A primary school teacher who admitted to entering a bedroom alone with a pupil was said to have fallen ‘significantly short of professional standards’ but has avoided being stuck off.
Mark Sills was faced with numerous allegations at a misconduct panel relating to his failure to maintain appropriate boundaries with a student between 1995 and 1996.
The Winchester Church of England Primary school teacher admitted to visiting the student, referred to only as Pupil A for legal reasons, at home on two occasions.
Sills also accepted that he wrote a ‘gushing and intense’ letter to Pupil A’s parents which said that the time he spent with Pupil A was ‘the most precious and beautiful I have spent on this earth’.
A professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (pictured) heard that Mark Sills had visited Pupil A’s home on more than occasion
In the face of this and a number of other allegations, a decision maker found that banning Sills from teaching would not be ‘proportionate or in the public interest’, after considering it would ‘deprive the public of his contribution to the profession’.
The panel also found that Sills could not be proven as sexually motivated or to have committed actions of a sexual nature despite being satisfied that the proven incidents were ‘wholly inappropriate’.
The alleged incidents between Sills and Pupil A took place when she was in Year 4 and he was her maths teacher.
During this period, Sills admitted to making ‘a rash decision’ of once attending a swimming lesson of the child to show support of their extra-curricular activities.
It was then alleged that during this swimming lesson Sills told Pupil A’s mother that he had ‘missed’ the child, but he denied this.
Sills also admitted to allowing Pupil A to come into his classroom alone on more than one occasion.
He stated that this stemmed from a school assembly that was being prepared in which the pupil was not given a part because they were not present.
When Sills then created a role for them, Pupil A gave him a hug which he said was the ‘catalyst’ for him then failing to observe appropriate relationship boundaries.
Following this, the pupil would often visit his classroom alone talking, reading books and playing on the mat.
The Winchester primary school teacher failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with a student between 1995 and 1996, the panel found
Sills also admitted that Pupil A would sit on his knee when alone and in the company of other students.
This included former student, Pupil B, who once went to sit there but was told this was only meant for Pupil A.
The November hearing also heard allegations that Sills would hug Pupil A but this was denied and could not be proven.
He admitted to writing notes in Pupil A’s maths book on more than one occasion despite denying it in a previous police interview.
This included messages such as ‘see you at lunch time’ or words to that effect with a smiley face.
Although Pupil A was at the school from 1994/95, they came forward as an adult in 2018.
Police subsequently arrested Mr Sills and questioned him but he was released without charge and referred to the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) as per protocol.
The panel also heard that Sills had visited the student’s home on more than occasion, and evidence was provided by the pupil’s mother who referred to four or five occasions.
The teacher admitted visiting twice, including once on bonfire night to a party with his wife when other guests were present.
On one visit, it was alleged that Sills visited Pupil A’s bedroom which caused their mother to feel uneasy.
The mother asked another person to take a pet hamster upstairs to the pair so that they wouldn’t be alone as a result.
But Pupil A’s mother claimed that the person returned and said: ‘I can’t show him because the bedroom door is locked’.
It was then heard the mother went upstairs to find Sills coming out of the bedroom with their child.
Sills accepted going into the pupil’s bedroom but denied locking or closing the door.
This part of the allegation was deemed as hearsay and was unproven.
The teacher also denied giving Pupil A gifts despite allegations that he had once visited the family home with a card, chocolate and a film about a talking pig.
It was deemed more likely than not that some of Mr Sills’ conduct continued beyond it being agreed with Pupil A’s mother that he would not spend time with them alone.
With a number of allegations proved, the panel were satisfied that ‘Mr Sills was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct’.
The panel findings stated: ‘Mr Sills’ actions towards Pupil A were a serious misjudgement and led to the breakdown of an appropriate teacher-pupil relationship.
‘The boundaries of the relationship between a pupil and teacher are of a fundamental importance and are well established.
‘This was recognised by teachers at the time from whom the panel heard evidence and accords with the panel’s understanding of the profession at that time.’
However, the panel recommended that a prohibition order to ban Sills from teaching should not be imposed.
It stated: ‘The panel considered that Mr Sills’ misconduct, whilst serious, was at the lesser end of the spectrum of misconduct.
‘Once Mr Sills’ conduct was pointed out to him by the headteacher, it ceased immediately and there were no other incidents in the following 26 year career.
‘The panel considered that the public interest elements in maintaining public confidence and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct, when balanced with his contributions to education over the years, did not require the prohibition of Mr Sills from teaching.’
A decision made on behalf of the Secretary of State then confirmed that no prohibition order would be made in response to the alleged incidents.
The decision maker, Alan Meyrick, said: ‘A prohibition order would prevent Mr Sills from teaching and would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force.’
Head teacher at the Winchester school, Peter Burbridge, told HampshireLive : ‘We were understandably concerned to learn of these historical allegations. However, we would reiterate that the school has no connections with any staff or governors from that time.
‘The safety and wellbeing of children in school is always our highest priority and we continue to follow robust processes that support our strong and effective safeguarding practices, as recognised by OFSTED in our latest inspection.’
