Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Mr Giles Dominic Keen: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the
Secretary of State for Education
January 2019
2
Contents
A. Introduction 3
B. Allegations 4
C. Preliminary applications 4
D. Summary of evidence 7
Documents 7
Witnesses 7
E. Decision and reasons 7
Findings of fact 8
Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the
profession into disrepute 16
Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16
Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18
3
Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on
behalf of the Secretary of State
Teacher: Mr Giles Dominic Keen
TRA reference: 16971
Date of determination: 15 January 2019
Former employer: Lode Heath School, Solihull (“School”)
A. Introduction
A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the
TRA”) convened on 14 January to 15 January 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton
Road, Coventry CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr Giles Dominic Keen.
The panel members were Mr Melvyn Kershaw (former teacher panellist – in the chair),
Ms Fiona Tankard (teacher panellist) and Mr John Matharu (lay panellist).
The legal advisor to the panel was Mr Tomos Jones of Eversheds Sutherland
(International) LLP solicitors.
The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Samantha Paxman of Browne Jacobson
solicitors.
Mr Keen was present and was represented by Mr David Gray-Jones of 36 Group Chambers.
The hearing took place in public and was recorded.
4
B. Allegations
The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 31
October 2018.
It was alleged that Mr Keen was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or
conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that:
1. In or around 2017, he failed to conduct Edexcel Design and Technology controlled
assessments appropriately and/or in accordance with the Edexcel guidance, in
that he;
a) gave one or more pupils help and/or support which was beyond what was
permitted by the exam board’s guidelines;
b) allowed one or more pupils to work on another pupil’s controlled assessment;
c) directed and/or was aware that a member of staff was supporting one or more
pupils beyond what was permitted by the exam board’s guidelines;
d) directed and/or was aware that a work experience student was supporting one
or more pupils beyond what was permitted by the exam board’s guidelines;
e) on or around 19 May 2017 he submitted marks to the exam board in relation to
one or more controlled assessments prior to the controlled assessments being
finished;
f) signed one or more controlled assessment declarations, confirming that the
work was produced solely by a pupil when he knew or ought to have known
that this was not the case;
2. His conduct at allegation 1, as may be found proven, demonstrated a lack of
integrity;
3. In or around 2017, he abused his position of trust and/or acted dishonestly;
a. in that he instructed the work experience student not to disclose information in
order to conceal details relating to the administration of the controlled
assessments;
b. in relation to his actions as may be found proven at allegation 1f above.
C. Preliminary applications
Firstly, the panel considered an application from the teacher’s representative that the
hearing should be held in private.
The panel took legal advice on this issue and subsequently determined to exercise its
discretion under paragraph 11(3) of the Regulations and paragraph 4.57 of the
Procedures that the public should be excluded from the hearing for those parts of the
5
hearing in which references would be made to the teacher’s (and/or his family’s) health
and wellbeing.
The panel took into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and
that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these
proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession.
On this occasion, however, the panel considered that the request for the hearing, or parts
of the hearing, to be heard in private, was a reasonable one given concerns about
confidential matters relating to the teacher’s (and/or his family’s) health and wellbeing
being placed in the public domain.
The panel had regard to whether the teacher’s request ran contrary to the public interest.
The panel noted that it was required to announce its decisions in public as to whether the
facts had been proven and whether those facts amounted to unacceptable professional
conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In the event that the
case continued, any decision of the Secretary of State would also be in public.
The panel considered that in the circumstances of this case where the facts were so
intertwined with private matters relating to the teacher’s and his families’ health that the
public interest would be satisfied by these public announcements. These public
announcements would ensure that public confidence in these proceedings and in the
standards of the profession would be maintained.
The presenting officer applied for the evidence of the work experience student, referred
to in allegation 1d, to be given by video-link. The presenting officer explained that the
work experience student in question was unable to attend the hearing in person as he
was attending a compulsory college apprenticeship course in Doncaster. As such, the
work experience student was not in close proximity to the hearing venue and therefore,
he would have to give his evidence during his lunch break at the college. The presenting
officer explained that she had only been made aware of the work experience student’s
unavailability at short notice.
The teacher’s representative objected to the application.
The panel received legal advice on this issue.
The panel considered whether the work experience student fell within the category of
vulnerable witnesses which is defined in paragraph 4.71 of the Procedures as being a
person whose “quality of evidence is likely to be adversely affected at a hearing”. The
panel noted the examples of witnesses that require special consideration and considered
that the work experience student’s circumstances was not akin to those examples, and
the panel considered that those circumstances would not impact upon the quality of the
work experience student’s evidence.
6
However, the panel noted that pursuant to paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures, the panel
may admit any evidence where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to
be relevant to the case.
The panel therefore considered it had a discretion as to whether to allow the work
experience student to give evidence by video-link, given the distance the witness would
have to travel to Coventry and the witness’ college commitments. In exercising that
discretion, the panel balanced its obligation to ensure that Mr Keen was not put at an
unfair disadvantage, as against the panel’s duty in the public interest to investigate the
allegations in so far as possible consistent with fairness to Mr Keen. The panel also took
into account that there may be subtleties of tone or body language that might be lost via
the medium of video link.
The panel did not consider that it would be appropriate for the work experience student to
give evidence during his lunch break at the college. The panel noted that there may be
issues with getting a copy of the hearing bundle to the work experience student and that
there might be issues with the work experience student taking an oath. The presenting
officer could not guarantee to the panel that the work experience student would be able
to give his evidence in a quiet classroom and that he would not be interrupted. The panel
stressed that there needed to be some formalities in the work experience student giving
his evidence and that it would not be fair for the work experience student to have to give
evidence in such circumstances.
The panel noted that the TRA should have made prior, suitable arrangements for the
work experience student to give evidence by video-link, as soon as the presenting officer
had become aware that he would not be able to attend the hearing in person. The panel
noted that the TRA had made no contact with the work experience student’s college in
order to determine whether the student could be allowed to attend the hearing in person.
The panel also noted that the TRA had made no arrangements for a representative to be
with the work experience student when he gave his evidence by video-link.
In light of the above, the panel decided to refuse the presenting officer’s application.
Finally, the teacher’s representative made an application to admit an additional document
into evidence. The document was a character reference made on behalf of Mr Keen.
The document was not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of
the Procedures, and as such, the panel was required to decide whether the document
should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the Procedures at the discretion of the
panel.
Under paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it is
fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The panel
was satisfied that the document could reasonably be considered to be relevant to the
case as it related to the issue of mitigation.
7
The panel noted that there was a distinction to be drawn between the situation when a
presenting officer seeks to rely upon hearsay evidence, and the current situation when it
is the teacher’s representative seeking to introduce hearsay evidence, without the
witness being in attendance. The former invokes considerations relating to the teacher’s
right to a fair hearing, whereas the latter does not, although there remains a question of
the fairness between the parties. The panel had regard to whether it would be a sufficient
safeguard for a hearsay warning to be given before the panel’s determination on the
facts. The panel was satisfied that any imbalance caused to the presenting officer in
being unable to cross-examine the witness could be addressed by the panel’s decision in
due course as to what weight it should attach to the evidence, if such evidence was
admitted.
By reason of the above, the panel decided to admit the document into evidence. The
document was admitted into section 5 of the hearing bundle index (“Teacher
Documents”) at page 361.
D. Summary of evidence
Documents
In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included:
Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 2-4
Section 2: Notice of proceedings, response and statement of agreed facts – pages 6-20
Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 22-23
Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 25-351
Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 353-360.
In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following:
Character reference on behalf of Mr Keen – page 361.
The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents.
Witnesses
The panel heard oral evidence from Mr Keen. No further witnesses were called by the
teacher’s representative or by the presenting officer.
E. Decision and reasons
The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:
8
The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision.
The panel confirmed that it had read all of the documents provided in the bundle in
advance of the hearing and the additional document produced during the hearing.
Mr Keen was employed at the School as a resistant materials teacher from 1 September
2013. On or around 19 May 2017, concerns were raised regarding suspected malpractice
committed by Mr Keen in entering marks to the exam board. On or around 23 May 2017,
the School’s deputy headteacher met Mr Keen in order to seek clarification as to how the
marks were decided upon. The School’s deputy headteacher was satisfied with the
explanation provided by Mr Keen at that meeting.
On or around 25 May 2017, concerns were raised by the School’s art and design
technician who was unhappy about signing a declaration form which authenticated that
Mr Keen’s year 11 pupils had worked independently on their controlled assessments.
The School’s art and design technician raised further concerns with the School on or
around 26 May 2017 that a work experience student had been instructed by Mr Keen to
work on year 11 controlled assessment material, which was not permitted by the exam
board’s guidelines.
When a senior leader and the art and design faculty leader went to visit Mr Keen to
discuss these concerns, they discovered the work experience student working on year 11
controlled assessment material. The student was instructed to stop working on the
controlled assessment material and the controlled assessment material was
subsequently removed from the classroom. Mr Keen allegedly told the work experience
student to “keep quiet” about what had happened.
Mr Keen was suspended on 9 June 2017 pending an internal disciplinary investigation.
Mr Keen left the School as part of a confidential settlement agreement on 30 November
2017.
Findings of fact
The panel received and accepted advice from the legal adviser that in considering the
question of dishonesty in allegation 3, it should first consider the defendant’s state of
knowledge and belief as to the facts and secondly, whether that state of mind was
dishonest, determining this by applying the standards of the ordinary honest person.
The panel’s findings of fact are as follows:
The panel found the following particulars of the allegations proven, for these reasons:
9
1. In or around 2017, you failed to conduct Edexcel Design and Technology
controlled assessments appropriately and/or in accordance with the Edexcel
guidance, in that you;
a. gave one or more pupils help and/or support which was beyond what
was permitted by the exam board’s guidelines;
The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen gave one or more
pupils help and/or support which was beyond what was permitted by the exam board’s
guidelines.
In the statement of agreed facts, Mr Keen admitted that during the 2016/2017 academic
year, on several evenings he worked on the controlled assessment projects, when pupils
were not present. He acknowledged that he cut objects and glued parts of controlled
assessment material on behalf of his pupils.
The panel noted that this was consistent with the evidence given previously by Mr Keen
in the school’s disciplinary investigation meeting which took place on 15 June 2017. In
that meeting, Mr Keen admitted that some of the work requiring laser cuts was done by
himself and that he had worked on his students’ assessment material without the pupils
being present. Similarly, the school’s design and technology technician stated in his
witness meeting of 12 June 2017 that Mr Keen often worked on the students’ projects
“without pupils present.”
In his oral testimony, Mr Keen admitted giving pupils help and support which was beyond
that permitted by the exam board’s guidelines. Mr Keen stated that he had done this in
order to assist his pupils who had fallen behind as a result of the school’s laser cutter
being broken and the school having poor resistant material equipment. Additionally, the
panel heard evidence that ordered material such as dowel rods had not arrived in time for
the pupils to complete their work and therefore, this work was completed for them by Mr
Keen. The panel determined that any assistance given by Mr Keen should have been
noted on the assessor witness statements submitted to the exam board.
In his testimony, Mr Keen admitted that he had made a “poor decision” in helping and
supporting his pupils beyond what was permitted by the exam board’s guidelines but that
he had done so “in the best interest of the children” and with “good intentions”.
The panel therefore found this allegation proven.
b. allowed one or more pupils to work on another pupil’s controlled
assessment;
The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen allowed one or more
pupils to work on another pupil’s controlled assessment.
10
This allegation was admitted by Mr Keen in the statement of agreed facts. However, in
his oral testimony, Mr Keen disputed this allegation, stating that there had been an
“oversight” on his part in admitting this allegation.
The panel took into consideration the evidence provided by Mr Keen in his disciplinary
investigation meeting in which Mr Keen stated that “kids would come [into the workshop]
at lunchtimes, break times and after school so [ I was] not always there”. The panel also
noted that in that meeting, Mr Keen stated that “[the pupils] could have done work on
each other’s [work] and [I] may not have been aware as busy doing a lot of tasks (sic) at
once”. Furthermore, the panel noted the evidence provided by the school’s design and
technology technician who said in his witness meeting that Mr Keen’s pupils “worked
together” to complete each other’s work.
The panel heard evidence from Mr Keen about how he had responsibility for two
classrooms at a time and that consequently, he was unable to ensure that his students
were fully supervised at all times.
The panel also noted from his oral testimony that Mr Keen had allowed Pupil A to
undertake work on other pupils’ controlled assessments by allowing him to use the laser
cutter. Mr Keen claimed that Pupil A regularly visited the workshop, to the extent that it
became Pupil A’s “second home”. In Mr Keen’s submission, Pupil A was the only pupil
who was sufficiently trained to use the laser cutter and he became a de facto technician.
The panel noted the school’s technology and design technician’s evidence that pupils
helped each other and also noted Mr Keen’s submission where he stated, “I admit to a
lack of supervision at times that may have enabled students to help each other on
controlled assessed pieces.”
The panel took the view that Mr Keen had allowed one or more pupils to work on another
pupil’s controlled assessment.
The panel therefore found this allegation proven.
c. directed and/or was aware that a member of staff was supporting one
or more pupils beyond what was permitted by the exam board’s
guidelines;
The panel considers that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen directed and/or was
aware that a member of staff was supporting one or more pupils beyond what was
permitted by the exam board’s guidelines.
The panel noted that Mr Keen admitted this allegation in the statement of agreed facts. In
that statement, Mr Keen admitted that he instructed the school’s design and technology
technician during the 2016/2017 academic year to complete controlled assessments on
behalf of pupils on some occasions, including tasks such as:
11
a. making wheels;
b. cutting the dowling to fit the wheels on the right side;
c. making tops to fit on top of the objects;
d. cutting holes out of the wood so the pupils had slots to put things in;
e. making handles to push things; and
f. painting.
The panel noted that in Mr Keen’s disciplinary investigation meeting, Mr Keen was asked
whether he was aware that the school’s design and technology technician had worked on
the above tasks, to which Mr Keen replied that the school’s design and technology
technician had done “bits and pieces here and there.”
The panel considered that this evidence (provided by Mr Keen in the school’s disciplinary
investigation meeting) was consistent with the hearsay evidence given by the school’s
design and technology technician in his witness meeting. In that witness meeting, the
school’s design and technology technician admitted that he was directed by Mr Keen to
undertake work on the pupils’ behalf, which he felt was “wrong”.
In his oral testimony, Mr Keen argued that the school’s design and technology technician
had “over-exaggerated” the amount of work that he had actually undertaken on the
pupils’ controlled assessment material.
However, with regard to this, the panel noted that it was the school’s design and
technology technician who had raised concerns about Mr Keen in the first place.
Consequently, the panel was of the opinion that the school’s design and technology
technician would not have raised any concerns about Mr Keen, had he undertaken the
work of his own accord and had he not acted under the direction of Mr Keen.
The panel therefore found this allegation proven.
d. directed and/or was aware that a work experience student was
supporting one or more pupils beyond what was permitted by the
exam board’s guidelines;
The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen directed and/or was
aware that a work experience student was supporting one or more pupils beyond what
was permitted by the exam board’s guidelines.
The panel took into account the work experience student’s hearsay witness statement. In
that witness statement, the work experience student stated, “Mr Keen asked me to paint
one of the educational toys… I painted most of the toy, around 75%.” Additionally, in the
same witness statement, the work experience student claimed, “Mr Keen said to me that
12
we were going to try and complete a certain piece of work… Mr Keen placed it down to
one side and I drilled holes into the car.”
The panel noted that the work experience student stated that he had felt uncomfortable
about being directed by Mr Keen to work on the year 11 controlled assessment material
and that he had raised concerns about this with the school’s design and technology
technician. According to the work experience student, he didn’t feel “[undertaking work on
the controlled assessment material] was right”.
The panel felt that the work experience student’s hearsay witness evidence was largely
consistent with the work experience student’s investigation interview, which took place on
20 June 2017, in which the work experience student admitted to having worked on the
controlled assessment material under the direction of Mr Keen and without the year 11
pupils being present.
The panel noted that two senior leaders witnessed the work experience student working
on controlled assessment material when they visited Mr Keen’s workshop on 25 May
2017. This was admitted by Mr Keen in his oral testimony.
The panel heard oral evidence by Mr Keen in which he admitted to directing the work
experience student to undertake work on the controlled assessment material. Mr Keen
argued that the work experience student was not his responsibility as no formal
agreement had been signed to this effect.
However, the panel was of the view that Mr Keen did have a responsibility for supervising
the work experience student on a day-to-day basis as the work experience student was
primarily based in his workshop and that as a result, he owed the work experience
student a duty not to direct him to undertake work which was beyond what was permitted
by the exam board’s guidelines.
The panel therefore found this allegation proven.
e. on or around 19 May 2017 you submitted marks to the exam board in
relation to one or more controlled assessments prior to the controlled
assessments being finished;
The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen submitted marks to
the exam board in relation to one or more controlled assessments prior to the controlled
assessments’ completion.
The panel took into account the statement of agreed facts in which Mr Keen admitted that
after the submission of the controlled assessment marks on 19 May 2017, work
continued on the controlled assessment material until around 26 May 2017.
13
The panel heard oral testimony from Mr Keen in which he admitted to “tarting-up”
(meaning “tidying-up”) various pieces of work after he had submitted the controlled
assessment marks.
Mr Keen confirmed that the marks that he had submitted on 19 May 2017 were the marks
that the students would achieve, once their work had been “tidied-up”. As a result, the
marks submitted by Mr Keen on 19 May 2017 did not accurately reflect the quality of the
students’ work, on the date that the marks were actually submitted (being the 19 May
2017).
The panel also heard oral testimony from Mr Keen in which he admitted that only six out
of twenty-six pieces of work had actually been completed at the time that the marks were
submitted (being 19 May 2017).
The panel therefore found this allegation proven.
f. signed one or more controlled assessment declarations, confirming
that the work was produced solely by a pupil when you knew or ought
to have known that this was not the case;
The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen signed one or more
controlled assessment declarations, confirming that the work was produced solely by a
pupil when he knew or ought to have known that this was not the case.
The panel took into account the assessor witness statements signed by Mr Keen,
whereby all but three of the statements were ticked by Mr Keen confirming that the
pupils’ work was produced solely by those pupils.
In his oral testimony, Mr Keen admitted that he did not declare on the controlled
assessment declarations that he (along with the school’s design and technology
technician and the work experience student) had provided assistance to the pupils in
completing the controlled assessment material. This was also admitted by Mr Keen in the
statement of agreed facts.
The panel had already made a finding of fact that assistance was provided to the pupils
which was beyond that which permissible at the time of signing the controlled
assessment declarations (see above). Consequently, the panel found this allegation
proven.
2. Your conduct at allegation 1, as may be found proven, demonstrated a lack of
integrity;
As the panel found Mr Keen’s conduct at allegation 1 proven, it went on to consider
whether Mr Keen had demonstrated a lack of integrity.
14
The panel, having previously taken legal advice on the issue of “integrity”, noted that
examination boards rely on and trust teachers to administer, supervise and assess
pupils’ work correctly and that Mr Keen’s conduct at allegation 1 undermined the
examination process.
The panel noted that the concepts of “integrity” and dishonesty” are separate and distinct
and that integrity connotes an adherence to the ethical standard of one’s own profession
that involves more than mere honesty. The panel also noted that professional tribunals
must not set unrealistic high standards and should not require professional people to be
“paragons of virtue”. However, the panel determined that Mr Keen’s actions did
demonstrate a lack of professional integrity.
The panel also took into account that Mr Keen had admitted all of the allegations at 1,
save for allegation 1b. Consequently, the panel found this allegation proven.
3. In or around 2017, you abused your position of trust and/or acted dishonestly;
a. in that you instructed the work experience student not to disclose
information in order to conceal details relating to the administration of
the controlled assessments;
The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen abused his position
of trust and acted dishonestly in that he instructed the work experience student not to
disclose information in order to conceal details relating to the administration of the
controlled assessments.
The panel took the view that Mr Keen was in a position of trust. Although the panel
acknowledged that no formal arrangement had been made between Mr Keen and the
school with regards to the supervision of the work experience student, the panel favoured
the presenting officer’s assertion that Mr Keen was responsible for, and did owe a duty of
care to the work experience student as he was based in Mr Keen’s workshop. The panel
took the view that Mr Keen owed a similar duty to the work experience student (as a
former pupil) as he owed to the other pupils based in his workshop.
The panel took into account the work experience student’s hearsay witness statement in
which the work experience student stated, “Mr Keen asked me to keep quiet about what
had happened because he didn’t want it leaked out in the community.” The panel also
took into account the evidence provided by the work experience student in his
investigation interview in which the work experience student said, “[Mr Keen] said make
sure the doors are shut and if anyone asks, just say I’m helping him around the
workshop.”
In his evidence, Mr Keen stated that he did not have any recollection of telling the work
experience student to keep quiet about what he was doing. However, Mr Keen also said,
“I am not saying that this did not happen.”
15
The panel noted that in his oral testimony, Mr Keen admitted that he did in fact tell the
work experience student not to mention it to anyone, albeit there was some ambiguity as
to when this actually happened.
The panel also noted that this was consistent with the signed statement of agreed facts in
which Mr Keen admitted that he told the work experience student to keep quiet about
what had happened and admitted dishonesty. In that statement, Mr Keen acknowledged
that he was referring to the maladministration of the controlled assessments.
The panel therefore found this allegation proven.
b. in relation to your actions as may be found proven at allegation 1f
above.
The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen abused his position
of trust and acted dishonestly in signing one or more controlled assessment declarations,
confirming that the work was produced solely by a pupil when he knew or ought to have
known that this was not the case.
The panel took into account its previous finding with regards to allegation 1f that Mr Keen
had declared on the controlled assessment declarations that the pupils’ work was
produced solely by those pupils when he knew or ought to have known that this was not
the case.
The panel was of the view that in doing so, Mr Keen had abused his position of trust. The
panel was also of the view that an ordinary honest person would consider that he had
acted dishonestly.
Mr Keen admitted that he acted dishonestly in the statement of agreed facts by signing
one or more controlled assessment declarations, confirming that the work was produced
solely by a pupil when he knew that this was not the case. He acknowledged that his
conduct would be seen as dishonest according to the ordinary standards of a reasonable
and honest teacher in that he signed declarations which he knew were untrue and as
such, the panel was of the view that his conduct met the test of dishonesty set out in Ivey
v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd.
The panel favoured the presenting officer’s assertion over that of the teacher’s
representative. Mr Keen was in a position of trust and that as a result, he owed a duty to
both the pupils and the exam board to complete the controlled assessment declarations
in an honest manner.
The panel did not agree with the teacher’s representative’s submission that the teacher
had no contractual obligation to the exam board. The panel was of the view that the
exam board relied on teachers’ honesty in completing the controlled assessment
declarations and that Mr Keen had consequently compromised the examination process
and had breached his duty to both the pupils and the exam board.
16
The panel therefore found this allegation proven.
Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute
Having found all of the allegations to have been proven, the panel went on to consider
whether the facts of those proven allegations amounted to unacceptable professional
conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the
panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers,
which the panel referred to as “the Advice”.
The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Keen in relation to the facts found proven,
involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to
Part Two, Mr Keen was in breach of the following standards:
Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and
practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their
own attendance and punctuality.
Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory
frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.
The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Keen amounted to misconduct of a
serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession.
The panel also considered whether Mr Keen’s conduct displayed behaviours associated
with any of the offences listed on pages 8 and 9 of the Advice. The panel found that none
of these offences was relevant. In particular, the panel did not consider that an offence
involving serious dishonesty was relevant.
However, the panel was satisfied that Mr Keen was guilty of unacceptable professional
conduct.
The panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others and
considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the
community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can
hold in pupils’ lives and that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the
way they behave.
The panel found that Mr Keen’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession
into disrepute.
Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State
Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct
that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go on to
17
consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition
order by the Secretary of State.
In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order
should be made, the panel had to consider whether it was an appropriate and
proportionate measure, and whether it was in the public interest to do so. Prohibition
orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been
apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect.
The panel considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice
and having done so, found some of them to be relevant in this case, namely the
maintenance of public confidence in the profession; declaring and upholding proper
standards of conduct; and the interest of retaining the teacher in the profession.
The panel found that Mr Keen demonstrated a lack of integrity; that he abused his
position of trust and that he acted dishonestly. In light of this, a strong public interest
consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present
as the conduct found against Mr Keen was outside that which could reasonably be
tolerated. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could
be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Keen was not treated
with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.
The panel considered that there was a strong public interest consideration in retaining
the teacher in their profession, since no doubt had been cast upon his abilities as an
educator and/or he was able to make a valuable contribution to the profession.
In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered
carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order taking into
account the effect that this would have on Mr Keen.
In carrying out the balancing exercise the panel had regard to the public interest
considerations both in favour of and against prohibition as well as the interests of Mr
Keen. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition
order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proven. In the list
of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case are:
serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the
Teachers’ Standards;
abuse of position or trust (particularly involving vulnerable pupils) or violation of the
rights of pupils;
dishonesty especially where there have been serious consequences, and/or it has
been repeated and/or covered up.
Even though there were behaviours that would point to the appropriateness of a
prohibition order, the panel went on to consider whether or not there were sufficient
18
mitigating factors to militate against the appropriateness and proportionality of a
prohibition order, particularly taking into account the nature and severity of the behaviour
in this case.
[Redacted]
Mr Keen demonstrated insight and deep remorse for his actions and apologised for his
behaviour.
He indicated he was “deeply ashamed” of his actions and admitted that he had made bad
decisions and that he had let himself down. He claimed that he had learnt his lesson and
that he had already been punished significantly by having to leave his permanent job, by
having to endure the sudden loss of contact with friends and colleagues at the school
and by receiving a two year ban from administering Pearson qualifications. He indicated
that he had a family of four children to support and that he would struggle to cope
financially should a prohibition order be made against him.
The panel also accepted that there were problems with the school’s resistant materials
equipment which meant that Mr Keen’s pupils had been put at a disadvantage in terms of
completing the controlled assessment work prior to the deadline. The panel accepted Mr
Keen’s account that this had compounded the situation.
Finally, the panel took into consideration the character statements provided by the head
of technology at Mr Keen’s previous school and the head of expressive art in Mr Keen’s
current school in which he was praised as a teacher and was described as “reliable”,
“enthusiastic”, “highly motivated” and “committed”. The panel also took into consideration
Mr Keen’s previously good history.
The panel considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no
recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made
by the panel would be sufficient.
The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen,
recommending no prohibition order would be a proportionate and appropriate response.
Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour was at the less serious end of the
possible spectrum and in light of the mitigating factors that were present in this case (see
above), the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be
appropriate in this case.
The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it has made was
sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher, as to the standards of
behaviour that are not acceptable and meets the public interest requirement of declaring
proper standards of the profession.
Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State
19
I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the
panel in respect of sanction.
In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the
Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers.
In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that those
proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring
the profession into disrepute.
The panel has recommended that the findings of unacceptable professional conduct /
conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute should be published and that such an
action is proportionate and in the public interest.
In particular, the panel has found that Mr Keen is in breach of the following standards:
Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and
practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their
own attendance and punctuality.
Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory
frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.
The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Keen fell significantly short of the standards
expected of the profession.
The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a finding of dishonesty
and lack of integrity.
I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in
the public interest. In considering that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a
prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the
profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would
achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher.
I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published
finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession
into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider
whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have
considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Keen and the impact that will have on
him, is proportionate and in the public interest.
In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect
children. The panel has not commented on this. However the panel has mentioned that it,
“took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others and considered
the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community.
The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in
20
pupils’ lives and that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way they
behave.
The panel found that Mr Keen’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession
into disrepute.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being
present in the future.
I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which the
panel sets out as follows, “Mr Keen demonstrated insight and deep remorse for his
actions and apologised for his behaviour. ” The panel has also commented that Mr Keen,
“ indicated he was “deeply ashamed” of his actions and admitted that he had made bad
decisions and that he had let himself down. He claimed that he had learnt his lesson and
that he had already been punished significantly by having to leave his permanent job, by
having to endure the sudden loss of contact with friends and colleagues at the school
and by receiving a two year ban from administering Pearson qualifications”. In my
judgement, the insight and remorse shown means there is minimal risk of the repetition of
this behaviour. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my
decision.
I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public
confidence in the profession. The panel observe, “The panel found that Mr Keen
demonstrated a lack of integrity; that he abused his position of trust and that he acted
dishonestly. In light of this, a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper
standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr
Keen was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated” I am particularly mindful of
the finding of dishonesty in this case and the impact that such a finding has on the
reputation of the profession.
I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of
all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a
failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to
consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed
citizen.”
I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional
conduct, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as
being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this
case.
I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Keen himself. The panel
comment it, “took into consideration the character statements provided by the head of
technology at Mr Keen’s previous school and the head of expressive art in Mr Keen’s
current school in which he was praised as a teacher and was described as “reliable”,
“enthusiastic”, “highly motivated” and “committed”. The panel also took into consideration
Mr Keen’s previously good history.”
21
A prohibition order would prevent Mr Keen from teaching. A prohibition order would also
clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in
force.
In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning the
insight and remorse shown by Mr Keen. I have also given weight to the mitigating factors
the panel outline and the panel’s view that the, “nature and severity of the behaviour was
at the less serious end of the possible spectrum.”
I have given weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr
Keen has made to the profession.
For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not appropriate or
proportionate in light of the circumstances in this case and agree with the panel that, “the
publication of the adverse findings it has made was sufficient to send an appropriate
message to the teacher, as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable and
meets the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession.”
Decision maker: Dawn Dandy
Date: 18 January 2019
This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of
State.