Unknown Teacher

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions herself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher reference number:

8149797

Teacher's date of birth:

25 May 1959

Location teacher worked:

North Yorkshire, Yorkshire and the Humber

Date of professional conduct panel:

13 February to 15 February 2017

Outcome type:

Prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Rob Myers, formerly employed in North Yorkshire, Yorkshire and the Humber.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on 13 February 2017 to 15 February 2017.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Rob Myers Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2017 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 5 D. Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 E. Decision and reasons 6 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 Teacher: Mr Rob Myers Teacher ref number: 8149797 Teacher date of birth: 25 May 1959 NCTL case reference: 15360 Date of determination: 14 February 2017 Former employer: The Wensleydale School and Sixth Form A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 13 and 14 February 2017 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Rob Myers. The panel members were Ms Alison Robb-Webb (teacher panellist – in the chair), Professor Roger Woods (lay panellist) and Ms Alison Feist (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Tom Walker of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the National College was Kayleigh Brooks of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Myers was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 17 November 2016. The panel will hear an allegation that Mr Myers was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute whilst employed as a teacher at The Wensleydale School and Sixth Form (‘the School’) in that he: 1. Used inappropriate language in the presence of one or more pupils including: a) In or around December 2015, when discussing attendance, he made a reference to ‘ten naked virgins’ on his drive or words to that effect; b) Telling one or more pupils that they should ‘show the Chief Examiner your cleavage’ or words to that effect; c) Saying to pupils ‘don’t come to the next lesson with low cut tops on as you’re teasing me’ or words to that effect; d) After reading Pupil B’s work for a textual adaptation task, he said ‘this is like soft porn, are you trying to get me off? It’s really good’ or words to that effect; e) When in the Bistro he: (i) said to Pupil E ‘get down you slag’ or words to that effect when she put her foot on the table; (ii) said to Pupil B ‘do you want me to call her a slut then’ or words to that effect, when Pupil B said that he should not have made the comment as set out in 1(e)(i). 2. Referred to pupils as: a) ‘needy girls’; b) ‘leeches’; c) ‘naughty girls’; d) ‘beautiful girls’. 3. In relation to Pupil C he: a) leant over her; b) smelled her; c) said to her ‘you smell nice’ or words to that effect. 4. Had inappropriate physical contact with pupils including: a) Touching Pupil B on her arm and trying to put her arm behind her back; 5 b) Putting his hand over Pupil C’s hand when she was using the computer mouse; c) Slapping Pupil D on the arm whilst in the Bistro. 5. Failed to maintain professional boundaries with one or more pupils by: a) Allowing pupils to call him ‘Rob’ and/or ‘baldy’ during lessons; b) Discussing topics of a personal nature with or in the presence of pupils including discussing his personal relationships; c) Engaging in inappropriate email conversations with Pupil D. 6. In or around October 2015 he met one or more pupils outside of school to attend a showing of Macbeth at Richmond Station cinema without the knowledge or approval of the School. Mr Myers did not accept all the allegations. Mr Myers denied allegations 1b), 1c), 1d) and 4a) and the panel proceeded on the basis that the case was contested to this extent. C. Preliminary applications The presenting officer applied to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Myers. After hearing submissions from the presenting officer, and receiving legal advice, the panel announced the decision as follows: The panel is satisfied that the notice has been served in accordance with Rule 4.11. The panel is satisfied that Mr Myers is aware of the proceedings and has voluntarily absented himself from the hearing. Mr Myers has responded to the Notice of Proceedings in a conversation with the presenting officer recorded in a note dated 13 January 2017 (page 140 of the bundle) and has confirmed that he does not wish to attend the hearing. The panel is satisfied that Mr Myers has voluntarily absented himself from attending the hearing. The panel has had regard to the public interest in these proceedings taking place reasonably and promptly and is satisfied that there is no useful purpose in not proceeding today. In accordance with Rules 4.11 and 4.27 to 4.29, the panel has decided to proceed in the absence of Mr Myers. 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 2 to 4 6 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 6 to 15 Section 3: NCTL witness statements – pages 16 to 20 Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 21 to 135 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 136 to 140 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from Pupil B. 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. The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. The panel has received legal advice and has accepted that advice. Mr Myers was employed as a teacher at T he Wensleydale School and Sixth Form (‘the School’) from July 2015 until March 2016. In the course of his employment, a number of pupils made complaints about his conduct including the use of inappropriate language and inappropriate physical contact. In the course of the investigation undertaken by the School, further complaints were made in relation to alleged failure to maintain professional boundaries in the classroom and allegedly taking pupils on a trip without the knowledge or approval of the School. Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: The panel has found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against you proven, for these reasons: 1. Used inappropriate language in the presence of one or more pupils including: a) Used inappropriate language in the presence of one or more pupils including: In or around December 2015, when discussing attendance, you made a reference to ‘ten naked virgins’ on your drive or words to that effect; Mr Myers admits in his statement of facts that he used this expression and that this was inappropriate (page 24 of the bundle). 7 There is also evidence from Pupil A that this expression was used and the panel is persuaded that this expression was used rather than 'women' or 'girls'. This comment was made to a group of female pupils in a c lassroom setting. The panel is of the view that this expression clearly had a sexualised undertone. Furthermore, Pupil B gave evidence that she had confronted Mr Myers in relation to this comment and he stated "I am only a man; you can't blame me". The panel accepts the evidence of Pupil B as credible. The panel is further satisfied that it was inappropriate by virtue of the fact that this expression represents the unnecessary use of sexualised language . The panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this allegation is proven. b) Telling one or more pupils that they should ‘show the Chief Examiner your cleavage’ or words to that effect; Mr Myers does not accept this allegation. However, the panel heard oral evidence from Pupil B . The evidence of Pupil B was very credible. The panel also had sight of the transcripts of the interviews with Pupil C (page 85 of the bundle) and Pupil D (page 89 of the bundle) which corroborate the account of Pupil B. The panel has had regard to how the original complaint against Mr Myers was made, and notes th e suggestion by Mr Myers that pupi ls may have co lluded in fabricating this allegation against him. However, the panel found Pupil B credible and clear in evidence, and noted t hat Pupils C and D also gave clear accounts when interviewed. Whilst the language used by the pupils to describe Mr Myers' comments was not identical, the essence of the pupils' complaints was consistent. It is the panel's view that this reinforces the veracity of their accounts . The panel accepts the submission of the NCTL that , had there been collusion, then one would expect complaints to be identical. The panel has had particular regard to the clarity of Pupil B, and is persuaded by her evidence. The panel has also accepted the evidence of Pupil B that some pupils, including Pupil D, were initially reluctant to complain about Mr Myers. The panel is of the view that this also weighs against any suggestion that the pupils have colluded. The panel does not accept the account of Mr Myers. The panel also accepts that the pupils in question believed Mr Myers to be the Chief Examiner, and as such interpreted this as suggesting that they should exhibit sexualised behaviour towards him. Rather than encouraging the pupils to focus on their academic work , the panel finds that this remark had the effect of demeaning these pupils and objectify ing them in an entirely inappropriate and sexualised manner. The panel also takes the view that this remark would tend to devalue the office of the Chief Examiner in the eyes of the pupils by suggesting that