Victorian teachers accused of serious misconduct are increasingly having their identities kept secret by a disciplinary panel dominated by fellow educators, who have overruled the state teaching watchdog’s lawyers.
The Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) held four disciplinary hearings this year, and all were subject to a non-publication order that temporarily or permanently prevented details of allegations, the school or a teacher’s name from publication.
Formal disciplinary hearings are held in front of a three-person panel who probe allegations of serious misconduct, incompetence or lack of fitness to teach. These panels decide whether a teacher is barred from the profession, suspended or face another consequence.
Internal data from the watchdog, obtained by this masthead, shows in two disciplinary hearings held this year lawyers representing the VIT argued against non-publication orders that keep details from the public but the panel, comprising registered teachers, issued the order anyway.
The VIT’s boss, Martin Fletcher, acknowledged change was necessary, while legal and education experts said the issues raised questions of when a teacher should be identified as a public safety measure and when it could unfairly jeopardise their career.
One teacher, currently subject to an interim suspension, is accused of six counts of misconduct that include writing a teen student a song, favouring her with gifts and sending messages of a personal nature over five years.
A hearing in July was told the song was titled “Sparkle in the Dust” and the teacher asked the teenager to “keep it close to [their] heart, as people always misconstrue” what it meant.
After the teen finished high school, he asked her out for coffee via WhatsApp and said: “I just can’t leave it like this, it hurts too much.” In another message, he said: “Who knows, 20 years from now we might just pick up where we left off.”
Lawyer Alice Cooney, representing the VIT, argued for publication of the allegations and the teacher’s name in the interests of transparency.
However, the three-person panel suppressed the teacher’s name until it had reached a determination.
Internal VIT data shows that since 2015 there have been 19 formal disciplinary hearings, but no permanent suppression orders were issued before 2023.
In 2023, a permanent order was made to protect the identity of a teacher who gained their registration by fraud because of “significant mitigating circumstances”, the watchdog said.
Temporary non-publication orders have been on the rise for the past three years when details were suppressed in half of the eight cases. This year, there have been four hearings with details kept secret in three.
Last year, former Carey Grammar teacher Eleanor Louise Yorke was barred from the profession after sending tens of thousands of messages to a student and beginning a romantic relationship after they graduated. It was the only disciplinary case heard that year and not subject to any secrecy orders.
The VIT data shows that of the seven hearings held between 2024 and 2026, only two featured legal practitioners. The rest were composed entirely of registered or retired teachers.
The teaching watchdog’s chief executive, Martin Fletcher, acknowledged reforms to how serious disciplinary matters were carried out was needed, and the process was under way.
This included a modern conduct framework to ensure hearings were fair, efficient, transparent and featured a diversity of perspectives.
“Community confidence in professional regulation depends not only on the decisions that are made, but on the clarity and integrity of the processes used to make them.”
Fletcher added it was a balancing act between transparency and ensuring victims or witnesses were not harmed or discouraged from taking part in the process.
Changes being considered include legal practitioners sitting on panels, enhanced training for those selected for panels, better case management and clearer decision-making structures.
Improving guidance for procedural matters including non-publication orders are also on the agenda.
VIT lawyers can argue a suppression order shouldn’t be issued if they are based on concerns about embarrassment, reputational damage or other consequences associated with proceedings.
They can also argue against non-publication orders that relate to information already in the public domain, or where the risk identified is considered to be remote or speculative.
The University of Melbourne’s Jason Bosland said there should be public scrutiny of any regulatory proceeding, and that included naming a teacher accused of misconduct.
“It would also give the opportunity to other survivors or victims to come forward with their experiences,” he said.
He believed a non-publication order should only be made when absolutely necessary, and said there was a public interest in knowing the outcomes and details of the hearings.
But Swinburne University education academic Janine Forbes-Rolfe believed a teacher’s name shouldn’t be published until a determination was reached.
“In terms of reputational damage, that would be quite immense,” Forbes-Rolfe said.
She said teachers held a privileged position and had to abide by high standards, but if allegations were substantiated, they should be named.
“I’m sometimes a little bit concerned in terms of the narrative that occurs … why are we focusing on the very small numbers of bad actors as opposed to the broader positives of the profession,” Forbes-Rolfe said.
The Victorian Institute of Teaching suspended 29 teachers on an interim basis when they were assessed as posing an unacceptable risk of harm to children in the 2025-2026 financial year.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
Caroline Schelle is an education reporter, and joined The Age in 2022. She previously covered courts at AAP.Connect via X or email.From our partners
Discover more from PressNewsAgency
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.