Management

Conflict between a teacher’s religious beliefs and professional duty

Posted on September 3rd, 2024

In the case of Sutcliffe v Secretary of State for Education, Joshua James Sutcliffe appealed the Secretary of State for Education’s decision to ban him from teaching due to allegations of professional misconduct. This included referring to a student by incorrect gender pronouns in the classroom, together with expressing controversial views on social media and on national television.

Deeply held religious views

The case arises from the conflict between Mr Sutcliffe’s deeply held religious views and his professional duties as a teacher. Mr Sutcliffe is a teacher of mathematics and an evangelical Christian. He has strongly held views about gender identity, homosexuality, the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, the role of men and women in society, and Islam.

Complaints

The conflict led to complaints about his conduct as a teacher at The Cherwell School, and ultimately to his dismissal in February 2018. Further complaints were made during his subsequent employment at St Aloysius College in Islington, which led to his resignation in November 2019.

Six-day hearing

A six-day hearing by the Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel concluded that Mr Sutcliffe was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and of conduct that might bring the teaching profession into disrepute.

Best interests of the child

The panel found that Mr Sutcliffe had breached the Teachers’ Standards, specifically that he had failed to treat his pupils with dignity or build relationships rooted in mutual respect. It also noted that Keeping Children Safe in Education states that all professionals should ensure their approach is child-centred and to consider at all times what is in the best interests of the child.

Prohibition order

The panel then looked at whether it was appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order, taking into consideration:

  • Public interest, which included:
    • The safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils.
    • The maintenance of public confidence in the profession.
    • Declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct.
    • The interest of retaining Mr Sutcliffe in the profession.
  • The seriousness of the behaviour.
  • Mr Sutcliffe’s mitigation.
  • Whether a prohibition order would be necessary and proportionate.

The panel concluded that it would not be a proportionate or appropriate response to fail to recommend a prohibition order and had regard to the three main aims of prohibition:

  • Safeguarding pupils.
  • Maintaining public confidence in the profession.
  • Upholding proper standards of conduct.

The panel particularly emphasised the issue of safeguarding, noting Mr Sutcliffe’s lack of insight and remorse. The panel was concerned that, faced with a similar set of circumstances, there would be a risk of repetition. A prohibition order was recommended, preventing Mr Sutcliffe from teaching, together with a recommendation that he could not apply for the order to be set aside for a minimum period of two years.

The Secretary of State considered and accepted the panel’s recommendation.

The appeal

Mr Sutcliffe argued twelve grounds for appeal, which included an attack based on human rights and equality law, together with complaints about the procedure.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Pepperall states:

“This case is not about a teacher who accidentally failed to follow a school’s policy of referring to a transgender pupil by the child’s chosen pronouns or even about a teacher who reconciled his religious convictions with such policy by choosing to avoid pronouns altogether and referring to the child by name. Rather, it is about a teacher who deliberately used female pronouns to refer to a transgender male pupil both in the classroom and then on national television in such a way that he would be ‘outed’ without any apparent regard for a vulnerable child who was thereby caused significant distress. Further, it is about a teacher who told his class that homosexuality is a sin and implied that homosexuals might be cured through God without any apparent regard for the gay and lesbian children in his class and who made them feel that their teacher regarded them as worthless.”

Mr Justice Pepperall upheld the panel’s decision, emphasising the need to maintain professional standards and safeguard students’ wellbeing. He found the panel and the Secretary of State’s actions justified and proportionate, dismissing Mr Sutcliffe’s appeal.

Summary and advice

This case highlights the importance of balancing personal beliefs with professional responsibilities, particularly in the education sector. Teachers must adhere to standards that ensure the dignity, respect and safety of all students, regardless of personal convictions.

Need support with your HR?

Our support means you can focus on education, while we take care of your organisation’s HR needs.

We have a wide range of education HR consultancy services to choose from, offering complete flexibility for your school. Get in touch for a free quote about how we can help you.

The pupils and parents section of our CEFMi website contains a model transgender policy for learners. Get a free trial of CEFMi – a comprehensive resource for school managers containing over 7,000 pages of text. No other website offers such a complete service specifically written for schools.