Teacher in Reading Avoids Teaching Ban After Admitting Dishonesty and Acting Without Integrity in Exam Assessments

The Client

Our client was a highly experienced teacher in Reading with a career spanning approximately 20 years and no previous disciplinary history. During his career, he had progressed to Head of Department, qualified as an Advanced Skills Teacher and worked as an examination moderator. He had an excellent professional reputation, supported by extensive testimonials from senior colleagues, former Headteachers, students and others who had worked alongside him.

He was referred to the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) following concerns relating to the assessment of pupils undertaking a qualification.

The Allegations

The allegations concerned our client’s management of pupils’ assessed coursework for two OCR Cambridge Nationals Sport Science units.

It was alleged that he had:

• failed to keep assessed pupil work secure, allowing pupils to access it;
• allowed pupils to amend their assessed work after it had been marked;
• provided pupils with more assistance than was permitted under the assessment rules, including templates, writing frames, checklists, specific feedback on their assessed work and access to teaching materials; and
• in doing so, acted dishonestly and/or without integrity.

Our client admitted the underlying conduct, including allowing pupils to amend assessed work and providing assistance beyond that permitted by the OCR specification. He also admitted that he had acted dishonestly and without integrity in allowing pupils to amend their work and in providing specific feedback on assessed work.

He did not, however, accept that he had acted dishonestly in providing pupils with templates, writing frames, checklists and access to teaching materials. His position was that he had genuinely believed these were legitimate teaching and learning tools rather than prohibited assistance.

The Panel ultimately found the factual allegations proved.  However, importantly, the Panel did not find that all of that assistance was dishonest. It accepted that, when providing templates, writing frames, checklists and access to teaching materials, our client did not appreciate that this level of assistance was prohibited. It accepted that he genuinely believed he was applying good teaching and learning practices and that he had been open with senior leadership about the support he intended to provide.

The allegation of dishonesty in relation to those aspects of the case was therefore not proved.

Dishonesty was admitted in relation to allowing pupils to amend assessed work and providing specific feedback on that work. The Panel expressly concluded that the conduct did not amount to serious dishonesty.

Our Defence Strategy and Work

Our client initially found it difficult to accept the full extent of his wrongdoing and, at an early stage, sought to place responsibility elsewhere. With appropriate advice and support, however, he was able to properly confront what had happened and demonstrate significant insight, reflection and remediation.

By the time of the hearing, he had made important admissions, including admissions to the most serious aspects of the case involving dishonesty. At the same time, we ensured that allegations which went beyond what he had actually done or understood were properly challenged.

That distinction proved important. Although the Panel found that our client had acted dishonestly and without integrity in relation to the wider assistance given to pupils, it rejected the allegation that he had been dishonest in providing templates, writing frames, checklists and teaching materials. The Panel accepted that he had genuinely believed those materials were legitimate teaching support. It also accepted that he had been under significant pressure from the senior leadership team to achieve particular outcomes for the cohort, which had affected his judgment and professional curiosity.

Having established the proper extent and context of the misconduct, our focus then turned to sanction and whether permanently excluding an experienced and effective teacher from the profession was genuinely necessary and proportionate.

We presented detailed mitigation demonstrating that the misconduct was an isolated episode in an otherwise exemplary career. Our client had taught for approximately 20 years without any previous disciplinary history. He had progressed to senior positions, demonstrated outstanding teaching ability and contributed to the development of other teachers. His professional reputation was supported by a substantial body of character evidence describing him as an excellent, committed and conscientious educator.

Equally important was everything our client had done since the concerns first emerged. He had cooperated fully with the investigations, accepted responsibility for his actions and demonstrated genuine remorse. He undertook extensive reflection and remediation, including further work around assessment procedures, academic integrity, professional ethics and the importance of ensuring complete familiarity with examination specifications.

The evidence demonstrated that he had developed meaningful insight into what had gone wrong, understood how he should have acted differently and had put that learning into practice.

There had been no repetition of the conduct.

Our submissions therefore focused on the central question: what would an indefinite prohibition order actually achieve?

We argued that public confidence in the teaching profession and the need to uphold proper professional standards could adequately be addressed by publication of the TRA’s findings. Permanently removing an otherwise highly regarded teacher from the classroom would go further than was necessary.

The Outcome

The result was that no prohibition order was imposed which allowed our client to continue teaching.

The TRA’s findings were published, providing the public declaration of professional standards considered necessary, but our client was not excluded from the profession and was able to continue the career to which he had devoted much of his adult life.

This was a particularly important outcome given the seriousness of the findings and the potentially career-ending consequences of prohibition.

The case demonstrates that a finding of misconduct does not automatically mean that a teacher should be prohibited from teaching.

Sanction is a separate and crucial stage of a TRA case. Detailed evidence of an individual’s career, the context in which events occurred, insight, remediation, character and the risk of repetition can all be critical to demonstrating that prohibition would be unnecessary and disproportionate.

Comments from Jared McNally

“Our client faced the very real prospect of losing a profession to which he had devoted around 20 years. The findings were serious, but sanction must always be considered fairly and proportionately.  This was an isolated period in an otherwise exemplary career. There was compelling evidence of his remorse, insight and remediation, as well as the significant contribution he continued to make to education.

The Panel was able to deal with the public interest through publication of its findings without imposing the far more severe sanction of prohibition. The result meant that an experienced and highly regarded teacher was able to continue doing the job to which he had dedicated his professional life.”

Jared McNally, Clifford Johnston & Co.

Clifford Johnston & Co is a leading defence firm in Criminal and Professional Disciplinary Law, based in Manchester and representing clients across England and Wales on a privately funded basis. We provide strategic advice and robust representation to teachers facing Teaching Regulation Agency investigations and Professional Conduct Panel proceedings.