ms genevieve hyde: professional conduct panel outcome · 2021. 6. 3. · ms genevieve hyde 18801 4...
TRANSCRIPT
Ms Genevieve Hyde: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the
Secretary of State for Education
May 2021
2
Contents
Introduction 3
Allegations 4
Preliminary applications 6
Summary of evidence 6
Documents 6
Witnesses 7
Decision and reasons 7
Findings of fact 8
Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13
Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17
3
Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on
behalf of the Secretary of State
Ms Genevieve Hyde
18801
4 to 6 May 2021
Wargrave House School & LEAP Specialist
College, Merseyside
Teacher:
TRA reference:
Date of determination:
Former employer:
Introduction
A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the
TRA”) convened between 04 May 2021 and 06 May 2021 by way of a virtual hearing, to
consider the case of Ms Genevieve Hyde.
The panel members were Mr Kevin Robertshaw (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Melissa
West (teacher panellist) and Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist).
The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Rosie Shipp of Birketts LLP solicitors.
The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Andrew Cullen of Browne Jacobson solicitors.
Ms Hyde was present and was not represented.
The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded.
4
Allegations
The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 31 March
2021.
It was alleged that Ms Hyde was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or
conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed at Wargrave
House School & LEAP Specialist College as Head Teacher between 1 November 2008
and 13 June 2019, she:
1. Sent inappropriate social media messages to the Deputy Head of Education and
Assistant Head of Education of the School, including messages in which she:
a) On various dates between 9 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, referred to Staff
Member 1 as ‘Slither’;
b) On 13 July 2018, referred to Student A as ‘pooey pants’;
c) On 5 August 2018, in response to the comment ‘I used to date a girl with a lazy
eye’, replied ‘you dated [Staff Member 2]?’;
d) On 19 December 2018 and 30 January 2019, referred to a Staff Member 3 as ‘Fatty
[REDACTED] Whiplash’;
e) On 31 December 2018, shared the following message: ‘Not every flower can say
love, but a rose can. Not every plant survives thirst, but a cactus can. Not every
retard can read, but look at you go, little buddy. I don’t care if you lick windows, or
fuck farm animals. You hang in there cupcake, because you’re fucking special to
me, and you’re my friend. Look at you smiling at your phone, you crayon eating
mother fucker!’;
2. Sent inappropriate emails to Individual 1, who was not a member of staff at the School,
including emails in which, she:
a) On 1 March 2019 at 17:16, referred to Individual 2 as having the biggest nostrils in
the world;
b) On 4 March 2019 at 9:45, referred to Individual 2 as ‘Mr Nostrils’.
3. In or around March 2019, provided Individual 1 with information and/or confidential
school information in order to assist Individual 1 with her application to become a
[REDACTED] at the School, knowing that this information would provide Individual 1
with an unfair advantage over other potential candidates for the [REDACTED].
4. Her conduct as may be found proven at allegation 3 demonstrated a lack of integrity.
5
Ms Hyde accepts that she sent the messages as referred to in allegation 1a. Ms Hyde
accepts that her comments were about [REDACTED] Staff Member 1, who was a staff
member at the school and [REDACTED]. Ms Hyde accepts that those messages were
inappropriate.
Ms Hyde accepts that she sent the message referred to in allegation 1b. Ms Hyde
accepts that she made this comment about a pupil at the school who had a medical
condition. Ms Hyde accepts that this message was inappropriate.
Ms Hyde accepts that she sent the message referred to in allegation 1c. Ms Hyde
accepts that this comment was made in reference to [REDACTED] Staff Member 2, who
was a member of staff at the School. Ms Hyde made this comment to refer to
[REDACTED]. Ms Hyde accepts that this message was inappropriate.
Ms Hyde accepts that she sent the messages referred to in allegation 1d, about another
member of staff. Ms Hyde accepts that these messages were inappropriate.
Ms Hyde accepts that she sent the message referred to in allegation 1e and further
accepts this message was inappropriate.
As a result, Ms Hyde admits allegation 1 in its entirety.
Ms Hyde admits that she sent the email referred to in allegation 2, which referred to
Individual 2, [REDACTED] by the school. Ms Hyde accepts that it was inappropriate to
send the emails. On account of the above admissions, Ms Hyde admits allegation 2 in its
entirety.
In relation to allegation 3, Ms Hyde admits that she liaised with Individual 1 between 6
February and 26 March 2019 regarding the school’s [REDACTED]. Ms Hyde provided
detailed information to Individual 1 about expected interview questions and the panel’s
desired answers. Ms Hyde states that this information was based on her personal and
professional views and that she was not privy to any of the official interview questions.
Before Individual 1 was invited to interview for the [REDACTED], Ms Hyde sent Individual
1 confidential data which included the school’s class numbers and pupils’ names. Ms
Hyde also accepts that she sent Individual 1 the school’s 5-year strategic plan, which
was a publicly available document.
Ms Hyde accepts that by sending Individual 1 this information, Individual 1 gained an
unfair advantage in the interview process. Ms Hyde admits that she should not have
provided this information to Individual 1. Ms Hyde accepts, with hindsight, that her
actions compromised the fairness of the recruitment process.
Ms Hyde does not accept that she provided this information to Individual 1 knowing at the
time that it would secure Individual 1 with an advantage over other candidates; instead,
6
Ms Hyde accepts that she sent some of the information to Individual 1 as Individual 1 had
requested it, and otherwise in an attempt to serve the best interests of the school.
Therefore, Ms Hyde does not admit allegation 3.
Ms Hyde denies allegation 4. Ms Hyde says that her actions demonstrated her drive and
passion for the school, which she worked tirelessly to support, rather than a lack of
integrity.
Ms Hyde admits that her conduct in respect of allegations 1 and 2 amounted to
unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into
disrepute.
As Ms Hyde disputes allegations 3 and 4, she does not accept her conduct in respect of
those allegations amounted to unacceptable professional or conduct that may bring the
profession into disrepute.
Preliminary applications
The panel considered an application from the Presenting Officer to amend the
introduction to the allegations. The only amendment sought was to refer to Ms Hyde as
“Head of Education” rather than “head teacher”, to reflect Ms Hyde’s true job title.
The panel considered paragraph 4.56 of the Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures
for the teaching profession (April 2018) (the “April 2018 procedures”) and considered that
it was in the interests of justice to amend the introduction to the allegations. The panel
noted the application was not disputed by Ms Hyde and agreed to grant the application.
The introductory text (as amended) shall therefore read as follows:
“It was alleged that Ms Hyde was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or
conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed at Wargrave
House School & LEAP Specialist College as Head of Education between 1 November
2008 and 13 June 2019, she:…”
Summary of evidence
Documents
In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents, which included:
Section 1: Chronology – page 2
Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 4 to 24
Section 3: TRA witness statement – pages 25 to 234
7
Section 4: TRA documents – pages 236 to 404
Section 5: Teacher’s documents – pages 406 to 420
In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following:
• Whole Staff Behaviour Policy
• Child Protection and Safeguarding Children Policy
• Recruitment and Selection of Staff Policy
• Ms Hyde’s response to the notice of hearing
The panel noted that these documents were provided to them late in that they were sent
at the close of the preceding week as opposed to four weeks in advance as required by
the April 2018 procedures. However, the panel considered the documents to be highly
relevant to the issues that it was being asked to determine and that they should be
admitted in the interests of a fair hearing. Ms Hyde was also content for the documents to
be considered.
The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle,
in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit.
Witnesses
The TRA did not call any witnesses. Ms Hyde gave oral evidence but did not call any
witnesses.
No summary of the evidence given is required as evidence that was material to the
panel’s decision should be captured in the reasons given for it (below).
Decision and reasons
The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:
The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision.
Ms Hyde was appointed as Head of Education at Wargrave House School & LEAP
Specialist College on 1 November 2008.
In June 2018, Ms Hyde created a WhatsApp group with three members of staff which
included [REDACTED] , the Deputy Head of Education, and [REDACTED], the Assistant
Head of Education. In April 2019, one of the members of the group, [REDACTED],
disclosed transcripts of the messages exchanged in the group to [REDACTED], Staff
Member 1, the school’s Director of Services.
8
Ms Hyde was suspended on 1 May 2019, and the school commenced an internal
investigation into Ms Hyde’s conduct on 3 May 2019. During this investigation, upon
checking Ms Hyde’s email the school identified that in February 2019, Ms Hyde began
communicating with Individual 1 about the [REDACTED] at the school. Ms Hyde knew
Individual 1 in a professional capacity.
On 10 June 2019, a disciplinary hearing was held and Ms Hyde was dismissed on 13
June 2019 following a finding that her conduct constituted gross misconduct justifying
summary dismissal. Ms Hyde unsuccessfully appealed her dismissal.
A teacher misconduct referral was then made on 23 September 2019.
Findings of fact
The findings of fact are as follows:
The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these
reasons:
It was alleged that you are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or
conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed at
Wargrave House School & LEAP Specialist College as Head of Education between
1 November 2008 and 13 June 2019 you:
1. Sent inappropriate social media messages to the Deputy Head of Education and
Assistant Head of Education of the School, including messages in which you:
a) On various dates between 9 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, referred to Staff
Member 1 as ‘Slither’;
b) On 13 July 2018, referred to Student A as ‘pooey pants’;
c) On 5 August 2018, in response to the comment ‘I used to date a girl with a
lazy eye’, replied ‘you dated [Staff Member 2]?’;
d) On 19 December 2018 and 30 January 2019, referred to a Staff Member 3 as
‘Fatty [REDACTED] Whiplash’;
e) On 31 December 2018, shared the following message: ‘Not every flower can
say love, but a rose can. Not every plant survives thirst, but a cactus can. Not
every retard can read, but look at you go, little buddy. I don’t care if you lick
windows, or fuck farm animals. You hang in there cupcake, because you’re
fucking special to me, and you’re my friend. Look at you smiling at your
phone, you crayon eating mother fucker!’;
9
The panel noted that within the statement of agreed and disputed facts, signed by Ms
Hyde on 17 January 2021, Ms Hyde admitted this allegation in its entirety.
Notwithstanding Ms Hyde’s admission, the panel considered all of the evidence before it
and found the WhatsApp screen shots to be conclusive evidence that the messages
containing the comments above were sent by Ms Hyde as alleged.
The panel therefore found allegation 1 proven.
2. Sent inappropriate emails to Individual 1, who was not a member of staff at the
School, including emails in which you:
a) On 1 March 2019 at 17:16, referred to Individual 2 as having the biggest
nostrils in the world;
b) On 4 March 2019 at 9:45, referred to Individual 2 as ‘Mr Nostrils’;
The panel noted that within the statement of agreed and disputed facts, signed by Ms
Hyde on 17 January 2021, Ms Hyde admitted this allegation in its entirety.
Notwithstanding Ms Hyde’s admission, the panel considered all of the evidence before it,
including the emails that included the references within this allegation, and concluded
that Ms Hyde had sent the emails to Individual 1 referring to Individual 2 as described
above.
The panel therefore found allegation 2 proven.
3. In or around March 2019, provided Individual 1 with information and/or
confidential school information in order to assist Individual 1 with her
application to become a [REDACTED] at the School, knowing that this
information would provide Individual 1 with an unfair advantage over other
potential candidates for the [REDACTED].
The panel noted that within the statement of agreed and disputed facts Ms Hyde
admitted part of this allegation, namely that she provided Individual 1 with information. In
particular, Ms Hyde provided detailed information as to possible interview questions and
the panel’s desired answers. Ms Hyde also admits that she furnished Individual 1 with
sensitive and confidential school data. The panel considered Ms Hyde’s admission and
the evidence before it and determined that she had shared information with Individual 1
as alleged.
The remaining issue in dispute was Ms Hyde’s state of mind at the time she provided the
information. The TRA allege that Ms Hyde provided the information to assist Individual 1
with her application to become the [REDACTED] of the school, knowing that the
information would provide Individual 1 with an unfair advantage over other candidates.
Ms Hyde disputes that Individual 1 was her preferred candidate at the time the messages
were sent, and further disputes that she had intended to provide Individual 1 with an
10
unfair advantage. However, during her oral evidence Ms Hyde conceded that, with
hindsight, she could understand why the messages might be interpreted in that way.
The panel had particular regard to the tone and the content of the messages exchanged
between Ms Hyde and Individual 1. In particular, early in their exchange Ms Hyde
confirmed that she thought Individual 1 “would be a real asset to the Wargrave Team”,
and indicated that she has a “strong idea” as to what the school’s governors were looking
for in a prospective candidate. Ms Hyde also shared some of the “buzz words” that she
believed that the school’s trustees would like to hear during the interview process. In
response, Individual 1 stated that she would “take it all on board”, indicating that there
had been some benefit provided to her.
The panel took into account Ms Hyde’s contention that she would have provided that
detail to any candidate had they requested it. She also stated that she may have
provided some information verbally during each candidate’s tour of the school, as she
was responsible for that part of the recruitment process. However, the panel did not
believe that the same level of detail could have been provided during a conversation on a
tour. In any event, the tour was part of the final stage of the recruitment process and is
distinctly different to her provision of information to Individual 1, which was well in
advance giving her time to prepare for each stage of the recruitment process.
Furthermore, Ms Hyde had not followed up with emails to the other candidates including
the information she had provided to Individual 1. On this basis, the panel concluded that
the information was provided to Individual 1 in order to assist her application for the
[REDACTED].
Turning to Ms Hyde’s knowledge, the panel was not convinced, on the balance of
probabilities, that Ms Hyde did not know that her provision of information would provide
Individual 1 with an unfair advantage. Ms Hyde was an experienced leader with extensive
recruitment experience at the time of her conduct. The panel considered that it was
inconceivable that at that stage in her career Ms Hyde would not be familiar with a fair
and open recruitment process whereby all applicants are treated with parity.
In addition, when Ms Hyde introduced Individual 1 to an ex-staff member of the school,
she admitted she did this because she did not want to feel compromised. In doing so, Ms
Hyde noted within her email to Individual 1 that “the story is you contacted me and I
asked [REDACTED] Individual 3 to speak with you as I wasn’t sure what involvement I
would have in the recruitment process …”. The panel considered this to indicate that Ms
Hyde knew that, at that stage, she had gone too far with her assistance of Individual 1.
Ms Hyde was familiar with the information she provided to Individual 1 and would have
been aware that it would have been very helpful when forming the answers to interview
questions. It was clear from the evidence that Ms Hyde had had a difficult relationship
with the school’s previous [REDACTED] and was determined to do her best to secure a
11
better applicant during this recruitment round. The panel considered that Ms Hyde
identified Individual 1 as a strong candidate and wanted to do what she could to secure
her in the [REDACTED]. The panel concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, Ms
Hyde did so knowing that Individual 1 would be provided with an advantage against other
applicants.
The panel therefore found allegation 3 proven.
4. Your conduct as may be found proven at allegation 3 demonstrated a lack of
integrity.
The panel had particular regard to the case of Wingate & Anor v The Solicitors
Regulation Authority [2018] EWCA Civ 366, which states:
“The duty to act with integrity applies not only to what professional persons say, but also
to what they do … That in professional codes, the term "integrity" is a useful shorthand to
express the higher standards which society expects from professional persons and which
the professions expect from their own members … The underlying rationale is that the
professions have a privileged and trusted role in society. In return they are required to
live up to their own professional standards”.
The panel considered that there is an expectation within the public sector and specifically
within the teaching profession that there will be an open, transparent and fair recruitment
to encourage competition and ultimately select the best candidate for each role.
Additionally, the panel noted that Ms Hyde’s actions could have had far-reaching
consequences for the school, its staff and ultimately its pupils.
Similarly to the panel’s findings in respect of allegation 3, the panel considered that it was
inconceivable that Ms Hyde did not realise the advantage she was providing to Individual
1. In her senior and experienced role as Head of Education, Ms Hyde would have been
aware of the transparent recruitment process required within the public sector, including
schools. When asked whether the full extent of her interaction with Individual 1 was
disclosed, Ms Hyde stated that she did not actively conceal it and sent it from her school
email address. The panel considered that Ms Hyde’s lack of full and frank disclosure to
the trustees was not illustrative of the standard expected from a Head of Education.
The panel therefore found allegation 4 proven.
Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that
may bring the profession into disrepute
Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of
those allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that
may bring the profession into disrepute.
12
In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition
of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”.
Given her role as Head of Education, the panel considered that Ms Hyde should have set
an example to her colleagues. In respect of the messages exchanged containing
disparaging comments (allegations 1 and 2), the panel considered that Ms Hyde had
both created and nurtured an environment whereby staff were at liberty to be extremely
offensive towards other staff members and a student. The panel considered that Ms
Hyde’s conduct fell significantly short of that expected of a teacher and in particular of the
Head of Education of a special school.
In respect of allegations 3 and 4, the panel considered Ms Hyde’s assistance to
Individual 1 to be wholly unacceptable. The panel considered this misconduct of a
serious nature that seriously compromised the open and transparent recruitment process
that is rightly expected from the public sector.
The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Ms Hyde in relation to the facts found proved,
involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference
to Part 2, Ms Hyde was in breach of the following standards:
▪ Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of
ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by
o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect,
and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s
professional position
o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others
▪ Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and
practices of the school in which they teach.
▪ Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory
frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.
The panel also considered whether Ms Hyde’s conduct displayed behaviours associated
with any of the offences listed on pages 10 and 11 of the Advice. The panel found that
none of these offences was relevant.
The panel noted that allegation 1 took place outside the school environment in that the
inappropriate messages were sent via WhatsApp, a private social media platform. The
messages were often sent late at night, outside of school time. The panel noted this, but
considered that the nature of Ms Hyde’s misconduct touched upon her profession as a
teacher. In particular, the group was originally set up by Ms Hyde as a forum for
professional conversations, which two colleagues with whom she did not have a personal
connection. Moreover, the inappropriate comments referred to staff members, school
13
contacts and in one case a vulnerable student. It was also clear to the panel that some of
the references, including that of “slither” were widely understood by the other members of
the chat, which was indicative of a culture within school where these terms were used.
Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Ms Hyde was guilty of unacceptable
professional conduct.
The panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others and
considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the
community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can
hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models
in the way that they behave.
The findings of misconduct are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to
have a negative impact on Ms Hyde’s status as a teacher, potentially damaging the
public perception. In particular, Ms Hyde’s comments referring to a student with health
issues concerning [REDACTED] as “pooey pants” would frankly horrify a parent whose
child attends a special school, and the wider implications of the lack of respect amongst
the school’s education leaders, together with the unfair recruitment of the school’s
[REDACTED] would negatively impact the public’s perception of the profession.
The panel therefore found that Ms Hyde’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the
profession into disrepute.
Having found the facts of particulars of all of the proved, the panel found that Ms Hyde’s
conduct amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may
bring the profession into disrepute.
Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State
Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and/or
conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go
on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a
prohibition order by the Secretary of State.
In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order
should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and
proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition
orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been
apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect.
14
Public interest considerations
The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice
and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely: the
maintenance of public confidence in the profession; declaring and upholding proper
standards of conduct; and the interest of retaining the teacher in the profession.
In the light of the panel’s findings there was evidence to suggest Ms Hyde’s actions were
deliberate. There was also evidence to suggest Ms Hyde was not acting under duress.
The panel determined that there was a strong public interest consideration in retaining
Ms Hyde in the profession, as there was evidence of her strong abilities as an educator
and the panel considered that she is able to continue to make a valuable contribution to
the profession. In particular, it was clear to the panel that Ms Hyde remained dedicated to
and passionate about the profession to which she had dedicated the majority of her adult
life. During her career, she has specialised in the challenging environment of specialist
provision and has demonstrated her capabilities as a teacher and a leader within
education. The panel considered that Ms Hyde had made a very strong contribution to
the profession.
In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered
carefully whether it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into
account the effect that this would have on Ms Hyde.
In carrying out the balancing exercise, the panel had regard to the public interest
considerations both in favour of, and against, prohibition as well as the interests of Ms
Hyde. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition
order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. The panel
considered that no such behaviours were relevant in this case.
Mitigating factors
Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition
order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors.
Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or
proportionate. The mitigating factors in this case include:
• Ms Hyde made full and frank admissions at the earliest possible stage about the
factual elements of her misconduct. She was cooperative during the school’s
internal investigation, the TRA’s investigation and conducted herself professionally
and candidly in respect of her admissions throughout the hearing. The remaining
issues in dispute between the parties at the outset of the hearing were very narrow
and related to Ms Hyde’s intention at the time of sharing the information with
Individual 1. Even then, Ms Hyde admitted with hindsight that she understood why
15
the messages exchanged between herself and Individual 1 could be read as
intending to assist her application and provide an unfair advantage.
• Ms Hyde had a previously excellent teaching record, having qualified as a teacher
in 1994 and working her way up to her position as Head of Education, to which
she was appointed in 2008. Other than the misconduct found during this hearing,
Ms Hyde’s record is unblemished and she had had a lengthy and impressive
career, during most of which she had held senior leadership positions at schools
with a specialist provision.
• Ms Hyde provided convincing evidence that she had attempted to raise issues
relating to both her workload and her particular difficulties with her line manager,
to the trustees of the school on several occasions. However, Ms Hyde stated that
she had received insufficient support to adequately address the issues she had
raised. The panel considered Ms Hyde’s statement dated 9 June 2019 and the
self-evaluation form from 2018, which both attested to the struggles she was
facing at the time her misconduct took place. Furthermore, Ms Hyde’s evidence
was corroborated by an external review of the school’s senior management
structure, dated November 2017, which stated that there was a “concerning lack of
clarity [between the school’s Head of Education and Director of Services roles]
and it is my contention that this is the source of a number of issues, challenges
and tensions for the individuals involved and, of course, for the service as a whole
… I must stress that it is critical that a better understanding is reached as to how
the post interacts with the other two senior posts and where responsibilities and
ultimate accountability sits ... there is a concern that the current situation and
demands on the current incumbents may be reaching an intolerable level.”
• The panel considered that the misconduct as found proven was extremely out of
character. The same external report, from November 2017, described Ms Hyde as
follows: “[Ms Hyde] is an experienced and competent professional who has the
experience, the knowledge, the vision and the ability to manage the school
effectively and to drive the school forward. The requirements of OFSTED and the
requirements of placing authorities remain a driving force for her. She has a clear
understanding of the importance of creating and maintaining positive, professional
relationships with key LEA personnel and the statutory bodies required to keep the
School and College in its pre-eminent position in the area. She is an asset to the
school and to the organisation.” The panel heard compelling and persuasive
evidence from Ms Hyde that, since the commissioning of that report, no steps had
been taken to address the concerns raised within it. The panel believed that Ms
Hyde had become disillusioned by the lack of support that she had received, and
that ultimately this culminated in her seeking to secure her preferred candidate for
the [REDACTED], hoping that would assist the school to get back on track and
ensure she had a supportive member of staff to work with. While no excuse for her
16
actions, the context assisted the panel to understand why the behaviour occurred
and led them to conclude a repeat of similar behaviour would be extremely
unlikely.
• Due to the factors identified above, Ms Hyde suffered from work-related stress,
[REDACTED]. There was no medical evidence provided to suggest that Ms Hyde’s
stress had a causative relationship with her actions. However, the panel
concluded that the absence of a supportive return to work interview, the delay in
making her occupational health referral and providing and responding to her stress
risk assessment after her absence added to the already challenging environment,
and this would have impacted her decision making.
• Ms Hyde expressed her sincere remorse and disappointment. The panel was
convinced that Ms Hyde was sorry for and deeply ashamed of her actions.
Furthermore, Ms Hyde demonstrated clear and unequivocal insight into the impact
of her actions. In particular, in the two years since her dismissal from the school,
she has carefully considered and reflected upon her actions and why they
occurred. She has since worked hard to understand the environment and personal
pressures that culminated in her misconduct. Ms Hyde showed clear appreciation
as to the abhorrent nature of the messages that formed the content of allegations
one and two and the inappropriateness of her messages to Individual 1.
Character references
The panel also considered character references in support of Ms Hyde. In particular, that
provided by [REDACTED] a long-standing former colleague of Ms Hyde, stated “it quickly
become clear that she was eager to learn all she could about [Autism spectrum disorder]
and how she could best serve the children under her tutelage … [Ms Hyde] was a fun
and popular teacher and had great rapport with the children, staff and parents … has
always had a great work ethic, she has high standards and expects the same of the staff
that serve under her … she has been dedicated to the school and has given freely of her
time to support endeavours outside of work. She is rarely absent and always arrives early
putting in hours above and beyond her contracted working hours … she has gained the
respect of many staff and parents during her time at Wargrave, and whilst I do not
condone the events that led to her recent suspension, I would like to say that in my
opinion these were uncharacteristic and I am sure that she will be deeply remorseful.”
Furthermore, the character reference from [REDACTED], a previous line manager of Ms
Hyde and Governor of the school, stated “Ms Hyde has demonstrated exemplary conduct
and an unblemished record of employment. Highly professional in her approach, her
integrity, reliability and work ethic is highlight regarded in circles such as the non-
maintained schools and independent specialist college sectors, as well as amongst our
local authority customers and parents … Ms Hyde’s work ethic is an action taker, skilled
in the solution focused approach; she has always gone over and above that expected
17
from her role and duties … she has always completed tasks to a high standard and to the
best of her ability. The hours of work and effort that Ms Hyde has put into ‘getting the job
done’ has always been visible to staff – she came in to work early to be available for
residential staff, operated an open door policy, appreciated by myself and staff, who find
her fair and approachable, and worked late to ensure that she completed tasks
outstanding from the day … [Ms Hyde] demonstrated a high degree of resilience and
perseverance when involved in challenging matters … [Ms Hyde] has always put [the
school] above her personal life … her career and work are the major focus of her life –
she told me it’s what she ‘lives for’. Wargrave House has benefitted greatly from her hard
work, loyalty and dedication.”
The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with
no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings
made by the panel would be sufficient.
The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen,
the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an
appropriate response. The panel was particularly persuaded by Ms Hyde’s detailed
insight into her actions and considered that a further period whereby she would be
prohibited from teaching would not serve to enhance this further but would be punitive
given that Ms Hyde does not present an ongoing risk to the profession and displayed
considerable insight into the unacceptable nature of her actions.
Having considered the mitigating factors that were present and the positive public interest
in retaining Ms Hyde in the profession, the panel determined that a recommendation for a
prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. Taking in to account the detailed
written and oral submissions from both parties, the panel determined that Ms Hyde’s
actions fell towards the less severe end of the spectrum of seriousness. As such, the
publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate
message to Ms Hyde as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the
publication of its findings would meet the public interest requirement of declaring and
upholding proper standards of conduct and maintaining public confidence in the
profession.
Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State
I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the
panel in respect of sanction.
In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the
Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers.
18
In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that those
proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring
the profession into disrepute.
The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that the findings of
unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into
disrepute should be published and that such an action is proportionate and in the public
interest.
In particular, the panel has found that Ms Hyde is in breach of the following standards:
▪ Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of
ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by
o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect,
and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s
professional position
o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others
▪ Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and
practices of the school in which they teach.
▪ Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory
frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.
The panel finds that the conduct of Ms Hyde fell significantly short of the standards
expected of the profession.
I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in
the public interest. In considering that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a
prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the
profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would
achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher.
I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published
finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession
into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider
whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have
considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Ms Hyde, and the impact that will have on
her, is proportionate and in the public interest.
In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect
children. The panel has observed, “the inappropriate comments referred to staff
members, school contacts and in one case a vulnerable student.” A prohibition order
would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken
into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which the panel sets out as
19
follows, “was particularly persuaded by Ms Hyde’s detailed insight into her actions and
considered that a further period whereby she would be prohibited from teaching would
not serve to enhance this further but would be punitive given that Ms Hyde does not
present an ongoing risk to the profession and displayed considerable insight into the
unacceptable nature of her actions.” I have therefore given this element considerable
weight in reaching my decision.
I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public
confidence in the profession. The panel observe, “The findings of misconduct are
serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on Ms
Hyde’s status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public perception.”
I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of
all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a
failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to
consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed
citizen.”
I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional
conduct, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as
being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this
case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Ms Hyde. The panel
comment, “Ms Hyde had a previously excellent teaching record, having qualified as a
teacher in 1994 and working her way up to her position as Head of Education, to which
she was appointed in 2008. Other than the misconduct found during this hearing, Ms
Hyde’s record is unblemished and she had had a lengthy and impressive career, during
most of which she had held senior leadership positions at schools with a specialist
provision.”
A prohibition order would prevent Ms Hyde from teaching and would also clearly deprive
the public of her contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force.
In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning
insight and remorse. The panel has said, “Ms Hyde expressed her sincere remorse and
disappointment. The panel was convinced that Ms Hyde was sorry for and deeply
ashamed of her actions. Furthermore, Ms Hyde demonstrated clear and unequivocal
insight into the impact of her actions. In particular, in the two years since her dismissal
from the school, she has carefully considered and reflected upon her actions and why
they occurred.”
For these reasons, I have concluded that the publication of the findings of unacceptable
professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute is
proportionate and in the public interest.
20
Decision maker: Alan Meyrick
Date: 17 May 2021
This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of
State.