Miss Claire Morgan

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Miss Claire Morgan

Location teacher worked: Birmingham, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 26 to 28 February and 12 April 2024

Outcome type: no order made

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Miss Claire Morgan, formerly employed in Birmingham, West Midlands

Miss Claire Morgan: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Physical exhibits 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 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: Ms Claire Morgan TRA reference: 18278 Date of determination: 12 April 2024 Former employer: Nechells E-ACT Primary Academy, Birmingham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened in a hybrid hearing on 26 February 2024 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, and virtually on 27 to 28 February 2024 and 12 April 2024 to consider the case of Miss Claire Morgan. The panel members were Mr Terry Hyde (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Michelle Barlow Ward (teacher panellist) and Mrs Zabin Chauhan (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Ben Schofield of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Mark Millin of Kingsley Napley LLP. Miss Morgan was present and represented by Mr Jonathan Storey instructed by the National Education Union. The hearing took place in public, apart from some evidence which was heard in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 5 December 2023. It was alleged that Miss Morgan was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst a teacher at Nechells E-ACT Primary Academy (Eliot Street, Nechells, Birmingham, B7 5LB) (the "School"): 1) In relation to the English Reading, Maths Paper 1 (arithmetic) and Maths Paper 2 (reasoning) examinations on 15 May 2018 and 16 May 2018, she gave pupils an unfair advantage in that she: a) Invited pupils, if they were unsure of an answer, to ask a teacher to confirm whether their answer was correct; b) Told pupils to remember certain topics from their books; c) Referred pupils back to content covered in previous lessons; d) Wrote the method that a pupil needed to follow on their examination paper; e) Said to a pupil words to the effect of "just make sure you divide them equally"; f) Pointed at certain questions so that pupils were aware that their answer was incorrect; g) Prompted pupils to change their answer by i. saying words to the effect of "are you sure about that question"; ii. saying words to the effect of "think about that one again"; iii. indicating with your facial expressions. h) Nodded if pupils had corrected a previously incorrect answer; i) Caused or permitted a teaching assistant, namely Individual A, to give pupils an unfair advantage, contrary to STA Key Stage 2 guidance on Test Administration 2018; j) Offered pupils additional time to complete the papers, despite those pupils not being approved for such additional time; 2) By her conduct set out in paragraph 1, she a) was dishonest 5 b) failed to act with integrity. Miss Morgan either denied or did not indicate a position to all the allegations, save for allegation 1(g)(iii), which she admitted. Preliminary applications Application to hear part of the evidence in private Mr Storey made an application for parts of hearing touching on evidence regarding [REDACTED] to be heard in private. He submitted there was no competing public interest factor for that evidence to be considered in public. Mr Millin did not oppose the application. The panel agreed with Mr Storey’s submissions and granted the application. 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 7 to 9 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 10 to 14 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 15 to 40 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 41 to 681 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 682 to 872 Physical exhibits Also made available to the panel were the physical copies of the relevant test papers. In light of the evidence given by the parties witnesses, which did not place any reliance on these physical exhibits, the panel did not find it necessary to inspect these exhibits to assist them with their findings and did not take them into account in their decision- making. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called on behalf of the TRA:  Witness A ([REDACTED] at E-ACT Multi-Academy Trust);  Witness B ([REDACTED] at the Standards and Testing Agency). 6 The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called on behalf of the teacher:  Claire Morgan (the teacher);  Witness C (character witness);  Witness D (character witness). Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Miss Morgan qualified as a teacher in 2009. In 2017, Miss Morgan took up position as a teacher at Nechells E-ACT Primary Academy (“School”) which was part of the E-ACT multi academy trust (“Trust”). Prior to 2016, Miss Morgan had spent a number of years at another primary school in the Trust. In September 2018, Miss Morgan was appointed as a deputy headteacher. In 2017, the Standards and Testing Agency (“STA”), an executive agency of the Department for Education, (who are responsible for the administration of Key Stage 2 SATs) received an anonymous allegation regarding the School’s management of their SATs exams. Following a review of the test papers by the STA, no concerns were identified, but they asked for the Local Authority to undertake an inspection and to monitor the third Maths paper in 2018 round of exams. As a result of the STA’s further analysis of the 2018 SATs papers, particularly when compared against the externally moderated paper, it decided the results for that year were unsound and annulled the scores given. Therefore, the pupils for that year group were not given any SATs grades. Once this was communicated to the School, the Trust began its own investigation interviewing a number of pupils and staff members. Miss Morgan was involved in the test administration for the relevant papers and therefore her actions were subject to the School’s investigation. Miss Morgan did not complete any full interviews with the School’s investigators as she [REDACTED] and eventually resigned. The panel heard evidence from Witness A, who confirmed that she was present during these interviews and that the notes were an accurate reflection of what was said during them. She explained that for the pupil interviews, her colleague, Colleague A, who was [REDACTED], conducted the questioning as she had more experience with talking with young children. Witness A further explained that Colleague A had employed a number of techniques, such as revisiting the same questions later on in the interview and re- phrasing them to ensure that they had fully understood and not misinterpreted the pupils’ answers. 7 The panel heard evidence from Witness B, who undertook the investigation as part of her role at the STA. She provided evidence on the underlying analysis which included the comparisons between the national averages, unmoderated papers and the external moderated paper and various factors such as attempted and un-attempted questions and corrections. Whilst the panel gave no weight to the opinions of Witness B or the STA’s own conclusions, the panel was satisfied that the underlying evidence demonstrated there was a real question regarding the proper administration of the unmoderated SATs tests at the School. The panel heard evidence from Miss Morgan. She explained the very difficult circumstances that were occurring at the school at the time. This had included [REDACTED] and a recent partial collapse of the school buildings [REDACTED]. This had resulted in the SATs having to take place at a different school. Miss Morgan also gave evidence about [REDACTED] pressures from multiple roles she was expected to perform at the School, without receiving the appropriate levels of support. Much of Miss Morgan’s evidence was to the effect that she had little recollection of the events due to the passage of time [REDACTED]. There were no witnesses called by the TRA who gave direct evidence regarding the allegations. The TRA essentially relied on the hearsay evidence of interview notes of pupils and Individual A taken by the Trust investigators in support of the allegations against Miss Morgan. The panel firstly considered whether this evidence should be admitted into the proceedings at all, particularly as it noted the hearsay evidence would effectively be the sole and decisive evidence against Miss Morgan. The panel took into account that Miss Morgan was legally represented in these proceedings and had agreed for this material to be placed before the panel. The panel also benefited from being able to receive full submissions from Mr Storey in regards to the caution that should be applied when considering such evidence. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that in these circumstances it would be fair to admit the hearsay evidence into the proceedings. Having admitted the hearsay evidence the panel further considered what, if any, weight should be attributed to the accounts. In regards to the pupils, the panel noted that the interviews took place in the October following the summer holidays. The panel considered this passage of time was unlikely to have materially affected the memories o