Subsequent Registration Application Hearing - Applicant A

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.

Background

The Applicant was previously a registered teacher. She obtained provisional registration with GTC Scotland on 7 June 2012 Thereafter, the Applicant completed 190 days of probationary service as part of the Teacher Induction Scheme at a school in the Borders. At the end of that period of probationary service, GTC Scotland received a recommendation that the Applicant's provisional registration be cancelled as it was alleged that she lacked professional competence. The Applicant indicated to GTC Scotland that she wished to challenge that recommendation. A Fitness to Teach Panel considered the matter at a Probationary Service Hearing on 3 October 2013. At that hearing, the Fitness to Teach Panel directed that the Applicant’s period of probationary service be extended in order to provide her with more time to demonstrate that she had met the SFR (as they were at that time). The period of extension the Applicant was required to complete on the Teacher Induction Scheme was 60 days, which she was required to complete by the expiration of her time limit, 23 July 2015. Subsequently, the Applicant left the Teacher Induction Scheme and therefore the period of extension the Applicant required to complete was 80 days on the Flexible Route, also to be completed by 23 July 2015.

After the Fitness to Teach Panel decision in October 2013, the Applicant subsequently took up employment as a supply teacher with Fife Council. In January 2015, GTC Scotland received a recommendation from Fife Council that the Applicant’s provisional registration be cancelled because it was alleged that she lacked professional competence. Following a hearing on 14 September 2015 and 8 January 2016, a Fitness to Teach Panel determined that the Applicant had not met the SFR and accepted the recommendation by Fife Council that the Applicant’s provisional registration should be cancelled. That Panel directed that the Applicant’s name be removed from the Register. Under the procedures then in use, following a hearing on 30 May 2016, an Appeals Board refused the Applicant’s appeal against that decision

Separately to those competence proceedings, GTC Scotland was pursuing allegations against the Applicant as to her conduct. In that respect the Applicant signed a “removal with consent order” dated 10 April 2017. By way of that document the Applicant waived her right to a full hearing and admitted the (conduct) allegations relating to her fitness to teach in full. She consented to being removed from the Register. That document was put to a Fitness to Teach Panel at a procedural hearing on 30 May 2017. That Panel directed that the Applicant be removed from the Register and that she was prohibited from making an application for re-registration for a period of two years from the date of removal. The allegations which the Applicant had admitted were as follows:

Between 1 September 2015 and 3 March 2016, whilst employed by Edinburgh City Council as a teacher at XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX, you did:

a. Between 1 September 2015 and 22 February 2016, fail to inform the Headteacher, XXXXXXX XXXXXX, of the extended nature of your probationary status; and in so doing you demonstrated a lack of integrity;

b. On exact dates unknown but between 1 September 2015 and 8 January 2016, in the knowledge that you were subject to an ongoing General Teaching Council for Scotland probationary service hearing which was considering a recommendation that your provisional registration be cancelled, mislead XXXXXXX XXXXXX, Headteacher, XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX, in that you did request letters of support to assist you in updating your probationer profile with GTCS, the truth being that the letters were to be used as evidence in the probationary service proceedings, and you did thereby cause XXXXXXX XXXXXX to write the letters; and in so doing you demonstrated a lack of integrity;

c. Between 22 January 2016 and 22 February 2016, fail to inform your employer that subsequent to the probationary service hearing which concluded on 8 January 2016, a GTCS Fitness to Teach Panel had decided that your provisional registration should be cancelled on the grounds of lack of professional competence and had directed that your name be removed from the Register of Teachers, which decision was notified to you in writing on 22 January 2016; and in so doing you demonstrated a lack of integrity.

The Applicant made a further application for registration dated 24 November 2024. The Applicant having been previously removed from the Register in the manner just described, this constituted what is known as a “Subsequent Registration Application” (“SRA”). Rule 4.1 of the Rules provides:

A subsequent registration application is an application from a person who was removed from (or refused entry to) the Register in terms of these Rules (or the historic equivalent) or article 19 of the Order (entitled “Barred individuals”). Where an individual submits such an application (in such form as GTC Scotland reasonably requires), the application must be considered by a Panel at a hearing. The Applicant may only be admitted to the Register if a Panel is satisfied that he/she is now fit to teach.

The Panel was convened for this purpose. The hearing was scheduled for 1,2 and 4 June 2026. The Panel’s consideration of the case required them to reconvene on 5 June 2026 for further discussion and determination. GTC Scotland appointed a presenting officer to appear on their behalf in the proceedings. However, GTC Scotland did not urge any particular determination on the Panel in relation to any particular issue arising for their determination. In an SRA the question arising is whether the Panel were persuaded by the Applicant that she was now fit to teach and is thus a matter principally between the Applicant and the Panel. However, given that they had chosen to be represented in the proceedings, it would have assisted the Panel if GTC Scotland had instructed their representative to state a position on the application.

Preliminary Matters

At the commencement of the hearing on 1 June 2026, and then at the commencement of the proceedings on 4 June 2026, the Applicant invited the Panel to receive further materials. At least in terms of the materials which were before the Panel, there did not appear to have been any direction for the service of evidence.  There had therefore been no failure to comply with any such direction and accordingly rule 1.7.22 of the Rules was of no relevance. It was contended for the Applicant that it was fair to admit the materials and that they were relevant to the Panel’s determination. The Presenting Officer did not oppose receipt of any of the materials. The Panel determined on that basis that it was fair to admit the materials in terms of rule 1.7.17. The materials submitted on the morning of 4 June 2026 were not referred to by the Applicant in her evidence (rather, they were mentioned in her closing submission, during which she was not under oath). The Panel understood from the parties that there was no dispute as to the provenance of any materials lodged by the Applicant and that whether or not formally put into evidence, parties were content that the Panel could have regard to all documentary material submitted. The documents before the Panel are listed below.

On the advice of the Servicing Officer, the Panel determined that the procedure before it should be in two discrete stages. The first part of the procedure would consider questions of competence, with the parties giving opening statements on that matter, followed by evidence from the Applicant in that respect, and then closing statements from the parties. This would then be repeated in relation to questions of conduct. Legal advice on the SRA was to be provided at the conclusion of both stages, to avoid repetition.

Having followed this process, the Panel decided to refuse the SRA, for the reasons which follow below.

Competence

Evidence and Submissions

The Panel heard an opening statement and oral evidence from the Applicant. No other persons gave evidence. In addition, the Panel admitted all of the documents listed below as evidence for the purposes of the hearing:

1. Notice of Subsequent Registration Application Hearing, dated 5 February 2026
2. Proof of Delivery of Notice of Subsequent Registration Application Hearing, dated 5 February 2026
3. Procedural Hearing – Removal with consent, dated 30 May 2017
4. Signed Removal with Consent Order, dated 8 May 2017, (stamped 9 May 2017)
5. Probationary Service Hearing Decision Competence, dated 14 September 2025 and 8 January 2016
6. Appeal Hearing Decision, dated 30 May 2016
7. Subsequent Registration Application, dated 30 November 2024 including the following supporting documentation:
   
   • Employment History, undated
   • External Candidate Personal Information Form, by Applicant A, dated 26 September 2021
   • Section E – Supporting Statements Reviews from Facebook page ‘Languagesby[redacted]’, undated
   • Screenshot “1 of my 1st French classes in 2011”, dated 26 July 2020
   • Screenshot of photograph labelled “Primary School, Nursery to P7”, undated
   • Screenshot titled “Secondary school Review from Person T,” dated March 2020
   • Primary School Education, undated
   • Ongoing development, undated
   • Section E - Supporting Statements – Earlston Cluster Pupil Support Assistant Training Programme, dated 21 October 2024
   • Child Protection Training material, undated
8. Driver’s licence, dated 15 January 1980
9. Fitness to Teach declaration regarding other regulatory
10. investigations, undated, received 19 March 2025
11. Mortgage statement, dated 16 January 2025  
12. Passport, 26 September 2022
13. PVG Short Scheme Record, 19 March 2025
14. Reference form – Person B, 12 March 2025
15. Reference form, Person C, dated 12 March 2025
16. Applicant supporting statement, undated, received 19 March 2025
17. Applicant CPD, undated, received 8 April 2025
18. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Draft Index of Additional Supporting Evidence Documents 1 -33
19. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – “Document 3 – “Very Good Reference from Person A, HT, Gordon PS”
20. Applicant Additional Supporting Info - Document 5 – “Excellent Reference from Person D, Parent of Primary Pupils - Nov 2022”
21. Applicant Additional Supporting Info - Document 6 – “Excellent Reference from Person E, Class Teacher, Gordon PS”
22. Applicant Additional Supporting Info – Document 7 – “Excellent Reference from Person F, Class Teacher, GPS”
23. Applicant Additional Supporting Info – Document 8 – “Excellent Reference from Person G, Gordon PS (1)”
24. Applicant Additional Supporting Info – Document 9 – “Excellent Reference from Person G ,Chief Invigilator, SQA”
25. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 10.(A) - Languages by Applicant A - Teaching to Primary Pupils
26. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 10.(A)(i) - Languages by Applicant A - Primary Teaching
27. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 10.(A)(ii) - Languages by Applicant A - Primary Teaching
28. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 10.(A)(iii) - Languages by Applicant A - Primary Teaching
29. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence Document 10.(A)(iv) - Languages by Applicant A - Primary Teaching
30. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 10.(A)(v) - Languages by Applicant A - Primary Teaching
31. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 10.(B) - Languages by Applicant A - Secondary Teaching
32. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 10.(C) - Languages by Applicant A - Business Teaching
33. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 10.(D) - Languages by Applicant A - Adult Teaching – Leisure & Qualifications
34. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 11 – Person I - Excellent Reference”
35. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence- Document 12 – “Person J - Excellent Reference”
36. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 13 – “Person K- Excellent Reference”
37. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 14 - Person L - Excellent Reference”
38. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 15 – “Very Good Reference from Person M”
39. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 16 – “Excellent Reference from Person N”
40. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 17 – “Excellent Reference from Person N 2”
41. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 18 – “Excellent Review re Isla- Primary & Secondary”
42. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 19 -  “Excellent Review re Isla- Primary & Secondary”
43. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 20 – “Excellent Review from [redacted], Parent of [redacted], North Berwick High School”
44. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 21 – “Excellent Review from [redacted], Parent of [redacted], St. Mary's, Melrose + Merchiston School, Edinburgh”
45. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 22 – “Excellent Review Person O, French Student -  re SR”
46. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 23 – “Excellent Review from [redacted], Primary + Secondary Teaching”
47. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 30 - !Excellent Reference as ESOL Teacher from Person P, Manager, ROWE Farming”
48. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 31 - “Excellent Success in Property Business”
49. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 32 - “Excellent Reference from Kennel Club Border Terrier Committee Member, Judge, [redacted]”
50. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence - Document 33 - “Excellent Reference from Person Q, Language Lecturer”
51. Applicant Supporting Evidence – Document 70 Advice for Conduct Matters
52. Applicant Supporting Evidence – Document 71 – COPAC additional evidence
53. Applicants Papers - Introduction
54. Applicants Papers – Additional Evidence Inventory
55. Applicants Papers Document 10(A)(i) – Languages Primary Reviews
56. Applicants Papers Document 10(A)(ii) – Languages Primary Reviews Spanish
57. Applicants Papers Document 10(A)(iii) - Languages Primary Reviews Spanish
58. Applicants Papers Document 10(A)(iv) - Languages Primary Reviews Spanish
59. Applicants Papers Document 10(A)(v) - Languages Primary Reviews Spanish
60. Applicants Papers Document 10(A) - Languages Teaching to Primary Pupils
61. Applicants Papers Document 10(B) – Languages Secondary Teaching
62. Applicants Papers Document 10(C) – Languages Business Teaching
63. Applicants Papers Document 10(D) – Languages Adult Teaching Leisure and Qualifications
64. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 25 - “Excellent Review from Person R in Spanish Class”
65. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 24 - “Excellent Review from [redacted] Nursery Daughter”
66. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 33(A) - “Dog Showing at Crufts and Championship Shows”
67. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 34 - “Excellent Reference from Person Q Language Lecturer Edinburgh”
68. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 40(A) -“My art Lesson Previous School”
69. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 40(C) - “My French Lessons – Stories, Arts and Crafts, Ryhme, Song and Dance”
70. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 40(E) - “Leaving Presentation”
71. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 40(F) - “June 2024 Photos Thankyou Card From Parents”
72. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 40(G) - “Good Luck Card from Colleagues”
73. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 40(H) - “Greetings Card from Colleagues”
74. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 40(I) - “Leaving Good Luck Card from Colleagues”
75. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 40(J) -“Whatsapp Message from Person S Depute Head”
76. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 41(A) - “Artwork Gordon Primary School Oct Dec 2023”
77. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 41(B) - “Thank You Note from Mrs [redacted] Gordon Primary School June 2024”
78. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 41(C) - “Turner Art Exhibition Gordon Primary School Nov 2024”
79. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 41(D) -“Turner Art Exhibition Gordon Primary School Nov 2024 Curriculum Experience Outcomes”
80. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 41(F) - “Scottish Art Exhibition Gordon Primary School February 2025”
81. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 41(G) - “Scottish Art Exhibition GPS Feb 2025 Experience & Outcomes”
82. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 51(A) - “Sequence Plan Topic Romans Cover Page”
83. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 51(B) - “Sequence Plan Topic Romans”
84. Applicant Additional Supporting Evidence – Document 51(C) - “Sequence Plan Topic Romans Evaluation & Next Steps & Teaching Evaluations”
85. Remote Hearing decision annex, dated 29 August 2025
86. Privacy and anonymity decision annex, dated 19 November 2025

Additional Materials Submitted During Hearing

Applicant

1. Additional Papers from Applicant - 1, undated
2. Additional Papers from Applicant -2, undated
3. Document 4 – Very Good Reference from Person B, dated November 2022
4. Scottish Social Services Council Registration, dated 22 December 2022
5. Conduct Paper 4 – Excellent Reference from Richard Napier, dated 9 October 2015
6. Conduct Paper 5 – Example of Attempts to Speak with Richard Napier, dated December 2015
7. Conduct Paper 7, Email from Richard Napier, dated 23 February 2016
8. Conduct Paper 3 – Positive Comments from Richard Napier, dated October 2015 to December 2015
9. Timeline, Undated

Presenting Officer

1. Email between NAWUST and Anderson Strathern, dated 26 May 2026

Presenting Officer’s Opening Statement on Competence

In a short opening statement, the Presenting Officer commended the SRA practice statement to the Panel as a guide on how to approach the matter before them. The Panel is not to re-litigate the previous decisions but to determine if the Applicant is now competent, with the onus being on the Applicant.

Panel Questioning

In questions from the Panel the Applicant confirmed that her position was that she met the SFR. She was happy that she was meeting those standards. If the Panel were of the view that she did not quite meet anything, she was happy for the Panel to find that she met the SPR.  

The Applicant explained to the Panel that in the lesson plans provided in respect of the Romans she had provided the art lessons to a composite class. She would take P1-4 and P5-7 separately. It was a small composite school. She did this around about 2023. The Teacher was in another part of the room (with the other part of the school). The butterfly drawing lesson was in about 2024. Again, it was the lower age group then the higher age group. She was responsible and the teacher had been pleased that she had led these subjects.

The Panel asked the Applicant about a lesson plan which she had provided which related to a Scottish historical theme. The heading was interdisciplinary lessons – social studies & expressive arts. She delivered this lesson in February 2025, around Burns’ night. It was a larger composite class for p6/7 in a different school. The teacher had been present but she had delivered the lesson. The teacher was not specialised in art so was happy for the Applicant to deliver that. Another lesson plan in relation to the rainforest had led to posters going on the wall and an incentive for children to do jotter covers. The Applicant suggested that the Panel might want to disregard this as it was an older one. The Panel asked how old the plan was, and whether it was older than 2023, to which the Applicant agreed. The Panel asked whether the lesson sequence plans that the Applicant had provided were single lessons or replicated. The Applicant replied that they were basically one-off lessons, the social subject was one or two lessons. They were sequence plans that were replicated at some times but not necessarily the whole sequence. The sequence on the historical Scottish theme she had taught once as a sequence of lessons, five or six lessons over a term. The Applicant explained that pupils would have an A3 folder like a secondary school art folder, and she delivered the expressive arts for the work on the butterfly.  

The Applicant explained to the Panel that the references that the Applicant had provided from Person E, Person F and Person G had been obtained by her in the summer of 2025. She had told them that they were for the purposes of her registration application.

The Panel asked the Applicant about two further references that she had not covered in her own evidence. These were from the referees whom the Applicant had named on her SRA application, Person B and Person C. Person B was the Applicant’s present and former Head Teacher, and Person C was her former line manager. Neither of these referees was supportive of the SRA. Person B stated that the Applicant requires explicit directions as to what is expected from her, otherwise she will be found attending to other tasks which she prefers to do. She stated that the Applicant can find it hard to be adaptable and flexible and repeatedly tries to find opportunities to do tasks which she prefers rather than her pupil support remit, such as delivering art or French lessons, and doing displays. Timetables had been arranged so that the Applicant would have more biddable children to work with. Person B did not consider that the Applicant worked well in a team. She stated that she had doubts as to whether the Applicant would be suitable to teach in a primary school and could successfully develop the skills to do so. She felt the Applicant would find it difficult to plan and deliver a curriculum which would engage a class. Person B said that the Applicant can find it hard to take feedback, and Person B questioned whether she has the resilience and self-awareness to engage in a rigorous process of self-improvement required of a qualified teacher.  

Person C stated that he had observed several qualities and skill that the Applicant brings to her role, as well as some areas of concern regarding her suitability for registration as a teacher. This included that that the Applicant required a lot of support and direction as a pupil support assistant and tended to prefer tasks such as putting up wall displays rather than working directly with children.  There had been challenges with the Applicant fully supporting children in her care.  In Person C’s view, the Applicant had not demonstrated a strong understanding of the Curriculum for Excellence, and there had been difficulties with the Applicant working as part of a team.  Like Person B, Person C stated that the Applicant had a poor attendance record.  Person C said that he did not feel that the Applicant is in a position where she is suitable to teach.  He felt that the Applicant would benefit from returning to studies to develop her understanding of pedagogy and the curriculum for excellence, and engaging in successful placements, to meet the SFR.

The Applicant told the Panel that she was really shocked to see these references. She thought that Person B had thought that the Applicant would just jump to full registration, the Applicant was confident that she could do this, but she could also be a probationer. When she was deployed to Gordon school, her timetable was almost 50% putting up displays and as school assistant. She was asked if she could do art and the class teachers had given her good references.  It wasn’t correct that she did things that she preferred to do; she had been asked. She didn’t know if Person B had known what her role was when she moved to the school. There had been a misunderstanding where a teacher had asked her to change her contracted duties and she had gone to the deputy head teacher who had said this was wrong, and that looks like it has been conveyed as not following instructions. The Applicant said that she did not have difficulties in handling larger groups of children. The references from Person E, Person F and Person G were the real representation of her work. The points made by Person B were not correct and the Applicant did not know why she had made them.  

The Panel asked the Applicant if it was accurate that she had been given more biddable children to work with. She did not accept this. The suggestion was upsetting as it did not reflect her practice. When asked if she had worked with more challenging children, she gave an example of working with a child who would have problems coming into school. The parent had written to the Applicant to thank her for her efforts. The Applicant had addressed the strategies used for this child earlier in her evidence. She said that she did have other examples of pupils who are autistic and have ASD and that she tries to have strategies in place to keep them in school and get the most out of their day’s learning.  She was asked to give an example of a particular child and described an autistic boy who would start swearing or jump over desks. He was encouraged to regulate his behaviour by being given access to IT equipment.

The Applicant was asked about comments in the references as to her ability to support other members of a team. She pointed out that the other references she had provided showed great relationships with colleagues. She again mentioned the scenario where a teacher had tried to get her to change a contractual part of her employment. She also mentioned a situation with a student teacher whom she had to query, although she clarified that she “gave” her total responsibility and was in charge ‘even though she was a student teacher’.

The Applicant told the Panel that there was no reason to think she would not accept feedback. She explained that she had gone to cover in the nursery when asked. She could not think of a time when she had not taken feedback. She was asked to give an example of a time when she had taken on feedback. She said she had been told that if there is a student teacher she is in charge and even if she asked the Applicant all the time what she should do, she is in charge and the Applicant should not question it. If she was given feedback as a teacher, she would be absolutely grateful to receive it. The Panel asked the Applicant if she had reflected on what was said in Person C’s reference, that she preferred to do tasks such as putting up wall displays rather than working directly with children. The Applicant stated that this was not correct. She had been asked to do art. She knew the topic but had absolute initiative, she used her own initiative and didn’t need direction. It was the same with French. When asked if she recognised (as was said in the Person C reference) that she can find challenges in dealing with children in distress, she replied that Person Cand Person B have hardly seen her work.  In relation to a child who would become dysregulated, the Applicant stated that not one member of staff could help that child, and she did not understand how Person C(who had not mentioned any particular child) could just pin this on her. In relation to Person C’s comments that the Applicant has struggled to cooperate effectively with others, she pointed out that both the Person C and Person B references were both dated the same day. The other references that she had provided were the true reflection of her work, and it is just incomprehensible that Person B and Person C would say what they did.

The Panel asked the Applicant whether, looking at the two references from Person B and Person C, there was anything in them that made her think about any element of her practice that needs to be worked on. She did not answer this question, and may not have heard it, as she was looking for a document in the materials to which she wished to draw the Panel’s attention. This was an email from Person B to the Applicant dated 5 May 2026 in which Person B had thanked the Applicant for the support she had given the school by the flexibility she has shown when it was necessary to change her timetable at short notice. (Person B added that she hoped that the Applicant felt that she had been clear about the expectations regarding pay claims, although this element was not explained). The Applicant stated that this showed her working as a team to support colleagues. She referred again to the other references she had provided and described filling in for teachers who do not have the skills to do French lessons or art lessons. If there was anything that had been a misunderstanding, it relates to the standards on communication, which at times she didn’t feel that she got.

The Applicant went on to explain that the poor attendance record mentioned in the references from Person B and Person C was due to her having a series of bereavements. She gave the Panel a chronology of these events and the length of her absences from work. More recently her attendance record is better because she has not experienced another close relative passing.  

The Panel asked the Applicant about her understanding of a practitioner inquiry and the impact of that on pupils. She explained that this involved constantly evaluating one’s teaching, constantly having CPD, on the wider scale, right down to considering what could have been done better. In relation to impact, the Applicant referred the Panel to a document in which she said she had assessed her primary French lessons and evaluated her teaching. She said that she would always try and pinpoint what made a lesson go really well. She referred to an example she had previously given of projecting her own drawings onto an interactive whiteboard, so that pupils did not need to crowd round her to see what she was drawing. This was for the butterfly lesson.

The Applicant was asked about a time when she differentiated a maths lesson to provide challenge for a higher achieving pupil. She explained that she would start a primary 7 pupil on a particular level and if the child had finished early she would have high level extension activities available. She would refer to the learning intentions and see assessment at the end of the lesson. She would do an initial assessment to determine if a pupil was high achieving. The Applicant was asked to provide an example of supporting a pupil who might find it difficult to provide feedback on their learning. She explained that she would go through the assessment or attainment results, possibly on a spreadsheet, and would show them where they had done well and not so well. She would tell the child what they could achieve if they would use particular resources. The question was clarified to the Applicant, and she was told that she was being asked about a pupil who might have difficulty in articulating what the learning had been. The Applicant stated that she would try to cultivate a dialogue that would really suit the pupil.

At this point the Applicant took the opportunity to add some more comments on the references from Person B and Person C. Person Chad asked her to teach languages at Stow Primary School. He hadn’t seen the Applicant teaching at Gordon Primary School. She had an email confirming that 40-50% of her time at Gordon was putting up displays which Person Cis portraying as negative. Person C said that the Applicant had not shown initiative however she had shown initiative in creative arts, organising events for the pupils. On Person C’s criticism of her knowledge of the Curriculum for Excellence, the Applicant stated that she had already given lots of examples, this forms the basis of her learning assessments. In relation to Person B’s reference, she sought to draw the Panel’s attention to another, “very good” reference, that Person B had provided. This was dated 26 October 2022.

The Panel asked the Applicant as to her approach to planning and delivering the lesson sequence on the Romans which she had referred to in her own evidence. She explained that it was important to locate Rome on a map, and then once the pupils had located Rome they dealt with the foundation story of Rome, Romulus and Remus. The plan that the Applicant had provided was a standing plan from six or seven years ago which she had greatly developed.  It was a topic picked by the school. More recently when they did the Roman gods she took some of the topics from this plan. Not all of the lessons had been delivered recently.

The Panel asked the Applicant to give an example of having looked back at a lesson and thought about what she would have done differently as a result of evaluation of a lesson. The Applicant described a lesson on the Romans where she had allowed children to go and choose their own groups but in future she would think about selecting groups for mixed ability, to maximise pupil learning.

The Panel asked the Applicant about “Experiences and Outcomes” in subject guidance, and how this would impact on her planning. The Applicant explained that the subject guidance is the foundation of her planning. The learning intentions are based on the experiences and outcomes.

The Panel asked the Applicant how she uses self-evaluation to improve her teaching. She told the Panel that after every lesson she would critique herself to see what could be improved. She gave examples of using the interactive whiteboard for a drawing, and situations where she has considered classroom organisation and layout for different subjects.

The Applicant was asked about whether she had received a response from a pupil which made her think about what she was doing.  The Applicant described having to watch the dynamic of a classroom and intervene in certain circumstances.

The Applicant was asked to describe when she had written a report for parents or carers on a child’s progress or development. She said that if she found particular concerns she would write to the teacher or the head teacher if they were serious.  She referred the Panel back to the UNCRC poster she had created.  She referred the Panel to email correspondence where she had referred an issue with a child who was having difficulty in the playground which the Applicant considered to have been due to her ethnicity. She also referred to a boy with autism and ADHD who had insulted another pupil who had then ran out of the school grounds.  The Applicant had to take this to the head teacher immediately.  She also mentioned a child who was having difficulty at home that the Applicant had helped to settle into classes.

The Applicant was asked about her removal from the Register in 2016 for competence reasons. She was asked about the areas that she had identified that she needed to work on. The Applicant identified behaviour management, although there are behavioural problems in every class, and in her view even where there is a registered teacher it does not mean that there will not be bad behaviour. In order to develop skills in this area the Applicant said that she had attended union-run courses in behaviour management, that in-service days provide avenues on behaviour management, and “Boxall profiles”. She also mentioned other areas such as lesson planning and use of IT. When asked the Applicant advised the Panel that planning was an area in which she had improved.  She had also developed her ability to speak to certain pupils.

Applicant’s Closing Statement on Competence

In a closing statement on competency the Applicant’s representative submitted that on the evidence presented the Panel should conclude that the Applicant meets the SFR.  Which failing, it was submitted that she meets the SPR.  It was accepted that the references of Person B and Person C identified areas of concern.  These can be addressed, and the Applicant’s commitment cannot be doubted.  

Presenting Officer’s Closing Statement on Competence

The Presenting Officer submitted that the burden is on the Applicant to establish that she is now fit to teach.  The Panel’s decision should be based on the evidence and documents.  The Panel were referred to the relevant practice statement.

Conduct

The Panel then proceeded to deal with the Applicant’s fitness to teach in light of her conduct which lead to her previous removal (with consent) from the Register.

Applicant’s Opening Statement on Conduct

In her opening statement the Applicant said that reflecting back on the events of 2015 – 2016 (that led to her removal on conduct grounds) she realised that she made serious errors in judgment.  She has tried to show honesty and integrity since then. She has worked diligently and conscientiously in primary schools since that point. She referred the Panel to her references and to historic materials which (before her removal) were said to show real progression.  She directed the Panel to a reference from a Person H in relation to her invigilation work at Earlston High School. Person H recommended the Applicant for her professionalism, discretion and integrity. The Applicant referred the Panel again to the Person E, Person F and Person G References. She also referred the Panel to the reference for her work with migrant workers, and her reference from a Person Q, in relation to the Applicant’s work as a kennel club judge. She told the Panel that this role requires strict compliance with kennel club regulations.  

In relation to the facts of the allegations which the Applicant admitted, she explained to the Panel that she had received advice that she did not require to tell her employer about GTC Scotland proceedings. She referred the Panel to an email dated 11 March 2015 in which an NASUWT member of staff said:

If your employment there is due to end this week, it would be most helpful to ensure a teaching report is completed and shared with you. You do not have to explain anything about the hearing but just that you need that evidence as part of your GTCS registration.

The Applicant told the Panel that this was the background advice that took her down the road that she followed at the relevant time. However, she had taken responsibility and was horrified to think that she had done something wrong. She acknowledged serious errors of judgment and said that this caused her distress.

Presenting Officer’s Opening Statement on Conduct

In a short opening statement, the Presenting Officer directed the Panel to certain relevant documents.  He submitted that the Panel should look at the original conduct which amounted to dishonesty. He submitted that the Panel should consider whether the conduct is remediable, whether there is a risk of recurrence, and the public interest.  He suggested that the Panel might wish to probe the Applicant on a matter which is mentioned in the Applicant’s SRA application. Therein it is stated that when applying for Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) registration, there was a “slight” investigation when the Applicant had said that her GTC Scotland registration had lapsed, when in fact she had been removed.

While the Panel were grateful to the Presenting Officer for drawing this matter to their attention, and it was to the Applicant’s credit that she herself had mentioned it, there was nothing more in the materials which were before the Panel which explained what, if any, investigation the SSSC had undertaken in relation to the Applicant’s application for registration with that body. They considered that this is something that either the Applicant or GTC Scotland ought to have clarified with the Panel. As it was, the Panel had to try and obtain clarity on this matter from the Applicant.

Panel Questions

In questions with the Applicant the Panel clarified that the referees Person E, Person F and Person G had known that she had previously been removed from the Register, although she had not gone into details. They had known that the reference was for these proceedings.  

The Panel asked the Applicant how it had happened that she had not informed an employer of her probationary status.  She explained that her trade union representative had advised her that a new employer would notice this from her job application and GTC Scotland registration details. She referred again to the email from her union noted above. The union regulations were that she should not take advice from anyone else, and she thought that the advice she had received was correct. She also thought that there was maybe a data protection issue, although this was not further explained. She made clear that she had taken ownership of what happened, but she did not have any reason to think what she was doing was wrong.  

The Panel then began to ask the Applicant about the “slight” investigation into her SSSC application. The Applicant responded by saying that her union representative had written to a Ms Watt (a presenting officer who had been previously handling this case) about this issue.  It was not obvious to the Panel what the Applicant was referring to at this point.  The Applicant began reading from an email from her union representative to Ms Watt, which included the words “this was a genuine error”. At this point the Panel sought legal advice which was that the Applicant ought to answer questions in her own words and not use documents not lodged as an aide memoire. There were no comments on this advice, and the Convenor told the Applicant to answer questions in her own words. The Applicant then explained that her SSSC application was in 2022 when she was off work looking after her sister who was unwell and subsequently passed away. It was a quick application and she had ticked the wrong box. The SSSC queried this and she had to obtained a reference from Person B who had fully supported the Applicant and said it was a complete mistake (in her reference to GTC Scotland, Person B expresses disquiet about having had to provide this reference). The Applicant returned to her correspondence with Ms Watt in which, the Applicant said, she had been told that Ms Watt did not want to put her on the spot about this issue. It was stressful not being able to show what had happened (because the correspondence had not been lodged). She thought this had been dealt with between her union representative and Ms Watt.  

Following conclusion of the evidence of the Applicant, she produced further papers in relation to the SSSC application. The Presenting Officer also produced email correspondence between the said Ms Watt and the Applicant’s union representative.  Person B’s reference was included. Following legal advice, these were admitted, and the parties confirmed (standing that the materials were not spoken to in sworn evidence) that the documents were what they bore to be.  

Applicant’s Closing Statement on Conduct

The Applicant gave her own closing statement; she explained the timeline of what had happened in relation to her conduct case. This was largely a reiteration of what had been covered in her evidence on the matter, with further explanation founded on the papers most recently submitted. She pointed out that she had been working for the last nine years diligently and conscientiously in the Scottish curriculum. She referred again to the references from Person E, Person F and Person G. The Applicant’s representative made further submissions in respect of the Applicant’s credibility. The Applicant at this point sought to add a further comment that she thought that when she asked for a reference (for these proceedings) Person B seemed bothered that she might be leaving her post as a teaching assistant.

Presenting Officer’s Closing Statement on Conduct

In a short closing statement, the presenting officer reminded the Panel of where the onus lay.  In relation to the emails between Ms Watt and the Applicant’s representative, the entirety were now before the Panel.

Legal Advice

The legal advice to the Panel, which the Panel accepted and with which the parties agreed, was as follows:

• The question for the Panel in these proceedings was whether they were satisfied that the Applicant was now fit to teach;
• The definition of being unfit to teach is that a person’s conduct or professional competence falls significantly below the standards expected of a registered teacher;
• The Panel should bear in mind the previous proceedings but the question has to be approached afresh and as at the date of the Panel’s decision;
• The Panel should consider this matter in light of the relevant standards for registration and should also consider whether the conduct issues have been addressed;
• The Panel can find guidance on their task in the relevant practice statement;
• The Applicant has not been cross examined and nor has it been put to her that she is mistaken or lying in relation to any matter. The Panel will require to assess her credibility and reliability in that context;
• A large volume of documents had been put to the Panel, and there did not appear to be any dispute as to their provenance even where not established in the evidence;
• The Panel’s disposal options for the application were in rule 4.10;
• The Panel will require to consider whether the Applicant meets either the SFR or, if not, the SPR;
• If the Panel are minded to refuse the application, they should consider whether to set a period of time before which a further application may be considered.

Consideration of evidence

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence adduced and took account of the submissions made by the parties. It was notable that the Presenting Officer, no doubt acting on instructions, made no submissions as to the Applicant’s credibility or reliability. Nor was she cross examined on any of her evidence. In the circumstances, the Panel felt obliged, in fairness to the Applicant, to generally accept her as a credible and reliable witness. The exception in this respect was in relation to certain documents, for example the correspondence with Ms Watt, which did not contain the assurances that the Applicant considered that she had been given. In other respects, certain of the correspondence cited above did not, in the view of the Panel, appear to bear the meaning that the Applicant sought to put on it in her evidence. Standing that it was not put to the Applicant that she was seeking to misrepresent the terms of this correspondence, the Panel took the view that this was simply innocent misinterpretation on her part. Little turns on this in terms of the relevant facts, in the event, but the Panel took the view that where there was copy documentation before them, they ought to prefer the terms of that documentation itself, rather than the interpretation thereof offered by the Applicant in her evidence. Otherwise, the Panel were essentially bound to accept the factual narrative from the Applicant in her evidence, and they proceeded to determine the application on that basis. The Applicant’s representations in relation to what meaning certain items of correspondence disclosed did however give the Panel cause to have reservations as to the Applicant’s ability to interpret and apply information provided to her by colleagues, with a tendency to prefer an interpretation that was more in line with her own position, but that is a separate issue to her credibility and reliability.

Findings on fitness to teach

An Applicant for subsequent registration who has previously been removed from the Register for competence reasons requires, in an SRA, to demonstrate to a Panel that although he or she was unable to meet the SFR or SPR while a registered teacher, he or she has met those standards while not working as a registered teacher. In the present case, while the Panel accepted that the Applicant is a person with a passion for education and who has clearly had some success in provision of education in a capacity other than that of a registered teacher, they were unable to conclude, on the materials made available to them, that she had satisfied them that she had sufficiently met the SFR or SPR to enable them to conclude that her competence did not fall significantly below the standards expected of a registered teacher.  On that basis, they were not able to conclude that she is fit to teach, with reference to her competence. The Panel did conclude that the Applicant is not unfit to teach on account of her conduct, however the assessment for the Panel is a holistic one and standing their view of the Applicant’s competence, the SRA accordingly falls to be refused. The Panel arrived at these views for the following reasons.

Competence

The Panel considered the Application with regard to both the SPR and the SFR. The Panel concluded that the Applicant had met the standards in both SFR and SPR paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 (professional values and professional commitment).  

Turning to part 2 of the SFR and SPR, the Panel’s views on these were as follows:

SFR 2.1.1 Have a depth of knowledge and understanding of Pedagogical Theories and Professional Practice

SPR 2.1.1 Have knowledge and understanding of Pedagogical Theories and Professional Practice

The Panel were not satisfied that the Applicant had met these standards in either the SFR or the SPR. In the Panel’s view the Applicant demonstrated limited insight or understanding of Pedagogical Theories and Professional Practice. Respectfully, her evidence in relation to these matters appeared to the Panel to be superficial. Real understanding of these matters was not demonstrated to the Panel. The Panel was not satisfied, on the evidence, that the Applicant’s approach to lesson planning was satisfactory. The evidence indicated to the Panel that the Applicant’s undoubted passion and flair for artistic matters was the driver of the lesson planning that had been described, rather than the needs of the class.  While the Panel appreciated that the Applicant mentioned educational theorists it was not demonstrated to them that the Applicant had understanding of those authors’ theories or had put them into her professional practice.

SFR 2.1.2 Have a depth of knowledge and understanding of Research and Engagement in Practitioner Enquiry

SPR 2.1.2 Have knowledge and understanding of Research and Engagement in Practitioner Enquiry

Based on their discussion with the Applicant, it was not clear to the Panel that the Applicant understood the concept of practitioner inquiry sufficiently to meet the SFR in this respect.  The Panel were however satisfied that they had heard sufficient from the Applicant to satisfy them in relation to the SPR.

SFR 2.1.3 Have a depth of knowledge and understanding of Curriculum Design

SPR. 2.1.3 Have knowledge and understanding of Curriculum Design

In the Panel’s view, the Applicant’s evidence in relation to curriculum design was superficial.  She addressed this concept, but did not explain it sufficiently, in the Panel’s view, to meet the SFR in this respect. It was not clear to the Panel how the Applicant had come up with the lesson plans that she relied upon in her evidence, such as the sequence on the Romans. It was not clear to the Panel whether this was the Applicant’s original work or something that she had developed from another source. The Panel did note that the Applicant’s use of toy bears in language lesson was an example of curriculum design by her. However, the Panel were not satisfied that the evidence disclosed that the Applicant had a general knowledge and understanding sufficient to meet the SPR in this respect.

SFR 2.1.4 Have a depth of knowledge and understanding of Planning for Assessment, Teaching and Learning

SPR 2.1.4 Have knowledge and understanding of Planning for Assessment, Teaching and Learning

The Panel was not satisfied, on the evidence before them, that the Applicant had met either the SPR or the SFR in this respect. The Panel were not satisfied on the evidence that the Applicant had an understanding of how to use pupil feedback. The Panel was not satisfied that the Applicant could plan for the teaching of pupils of different abilities, such as a high achieving pupil.  

SFR 2.2.1 Have a depth of knowledge and understanding of Education Systems

SPR 2.2.1 Have knowledge and understanding of Education Systems

In this respect the Panel acknowledged that the Applicant had addressed educational theories to some extent. She also displayed knowledge of GIRFEC and the UNCRC. There was no evidence as to educational frameworks, systems or processes, nor was there any detailed discussion of relevant legislation or personal biases. In the Panel’s view the Applicant had demonstrated that she had met the SPR but not the SFR in this respect.  

SFR 2.2.2 Have a depth of knowledge and understanding of Learning Communities

SPR 2.2.2 Have a knowledge and understanding of Learning Communities

As the Panel understood matters, the Applicant’s head teacher, Person B, was the head teacher of two schools which together would form a learning community. There was no discussion in evidence of any occasion when these schools would have come together for any joint event or other reason. The Applicant did not discuss any cross-school development work or discuss learning from colleagues in other schools. There was no discussion of transition from nursery to primary school, or primary school to senior school. The Applicant did give evidence as to her development of links in the community, in terms of her language lessons and the local flower show. In the Panel’s view the evidence demonstrated that the Applicant had met the SPR but not the SFR in this respect.

SFR 3.1.1 Plan effectively to meet learners’ needs

SPR 3.1.1 Plan effectively to meet learners’ needs

The Panel acknowledged that the Applicant had produced lesson plans but on the evidence the circumstances of their preparation had been unclear. In the Panel’s view the plans produced did not show sufficient differentiation. There was insufficient consideration of how barriers to learning might be identified or overcome. In the Panel’s view it was not clear that the Applicant had demonstrated sufficient competence in communication. On occasions in her evidence she had not listened to the question posed and continued to address the Panel on a matter which she was focussed on. The Panel acknowledged that the Applicant had shown some competence in the planning of language and art lessons, but they were unable to find that either the SPR or the SFR were met as a generality in this respect.

SFR 3.1.2 Effectively utilise pedagogical approaches and resources

SPR 3.1.2 Utilise pedagogical approaches and resources

In the Panel’s view the Applicant’s evidence in this respect was poor. In their discussion with her the Panel had tried to encourage the Applicant to show considered reflection on her teaching. In the Panel’s view the Applicant had not demonstrated this. An example of this would be her comment on the reference from Person B to the effect that perhaps she was more concerned about losing a teaching assistant. The Applicant was not able to demonstrate that she had reflected on the substantive criticism offered by Person B. In the Panel’s view the Applicant’s self-reflection was poor, as was her consideration of feedback. She did not appear to be able to give examples of putting feedback into practice. There was some evidence of creating meaningful context for learners, particularly in the Applicant’s language tutoring, and the Panel noted that the Applicant had addressed teaching strategies when discussing classroom layout.  In the Panel’s view the Applicant had not satisfied them that she met either the SFR or the SPR. In this respect, as with many of the standards that the Panel had to consider, the Panel identified that what was lacking in the evidence was any external verification of the Applicant’s approach to teaching.  

SFR 3.1.3 Effectively utilise partnerships for learning and wellbeing

SPR 3.1.3 Utilise partnerships for learning and wellbeing

In this respect the Panel acknowledged that the Applicant had produced supportive references from colleagues. While these were in general terms, they were to the effect that she is a good worker and a good colleague. The Panel accepted these references as the genuine views of the authors. In that respect it appeared to the Panel that the Applicant had working partnerships with colleagues that could be utilised for learning and wellbeing.  However, there was insufficient evidence that these had been effectively utilised in any particular case. The Panel concluded that the SPR was met but that the SFR was not met in this respect.

SFR 3.1.4 Effectively employ assessment, evaluate progress, recording and reporting as an integral part of the teaching process to support and enhance learning

SPR 3.1.4 Employ assessment, evaluate progress, recording and reporting as an integral part of the teaching process to support and enhance learning

The Applicant faces a challenge in this respect in that substantial work which goes to these standards is not part of her role as a pupil support assistant. It is therefore not something which is capable of demonstration based on her current work, in terms of the SFR. As such, there was no evidence as to how the Applicant had collected and utilised assessment data in a school environment to support and enhance learning. The Panel acknowledged that the Applicant had undertaken assessment of progress in her language tutoring and had explained what she would do if a child was not achieving the relevant level. However, the evidence offered in this respect was provided at a general level and the Panel were not presented with a series of assessments which had been evaluated. The Panel considered that it was possible that the Applicant had the foundations of this standard in terms of the SPR however the evidence before them did not disclose that the standard had been met. The Panel therefore formed the view that neither the SPR nor the SFR were met in this respect.

SFR 3.2.1 Effectively organise and manage learning

SPR 3.2.1 Appropriately organise and manage learning

In the Panel’s view, the evidence presented to them did not show that the Applicant can plan effectively for whole class lessons in a school setting. The Panel acknowledged that the Applicant has organised group lessons in her language tutoring.  However, the Panel were not confident that this could be translated into delivery of a broad primary curriculum. The Panel were of the view that aspects of the SPR in this respect were demonstrated, but the evidence available to the Panel was too narrow in focus to demonstrate that either the SPR or SFR were met.

SFR 3.2.2 Effectively engage learner participation

SPR 3.2.2 Engage learner participation

In this respect the Panel formed the view that the Applicant had met the SPR. However, they did not consider that it had been shown to them that the Applicant met the SFR. While the Panel were satisfied that the Applicant had sought to engage learner participation, the Panel did not consider that the effectiveness of this was sufficiently demonstrated, on the evidence made available to them.

SFR 3.2.3 Build positive, respecting relationships for learning

SPR 3.2.3 Build positive, rights respecting relationships for learning

The Panel took the view that the Applicant had provided them with evidence of her promoting positive relationships between, and with, learners and their families. The colleague reference and testimonials that the Applicant had provided suggested a positive relationship.  However, there was no significant evidence that the Applicant had used research informed approaches to build professional relationships. It was not demonstrated to the Panel that the Applicant’s communication with learners had promoted competence and confidence in literacy numeracy and health and wellbeing.  

A problem in this area was the Applicant’s inability to reflect on, or even comprehend, the negative references from Person B or Person C. The Applicant was, understandably, upset that discussion of her absence records in the references made no mention of a series of close family bereavements which had occurred in the period between 2022 and 2024. The Applicant had lost her sister, father, and then her mother in that period. She explained this to the Panel and its effect on her work. She stated that she had not had significant absences more recently, because she had not suffered any further bereavements. The Panel accepted that her absence record was explained by the tragic circumstances she had described.  However, the views stated in the references were not founded solely or principally on the Applicant’s absence record.  

The Applicant had been asked by the Panel to address the shortcomings identified in the references. While she did her best, her answers were at times vague and unspecific, and not direct replies to the questions posed. For example, she was unable to clearly and specifically describe a situation where she had been given feedback and taken that on board. The Applicant told the Panel that the lack of information as to the reasons for the absences was indicative of a lack of accuracy in the references more generally. The Panel was not satisfied that they could draw that conclusion. While they considered that the absence record might have been addressed more sensitively, it was not demonstrated to have been inaccurate (e.g. by having overstated the level of absence, whatever the reasons for that). There was no evidence that the authors of the references were acting out of malice or had any reason to mislead the Panel. The authors appeared to the Panel to be suitably qualified to offer their professional views. The Panel considered that overall, it could place weight upon the references in their consideration of the matters before them.  

There were a number of other instances when the Applicant appeared to have misunderstood what she was being told. Although the evidence did not ever explain what had really happened, the Applicant’s evidence as to a teacher having apparently suggested she change her contract terms might have been another example of this. The Panel, while not questioning that the Applicant is a fundamentally decent and well-meaning person, had concerns as to the Applicant’s work-based relationships. They were therefore not able to conclude that either the SPR or the SFR were met in this respect.

SFR 3.3.1 Engage critically with literature, research and policy

SPR 3.3.1 Engage critically with literature, research and policy

In the Panel’s view, the Applicant did refer, somewhat loosely, to what might be described as appropriate literature. They accepted that the Applicant had looked at the materials that she mentioned and had digested it to some extent. However, the Panel were not satisfied that there was any example given of how she had put this into her practice sufficiently to persuade them that she had engaged critically with the literature that she mentioned. The Panel determined that the SPR and SFR were not met in this respect.

SFR 3.3.2 Engage in reflective practice to develop and advance career-long professional learning and expertise

SPR 3.3.2 Engage in reflective practice to develop and advance career-long professional learning and expertise

The Panel did not consider that either the SPR or SFR were met in this respect. In the Panel’s view the evidence before them was indicative of an absence of self-reflection which has had the consequence that the Applicant’s professional learning or expertise has not been advanced.

Conclusion on competence

As indicated above, the Panel determined that the evidence before them disclosed that they were only able to conclude that a very limited number of the SFR were met. The Panel had concluded that more of the SPR were met, however a number of those which were not met are core competences for a registered teacher.  For those reasons, the Panel were unable to conclude that the Applicant is fit to teach, because her professional competence, as disclosed by the evidence, falls significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher.  

Conduct

In relation to questions of conduct, the Panel took into account the matters which led to the Applicant’s previous removal from the Register on conduct grounds, and their relative seriousness.  The Panel took the view that, while GTC Scotland had sought, and the Applicant had consented to, removal from the Register on the basis of the allegations noted above, it was not obvious that a Panel would have directed removal on conduct grounds had the matters proceeded to a full conduct hearing. The Panel considered that the Applicant had accepted full responsibility for her actions, although they did question whether she showed genuine insight. In the evidence before the Panel, there were references indicating that the Applicant was a person with integrity, and the Panel took into account those views. The Panel accepted the Applicant’s evidence that those persons had known that she had previously been removed on conduct grounds. In relation to the SSSC matter, the Panel was unable, on the evidence, to form the view that this was a situation which disclosed a lack of integrity on the part of the Applicant. The situation before the Panel was that there had been a significant passage of time since the conduct which resulted in the Applicant’s removal from the Register.  There was no evidence that anything similar had happened in that time. The Panel did not consider, based on the evidence, that there was a risk of recurrence, and on that basis they considered that there was a low risk to the public, or to the reputation of the profession. In the whole circumstances, the Panel determined that the Applicant was not unfit to teach on account of her conduct.

Decision

The Panel wish to acknowledge that the Applicant is clearly driven to a career as a teacher, and that this decision will be disappointing to the Applicant.  The Panel having decided that the Applicant had not established that she was fit to teach in relation to her professional competence, they determined that the SRA falls to be refused, under rule 4.10 of the Rules.  

Rule 2.10.6 outlines that a Panel may direct that the Applicant be prohibited from making a subsequent registration application until the expiry of such a period, not exceeding 2 years, as it may determine. In this case, the Panel directed that the Applicant should be prohibited from making such an application for a period of one year from the date of its decision. The Panel considered that this period was appropriate because it would be the minimum period necessary for the Applicant to address the shortcomings identified. The Panel has not identified any safety concerns and considered that a longer period would be excessive in that context.  For clarity, the period of prohibition sets out how long the Applicant has to wait until a further application for registration can be made, which may or may not be granted. To be granted, a Fitness to Teach Panel would require to determine that the Applicant is fit to teach at that time.

Appeal

The Applicant will receive written notice of this decision within 28 days and has the right to appeal to the Court of Session against the decision within 28 days of the date of service of that written notice and has the right to right to lodge an appeal with the Appeals Board within 28 days where she can show that there are grounds to ask for the decision to be reviewed in terms of the Fitness to Teach Panel having either:

(a) failed to act in accordance with the Fitness to Teach and Appeals Rules; or

(b) made an error in law or in fact,

that has had a significant impact on the decision made.