Should a teacher be banned for telling a parent their child was being singled out by other staff?

In Ms Erin Dempsey: professional conduct outcome, a teacher told a parent that their child was being targeted by other staff. The Secretary of State had to consider whether this - along with multiple emails and messages sent directly to the pupil - meant that the teacher had overstepped professional boundaries and should be banned from teaching. 

Facts

Ms Dempsey taught Pupil A ('A') history. After the school became aware that Ms Dempsey and A had been communicating using their personal mobile phones, it began an investigation and suspended her. She subsequently resigned, and the matter was referred to the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA). 

It was alleged that Ms Dempsey had engaged in unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute by failing to:

• maintain appropriate professional boundaries with A
• maintain appropriate professional boundaries with A's parent
• take appropriate steps to safeguard A. 

Professional conduct panel

The panel found that Ms Dempsey had emailed A's parent suggesting that A was being targeted by other staff. In one message she wrote:

“I don't agree with him being targeted by some because it's not helping when it comes to his classes because he's less likely to do work if he feels like you're picking on him or accusing him of something.” 

In other emails, she suggested that A was not the only pupil to have issues with a particular colleague, and said that if A's father attended a meeting it would show how the school viewed and treated A. Ms Dempsey didn't have a pastoral role and only taught A history.

The panel her emails to be over-familiar, inappropriate, and made unprofessional negative comments about colleagues. It therefore concluded that she had engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional communication and failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with A's parent.

The panel also found that Ms Dempsey failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with A. Her communications went beyond what was appropriate or professional. In particular:  

• She gave A her personal mobile number and communicated with him via her personal phone. 

• She emailed A for reasons not permitted under school procedures as it did not relate to schoolwork. For example, she wrote:

  “I am trying to help keep you in school right now and I am not going to tell anyone that I saw you and [pupil] and [pupil] in that toilet but you have to be careful … . They are looking for a reason to suspend you, don't given them on[e].” and

   “Also go to all of your classes today, [colleague] is away so you should be able to go to Spanish.”

• She offered and gave A chocolate on multiple occasions as an incentive to attend lessons. This breached school policy, which prohibited personal gifts.

The panel also found that Ms Dempsey failed to take appropriate action to safeguard A. She saw A vaping after school and at weekends but didn't report it, believing it was not a safeguarding concern because it occurred off-site. The panel concluded that she had a duty to report this and failed to do so. She also should also have reported an incident in which she found A in an individual toilet cubicle with other pupils. Further concerns included emails to A's parent that disclosed confidential information about other students, and occasions where she altered A's attendance records to show he was in class when he was not. 

Overall, the panel found that Ms Dempsey lacked integrity and that, in relation to most of the allegations, she had also acted dishonestly. 

Was it a breach of the Teachers' Standards?

The panel went on to consider if her conduct breached the Teachers' Standards. The panel noted that, had the allegation only been a failure to maintain appropriate boundaries with A's parent, it would not have been sufficiently serious to amount to unacceptable professional conduct. However, her failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with A, her failure to take appropriate action to safeguard A, and the fact that her conduct was dishonest and/or lacked integrity, meant that she breached the following standards: 

• Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school by:
  • Treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher's professional position
  • Having regard for the need to safeguard pupils' well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions
  • Showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others
• 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; and
• Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.  

The panel also considered the offences listed in the Teacher Misconduct: the prohibition of teachers and, in particular, the offence of serious dishonesty. This was relevant to Ms Dempsey deliberately altering A's attendance. However, the panel noted that it was not one of the more serious examples of dishonesty.

It found that she had focused a considerable amount of attention on one pupil and, in doing so, breached professional boundaries repeatedly. Her communication was extensive and inappropriate and rarely related to the subject she taught.  

The panel was therefore satisfied that her conduct amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession and brought the profession into disrepute. It recommended a prohibition order with a review after two years, and the Secretary of State accepted that recommendation.  

Key takeaways for schools and colleges

While the panel noted that Ms Dempsey had been motivated by a desire to help A, her conduct was nevertheless inappropriate. Teachers are expected to adhere to professional boundaries and understand when their behaviour risks crossing them, for example, by giving pupils their personal mobile numbers or personal gifts. 

This case centres on both the method and the content of communication with pupils and their parents. It is a useful reminder of the importance of having clear policies, supported by regular training, to reinforce what forms of communication are appropriate and what content is acceptable. It also shows the importance of having clear policies setting out that personal gifts must not be given to pupils and also how the school-specific rewards systems operate so that teachers are in no doubt about what is permitted.

Our newsletters

We publish monthly employment and education newsletters. If you'd like to be added to the mailing list, please let me know.