Mr Dale Hills

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 Dale Hills

Teacher reference number: 0043047

Teacher's date of birth: 18 May 1979

Location teacher worked: Tewkesbury, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 28 November 2025

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 Dale Hills formerly employed in Tewkesbury, South West 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 Dale Hills: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 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 12 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 16 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Dale Hills Teacher ref number: 0043047 Teacher date of birth: 18 May 1979 TRA reference: 24425 Date of determination: 28 November 2025 Former employer: CCT Learning Abbey View School, Gloucestershire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 28 November 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Dale Hills. The panel members were Mr Richard Young (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist) and Mrs Natalie Moore (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons 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 Hills that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Hills provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Jon Walters of Brabners LLP, Mr Hills or his representative, Mr Colin Henderson of The Reflective Practice. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 3 September 2025. It was alleged that Mr Hills was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that while a teacher at the CCT Learning Abbey View School (“the School”): 1. On or around 8 May 2024, he created the following pupil risk assessments (“the Documents”): a. Pupil risk assessment in relation to Child A (Document A); b. Pupil risk assessment in relation to Child B (Document B); c. Pupil risk assessment in relation to Child C (Document C). 2. He falsely: a. In respect of Document A: i. backdated the document to 7 February 2024 without having declared that he had done so; ii. completed the document in the name of [REDACTED]. b. In respect of Document B: i. Backdated the document to 27 October 2023 without having declared that he had done so; ii. Completed the document in the name of Person A; iii. Asserted that a review had taken place on 17 May 2024, when it had not. c. In respect of Document C: i. Backdated the document to 29 June 2023 without having declared that he had done so; ii. Completed the document in the name of Person A; iii. Asserted that a review had taken place on 25 May 2024 when it had not. 3. On or around 9 May 2024, he provided the Documents to Ofsted inspectors. 5 4. His conduct in paragraphs 1 – 3 was intended to mislead the Ofsted inspectors. 5. His conduct in paragraphs 1 – 3 above was dishonest by reason of paragraph 4. Mr Hills admitted the allegations and admitted that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: anonymised person list – page 3 to 7 Section 2: statement of agreed facts – pages 8 to 11 Section 3: notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 12 to 33 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 34 to 125 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 126 to 129 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Hills on 10 July 2025. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Hills 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. 6 Mr Hills was employed as principal at the School from 1 September 2021 and was the Designated Safeguarding Lead. An Ofsted inspection took place at the School between 8 and 10 May 2024. He was dismissed from his employment on 24 July 2024. He was referred to the TRA on 19 September 2024. 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: While a teacher at the CCT Learning Abbey View School (“the School”): 1. On or around 8 May 2024, you created the following pupil risk assessments (“the Documents”): a. Pupil risk assessment in relation to Child A (Document A); b. Pupil risk assessment in relation to Child B (Document B); c. Pupil risk assessment in relation to Child C (Document C). In the statement of agreed facts, Mr Hills admitted that he was responsible for the completion and the backdating of the Documents. The panel noted that this accorded with Mr Hills’ response during the School’s investigation in a meeting held on 23 May 2024. The record of this meeting states that “Without prompting, he volunteered that he had written three risk assessments …. And that he had back dated [sic] them on the evening of the first day of the Ofsted inspection. He then gave these risk assessments to the inspectors on the following day leading them to question their authenticity with the Chair.” The note also records that Person A who was also in attendance confirmed that he “does not write any risk assessments.” The panel noted that at Mr Hills’ disciplinary hearing, he was asked if he had written the risk assessments himself. He responded that he took “full responsibility for the risk assessments. It was under my direction.” He was asked “who put pen to paper on those risk assessments?” and responded, “I take full responsibility.” The panel noted that Mr Hills’ responses were somewhat evasive. Nevertheless, in light of Mr Hills’ earlier admissions and his subsequent admissions, the panel found it more likely than not that Mr Hills had created the Documents. The panel reviewed the Documents and screenshots of the properties of each of the Documents confirming that they were each created on the evening of 8 May 2024. 7 The panel noted that in Mr Hills’ representations for this hearing, Mr Hills stated that he recognised that he had made a poor decision. The panel found this allegation proven. 2. You falsely: a. In respect of Document A i. Backdated the document to 7 February 2024 without having declared that you had done so; ii. Completed the document in the name of [REDACTED]. The panel noted that in the anonymity key [REDACTED] is Person A. In the statement of agreed facts, Mr Hills admitted that Document A was completed in the name of Person A, who was employed as an assistant principal at the School and dated 7 February 2024. He admitted that Person A was not involved in completing Document A. He admitted that the metadata for the assessment showed that the document was created at 19:22 on 8 May 2024. Mr Hills admitted that Document A was backdated so that it appeared to have been completed earlier than it had been, and that he was responsible for backdating the document. The panel noted that Mr Hills’ admissions were consistent with his response during the School’s investigation in a meeting held on 23 May 2024 referred to in allegation 1 above. The panel reviewed Document A and noted that it was completed in the name of Person A and bore the date 7 February 2024. The panel also saw a screenshot of the properties of the document confirming that it was created at 19:22 on 8 May 2024. Based on the above evidence, the panel found that it was more likely than not that Mr Hills had falsely backdated Document A to 7 February 2024 without having declared that he had done so, and completed the document in the name of [REDACTED]. The panel noted that in Mr Hills’ representations for this hearing, Mr Hills stated that he recognised that he had made a poor decision. The panel found this allegation proven. b. In respect of Document B: i. Backdated the document to 27 October 2023 without having declared that you had done so; ii. Completed the document in the name of Person A; 8 iii. Asserted that a review had taken place on 17 May 2024, when it had not. In the statement of agreed facts, Mr Hills admitted that Document B was completed in the name of Person A and dated 24 November 2023. The panel considered this to have been an erroneous date, having reviewed Document B as referred to below. 24 November 2023 was the date of the purported first review rather than being the purported date of creation. He admitted that Person A was not involved in completing Document B. He admitted that the metadata for the assessment showed that the document was created at 18:22 on 8 May 2024. Mr Hills admitted that Document B was backdated so that it appeared to have been completed earlier than it had been, and that he was res