A FORMER head of art at one of Liverpool’s best known schools has been banned from teaching for two years.

The General Teaching Council for England (GTC) yesterday suspended David Bailey, who worked at Holly Lodge Girls College in West Derby, for unacceptable professional conduct.

At the hearing, the panel heard allegations that middle-aged Bailey had breached exam conditions by allowing pupils to take work home and gave them extra time to complete their evaluation work.

They also heard how Bailey had failed to fully complete his marking in time for a visit by an external moderator.

The matter relates to nine students who were taking their GCSE Art exam in December 2005.

Holly Lodge headteacher Julia Tinsley said she found the matter alarming and embarrassing as it had affected the integrity of the exam system.

Her deputy, Andrew Keen, said they first became aware of problems during a visit by the moderator in January 2006.

Documents outlining each pupil’s exam results for a module completed in mid-December weren’t completed for inspection.

After an investigation, Bailey admitted he had allowed pupils to take their work home and given them extra time to type up their evaluation form.

Mr Keen said Bailey didn’t agree his actions were a breach of exam rules which stated pupils work should never leave the school building.

He said Bailey told him he was due to mark the work over Christmas but the school was closed.

Bailey had said the presentation of the work was important, and there had been no opportunity to use the computer room so he said pupils could take their work on it at home.

Ms Tinsley said Bailey’s actions constituted gross misconduct as he had no way of controlling the amount of time pupils spent on the work at home.

She said the whole matter had affected her “trust and confidence” in Bailey as a teacher.

He was dismissed by the school on December 12 2006, following an investigation by the school and AQA, the exam board.

The exam board ruled in August 2006 that Bailey had breached exam conditions and barred him from supervising exams for two years.

Bailey appealed, but AQA upheld their decision.

He also appealed against his dismissal from the school in February 2007 but the staff disciplinary committee upheld the school’s decision.

Bailey also took the school to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal in October 2007 who found in the school’s favour.

In his absence, the death of a close family member and a glowing character reference from a former colleague were taken as mitigation.

The panel read a written statement from Bailey in which he claimed he was a “sacrificial lamb by whatever means fair or foul”.

He also blamed financial mis-management at the school for his position and accused some staff members of colluding with AQA moderators behind his back.

Both claims were fervently denied by Ms Tinsley who said Bailey had made outrageous and libellous claims against her.

Ms Tinsley said: “Luckily, the breach had no impact on the students who didn’t know they weren’t allowed to take work home and still don’t know.

“Holy Lodge is a visual arts school and it was embarrassing and worrying as we were waiting to be re-designated.

“We have a great reputation as a forward thinking visual arts college and anything to jeopardise that caused great concern.”

She added: “Even after the tribunal Mr Bailey still doesn’t accept that he was wrong and if a teacher can’t accept that breaking guidelines is wrong then how can I allow him to take exam classes so it could happen again.”

Speaking at the end of the hearing in Birmingham, Mr John Hawkins, chair of the panel said they believed Bailey had failed to complete the marking in time and had carried out the two exam breaches.

Mr Hawkins said: “We believe a suspension should be given. This is a serious matter and we believe the facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct.”

The order means Bailey is suspended from the GTC register as from yesterday for two years.

After that time he will allowed to register again. He also has 28 days to lodge an appeal against the decision with the High Court.

Speaking after the decision, Ms Tinsley said: “I’m glad we’ve finally got an outcome after such a long time.

“We have acted correctly and professionally, all we’ve wanted to do was protect the girls from any wrong doing.”