The Department for Education (DfE) has intervened to ban a teacher from the profession for at least two years after he sent intimate messages to a pupil and bought her cigarettes.
The decision overruled the conclusions of a professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency, which had said an “ordinary intelligent citizen” would feel no prohibition order was needed.
Banned: Teacher in vagina, glue and staple gun claims
SEND: Teacher who called pupil a ‘fat c**t’ banned
Conduct: Teacher who said pupil had ‘massive’ breasts avoids ban
DfE decision maker Alan Meyrick said the panel had given too much weight to mitigating factors and had not recognised the seriousness of the case.
James Parkhouse, a newly qualified teacher of mathematics at Bohunt School, Worthing, admitted that he had contacted a female pupil via a personal Instagram account and sent intimate messages.
He also admitted that he bought cigarettes for the pupil and met her on a beach to deliver these, and that both incidents amounted to unacceptable conduct.
But he denied that he touched her lower back or stroked her hand, or acted similarly towards another pupil.
Mr Parkhouse began work at the school in 2017 and both pupils reported concerns about him in October 2018.
He was suspended and summarily dismissed following an investigation.
No evidence was given on the alleged hand stroking and the agency did not submit that the lower back touching was sexually motivated.
The panel noted in its ruling that neither pupil had considered such physical contact inappropriate at the time, “but in hindsight and with knowledge of other events, the contact made them feel uncomfortable”. Neither recalled specific details but agreed it was not prolonged.
The panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that the nature and frequency of any such touching between Mr Parkhouse and the pupils “would not be inappropriate”.
It said his behaviour was a serious departure from expected standards but was “at the lower end of that spectrum” of misconduct.
In mitigation, the panel said Mr Parkhouse was a teacher at the start of his career, had a previously good history, and had shown both significant insight into the consequences of his behaviour and genuine remorse.
It concluded no prohibition period was needed “applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen”.
But Mr Meyrick disagreed. He said the panel had given too much weight to Mr Parkhouse’s insight and remorse and not enough to “the inappropriate, over-familiar and personal in nature messages” or to him supplying a pupil with cigarettes.
He said the behaviour was “serious due to its intimate and personal nature, due to it coming after previous warnings and due to the fact that the teacher sought to get the pupil to cover the conversation up”.
Mr Meyrick imposed a two-year period after which Mr Parkhouse can apply to resume teaching.
