Full Hearing – Claire Sweeney

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

Hearsay Application 

The Presenting Officer made an application to the Panel under Rule 1.7.17 for the witness statements of Pupils A, B and C to be admitted into the evidence as hearsay. Agreement had been reached between the Presenting Officer and the Teacher and her Representative that the contents of the statements were unchallenged and that the pupils did not require to be called as live witnesses. The pupils had all now left school and the statements related to events which occurred a substantial period of time ago, when the pupils were young. The parties felt the pupils were entitled now to regard the matter as being behind them. The Teacher’s Representative did not oppose the application for those reasons and on the basis that the Teacher was in a position to provide her own evidence to contextualise the events. The Teacher’s Representative had already agreed with the Presenting Officer that she need not call the pupils as witnesses, and they had been excused on that understanding. The Panel would therefore be in a position to come to a balanced view regarding what facts were proved by the hearsay statements. 

The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that in terms of Rule 1.7.17, the Panel may admit evidence subject to the requirements of relevance and fairness and in wider terms that might be the case in civil proceedings. 

The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice that hearsay was not inadmissible for the sole reason that it was hearsay. Hearsay could be excluded if it were characterised as the sole and decisive evidence leading to a conclusion that the Teacher could not fairly contest the issues. 

Both parties were content for the statements to be admitted as hearsay, which reassured the Panel. Having read the statements in advance together with all of the other written material available, the Panel was clear that: the statements were relevant to the allegations in question; there were good and cogent reasons for the absence of the witnesses; and it would not be unfair to admit the statements as hearsay in all the circumstances. 

There was other evidence that both parties could rely on to support or to challenge the witness statements where necessary. Accordingly, the Panel decided to admit the hearsay evidence. The Panel would attach such weight to them as was appropriate at the relevant time of fact-finding, keeping in mind that hearsay evidence is ultimately less valuable as a source of truth than evidence provided in-person which can be made subject to cross-examination. 

Privacy Rule 1.7.3.

The Panel, part-way through the hearing and on its own initiative, made an order under Rule 1.7.3 (a) to hold part of the hearing in private with a view to preventing or restricting the public disclosure of certain aspect of proceedings. It emerged that evidence would be introduced by the Teacher relating to her private life and her health, and it was the view of the Panel that this evidence should be heard in private in line with the Teacher’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The parties were in agreement on this approach being adopted at the relevant times during the Teacher’s evidence. 

Allegation(s)

The following allegation(s) were considered at the hearing: 

While you were employed as a Teacher by South Lanarkshire Council at Uddingston Grammar School: 

1. On 21 February 2018, you did shout at an S1 pupil stating words to the effect of ‘I am not here to wipe your arse’. 

2. On 21 February 2018, you did respond to the Faculty Head Teacher in an inappropriate and unacceptable manner by referring to a pupil as ‘an attention seeker with a transgender identity crisis’ or words to that effect. 

3. On 22 February 2018, did shout loudly and in an angry manner at your S1 class saying, ‘I am not vaguely interested’; ‘I am not interested, when will you realise that?’; and ‘for God’s sake, just shut up’ or words to that effect. 

And in light of the above it is alleged that your fitness to teach is impaired and you are unfit to teach as a result of breaching Parts 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 2.3 and 5.1 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Teacher’s Admissions

The Teacher admitted allegation 1 in full. 

Allegations 2 and 3 were partly admitted by the Teacher at the outset of the hearing. Later, an unintentional ambiguity became evident about the extent and context of the partial admissions. The Teacher’s written admissions appeared to have been modified by later written and oral submissions on her behalf and were, on the face of it, not wholly in accordance with concessions made by the Teacher in the contemporary workplace investigation which took place. 

The circumstances led the Panel to treat allegations 2 and 3 as not fully admitted in order to ensure that the hearing was fair both to the Teacher and to GTC Scotland. The Panel recognised that GTC Scotland should not be disadvantaged by relying on a partial admission that was, in effect, not consistently and coherently sustained.

The Panel did not attribute any adverse inference of irresponsible conduct by the Teacher in this regard. The Panel recognised that events had occurred 5 years ago. The Panel considered that the Teacher appeared to be doing her best to assist the Panel as best as she could to recall events and had not attempted to deliberately mislead the Panel.

The Teacher did not admit that her fitness to teach is currently impaired.

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 

Final Investigation Report, dated 26 May 2020, with appendices: 

• Statement of Pupil A, signed and dated 30 November 2018 
• Statement of Pupil B, signed and dated 30 November 2018 
• Statement of Pupil C, signed and dated 30 November 2018
• Statement of Witness 1, signed and dated 30 November 2018 – in attendance (virtually) 
• Statement of Colleague 1, signed and dated 29 November 2018 
• Statement of Witness 3, signed and dated 4 December 2018 – in attendance (virtually) 
• Statement of Witness 2, signed and dated 11 December 2018 – in attendance (virtually) 
• South Lanarkshire Council Conduct and Fact Finding Report, with appendices:
  • Appendix 1: Fact Finding Meeting with Headteacher A, dated 26 March 2018 
  • Appendix 2: Fact Finding Meeting with Witness 1, dated 26 March 2018 
  • Appendix 3: Fact Finding Meeting with Witness 2, dated 26 March 2018 
  • Appendix 4: Fact Finding Meeting with Claire Sweeney, dated 29 March 2018 
  • Appendix 5: Fact Finding Meeting with Colleague 1, dated 23 April 2018
  • Appendix 6: Fact Finding Meeting with Colleague 2, dated 23 April 2018 
  • Appendix 7: Fact Finding Meeting with Colleague 3, dated 23 April 2018 
  • Appendix 8: Fact Finding Meeting with Witness 3, dated 3 May 2018 
  • Appendix 9: Email from Witness 2 to Headteacher A, dated 26 February 2018 
  • Appendix 10: Email dated 22 February 2018
  • Appendix 11: Statement from Witness 1 
  • Appendix 12: Statement from pupils 
  • Appendix 13: Redacted 
  • Appendix 14: Redacted
• Teacher’s Response to Notification of Investigation Form
• Teacher’s Response to Interim Investigation Report
• Notice of Investigation, dated 9 July 2018
• Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 2 June 2020
• Notice of Panel Consideration cover email and delivery/download receipts, dated 2 June 2020

Teacher’s Hearing Papers 

• Testimonials from colleagues Testimonials A, B, C, D, E, F and G, received October 2020 

Servicing Officer’s Hearing Papers 

• Notice of Full Hearing, dated 18 February 2022, with cover email and delivery receipts 
• Vulnerable Witness Application Decision, dated 24 February 2021 

Summary of Evidence 

The Panel heard live evidence from four witnesses during the course of the hearing, as follows: Witness 1 (Head of the English faculty at the material time); Witness 2 (Principal Teacher, Pupil Support); Witness 3 (Pupil Support Assistant); and the Teacher.

Witness 1 attended the Full Hearing and gave evidence directly to the Panel in relation to allegation 2. Witness 1 was the Head of the English faculty at the material time, and was the Teacher’s line manager.

The English department classrooms are arranged around a staff room called ‘the Hub’ which functions as a staff preparation area, with tables and chairs arranged around part of the room, a lunch and staff meeting area. English teaching staff were expected to begin the teaching day in the Hub prior to the first class of the morning. In this way, staff could conclude any outstanding preparations for the day, and meet other staff members to be made aware of any issues with pupils or other matters. 

On 21 February 2018, Witness 1 attended the Hub prior to 9am to discuss with the Teacher an issue raised by the mother of one of her pupils about a request for spelling sheets and help with an essay. The pupil was in one of the Teacher’s English classes.

Witness 1 was taken aback by the Teacher’s response to his request. The Teacher had raised her voice and adopted a ‘shouty’ tone, saying that the pupil was an ‘attention seeker with a transgender identity crisis’ or similar words. Witness 1 recognised the inappropriateness both of the words used and the tone of voice adopted by the Teacher. He was concerned that the matter might deteriorate unpredictably and so he ‘deflected’ the Teacher’s response, bringing the exchange to a close.

The Teacher sought to persuade the Panel that the room was such that other staff members ought to have heard the exchange, which the Teacher recalled differently. The Teacher said that she felt ‘ambushed’ by Witness 1’s approach, which she viewed as public and threatening, in front of other staff. The Teacher contested the allegation in part because she had a particularly good relationship with the pupil concerned and their parents. She explained that the pupil had communication issues caused in part by their decision to transition gender, resulting in them being unwilling to speak up directly in class. The Teacher’s position is that she may have mentioned the pupil’s transition during her exchange with Witness 1 to explain that the pupil had communication issues caused in part by their decision to transition gender, resulting in them being unwilling to speak up directly in class. The Teacher said that she would never have used discriminatory language, despite having accepted having used inappropriate language towards her class in relation to allegation 1.

Witness 2 attended the Full Hearing and gave evidence directly to the Panel in relation to allegation 3.

On 22 February 2018 Witness 2 was sitting in the Hub marking pupils’ work. She described the door to the Hub being directly opposite the door to the Teacher’s classroom. Whilst in the Hub, she overheard the Teacher shouting words to the effect of ‘I am not vaguely interested’; ‘I am not interested, when will you realise that?’; and ‘for God’s sake, just shut up’. Witness 2 remembered  the doors of both rooms being open at the material time and that she could hear the Teacher clearly. She was concerned by the words that she heard and so wrote them down. She reported the matter to the Headteacher on 26 February via email and the email was before the Panel as evidence. She described in that email being able to hear the Teacher clearly as she was shouting at the time.

A Pupil Support Assistant, Witness 3, also gave evidence to the Panel. She described the Teacher’s first-year English class as being difficult to manage at times. In particular, one pupil made a game of frequently and excessively asking for instructions to be repeated which Witness 3 interpreted as being intended to be disruptive. This was accompanied by recurring requests to be excused for toilet breaks, far in excess of what was reasonable. The class also found the pupil’s actions irritating. Witness 3 described the Teacher as being strict as a class disciplinarian and would occasionally raise her voice to bring the class under control. Witness 3 did not recall the Teacher using the words asserted by Witness 2.

The Teacher accepted that she would occasionally raise her voice in order to take control but would not use the words attributed to her in relation to allegation 3. She recalled the pupil described by Witness 3 and that this pupil would frequently shout out. The Teacher recalls saying words to the effect of ‘nobody is listening to you anymore’ and taking her out of the class to speak to her. The Teacher opined that Witness 2 may have overheard her speaking to this pupil in the corridor, as opposed to shouting at the class. The Teacher admitted to raising her voice at that pupil.

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.

The Panel first considered the contemporaneous documentation before it due to its likelihood to be deemed more reliable due to being recorded closer to the time in question. The Panel then looked at all evidence pertaining to the denied allegations in order to reach a conclusion on the balance of probabilities.

The Panel considered each of the allegations in turn.

1. On 21 February 2018, you did shout at an S1 pupil stating words to the effect of ‘I am not here to wipe your arse’.

The Teacher admitted allegation 1 in full and in addition the allegation was supported by contemporary records of the school’s internal disciplinary process which followed these events on 26 March 2018. Subject to Rule 1.7.21 the Panel found this allegation proved.

2. On 21 February 2018, you did respond to the Faculty Head Teacher in an inappropriate and unacceptable manner by referring to a pupil as ‘an attention seeker with a transgender identity crisis’ or words to that effect.

The main witnesses to allegation 2 were Witness 1 and the Teacher.

Another staff member, Colleague 1, was present in the room at the time. Her recollection, set out in a written statement, was not as clear as Witness 1’s and the Panel found it could attach little weight to this evidence. By her own admission she was trying not to listen to the conversation between Witness 1 and the Teacher and so the Panel found her recollection to be less reliable, through no fault of Colleague 1.  

The Panel found Witness 1 to be very matter-of-fact and consistent in his recollection of events, even under cross-examination. He remembered the exchange in detail. He acted upon what had occurred appropriately and as expected of him as the head of the department. He took the matter up with the Headteacher, which was consistent with his reaction to what the Teacher had said. The Panel found he was balanced in giving his evidence in that he stated that he had never heard the Teacher use discriminatory language before and he did not consider that she was of a discriminatory mind or nature. He set out that the reason he reported the incident was out of concern that the Teacher may have another outburst and get into trouble.  

The Teacher was consistent in her position that she did not say the words alleged, but that she may have referenced the pupil’s gender during the exchange in order to provide context as to why the pupil had not asked her for help directly. However, the Panel could see no reason that Witness 1 would have made up the phrase alleged. 

Given the reasons outlined, the Panel was satisfied that the circumstances of the event were such that Witness 1’s recollection was more likely to have happened than not and that the Teacher’s conduct was inappropriate and unacceptable in the context of the situation which unfolded. 

Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that this allegation was more likely to have happened than not and thus found allegation 2 proved on the balance of probabilities. 

3. On 22 February 2018, did shout loudly and in an angry manner at your S1 class saying, ‘I am not vaguely interested’; ‘I am not interested, when will you realise that?’; and ‘for God’s sake, just shut up’ or words to that effect. 

The key witnesses to allegation 3 were Witness 2, Principal Teacher of Pupil Support, and the Teacher.  

The Panel found that the evidence of Witness 3 was not helpful in relation to the events of 22 February 2018, which she could not precisely remember. She gave evidence of a general nature, truthfully, but the Panel was unable to conclusively determine that her evidence related to the date in question.  

The Panel accepted the evidence of Witness 2. The Panel considered Witness 2’s evidence to be consistent through both the local investigation process and the GTC Scotland process. The Panel considered her evidence descriptive in terms of the words used and the tone and volume. She wrote an account of the event in a note at the time which she used in escalating the matter with school management in an email, which was before the Panel. She was clear that she had moved to stand at the door to the Hub during the course of the incident and so the Panel considered the Teacher’s version of events, which involved her speaking to a pupil in the corridor, to be unlikely given that Witness 2 would have seen the Teacher and pupil in the corridor had that been the case. 

The Teacher’s account, in which she accepted attempting to control her class loudly, employed words along the lines that she ‘was not interested in stories’ directed toward the particular disruptive pupil and not at the class. This account did not accord with the school’s internal disciplinary investigation which was initiated as a result of these events. 

The Panel ultimately preferred the evidence of Witness 2. It was clear to the Panel that the words used were, in the context supplied by Witness 2, directed at the class and were inappropriate. 

Accordingly, the Panel found allegation 3 proved on the balance of probabilities. 

In summary, the Panel found all three allegations proved in full. 

Findings on Fitness to Teach

Given that the Panel found that all 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 had given some evidence regarding her health and personal circumstances at the time of these events and subsequently during her evidence at stage 1. 

The Teacher said that she was distressed and upset to read the contents of the statements of Pupils A, B and C. She accepted that these young people had faithfully given an account of their experiences in her classroom. The Teacher said that she was strict as a disciplinarian but had no idea of the impact that her teaching style had had on the children. The Teacher said that she wished that this had been brought to her attention at the time to allow her to take appropriate steps to modify her teaching style appropriately. 

[Redacted] 

The Teacher explained that she left Uddingston Grammar School, having taken ill-health leave following these events and before the disciplinary process had concluded. After a period of recovery, she was successful in obtaining a teaching post in another school, where she still teaches now. The Teacher explained that the former stressors in her life had sufficiently dissolved that she now practised teaching in a safe and effective way as she previously had prior to 2018. Her new school was supportive of her, she said, and she enjoyed her current post. 

In the event that any restriction imposed on her teaching practice had the effect of interrupting her current employment, the Teacher said that she was not confident of securing an alternative. The Teacher said that she was likely to suffer great financial hardship as a consequence. 

The Teacher explained to the Panel the teaching methods employed by her in her new post. She recognised that she was strict but felt that this was supportive of pupils learning. The Teacher explained that she set clear boundaries for classes in terms of behaviour and expectations of classwork and homework. She said that she felt that the pupils’ parents acknowledged her positive impact on their children’s education. 

Further, the Teacher’s colleagues were also supportive. The Teacher explained the CPD courses that she had undertaken, which were targeted and specific to her teaching role. The feedback received by the Teacher from her current school was invariably positive, she said, and there had been no complaints. 

The Presenting Officer on behalf of GTC Scotland, confirmed that there were no further outstanding matters and that these proceedings were the only adverse record in the Teacher’s professional history. 

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 Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement (‘the IOG’). 

The Panel was satisfied that the Teacher’s proved misconduct was serious professional misconduct. The Panel reached this conclusion with reference to the Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC). In particular, the Panel found the following parts of COPAC to have been breached:  

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 a profession; 

The Teacher’s actions at the time fell far short of what was professional conduct. In particular, the Panel identified the aggressive tone and discriminatory and offensive colloquial words used by the Teacher were actions which fell far short of what was expected of a teacher. In particular, young learners are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect when aspects of their personal lives become interwoven with their educational experience. Young learners are entitled to feel supported and valued individually. The Panel noted that the part concerning honesty and integrity did not apply in this case. 

1.5 you should be professional, honest and act with integrity in your dealings and correspondence with GTC Scotland, other regulatory (or similar) bodies and employers (including prospective and past); 

Whilst the Panel considered the Teacher’s engagement with GTC Scotland to be professional, it considered that the Teacher did not act professionally during her interaction with her line manager Witness 1 as outlined at allegation 2. 

1.6 you should maintain an awareness that as a Teacher you are a role model to pupils. 

Teachers are required to be positive role models. The Teacher on the occasions found proved had not been a good role model. This was evidenced by her approach to dealing with bad behaviour, responding in an angry way, demonstrating impatience and willingness to act in an aggressive and unacceptable way. The children that she was dealing with were in the first year of secondary school and were accordingly still adjusting to the experience of more independent learning and the demands of mixing with a wide range of much older pupils. The Teacher should have been an example of how to respond appropriately and proportionately to disruptive and unwanted conduct. 

2.3 you should aim to be a positive role model to pupils and motivate and inspire them to realise their full potential; 

The breach of this aspect of COPAC was demonstrated in the statements provided by Pupils A, B, and C. They have found themselves facing an angry teacher who did not welcome active participation by the children, in their perception. These pupils had not been given an opportunity to become confident in class so that they could participate in lessons and feel able to make mistakes from which they could learn. Their recollections of being in the Teacher’s class were overwhelmingly negative. The Panel considered that this fell far short of what was required by the Teacher in the circumstances. The statements by the children demonstrated the consequence for them of the teachers breaches of this part of COPAC. 

5.1 engage and work positively with pupils, colleagues, parents, and carers in an open, inclusive, and respectful way, in line with the law and with a non-judgemental approach whatever their background, personal circumstances, cultural differences, values and beliefs; 

The Teacher had not acted positively and in line with this aspect of COPAC in her choice of language at allegation 2. She had disrespected a vulnerable transitioning child and had not been inclusive in her language. 

In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s actions amounted to misconduct. 

The Panel then went on to consider whether the conduct was remediable, whether it had been remedied, and whether there was an ongoing risk of reoccurrence.  

The Panel was satisfied that all of the Teacher’s misconduct was remediable. Whilst being serious professional misconduct, it did not lie at the most serious end of the spectrum. The Panel was satisfied, having heard evidence from the Teacher in relation to her personal circumstances around the time of the allegations, that the events of 21 and 22 February 2018, were isolated in nature, rooted in the personal stressors suffered by the Teacher at that time and did not reflect her fundamental attitudes towards young persons and teaching. Although serious, in the whole circumstances of the case, the Panel was satisfied that there was no evidence of any deeper disregard for the standards or any fundamental attitude which was incompatible with teaching. 

The Panel understood that there had been no previous history of misconduct. Further, the evidence given by the Teacher regarding her remediation, including CPD courses and her current good practice in another role as a teacher had not been contradicted by the Presenting Officer. 

The Teacher had admitted all of allegation 1 from the outset. She had made concessions which were equivalent to partial admissions in relation to allegation 2 and, in fairness to her, the Panel had treated allegations 2 and 3 as not formally admitted. The Teacher had demonstrated a willingness to engage with the process and appears to have appreciated the seriousness and impact of the misconduct found proved by the Panel. Further, during the course of the hearing, the Teacher had demonstrated considerable insight into her behaviour and seemed genuinely remorseful of the adverse impact her conduct had on pupils, as described by Pupils A, B and C. 

The Panel was satisfied that the Teacher had in fact remedied her misconduct. She had clearly demonstrated insight to the Panel. She had been entitled to decline to admit the allegations in full, to the extent that they did not accord with her recollection. The Panel was satisfied that the offensive transgender expression was out of character for her. The Teacher told the Panel that she was ‘horrified’ by the expression which was at variance with her personal commitment to young people and to the teaching profession. 

The Teacher had obtained a new teaching role. No further concerns had been made about her teaching practice. On the contrary, the Teacher appeared to have become a valued colleague at the school and there were positive testimonials from her current colleagues, although these were not dated. The Panel felt it would have benefitted from more up-to-date testimonials, but the Panel was reassured by the fact that nothing to the contrary was known to GTC Scotland. 

The Teacher explained to the Panel that she had [redacted]. She also explained that the personal stressors had since been sufficiently resolved that she was able to resume teaching in a manner consistent with the approach expected of a member of the teaching profession in Scotland. 

Although the Panel was not provided with independent medical reports or up-to-date testimonials, the Panel was entirely persuaded when the Teacher said that she was ‘chastened’ by the process and had fully accepted the findings of the Panel against her. 

In all the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that the Teacher had in fact remediated her past misconduct. The Panel was further satisfied that there was no real risk of any repetition of this or any other misconduct. The Panel was satisfied that the Teacher had responded and reflected appropriately and effectively on the matters which the Panel had found proved, in addition to those admitted by her. 

The Panel considered whether a finding of impairment was necessary in the public interest in order to support public trust and confidence in the profession. The Panel considered that any reasonably informed member of the public would be reassured by the Teacher’s response to the process, her insight, and her commitment to the education of young people and to the profession. The Panel recognised that the public interest was also served by the return to safe and effective practice of a teacher whose professional misconduct had been fully remediated. In the circumstances, the Panel considered that it was not necessary to make a finding of impairment based on the public interest factors. 

In summary, the Panel concluded that there was no current impairment of the Teacher’s fitness to teach. Accordingly, the Teacher was found to be currently fit to teach.

As the Teacher was found to be currently fit to teach, that marked an end to proceedings with no further action required.