红桃影视

The headteacher of a grammar school that unlawfully kicked out lower-performing sixth-form students has been found guilty of misconduct, but avoided a ban from the profession.

A Teacher Regulation Panel ruling stated Aydin Onac鈥檚 actions were at the 鈥渓ess serious end of the possible spectrum鈥�.

Onac was the head at St Olave鈥檚 grammar school, in Orpington, south London, which booted out year 12 students who did not achieve high enough grades in their AS-levels.

Onac, who had been head since 2010, resigned in 2017 after parents issued judicial review proceedings. The school U-turned on its policy and 16 pupils who had been kicked out were reinstated.

An independent inquiry into the policy, which had been in place since 2009, later ruled it unlawful and found it 鈥減ut the institution above the pupils鈥�.

Onac was referred to the TRA in July of the following year.

The panel鈥檚 findings, published more than five years later, found his conduct did amount to misconduct of a 鈥渟erious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession鈥�. But they ruled his actions 鈥渄id not bring the profession into disrepute鈥�.

Onac understood the policy 鈥渁mounted to the unlawful exclusion of pupils鈥�, the panel ruled. But he claimed he was not aware that this was unlawful at the time and said it was 鈥渃ommon practice鈥� amongst grammar schools.

The panel agreed his actions were 鈥渘ot deliberate鈥�.

Adjudicator gave ‘no indication’ policy was unlawful

When the school鈥檚 policy was strengthened in 2013 鈥� requiring pupils to achieve all Bs rather than Cs 鈥� Onac said the policy was considered by the Office of the Schools Adjudicator, but 鈥渘o indication鈥� was given that the policy was unlawful.

An allegation the former head had prioritised academic performance over the best interest of pupils was found not proven.

However they did say his actions 鈥渟eriously affected the education and wellbeing of pupils鈥�.

The panel was provided with witness statements from five former pupils at the school.

One said the weeks after their exclusion from the school were 鈥渟ome of the worst in my life鈥� and they had lost 鈥渃onfidence in their academic ability鈥�.

Another said they were 鈥減retty much in tears by the end of the conversation [after being told they must leave the school鈥�.

Onac told the panel earlier this month the progression criteria was actually 鈥渄esigned to support the wellbeing of pupils鈥� as the school鈥檚 鈥渓earning environment was targeted at A* and A grade pupils; if there was a pupil who was struggling to reach a B grade, that student would be under pressure in class, with coursework and homework.

鈥淸He] saw this as a way of encouraging pupils and felt that another school may put these pupils under less pressure.鈥�

No ban despite misconduct finding

He also did not consider that allowing pupils to retake year 12 was in their 鈥渂est interests鈥� because 鈥渢hese pupils would be a year below their peers and it would not be helpful for their self-esteem鈥�.

However he admitted the policy broke Education Act laws and was contrary to Department for Education exclusions statutory guidance.

But he avoided a ban. The panel said adverse findings would 鈥渟end an appropriate message鈥�.

Another factor was that Onac had 鈥渄emonstrated exceptionally high standards in both personal and professional conduct鈥�. This included an article listing Onac among London鈥檚 most influential people in 2016.

Andrew Faux, representing Onac at the hearing, had applied to have the proceedings discontinued given they were 鈥渦nreasonably delayed鈥� with several hearings 鈥渁bandoned with no meaningful communication鈥� from the TRA.

Faux alleged no steps were taken to progress the case from March 2020 until the spring of 2022 when statements for pupils were obtained.

But the panel said this was not considered 鈥渟ufficiently serious鈥� to meet the threshold for discontinuance.

Teachers face years-wait for cases

Teacher Regulation Agency annual accounts, published in July, showed teachers were waiting more than two years on average for misconduct cases to conclude after waiting times for hearings worsened for a third year running.

Schools Week also revealed in 2018 a legal loophole meant rules banning the exclusion of pupils on the basis of academic performance does not apply to 16-19 free schools or sixth form colleges.

It followed our investigation revealing that Newham Collegiate Sixth Form Centre (The NCS), a selective 16-19 academy in east London, had booted year 12 pupils out.