A New Zealand learning support coordinator has had his teaching registration cancelled after he had an inappropriate relationship with a 16-year-old student, the Teachers' Disciplinary Tribunal has found.
The teacher, whose name was suppressed, was found to have engaged in a relationship with the student between July and August 2023, according to the tribunal's agreed facts, which amounted to serious misconduct.
A learning support coordinator works with and mentors students who are neurodiverse or have learning difficulties. The tribunal said the role often involves one-on-one interactions with students and includes after-school contact by phone or email where required.
The student, whose name was also suppressed, was in year 11 at the time, and had been previously diagnosed with ADHD, slow processing and dyscalculia.
It was outlined the teacher spent “a large amount of time” with the student, which included when she was not in the learning support coordinator space, according to the agreed facts.
When they were in the learning support coordinator office together, it was noted the teacher would sit on the couch and the floor with her, which he would not do with other students and had “given her his jacket” on one occasion, it said.
“On at least one occasion when they were sitting together at the table, he positioned himself so that their knees touched under the table”.
On July 25, 2023, the school principal raised concerns about the teacher’s behaviour with the student. They met formally to discuss this on July 31 the same year.
Text messages
After this meeting, it was found the teacher had engaged in inappropriate text messaging with the student.
In the messages, he had complimented the student’s appearance and personality – and told her she was “very attractive” and “beautiful” and had expressed personal feelings for her.
In one message, he told the student he thought about her “a lot (maybe most of the day!)” when he woke up, when he was around her and when he was awake at 5am.
The teacher also responded to a disclosure by the student about a sexual encounter she had with another person, and remarked: “That’s your choice, that’s different, obviously weren’t thinking of me then.”
He then listed things he plainly wanted with her, which included, “knees touching, cuddle, going somewhere, spending the day, having time, etc, etc, wanting to be touched”.
When the student did not respond promptly to his messages, or had withdrawn from the conversation, the teacher had reacted with “hurt, pressure or reproach”.
He told the student her behaviour had been affecting his sleep and had asked her if she “was ignoring me again” and complained “instead of you talking to me you went ghost mode”.
In another message, the teacher had also said “if you want to piss me off you’re going the right way” and “everything with you is being mad”.
Boundaries
The agreed facts also said the student had “repeatedly” sought to set boundaries in the relationship – and told the teacher she cared about him but talking about it could be “wrong”.
She also said the relationship had “gone too far” and they should step back before it became “toxic and unhealthy”.
The agreed facts state on or about August 24, 2023, the student then blocked the teacher’s phone number. He then went on sick leave and resigned from his position at the school in April 2024.
In late August, it was said the student approached another teacher about the relationship – and showed them messages the two had exchanged. The principal was informed, and police were contacted.
The student spoke with police when the matter was investigated but declined to give a video interview. It was determined the threshold for charges of grooming a young person was not met and no further action was taken.
On October 6, the Teaching Council received a mandatory report from the school. On February 12, 2024, the teacher signed a voluntary undertaking not to teach, and has not taught since.
In a meeting with a union representative and support persons with the Complaints Assessment Committee, the teacher admitted the relationship with the 16-year-old had crossed the boundaries of his role and told the meeting he had been motivated by trying to fix the student’s issues.
The teacher also expressed remorse for his actions, and had accepted he had caused harm, but added he had not intended to do so.
The student meanwhile felt uncomfortable, confused and afraid about the situation, according to the summary, but did not want to lose the learning support she received from the teacher.
The summary stated she had felt stressed and overwhelmed about navigating their relationship, and was scared they would both get in trouble with the school and their families.
'Real personal difficulty'
In it’s decision, the tribunal accepted the teacher was experiencing “real personal difficulty” at the time.
“He had a long-standing pattern of placing the needs of others above his own. He had a son with serious ongoing medical needs," said New Zealand Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal deputy chair James Gurnick.
“He was, on the material before us, suffering from generalised anxiety, depression and insomnia. He has, since, engaged constructively and without interruption with counselling for over two years. We do not minimise any of those matters.”
However, Gurnick added the conduct in the case is not on the agreed facts “the kind of single, out of character, departure which can be explained by a transient episode of mental impairment”.
“The conduct unfolded over a period of weeks. It continued after a formal warning from the principal.”
It said the relationship did not present “as the conduct of a teacher whose mental state had misdirected an attempt at pastoral care”.
“It presents as the cultivation of an inappropriate personal relationship.”
The tribunal ordered the student's name the school where the case took place was not to be published.
Gurnick said the name of the teacher would not be published due to the medical needs of his child, who was "immuno-compromised" and dependent on a daily regime of medication and monitoring.
"The medical evidence is that the resulting attention would likely cause disengagement from the care regime which depends critically between [the child] and his parents. Second, publication would compound the strain on both his parents, materially affecting their capacity to maintain the level of attentive care that his condition requires."
The teacher was ordered to pay $5144.80 towards the Complaints Assessment Committee’s legal and disbursements costs, and 40% of the tribunal’s costs. This amount would be advised separately.
SHARE ME