It was alleged the teacher then threatened to deny the child lunch when he became agitated while working on a jigsaw.
The teacher was also accused of misconduct over a separate incident where it is alleged he lifted the pupil from the floor by pulling the child’s arm.
The alleged incidents were the subject of complaints by a special needs assistant (SNA) who claims to have witnessed them in February 2019 while she was working with the child who has an autism diagnosis.
She alleged the child’s ear defenders were “reefed” from his head by the teacher when the pupil became frustrated while working on a jigsaw. The child was nine years old at the time and in third class.
The teacher refutes the allegations.
He is accused of misconduct and conduct contrary to upholding the reputation and standing of the profession, not taking reasonable steps to ensure the safety and welfare of a students and not communicating effectively with pupils, parents, school management and others.
A fitness to teach inquiry on Wednesday heard the child is pre-verbal and does not speak to communicate in a way a child of a similar age without his diagnosis might be expected to.
He is also sensitive to sound.
The child’s mother, who was giving evidence at the hearing, said the child wears ear defenders because of his sensitivities and has used them on a constant basis since he was in junior infants.
They are removed after he falls asleep at night and routines are in place to accommodate the ear defenders when washing and getting dressed.
The Teaching Council inquiry is also examining the school principal’s handling of complaints relating to the alleged incidents.
A Teaching Council panel hearing evidence at the inquiry said parties linked to the case, and the school where the alleged incidents took place, cannot be identified.
The inquiry heard the first incident, where the teacher is alleged to have removed the child’s ear defenders and shouted at him, occurred on February 5, 2019, when the pair were working on a puzzle together.
The SNA claimed the child became frustrated while working on a Peppa Pig jigsaw at a workstation with his teacher.
She told the inquiry the child had been working with the jigsaw for a number of years and was sick of it. This can be a trigger for the child, she added.
When the child started breaking up the puzzle, she said the teacher then became frustrated.
She claimed the teacher’s hand came from behind the pupil and “reefed the ear defenders” from his head. It was alleged the teacher then shouted at the pupil and said something to the effect of “you won’t get your lunch,” the inquiry heard.
She conceded the teacher has a loud voice but she was certain he shouted at the child because of the tone and aggression used.
Under questioning from Eoghan O’Sullivan BL on behalf of the director of the Teaching Council, the SNA said this caused the pupil to become distressed.
She reported the incident to the school’s deputy principal who told her to put the complaint in writing.
The written complaint was submitted to the deputy principal a week after the alleged incident.
Evidence was given that the deputy principal was the main liaison with SNA staff and had brought the complaint to the attention of the principal.
It was alleged the principal did not properly notify the child’s parents of the complaint for 19 weeks, amounting to poor professional performance and a failure to meet the standards of competence that can be reasonably expected of a registered teacher.
Evidence was given at the hearing for the teacher and principal by Helen Callinan SC. She said they both deny the allegations against them.
Ms Callinan said the teacher would give evidence that he did not remove the ear defenders and the events outlined by the SNA did not happen.
Ms Callinan also gave evidence of a close relationship between the SNA and the boy’s family because she had a worked with them outside of the school by providing support through a second job she had with a charity. She has worked on a World Autism Day project with the boy’s mother and attended or worked at balls organised by the parents.
She had also been on holiday to Disneyland Paris with the family.
This was not contested by the SNA who said she had a collaborative relationship with the family.
It was “ludicrous” of the teacher to suggest the allegations against him did not happen, the SNA added.
The SNA claimed she became frustrated the school did not appear to be doing enough to investigate her complaint.
The principal claims he believed a circular outlining how to deal with a disciplinary process between a school and a teacher prevented him from contacting the boy’s parents.
He said he later reviewed this decision on foot of advice from Tusla and the Irish Primary Principals’ Network.
He regretted not seeking external advice earlier and learned from the experience, the inquiry heard.
The matter was examined by the principal and was the subject of an investigation by the board of management. No action was taken regarding the incident.
However, Mr O’Sullivan said it was a failure of both probes that the SNA who made the complaint was not interviewed in these processes.
The SNA said she was then reluctant to make a second complaint relating to an incident three weeks later where the teacher was accused of lifting the child and stretching his arm.
She said this happened after the boy presented to school and was involved in an altercation with another pupil in the yard.
The boy then ran to the bathroom and banged his head against a mirror before she could intervene. She claims he then ran to a sensory room and dropped himself to the floor when he was unable to get into it.
She claimed the teacher lifted him inappropriately and shouted at the child again, causing him to become distressed.
She said she did not formally complain about this alleged incident until the following June because of her unhappiness at how the previous case was dealt with.
This incident is also denied by the teacher.
Ms Callinan said inquiries conducted by the principal and the school found he had no case to answer. It was acknowledged the teacher has a loud voice but other staff at the school claimed they had never heard him shouting, even when classroom doors were left open.
A second day of the hearing scheduled for this week has been postponed until a later date and will take place before a panel from the Teaching Council’s disciplinary committee decides on the case.