to support her. The Teacher had spent fourteen years as a principal teacher, and [Witness 1] had no concerns over her understanding of SQA processes.

The department worked collegiately together and would just get on with things. They would contact her if they needed to but did not and had not raised anything over the SQA marking but did raise other things, which was not elaborated on in her evidence.

There was no acting principal teacher put in place during the Teacher’s [redacted] due to the short-term periods involved. It was normal practice for the technology team to act in a collegiate manner to include covering classes and overtake essential tasks. When the Teacher returned in January 2022 the timetable was amended to remove her from teaching certificated classes. This was to support her return and to ensure that the learners had a teacher in front of them in the lead up to their exams.  

[Witness 1] explained that there were no reported concerns relating to the SQA regarding the Teacher prior to the allegations. She had first become aware of the allegations on 29 April 2022. She attended a one to one with the Teacher who informed her that she had to speak to [Witness 2], Principal Teacher of Guidance, about a learner who required to finish their National 5 Practical Woodwork.  

She recalled that they were a learner who did not attend often. She mentioned submission of a green form which [Witness 1] presumed to be estimated marks and therefore this did not raise any initial alarm. She accepted that she did not know what a green form was as she was not familiar with it. She then became aware of learners who were going on study leave and noticed that the practical woodworking classes were marked as completed. This caused her to question whether all learners had fully completed the course, given her earlier conversation with the Teacher. This prompted her to ask the SQA coordinator, [Witness 4], what data had been recorded on the green form for practical woodworking as she was becoming concerned about the processes.

[Witness 4] confirmed that the green form was the final grade. This information was relayed to the headteacher who instructed [Witness 1] to speak with the Teacher about the SQA grading process. [Witness 1] then met with the Teacher on 12 May 2022, who had prior notice of the meeting given her [redacted].

During that meeting [Witness 1] asked the Teacher if she had submitted the learner’s final grade, to which she responded she had, adding, ‘I have put my neck on the line for him’. When asked what she meant by this the Teacher’s reply was, ‘I would be in trouble if verified. He has 2 more hours work to do’.  

When asked by the Presenting Officer if the Teacher’s comment had been made as a joke, [Witness 1] confirmed that it was not said in a joking fashion, it was said deadpan. When asked whether the Teacher had explained what would happen if the learner did not finish, [Witness 1] explained that the Teacher’s response was not clear, and she had not fully answered the question.  

This point was returned to in cross-examination that if the notes had been shared with the Teacher, then any inaccuracies could have been corrected. [Witness 1]’s position remained that the quote was ‘not inaccurate’.

The Teacher had explained that the learner’s mark was 65 out of 70 which was an A. She asked if the learner had completed the assessed work now and the Teacher replied that the work was not finished and still required to be assembled. When asked by [Witness 1] what mark the learner would receive based on the current situation the Teacher’s position was that he would receive a mark of 56 and they would be dropped down to grade B, with the Teacher confirming that the learner had not been in to complete the work. The Teacher confirmed to [Witness 1] that the grade was based on what the learner would achieve by the end of the course. No learner had finished and she did not consider she had done anything wrong.  

[Witness 1] typed notes from that meeting which were relayed to the headteacher, confirming in oral evidence that no copy was provided to the Teacher. [Witness 1]’s concern was that the Teacher had submitted a final mark for a learner who had not completed the work and therefore she did not have the evidence to support the submission to the SQA of this mark.

All teachers were expected to keep themselves fully up to date with SQA procedures relating to their subjects. There was also an SQA website which contains various documents which teachers should access. Teachers have a responsibility to be checking that they are making sure they are following all SQA guidelines. The Teacher had advised [Witness 1] on 23 February 2022 during a one-to-one session that the S4 classes were ‘doing well’ and when she returned to work in March 2022, she did not raise any concerns with the marking or verification process.  

Human Resources (HR) began an internal investigation due to the concerns raised. [Witness 1] prepared a statement together with details of the study leave days and dates of the Teacher’s [redacted]. The Teacher provided a list of learners who had not completed the practical work, with the Teacher being notified that the SQA was to attend the school to review the National 5 practical woodworking models and assessment records.

She then received an email from the Teacher on 24 June 2022 which read:  

‘Department staff should not access these forms in advance, so can they be kept with you with no staff access until the SQA come in please as this is not meant to be discussed.’

She found that email concerning as all department staff should be involved in moderation of the marks. HR confirmed, having liaised [redacted], Perth Grammar School and former Technology teacher, that it would not be normal to keep the internal assessment mark form and the Practical Activity Assessment sheets from the faculty team. [Witness 1] relayed this to the headteacher.

Earlier, on 7 June 2022 she had received an email from [Witness 3], Technology Teacher, in which he raised further concerns with the chronological events of the marking. He advised that after the Easter break, he was asked by the Teacher to help with marking for woodworking. The email received from [Witness 3] dated 7 June 2022 was in the following terms:

‘‘i felt it would be useful for me to put a chronological order of the ‘marking’ events surrounding this year’s Woodworking.’

Not sure of the date but likely the second week after the Easter Break - At the beginning of P2 was asked to help with marks for woodworking - I believed at the time that this was to be the initial 'ballpark' marking. In previous schools, we’ve always 'taken stock' so that an overview was achieved. From this initial marking, we can see the potential marks and where we have pupils off track. From this it was determined that [redacted] was the biggest risk, having partial evidence (although high quality).  

Approximately half of the shared wood class had already been looked at by the other teacher and I looked at the rest of the class along with the 4 from my class.

At this session, there were no learner mark sheets, drawings or marking scheme provided during the 15-minute exercise - it was just a quick run through. Julie pencilled the marks into EX6 form and we looked at the potential for the pupil if they were to complete the task before study leave began.

No cross marking or verification took place and I am not aware of any additional marking having taken place since. [The Teacher] made me aware of a formal investigation into the marking on Thursday 26th May.

On Monday 30th May the learner mark sheets were ceremoniously dumped on my desk I was told to mark the projects. As it was just the mark sheets, I requested the marking scheme and drawings from the SQA secure site and these were then printed off.

I created a folder with the mark sheets, drawings and marking scheme. These were then used to mark the projects in line with the evidence as it was presented in front of me. I then formally marked all of the projects (P1, 3, 4 and lunchtime) and it took around 3.5 hours. This is about the normal time it should take for marking around 20 projects.

Towards the end of lunchtime on the 30th, I was questioned over the marks I had awarded, ”there's a big difference between the green form marks and these” I explained that I had marked the projects at face value as they were presented in front of me.

The response was that I had agreed to the original marks, I then said I believed these to be ballpark marks on the basis that no formal marking has taken place as drawings or marking scheme were not used. This was questioned that I knew they were the final marks because they were added to the EX6 however these marks were added in pencil and were on the basis that the pupils continued working until study leave began (or EX6 deadline). I responded that I wasn't aware of when the schools EX6 deadline was. I left the staff base before any conflict began between myself and [the Teacher/redacted].

From that point, no more said of the marking.

The red folder I created with the mark sheets, drawings etc is no longer in the staff base. I assume it has been securely stored.’

Day 2  

There were no preliminary matters and [Witness 1] resumed giving evidence.

In cross-examination, she accepted that it was her responsibility to manage departments under her remit when the principal teacher was [redacted], together with it being her responsibility also to keep up with SQA requirements. She sought to explain that the Teacher had been supported on her return to work by a quiet space to work having been provided and the timetable having been changed to avoid the Teacher delivering certified course, including the National 5 woodwork course, leaving the Teacher to focus on managing the department.  

It was put to her in cross-examination that knowing the upcoming SQA deadline of 22 April 2022 and that the Teacher had been [redacted], why had she not asked the Teacher if she needed support. Her position was that she trusted the Teacher to be on track and, if she was not, then she would have told her. When it was put to her (without evidential foundation) that it was a common trait for [redacted]not to ask for help her response was that the Teacher would ask for help and had not asked for an extension to the SQA submission date as she had told [Witness 1] in February 2022 that she was on track.

The SQA’s terms of reference for its investigation were put to the witness who confirmed that she was not involved in the SQA investigation, only the school investigation where she had provided a statement to [Witness 4], together with Human Resources in respect of the Teacher’s disciplinary investigation. She agreed that the SQA report had found no evidence of malpractice.  

In response to questions from the Panel, the witness confirmed having not directed the Teacher to any professional development opportunities. She had not thought this necessary given the Teacher’s level of experience.

Witness – [Witness 4]

The second witness was [Witness 4]. In advance of her evidence being heard, the Presenting Officer sought permission for a union representative for the witness to be allowed to observe. The Teacher’s Representative had no difficulty with that as the privacy aspect concerning the [redacted].

[Witness 4] is employed as [redacted]. She has been registered with GTC Scotland since 2006. She identified her signed witness statement and read this statement into the evidence, confirming that it remained true and accurate.

She qualified as a teacher in 2006, working at Perth Academy since August 2020. Her current role was [redacted]which involved leadership and management of link departments, strategic direction of the school, supporting young people and their families. She had been the school’s [redacted] at the time of the allegations. That role was to disseminate information from the SQA to the Principal Teachers for each department throughout the year including exam diets and any submission deadlines. The role was a liaison type role between the SQA and the school.  

She first met the Teacher when she had taken over the role of [redacted] at Perth Academy. There was infrequent contact between them as [Witness 4] was not the Teacher’s [redacted]. She would communicate with the Teacher when providing SQA information. Typically, the key SQA dates would be received in September, however, it could be updated throughout the year. [Witness 4] prepared a document personalising the key dates for the school and provided the same to all principal teachers. Dates were provided in the document for the principal teachers to provide submissions for their department, and dates for those submissions to then be provided to [Witness 4], for her to then submit the submissions to the SQA.

The Internal Assessment Mark Forms (or green sheets) were the marking forms used for the National 5 woodworking subject. There had been changes to the SQA process in 2022 due to the Covid pandemic. In 2022, there was no written examination for National 5 woodworking, and the grade was based solely on the practical assessment. The learners would make a model based on what the SQA told them. There was a fixed criteria for making the model and a number of hours taken to make the model, which is provided by the SQA. When the model is finished, it is marked and verified by another teacher or teachers, with the teacher provided with an SQA document providing advice for marking. This is to ensure that the marks are given fairly and accurately across all classes.

The Teacher had been [redacted] prior to the allegations, with the witness liaising with [Witness 3], another teacher in the department. Both [Witness 3] and the Teacher were emailed on 1 April 2022 concerning the submission of the green sheets. [Witness 3] attended the principal teachers meeting called on 21 March 2022 about SQA information and some subsequent other emails in March regarding deadlines and other SQA information.

The Teacher signed the green sheet on 19 April 2022, taking responsibility for those marks as the principal teacher. The Teacher and [Witness 3] were both present during the final marking stage of the learner’s work. The learners ’s models had been marked and moderated by the Teacher, [redacted], [redacted], and [Witness 3].  

The SQA provided webinars and training events throughout the year to which teachers can sign up. There was also a network, the Subject Network, which allows teachers to discuss any queries or issues they may have and to allow schools to moderate between each other to ensure standards are being followed. Prior to the allegations, she did not receive nor did she have any concerns regarding the Teacher.

She became aware of an issue that learners had come into school to work on their models after the deadline for submitting marks. This was on 27 May 2022. By this point, the green sheets had been sent to the SQA therefore the learners’ marks could not be changed. She was asked to investigate this by the headteacher as concern arose as to why learners were working on models after a deadline. The green sheets had been provided to her by the Teacher on 20 April 2022, which she then submitted to the SQA. By May 2022, there should have been no catching up or finishing models for SQA purposes.

Her understanding was that the learners’ work was assessed and verified before the final marks were placed on the green sheets and signed by the principal teacher. The Teacher’s position was that learners had come into the school to work on their models after this, however, this did not go towards their grade. The witness had been advised that the purpose of this was to allow learners to finish their models to make them look good for going home, with the marking being based on models which were not finished.

The SQA were contacted by the witness to make them aware of the school’s concerns. [Witness 4] was not part of those discussions but understood that the concern arose in respect of more than one learner. The SQA specialist team attended the school in June 2022 to review all of the documentation and look at the learners’ models. The learners’ models, logbooks, and assessment records were considered, and staff spoken to about the marking process and learners’ work.

The SQA officers then met with the witness to explain their findings. They could not find any evidence of the marks being completed retrospectively. The marking matched up with the marking criteria. There was nothing untoward or concerning and that the marking was to standard. The SQA had found that the Teacher had used the previous year’s assessment approach when marking the models. However, as the marking took a holistic approach, this did not mean the marks were incorrect. This outcome led to the precautionary suspension of certification applied to the cohort of candidates being lifted for certification of the grades to proceed. The witness was not made aware of the SQA’s finding on the centre’s malpractice until several years later.

[Witness 4] had, alongside PKC’s Quality Improvement Officer, investigated the allegations over whether the learners had completed the work retrospectively. The outcome of the investigation, which ran concurrently with the SQA process, did not find evidence to support the allegations. She described the technology and design department as being unstable due to high numbers of staff absence.

In response to questioning from the Presenting Officer, [Witness 4] confirmed that no issues had been raised about the National 5 woodworking course and she had no concerns over the Teacher’s ability to comply with the SQA processes. She was an experienced, confident teacher and had never caused the witness to think otherwise.  

The witness was also asked if the Teacher’s approach followed SQA’s guidance. Her response was that it had not, as the grade should have been based on the final model alone, not prior work. The SQA advised her that the approach did not affect the grades. They were, in her evidence, very clear on that, which is why the suspension of certification was lifted.  

In cross-examination, it was put to [Witness 4] that the Teacher faced an allegation of dishonesty. She was asked whether the Teacher had been dishonest or whether she could have made a genuine error. She viewed the Teacher as having made a genuine error. The SQA found that the malpractice related to the correct assessment approach not being followed, which was a ‘different thing’ to whether cheating had occurred.

When responding to Panel questioning, the witness wished to add comment on matters which had not been addressed. She was permitted to do so and gave further evidence that on her return to the school she discovered that the headteacher had made track changes to her investigation report. [Witness 4] was also not permitted to speak to [Witness 1] as she was unhappy with the investigation report findings, with [Witness 4] having to attend mediation with [Witness 1] before she could be fully part of the school’s senior leadership team.  

When asked to clarify what she meant by unhappy by the Presenting Officer, the witness explained that [Witness 1] was concerned that [redacted] still worked at the school and how that would be viewed. The witness suggested that there had been other matters involving [Witness 1] but did not elaborate on this. [Witness 1]’s concern was whether it would be her versus [Witness 4] on opposing sides. In mediation, she explained to [Witness 1] that it had not been a personal decision. It was a matter of professional judgment, with [Witness 1] viewing the outcome as undermining her, given it was she who had brought the allegation.  

Second Case cancellation application

A second case cancellation application was made by the Teacher’s Representative on conclusion of [Witness 4]’s evidence. His submission was that it was a ‘huge waste’ of the public purse and GTC Scotland’s members’ money to continue this case. It was deeply unfair to the Teacher, and he re-iterated the submission that it was a ‘cover up’ by PKC. The case should be cancelled. If not, then allegation 1(a) (iii) should be deleted, the amendment sought in allegation 1(a)(ii) be inserted and allegation 2 removed.

The Presenting Officer sought time to consider the submission, noting that there were still further witnesses to speak to the allegations. The Panel granted her application for a short adjournment.

In private session, the Legal Assessor’s advice to the Panel was to bear in mind the general objectives in rules 1.3.7 & 1.3.8, together with paragraph 3.3.1 of the practice statement when turning its mind to the question of case cancellation. This advice was re-iterated in public session.

Post-adjournment, the Presenting Officer’s response was that the position remains as she adopted at the start of the case. The Panel was invited to refuse the application. The Presenting Officer accepted that [Witness 4] had expanded upon her statement and provided information not available to GTC Scotland. However, there remained still evidence and evidence from witnesses to come to support the allegations. It was for the Panel to assess the reliability and credibility of the witnesses.  

The Panel was directed to rule 3.3.1 and the Presenting Officer adopted her earlier submissions from the case cancellation application on day one. It was not unfair or disproportionate to allow the hearing to proceed and for the Panel to then consider the evidence.  

The Presenting Officer did not propose to amend the allegations. It may be for Panel to amend allegations once all witness evidence had been heard and GTC Scotland may wish to amend the allegations on conclusion of the evidence.

The Teacher’s Representative responded that the issue was whether the allegations support an impairment or that the Teacher was unfit to teach. GTC Scotland had failed to support a teacher with [redacted], and she was working in a department with issues. She had made a mistake which was accepted. The Panel was again reminded that the SQA report spoke to systemic failings not blaming one individual. The Teacher had lost her job and career. The Teacher’s Representative considered it to be outrageous that the allegations were not being amended, describing it as a disgrace.  

His position was that allegation 1(a)(i) was admitted and (ii) was admitted. The Panel was invited to amend the wording of the allegation once it had heard all the evidence. However, it was admitted regardless of whether the Panel re-worded it.

Private session

The Panel considered the representations made in private session, noting that serious issues had been raised by the Teacher’s Representative that the case was a ‘witch hunt’ and a ‘cover up’ by PKC.  

However, the Panel had not heard from [Witness 3] or [Witness 2] for GTC Scotland. It had not had the opportunity to consider the reliability and credibility of the witnesses. The Panel noted that allegations 1(a) (i) and (ii) were now admitted. It had evidence from [Witness 1] speaking to the allegations. It had regard to [Witness 3]’s written statement, which was at odds with [Witness 4]’s oral evidence. The Panel considered that this gave rise to an evidential issue which needed to be resolved.  

The Panel considered the general objective to deal with cases fairly and justly which would favour hearing the evidence and it being a matter for the Panel to weigh the evidence and assess the reliability and credibility of the witnesses. It would serve the general objective of giving proper consideration of the issues to allow evidence to be led. It was not in the public interest to accept the case cancellation, and it was not appropriate to cancel the case at this point.  

The Panel next considered the application to amend allegation 1(a)(iii). [Witness 4] had given her evidence on this point, but Panel had not heard from [Witness 3] or the Teacher to form a view on the issue.

The Panel was given legal advice that the allegations 1(a)(i) and (ii) were not accurate as Teacher did not herself submit grades to the SQA. It was a matter for the Panel if and when it may choose to amend the allegations.

Public session

The Legal Assessor re-iterated the advice that the allegations 1(a)(i) and (ii) are not accurate as the Teacher did not herself submit grades to the SQA. It is a matter for the Panel if and when it may choose to amend the allegations.

The Teacher’s Representative remained of the view that allegation 1(a)(ii) was not accurate without the insertion of the four words proposed.  

Having carefully considered matters, the Panel refused the case cancellation application. Further, it refused the application to amend the allegations at this stage but that would be revisited before submissions on findings in fact.

Witness – [Witness 3]

The third witness was [Witness 3]. He had been registered with GTC Scotland since 2005. He identified his signed witness statement and read this statement into the evidence, confirming that it remained true and accurate.

At the time of the allegations, he was a teacher in the Design and Technology department.

The Teacher had been his line manager, responsible for day to day running of the department. [redacted] until March 2022 with there being no direct departmental management aside from the link depute headteacher. He was not asked to be acting principal teacher and did not take on any of her duties. However, the department largely pulled together to help communicate what was going on and put things like course materials together. In cross-examination he clarified that he could not recall if he had been asked to be acting principal teacher.

His working relationship with the Teacher was not particularly positive. [redacted], [redacted], also worked in the department, with it being difficult to raise any issues or concerns. He found it a difficult dynamic in which to work as the Teacher would not speak to him as a colleague but instead would seek to attribute blame if things went wrong. He had not interacted with her frequently due to her [redacted]  and the fact she did not hold regular department meetings.

[Witness 3] had been concerned about learners’ progress toward their courses prior to the allegations. In 2022 the grades were marked solely on the practical project and typically the head of the department would meet with the teachers to discuss the progress of the learner and what work had to be done to ensure projects were completed on time. That discussion did not take place.

He confirmed that the marking should be completed using SQA criteria and then verified following the department verification procedure. The EX6 form (the green sheet) would then be submitted once marked to the SQA. He described the marking process taking time and being a huge process. The assessment form was the detailed marking broken into detailed sections, for example also independence in work, cutting stages etc. It contains the teacher’s comments in there as well. Whereas the EX6 comprised a single mark with the final grade to be submitted to the SQA.

On return from the Easter break he was asked by the Teacher to look at some of the models and get an idea of the marks at that stage. Eight or nine projects were reviewed but he could not look at more because it was halfway through a period, and he had a class straight afterward. He spent 20-25 minutes on the models, describing it as an initial discussion on the grades the learners would achieve if they assembled the projects. He could not recall being asked if he was happy with the marks. He would have had to see them to agree, and full marking of the projects would have to have been completed with the marking criteria, which was not available to him at that point.  

This was an initial marking exercise and not the official final mark of the learners’ work as the assessment record would also need to be reviewed and both then verified before final marking.

[Witness 3] became aware of issues with the marking of learners’ projects at the end of May 2022. The Teacher advised him that the SQA was looking at the marking for the National 5 woodworking course. He was aware that the SQA could verify the internal marking at any point and that the department held onto evidence in case this occurred. He was not particularly concerned at that point as he had assumed that the Teacher had gone through the official marking criteria and assessment records and submitted her marks.  

When asked by the Presenting Officer if teachers had been sent information to guide them through the SQA process he could not say. He had not seen any guidance but was aware that he could log into the SQA’s secure site to obtain marking guidance. SQA deadlines would normally be discussed at a departmental meeting, or a reminder would be sent from a whole school perspective, with the SQA coordinator communicating that.

He then described the Teacher ‘dumping’ assessment records onto his desk, instructing him to mark them. He believed it was related to the SQA investigation. He marked the projects using the SQA drawings and criteria with the evidence in front of him. The exercise was not a large one, considering how small his class was, and the fact attendance was so poor.

In carrying out the marking exercise, none of the learners had logbooks available, which were worth 15 out of 70 marks. There were logbooks completed but despite searching he could not locate them. He had left the assessments on his desk and when returning into the staff base, the Teacher and her husband were looking through the folder with the assessments. They questioned him as to the difference in the marks. [Witness 3] explained that he marked the evidence that was in front of him. He did not question the Teacher’s marking of the projects as it could have been completed at a point he was unaware of.  

Given the working environment, he did not feel he could question anything and, if he had, that would have caused him problems, so he had to put up with things. He only discussed absences when [Witness 1] visited the department to check if staff were on track and had things in place. She told him that the department was not running well. He spoke to trying and keep her updated on where the department stood, particularly with senior learners. He spoke with [Witness 1] and was advised that an investigation was ongoing and that the SQA were verifying the marking of the projects.

[Witness 3] spoke to laying out the projects for the SQA investigation. He was not aware of any feedback or response from the SQA following their visit. At some point in August 2022, the Teacher advised him that the SQA had confirmed everything was fine and he accepted this. The Teacher shortly thereafter went on sick leave again. He then became aware of an internal investigation, providing a statement to human resources, with a further meeting with the Teacher and Human Resources. Thereafter, he had no further involvement with the investigation.

In cross-examination it was put to him that he had been copied into emails concerning SQA deadlines and had attended an internal SQA meeting. He could not recall this, given the passage of time but did recall receiving some emails over SQA matters.

He was asked in cross-examination what the Teacher should have done differently in the marking process. His response was that a time could have been arranged after school. Any marking process before has been a joint process. It was also a holistic exercise against a set of assessment criteria with the ability to talk to someone over what is the standard expected. He did not consider the twenty-minute meeting with the Teacher was sufficient for that exercise.

The Teacher’s Representative then put to him the allegation that the Teacher was dishonest and lacking in integrity. He could not agree or disagree with it. He found it difficult to describe how the department operated, and you could only understand if it you had worked in that environment.  

In questions from the Panel, the witness explained that the only support from senior leadership was from [Witness 1] with whom there was not a lot of contact. The department was the furthest one from the centre of the school, so it was not visited often. In terms of the culture of the school, it had been through a period of staff shifting and it was split between different areas. There was not a huge amount of teamwork and due to the amount of cover being done in the department this had led to a lot of ill-feeling. It was described as a cliquey place where some people fitted in and others did not.  

Day 3

Witness – [Witness 2]

The next witness was [Witness 2]. She is employed as a [redacted]. She has been registered with GTC Scotland since 2005 or 2006. She identified her signed witness statement and read this into the evidence.  

In this she explained that at the time of the allegations against the Teacher, she had been [redacted] at Perth Academy. This included a [redacted]. She would receive referrals from the Teacher if there were incidents or concerns in relation to any learners. An electronic system was used for this. She explained her awareness of SQA procedures. Submission dates are important. Teachers are there to support learners to meet deadlines. If learners were behind, [Witness 2] might have been asked to become involved. She would contact the learner’s home and have a meeting to discuss how the learner might be assisted. Learners might come out of non-qualification subjects to do catch-up work, and staff might provide support in their free time. Extensions of time were a last resort. Departments generally give internal deadlines before the SQA deadline so that they can allow for leeway for students and also for staff to check and package work. Extensions beyond the SQA deadlines would be dealt with by the depute headteacher responsible for SQA. Extensions to SQA deadlines were a rare occurrence.  

The Teacher had never discussed any learners who were behind with their woodworking projects with [Witness 2], but she imagined that there will have been electronic referrals. She could not remember any specific referrals but was certain that there would have been some. The electronic referral system, known as SEEMIS, had been checked but she could not find records. The procedure she would follow when she got a referral was that she would speak to the student and contact their parent/carer to make them aware of the situation and request that they encourage their child to attend lessons. A record of this would be added to the system. Parents and carers of senior students who were behind would also be invited into the school for meetings.

The depute headteacher who has SQA on their remit is in charge of that and would regularly remind staff of the process. Work is graded, double graded, and submitted to the SQA.

Not long before the Teacher left Perth Academy, [Witness 2] became aware of ‘general rumours’ regarding an issue with the Teacher in relation to marking learners’ projects. The witness was not aware of what these were and tried not to get involved.

In supplementary questions, [Witness 2] further explained her role as [redacted]. The main crux of the job was to remove barriers to learning so that children can do as best as they can in school. Interaction with the technical department would have been through referrals on SEEMIS. She further explained how referrals on the SEEMIS system would work. A teacher would fill in an electronic form, which would go to the head of department or principal teacher, they would deal with it themselves or they would forward it to the guidance department.  

[Witness 2] would have expected departments to have the SQA guidance online. The principal teachers would attend curriculum development meetings where changes in the guidance were discussed.  

[Witness 2] was asked to explain how the SQA marking process works. She caveated this by saying that she hadn’t taught technology, but her understanding was that there was a mix of internal assessment and external exams. In relation to deadlines, each department will have different submission dates, disseminated by the head of department. All teachers are aware of deadlines in their department.  

In relation to SQA processes [Witness 2] explained that her role was to double check where people were with things. It was down to departments to raise a concern about meeting deadlines, attendance, or the like. In that situation either the department or the guidance would contact home, and have a conversation with the young person themselves, if they were attending school. Extensions to SQA deadlines would be a last resort and only if, say, a learner was extremely ill.  

[Witness 2] did not recall receiving a referral from the Teacher about learners being behind with their work, but the correct procedure would have been an electronic referral on SEEMIS to contact guidance who would speak to the learners’ home. The witness would read through the referral and follow it up, speak to the learner, and contact a parent or carer, by phone or email. She would note what she did on SEEMIS.  

The witness was taken to email correspondence which had been copied into pastoral notes. She recognised this. In the email it stated that a learner had been missing a lot of woodwork lessons. [Witness 2] was asked what she remembered about this scenario. [Witness 2] was not able to assist in any great detail as the learner’s name had been redacted on the document shown to her. She was asked if the information in the email would be accurate, and she said it would be (although she had no recollection of it, a slight contradiction that was put to her in cross examination).  

[Witness 2] was asked if she was aware of the SQA deadlines on the woodworking course in the relevant year. She had no idea. She noted that the email referred to finishing up on 16 May, so that might be the deadline, but she didn’t know. She was asked why a learner would come in after an SQA deadline. She said that woodwork takes a lot of time to finish the work, it would never be left until the deadline day. The witness was asked why a learner might be asked to come in after an SQA deadline. She didn’t know.  

The Teacher’s Representative asked [Witness 2] if Perth and Kinross Council could have accessed a SEEMIS referral made by the Teacher. She was pretty sure that they could. She was taken to an email from [redacted], [redacted] at the time, to the staff of the school, dated 31 March 2022. She was asked to read a paragraph which stated:

‘S4 timetable

In a change to previous years’ arrangements, once exam leave starts the s4 timetable will continue during study leave for those doing less than 3 Nat 5s. If someone on your class list has not secured attainment in your subject, this may be due to poor attendance however we can still provide extra support to try to get them into school to complete a qualification at an appropriate level. Departments should work with Alix and the House teas to target these pupils and get them into school to secure attainment in your subject at an appropriate level’.

She was asked if Pupil A fell into the category described. She agreed, from the material she had seen. She was asked when exam leave started. Usually this started a week or a few days after the easter holidays. When the email was sent, the instruction was to get learners into school. The witness was asked how easy this would be. She said that once you start talking about deadlines, often the penny drops with a child or a parent the penny drops, kids who have not been attending start coming in to get through last minute qualifications. The witness was taken to extracts from the SEEMIS notes, dated 2 May 2022 and 17 May 2022 which stated (with redactions as per the document put to the witness):

‘2/5/22 – I emailed mum asking her to get [redacted] in. See the following email:

Dear [redacted]

I hope you are well. I was hoping to catch [redacted] this morning as I wanted to speak to him about Woodwork but he’s not in his period 3 class. Would it be possible for you to ask him to attend his Woodworking lessons this week/next few weeks to finish off his National 5 in Woodwork, otherwise he won’t achieve that award which would be a real shame. [The Teacher] has been asking after him and would like to see him as soon as possible as time is running short.

If you have any concerns or questions please let me know.

Kind Regards

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]’

‘17/5/22 – I emailed mum to confirm that [the Teacher] had reported that [redacted] had achieved an A in his National 5 Woodworking qualification. [The Teacher] was very impressed with [redacted] efforts to finish up on 16th May. She said that he has a natural talent in woodwork’.

The witness was asked if she had checked if these were accurate. She said that she did not make up the deadline and would have gone with the deadline that she had been told. She said that sometimes the deadlines are after exam leave.  

In questions from the Panel, [Witness 2] explained certain other situations she would have to deal with in the school at the relevant time. Anything where a young person is impacted emotionally could have an impact on their learning. Rumours and gossip were no worse than in any other school. She described covid measures to support learners or staff health and wellbeing.  

This was the last witness called by GTC Scotland. After this witness’s evidence concluded, the Teacher’s Representative made another case cancellation application.  

Further case cancellation application

The Teacher’s Representative asked for the submissions previously made to be taken into account. He asked the Panel to bear in mind the extraordinary times in the 2021-22 school year. He took the panel to the definitions of impairment, being unfit to teach, and the general objective of the rules. He then drew the Panel’s attention to rule 2.10.9 of the Rules which states:

‘A Panel may at any time following the referral of a case to it for a hearing decide to cancel a case (and dispose of it on that basis). Before making any such decision, a Panel must have heard from the parties on the matter and be satisfied that it is in accordance with the general objective and in the public interest to do so’.

The Teacher’s Representative submitted that GTC Scotland have now set out their case. The role of the panel based on that evidence is to assess current impairment and unfitness to teach. These thresholds cannot be met in this case. The evidence does not support the allegations and in particular allegation 2. He submitted, somewhat emotively, that it was ‘to the shame of’ GTC Scotland that they had not been able to accept the evidence before them and in refusing to accept that there was no prospect of a finding of impairment or unfitness to teach.  

The Teacher’s Representative stated that the Panel must be satisfied that cancellation is in the public interest. In this respect he submitted:

• that the teacher presents no risk to the public
• that notwithstanding there is no prospect of impairment, cancellation would be consistent with upholding the standards of the profession
• it was GTC Scotland’s continuance of the case which was putting public confidence at risk
• there was nothing in the evidence that showed that standards were not upheld
• an unfair case without evidence cannot be a deterrent

In relation to the particular allegations the Teacher’s Representative submitted that:

• while allegations 1(a)(i) and (ii) had been admitted, the evidence showed that they were not factually competent. The Teacher did not submit grades to the SQA herself
• the Teacher believed that the evidence supported the grades at the time (it should be noted that the Teacher not having given evidence at this point, this was assertion on the part of the Teacher’s Representative and not shown on the evidence heard thus far)
• responsibility for submission of the grades is with the Co-ordinator
• the Teacher [redacted]
• the allegations are not credible but more importantly they do not support any finding of impairment or being unfit to teach
• in relation to allegation (iii) the GTC Scotland case relies on the evidence of [Witness 1] but her evidence was unclear
• there was no evidence led to support allegation 1(b). There was no evidence that the Teacher completed records. There was no evidence that she had any certificate classes. The only evidence was that she asked [Witness 3] to complete the records. This was not the allegation.
• the SQA malpractice report did not find any evidence of the allegations that the Teacher is here to answer
• there is no chance on the evidence of being able to establish allegation 2
• the teacher who investigated thoroughly, [Witness 4], was clear that the Teacher had not acted dishonestly or without integrity. [Witness 1] and [Witness 3] were satisfied that the learners could be awarded the marks.

In reply, the Presenting Officer also adopted her previous submission. She invited the Panel to refuse the case cancellation application. The Panel should consider the general objective. Their overarching responsibility is to improve standards and protect the public. The Panel were directed to the case cancellation practice statement. GTC Scotland has a duty to regulate in the public interest. The protection of children and young people, their educational wellbeing, and public trust sits at the heart of fitness to teach regulation. The allegations were said to be of a serious nature. It was appropriate to hear full submissions on the facts at the conclusion of the evidential stage. Allegations 1(a)(i) and (ii) were admitted. It might be necessary to hear the evidence of the Teacher to allow the Panel to consider all of the evidence. There was a possibility that the Panel might find that the Teacher had fallen short of the standards. It was not disproportionate to continue the proceedings, and the case cancellation application should, it was submitted, be refused.

In a short, but emotive, reply, the Teacher’s Representative submitted that continuing the proceedings was ‘simply an act of retraumatising’ and it was not reasonable or proportionate to do so. She should not have to participate further in the case.

Legal advice to the Panel, which the Panel accepted, was as follows:

• case cancellation is sought under rule 2.10.9. This entitles the Panel to cancel the case having heard from the parties;
• repeated case cancellation applications might amount to an abuse of process but here there was a material change in circumstances in that the evidence for GTC Scotland was now concluded, and it was legitimate for the Teacher’s Representative to make a further application at this point
• the Panel should approach the matter afresh but also consider what might have changed since the last application which they refused  
• the Panel must be satisfied that it is in accordance with the general objective, and in the public interest to cancel the case
• strictly speaking this is not a determination of the merits of the case, but a discretionary decision under the Rules
• however, the strength of the evidence and the likelihood of a finding of impairment were relevant considerations for the Panel in the exercise of that discretion
• the Teacher’s Representative’s written submissions did not properly explain how there was disability discrimination
• the concepts of integrity and dishonesty may be capable of proof by direct evidence but also may be capable of inference from primary facts
• the core questions for the Panel should be
  
  • whether the facts of the allegations were capable of proof on the evidence that the Panel has heard, and if so to what extent; and
  • whether there is a realistic possibility that there will be a finding of impairment on that basis, and if so to what extent; and
  • whether, in light of the Panel’s views on those matters, it is fair and in the public interest to proceed further or, alternatively, to cancel the case

The Presenting Officer had no comments on the legal advice tendered. The Teacher’s Representative said that discrimination was a minor part of the argument, and that pursuing the allegations was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.  

Decision on further case cancellation application

The Panel proceeded to consider the case cancellation application

In relation to the extent to which the allegations were capable of proof on the evidence, the Panel noted the terms of rule 1.7.21 which states:

‘A Teacher may admit a fact or description of a fact and a fact or description of a fact so admitted will be treated as proved’.

As submitted by the Teacher’s Representative, noted above allegations 1(a)(i) and (ii) were admitted by the Teacher. The Panel is bound by the rules to treat these, as they have been alleged, as proved. It does not matter that the evidence may not precisely reflect the words of the allegations, or reality. For the purposes of these proceedings, as far as the allegations are admitted, they are proved as a matter of fact. In any event, the Panel did not consider that anything turns on whether grades were submitted directly to the SQA by the Teacher, or through an intermediary such as a depute headteacher as SQA administrator. The Panel took the view that based on the Teacher’s admission, allegations 1(a)(i) and (ii) are proved, without reference to any of the evidence.

In the Panel’s view, however, the evidence for allegations 1(a)(iii) was unclear, and in relation to allegation 1(b), insufficient to prove that allegation on the balance of probabilities.  

In relation to allegation 1(a)(iii), all of the evidence produced before the panel indicated that it was normal for learners to have been invited back into school to complete projects. The evidence of [Witness 2] clarified the dates on which this took place. The Panel was concerned as to where the evidential foundation was for the element of allegation 1(a)(iii) that learners were invited to come in to school ‘in order that the practical activity warranted the marks given and submitted to the SQA’. They were conscious, however, that they had not heard full submissions from the Presenting Officer on this issue and accordingly did not arrive at a concluded view in this respect.

In relation to allegation 1(b), the Panel was again concerned as to where the evidential foundation for this allegation might be found. The evidence of [Witness 3] in this connection did not, in the Panel’s view, appear to support this allegation. Again though, the Panel were conscious that they had not received full submissions from the Presenting Officer in this respect and did not arrive at a concluded view on this issue.

Turning to allegation 2, the Panel considered whether GTC Scotland had, in the evidence as a whole, presented sufficient material upon which they might be able to conclude that the Teacher had acted dishonestly or that her actions lacked integrity. In the Panel’s opinion, there was an insufficiency in the evidence in this respect. The witness [Witness 4] was clear that the Teacher had made an innocent mistake. There was insufficient evidence for the Panel to arrive at a different conclusion. There was no evidence, in the Panel’s opinion, that the Teacher had acted dishonestly. In relation to a lack of integrity, the Panel were conscious that this is a broader category than mere dishonesty (although being dishonest does demonstrate a lack of integrity). In the regulatory context, the concept of integrity is connected with the ethical standards of the teaching profession. The Panel did not consider that the evidence presented to them by GTC Scotland would allow them to conclude that the Teacher had acted with a lack of integrity, on the balance of probabilities. As far as the allegations were admitted, or might be found proved, in the Panel’s view the evidence disclosed mistakes which were either innocent or perhaps negligent; but this is different to a question of whether the Teacher’s actions lacked integrity.

The Panel went on to consider whether the allegations, if proved, would be likely to lead to a finding of impairment, or unfitness to teach. In this context the Panel was of the view that the conduct alleged was not of the highest level of seriousness, there was no sexual or violent element for example, and on the evidence, it did not appear that a learner had achieved a mark to which he was not entitled. The allegations related to a particular sequence of events and did not disclose a pattern of behaviour. The alleged conduct took place in the circumstances of the pandemic restrictions, so is not likely to be repeated, and is in any event remediable. There was no obvious risk to learners, colleagues or the wider public disclosed in the evidence. The Panel were of the view that, standing that they considered themselves unable to conclude that there had been deliberate dishonesty by the Teacher, that a finding of current impairment was unlikely in this case.

The Panel gave consideration to the submissions of the Teacher’s Representative and Presenting Officer with regard to the Rules previously stated in the earlier case cancellation applications, and the practice statement.

Overall, the Panel’s view, based on the evidence that had been presented to them by GTC Scotland, was that aside from what was admitted, it was unlikely that the allegations would be proved in their entirety on the balance of probabilities. This was particularly the position in relation to the allegation of dishonesty, which is the most serious element of the allegations. The Panel was also of the view that a finding of current impairment was unlikely, on the evidence presented to them. The Panel considered whether fairness to the regulator required the proceedings to be continued notwithstanding these identified difficulties. The Panel did not consider that this was necessary in the circumstances. GTC Scotland has had the opportunity to present all of its evidence to the Panel. The present case cancellation application had been made at the correct point, even if previous applications were premature. The Panel considered that it was in the public interest to cancel the case at this juncture. The public can have confidence in GTC Scotland in that they have been entitled to present their entire case to a Panel. The public can retain confidence in the register and the system of professional regulation in that there has been a full exposition of the evidence against the Teacher, and the Panel has formed its views upon this.  

For these reasons, the Panel decided to grant the case cancellation application.

Findings in fact

Standing the case cancellation application granted on day three, the Panel did not require to make any findings in fact.

Findings on fitness to teach

Standing the case cancellation application granted on day three, the Panel did not consider the Teacher’s fitness to teach was impaired.

Disposal

Standing the foregoing, the case cancellation application was granted which was communicated to parties in the public session. The Panel advised the Teacher that the case against her was at an end and that there would be no further action taken by GTC Scotland in relation to the allegations.

Appeal

The Teacher has the right to appeal to the Court of Session against the decision within 28 days of service of the Decision Notice, should she be so minded doing so.