Sacked Dundee teacher Linda Ross has been struck off by the profession’s governing body after she failed to turn up at a disciplinary hearing.
The former depute head of Longhaugh Primary is now banned from working in schools and will not be allowed to reapply to teach for 12 months. Mrs Ross (59) was found guilty of two charges relating to placing inappropriate material on a website by the disciplinary sub-committee of the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS).
The sub-committee said, “The nature of the conduct contained within the charges held proven fell short of the standard expected of a registered teacher.”
The case stems from the events which led to Mrs Ross being sacked by Dundee City Council in 2008 for gross misconduct. She is pursuing an unfair dismissal claim at an employment tribunal, due to resume in late May.
Mrs Ross first came to public attention in 2007 after her husband Vic contacted The Courier with allegations of violence at Sidlaw View Primary School, where she then worked. She was suspended from that post and an independent inquiry was set up to investigate the claims, resulting in a ruling that they had been exaggerated.
Mrs Ross was transferred to Longhaugh but she was suspended again a few months later and then sacked.
Her tribunal has heard evidence about what the council considered “salacious” material on a website officials believe Mrs Ross was connected with, including a naughty schoolgirl outfit. The issue of websites was also key to the GTCS case.
Mrs Ross was invited to attend the hearing in Edinburgh but did not do so. It was the second time she did not appear, having unsuccessfully tried to have the case postponed last month until after the tribunal’s conclusion.
The sub-committee which told her that Wednesday’s hearing would go ahead whether she was there or not said it took no inference from her absence. Members decided there was no reason to suppose that proceeding with the case would risk prejudicing the tribunal.
Three charges were due to be laid before them but one was withdrawn. The first charge, found proven by a majority, related to a website called lindaross.co.uk. Members were satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mrs Ross was the registrant of this website.
Evidence was presented by council witness Jane Ling regarding material on YouTube that she was able to access on lindaross.co.uk.Disciplinary proceduresThe other charge, found proven unanimously, related to material on the website titled “seven statements of grievance rejected by Anne Wilson,” the city council’s education director. It related to council disciplinary procedures involving Mrs Ross.
The sub-committee decided that dissemination of this material to the public was inappropriate and that, on the balance of probabilities, Mrs Ross was aware of this material being on the site. Members said they had been mindful of the need for teachers to uphold standards of personal and professional conduct, honesty and integrity.
Teachers must also “appreciate fully that the onus is on them to distance themselves from any potentially inappropriate situation.”
They went on, “It was incumbent upon the respondent (Mrs Ross) to have satisfied herself that in so far as she maintained a link to material on the YouTube website on a webpage in her name, and which might therefore be of particular interest to pupils, that any link would not permit access to a website which contained inappropriate, sexual or violent material.
“Further, the material relating to disciplinary matters on the website relating to the discipline of the respondent was in the opinion of the sub-committee liable to bring both the respondent and the profession into disrepute in so far as it had been placed into the public domain.
“The sub-committee considered the respondent’s failure to take steps to remove that material, irrespective of whether it could have been removed at her instance alone, was conduct which fell below that to be expected of a member of the profession and liable to bring the respondent and the profession into disrepute.”
It was decided that the charges were too serious to merit only a reprimand and that a conditional order, which places restrictions on a teacher, was not apt. In deciding to strike Mrs Ross off the register of teachers, the sub-committee said they were “particularly minded that the respondent was a deputy head teacher in a promoted post and of considerable experience.”
Attempts to contact Mrs Ross were unsuccessful.