Mr Colin Laughton

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: Mr Colin Laughton

Teacher reference number: 9538764

Teacher's date of birth: 28 October 1971

Location teacher worked: Tyne and Wear, north east England

Date of professional conduct panel: 9 September 2021

Outcome type: prohibition order

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 Mr Colin Laughton, formerly employed in Tyne and Wear, north east England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Colin Laughton: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2021 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Statement of Agreed Facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Colin Laughton Teacher ref number: 9538764 Teacher date of birth: 28 October 1971 TRA reference: 19383 Date of determination: 9 September 2021 Former employer: Hebburn Comprehensive School, Tyne and Wear Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 9 September 2021, remotely, to consider the case of Mr Colin Laughton. The panel members were Mr Kamal Hanif (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Hilary Jones (lay panellist) and Mr Graham Ralph (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Phil Taylor of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Laughton that the allegation(s) be considered without a hearing. Mr Laughton provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Ms Rebecca Neeson, Mr Laughton, or his representative Mr Richard Matkin of the NASUWT. The meeting took place in private, save for the announcement of the panel’s decision, which was announced in public and recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 2 September 2021. It was alleged that Mr Colin Laughton was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst a teacher at the Hebburn Comprehensive School he: 1. Between approximately 1 May 2019 to 8 July 2019: a) Awarded false marks for internally assessed components of one or more pupils’ coursework where there was no evidence to justify the marks awarded; b) Submitted false marks for one or more pupils; i. Before the pupil(s) had completed the work; and/or ii. Before he had seen the pupils' work; and/or iii. When the work was not the pupil(s) own work; c) Gave Pupil A 34 marks for her assessment coursework when she: i. Had not completed the assessment; ii. Should have received approximately 14 marks d) Substituted part of Pupil B's controlled assessment coursework to the exam board in place of Pupil A's controlled assessment coursework; 2. By his conduct in one or more of the following paragraphs, he was dishonest: a. Paragraph 1(a); b. Paragraph 1(b); c. Paragraph 1(c); d. Paragraph 1(d). Mr Laughton has admitted allegations 1 and 2 in their entirety, and has admitted that the facts of these allegations as admitted amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. 5 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and List of Key People – pages 1 to 2 Section 2: Notice of Referral, response and Notice of Meeting – pages 3 to 27 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 28 to 35 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 36 to 128 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 129 to 144 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Laughton on 1 September 2021. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Laughton for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Laughton was employed at the Hebburn Comprehensive School (the “School”) as Assistant Headteacher and Head of ICT until January 2020. On 8 July 2019, the examination board Oxford Cambridge and RSA (“OCR”) wrote to the Headteacher of the School in respect of a suspected malpractice regarding examinations and assessments carried out at the School. On 10 July, Mr Laughton admitted switching the work of one candidate for that of another. On 17 July, Mr Laughton provided further details to how he submitted part of Pupil B's controlled assessment in place of Pupil A's in order for Pupil A to achieve a higher mark. 6 On 18 July 2019, Mr Laughton submitted a statement to OCR in relation to the allegations. A management interview was held at the School on 6 September 2019. Mr Laughton attended the meeting. Following the meeting, Mr Laughton was suspended from the School pending further investigation. On 19 November 2019, OCR informed the School of their intention to refer Mr Laughton to the OCR Malpractice Committee for considerations of what sanctions, if any, should be applied. An OCR malpractice meeting was held on 9 January 2020, and the minutes of that meeting were sent to Mr Laughton on 4 February 2020. In the meantime, Mr Laughton's employment at Hebburn Comprehensive School ceased on 15 January 2020. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: Whilst a teacher at the Hebburn Comprehensive School you: 1. Between approximately 1 May 2019 to 8 July 2019: a) Awarded false marks for internally assessed components of one or more pupils coursework where there was no evidence to justify the marks awarded; This allegation was supported by evidence provided to the panel, notably the Statement of Agreed Facts signed by Mr Laughton on 1 September 2021 in which Mr Laughton clearly and unequivocally admitted awarding marks for work not yet submitted based on previous work and the anticipated quality of future work, which in some cases had not ultimately been submitted. The panel did not consider there to be any evidence in the bundle which cast doubt on the veracity or reliability of Mr Laughton’s admissions. On the balance of probabilities, the panel therefore found this allegation to be proved. b) Submitted false marks for one or more pupils; i. Before the pupil(s) had completed the work; and/or ii. Before you had seen the pupils' work; and/or iii. When the work was not the pupil(s) own work; 7 This allegation was supported by evidence provided to the panel, notably the Statement of Agreed Facts signed by Mr Laughton on 1 September 2021. Records of a management meeting held on 6 September 2019 showed that Mr Laughton specifically admitted awarding a certain number of marks to at least one pupil where there was little or no evidence of relevant work being completed, and that this was done on the basis of work they had previously handed in. Mr Laughton also unequivocally admitted that he was aware of the requirement of the exam board to “only mark work that is in front of you” and which had been completed and submitted by the pupil. Evidence in the hearing bundle also showed that Mr Laughton had: admitted, in a statement to OCR, substituting the work of one pupil for another; and re-iterated certain of his admissions in representations later made to the TRA. The panel did not consider there to be any evidence in the bundle which cast doubt on the veracity or reliability of Mr Laughton’s admissions. On the balance of probabilities, the panel therefore found this allegation to be proved. c) Gave Pupil A 34 marks for her assessment coursework when she: i. Had not completed the assessment; ii. Should have received approximately 14 marks This allegation was supported by evidence provided to the panel, notably the Statement of Agreed Facts signed by Mr Laughton on 1 September 2021. This was also supported by statements later made by Mr Laughton to OCR and the TRA. The panel did not consider there to be any evidence in the bundle which cast doubt on the veracity or reliability of Mr Laughton’s admissions. On the balance of probabilities, the panel therefore found this allegation to be proved. d) Substituted part of Pupil B's controlled assessment coursework to the exam board in place of Pupil A's controlled assessment coursework; This allegation was supported by evidence provided to the panel, notably the Statement of Agreed Facts signed by Mr Laughton on 1 September 2021. The panel noted that Mr Laughton had admitted, in a statement to OCR, substituting the work of one pupil for another. He had explained that having received notification from OCR that Pupil A’s work was required to be submitted for moderation, he noticed that Pupil A had not completed the relevant coursework, and decided to submit the work of Pupil B instead. In a management interview which took place on 17 July 2019, Mr Laughton had provided context for his decision but stated “there is no one else to blame but me”. 8 In the panel’s view, this was a clear and unequivocal admission, made relatively soon after the events in question. The panel did not consider there to be any evidence in the bundle which cast