ms grace vagni: professional conduct panel outcome · ms vagni had worked at the school since...
TRANSCRIPT
Ms Grace Vagni: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of
the Secretary of State for Education
March 2018
Contents
A. Introduction 3
B. Allegations 4
C. Preliminary applications 4
D. Summary of evidence 5
Documents 5
Witnesses 6
E. Decision and reasons 6
Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9
Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11
Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on
behalf of the Secretary of State
Teacher: Ms Grace Vagni
TRA case reference: 15865
Date of determination: 27 March 2018
Former employer: Earlsmead Primary School, Harrow
A. Introduction
From 1 April 2018 the National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL) has
been re-purposed to form the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA). The panel in this
case has made their recommendation as an NCTL panel, however the decision has
been made on behalf of the Secretary of State, by a decision maker in the TRA.
There has been no material change to the way this hearing was handled and the
TRA works on the same legislative basis as the NCTL.
A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and
Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 26 March 2018 to 27 March 2018
at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of
Ms Vagni.
The panel members were Ms Margaret Windsor (teacher panellist – in the chair),
Mrs Caroline Tilley (lay panellist) and Mr Tony Woodward (former teacher panellist).
The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Charlotte Murray of Eversheds Sutherland
(International) LLP solicitors.
The presenting officer for the National College was Mr Ian Perkins of Browne
Jacobson LLP solicitors.
Ms Vagni was not present and was not represented.
The hearing took place in public and was recorded.
B. Allegations
The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 9
January 2018.
It was alleged that Ms Vagni was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or
conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that she;
1. Failed to treat one or more pupils with dignity and respect in that she:
a. Told Pupil A, a Muslim pupil, that “if they do not want to decorate a
Christmas tree maybe they should go back to where they came from”
or words to that effect;
b. Told Pupil C, “You have been naughty and I’m not talking to you” or
words to that effect;
c. In relation to Pupil C and on or around 2nd December 2016, she:
i. pulled and/or grabbed his arm;
ii. caused a red mark on his arm.
2. Her comment as set out in 1(a) amounted to an intolerance of those with other
faiths and/or beliefs.
Ms Vagni was not present. The panel considered her response in the Notice of
Proceedings where she denied the allegations. It was further denied that such
conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may
bring the profession into disrepute.
C. Preliminary applications
The panel considered whether the hearing should continue in the absence of Ms
Vagni.
The panel was satisfied that NCTL had complied with the service requirements of
paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (“the
Regulations”).
The panel considered the Notice of Proceedings completed by Ms Vagni on 12
February 2018. The panel noted that Ms Vagni had expressly waivered her right to
attend and to be legally represented.
Ms Vagni indicated in correspondence on 5 February 2018 that she would not be
attending due to her health issues and provided medical evidence in support of this.
She did not request an adjournment or special requirements to enable her to
participate in the hearing.
The panel has had regard to the extent of the disadvantage to Ms Vagni in not being
able to give her account of events. However, the panel had the benefit of
representations made by Ms Vagni in correspondence to establish her evidence in
support of her defence.
Having considered the representations made by the presenting officer, the panel
determined that the hearing should take place within a reasonable timeframe. There
were witnesses in attendance at the hearing. The incident occurred in 2016 and any
delay would be detrimental to both the witnesses and the timely disposal of the case.
The panel concluded that it was in the interests of justice for the matter to proceed in
Ms Vagni’s absence.
The panel considered an application by the presenting officer to amend allegation 1
(a) to substitute “Told Pupil A” with “Said in the vicinity of”. This application was
made during the presenting officer’s closing submissions.
The panel considered the representations made by the presenting officer and
concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the amendment at such a
late stage in the proceedings. The panel considered that any amendment would be
unfair and prejudicial to Ms Vagni. Additionally Ms Vagni and the panel had not had
the opportunity to explore the proposed revised allegation with the witnesses who
had already given live evidence.
The panel therefore did not allow the amendment.
D. Summary of evidence
Documents
In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included:
Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 1 to 3
Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and response – pages 5 to 25
Section 3: NCTL witness statements – pages 27 to 30
Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 31 to 146
Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 148 to 158
The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of
the hearing.
Witnesses
The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses, called by the presenting
officer;
• Witness A, former headteacher at Earlsmead Primary School.
• Witness B, former teaching assistant at Earlsmead Primary School.
E. Decision and reasons
The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:
The panel has carefully considered the case before it and has reached a decision. It
accepted the legal advice provided.
Background
Ms Vagni was contracted as an agency supply teacher by Earlsmead Primary
School (“the School”). It is a mainstream primary school with a significant number of
children with additional educational needs. The school has a broad spectrum of
ethnicity and pupils from different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds.
Ms Vagni had worked at the School since October 2016.
Two separate allegations were pleaded against Ms Vagni. The first allegation
consisted of three elements. The first and second of these relate to concerns raised
by Witness B to the School about comments made by Ms Vagni during lessons on 1
December 2016 to (and/or in respect of) Pupil A and C. The third element of
allegation 1 related to a separate incident on 2 December 2016 involving Pupil C
This pupil had learning difficulties, social communication difficulties and a hearing
impairment.
Ms Vagni's placement at the School was terminated on 2 December 2016 with
immediate effect.
Witness A reported the incidents to Harrow Council Children's Services on 2
December 2016. As a result of the report, the Council held a LADO meeting on 12
December 2016 to discuss and consider the allegations against Ms Vagni. The Police
carried out a separate investigation which led to Ms Vagni being interviewed. No
criminal charges were brought against Ms Vagni.
Findings of fact The panel's findings of fact are as follows:
The panel has found the following particulars of the allegation against Ms Vagni
proven for these reasons;
In relation to allegation 1, the panel first considered each of the sub allegations and
whether the facts set out in relation to these allegations were proven and amounted
to failure to treat one or more pupils with dignity and respect.
1. Failed to treat one or more pupils with dignity and respect in that you:
b. Told Pupil C “You have been naughty and I’m not talking to you” or words to that effect
Witness B stated in her witness statement that she was assigned to provide 1-1
support to Pupil C on 1 December 2016. When she went into the classroom Ms
Vagni stated to Witness B that Pupil C had not “had a good lunch time”. Pupil C then
complained that he felt unwell so Witness B took him to Welfare and on their return
Ms Vagni stated to Pupil C “You’ve not been good – I’m not talking to you”.
The panel heard the oral testimony from Witness B and considered the note made
by her on 2 December 2016, the day after the comment was made.
When questioned by the panel, Witness B was clear in her recollection that Ms Vagni
did say this to Pupil C. Based on the evidence before the panel it was determined
that Ms Vagni did make this comment to Pupil C, therefore the allegation is proven.
The panel considered whether the comment amounted to failure to treat Pupil C with
dignity and respect and determined that it did not.
c. In relation to Pupil C and on or around 2 December 2016 you: i. pulled and/or grabbed his arm;
ii. caused a red mark on his arm.
The panel heard live evidence from Witness A who observed the incident whilst in
close proximity to Pupil C and Ms Vagni on 2 December 2016. The incident was
witnessed during a school assembly in which Pupil C was distressed. Pupil C was
described as a child with significant additional needs, who had a statement of special
educational needs and required 1-1 support. As part of this support, a behavioural
management plan had been developed, described as a "Behavioural Ladder" tool.
Witness A described an escalating incident between Pupil C and Ms Vagni,
culminating in Ms Vagni pulling and/or grabbing Pupil C's lower left arm. A
subsequent investigation substantiated what had been described by Witness A. Ms
Vagni accepted that there was an incident where she took him by the arm and tried
to lead him out of the assembly but he pulled away.
It was accepted by Witness A that Pupil C may have resisted when his arm was
pulled and/or grabbed. Witness A took Pupil C to the Welfare room where she
examined his arm and found red marks consistent with him having been grabbed
and/or pulled.
The panel has considered the photographs showing a mark on Pupil C’s arm taken
at the time of the incident which further supports Witness A’s account.
The panel considered whether the action amounted to failure to treat Pupil C with
dignity and respect and determined that it did.
Therefore on the balance of probabilities, allegation 1 (c) is proven in its entirety.
The panel have found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against Ms Vagni
not proven, for these reasons;
1. Failed to treat one or more pupils with dignity and respect in that you:
a. Told Pupil A, a Muslim pupil that “if they do not want to decorate a Christmas tree maybe they should go back to where they came from” or words to that effect.
The panel heard evidence from Witness B and considered the note dated 10 March
2017 relating to the comments allegedly made by Ms Vagni. The panel's view was
that Witness B’s evidence was unclear and inconsistent at times.
Witness B expressed an opinion that the “pupils heard” the comment but she could
not demonstrate the basis for that opinion. She acknowledged in her evidence that
Ms Vagni had made the comment “casually” to Witness B and that the pupils sat with
her did not “react”. Witness B was unable to comment on the activity or noise levels
in the classroom at the time.
The panel concluded that Ms Vagni did not tell Pupil A that "if they did not want to
decorate a Christmas tree maybe that they should go back where they came from" or
words to that effect. Based on the oral and written testimony of Witness B, there was
no evidence to support the allegation that the comment was directed to Pupil A or
that Pupil A was even in the vicinity.
2. Your comment as set out in 1 (a) amounted to an intolerance of those with other faiths and/or beliefs.
Allegation 2 was formed on the basis of allegation 1 (a) which has not been proved,
therefore allegation 2 falls.
Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
Having found one of the allegations to have been proven, the panel has gone on to
consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amount to unacceptable
professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
In doing so, the panel has had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The
prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”.
The panel is satisfied that the conduct of the teacher in relation to the facts found
proven, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considers that by
reference to Part Two, the teacher 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
• treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect;
• having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance
with statutory provisions;
• 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 was satisfied that the conduct of the teacher amounted to misconduct of a
serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the
profession.
The panel concluded that the conduct of pulling or grabbing the arm of a vulnerable
pupil causing a red mark is conduct that would have a negative impact on how the
profession is viewed by others. Further, the influence that teachers may have on
pupils, parents and others in the community was considered. The actions of Ms
Vagni in relation to grabbing of a pupil's arm amounted to unacceptable professional
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
conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute it is 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 has to consider whether it is an appropriate and
proportionate measure, and whether it is 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 a punitive effect.
The panel has considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the
Advice and having done so has found a number of them to be relevant in this case,
namely the protection of pupils, the maintenance of public confidence in the
profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. It has also
considered the interest of retaining the teacher in the profession
In light of the panel’s findings against Ms Vagni as set out above, the panel
considered there is a public interest consideration in retaining the teacher in the
profession, since no doubt has been cast upon her abilities as an educator and she
is able to make a valuable contribution to the profession. There have been no
concerns about her teaching ability or conduct in the previous 2 months she was
employed by the School, as confirmed by Witness A in her oral testimony. It was an
isolated incident. Ms Vagni has been a qualified teacher for 37 years and no
concerns have been raised during this period.
In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel
considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition
order taking into account the effect that this would have on Ms Vagni.
In carrying out the balancing exercise the panel has considered the public interest
considerations both in favour of and against prohibition as well as the interests of Ms
Vagni. 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
proven. In the list of such behaviours, those that are relevant in this case are:
• serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the
Teachers’ Standards; and
• misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or well-being of pupils, and
particularly where there is a continuing risk.
Even though there were behaviours that would point to the appropriateness of a
prohibition order, the panel went on to consider whether or not there were sufficient
mitigating factors to militate against the appropriateness and proportionality of the
imposition of a prohibition order, particularly taking into account the nature and
severity of the behaviour in this case.
The teacher presented character references from a range of establishments which
were considered as part of the mitigation. The panel has considered the written
representations made by Ms Vagni and the character references, which suggests
she is "caring", she had a "high level of ethics, reliability and trustworthiness" and
she is "professionally competent and reliable". The panel has no reason to dispute
this evidence.
There was no evidence that Ms Vagni intended to harm Pupil C when she grabbed
his arm.
There was no evidence that Ms Vagni was acting under duress.
The teacher does have a previously good history and there have been no previous
National College decisions made against Ms Vagni.
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 is sufficient.
The panel is of the view that applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen
recommending no prohibition order is a proportionate and appropriate response.
Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour is at the less serious end of the
possible spectrum and in light of the mitigating factors that were present in this case,
the panel has determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order will not be
appropriate in this case. The panel considers that the publication of the adverse
findings it has made is sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher, as
to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable and meets the public interest
requirement of declaring proper standards of 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 is
published by the Secretary of State concerning the prohibition of teachers.
In this case, the panel has found some of the allegations proven and found that
those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that
may bring the profession into disrepute. Where the panel has not found the
allegations proven, I have put these matters entirely from my mind in considering the
case. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Ms
Vagni should not be the subject of a prohibition order.
In particular the panel has found that Ms Vagni 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
• treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect;
• having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance
with statutory provisions;
• 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.
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 or not 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
Vagni, and the impact that will have on her, is proportionate.
In this case I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect
children. The panel has observed “The actions of Ms Vagni in relation to grabbing of
a pupil's arm amounted to unacceptable professional conduct that may bring the
profession into disrepute.”
A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present.
I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain
public confidence in the profession. The panel’s observation above sets out their
view that the conduct displayed did impact upon the reputation of the profession.
I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional
standards of all teachers and that failure to impose a prohibition order might be
regarded by the public 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 Vagni. I have noted
the positive references and the panel’s comments which suggests she is "caring",
she had a "high level of ethics, reliability and trustworthiness" and she is
"professionally competent and reliable".
A prohibition order would prevent Ms Vagni teaching and a prohibition order 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 observations
concerning Ms Vagni. In my view it is not necessary to impose a prohibition order in
order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision in this
case will satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the
profession.
For these reasons I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate and
not necessary in the public interest. Instead a published decision that shows that
misconduct was found is a proportionate response.
Decision maker: Alan Meyrick Date: 6 April 2018 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of
State.