Case Study: ‘Supervision of a practical activity’

Case studies from subscribers

We support school staff in England and Wales with a wide range of employment-related issues in schools.These range from clarification with employment contracts, PPA time, job references to allegations from pupils, dismissal from role to employment tribunals and Teaching and Regulation Agency hearings. This case study is examining supervision of a practical activity and what can go wrong if you leave the room.

Below, we highlight the types of questions and situations teachers contact us about. We have removed specific details about the cases and the actual names of subscribers for confidentiality reasons. You can also read our latest reviews from our subscribers on TrustPilot. 

Case Study: ‘Supervision of a practical activity’

Case Headlines

Chris is a recent joiner to his secondary school. He is Head of Drama and had a number of years experience running active sessions in a very practical subject. There are two interconnecting Drama Studios with classes taking place in both rooms throughout the day. 

His colleague was absent and a substitute colleague was taking the class next door. Chris had a Year 11 class who he had formed a good working relationship with, the class next door was a KS3 group.  The group next door were misbehaving and Chris was called in to help manage the class and temporarily left his own group to deal with a disruptive pupil. His group were rehearsing a drama piece.

A few days later an allegation was made that he had left his class unsupervised and during that time his class had found a vape he had confiscated earlier in the day and were passing it around using it.

Subscriber View

Chris was invited to an investigation meeting and was really concerned that this incident would create him a real problem with his employment. He was a recent joiner to the school but had recently passed his probation period. He realised the importance of supervision of a practical activity and what can go wrong if you leave the room.

In the process, Chris received a letter that mentioned that this may amount to ‘gross misconduct’ and dismissal was a possible outcome of a disciplinary process. The length of time to get from the date of the incident to the disciplinary hearing was significant, eventually ending up with Chris taking time away from school due to the cumulative pressure of this hanging over him.

How did Edapt support?

Chris’ Edapt Caseworker first established the conditions of his employment including the successful conclusion of a Probationary Period. This was in part reassuring but he had not completed two years’ service so his employment rights had not yet been long enough to prevent a ‘short service dismissal’ being available at that time to the employer and he had limited ability to explore an unfair dismissal. Chris understood his position.

The Caseworker ensured that Chris understood the policies and how they were being applied. Chris was prepared by Edapt for the Investigation meeting and understood that accepting irrefutable elements of the allegation such as leaving the room couldn’t be denied. He felt he had mitigations for the vape being accessible and his reason for being out of the room was to ensure the class next door was safe as Head of Department.

During the case, Edapt raised concerns about the procedure of the investigation and paragraphs in the investigation report that were expressing opinion and bias by the investigating officer to the receiving disciplinary manager. As the original version had been read by the manager, Edapt asked for the manager to be replaced and the biassed sentences to be re-written. Both of these requests were accepted by the employer and a new version submitted to a new manager. 

Chris was supported by his expert Edapt companion at the hearing who put his case forward and examined the evidence presented by the school in the hearing. This was done through comprehensive discussion and support with Chris prior to the hearing. The Caseworker ensured he was fully prepared to answer questions after the case had been presented for him.

It was important that Chris had expert support and timely responses throughout what was a stressful and lengthy case.

The Outcome

The in depth knowledge of disciplinary procedures of Chris’ Caseworkers placed the employer in a position where they could be shown to have not run a fully satisfactory process. This was perhaps a learning experience for the school who likely don’t do disciplinary processes often. 

Chris received a First Warning. He was relieved given gross misconduct and dismissal had been mentioned in the letter months earlier. He discussed later that without expert help he would have found it almost impossible to build the comprehensive case and address procedural flaws he wouldn’t have noticed. He continues to teach there and has a new perspective on the risks day to day in the classroom relieved he had protection from Edapt.

Find out more about the service we provide at Edapt: https://www.edapt.org.uk/