Former Ditcham Park School PE teacher spared banning order after telling student she would 'go far' based on her looks
A Hampshire PE teacher can stay in the profession despite admitting inappropriate behaviour
The former head of physical education at a private school has narrowly avoided being banned from teaching after recognising his behaviour amounted to “unacceptable professional conduct and disrepute.”
A teacher misconduct panel heard the case of Graham Vaudrey, who previously worked at Ditcham Park School, which is between Clanfield and Petersfield in the South Downs. He was accused of neglecting to maintain professional boundaries with students between November 2023 and February 2024.
Employed as the head of seniors sport and PE, Mr Vaudrey, who had worked at the school since November 2000, allegedly high-fived and hugged pupils, used inappropriate terms of endearment, asked students about their social lives, and conveyed favouritism. The panel also considered accusations that he touched students inappropriately by putting his hands on their shoulders .
The hearing, which took place on May 14, said there were “significant challenges” in this case as they were unable to hear directly from students and “evidence was hearsay”.
Mr Vaudrey admitted a number of allegations including high-fiving students and asking them about their social lives. The panel considered the context surrounding these instances and “carefully considered” whether admissions were consistent with the evidence available.
During the misconduct panel, the teacher, who stopped working at the school on April 26, 2024, said he often high-fived students, primarily during sporting events, but denied holding their hands for extended periods of time.
The published report outlined that pupil A recorded a conversation with the teacher in January 2023 after she went to speak to him. They were initially unable to find an empty room so went to another space where a staff member was present. Upon their arrival, the teacher said she could leave but Mr Vaudrey made it clear that was unnecessary.
In a witness statement, pupil A said some of the teacher’s comments made her feel “uncomfortable”, and after listening to the recording, he said he recognised the language used and things said were inappropriate.
He told the panel he felt “devastated” that his comments had the opposite of their intended effect, which was to “boost” the student’s self-esteem, and he “can see where he went wrong”.
The report said: “The panel accepted that Mr Vaudrey had good intentions, but that his delivery was poor. He had used language that was inappropriate to use towards a young person. The panel was concerned that Mr Vaudrey was giving the wrong message to Pupil A in that he was saying that she will go far in life based on her appearance.
“The panel noted that whilst Pupil A had stated in her witness statement that the comments that Mr Vaudrey had made during the meeting on 25 January 2023 made her feel “uncomfortable”, “weird” and “odd”, she did not appear to interpret the messages as sexual. Mr Vaudrey denied that his conduct was sexual or sexually motivated.
“The panel considered that whilst the comments made by Mr Vaudrey were inappropriate, it did not consider that they were sexual in nature. The panel had the advantage of being able to listen to the recording, and concluded that it was professionally appropriate in tone.”
As part of the review, the panel were presented with seven testimonials from colleagues, pupils and parents “attesting to Mr Vaudrey’s character and abilities as an educator”.
In a written statement of reflection, Mr Vaudrey said: “I am committed to ensuring that if I am permitted to continue to teach in the future that all future actions fully align with these standards.
“Looking back with the benefit of hindsight I can see that, having spent my entire teaching career at Ditcham Park and spent 24 years there, I became too settled, comfortable and relaxed and lost sight of the fundamental standards and principles expected of me as a teacher.
“I am full of regret and remorse that any of my actions have made pupils feel uncomfortable or worse. Such conduct goes completely against why I became a teacher in the first place.”
A panel comment also said he has a “previous good history and there was evidence that he had positively contributed to the education sector” as he would “go above and beyond”.
Decision maker, Stuart Blomfield, said the panel was “satisfied that there is extremely limited risk of repetition of the proven conduct” and that a prohibition order would “clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession.”
He said the publication of the report was punishment enough to convey the seriousness of Mr Vaudrey’s behaviour.