Teacher suspended from teaching licensing for one month due to forging signatures

A secondary school teacher who forged the signatures of two other teachers on a form proving completion of a compulsory teaching internship has been struck off the register for one month by order of the Supreme Court.

An investigation into his fitness to teach had recommended the sanction after the teacher admitted a series of five allegations of professional misconduct in a form he submitted to the Teaching Council on 27 April 2022 as part of the Droichead induction process for newly qualified teachers.

This included forging the signatures of two other teachers at the school and, in some circumstances, affixing the school stamp to the same form, which he should not have done.

The teacher had also admitted to having stated on the form that he had met the requirements for the teaching internship and describing these statements as “true and correct” even though he knew that this was not the case.

Judge Michael P. O’Higgins confirmed the one-month suspension from the teachers’ register and said the teachers’ council had taken a very benevolent and Christian attitude towards the sanction, which was very lenient.

However, the judge said that the circumstances of the case, as well as the testimony of colleagues who had a very high opinion of the teacher, put the statement into the correct context.

The judge said the council had also taken into account mitigating circumstances, including that the teacher had approached the council immediately when the matter came to light and had shown insight and remorse.

In order to explain “the serious error of assessment,” medical reports must also be used, said the judge, who also took into account the teacher’s young age.

The Teaching Qualifications Inquiry Commission was informed that a member of the Teaching Council’s staff had raised an enquiry about the form submitted by the teacher because the signatures of three different teachers on the form “appeared similar”.

The investigation revealed that the other two teachers had confirmed to the teachers’ council that they had neither signed the form nor consented to the use of their signature.

The school principal also described the unauthorized use of the school stamp as “a serious matter.”

At the time of submitting the form, the teacher had not yet completed a requirement of the Droichead process relating to classroom observations of experienced teachers’ practice.

During the investigation, it emerged that the teacher had initially claimed that the use of the other teachers’ signatures was due to a “misunderstanding”, but he quickly admitted that he had acted wrongly.

The Committee was also informed that the teacher had apologised to the Teaching Council in November 2022, claiming that he had in fact misunderstood some of the requirements of the Droichead process.

He also admitted that his conduct in submitting the form was wrong, but added that he had “learned my lesson”.