Unknown Teacher

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

Teacher reference number:

0884015

Teacher's date of birth:

19 August 1978

Location teacher worked:

Hornsea, Yorkshire and the Humber

Date of professional conduct panel:

19 and 20 April 2018

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 Ms Elizabeth Woods, formerly employed in Hornsea, Yorkshire and the Humber.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on 20 April 2018.

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.

Ms Elizabeth Woods: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2018 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 D. Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 E. Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 16 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Elizabeth Woods Teacher ref number: 0884015 Teacher date of birth: 19 August 1978 NCTL case reference: 16432 Date of determination: 20 April 2018 Former employer: Hornsea School and Language College (the 'School') A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the Agency”) convened on 19 to the 20 April 2018 at 53 – 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Ms Elizabeth Woods. The panel members were Angela Brown ( lay panellist – in the chair), Dr Robert Cawley (teacher panellist) and Anthony Greenwood (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Danks of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the Agency was Holly Quirk of Browne Jacobson LLP. Ms Elizabeth Woods was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in th e Notice of Proceedings (as amended) dated 19 February 2018. It was alleged that Ms Elizabeth Woods was guilty o f unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: 1. On or before 6 July 2016, she used inappropriate language and/or gestures towards and/or around pupils, in particular she: i. Referred to her tutor group as 'fucking idiots'; ii. Referred to her tutor group as 'twats' iii. Told one or more pupils to 'fuck off' iv. Stuck her middle finger up at Pupil A; v. Referred to one or more pupils as having a 'big willy'; vi. Referred to her white board pen as the 'magic pen of sex'. 2. On or around 16 June 2016, she allowed Pupil C and Pupil D to leave the School in circumstances where she had led one or more other teachers in the School to believe that they were with her and/or under her supervision. In the absence of a response from Ms Woods referring to the particulars of the allegations specifically, the panel has taken the allegations to have not been admitted. It therefore follows that the panel has taken unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute to also not be admitted. C. Preliminary applications The panel announced its decision on the preliminary applications as follows: The panel considered an application by the presenting officer for the hearing to proceed in the absence of Ms Woods. The panel was satisfied that proceedings had been served on Ms Woods in accordance with Rules 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession ("the Disciplinary Procedures"). The Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Ms Woods by letter of 19 February 2018 and it was sent to the address known to the Agency. It included the information required in accordance with Rule 4.12 and the panel had a delivery report from DX Despatch Tracking dated 21 February 2018 confirming that the letter was signed for by an 'E. Woods'. 5 The panel then considered whether it was app ropriate to proceed in the absence of Ms Woods. Having been sent the Notice of Proceedings, Ms Woods is aware of the proceedings and the nature of the allegations being made against her. On 18 April 2018, Ms Woods sent an email to the p resenting officer stating "I will not be appearing in person and do wish the hearing to proceed in my absence". Whilst this email did not state the date of the hearing, it was an email sent in response to an email query from the presenting officer, which did clearly state the date of the hearing. The panel had considered carefully each of the criteria set out in R v Jones and Tate v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Ms Woods is aware of the nature of the allegations against her, and she had not requested an adjournment despite being aware of today's hearing. In the circumstances, the panel was satisfied that Ms Woods had voluntarily absented herself and had waived her right to attend. The panel concluded that an adjournment would serve no purpose particularly because Ms Woods had not, at any stage, indicated that she wished to be represented. The panel also bore in mind that both Pupil A and Pupil D were attending to give evidence and there was an interest in proceeding as quickly as possible as their evidence was predominantly based on memory. The panel also had consideration to Ms Woods' health and determined that the hearing proceeding today would also be in her interests. The panel will take into consideration the fact that the allegations were denied when considering the evidence presented by the Agency and notes within the papers before it is an indication as to Ms Woods' general defence albeit not particularised for each allegation. Taking all of the above into account, the panel decided that it was in the public interest that this case should proceed in the absence of Ms Woods. The panel then considered three further applications from the presenting officer, albeit two were effectively being made on Ms Woods' behalf. By an email dated 16 April 2018, Ms Woods applied for the hearing to be held in private on the basis that a public hearing could be reported in the local press, which would then negatively impact on her health and business. The Agency objected to this application stating it was clearly in the interests of justice that the hearing proceeds as normal in public and the teacher had not put forward any compelling reason for it not to be. The panel refused this application. There were no members of the public present and, in any event, the Secretary of State's decision is made publicly regardless of whether the hearing is in private. Whilst the panel was sympathetic to Ms Woods' position, any prejudice to her was significantly outweighed by the public interest in the hearing being in public and there being transparency to proceedings. 6 The panel then considered the application b y the Agency to amend the date in allegation 2 from 16 January 2017 to the correct date 6 June 2016. The date in the Notice was included in error and the presenting o fficer stated that the amendment would properly reflect the evidence before the panel. The teacher was aware of the facts behind the allegation and, in any event, was not present at the School on the date currently in allegation 2. The panel was satisfied that Ms Woods was unde r no misunderstanding as to which incident was referred to in allegation 2. Indeed, around the time it took place, she had been interviewed about it and provided her account to the School. The panel thought it highly unlikely she would consider allegation 2 referred to an incident when she was not at the School in 2017. As a result, the panel did not consider there was any injustice to Ms Woods and that it was clearly in the interests of justice for the allegation to be amended to properly reflect the evidence. The panel therefore allowed the application and amendment to allegation 2. The final application that the panel considered was for documents from Ms Woods to be admitted into evidence despite not being served in accordanc e with the rules. These documents were:  Emails to/from Ms Woods and the presenting officer, which attached an undated statement from Ms Woods;  her response to the Notice of Proceedings signed 16 April 2018; and  an email from a previous colleague dated 18 April 2018. The presenting officer confirmed the Agency had no objection to these documents being entered into evidence despite being served late. The panel considered that these were all documents that assisted in their understanding of Ms Woods' position and there was an inherent fairness in admitting them. The panel allowed the application from Ms Woods and entered them into evidence using the following pagination:  the emails and Ms Woods' statement – pages 274 to 278;  her response to the Notice of Proceedings – pages 279 to 282; and  the email from a colleague – page 283. 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 4 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 5 to 14 7 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 15 to 19 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 20 to 271 Section 5: Teacher documents – page 272 to 273 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following:  the emails and Ms Woods' statement – pages 274 to 278;  her response to the Notice of Proceedings – pages 279 to 282; and  the email from a colleague – page 283. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses On behalf of the Agency, the panel heard oral evidence from:  Pupil A; and  Pupil D. No oral evidence was called by Ms Woods. 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. Ms Woods had been employed at Hornsea School and Language Co llege ('the School') from August 2013 as an English teacher. On 6 July 2016, a pupil reported that Ms Woods had stuck her middle finger up at him and