In June 2018 the teacher was phoned by a friend, who was in prison, during a morning break.
The friend told the teacher he was in prison with the father of one of her students and asked if the boy would want to speak with his dad over the phone.
He told the teacher the father was “hanging out to talk with him”.
The teacher called the boy over and asked if he wanted to speak with his dad on the phone.
The boy agreed and spoke with his father using the teacher’s private mobile for around five to seven minutes before the call finished and the boy went outside to play.
Soon after the mother of the student lodged a complaint about the teacher with the school’s principal and noted she wasn’t made aware of the call by the teacher.
The recent decision said the mother was concerned the call happened without her knowledge or consent, and her child may have been embarrassed. In her opinion the call was not appropriate during school.
The complaint wasn’t taken further by the mother, and the principal expressed concerns that the teacher’s personal life was impacting her ability to teach.
In response to the complaint about the phone call, the teacher acknowledged her actions were unprofessional and said she felt “extremely remorseful” for her lack of “good judgement”.
Another incident where the teacher’s professionalism has come under fire by the tribunal happened soon after the phone call was reported to her boss.
The teacher had failed to attend a union meeting which she had paid leave for and was the sole representative from the school.
She instead went home – but lied to the principal and said she attended the meeting.
She later said she had not attended the meeting because she was “was stressed and need some time to herself” but acknowledged her actions had compromised her reputation.
The teacher went on ‘unpaid discretionary leave’ for a year before resigning early in 2020.
The Complaints Assessment Committee, which brought the charge to the tribunal, submitted the teacher’s actions risked impacting the boy’s emotional and psychological wellbeing.
Although there was no evidence of harm to the child, the committee argued there was real risk of harm, and the conduct showed a lack of proper professional judgement, blurring boundaries with the student.
When the teacher lied to the principal about the union meeting, the committee said her actions lacked “professionalism, honesty and integrity”.
The teacher accepted she had made an error in judgement, but argued there was no evidence the child had been impacted negatively. She said there was no pressure put on the boy to speak to his dad.
She also said her non-attendance at the union meeting was “low-end dishonesty”, and didn’t tell the principal because she felt like he wouldn’t have supported her need for personal time.
“While we accept it was an error in judgement in allowing the child to have contact in this way, we are not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of any likelihood of an adverse effect on the child,” the tribunal said.
The tribunal also said allowing the boy to take the call was a momentary lapse of judgement motivated by kindness to the child who appeared to have a close relationship with his father.
It was found “by a fine margin” that her actions didn’t amount to misconduct.
“Her allowing the child to speak to his father was well-intentioned, if misguided,” the tribunal said.
“Her failure to be honest with her principal came at a time when their relationship was strained, and she was personally overwhelmed.”
