Full Hearing - Subsequent Registration Application Hearing - Rachel Brennan
Definitions
Any reference in this decision to:
- ‘GTC Scotland’ means the General Teaching Council for Scotland;
- the ‘Panel’ means the Fitness to Teach Panel considering the case;
- the ‘Rules’ (and any related expression) means the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them;
- the ‘Register’ means the GTC Scotland register of teachers;
- the ‘SPR’ means the GTC Scotland Standard for Provisional Registration; and
- the ‘SFR means the GTC Scotland Standard for Full Registration.
Preliminary matters
Having reviewed the evidence placed before it, the Panel considered that certain pages of a document may have been omitted in error. A discussion was had with the Applicant and the Servicing Officer and it was confirmed that this was the case; parts of the documents submitted by the Teacher were not before the Panel because of an administrative error possibly on the part of GTC Scotland.
The Legal Assessor provided advice that Rule 3.6.4 was engaged:
A Panel may of its own volition (acting through the Servicing Officer as is seen fit), or on the application of any party, ask any person to provide information that it considers relevant to the Panel (at the hearing or otherwise).
And that the General Objective set out at Rule 1.3.7 to 1.3.9 was engaged. The Panel was entitled to ask for the complete document to be shared with it and it was entitled to take account of it. There was no prejudice in so doing, it is patently relevant and to not receive it would be unfair, unjust and run contrary to the General Objective. The Legal advice was accepted.
Background
On 16 December, 2020 a Fitness to Teach Panel decided to uphold an unchallenged recommendation made on behalf of West Dumbartonshire Council that the Applicant’s registration be removed due to the lack of professional competence at that time. Accordingly, the Panel directed that the Applicant’s name be removed from the Register.
The Applicant made an application for registration subsequent to the removal from the Register, which was received by GTC Scotland on 22 November, 2025. In accordance with Part 4.1 of the Rules, a hearing must be held when an application is made for registration subsequent to removal from the Register, at which the application is to be considered by a Fitness to Teach Panel. Accordingly, a Panel was convened on 17 September, 2026 to consider the most recent application made by the Applicant for registration.
Evidence and Submissions
The Panel heard oral evidence from the Applicant. In addition, the Panel admitted all of the documents listed below as evidence for the purposes of the hearing:
- Procedural Remote Hearing Decision Annex, dated 10 April 2026
- Notice of Hearing, dated 2 June 2026
- CMD for Hearing Papers, dated 16 July 2026
- Decision Annex for Unchallenged Removal Recommendation, dated 16 December 2020
- SRA Application, dated 2025 with the following appendices:
- Scheme Record, dated 11 June 2013
- [redacted]
- [redacted], dated 22 November 2021
- SVQ Certificate, dated September 2021
- CPD Certificate, dated October 2021 to June 2022
- Appendix A, dated 10 September 2024
- Appendix B, dated October 2023
- Appendix C, dated April – June 2024
- Appendix D, dated 15 April 2024
- Appendix E, dated October 2023
- Appendix F, dated 1 March 2024
- Reference from Colleague 1, dated 28 November 2025
- Reference from Colleague 2, dated 10 December 2025
- CPD Learning Record, dated 2025 – 2026
- Reference from Colleague 3, dated 20 April 2026
No evidence was lead by the GTC Scotland and no documentary evidence was adduced by GTC Scotland.
Opening Statement for the Applicant
The Applicant began by telling the Panel that she took full responsibility for the failings which gave rise to her removal from the Register. She said, "I am genuinely sorry". She agreed that at the time of the removal, her conduct fell short of the Standards for Full Registration. The Applicant explained that in the period leading up to her removal, she had experienced significant difficulties [redacted].
Since her removal from the Register, the Applicant has continued to work though in a different role – as an Early Learning Childcare Officer (ELCO) with West Dumbartonshire Council. She has been successful in that role. She is registered with the Scottish Social Services Council and so she understands the importance of professional regulation and the responsibility that comes with it. She plans learning using the Curriculum for Excellence and uses SHANNARI wellbeing indicators to set targets for children. She monitors children and involves parents in their education. She follows procedures to identify and address concerns. She focuses on building relationships with children, their carers, and the wider community. The Applicant was clear that she understood that the role of a teacher is very different from that of an ELCO but she believed that there are transferrable skills and that she has the required skills. The Applicant said that she had a good understanding of issues related to children's wellbeing, safety and rights. She has developed her existing skills in relation to planning for learners including those with additional support needs and she adapts her approach to meet the needs of specific children. She seeks to ensure that all learners are supported and challenged. The applicant said that she reflects on her practice and identifies areas for development and is committed to continuing professional development.
In terms of her personal life, [redacted].
The Applicant clarified that her request was for full registration and not provisional registration.
Panel Questions
The Panel asked the Applicant if she could provide some more information about [redacted]
The school she was working in had many changes of headteacher and there was a breakdown in the working relationship with the headteacher at that time. She felt alienated from colleagues. [redacted]
The Applicant was asked what was different for her now. [redacted]
The Applicant was asked about the University of Edinburgh course on Froebel practices in Early Childhood, in which she said she had to critically examine her professional beliefs and values. She discussed her experience of Montessori Teaching. The course caused her to reflect on that and see the benefits of the Froebel practices; she liked to accept where children were developmentally and work from there.
She was asked about mentoring with MCR Pathways and how she felt it related to the GTC Scotland Standards. She spoke about the commitment involved, and the need to plan but also to be responsive to the young person at each meeting. She spoke about addressing any concerns arising for the young person, reflection on her own practice, and feedback with the coordinator.
The Applicant was asked about her learning on Trauma Informed Practice and how it was relevant to the Standards. She advised that training was undertaken via the NHS and SSSC. She described being more attuned to children with complex backgrounds and using nurturing principles in her role.
The Applicant went on to describe that she has kept up with changes in the teaching profession but 'through the eyes of early years'. She believed she had useful transferrable skills, for example related to learning through play. She described working on the campus collaboratively with two schools and a nursery. The Applicant told the hearing that reading had been recommended to her about learning maths through play. She had read the particular text and applied it in her work. She described how she would apply it in a primary class. She gave examples of what she had done and would do to incorporate play for different ages and stages of development.
The Applicant spoke to the Panel about impending changes to the curriculum and recognised that she, like others, would be learning about it and adapting to it.
The Applicant was asked about her current role as an ELCO and the part she played in planning. She described that she worked with the nursery teacher to assess children. The specific plan would be prepared by a Teacher, however what went into the plan was based on what came from the Applicant's baseline assessment. The Applicant was able to show the Panel plans from the papers she had lodged and describe her role in preparing and using them. The Applicant described examples of planning and her role in it with reference to specific children and teaching experiences.
The Teacher was asked about her understanding of her role in curriculum design. She demonstrated a good grasp of that insofar as she was able to identify the limits of what she could do but also how she could influence. She spoke about her enjoyment of being creative and her use of contextual learning with reference to specific examples.
The Applicant was asked about Standard 3.1.4 in particular, and what her implementation of this standard would look like now compared to her past practice when she was functioning well as a teacher. The Applicant spoke about a particular topic ('the Oscars') and her use of formative and summative assessment of pupils at different ages and stages of development. She spoke about the topic and how it was taught and assessed then, and how her approach would differ now.
The Applicant was asked about Standard 3.2.1, and what it would look like for her when giving effect to this in the future. The Applicant spoke about ways of forming effective relationships with pupils and getting to know them and how they are. She spoke about what she would do to try to engage them with reference to a specific example of how she had engaged pupils with a particular topic in the past. She described looking for ways to bring the curriculum to life and how she would draw on her recent experience of planning, teaching in early years, CPD, and mentoring, to bring joy into the classroom thereby better engaging children.
Closing Statement for the Applicant
In her closing statement, the Applicant thanked the Panel for their consideration of her application. She expressed a genuine and heartfelt desire to return to teaching, and expressed again her regret and remorse at the circumstances giving rise to her removal from the Register.
Decision
The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence adduced and took account of the submissions made by the Applicant. The Panel had before it a copy of the Fitness to Teach Panel’s decision dated 16 December, 2020. Throughout the Hearing, it was clear to the Panel that the Applicant was doing her best to assist it. To that end, she provided full answers with reference to many examples of work and learning over a period of time. She was measured in her contribution insofar as she was candid about her shortcomings. She didn't seek to deny or minimise what had gone before. She presented as genuine and candid. Her application was accompanied by two references which had been obtained by GTC Scotland, two letters of support, and a CPD Learning record. There was no cause to disbelieve any evidence given by the Applicant and the evidence which she gave – both written and oral – appeared truthful. No evidence was led to contradict that of the Applicant; there were no factual disputes that had to be resolved for the purpose of deciding whether to permit the Applicant to be re-registered. The evidence of the Applicant was accordingly accepted in its entirety.
In making a decision, and with reference to the evidence before it, the Panel required to consider whether the Applicant is now fit to teach. The Panel referred to the GTC Scotland Standards for Registration in this regard. The Panel was mindful throughout its decision-making process that the onus was on the Applicant to demonstrate that she is now fit to teach.
The Panel was satisfied that the Applicant had evidenced the Professional Values and Professional Commitment described in Part 1 of the SFR – ‘Being a Teacher in Scotland’. Based on the evidence provided, both orally and in writing, including examples from her day-to-day practice and professional learning, the Panel was assured that the values of social justice, trust and respect and integrity are embedded within her current practice. Furthermore, the Panel was confident that these values would continue to underpin her professional conduct should she be awarded full registration.
The Panel was satisfied that the Applicant met the Standards expressed in Part 2 of the SFR, namely Professional Knowledge and Understanding. Again, the Panel was satisfied via the evidence she gave orally and in writing that the Applicant had a sound knowledge and understanding required to meet all parts of Standard 2. She spoke in detail about various theories including providing examples of the practical application of them. For example, she spoke and appeared well informed about Montessori Teaching, Froebel practices, and curriculum design. She presented as well informed when discussing formative and summative assessment. She spoke about her experiences of interdisciplinary and outdoor learning, and she evidenced having engaged with mandatory training.
The Panel was satisfied that the Applicant met the Standards expressed in part 3 of the SFR, namely Professional Skills and Abilities. She spoke extensively about her role in planning for individual learners and classes. She described being responsive to learners needs in her planning. The Applicant provided examples of creative planning to engage learners and meet their needs. She evidenced utilising partnerships in connection with learning and well-being. She evidenced having experience of strategies for assessment and evaluation. She spoke about analysing data to report and feedback to parents; about summative and formative assessment; and how she used feedback with pupils and was mindful of changes in the approach to assessment and to the curriculum. The Applicant provided examples of occasions on which she had effectively organised and managed learning. She was able to identify creative ways that she had engaged learners and could identify strategies which worked well in doing so. It was clear from the Applicant's evidence that she had built positive relationships with learners, families, colleagues, and other professionals. The Panel was satisfied that the Applicant had taken both formal and informal steps to develop professionally and that her approach was to reflect on her practice and seek to develop.
The Panel took account of the Applicant having been removed from the Register on the basis that she was not able to meet the requirements set out in part 3 of the Standards. Based on the brief information before the Panel as to the reasons for removal, the Panel took the view that the shortcomings in her practice were remediable. The Panel noted that the shortcomings in the Applicant’s practice as a teacher arose whilst she was [redacted]. Her personal circumstances have now changed [redacted]. She expressed significant and enhanced insight, regret, and remorse for the circumstances giving rise to her removal from the Register. Since her removal, she has continued to work in a role which has provided her with an opportunity to practice skills relevant to teaching and develop professionally. She presented as having used that opportunity well. The Panel was satisfied that the circumstances giving rise to her removal had been remediated. The Panel was satisfied that the risk of recurrence is adequately reduced – the Applicant had [redacted] for a number of years in such a way as to not give rise to an adverse effect on her work as an ELCO and there was no reason to suggest she could not do so if Registered. The Panel was satisfied that the Applicant is fit to teach and that public confidence and trust in the profession and its regulator would not be undermined were the Applicant deemed fit to teach and her application for registration granted.
Accordingly, the Panel determined that the Applicant is fit to teach in that she now meets the standards expected of a registered teacher.The Panel decided to grant the SRA and award full registration in the Register.
