2 days Ago
A teacher dragged a vulnerable child by the wrist across a classroom. Stephen Bovey admitted to grabbing the year 1 pupil, who had “significant speech and communication issues”, when the child, referred to as Pupil A, ran to the back of the room during an assembly at The Globe Primary School in Lancing. In a statement of agreed facts to a professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency, Mr Bovey also admitted that during the incident on March 1, 2023, he did not let go of the child’s wrist when they fell over.
He also admitted that after the pupil fell over and got back up, he grabbed their wrist and pulled them back to a chair/table. The panel found the allegations that Mr Bovey used excessive and/or unreasonable force on Pupil A and the force used meant that Pupil A fell over proven. There was also reference to another incident on the same day in which Mr Bovey “grabbed” the pupil’s wrist and “dragged” the child back along the corridor to his classroom after the child walked out.
Mr Bovey said he “went through the behaviour policy” to encourage the child to return but the child would not. He stated that there were no other adults in the room with him at the time and that he had called for the senior leadership team to support him but no one was available. Read more: Sussex nursery chain boss warns of looming crisis in the early years sector In this instance, the panel found the allegations that Mr Bovey used excessive and/or unreasonable force on Pupil A and the force used meant that Pupil A fell over not proved.
In written representations to the panel, Mr Bovey, who ceased to be employed at the school on July 17, 2023, said he had spent the last 13 months reflecting on the events which he said he was “truly sorry” for. “He has also stated that he now saw that his lack of intention was no excuse and that his “negligence” had led to the potential harm of a child, and that he was responsible for that behaviour whether he intended it or not,” the panel’s report, which was published this week, said. A witness to the incident during the assembly said the child had not been “fazed at all by what happened”.
The panel’s report noted there had been no injury. Witnesses to the incident also remarked on how “out of character” it was for Mr Bovey and that he was usually “kind, calm, upbeat and jolly”. It was suggested Mr Bovey, who said he had tried other strategies first to get the child back “without disturbing the other 90 children, but it was unsuccessful and regrettable”, had needed more support.
One witness described the moment Mr Bovey ran after the child and shouted for the pupil to “get up off the floor” when they fell over. She said Mr Bovey “just saw red”. “This witness stated that in the weeks leading up to the incident, Mr Bovey had been raising his voice a lot, and that she had asked the senior leadership team to check on him for his own wellbeing,” the panel’s report said.
“She stated that she was not concerned for the children. She stated that she could see that he was not himself and had been struggling to keep on top of his workload and that the behaviour in his class added to that. The witness was asked if Mr Bovey seemed angry.
She answered ‘yes, he didn’t walk he ran across the back – you could see he just saw red’. “The witness stated that the incident shocked her, as ‘that’s not like him at all’. She stated that she felt that there ‘could have been more support for him before this’.
” A second witness said she did not think the child posed any risk to themselves or others in the classroom and was “just being disruptive”. “This witness stated that it was ‘the fact he was angry that I was concerned about and his wellbeing as the red mist had descended’,” the report said. “She stated that this was not his usual behaviour and had been out of character, but that she had raised concerns in the weeks leading up to the incident as he was ‘not handling Pupil A and the behaviour in the class’.
The witness stated that the reason she had ‘raised things is as I felt he needed supporting’.” The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Bovey “amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession”. The panel was also satisfied that Mr Bovey was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct.
But the panel did not find that Mr Bovey’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. It was accepted the incident was out of character and the panel noted that the view of Pupil A’s parents when consulted by the police was “that the potential dismissal of Mr Bovey from his position would not benefit Pupil A, given that he was normally calm”. “They referred to Mr Bovey being the ‘best teacher at the school with Pupil A’, and that when she was in Mr Bovey’s lessons Pupil A ‘has a good day’,” the report said.
The panel said: “Given that this was a one-off incident in the context of a teacher with considerable experience, having held teaching posts since 2006, the panel considered that Mr Bovey is able to make a valuable contribution to the profession.” Sarah Buxcey, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education, accepted the panel’s recommendation that a prohibition order would not be proportionate. “I consider that the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were 20 not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession,” she said.
A spokesman for the school said: “We recognise that situations like this are rare but unsettling for school communities. Throughout this process, we have ensured that all appropriate steps were taken fairly and responsibly, in line with due process. Our priority has always been, and remains, the safety, wellbeing, and happiness of our pupils, and we are committed to maintaining the warm and nurturing environment in which every child thrives.
”.
