Queensland College Teachers v Teacher Ma
[2011] QCAT 500
•19 October 2011
| CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MA [2011] QCAT 500 | |
| PARTIES: | Queensland College of Teachers | |
| v | ||
| Teacher MA | ||
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR116-11 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 13 October 2011 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Peta Stilgoe, Presiding Member Christine Trueman, Member Stuart MacDonald, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 19 October 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The teacher’s registration is cancelled and he is prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a period of 12 months from the date of this order. 2. Upon the teacher reapplying for registration as a teacher it is recommended that the Queensland College of Teachers request the teacher provide a report from a registered psychologist addressing the respondents understanding of the following matters: 1. Awareness of appropriate manner and forms of communication with students. 2. Awareness of need to avoid disclosing to and relying upon students in relation to personal issues. 3. Awareness of power imbalance inherent in the teacher student relationship including how that power imbalance can influence relationships with students. 4. An in depth examination of extent and nature of the student, colleague, parent and community trust inherently invested in a teacher. 5. Awareness of power and trust granted to a teacher. 6. Awareness of behaviour which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching. 7. Understanding the full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics. 3. Any psychological report is to include reference to the report writer being provided with copies of: i) The facts and circumstances; and ii) This decision. 4. The tribunal prevents the publication of any information that may enable identification of the complainant; the respondent teacher; or the school at which he was employed other than to the Queensland College of Teachers, the teacher, or the teacher’s employer. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Approved teacher not suitable to teach – where frequent telephone conversations and texting – where both student and teacher suffering from depression – where teacher failed to report student’s depression – where teacher discussed suicide – prohibited from reapplication for 12 month period Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The teacher in these proceedings is an approved teacher who was first registered to teach in Queensland on 4 January 1978 with a registration end date of 31 December 2011. At the time of this hearing he was 55 years old.
In a letter dated 9 September, the Queensland College of Teachers (“QCT”) received a section 76 notification under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 regarding the teacher.
By letter dated 13 May 2010 the QCT received a section 77 notification under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 from the Department of Education and Training (“DET”) in relation to the fully registered teacher resigning with DET effective 30 April 2010 following DET’s investigation into the matter.
QCT undertook its own investigation into the matter and a report dated 6 January 2011 substantiated the allegation made.
The specific allegations put to the Tribunal by the QCT were as follows:
a) Inappropriate contact with a year 10/11 student whilst employed as a teacher of the school throughout 2008-2009. The teacher inappropriately communicated to the complainant student via telephone and text messaging.
b) Failure to report concerns of a risk of harm to a student to appropriate persons whilst employed as a teacher of the school during 2008-2009. The teacher failed to report concerns about the student being at risk of harm, and explicitly instructed the student not to mention the word ‘suicide’ during discussion with him for the purpose of avoiding the obligation for him to report the matter.
The Evidence
The Tribunal was provided with the QCT’s evidence and investigation report, a statement by school administration staff, transcript of DET interviews, DET code of conduct and student protection policies and documents detailing registration of qualifications of the teacher. The interviews undertaken by DET included the teacher, complainant student and her mother.
In respect of the first allegation, the Tribunal is satisfied that the teacher had frequent phone contact with the student speaking about his personal life, his suicidal ideation and his troubled marriage. The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence establishes these communications did occur and finds that these were inappropriate communications for a teacher to forward to a student.
In respect of the second allegation, the evidence supporting this allegation came from the teacher himself in a recorded interview with DET. The teacher admitted that he had concerns that the student might self harm and yet despite these concerns he did not report them to the Principal or the school’s administration. The teacher also clarified that he had not referred her to any other agency. Also the teacher confirmed that during conversations he had told the student not to mention the “s” word (referring to suicide) as he would have to report the risk of self harm to the office. The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence establishes that the alleged failure to report the risk of self harm was proven.
The Tribunal is satisfied itself that the allegations have been proven to the relevant standards.
Law to be applied
The grounds for disciplinary action are outlined in section 92 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005. Section 92(1)(h) contains the ground that “the teacher is not suitable to teach”.
The concept of “suitability to teach” is specifically dealt with in section 12 of the Act. It requires a consideration of a number of factors including whether the person is suitable to work in a child related field (section 12(1)(b)). Further section 12(3) of the Act provides that a person is not suitable to teach if that person:
a) Behaves in a way that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher; or
b) Otherwise behaves in a disgraceful or improper way that shows the person is unfit to be granted registration or permission to teach.
The Tribunal has found the allegations proven and considers that the community would undoubtedly have expected more of a teacher in this teacher’s position particularly when dealing with a vulnerable student. The Tribunal is satisfied that the teacher acted in a way which does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.
The Tribunal finds on the evidence before it that grounds for disciplinary action against the teacher have been established specifically under section 92(1)(h) of the Act. The Tribunal finds that the teacher is not suitable to teach within the meaning of that phrase in section 12(3) in that his behaviour does not satisfy the standard which the community would generally expect of a teacher and he has failed to conduct himself in a manner that would protect the welfare and best interests of students.
Penalty
The QCT sought an order under section 160(2)(d) and (j) of the Act cancelling the teacher’s registration and prohibiting him from reapplying for registration for a period of not less than 12 months with therapeutic conditions to apply upon any future reapplication for registration.
In support of this application, the QCT emphasised the length of the period of inappropriate contact between the teacher and student (2008-2009). Whilst initial contact in 2007 was described by the student as helpful counselling for her problems, in 2008-2009 the nature of the contact changed. This change involved the teacher burdening the complainant student with more frequent contact and telephone calls and messages relating to his own ongoing personal problems including the state of his marriage and his suicidal ideation.
The QCT submitted that the teacher displayed a lack of insight into the seriousness of his alleged conduct. The QCT submitted that the evidence of this was the teacher’s lack of involvement in the disciplinary proceedings and his evasiveness and equivocation in answering questions during interview.
Further the QCT submitted that the artificial avoidance of reporting potential harm to the student (not mentioning the “s” word) demonstrates recognition by the teacher of the seriousness of what was being discussed and the act of encouragement of the concealment of it. The QCT submitted that his conduct in not appropriately reporting concern of risk of harm to the student contravenes the various DET and QCT codes and policies referred to in their submission.
The respondent teacher made no submissions to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is satisfied that pursuant to section 12(3)(a) of the Act the teacher has behaved in a way that does not satisfy a standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. The Tribunal is further satisfied that prima face the teacher is “not suitable to teach” within the meaning of section 92(1)(h) of the Act and that grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to section 158(1) of the Act exist.
Publication
Pursuant to s 66(1)(c) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, the tribunal may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that may enable a person who has appeared before the tribunal to be identified. The tribunal may make the order if it is necessary to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of a person[1].
[1] Section 66(2)(b) QCAT Act.
The material on file shows that the teacher is suffering from depression, had suicidal ideations and has resigned from teaching due to ill-health. The tribunal is of the view that publication of these reasons may exacerbate the teacher’s health difficulties and may have an adverse effect on his recovery. Therefore, the tribunal considers that a non-publication order is necessary.
Pursuant to section 162(2)(d) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005, the Tribunal cancels the teacher’s registration or permission to teach and pursuant to section 160(2)(j) prohibits the teacher from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a period of 12 months.
Section 160(2)(h) permits the Tribunal to impose conditions on a teacher’s registration or permission to teach. In view of the objects of the Act to uphold the standards of and to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession the Tribunal orders the following conditions:
a) Awareness of appropriate manner and forms of communication with students.
b) Awareness of need to avoid disclosing to and relying upon students in relation to personal issues.
c) Awareness of power imbalance inherent in the teacher student relationship including how that power imbalance can influence relationships with students.
d) An in depth examination of extent and nature of the student, colleague, parent and community trust inherently invested in a teacher.
e) Awareness of power and trust granted to a teacher.
f) Awareness of behaviour which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching.
g) Understanding the full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics.
The tribunal prevents the publication of any information that may enable identification of the complainant; the respondent teacher; or the school at which he was employed other than to the Queensland College of Teachers, the teacher, or the teacher’s employer.
2
0
0