Unknown Teacher

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

Teacher reference number:

8940653

Teacher's date of birth:

16 May 1968

Location teacher worked:

Leamington Spa, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel:

17 June 2019

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 David Farrar, formerly employed in Leamington Spa, West Midlands.

The proceedings were held at 5 Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 17 June 2019.

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 David Farrar: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 3 C. Preliminary applications 4 D. Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 E. Decision and reasons 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr David Farrar Teacher ref number: 8940653 Teacher date of birth: 16 May 1968 TRA reference: 17411 Date of determination: 20 June 2019 Former employer: Shrubland Street Community Primary School and Kingsway Community Primary School A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 17 June 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr David Farrar. The panel members were Mrs Kathy Thomson (te acher panellist – in the chair), Mr John Matharu (lay panellist), and Mr Peter Cooper (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Danks of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms. Naomh Gibson of Browne Jacobson LLP. Mr David Farrar was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 18 April 2019. It was alleged that Mr David Farrar was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as Head teacher of Shrubland Street Primary School ('Shrubland') and/or Executive Head teacher of Kingsway Primary School ('Kingsway') between 2009 and 2018: 1. During the 2015/2016 academic year at Shrubland, he caused and / or permitted and / or failed to prevent the submission of inaccurate teacher assessment data in respect of the 2015/2016 Key Stage 2 national curr iculum assessments; 4 2. His conduct may be found proven at 1 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest; 3. During the 2016/2017 academic year at Kingsway, he engaged in inappropriate and/or unnecessary physical contact with one or more pupils, including: a. on or around 16 February 2017 with Pupil A; b. on or around 28 February 2017 with Pupil B. 4. He exchanged one or more emails of a personal and/or inappropriate nature using his work email address(es) at Shrubland and/or during working hours, including: a. emails including and/or attaching inappropriate images; b. emails including inappropriate language; c. emails relating to online gaming. 5. He failed to adequately manage and/or safeguard the financial affairs of Shrubland in that he: a. authorised payment of one or mo re invoices to Individual A in respect of work which had not been adequately and/or accurately recorded; b. authorised payment of one or more invoices to Individual A, despite there being no formalised and/or written contract and/or service agreement in place between the School and Individual A for payment. In the Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts, Mr Farrar explicitly admitted allegation 4 and that particulars 4a and 4b amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The remainder of the allegations were disputed. C. Preliminary applications The panel considered an application from Ms Gibson to proceed in the absence of Mr Farrar. 5 Ms Gibson confirmed that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr Farrar, at a known address, on 18 April 2019. She confirmed that the Notice of Proceedings contained all of the relevant information as required by the rules. Ms Gibson explained that Mr Farrar had recently sent correspondence to her dated 1 3 June 2019. This letter stated: "I do not propose to attend or be represented at the hearing and do not oppose it proceeding in my absence…Over the past two years, I have found the process overwhelmingly [traumatic and draining] and cannot contemplate the hearing process even though as will be apparent from my statement I do not accept all of the allegations made against me." The panel determined that the Notice of Proceedings had been properly served on Mr Farrar in compliance with the rules. As to whether it was fair to proceed in hi s absence, the panel accepted the legal advice and noted that the Notice of Proceedings form stated that "The panel can decide to go ahead with the hearing even if you do not attend". This warning, in conjunction with the correspondence from Mr Farrar dated 13 June 2019, was sufficient for the panel to determine Mr Farrar was aware of the hearing and had deliberately absented himself. There had been no suggestion, nor request, from Mr Farrar that an adjournment may lead to his attendance and, in any event , his position on the charges was clear from the papers and signed witness statement. Whilst the panel did note that there was reference to Mr Farrar finding the process 'traumatic and draining'. The panel determined that Mr Farrar had deliberately absen ted himself, there was no suggestion that an adjournment would secure his attendance and the panel also felt it to be in his own interest for these matters to be resolved expeditiously. In all the circumstances, it was in the interests of justice for the h earing to proceed in Mr Farrar's absence and therefore allowed the application. The panel also considered an application from Ms Gibson to amend allegation 5b, by way of the insertion of "formalised and/or written contract and/or service agreement". Ms Gibson explained that the inclusion of the words was in the interests of justice as it more accurately reflected the agreed facts as set out in the Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts and that Individual A was not an employee. As a result there was n o unfairness to Mr Farrar and, by an email dated 17 June 2019, his solicitor had confirmed there was no objection to the amendment. In the light of the amendments being minimal and reflecting the true position of the agreed facts, the panel considered it was in interests of justice to allow the application. 6 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 1 to 4 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 6 to 22 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 24 to 47 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 49 to 478 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 480 to 511 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Correspondence from Mr Farrar dated 13 June 2019 – page 512. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from • Witness (Individual) A • Witness B • Witness C • Witness D • Witness E • Witness F All of the above witnesses were called on behalf of the TRA. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered the case before it and has reached a decision. The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. 7 Mr Farrar had been employed at Shrubland Street Primary School ('Shrubland') as Head teacher from 1 September 2009. In the 2016/2017 academic year, he was also appointed as Executive Headmaster of Kingsway Primary School ('Kingsway') when the two schools entered into a joint federation. In February 2017, an allegation was made to the police that Mr Farr ar had used an inappropriate technique to restrain a Kingsway pupil and he was suspended from both schools on 1 March 2017. Following Mr Farrar's suspension, an investigation took place, which led to further concerns being raised regarding his behaviour and he was dismissed from his role in February 2018. Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: The panel has found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for these reasons: It was alleged that Mr David Farrar was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as Head teacher of Shrubland Street Primary School ('Shrubland') and/or Executive Head teacher of Kingsway Primary School ('Kingsway') between 2009 and 2018: 1. During the 2015/2016 academic year at Shrubland, you caused and / or permitted and / or failed to prevent the submission of inaccurate teacher assessment data in respect of the 2015/2016 Key Stage 2 national curriculum assessments The panel heard live evidence on this allegation from Witness E, who explained that in the 2015/2016 academic year, she was a Year 6 Classroom Teacher at Shrubland. As part of her role, she undertook Teacher Assessments ('TAs') on those pupils in her class in order to assess their proficiency in, amongst other skills, English Writing. In evidence, Witness E explained that the Year 6 class pupils were extremely challenging, to such an extent that, for the previous two academic years, the class had been split into two classes by Mr Farrar to minimise disruption. Mr Farrar had, however, combined them again for Year 6 for reasons that Witness E had not been told. Witness E said that English and Mathematics were scheduled to be taught for one hour per subject each morning. However, extra -curricular activities at Shrubland, especially cheerleading, would often take preceden