Following a four day teacher misconduct hearing that ran from Monday 11th September to Thursday 14th September 2023, former St Olave’s Grammar School Headteacher Aydin Önaç was found guilty of “serious” unacceptable professional conduct by the hearing three member panel.
The panel will now decide in private whether to recommend to the Secretary of State for Education that a prohibition order is appropriate. The Secretary of State’s decision is always made public and we expect the decision to be published in the next two to three weeks.
The Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) Allegations Against Mr Önaç
You were guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and / or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute whilst Headteacher of St Olave’s Grammar School, in that between approximately September 2010 to October 2017:
1. You operated and/or applied a policy of withdrawing of 13 placements for pupils based on their academic performance in Year 12.
Your conduct at allegation 1 was:
2a. Contrary to the Educational Act 1996 4.3.4.3b and/or was not permitted by the applicable education of pupil registration England regulations.
2b. Contrary to applicable Department for Education guidance including school census guide and/or school exclusion guidance.
2c. Prioritised the academic performance of the school over the best interests of pupils attending the school.
2d. In any event seriously affected the education and/or wellbeing of pupils.
Mr Önaç Response to the Allegations
Mr Önaç admitted allegations 1, 2a & 2b, but did not admit allegations 2c & 2d.
He also disputed that the admitted facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
Summary of the Hearing Proceedings
On Monday the panel heard from the Presenting Officer (the TRA appointed lawyer) and from Mr Önaç’s legal representative.
Mr Önaç’s legal representative applied for a discontinuation of proceedings based on an abuse of process argument and the amount of time it had taken for the hearing to occur. After hearing submissions by Mr Önaç’s legal representative and the TRA Presenting Officer detailing the numerous reasons for delays since the initial TRA investigation (which found that there was a case against Mr Önaç in December 2018), the panel rejected the application for discontinuation.
On Tuesday the allegations by the TRA were read, followed by opening statements from the TRA Presenting Officer and from Mr Önaç’s legal representative. The current Headteacher of St Olave’s Andrew Rees was called as a witness by the TRA, and was subsequently questioned by the TRA Presenting Officer, Mr Önaç’s legal representative & the hearing panel.
On Wednesday Mr Önaç’s legal representative called Mr Önaç as a witness and he was subsequently questioned by his legal representative, the TRA Presenting Officer & the hearing panel.
On Thursday afternoon, after lengthy deliberations the hearing panel gave their verdict.
Panel Verdict
After hearing all the evidence the panel found that allegations 1, 2a, 2b & 2d proven, but that allegation 2c was not proven.
Allegations 1, 2A & 2B – Proven
You operated and/or applied a policy of withdrawing of 13 placements for pupils based on their academic performance in Year 12.
Your conduct at allegation 1 was:
2a. Contrary to the Educational Act 1996 4.3.4.3b and/or was not permitted by the applicable education of pupil registration England regulations.
2b. Contrary to applicable Department for Education guidance including school census guide and/or school exclusion guidance.
As mentioned above allegations 1, 2a & 2b had already been admitted by Mr Önaç whilst denying that the admitted facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
Allegation 2C – Not Proven
You prioritised the academic performance of the school over the best interests of pupils attending the school.
Allegation 2c had been denied by Mr Önaç.
The panel accepted that whilst “academic performance was one of Mr Önaç’s priorities during his tenure at the school“, it did not consider that a “strong focus on academic performance meant that academic performance was prioritised over the best interests of pupils“.
The panel considered that it was “possible to act in the best interests of pupils whilst focussing on academic performance“, and that “academic performance & best interests were not mutually exclusive“.
Allegation 2D – Proven
In any event seriously affected the education and/or wellbeing of pupils.
Allegation 2d had been denied by Mr Önaç.
The panel “drew on its own knowledge & experience in considering whether that withdrawing year 13 placements of pupils based on their academic performance, it was likely that the education and/or wellbeing of the pupils would be seriously affected“. The panel’s view was that “any reasonable person would have objectively considered that a pupil being withdrawn from their school at the end of year 12 would have a serious effect on their education & wellbeing“.
The panel noted Mr Önaç’s submissions that “in some limited circumstances pupils may have been better served at another school“, however it did not consider that “this meant their education & wellbeing were not seriously affected by the decision“.
The panel considered that “it is natural that any pupil who is required to move to a different school in summer after year 12 and within a few weeks of the start of a new term would be seriously affected both in terms of their education & wellbeing“.
Having considered evidential statements from former pupils denied entry to year 13, the panel considered that “it was clear that there was a serious negative effect on some of the former pupils who were unable to progress to year 13 during Mr Önaç’s tenure“, and therefore panel therefore found allegation 2d proven.
On whether this amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute
The panel was “satisfied that the conduct of Mr Önaç in relation to the facts found proved involved breaches of the teachers’ standards“, and that “given the impact on the education & wellbeing of pupils that resulted from the conduct admitted & found proven, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Önaç amounted to misconduct of a serious nature, which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession“.
Whilst the panel did consider Mr Önaç’s misconduct to be serious, “it did not consider that the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual status of the teacher or would potentially damage the public perception“, and that it was the panel’s view that “the act of misconduct did not influence how other view the teaching profession“.
Having found the facts of allegation 1, 2a, 2b & 2d to be proven, the panel further found that “Mr Önaç’s conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct“.
Saint Olave's Unofficial News 