Mr Stephen McCulley

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

Teacher's name: Mr Stephen McCulley

Teacher reference number: 9836944

Teacher's date of birth: 19 April 1964

Location teacher worked: Norfolk, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 9 December 2022

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 Stephen McCulley, formerly employed in Norfolk, England.

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 Stephen McCulley: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Stephen McCulley Teacher ref number: 9836944 Teacher date of birth: 19 April 1964 TRA reference: 18582 Date of determination: 9 December 2022 Former employer: St William's Primary School, Norfolk Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 9 December 2022 remotely via Microsoft Teams to consider the case of Mr McCulley. The panel members were Mr Aidan Jenkins (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Susan Humble (lay panellist) and Ms Sue Davies (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Sarah Price of Blake Morgan solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr McCulley that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr McCulley provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr McCulley or any representative. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 30 November 2022. It was alleged that Mr McCulley was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. On or around 20 March 2019 whilst working as a teacher at St William's Primary School ('the School') he: a. called Pupil A a "scumbag" or words to that effect; b. put his hand or hands on or around the throat of Pupil A; c. made comments to Pupil B about "sticking him to the wall" or words to that effect; d. put his hand or hands on or around the throat of Pupil B. 2. On 19 September 2019, he accepted a police caution for his conduct at 1(a) and/or 1(b) above. Mr McCulley admitted the facts and that his conduct amounts to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, Anonymised pupil list and List of Key People – pages 3 to 7 Section 2: Notice of Referral, response and Notice of Meeting – pages 8 to 22 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 23 to 27 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 28 to 101 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 102 to 105 5 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr McCulley on 18 March 2022. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. The panel heard and accepted the legal advice. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr McCulley for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr McCulley was registered with Step Teachers ("the Agency") as a supply teacher. On 14 March 2019, he commenced a long-term position at St William's Primary School ("the School") until mid-May 2019, having previously worked there on a daily supply basis from 25 February 2019. Mr McCulley was employed in a teaching role at the School at the time of the alleged conduct. On 20 March 2019, it is alleged that Mr McCulley, on two separate occasions on that day, put his hands on the throats of two different pupils. It is also alleged that he called Pupil A a "scumbag" and made comments to Pupil B about "sticking him to the wall". 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: 1. On or around 20 March 2019 whilst working as a teacher at St William's Primary School ('the School') you: a. called Pupil A a "scumbag" or words to that effect; b. put your hand or hands on or around the throat of Pupil A; 6 c. made comments to Pupil B about "sticking him to the wall" or words to that effect; d. put your hand or hands on or around the throat of Pupil B. The allegations were admitted and were supported by evidence presented to the panel within the bundle. In particular, the panel accepted the accounts of Pupil A, Pupil B and Mr McCulley's own written statements. Allegation 1(a) to (d) was therefore, found proved. 2. On 19 September 2019, you accepted a police caution for your conduct at 1(a) and/or 1(b) above. The allegation was admitted and was supported by evidence presented to the panel within the bundle. In particular, the panel was provided with a copy of the police caution dated 19 September 2019. Allegation 2 was therefore, found proved in relation to the conduct proved at 1(b). Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found all of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel noted that Mr McCulley had admitted that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr McCulley in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr McCulley 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 having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions 7  Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality.  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 Mr McCulley fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The panel also considered whether Mr McCulley's conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. The panel found that the offence of violence was relevant. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr McCulley 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 they behave. The panel were particularly concerned that the conduct involved both the use of bad language and physically putting hands around two pupils' throats. The findings of misconduct were serious and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public perception. The panel therefore found that Mr McCulley's actions constituted 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 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 8 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. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found all of them to be relevant in this case, namely: the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils