A primary school teacher has been banned after it was found he had inappropriately grabbed the wrists of two pupils.
Christopher Green was employed as a full-time teacher in Enhanced Mainstream Provision at Seascape Primary School in Peterlee when he inappropriately grabbed the wrists of two pupils on two separate occasions in 2018. Following the 33-year-old's actions, a professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency gathered between February 28 and March 2 this year and prohibited him from teaching indefinitely.
The panel found that Mr Green had inappropriately held the wrist or forearm of a pupil on November 6, 2018 before inappropriately grabbing and/or holding the wrist of another pupil on November 12, 2018. Due to his conduct, it was found that he had failed to act within the statutory frameworks setting out a teacher’s professional duties and responsibilities.
Read more: County Durham charity makes urgent appeal for volunteers as it faces 'most difficult year yet'
Mr Green provided a statement of agreed facts which set out a factual context to the allegations - which he admitted - but he did not accept the allegations. Mr Green had been employed by the school since January 1, 2018 and was responsible for planning and delivering lessons, and assessing the progress of pupils and had received training in the 'Team Teach' restraint procedures. These procedures set out guidance on the circumstances in which physical diversion and restraint could be used, and, if appropriate, how it should be used. Mr Green's training was current and he was familiar with all relevant procedures and policies in place at the school.
But the panel found Mr Green guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute when he inappropriately held the wrist of a pupil, referred to as 'Pupil B'. A witness, known as 'Witness A', told the panel that Mr Green held Pupil B "in the wrist or forearm area" and that she expressed concern about it because she did not believe it to be justified.
A Teaching Regulation Report, which was published this month, said: "Mr Green accepted that he held Pupil B, but stated that this was on the forearm as opposed to the wrist itself and that this contact was not inappropriate. He described the act as a physical diversion using an open handed hold known as a "caring C" which then developed into a more restrictive physical intervention for a few seconds to prevent the pupil from falling backwards into a fence. However, Witness A stated that there was no risk of the pupil falling over on to a fence, and the pupil was being held in such a way that they could not remove themselves from the situation and were restrained and in some distress."
Witness A, who was described as an "experienced practitioner who expressed her view vividly that the intervention was unnecessary", intervened and asked Mr Green to release Pupil B, which he did. The panel found that the intervention was inappropriate and there was no justification to maintain the hold for any safety reason. The report added the panel "was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this allegation was found proved".
Around a week later, on November 12, Mr Green inappropriately grabbed and/or held the wrist of another pupil, referred to as 'Pupil E'. The panel heard evidence from Witness B who stated that she saw Mr Green grabbing Pupil E in a "sudden manner" and held on to his forearm or wrist area.
The report said: "Mr Green stated that he used an open handed 'caring C' due to Pupil E being in a distressed and aroused state, and his intervention was not an RPI. Witness B described Pupil E as being unable to get away from the interaction and the panel preferred this evidence to that of Mr Green. The panel found that Mr Green held on to the wrist area of Pupil E without sufficient justification and this restrictive intervention was itself inappropriate. The panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this allegation was found proved."
Due to Mr Green's conduct, the panel found his conduct was inappropriate and involved departure from established school policies regarding restraint. The panel was satisfied that Mr Green had not had proper regard to the school policies regarding restraint as per the guidance in the Teachers' Standards. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Green, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards.
The report continued: "The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Green, which concerned the inappropriate restraint of a child as per allegations 1 and 3, amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession, and thus amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. The actions of Mr Green involved a departure from the relevant standards and statutory frameworks and the panel thus also found that allegation 4 amounted to unacceptable professional conduct."
Despite the findings, the panel found that the actions of Mr Green did not involve any deliberate intention to cause harm, and that there was no evidence of any injury or actual harm resulting from his actions. The panel also noted that Mr Green was of good character and had a good teaching record but said there was no evidence that Mr Green was acting under duress. Before the incidents, Mr Green had received a management advice letter reminding him to follow the relevant procedures and practices regarding restraint.
The panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. But as Mr Green is an "experienced teacher" who demonstrated insight into his actions, the panel said it was confident that this is a case where a review period would be appropriate should the teacher wish to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed.
As a result of the panel's findings, Mr Green has been prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. However, he may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but not until March 13, 2025, two years from the date of the order.
If he does apply, a panel will meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful application, Mr Green remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely.
Seascape Primary School declined to comment.
Read next:
