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.