FACTion-6.1-web-version

The NCTL –The ‘Balance of Probabilities’ and why noteacher is safe by Stephen BowersThe following article is taken from my research project ‘Inconsistencies in the National College of Teaching &Learning’s conduct panel hearing process.’In September 2014 I became the 260th teacher in England to face the judgment of a misconduct panel of theNational College for Teaching & Leadership. Like the overwhelming majority of teachers who are asked to attendhearings by NCTL misconduct panels, I was found guilty of misconduct using the very low standard of proof that is‘the balance of probabilities’. I was barred from teaching and informed I would not be permitted to have myeligibility to teach restored, on other words a lifetime ban.The two years prior to this period were hell for me and my family. In early 2012 I was the victim of a horrendousfalse allegation of abuse by a former pupil who had always been unhealthily obsessed with me. Suspended from myjob, I was arrested at 4am in front of my wife and two small children, questioned by the police, bailed twice and thenquestioned again. I was eventually charged in December 2012 following a farcical police investigation and six monthslater cleared of all charges by a unanimous jury verdict on their first vote.Social Services were involved from the outset and until the conclusion of my trial I was not able to spend anyunsupervised time with my two children. My case also attracted local, national and international press coveragemaking it impossible for me to return to my previous post. I took an offer of redundancy from my employer at theend of 2013. The NCTL – or the Teaching Agency as they were initially known – contacted me during the early stagesof the police investigation to inform me that they had put an Interim Prohibition Order in place temporarily barringme from teaching.Upon the conclusion of the case the IPO remained in place and I was told I would face an NCTL misconduct panelhearing. The NCTL’s written and oral communication during this period was appalling in terms of both the quality ofthe content and its irregularity. On one occasion I received a letter where the word ‘you’ was written as ‘u’ and areference was made to ‘the Judges summing up’ at my trial, the lack of an apostrophe implying my case wasoverseen by not one but many judges. The letter in question was written and signed by a Higher Executive LegalOfficer of the NCTL.I was later asked to fill in an availability calendar to inform the NCTL of any dates when I or any of my witnesseswould be unavailable – at this stage, the NCTL had not even finalised what I had been accused of or sent me a scrapof evidence that I was expected to refute. I did not know, therefore, what witnesses I would need to call but waspolitely informed that the NCTL ‘would not view it favourably’ if I were to later discover that any of my witnesseswere unavailable, which I thought outrageous.Whilst somewhat concerned that such an organisation oversaw standards in teaching despite their own poorstandards in communication, I was comforted by the fact that the panel I would face consisted of two fellowteachers and a lay panellist from another industry. Today I laugh at my naivety and that of people still in teachingwho assume that the two ‘teacher’ panellists are ordinary teachers from typical UK schools. I was -stupidly- quietlyconfident that fellow members of the profession would at the very least listen to my account in a reasoned andunbiased manner.During my court case in 2013, the claimant could not name dates, describe my house, describe me naked and at onestage called her own therapist a liar when it transpired that the version of events she had told him differed to theone she had told the police. She laughed nonchalantly and at times hysterically in court whilst recounting apparentlyhorrific events and even accused members of my family of being complicit in the ‘abuse’. The police came underheavy criticism from the judge for the arrest procedure and he threw out much of their ‘evidence’ as ‘nothing morethan salacious gossip’.FACTion 37 Volume 6.1