A GENERAL Teaching Council (GTC) hearing has ruled that a former Galashiels Academy teacher should have his professional registration removed for three months.

After a hearing in Edinburgh, the GTC for Scotland’s Fitness to Teach Panel has determined that Scott Shields breached its code of conduct four years ago with regard to the academic achievements of two female pupils at the school and an alleged attempted cover-up.

Mr Shields, who taught business education at the Academy but has since been dismissed by Scottish Borders Council, faced a complaint relating to events prior to May 12, 2010.

It was alleged that, before that date, Mr Shields, as part of the Information Technology for Management course, submitted so-called NAB (National Assessment Bank) assessments on behalf of the two pupils which were false in an effort to secure passes for the girls, referred to at the GTC hearing as Pupil A and Pupil B.

In Scotland, passes in these internal unit assessments are required for a student to sit the end of course exams at Intermediate 1 and 2, Higher and Advanced Higher levels.

It was alleged that Mr Shields submitted data to the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) confirming that both pupils had passed the NAB assessment task when the truth was that both had failed.

The complaint against him, referred to the GTC by the council, also alleged that he had, between May 12 and 18, 2010, met with the two pupils in school and told them not to worry about their NAB assessments, but that they should not tell anyone, including their parents, as this would get the three of them (the pupils and Mr Shields) into trouble.

Finally, Mr Shields faced a complaint alleging that on August 27, 2010, and aware of an investigation into his professional conduct, he sought to “influence, frustrate and impede” that enquiry by sending a letter, by recorded delivery, to Pupil A and her parents “in which you sought to persuade them by way of intimidation to withdraw the complaint they had made against you”.

Mr Shields, who began at the Academy in 2004, denied breaching the code of professionalism and conduct.

During the three-day hearing, a welter of documentary evidence was considered by the panel, including written witness statements from the two girls as well as the NAB assessments which had been confirmed as “fails” when re-marked by two other teachers.

In evidence, Mr Shields insisted he did not submit false assessments and that the pupils had, indeed, passed them. He denied ever having any meeting with the students and advising them not to tell anyone that he had sent a document to the SQA.

(Continued on page four) (continued from front page) He was unable to explain whey the girls had reported their concerns to another teacher but suggested Pupil A did not want to continue her Business Management studies and so had told a “white lie which had grown arms and legs so she was unable to retract it”.

He said Pupil A had been supported by Pupil B because the pair were long-term best friends.

Mr Shields admitted he may have made an error in marking the NABs and may have awarded a couple of marks he would not now have given, but, at the time, he was genuinely of the view that both girls had passed.

He admitted sending the letter to Pupil A, but denied doing so for the purpose of frustrating or impeding an ongoing enquiry. He accepted it had been a “silly thing to do”, but claimed the letter was “conciliatory and not threatening” and he had been under stress at the time.

Questioned by the panel’s Presenting Officer James Mulgrew, Mr Shields conceded that, with the benefit of hindsight, the letter could be construed as intimidating.

“He accepted that he wanted the allegations against him withdrawn…and expressed regret over his unprofessional actions and for any alarm the letter caused the pupil concerned,” states the panel’s determination, which goes on: “The panel accepted the evidence of Yvonne McCracken [Scottish Borders Council’s head of schools who gave evidence at the hearing] as credible and reliable. She had been involved in considering the allegations which formed the subject of the complaint over a period of time and was able to provide clear and detailed evidence on the relevant issues.” The GTC panel conceded there were a number of inconsistencies in the accounts of the two girls, but added: “Despite these inconsistencies, the panel was of the view that the account of events given by the pupils was credible and reliable.

“The panel found that the respondent [Mr Shields] had submitted data to the SQA stating that the new pupils had passed the NAB when he knew they had not…but did not find it established that the respondent had completed parts of the pupils work for them.” The panel also upheld the complaint that Mr Shields had then met with the pupils and that the letter written to Pupil A and her parents had breached the professional code.

“The respondent must have known he was the subject of an investigation. At the time he sent the letter there had been three meetings within the school…where the allegations were made known to him.

“The references in the letter to [Mr Shields] having taken legal advice, to the pupil having libeled him and [the threat of] legal action becoming public knowledge, if the pupil did not withdraw her allegation led the panel to find the respondent had sent the letter with the purpose and intention specified in the complaint.” The panel felt Mr Shield’s conduct had been “out of character” and had been done in an attempt to assist the two pupils. It was acknowledged he was held in high regard by his colleagues and that his conduct was unlikely to be repeated.

“The panel was particularly concerned that the respondent had failed to maintain honesty and integrity which it regarded as fundamental to the role of a teacher and teaching as a profession.

“In addition, the panel placed considerable weight on the part of the complaint [the recorded delivery letter] which they felt showed a significant lack of judgment and control in addition to causing distress to a pupil and her family.” However, in imposing just a three month term before Mr Shields can re-apply for registration, the GTC has acknowledged mitigating circumstances.

“There has been a delay between the allegations, the dismissal of the respondent from his teaching post and SBC referring the matter to the GTC Scotland.

“The matter has been hanging over the respondent for a number of years and has had a significant effect on his personal circumstances. He has expressed genuine remorse for his conduct and it appears clear to the panel there will be no repetition of such conduct.

“The panel felt the respondent may still have much to offer the teaching profession…he wants to get back to reaching and he should be given the opportunity to take steps to do so.” Mr Shields will receive written notice of the decision by June 19 and has the right to appeal to the Court of Session against the decision within 28 days thereafter.

He will remain on the teaching register until the appeal period has expired and any appeal lodged within that period has been determined.