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:

1576293

Teacher's date of birth:

14 October 1957

Location teacher worked:

Bourne End, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel:

18 to 20 January 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 Ms Helen Rossenberg, formerly employed in Bourne End, South East England.

The proceedings were held at Study Inn Conference Centre, 175 Corporation Street, Coventry, CV1 1GU at 9.30am on 18 to 20 January 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.

Helen Rossenberg: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2017 2 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 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Helen Rossenberg Teacher ref number: 1576293 Teacher date of birth: 14 October 1957 NCTL case reference: 15082 Date of determination: 20 January 2017 Former employer: Bourne End Academy, Buckinghamshire A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 18 January 2017 at The Study Inn Conference Centre, 175 Corporation Street, Coventry, CV1 1GU to consider the case of Ms Helen Rossenberg. The panel members were Brian Hawkins ( teacher panellist – in the chair), John Matharu (lay panellist) and Karen McArthur (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was James Danks of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the National College was Louisa Atkin of Browne Jacobson LLP. Ms Rossenberg was not present and 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 dated 21 November 2016. It was alleged that Ms Helen Rossenberg was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, whilst employed as a teacher at Bourne End Academy ‘the School’ between September 2 015 and December 2015, she: 1. made inappropriate physical contact with one or more students, including by; a) pushing Student C on or around 16 November 2015; b) standing/treading on Student I’s foot on or around 16 November 2015; c) pulling Student G’s hair on or around 17 November 2015; d) grabbed one or more students by the arm in order to gain their attention. 2. made inappropriate comments to and/or about one or more students, including by; a) describing a student with special educational needs as “thick”; b) saying “all they would do is sit there scratching their balls ” or words to that effect, in reference to students who were absent from a lesson; c) telling a student to “ sit your black ass down on that chair ” on or around 30 September 2015; d) making reference to Student G having “nits” on or around 17 November 2015; e) referring to one or more students as “fat” and/or “ugly” and/or “gay”. In the absence of Ms Rossenberg and any admissions, it was taken that all allegations are denied. C. Preliminary applications The panel initially considered an application from the NCTL to proceed in the absence of Ms Rossenberg. The panel was provided with evidence that service had been sent to Ms Rossenberg: a) at least 8 weeks prior to the first day of the hearing in compliance with rule 4.11; and b) sent to her last known address in compliance with Regulation 19(1)(b) of The Teachers' Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012. The panel also considered the emails sent by the NCTL to Ms Rossenberg in December 2016 and January 2017, which invit ed written submissions to be provided were she to decide not to attend. The panel took account of Ms Rossenberg's responses that included, by benefit of her response to an email that had resent the relevant documents including 5 the charges, confirmation she had received the same and had no interest in returning to the UK. Having considered all of the documentation and rules 4.27 to 4.29, the panel decided that the Notice of Proceeding s had been properly served, and in light of Ms Rossenberg's knowledge of the proceedings and her responses, there would be no benefit in adjourning proceedings and it was in the interests of justice that the hearing proceeded in her absence. The panel also decided to enter the three most recent emails between the Presenting Officer and Ms Rossenberg, not contained within the original bundle, as pages 31a to 31c. Three further preliminary applications were then made by the NCTL as follows (numbered to take into account the first application): 2) the evidence of the child witnesses be allowed to take place via video-link; 3) the evidence of Witness B to take place via video-link; and 4) a further witness statement of Witness B dated 16 January 2017 be entered into evidence. In respect of each application the panel decided as follows: 2) considering the child witnesses were both under 18, to minimise the disruption to their schooling and the fact that Ms Rossenberg had been notified of the application (and had not objected), it was in the interests of justice that they be allowed to give evidence remotely; 3) Ms Rossenberg had been notified of the application (and had not objected) and as there was no anticipated difference in the standard of Witness B’s evidence whether it be physically live or by video-link, it was in the interests of justice that this application be allowed; and 4) the further evidence amounted to little more than a production statement from Witness B regarding evidence already contained within the bundle. In the circumstances, the new evidence was relevant and it was fair to admit this evidence at page 39a. 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 5 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and response – pages 7 to 31 6 Section 3: NCTL witness statements – pages 32 to 39 Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 41 to 110 Section 5: Teacher documents – none submitted In addition, as set out above, the panel agreed to accept the following:  three emails regarding the hearing proceeding in Ms Rossenberg's absence at pages 31a to 31c;  the witness statement of Witness B dated 16 January 2017 at page 39a. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from: 1) Witness A, Deputy Headteacher and Investigating Officer; 2) Student I; 3) Student M; and 4) Witness B, Teaching Assistant. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered the case before it and have reached a decision. The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing as well as those included in the preliminary stages. Ms Rossenberg had been employed at the School between September to December 2015 as a Maths teacher. Although this was her first position in the UK, she had over twenty years' experience teaching in Australia. It is alleged that Ms Rossenberg on five separate occasions made comments to, or about, students that were inappropriate and derogatory. It is also alleged that Ms R ossenberg made inappropriate physical contact with a number of students on several occasions. 7 Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: The panel has found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for these reasons: 1. You made inappropriate physical contact with one or more students, including by; a) pushing Student C on or around 16 November 2015; We find this factual particular proved. Whilst there was no live evidence for this particular, the panel gave some weigh t to the statement of Student C, which although hearsay, was his first hand account of the incident and was made relatively contemporaneously after the incident. The panel has also taken into account that Student C is under 18 and, whilst seemingly willing to provide live evidence, required parental consent to do so, which was not forthcoming. Furthermore, the panel also notes the corroborative accounts of the incident as provided by a number of other students, which again were made on the day or soon after the incident. Although Ms Rossenberg is not present at the hearing, the panel has noted her witness statement dated 17 November 2015 on this incident. It is unclear to the panel what defence she may be providing when suggesting students pushed her but, nevertheless, we note that Student C is not named by her as one of the offending students in any case. b) standing/treading on Student I’s foot on or around 16 November 2015; We find this particular proved. The panel heard live evidence from Student I, whom the panel felt gave consistent and credible evidence and did not try to exaggerate any fact when possible to do so. Student I's description of Ms Rossenberg raising her leg and then putting her heel on Student I's toes meant the action was not accidental and was therefore a deliberate act. Again, the panel noted the corroborative evidence of the facts surrounding the incident provided by a number of other students. Having considered Ms Rossenberg's account that this was an accident, in light of the manner in which Student I gave evidence and the written statements provided, we do not accept her explanation on the balance of probabilities. c) pulling Student G’s hair on or around 17 November 2015; 8 We find this particular proved. The panel heard live evidence on this incident from Student I who witnessed the action. Again, the panel felt Student I gave a consistent, credible account of what had happened and stood up to questioning. Student I was able to provide further information when asked and the panel also took into account that Ms Rossenberg had accepted that she had '…picked up a lock of her hair and said "come on sit down"…' The panel also gave some