Former Wisbech Grammar School teacher escapes teaching ban despite assault on a pupil

A former Wisbech Grammar School teacher has escaped being banned from teaching following a disciplinary hearing into an incident at the school where he assaulted a pupil.

A disciplinary tribunal by the Teachers Regulation Agency into Mark Jarvis' behaviour concluded a prohibition order would be a "proportionate and appropriate response".

But after hearing mitigation including character references given at a criminal trial arising out of the incident on June 20 2018, and accepting what Mr Jarvis had done was at the "less serious end of the spectrum" decided against a ban from teaching.

Mr Jarvis an unqualified design technology teacher and hockey coach at the school in North Brink between September 2012 and August 2018 was already set to leave the school when the incident happened on June 20 2018.

The tribunal held via video heard Mr Jarvis was convicted at Cambridgeshire Magistrates' Court in February 2019 of assault by battery of a Wisbech Grammar School pupil and was fined.

A report of the tribunal's findings, published on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education, explained Mr Jarvis had agreed to facts surrounding the incident on June 20 2018, which arose after he spotted a pupil chewing gum during class registration.

The tribunal heard Mr Jarvis asked the pupil to remove the gum and put it in his hand.

The report said: "You then asked the pupil to put his hands up and proceeded to launch a kick towards the pupil. You have admitted that your foot made contact with the pupil in the area around his thigh/ groin. "

Mr Jarvis was charged with the assault on December 3 2018 and he entered a guilty plea at his court appearance in February 2019 based on the assertion that he did not intend to kick the pupil and that any contact was made "on a reckless basis".

The tribunal heard the court accepted Mr Jarvis' actions were "unintentional but reckless" and he was fined £616 with costs of £135 and was ordered to pay the pupil £150 in compensation. He also had to pay £61 victim surcharge.

The panel concluded the conviction meant Mr Jarvis had breached the Teachers's Standards and while Mr Jarvis had not intended to hurt the pupil the seriousness of what happened did call into question his "ongoing suitability to teach".

Evidence from other pupils present at the time described the incident as a "bit jokey", "not serous or aggressive" and said Mr Jarvis had been smiling and laughing when he spoke to the pupil involved.

The report said: "Mr Jarvis has expressed that he is sorry for any pain suffered by the pupil, that he recognised that the way he handled the situation was inappropriate and that he has spent numerous hours every day reflecting on why he behaved in such a way and how he could have handled the situation better. "

The panel took into account the written evidence that was adduced attesting to Mr Jarvis’s exemplary record as a teacher. Both his line manager and the head teacher of the school provided references to another school prior to this incident confirming Mr Jarvis’s performance was outstanding in all areas.

His line manager had said he had "surpassed all expectations" and had "exemplary classroom management".

The panel concluded a Prohibition Order would be "proportionate and appropriate response" but said having heard the strength of mitigating factors had decided a ban was not appropriate in this case.

Instead if felt publication of the tribunal's "adverse findings" was sufficient to send an "appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession".