Headteacher Successfully Challenges TRA Safeguarding and Fire Safety Allegations

The Client

Our client was an experienced teacher and former Headteacher who had worked in education for more than two decades.

In addition to his responsibilities as Headteacher, he acted as the School’s Designated Safeguarding Lead and was responsible for overseeing a wide range of areas including education, safeguarding, health and safety, staff training, performance management and school improvement.

He was referred to the Teaching Regulation Agency following a series of allegations relating to safeguarding and management decisions made during his time as Headteacher.

The Allegations

The TRA allegations were extensive.

They included claims that our client had:

• failed to take appropriate action to ensure compliance with fire safety protocols;
• failed to respond appropriately to safeguarding concerns involving two pupils;
• failed to notify the safeguarding governor about those concerns;
• failed to make an appropriate referral to the local multi-agency safeguarding team;
• failed to appoint a suitable Deputy Designated Safeguarding Lead;
• failed to ensure that kindergarten staff held the required qualifications; and
• failed to comply with an instruction not to contact members of staff while suspended.

Our client strongly disputed the suggestion that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct capable of bringing the teaching profession into disrepute.

Our Defence Strategy and Work

The allegations covered different periods, different regulatory requirements and very different factual circumstances.

Our approach was therefore to examine each allegation individually rather than allowing a series of management issues to be presented collectively as evidence of serious professional misconduct.

A central part of the case was demonstrating the context in which our client had been operating.

He had become the first Headteacher at a small independent school where there was limited senior and middle leadership support. He was carrying responsibility for numerous operational and statutory areas and had inherited systems which required considerable development.

There was also significant evidence that, during his tenure, he had actively improved safeguarding arrangements. Among other steps, our client introduced tighter controls over access to the School, improved perimeter security, required staff to wear lanyards and commissioned an independent safeguarding audit.

That audit concluded that safeguarding at the School was effective, that safeguarding leaders were effective and that clear policies and procedures were in place.

Ofsted inspections also provided important independent evidence. The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare was rated positively and, in 2020, Ofsted recorded that safeguarding arrangements were appropriate and staff training was comprehensive and up to date.

This wider history was important when assessing whether the individual matters later relied upon by the TRA genuinely demonstrated a failure to take safeguarding seriously.

The Fire Safety Allegation

One allegation concerned recommendations contained within a July 2020 fire risk assessment.

Our client did not accept that he had failed to take appropriate action.

The assessment categorised the School as presenting a medium risk, described as normal for school premises, and made a series of recommendations intended to improve fire safety.

A number of those actions were completed, others were actively being progressed and some required significant expenditure or structural work.

The timing was also highly significant. The report was received during the Covid-19 pandemic, when schools were dealing with unprecedented demands including lockdowns, social distancing, pupil bubbles, online teaching, staff illness and self-isolation.

Despite those difficulties, our client worked with the school’s business manager and other staff to progress the recommendations. Some actions were completed, others were ongoing and steps were taken to mitigate risks where immediate completion was not possible.

Our submissions were that the fact every recommendation had not been completed within the suggested timeframe did not establish that our client had failed to act.

The Safeguarding Allegations

A further group of allegations concerned safeguarding issues involving two pupils several years earlier.

The School was aware of difficulties affecting the family and staff were monitoring the children, communicating with parents and discussing concerns through safeguarding and early-years meetings.

When a particularly serious allegation was subsequently reported to our client, social services and the police were already involved.

Our client engaged with both agencies, communicated with the allocated social worker, completed safeguarding documentation and provided information when requested.

The children were assessed by social services and the School continued to work collaboratively with professionals involved in the case.

Our client accepted, with hindsight, that an earlier referral in relation to some concerns may have been appropriate.

That reflection was important. The case was not presented on the basis that every decision made years earlier was incapable of improvement. Instead, the issue was whether decisions made in difficult and highly sensitive circumstances amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Our position was that they did not.

Safeguarding Governor and Record Keeping

The TRA also alleged that our client had failed to notify the safeguarding governor.

The evidence demonstrated a particularly difficult governance environment at the School, including repeated changes in the person holding responsibility for safeguarding.

Our client had concerns about the professionalism and confidentiality of one safeguarding governor and had instead discussed safeguarding matters with another governor responsible for risk and compliance.

There was also evidence of regular meetings involving staff and safeguarding issues.

Our client did accept that record keeping had not always been as comprehensive as it should have been. He reflected carefully on that issue and recognised the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and contemporaneous records of safeguarding discussions and decisions.

Deputy Designated Safeguarding Lead

Another allegation concerned the appointment of an appropriate Deputy Designated Safeguarding Lead.

The existing deputy had become seriously ill and commenced a period of sickness absence in September 2020. Our client immediately attempted to identify and train suitable replacements.

Two members of staff assisted with safeguarding responsibilities and training was arranged for them. One completed the relevant training in January 2021, while another was unable to attend the initial course because of illness and completed training later.

These events again occurred against the background of the Covid-19 pandemic, when schools were dealing with extraordinary staffing and operational pressures.

Our submissions were that our client had made genuine and substantial efforts to ensure appropriate safeguarding cover and that any temporary shortcomings did not amount to professional misconduct.

Kindergarten Staff Qualifications

The TRA also raised concerns about whether kindergarten staff held the appropriate qualifications.

Our client had delegated responsibility for the early-years department to an experienced Early Years Manager. The issue arose largely from a misunderstanding of the applicable Early Years Foundation Stage requirements and how staffing ratios and qualifications were to be applied within individual kindergarten classes.

The Early Years Manager accepted that her interpretation of the guidance had been incorrect.

Importantly, this was not a situation in which our client had knowingly placed pupils in the care of wholly unsuitable or inexperienced staff.

The member of staff at the centre of the issue had extensive training and experience and also held a degree in Clinical Psychology. Further qualification arrangements had been pursued, although illness prevented completion at the intended time.

Our client nevertheless learned an important lesson from the issue and became acutely aware of the need to independently ensure that staff qualifications were current and met the precise regulatory requirements.

Contact While Suspended

Our client did admit one allegation.

After being suspended, he had been instructed not to contact members of staff. He had left a bag containing his wallet at the School and contacted a member of staff to ask for it to be forwarded to him.

That was the full extent of the contact.  There was no discussion about the investigation, his suspension or any other School matter.

Our client accepted that, strictly speaking, he should not have made the contact and that he should instead have followed the procedure specified by the governors.

Our submissions were that this limited incident plainly did not justify a finding of serious professional misconduct.

Character Evidence

A substantial body of supporting evidence was obtained from former governors, senior staff, education professionals, colleagues and parents.

The references described our client as, among other things:

• a highly effective and professional teacher;
• an inspirational educator;
• dedicated and committed to his pupils;
• honest, kind and supportive;
• a teacher who consistently placed children’s interests first;
• someone who had significantly improved safeguarding systems at the School; and
• a professional who had demonstrated an exceptional commitment to education despite working in extremely challenging circumstances.

Several referees specifically addressed his attitude to safeguarding. They described him as taking safeguarding extremely seriously, improving systems which had previously been informal or inadequate and consistently putting the safety and welfare of pupils at the forefront of his work.

The character evidence also provided important context regarding the difficulties our client had faced within the School’s governance structure and the considerable workload he had been required to carry with limited support.

The Wider Context

A significant part of the representations concerned the circumstances in which our client had been working. The School had a small management structure and our client was required to assume responsibility for an unusually broad range of functions.

There was evidence of high turnover among governors, difficult relationships within the governing body and periods in which the School lacked appropriate management support.

Those existing difficulties were then compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Our client had to oversee the transition to online teaching, manage staff shortages and illness, respond to constantly changing government requirements and deal with substantial financial and operational pressures.

The pandemic did not excuse professional obligations. It was, however, highly relevant when assessing whether delays, imperfect record keeping or individual management decisions demonstrated serious professional misconduct.

Insight and Remediation

Our client did not approach the proceedings by insisting that every historical decision had been perfect. He demonstrated candour and accepted that, with hindsight, some matters could have been handled differently.

In particular, he recognised that an earlier safeguarding referral may have been appropriate in relation to one pupil and accepted the need for significantly better record keeping. He also learned from the issue concerning early-years qualifications and acknowledged the importance of personally ensuring that regulatory requirements were fully understood and satisfied.

There had been no repetition of the concerns.

By the time of the TRA proceedings, our client remained employed in education without restriction.

The Outcome

The TRA concluded that there was no case to answer and all allegations against our client were discontinued.

The matter was therefore brought to an end without referral to a Professional Conduct Panel.

This was a significant result given the breadth and seriousness of the allegations, which included concerns relating to safeguarding, fire safety, staff qualifications and school management.

The decision meant that our client faced no further professional disciplinary proceedings arising from the allegations and was able to continue his teaching career.

The outcome demonstrates the importance of examining regulatory allegations individually and in their proper context. Historical management decisions, particularly those made in exceptionally challenging circumstances, do not automatically amount to serious professional misconduct.

In this case, detailed representations, contemporaneous evidence and extensive character evidence helped demonstrate our client’s longstanding commitment to safeguarding and education, the considerable improvements he had made at the School and the context surrounding the matters under investigation.

Ultimately, the TRA accepted that the case should go no further: there was no case to answer and every allegation was discontinued.

Comment from Jared McNally

“This case involved a large number of allegations covering different issues and different periods of our client’s time as Headteacher. It was therefore important that each allegation was examined carefully on its own evidence rather than treating a collection of historical management decisions as automatically amounting to serious misconduct.

There was substantial evidence that our client had actually driven major improvements in safeguarding at the School. Independent safeguarding assessments, Ofsted findings and the testimony of colleagues and governors all provided important context.

Our client was also prepared to reflect honestly on matters which, with hindsight, could have been handled differently. Professional regulation should distinguish between genuine misconduct and difficult decisions made by an experienced Headteacher operating in exceptionally challenging circumstances.

Our representations therefore invited the TRA to conclude that there was no case to answer and that referral to a Professional Conduct Panel was neither necessary nor proportionate.”

Jared McNally, Clifford Johnston & Co.

Clifford Johnston & Co is a leading defence firm in Criminal and Professional Disciplinary Law, based in Manchester and representing clients across England and Wales on a privately funded basis. We provide strategic advice and robust representation to teachers facing Teaching Regulation Agency investigations and Professional Conduct Panel proceedings.