Mr Steven Alcorn

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 Steven Alcorn

Teacher reference number: 0641151

Teacher's date of birth: 1 April 1970

Location teacher worked: Leigh, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 31 July 2023 to 2 August 2023

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 Steven Alcorn, formerly employed in Leigh, East of 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 Steven Alcorn: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 11 Documents 11 Witnesses 12 Decision and reasons 12 Findings of fact 12 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 29 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 32 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Steven Alcorn Teacher ref number: 0641151 Teacher date of birth: 1 April 1970 TRA reference: 18012 Date of determination: 2 August 2023 Former employer: Eastwood Academy, Leigh-on-Sea Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened by virtual means, to consider the case of Mr Steven Alcorn. The panel members were Ms Penny Griffith (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Hannah Foster (teacher panellist) and Mr Clive Ruddle (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Shanie Probert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Andrew Cullen of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Steven Alcorn was not present and was not represented at the hearing. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 2 June 2023. It was alleged that Mr Steven Alcorn was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at the Eastwood Academy, he: 1. In or around August 2018, whilst on a school residential trip, failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with one or more pupils by allowing one or more pupils to plait his hair on one or more occasions, including whilst he was in the female pupils’ dormitory; 2. Between 1 September 2018 and 12 December 2018, made inappropriate physical contact with one or more pupils during lessons on one or more occasions, including by: a. In relation to Pupil A: i. Touching Pupil A’s hair and/or putting Pupil A’s hair behind her ears and/or massaging her scalp; ii. Touching Pupil A’s upper arm/shoulder; iii. Placing his hand on top of Pupil A’s hand; iv. Stroking/touching Pupil A’s thigh; b. In relation to Pupil B: i. Placing his hand(s) on Pupil B’s head and/or whilst moving his hand(s) over Pupil B’s head, asking her ‘this is comfortable’, or words to that effect; ii. Touching Pupil B’s hair and/or whilst touching Pupil B’s hair asking Pupil B ‘is that helping’, or words to that effect; iii. Touching Pupil B’s head with a meter ruler; iv. Nudging Pupil B with his hip; v. Rubbing/touching Pupil B’s back; vi. Touching Pupil B’s hand; vii. Rubbing/touching Pupil B’s thigh; c. In relation to Pupil C: i. Touching Pupil C’s hair; ii. Rubbing/touching Pupil C’s back; iii. Placing his hand on top of Pupil C’s hand and/or touching Pupil C’s hand; 5 iv. Touching Pupil C’s thigh; d. In relation to Pupil D, touching Pupil D’s hand; e. In relation to Pupil E, touching Pupil E’s hand; 3. Between 1 September 2018 and 12 December 2018, during lessons, failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with one or more pupils and/or failed to treat one or more pupils with dignity, on one or more occasions, including by: a. Referring to one or more pupils as ‘babe’, ‘honey’ and ‘darling’; b. Referring to himself as ‘daddy’; c. Making comments about female menstruation to one or more pupils; d. Making an inappropriate comment about pupil clothing, using words to the effect of ‘I am glad that you have to wear trousers because when girls had skirts I would be able to see everything while at my desk’; e. Making one or more inappropriate comments to pupils about suicide, including using words to the effect of ‘Oh dear, that is bad, you should really commit suicide’; f. Throwing an object at Pupil B’s head; g. Deliberately knocking one or more pupils’ pencil cases off their desks and/or making them pick up their pencil cases; 4. His conduct at allegation 2 above was sexually motivated. The allegations were not admitted, save for that Mr Alcorn did partially admit the facts set out in allegation 1, allegation 2(b)(ii), allegation 2(b)(iv), allegation 2(b)(vi), allegation 3(a), allegation 3(c), and allegation 3(g). Preliminary applications Proceeding in absence The panel considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel was initially concerned whether the TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 (1) (a) to (c) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). In particular, the panel considered representations made by the presenting officer, which confirmed that whilst the notice of proceedings had been served within 8 weeks, it had not been served on Mr Alcorn by post. It was only served on Mr Alcorn by email, without Mr Alcorn’s prior agreement. There was no evidence that this agreement was sought. However, the panel also noted that Mr Alcorn’s union representative had confirmed by email to the presenting officer that Mr Alcorn had no objection to the fact that the notice 6 of proceedings was served by email. Therefore, the panel was satisfied that Mr Alcorn was content to proceed on the basis of the notice of proceedings having been served on him and safely received. The panel considered that the notice of proceedings did not strictly comply with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). The panel noted that the notice of proceedings had referred to the relevant provisions of the updated Procedures dated May 2020, when it should have referred to the April 2018 Procedures. The presenting officer confirmed that Mr Alcorn’s union representative had been notified of this error, and that Mr Alcorn was content for the hearing to proceed, on the basis that the notice of proceedings had been properly served in accordance with the April 2018 Procedures. The panel was satisfied that both parties were aware that the April 2018 Procedures were the correct procedures to be applied and therefore, the panel was content to proceed. The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel has firstly taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. i) The panel was satisfied that the teacher voluntarily waived his right to attend the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place. The panel considered an email from the Mr Alcorn’s union representative to the TRA dated 15 February 2022, which confirmed that Mr Alcorn did not wish to attend a panel hearing. Mr Alcorn had also requested that the decision of the panel be communicated to the teacher’s union representative at the conclusion of the hearing. The panel also considered later email correspondence from Mr Alcorn’s union representative to the presenting officer, in which it was confirmed that Mr Alcorn did not object to the hearing proceeding in his absence and that Mr Alcorn had waived his right to attend a panel hearing; ii) The panel considered that an adjournment would not result in the teacher attending voluntarily, in light of the teacher purposely absenting himself from the hearing; 7 iii) The panel noted that Mr Alcorn did have a union representative. The panel was satisfied that Mr Alcorn was aware that his union representative was not attending the hearing, but that the representative was in communication with the presenting officer and the TRA both before and during the hearing. The panel considered that the teacher had not expressed a wish to obtain legal representation in these proceedings; iv) The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher were serious and that there was a real risk that if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching; v) The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. The conduct alleged is said to have taken place whilst the teacher was employed at Eastwood Academy. It was recognised that the school will have an interest in this hearing taking place in order to move forwards; vi) The panel noted that no witnesses were being called to give evidence, and therefore, it was not necessary to consider the impact of an adjournment upon any witnesses. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel considered that in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear, and the fact that an adjournment would not result in the teacher voluntarily attending the hearing, that on balance, these were serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a re