Teacher banned after scandalous texts

A Queensland school teacher has been banned from applying for re-registration for four years, in a disciplinary action brought over allegations he engaged in sexualised conduct with a student. His breach of child protection policies was also an issue in these proceedings. We will refer to the teacher as Mr Bergstrom.

The teacher

Mr Bergstrom was a teacher since December 2006. He taught Film and Television (FTV), as well as English classes to Years 11 and 12 at a Queensland school. Before the disciplinary proceedings, brought in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the QCAT) his registration lapsed. His registration was also earlier suspended in May 2014.

Student A

The first of the allegations against Mr Bergstrom concerned a female student referred to as Student A. It was alleged that Mr Bergstrom 'without valid educational reason, engaged in conduct with Student A that was over familiar in nature and/or constituted a failure to maintain professional boundaries'. It was also alleged that he failed to report, in a timely manner, concerns about Student A being at risk of harm.

Student A was in Mr Bergstrom's Year 11 and Year 12 FTV classes. He was also her mentor in her role as community welfare chairperson, and worked with her on the school magazine.

In September 2008 Mr Bergstrom and Student A attended a school camp. One evening, Student A became distressed and Mr Bergstrom provided her with emotional support and spent time alone with her. Student A disclosed that she has been prescribed medication for depression. She also described to him some self-harming behaviours and may have threatened self-harm.

Mr Bergstrom would eventually come to give her his personal phone number. The QCAT received evidence that Mr Bergstrom, without the consent of the school, his employer, or Student A's parents:

• exchanged text messages with her;
• spent time with her outside of school;
• collected her from places and drove her home;
• drove her home from school, dropping her around the corner from her home;
• allowed her to attend his home, in the company of his family; and
• took her on a social outing with his family.

During this time, Mr Bergstrom met with the school principal and guidance officer. According to QCAT, during one of these meetings, Mr Bergstrom was instructed by the principal to comply with the Student Protection Policy. He was instructed not to spend extended time with students, not to drive his students in his car, and not to disclose the conversation to Student A.

At another meeting, the guidance officer told Mr Bergstrom that:

• he should notify the guidance officer of any welfare concerns about Student A;
• he did not have the expertise to deal with student depression; and
• Student A should be referred to a specialist mental health service.

The guidance officer also gave Mr Bergstrom a document outlining procedures to do with self harm or suicidal ideation.

Other contact continued between Student A and Mr Bergstrom, including:

• Mr Bergstrom jogging with Student A outside of school hours;
• Mr Bergstrom suggesting that Student A and he should go to see a movie;
• comments by Mr Bergstrom about Student A's hair; and
• telephone conversations in the evening.

These events, and others, formed the basis of the finding of the QCAT that Mr Bergstrom engaged in conduct with Student A that failed to maintain professional boundaries, and was over familiar in nature. QCAT also found that Mr Bergstrom failed to report, and continue to report, the risk of harm to Student A.

Student B

Mr Bergstrom was also alleged to have engaged in conduct with a student referred to as Student B, which was over familiar in nature, and/or sexualised. A further charge of conduct that constituted grooming behaviours was not proven.

Student B was a student of Mr Bergstrom from Year 9 to Year 11. When he was teaching her in Year 11, Mr Bergstrom disclosed to her that he was depressed. In one assignment for an FTV class, Student B appeared in various states of undress and nudity. During the editing process, Mr Bergstrom edited the film to remove the depiction of student B in various states of undress.

Mr Bergstrom and Student B had communicated by email. Before editing the film, Mr Bergstrom had sent an email from his corporate account to Student B saying that there was an issue with the film that needed discussion. He indicated that because of the filters on the email account, he could not explain the issue without using inappropriate words. They then communicated by his private email address.

From this date, there were many emails exchanged. Relevantly, this included the following communications from Mr Bergstrom:

On 23 April 2014

• at 9.53pm: (Following a response from Student B, including “Well let’s[sic] say outside of school hours you can be as blunt with me as you like. During school your my teacher, so during that time your primary aim is to teach”): “you may regret telling me I can be blunt and open with you, after all your innocent 16 year old self might not be able to handle it! Ha Ha.”; and
• at 10.21pm: “Maybe I can’t corrupt you, but I guess time will tell. I’ll try not to hold back in future and hope that you will never use it against me to get me sacked, It might also completely change your opinion of me but hopefully not.”

On 25 April 2014

• at 09.58am: “You don’t have a decent sex life? How can that be? You are young and in love, what more motivation do you need? What’s the problem? Being married and living together is no guarantee of anything, believe me.”;
• at 10.19am: “Given your theory, does that mean you see [sex] purely as a [sic] means of procreation and therefore you don’t desire it or enjoy it? I find your thoughts very interesting because for many young people it becomes their priority activity at every opportunity once they have started … You are such an interesting specimen as sometimes you are a typical teenager and then others you seem like somebody so much older.”;
• at 11.02am: “So, putting my concerned parentish-type hat on here, what do you do? Condoms, withdrawal? This does surprise me and concern me a little, even though I’m confident that you are responsible enough to have it all under control. Maybe you are unique, or maybe I am, but I am always lamenting not getting enough!”.

QCAT orders