Mr John Dixon

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 John Dixon

Teacher reference number: 3957387

Teacher's date of birth: 21 February 1987

Location teacher worked: Hackney, London

Date of professional conduct panel: 15 May 2023

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 John Dixon, formerly employed in Hackney, London.

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 John Dixon: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education May 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Statement of agreed facts 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr John Dixon Teacher ref number: 3957387 Teacher date of birth: 21 February 1987 TRA reference: 19982 Date of determination: 15 May 2023 Former employer: The Boxing Academy AP Free School, Hackney Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 15 May 2023, to consider the case of Mr Dixon. The panel members were Mrs Gemma Hutchinson (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Jeremy Phillips KC (lay panellist) and Dr Lee Longden (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Ellie Floyd 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 Dixon that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Dixon 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 Ms Louise Ravenscroft of Capsticks LLP, Mr Dixon. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 12 April 2023. It was alleged that Mr Dixon was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. On or around February 2021, he falsely recorded the HT3 Score and/or the Baseline Score for one or more pupils; 2. On or around February 2021, he falsely re-labelled one or more of the HR1 Fitness for Sport and Exercise papers as "HT3" for one or more pupils; 3. On or around February 2021, he falsely labelled the Fitness for Sport and Exercise paper for one or more pupils as "HT3" and "Feb, 21" when you knew or ought to have known that the assessment was not taken at that time; 4. On or around February 2021, he falsely submitted that the Fitness for Sport and Exercise paper for one or more pupils was for "HT1" when you knew or ought to have known that the assessment was not taken at that time; 5. On or around February 2021, he partially and/or fully completed the Fitness for Sport and Exercise paper for one or more pupils and/or falsely presented this paper as the work of one or more pupils; 6. By his conduct as set out in one or more of the following allegations, he was dishonest: a) Allegation 1; b) Allegation 2; c) Allegation 3; d) Allegation 4; e) Allegation 5. Mr Dixon admitted the facts of the case, unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications At the outset of the meeting, the legal adviser brought to the panel’s attention that the signed statement of agreed facts did not specifically include the wording “and Feb, 21” in relation to Allegation 3, namely that Mr Dixon falsely labelled the Fitness for Sport and Exercise paper for one or more pupils as “Feb, 21”. The panel considered whether it was necessary to adjourn the meeting for the presenting officer and teacher to make representations in relation to Allegation 3. 5 The panel considered that it was clear Mr Dixon admitted to all of the allegations, including that he falsely labelled the Fitness for Sport and Exercise paper for one or more pupils as “Feb, 21”. In particular, in an email dated 17 November 2022, the teacher stated “Yes, I confirm to admit all of the allegations set out.” Further, in his written response to Allegation 3, he states, “on or around February 2021 I falsely labelled the Fitness for Sport and Exercise Paper for one or more pupils as HT3 and Feb 21’.” The panel also noted that the notice of meeting contained a typographical error at allegation 2, namely reference to ‘HR1’. Allegations 1, 3 and 4 in the notice of meeting all reference ‘HT’ as opposed to ‘HR’, so the panel was satisfied that this was a typographical error. The panel considered whether to amend allegation 2. The panel has the power to, in the interests of justice, amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts of the case have been proved. The panel decided to amend allegation 2 to correct this error. The panel was satisfied that the corrections did not change the nature or scope of the allegations and there was no prospect of Mr Dixon’s case being presented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage, and therefore no unfairness or prejudice caused to the teacher. Mr Dixon had been notified of all of the allegations, including the correct references to ‘HT’ at allegations 1,3 and 4. The panel therefore decided to amend allegation 2 as follows: 2. On or around February 2021, he falsely re-labelled one or more of the HT1 Fitness for Sport and Exercise papers as "HT3" for one or more pupils; The panel did not consider it necessary in the interests of justice or the public interest for the case to be considered at a professional conduct panel hearing or for the meeting to be adjourned to take representations from the presenting officer and teacher on amending the statement of agreed facts. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 3 to 6 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 7 to 30 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 31 to 40 6 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 41 to 242 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 243 to 259 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 John Dixon on 23 January 2023. 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 John Dixon 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 Dixon had been employed by The Boxing Academy AP Free School (“the School”) as a teacher of P.E. from 4 June 2018. To track pupils’ data, the School requires teachers to assess pupils at the end of each half term, mark their assessments and provide the pupils’ assessment scores to the School. The School would then review the data to track pupils’ progress against their baseline grade. There was a requirement for this data to be accurate and reliable to allow for pupils’ progression and achievement to be properly assessed. Each ‘HT’ score is reviewed against the pupil’s previous scores to monitor their progress. In February 2021, Mr Dixon was required to provide the results of Year 11’s third pupil assessment scores (‘HT3’). On 22 February 2021, Mr Dixon attended a meeting with the Principal and admitted that he had falsified the pupils’ assessments for HT3. Mr Dixon resigned on 13 March 2021 during an internal investigation into his conduct and before a disciplinary meeting could be carried out. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 7 The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On or around February 2021, you falsely recorded the HT3 Score and/or the Baseline Score for one or more pupils; 2. On or around February 2021, you falsely re-labelled one or more of the HT1 Fitness for Sport and Exercise papers as "HT3" for one or more pupils; 3. On or around February 2021, you falsely labelled the Fitness for Sport and Exercise paper for one or more pupils as "HT3" and "Feb, 21" when you knew or ought to have known that the assessment was not taken at that time; 4. On or around February 2021, you falsely submitted that the Fitness for Sport and Exercise paper for one or more pupils was for "HT1" when you knew or ought to have known that the assessment was not taken at that time; 5. On or around February 2021, you partially and/or fully completed the Fitness for Sport and Exercise paper for one or more pupils and/or falsely presented this paper as the work of one or more pupils; 6. By his conduct as set out in one or more of the following allegations, you were dishonest: a) Allegation 1; b) Allegation 2; c) Allegation 3; d) Allegation 4; e) Allegation 5. On 17 November 2022, Mr Dixon responded to the notice of referral admitting all of the allegations. On 23 January 2023, in a statement of agreed facts, Mr Dixon admitted the allegations as set out above. He accepted that his conduct was dishonest. He also accepted that the allegations amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel has had sight of a witness statement of the [REDACTED], a witness statement of [REDACTED], and email exchanges included by the presenting officer which