Full hearing - Conduct - Laura Hislop

Definitions

Any reference in this decision to:

• “GTC Scotland” means the General Teaching Council for Scotland;
• the “Panel” means the Fitness to Teach Panel considering the case;
• the “Rules” (and any related expression) means the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them; and
• the “Register” means the GTC Scotland register of teachers.

Preliminary issues

Joint Minute of Agreement

The Parties informed the Panel that they had agreed a Joint Minute of Agreement regarding the evidence of Person A and Person B. The Parties agreed the content of the witness statements of Person A and Person B given to both GTC Scotland and to the local authority.  As the evidence was agreed, the Parties had no need to call either witness. The witness statements given to GTC Scotland were read into the record. The statements given to the local authority form part of the evidence available to the Panel.

Late Papers

The Teacher’s representative made an application to have additional papers admitted late. It was submitted that the papers were relevant to Stage 2 of the hearing in that they related to courses that the Teacher had undertaken recently and reflections that the Teacher had made. The Presenting Officer had no objection to the Panel admitting the late papers. The Panel decided to admit the late papers having regard to Rule 1.7.17 GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017. The Panel decided that the papers were relevant and that it was fair to admit the papers.

Privacy

Privacy Application in respect of Mother A and Pupil A:

On day 3 of the hearing the Presenting Officer made an application to have Pupil A and Mother A’s evidence heard in private. The Presenting Officer submitted that in terms of Rule 1.7.3(a) of the Rules, the Panel may, at any stage of proceedings, make an order with a view to preventing or restricting the public disclosure of any aspect of proceedings. A Panel may do this so far as it considers it necessary where it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so and the particular circumstances of the case outweigh the interests of the Teacher and the public in the hearing being held in public. It was submitted that the Panel was entitled to conclude that the evidence of Pupil A and Mother A would touch on both the health and private life of the witnesses. Whilst the default position is that the hearing should be in public it was submitted that a privacy order was necessary to protect Pupil A and Mother A from being identified and that such an order would allow the witnesses to give their evidence freely. The application was not opposed by the Teacher.

The Panel considered the submissions made by the Presenting Officer and the views of the Teacher. The Panel also considered the interests of the public in the hearing being held in public and Article 6. The Panel also took into account the Convention rights of Pupil A and Mother A. Both had been classified as vulnerable witnesses and Pupil A is a minor. The Panel noted that the school where the Teacher taught is a small one and that if Pupil A and Mother A’s evidence was held in public it was likely to lead to the identification of Pupil A and Mother A.

The Panel decided in the circumstances of this case that the need to protect the private life of Pupil A outweighed the interests of the public in having the evidence heard in public. The Panel decided to allow the privacy application in respect of Pupil A and Mother A’s evidence.

Privacy Application in respect of the Teacher’s evidence and Stage 1 submissions:

On Day 4 when the Teacher was due to give evidence her representative made a privacy application to have the remainder of Stage 1 of the hearing, namely the Teacher’s evidence and submissions, heard in private. The submissions mirrored those of the Presenting Officer above in that it was submitted that if the Teacher’s evidence was heard in public, then the private life of Pupil A and Mother A were likely to be part of the evidence and Pupil A may be identified. The Presenting Officer did not object to the application.

The Panel decided to allow the privacy application for the Teacher’s evidence and submissions at Stage 1 of the hearing. The Panel accepted that given the circumstances of the case there was evidence that was likely to come out that was likely to identify Pupil A. The Panel noted the public interest in the GTC Scotland proceedings being transparent but decided that Pupil A’s Article 8 rights outweighed the rights of the public in having the hearing held in public.

Amendment

On day 5 of the hearing after the evidence had been heard but before submissions at Stage 1, the Presenting Officer made an application to amend allegation 1(e) to remove the words ‘resulting in Pupil A seeing her breasts’. It was submitted that the amendment may be appropriate to reflect the oral testimony of Pupil A who said he did not see intimate parts of her body and only saw the top of her breasts. It was submitted that the mischief at the heart of the allegation, namely wearing a towel in front of Pupil A in a private room, remained the same. Further, that the Teacher had fair notice of the allegation and that the allegation was being reduced so there was no unfairness to the Teacher.

The Teacher’s representative opposed the application to amend. She submitted that Pupil A’s evidence was consistent with his statement to GTC Scotland that he did not see intimate parts of the Teacher’s body. It was submitted that the Teacher’s representative had invited GTC Scotland to amend the allegation but they chose to proceed. The allegation taken as a whole involved seeing the breast and that is what GTC Scotland had offered to prove. It was unfair on the Teacher if they were allowed to amend at such a late stage.

The Panel considered both submissions. Rule 2.8.4 of the Rules allows the Panel at any stage before making its findings in fact to amend the allegations having regard to the merits of the case and the fairness of the proceedings and if the required amendment can be made without injustice. The Panel decided that the amendment should be allowed. In reaching its decision the Panel noted that the Teacher had fair notice of the central allegation namely that she came out of the shower into the bedroom wearing a towel in the presence of Pupil A. The allegation was being amended to lessen the severity of the allegation and whilst the Panel accepted the Teacher’s representations that the amendment could have been made at an earlier stage, the Panel did not think it unfair to the Teacher that she was having to meet a lesser allegation. There were no representations to suggest that the defence would have been handled in a different way or that in some way the Teacher had been prejudiced in the way she gave her evidence by the amendment in the allegation. The Panel decided that the Teacher had not been prejudiced in the way she conducted her defence and that she had full knowledge of the central allegation. The proposed amendment made the allegation less serious and as such did not prejudice the Teacher. The Panel therefore allowed the allegation to be amended.

Request for Reasons

At the conclusion of Stage 1 the Panel read out which allegations were found proved or not. The Panel at that stage gave no reasoning as to its decision in line with FTT procedure in which the full decision is given in writing following the hearing. The Teacher’s representative submitted that it would be fair to the Teacher for the Panel to give short reasons to allow her to understand why they found allegation 1(g)(i) proved. The Panel decided that it would be fair to give reasons relating to allegation 1(g)(i). The Panel noted that the drafting of said allegation was unclear as to why, even if found proved, it was behaviour that could amount to a breach of the standards set out in the Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012 (COPAC). The Panel explained that it found that the Teacher did regularly attend the home address of Pupil A but in the context of pre-arranged visits and as part of her duties as a teacher.

Stage 3 Disposal

At Stage 2 the Panel found that the Teacher’s Fitness to Teach was impaired. On moving to Stage 3 the Teacher’s representative submitted that the Panel, given its finding of impairment, could not have regard to the totality of the disposals listed in the Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 and in the GTC Scotland Indicative Outcomes Guidance. Reference was made to AD v GTCS 2019 SC 463 (para 49). It was submitted that the Inner House of the Court of Session stated that the sanction of removal cannot be a sanction for panels unless there is a finding that the teacher is unfit to teach. It was submitted that the Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement (IOG) and the Rules as drafted under the Public Services Reform (GTC Scotland) Order 2011 were incorrect.

The Presenting Officer was asked for submissions on the point and was given overnight to take instructions given the possible consequences of the Teacher’s submissions to the Panel’s discretion in its decision making for Stage 3. The Presenting Officer submitted that the case of AD v GTCS was not binding authority for the proposition for removal not being a permitted outcome at Stage 3. It was submitted that the comments by the Inner House Judges were obiter namely the remarks are made in passing but are not binding. It was submitted that the Panel could have regard to the IOG as drafted and to the relevant factors set out for Stage 3. It was noted that the IOG had been updated in 2025 and the lawyers drafting the IOG had not seen fit to amend in light of AD v GTCS. It was submitted that Article 22 of the Public Services Reform (GTC Scotland) Order 2011 confers discretionary powers where removal may be appropriate. It was submitted that it was not correct to say that removal could only occur where there is a finding of unfit to teach. It was submitted that there are occasions where a Panel may not find that a teacher is unfit to teach but nevertheless may need the sanction of removal where no other sanction is suitable. It was submitted that the Panel should have all sanctions available to it and should disregard AD v GTCS.

The Legal Assessor was asked for independent legal advice which was given to the Panel as follows. The Public Services Reform (GTC Scotland) Order 2011 provides GTC Scotland with the statutory framework for its rules that govern the registration of teachers amongst other things. Article 16 of the Order makes it clear that a teacher must be included on the register if they meet certain criteria and is not unfit to teach. Article 18 states that a teacher must be removed from the register if the teacher is ‘unfit to teach’. A teacher is unfit to teach if they fall significantly short of the standards. Schedule 4 of the Order allows GTC Scotland to make rules relating to the investigation of a teacher’s fitness to teach. Schedule 4 states there may be rules to allow GTC Scotland to impose conditions and record reprimands. Schedule 4 allows for rules for re-registration of a teacher who has been removed for being unfit to teach. There is nothing in Schedule 4 about a discretionary power of removal in circumstances where a teacher is impaired but not unfit to teach.

Article 23 provides for notices to be provided explaining why the decision was made to remove the individual when unfit to teach. Article 24 provides for an appeal following on from an Article 23 notice.

The Legal Assessor advised that there does not appear to be any provision within the 2011 Order for GTC Scotland to have discretionary powers to remove a teacher if the teacher is impaired but not unfit to teach.

The Legal Assessor commented on the Presenting Officer’s submission regarding Article 22. She advised that Article 22 has no bearing on fitness to teach. It relates to different matters such as failure to pay a fee. This view is fortified by the fact that Article 22 decisions are excluded from the provisions of Article 23 and Article 24. In other words, if a teacher was removed using Article 22 as the statutory basis, they would not receive a notice of decision and would not have the right of appeal.

The Legal Assessor advised, in her view, that the 2011 Order does not provide for a teacher to be removed from the register unless that teacher has been found to be unfit to teach and that therefore the Panel should disregard the terms of the IOG and Rule 2.10.1 in as much as they refer to removal being a discretionary disposal at stage 3.

Allegation(s)

The following allegations were considered at the hearing:

1. Whilst employed by North Lanarkshire Council, in the course of her employment as Head Teacher of Pentland School, the Teacher did:
   
   • (a) In October 2019, kiss Pupil A on the cheek at a Halloween disco;
   • (b) In March 2020, allow an adult volunteer, Volunteer A, to accompany and supervise pupils on a residential trip to Kilbowie Outdoor Centre, Oban, without confirming that he was an active member of the PVG Scheme, thus potentially placing pupils at risk of harm;
   • (c) In March 2020, take no action upon discovering that Colleague A had an unnamed pupil in her allocated room on multiple nights during a residential trip to Kilbowie Outdoor Centre, Oban; leaving the unnamed pupil at risk of harm;
   • (d) In March 2020 at Kilbowie Outdoor Centre, Oban, allow Pupil A to sleep in her allocated room;
   • (e) In March 2020 at Kilbowie Outdoor Centre, Oban, wear only a towel, while in her allocated room in the presence of Pupil A, (resulting in Pupil A seeing her breasts; (deleted))
   • (f) On 1 May 2020, inform Colleague A that the local authority was looking for her contact details, when she had been asked not to do so, having been notified that this request was due to a potential child protection issue regarding Colleague A and a young pupil in her care thus risking compromising an ongoing police investigation; and
   • (g) Between 2019 and 2020 on specific dates unknown:
     
     • (i) regularly attend the home address of Pupil A;
     • (ii) attend day trips with Pupil A and his family;
     • (iii) allow Pupil A to access her handbag to retrieve an unknown item.

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 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.3 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Teacher’s admissions

The Teacher admits allegation 1(b) in its entirety, allegation 1(c) with explanation and allegation 1(d) in its entirety. The remaining allegations are denied.

Hearing papers

In accordance with Rule 1.7.17, the Panel admitted all of the documents and statements listed below as evidence for the purposes of the hearing:

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

1. Presenting Officer’s Case Form, dated 18 June 2024
2. Teacher’s response to NOI, dated 3 July 2021
3. Fact Finding Report with the following appendices:
   
   • Interview with Person C, Child Protection Officer, North Lanarkshire Council
   • Interview with Person A, Head of Education, North Lanarkshire Council
   • Interview with Person D, Depute Head Teacher, Pentland School
   • Interview with Person E, Senior Education Manager, North Lanarkshire Council
   • Interview with Person B, Action CIO, North Lanarkshire Council
   • Interview with the Teacher, dated 28 August 2020
   • Email from Person F, dated 22 May 2020 – this confirmed that Volunteer 1 did not attend an appointment in relation to his PVG.
   • Email from Person G to Pentland Office
4. GTC Scotland Statement of Person A, signed 31 August 2022
5. GTC Scotland Statement of Person C, signed 12 October 2022
6. GTC Scotland Statement of Person B, signed 31 October 2022
7. GTC Scotland Statement of Person E, signed 2 November 2022
8. GTC Scotland Statement of Mother A, signed 13 December 2022
9. GTC Scotland Statement of Pupil A, signed 24 November 2023
10. Response from Police Scotland, dated 3 October 2022
11. Response from Police Scotland, dated 11 November 2022
12. Teacher’s response to Interim Report, dated 18 May 2023 and additional documentation:
    
    • Management Circular D3 – Educational Excursions and Outdoor Activities – October 2013, Version 1
    • Acceptable Use of ICT Policy – Version 3.0, 30 July 2020
    • Text messages from Mother A
    • Facebook post by Mother A
    • Emails between the Investigating Officer and Person E, dated 23 November 2023
13. Response from Teacher, dated 17 January 2024 with appendices
    
    • Reference from Person H, dated 4 January 2024
    • Teacher’s reflections

Teacher’s hearing papers

1. Teacher’s Case Form, dated 12 July 2024
2. Witness statement of Teacher for stage, dated 12 July 2024
3. Witness statement of Teacher for stage 2, dated 12 July 2024
4. Statement of Person H, dated 11 July 2024

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

1. Notice of Full Hearing, dated 12 June 2025 with cover email and delivery receipt
2. Procedural Decision Annex - Virtual Hearing, dated 24 September 2024
3. Procedural Decision Annex – Privacy and Admissibility, dated 19 February 2025
4. Case Management Direction – Vulnerable Witness Application, dated 14 February 2025

Summary of evidence

Person A

The evidence of Person A was agreed by the Parties as per the Joint Minute of Agreement. As such he did not attend in person to give evidence. Person A is Head of Education for North Lanarkshire Council Education and Families and his role involves child protection. His view was that as Head Teacher, the Teacher should have been aware that when contacted by Person C, the Child Protection Coordinator and told that there was a police investigation, she should not reveal details of that to the colleague under investigation (Colleague A). He was told by Police Scotland that details had been shared with Colleague A and that there was a concern that the investigation could be compromised. Person A stated that a pupil should not share a room with a teacher and that if that were to happen then it should have been reported to a line manager. Person A heard about the Teacher sharing a room with a pupil via Person I, Mossend Primary who was investigating a different matter. In relation to Volunteer A, Person A stated that it was the Teacher’s responsibility as head teacher to check the PVG status of Volunteer A.

Person B

The evidence of Person B was agreed by the Parties as per the Joint Minute of Agreement. As such Person B did not attend in person to give evidence. Person B, Head Teacher St Lucy’s Primary School North Lanarkshire acted as mentor to the Teacher during part of 2019 and 2020. Person B explained that prior to the trip she had discussed with the Teacher the fact that pupil A would spend time in her office when excluded from the classroom and that she needed to reintegrate him into the classroom. She also discussed with the Teacher her concerns about Pupil A going on the trip to Kilbowie Outdoor Centre but her focus at that time had been on the HMIE inspection. She explained that she had no concerns about child protection at Pentland school but noted that the Teacher was overly familiar with some parents for example she allowed pupil A’s mother to contact her more than normal. In her role as mentor, Person B gave the Teacher her telephone contact details but she did not a receive a call from the Teacher during the trip to Kilbowie Outdoor Centre. She explained that if a child was unsettled on a trip she would sit outside the door of the room, preferably with another teacher, until the child settled. She would not allow a pupil to sleep in her room.

Person C

Person C gave evidence in person. She adopted her statement she gave to GTC Scotland. She was the Child Protection Development Officer for Education in North Lanarkshire when the allegations took place. She explained that she would deal with Police Concern Reports (PCR) when they come in to her from Police Scotland. She would speak to staff at Pentland about the PCRs. Person C explained that she had been alerted to a child protection issue relating to Colleague A by the police. At the time she had thought there must be some mistake and that once she got Colleague A’s mobile number matters would be resolved. Person C spoke to the Teacher asking for the details of Colleague A. Person C assumed due to Covid that the Teacher was at home but did not check as to her whereabouts. Person C was surprised that when she asked for the number the Teacher did not ask any questions. On the first telephone call Person C was unsure about whether she specifically explained why she needed Colleague A’s telephone number. She was unsure whether she said it was a police enquiry or if she had mentioned child protection. She believed she would have said that it was a child protection matter but that she would not have mentioned the child by name. On the second telephone call with the Teacher, Person C asked for Colleague A’s address. Again, she was unsure exactly what was said but believed she would have said it was confidential and a child protection matter.

Person E

Person E gave evidence in person. She adopted her statement she gave to GTC Scotland. At the time of the allegations she was Senior Education Manager, North Lanarkshire Council. Person E explained that in her view there would be no reason that a teacher would share a room with a pupil overnight on an excursion. She felt that any teacher would understand that whether they had had training or not. It was clearly an unsafe practice, in her view, for both for the teacher and the pupil. She explained that if a teacher became aware that another teacher was sharing a room with a pupil then that teacher should get advice from the head teacher or the head of service.

Person E explained that when she was at Pentland with the Teacher she noticed that Pupil A was often in the Teacher’s and Deputy Head Teacher’s shared office. She understood why he was there but felt it had gone on for too long and that more efforts needed to be undertaken to get Pupil A back in the classroom. In cross examination she accepted however that she was not fully aware of the efforts that had been made to get Pupil A back in the classroom as she had been off sick. She felt that the relationship between the Teacher and Pupil A was overly familiar. She gave an example of the Teacher telling Pupil A that something was in her handbag and that he could get it. She felt it was the sort of comment you would make to your own child. She was uneasy about the comment but did not raise it with the Teacher at the time. She said that she raised it at the time with Person B in the context of the Teacher needing further support. She explained that after raising the issue of further support the Covid lockdown happened and so nothing further was done. Person E remembered contacting the Teacher to ask her to contact Person C but she did not give her any reasons. In relation to Volunteer A, Person E accepted that the Teacher would have thought that the previous head teacher had checked the PVG status of volunteer A. When it came to light that he did not have a current PVG, Person E felt that the Teacher should have checked the certificate herself rather than take Volunteer A’s word for it.

Mother A

Mother A gave evidence in person. She adopted her statement she gave to GTC Scotland. Mother A explained that she trusted the Teacher when she first started at the school. She felt that they had a friendship and that the Teacher would confide personal matters to her; for example, details about her relationship with her husband. Mother A explained that the Teacher would visit her home to discuss Pupil A’s progress but sometimes she would turn up unannounced. She said that towards the end of 2019 the Teacher and she would arrange to meet as families; for example, they met at M&Ds, a theme park. They also met at an ice-skating rink and soft play area. Mother A described a school Halloween disco in 2019. Pupil A was dressed up and had forgotten a part of his costume, so Mother A went to the school. She remembered a boy was on the roof of the building when she was waiting for Pupil A. When Pupil A arrived she noticed he had red lipstick on his cheek. Pupil A told Mother A that the Teacher had given him a kiss on the cheek. Mother A explained that she did not see the kiss. She recognised that she had said in her statement that she did see the kiss but was clear in her oral evidence that she did not see the kiss. In relation to the Kilbowie trip, Mother A stated that she had no communication with the Teacher other than a few photos and that she had not discussed the sleeping arrangements of Pupil A with the Teacher.

Pupil A

Pupil A gave evidence in person. He adopted his GTC Scotland statement. Pupil A explained that he felt he was not allowed to be with other pupils at the school and instead was always in the Teacher’s office. He described being called ‘teacher’s pet’ which he did not like. He described meeting up with the Teacher’s family and his family at a soft play area and ice skating. He remembered the school Halloween disco in 2019 and the Teacher giving him a kiss in the ‘cosy corner’. He recalled his mother asking him about the lipstick on his cheek and telling her it was the Teacher. During panel questioning, Pupil A recalled that the Teacher was dressed as little red riding hood throughout the disco. Pupil A spoke about the Kilbowie trip in 2020. He was in a room with two other pupils. He recalled the Teacher sleeping on the bottom bunk for the first night. He recalled being told by the Teacher that he could no longer sleep in the room with the boys as one of the pupils was not his friend and that his safety was not good in that room. Pupil A felt he should have been allowed in with the boys but was told he could not and that it was safer for him to stay in the Teacher’s room for the 3 remaining nights. On the second evening Pupil A recalled being in bed and the Teacher coming out of the shower room into the bedroom. She was wearing only a towel and reached for her clothes before going back into the shower room. He explained that he told Mother A all of the above when he returned from Kilbowie but that she did not mind at the time.

The Teacher

The Teacher gave evidence in person. She adopted her Stage 1 witness statement. The Teacher explained that she had been a Principal Teacher at Fallside school and was asked to work at Pentland as acting head teacher in early 2019. There were concerns about an HMIE review that was due to take place and in particular the fact that there were so many acting roles at the school. She was interviewed and appointed to the role of head teacher soon after starting as acting head teacher. In retrospect she recognised that she did not have the experience to undertake the role of head teacher and received very little in the way of training to prepare her for the role.

The Teacher explained that on the 2 May 2020 she was suspended from her role and in March 2021 her role was terminated. She explained that she had not returned to teaching as she felt she needed a conclusion to the GTC Scotland fitness to teach case prior to returning to the classroom. When she started at Pentland she explained that there were a number of concerns as there were no permanent senior staff, there were competency concerns about some staff and staff had been assaulted. The Teacher expressed her concerns to Person E and to Person B but she did not feel that anything changed. The Teacher explained that Pupil A presented challenges and that Mother A had taken against many of the teachers which made it difficult to settle Pupil A into the classroom. Pupil A was often to be found running round the school disrupting others. The Teacher accepted that as a temporary solution Pupil A spent time in her office at a table between her and the Deputy Head. She explained however that she attempted many times to get him back in class and that between May and June 2019 Pupil A attended in class. When school came back in August 2019 there was an issue between Pupil A and another pupil making threats against each other. There were efforts made to try different activities and classes. An external agency was used to take Pupil A on outings to football groups. The Teacher explained that she would be in almost daily contact with Mother A and that she was aware of the attempts being made to get Pupil A back into class. The Teacher denied that she had a friendship with Mother A and thought that if Mother A had personal information about her and her husband it was likely that Pupil A had overheard something and passed it on to Mother A.

In relation to the allegations, the Teacher denied kissing Pupil A at the Halloween disco (allegations 1(a)). She remembered that there was a Halloween disco but denied being present at it. She had no recollection of being there.  

In relation to allegation 1(b), the Teacher accepted that she should have checked volunteer A’s PVG certificate rather than accept his word for it. She remembered that she was made aware of concerns regarding Volunteer A via a parent who showed her an article about Volunteer A on the mobile phone. She did not enquire further into the story. She accepted Volunteer A’s word that the PVG certificate was in place. She regrets her actions in not checking the PVG certificate herself but explained that prior to the Kilbowie trip she was focused on the HMIE inspection the week before and that may have been a factor why she did not think to ask to see his certificate.

In relation to allegation 1(c) the Teacher accepted that she should have taken advice when she found out that Colleague A had a pupil sleeping in her room. She explained that Colleague A was an experienced teacher and had taken pupils on the trip for many years. Colleague A told her that it was normal for pupils to sleep in teachers’ rooms when there had been incidents. The Teacher accepted Colleague A’s experience and did not seek further advice from North Lanarkshire Council. She stated that she would not accept a colleague’s word in the future and would take advice from her employer.

In relation to allegation 1(d) the Teacher accepted she should not have allowed Pupil A to sleep in her room. She accepted that her actions demonstrated poor judgment on her part and lack of experience. She explained that she would not do that again. In relation to allegation 1(e) the Teacher denied wearing only a towel in the presence of Pupil A. She explained that she did not shower when Pupil A was in the room but instead showered during the day when Pupil A was out doing activities.

In relation to allegation 1(f) the Teacher explained that when she spoke to Person C she was not told that the matter related to child protection. She was told that it related to a police enquiry. She was not told not to discuss the matter. She was asked for Colleague A’s mobile number and as she was in school she went out of the room and asked Colleague A for her number. On a subsequent call Person C asked for Colleague A’s home address. She was told on that occasion not to discuss the matter with Colleague A. Despite that, the Teacher asked Colleague A for her home address. She could not explain why she did not look the address up on the SEEMIS system rather than ask Colleague A directly. She felt terrible that she had done that and expressed remorse for potentially compromising a police investigation. She said that she should never had acted as she did.

In relation to allegation 1(g)(i) the Teacher explained that she did attend Pupil A’s home about once a month to discuss Pupil A’s progress and to have return to school meetings after suspensions. She explained that every visit was pre-planned.

In relation to allegation 1(g)(ii) she denied arranging the trips in advance. In her view there had only been one occasion when she had met Mother A and Pupil A and that was purely by chance. They met at the ice skating and then all went on to soft play. The Teacher said that the trip was not pre-arranged. In relation to allegation 1(g)(iii) the Teacher explained that she did not have a handbag at school and that she took a bag for life to school. She denied giving Pupil A access to any handbag. At most she thought she might have asked Pupil A to pass a diary that might have been in her bag for life but she had no recollection of the event.

The Teacher explained that she [redacted].

Findings of fact

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the parties in making its findings of fact on the allegations.

The Panel had in mind that the burden of proof rested on the Presenting Officer and that the standard of proof required is that used in civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 1(a)

The Panel found that there was no dispute that a Halloween disco took place at the school during school hours in 2019. Pupil A was at the disco and Mother A arrived to give Pupil A a part of his costume. The Teacher said that she was not present at the disco as she would not attend such an event. Both Pupil A and Mother A were very surprised when it was put to them that the Teacher was not present. They both recalled her being there. Further the Panel thought it was more likely than not that a head teacher new to her role would attend an event like a school disco given the size of the school. The Panel preferred the evidence of Pupil A and Mother A to that of the Teacher and decided it was more likely than not that the Teacher was present at the Halloween disco.

Mother A changed her account from the GTC Scotland statement where she said she saw the kiss to her oral evidence where she was clear that she did not see the kiss but saw the red lipstick on Pupil A’s cheek. The Panel considered whether that change in evidence undermined Mother A’s credibility. The Panel did not think so. The Teacher’s position was that Mother A had a motive for revenge due to the Teacher being in a relationship with Mother A’s ex partner since May 2021. The Panel thought it more likely than not that if Mother A had the motive attributed to her, she would have maintained her position that she saw the kiss. She did not do that but said that she did not see the kiss but had seen the red lipstick. Further Mother A when challenged about the Teacher’s presence, spontaneously said that the Teacher was there and that she was wearing a Red Riding Hood outfit. The Panel found Mother A’s evidence in regard to the Halloween disco credible despite the change in her evidence.

Pupil A when challenged about the location of the kiss said that it had happened in the ‘cosy corner.’ The Teacher said there was no cosy corner but then described several places in classrooms with cushions where pupils could sit. The Panel found the Teacher to be evasive when saying that there was no cosy corner but then later under questioning from the Panel described an area which would often be called a ‘cosy corner’ in the Panel’s experience. That is a name that the Panel were familiar with. Given Pupil A had volunteered that name unprompted, the Panel decided it was more likely than not that there was a ‘cosy corner’ and that the Teacher did kiss Pupil A on the cheek at the cosy corner.

Allegation 1(b)

The Panel found allegation 1(b) proved. The Teacher admitted that she allowed volunteer A to go on the trip without checking his PVG status thus potentially putting pupils at risk of harm.

Allegation 1(c)

Allegation 1(c) is admitted by the Teacher. The Panel found the allegation proved.

Allegation 1(d)

Allegation 1(d) is admitted by the Teacher. The Panel found that allegation proved. The Panel found that the Teacher did speak with Mother A to discuss with her Pupil A sleeping in her bedroom. Whilst Mother A said she did not speak to the Teacher during the trip the Panel found that hard to reconcile with the agreed evidence that she spoke to the Teacher almost every day whilst Pupil A was at school and that Mother A viewed the Teacher as a friend. Given that it was unusual for Pupil A to be away from home on a school trip the Panel thought it more likely than not that Mother A and the Teacher would have had telephone conversations to discuss Pupil A staying in her room.

Allegation 1(e)

The Panel found Allegation 1(e) as amended proved. The Panel decided they preferred Pupil A’s evidence of having seen the Teacher come out of the shower in a towel. The Teacher said that she was not in the room when Pupil A was going to sleep as she was pacing the corridor to check on the pupils. She said she was doing that until about 1.30-2am and then got up at about 5am in case any of the pupils were early risers. She made those comments during her questions in chief to justify why she wouldn’t be in the room with Pupil A when he was going to sleep and when he was waking. The Panel did not think it was likely that the Teacher would only get 3 hours sleep per night. It was noted by the Panel that this information was brought to the Panel’s attention in the hearing during her oral evidence. However, the Panel were surprised that this was not raised by the Teacher as part of her defence in previous written evidence such as her statement when explaining the context of allowing Pupil A to sleep in her room.

It was also noted by the Panel that the Teacher would have likely observed Colleague A taking a pupil into her room if she had been situated in the corridor outside her room, rather than inside her room with Pupil A. The Panel noted there was a contradiction in Pupil A’s account of when he told Mother A of the shower incident and when Mother A said Pupil A told her. Pupil A recalled telling Mother A when he returned from Kilbowie. Mother A recalled Pupil A telling her about the shower incident later once they became aware that the Teacher was in a relationship with Mother A’s ex partner. The Panel did not think that contradiction over the timing of the revelation given the passage of time undermined the essential facts that Pupil A was relaying to Mother A. The Panel preferred Pupil A’s evidence that he had seen the Teacher in her towel after taking a shower.

Allegation 1(f)

The Panel found allegation 1(f) not proved. The Panel noted that there were three elements to the allegation namely that the Teacher had been told that the police were investigating a child protection issue, that it involved Colleague A and that it involved a pupil at the school. The Panel found that Person C had little recollection as to what she told the Teacher. She spoke to the Teacher but did not check where she was at the time which the Panel felt was strange given the nature of the enquiry. Further Person C was sure that she would not have mentioned the child involved. She could not recall with any certainty what she did say. The Panel found that it was likely that the Teacher understood it was a child protection issue given Person C role but would not have known that it involved a pupil in her care. The Panel found that the allegation was not proved.

Allegation 1(g)(i)

The Panel found the allegation proved. The Panel found that the Teacher did attend the home of Pupil A to discuss his education and that the visits were pre-arranged. It was clear that Mother A had viewed the Teacher as a friend but the Teacher had not appreciated that at the time. The Panel found that the Teacher had done nothing inappropriate in carrying out her duties by visiting Pupil A’s home.

Allegation 1(g)(ii)

The Panel found allegation 1(g)(ii) not proven. The Panel accepted that the Teacher attended M&Ds, the ice skating and the soft play area on one occasion. The Panel also accepted that after she was suspended the Teacher tried to halt text and mobile communication with Mother A. The evidence of Mother A was that one trip happened pre-Covid and others after. The Panel decided it was more likely than not that there was only one trip that happened and that it had not been planned. The Panel did not think it was likely that the Teacher would have continued to attend days out with Mother A and her family after she was suspended.

Allegation 1(g)(iii)

The Panel found allegation 1(g)(iii) proved. The Panel found Person E to be somewhat  unreliable as she did not remember the details of what she saw when describing the bag incident. Further when she said she was shocked by the actions of the Teacher she accepted that she had not raised them with her. Despite this she did recall discussing her concerns with senior management. In his statement to the local authority in 2020, Person A refers to the handbag incident which, in the Panel’s view, is more likely than not to refer to the incident recounted by Person E. It seems more likely than not therefore that Person E did witness the Teacher asking Pupil A to retrieve something from a personal bag. The Panel did not think it mattered whether it was called a handbag or a bag for life. The essence of the allegation and reference to a handbag is that it was a bag personal to the Teacher where she kept personal belongings.

Fitness to Teach

Given that the Panel found that some of the allegations were proved, the Panel invited the parties to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach.

The Teacher’s evidence at Stage 2

The Teacher gave evidence at Stage 2 of the hearing relating to fitness to teach. The Teacher adopted her Stage 2 witness statement. The Teacher explained that since the allegations had come to light she had undertaken her own professional reading and reflected on the allegations. Her focus had been on child protection and safeguarding.

In private session, the Teacher reflected on [redacted].

The Teacher explained that she had a young family, two of whom are in nursery and need her support. She explained that she feels unable to return to full-time teaching at this stage but if she did return she would seek a classroom role and not a management role.

The Teacher explained that she deeply regretted her behaviour and she was sorry for putting families and the local authority through her bad decision making. She stated that she accepted the Panel’s findings and will look to right the wrongdoings in her past. She realised that she should not have taken the head teacher role as she did not have the skills or knowledge for such a role. She felt she had learnt from the experience and could take that learning into the classroom.

If the Teacher was given the opportunity to teach in the future she indicated that she would seek a mentor and ask for extra support. Further, that if she found herself in a situation where she was unsure of her judgment in the future she would seek advice from her head teacher or her line manager. She also accepted that she had crossed boundaries by allowing Pupil A to sleep in her room and making phone calls to Mother A outside of work. The Teacher recognised that her interactions with Mother A would be confusing and breached professional boundaries. She also recognised that she had put Pupil A in a position where he was considered as the teacher’s pet and that is not a position she would have wanted to put him in.

Person H – Evidence at Stage 2

Person H, retired Deputy Head Teacher of Fallside School, gave evidence about his knowledge of the Teacher when she was working as a principal teacher at Fallside School. Person H gave his evidence in a straightforward manner and was clearly impressed by the Teacher’s skills as a principal teacher. The Panel accepted Person H’s evidence as far as it went but recognised that he had retired in 2017 and had not observed the Teacher in her role at Pentland School.

Findings on Fitness To Teach

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the parties in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach. The Panel addressed the relevant considerations in relation to fitness to teach, as outlined in the GTC Scotland Indicative Outcomes Guidance.

(a) Did the Teacher’s conduct at the time of the incident(s) fall short of the expected professional standards?

The Panel found that the Teacher’s conduct at the time of the incidents did fall short of the expected professional standards. In particular the Teacher’s conduct fell short of the following standards in COPAC:

1.2: You must maintain appropriate professional boundaries, avoid improper contact or relationships with learners and respect your unique position of trust as a teacher.

The Panel found that the Teacher breached this part of the Code in that she, as found proved at allegation 1(a) did kiss Pupil A on the cheek, 1(d) did allow Pupil to sleep in her room and allegation 1(e) wear only a towel in the presence of Pupil A. The Panel found that the Teacher did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A.

1.3 You should avoid situation both within and outwith the professional context that could be in breach of criminal law, or may call into question your fitness to teach.

The Panel did not find that the allegations found proved amounted to criminal conduct however the allegations found proved in relation to allegations 1(b), 1(c), 1(d) and 1(e) relate to the Teacher not recognising safeguarding risks for herself and other and may call into question her fitness to teach. The Panel found that the Teacher had therefore breached 1.3 of COPAC.

1.4 You must uphold standards of personal and professional conduct, honesty and integrity so that the public have confidence in you as a teacher and teaching as profession.

The Panel found that the Teacher breached this standard in that the public would not have confidence in her as a teacher owing to her personal and professional conduct in relation to the allegations found proved namely 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d) and 1(e). The public would have concerns that the Teacher did not appear to understand the risks to a young person in having that young person in her room and another young person in Colleague A’s room. Further the public would be concerned that despite having resources open to the Teacher to seek advice she chose not to and made decisions that could risk harming young people.

1.6 you must maintain awareness that as a teacher you are a role model to learners

The Panel found that the Teacher breached this standard in that she did not act as a role model to learners in failing to respect professional boundaries and failing to model appropriate behaviour to vulnerable young people in relation to allegations 1(a), 1(d) and 1(e) found proved.

2.3 You should aim to be a positive role model to learners and motivate and inspire them to realise their full potential.

The Panel found that the Teacher breached this standard in that she failed to keep young people safe from potential harm in relation to the proven allegations at 1(a), 1(d) and 1(e). Further, she did not inspire pupils to realise their full potential. There were two young people on the trip to Kilbowie who spent the week in the rooms of their teachers. Not only did this put the young people at risk of harm but it did not encourage the young people to manage their own feelings and their relationships with other young people. By taking them out of the rooms of the other young people on the trip Pupil A described being a ‘teacher’s pet’. The Teacher’s behaviour did not allow Pupil A to reach his full potential.

(b) Are the shortfalls identified remediable, have they been remedied and is there a likelihood of reoccurrence?

The Panel found that the Teacher’s conduct falls short of the standards expected of a registered teacher. The Panel went on to consider whether the shortfalls identified are remediable, whether they had been remedied and the likelihood of reoccurrence by reference to the factors set out in the GTC Scotland Indicative Outcomes Guidance. In particular, the Panel considered the following factors:

Age of the behaviour – the Teacher’s behaviour took place in 2019 and 2020. There has been no repeat of the behaviour since that time. The Panel viewed this factor as neutral.

Level of Seriousness of behaviour – the Panel decided that the behaviour found proved is serious particularly the fact that Pupil A stayed in the Teacher’s room for all of the nights of the trip as did the pupil in Colleague A’s room. The Panel were also concerned that the Teacher was comfortable in accepting Colleague A’s reassurance that such behaviour was normal. The Panel thought it was far from normal for a pupil to sleep in a teacher’s room and thought the Teacher should have sought further advice from North Lanarkshire Council. Whilst there was no evidence of particular harm to pupils, the Panel decided that Pupil A did suffer emotional harm as there was an impact on Pupil A in how his friends saw him. It was recognised however that the emotional impact on Pupil A was also intermingled with the Teacher’s subsequent relationship with his father. The Panel found that the Teacher’s behaviour was not at the top end of seriousness but was still very serious.

Seriousness increased by aggravating features – the Panel did not find that there were aggravating features that increased the seriousness of the behaviour.

Pattern of behaviour – the Panel accepted that the majority of allegations surrounded the trip to Kilbowie but nonetheless there were other incidents of lack of judgment that concerned the Panel for example the failure to check the PVG of Volunteer A and taking his word as proof when the Teacher had been warned that Volunteer A may pose a risk to young people. The Panel found there was a pattern of behaviour in not recognising safeguarding issues.

Has the Teacher shown sufficient insight? - The Panel found that the Teacher did admit some of the allegations at an early stage but when giving evidence the Teacher appeared to have quite superficial insight into the level of risk of her behaviour on the young people. Further she had limited insight in terms of the impact of her behaviour in breaching boundaries and the reasons why professional boundaries must be maintained. In particular, she did not have insight into the likely impact on Pupil A in her breaching those boundaries when trust for Pupil A was already an issue. The Teacher did seem to have better insight into the impact of her breach of professional boundaries on Mother A. The Panel were also concerned that when writing up her reflective account the Teacher did not address Standard 1.2 which deals with professional boundaries.

Evidence of steps taken to show insight – the Panel accepted that the Teacher had provided evidence of courses taken.

Any circumstances or any other surrounding factors make the risk of reoccurrence unlikely? - whilst the Panel did not find that the Teacher’s behaviour was caused by a health condition, it was recognised that [redacted].

In weighing up all the above factors the Panel decided that on the face of it the Teacher’s behaviour found by the Panel is remediable. However, given the limited insight that the Teacher has in relation to her behaviour and its impact on the young people involved, the Panel found that she has not remedied the behaviour yet. The Panel found that given the lack of remediation and insight that there was a risk that the behaviour could be repeated by the Teacher.

In considering whether the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired that Panel also took into account the public interest and public confidence in the profession. The Panel decided that a well informed member of the public who had heard all the evidence would think that the regulator should take some action to protect the public and uphold public confidence in the teaching profession.  

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that the Teacher’s conduct falls short of the standards expected of a registered teacher and that her fitness to teach is therefore impaired.

Disposal

The Panel considered the options for disposal with regard to the Rules and the “Indicative Outcomes” guidance. The Panel took into account the submissions made by the parties. The Panel accepted the advice from the Legal Assessor and did not consider the sanction of removal as an option for disposal.

The Panel reminded themselves that they should start by considering the least restrictive disposal first.

The Panel did not consider that it was appropriate to apply no sanction, standing their findings.

The Panel considered whether to give the Teacher a reprimand. The Panel considered the factors set out in the IOG. The Panel found that the behaviour is serious but that it does not constitute an abuse of a position of trust for personal gain. In terms of harm to the pupils involved there was a risk of harm and likely to have been emotional harm to Pupil A. The Teacher has admitted some of the allegations and has accepted the findings of the Panel. The Panel is concerned that the Teacher has not demonstrated sufficient insight to reassure the Panel about the risk of repetition. Further there appeared to the Panel to be a pattern of poor decision making regarding safeguarding rather than it being an isolated incident. The Panel accepted the reference given by Person H but he was not speaking directly to the concerns raised in the allegations. The Panel did not think that a reprimand alone was sufficient given the serious nature of the breaches of COPAC. The Panel did not think that a reprimand alone would meet the public interest and uphold public confidence in the teaching profession.

The Panel considered a conditional registration order (CRO). The Panel weighed up the factors set out in the IOG. The Panel considered first whether a CRO would adequately protect the public. The Panel recognised that the Teacher has engaged with the process and if she is willing to engage with conditions then that could adequately protect the public.  The Teacher has indicated that she would be willing to respond positively to the imposition of conditions on her registration. The Teacher whilst lacking some insight does have sufficient insight to suggest that she will be able to comply with the conditions. The Panel did not think however that a CRO on its own appropriately indicates to the profession and the public the seriousness of the matter. The Panel were particularly concerned with the fact that the Teacher had a pupil in her room for the whole residential trip as did Colleague A and that the Teacher took no action.

The Panel considered whether it was necessary and proportionate to impose a reprimand, in addition to a conditional registration order. The Panel decided that imposing a CRO and reprimand on the Teacher’s registration would more appropriately indicate to the profession and the public the gravity of the behaviour, therefore maintaining public confidence in teachers, the integrity of the teaching profession and GTC Scotland as a professional regulator.

The conditions in full, are as follows:

1. You must inform the following parties that your GTC Scotland registration is subject to these conditions and provide them with a copy of the Decision Notice that resulted in this Order being imposed upon you:
   
   • (a) Any organisation or person employing you as a teacher or in a post for which GTC Scotland registration is required (whether on a permanent, temporary or supply basis).
   • (b) Any prospective employer covered by (a) above at the time of making your application for employment.
2. You must inform GTC Scotland within 7 days of taking up employment as a teacher or for which GTC Scotland registration is required. You must also provide GTC Scotland with contact details for that employer within that same timescale.
3. You must inform GTC Scotland within 7 days of commencement of any disciplinary or fitness to practise proceedings against you by your employer or any other professional regulatory body.
4. If you are employed as a teacher or in a role for which GTC Scotland registration is required, towards the end of each academic year and immediately before the end of the period of these conditions, you must obtain a report from your head teacher or education manager confirming that there have been no issues concerning your fitness to teach during that year. Such report must be forwarded by you to GTC Scotland within one month of the end of each academic session.
5. Prior to returning to teach as a teacher or in a role that GTC Scotland registration is required, you are required to complete the ‘Returning to Teaching Course’ provided by Moray House School of Education and Sport.
6. On completion of the training course, you must provide to GTC Scotland written evidence of your successful completion of it.
7. On returning to teach as a teacher or in a role that GTC Scotland registration is required, within a month you must work with a mentor who is a member of the school leadership team.
8. You must inform your mentor that your GTC Scotland registration is subject to these conditions and provide them with a copy of the Decision Notice that resulted in this Order being imposed upon you.
9. You must work with that mentor to formulate a Professional Development Plan designed to address the deficiencies identified in the following areas of your teaching practice: maintaining appropriate professional boundaries, avoid improper contact or relationships with pupils and respect your unique position of trust as a teacher (Part 1.2 COPAC).
10. You must meet with your mentor on a monthly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the objectives set out in your Professional Development Plan.
11. Every 6 months, after returning to teach as a teacher or in a role that GTC Scotland registration is required, you must provide GTC Scotland with a written report from your mentor confirming that you have met the requirements specified above.
12. Every 6 months, after returning to teach as a teacher or in a role that GTC Scotland registration is required, you must provide GTC Scotland with a reflective practice journal detailing your learning in relation to COPAC 1.2.

The Panel considered how long the reprimand and conditions should be imposed on the Teacher’s registration. The Panel noted that 2 years is generally envisaged as the maximum but that the Panel can depart from the general parameters. The Panel decided given the Teacher’s serious breaches of the standards and the fact that she might not return to teaching in the near future that 3 years would adequately mark the seriousness and protect the public.

The Teacher’s registration with GTC Scotland will be subject to the conditions specified within the attached Conditional Registration Order for an aggregated period of 3 years from the date of signing the conditional registration order. In addition, a reprimand will be recorded against the Teacher’s entry in the GTC Scotland’s Register for an aggregated period of 3 years from the date of the date of signing the conditional registration order.