Mr John Spelacy

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 Spelacy

Teacher reference number: 9738539

Teacher's date of birth: 13 May 1966

Location teacher worked: Fakenham, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 10 September 2024

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 Spelacy, formerly employed in Fakenham, East of 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 John Spelacy Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr John Spelacy Teacher ref number: 9738539 Teacher date of birth: 13 May 1966 TRA reference: 22583 Date of determination: 10 September 2024 Former employer: Fakenham Academy, Fakenham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 10 September 2024, to consider the case of Mr John Spelacy. The panel members were Mr Ian McKim (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist) and Ms Jan Stoddard (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Lauren Slater 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 Spelacy that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Spelacy 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 Carolyn Thackstone of Browne Jacobson LLP or Mr Spelacy. The meeting took place in private and recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 1 July 2024. It was alleged that Mr Spelacy was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. During the 2022 to 2023 academic year, in respect of the AS and A-Level English Language and English Literature Non-examined Assessments he; a. caused comments to be placed upon Assessment pupil work which exceeded the level of supervision permitted under guidelines issued by AQA b. caused amendments to be made to assessed pupil work contrary to AQA assessment guidelines c. provided feedback to pupils on assessment work which went beyond the level permitted by the AQA assessment guidelines 2. His conduct as may be found proven at 1 above, was conduct that lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Mr Spelacy admitted the facts of the allegations and that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Anonymised pupil list – page 4 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 6 to 21a Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 22 to 29 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 31 to 470 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 472 to 473 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. 5 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Spelacy on 10 April 2024. Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Spelacy 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 considered at the outset whether the allegation should be considered at a public hearing at which the parties would be entitled to attend, or a private meeting without the parties present. The panel considered the interests of justice and given that the facts of the allegation have been admitted, that Mr Spelacy requested a meeting and the panel has the benefit of Mr Spelacy’s representations, the panel was of the view that justice would be adequately served by considering this matter at a meeting. The panel carefully considered the public interest. The panel noted that if the case proceeded in a meeting, there would be a public announcement of the panel’s decision. The panel also had in mind that if a hearing was convened, there would be a cost to the public purse, which may not be justified if the matter could be determined in a meeting. The panel also had regard to the delay that would be caused by convening a hearing and considered it to be in the public interest to reach a final determination in this matter without further delay. The panel therefore decided to proceed with a meeting, but noted that it could, at any stage of the meeting, reconsider this issue. From 1 September 2002 to 31 August 2023, Mr Spelacy worked as an English Teacher at Fakenham Academy (the “School”) under the Sapientia Trust. Mr Spelacy resigned from the School on 31 August 2023. 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: 1. During the 2022 to 2023 academic year, in respect of the AS and A-Level English Language and English Literature Non-examined Assessments you: 6 a. caused comments to be placed upon Assessment pupil work which exceeded the level of supervision permitted under guidelines issued by AQA b. caused amendments to be made to assessed pupil work contrary to AQA assessment guidelines c. provided feedback to pupils on assessment work which went beyond the level permitted by the AQA assessment guidelines In the statement of agreed facts Mr Spelacy admitted these allegations in full. The panel was satisfied that Mr Spelacy’s admissions were clear and unequivocal. The panel carefully analysed the evidence before it. It noted that Mr Spelacy’s admission was consistent with the surrounding evidence in the bundle which consisted of the above- mentioned documents including examples of direct amendments and comments on pupil work submissions, the account provided by Mr Spelacy when he was interviewed as part of the investigation on 26 April 2023 and 3 May 2023, the AQA assessment guidelines, the School examination policy and code of conduct and the JCQ guidance. The panel found proven that Mr Spelacy had placed comments upon pupil assessments which exceeded the level of supervision permitted under guidelines issued by AQA, made amendments to pupil assessments contrary to AQA assessment guidelines and provided feedback to pupils on assessment work which went beyond the level permitted by the AQA assessment guidelines. The panel further noted that Mr Spelacy’s conduct contravened the AQA assessment guidelines and the School and JCQ assessment guidelines. Accordingly, the panel found the facts of allegation 1 proved. 2. Your conduct as found proven at 1 above, was conduct that lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. The panel noted that Mr Spelacy had admitted both dishonesty and lack of integrity in the statement of agreed facts. The panel noted that Mr Spelacy had stated in his letter dated 18 January 2024 that it would not have occurred to him at the time to see his actions as dishonest. The panel further was satisfied that Mr Spelacy’s conduct was dishonest and lacked integrity. In respect of integrity, the panel was satisfied that Mr Spelacy did not act with integrity as he did not adhere to the well-known ethical standards of the teaching profession. In respect of dishonesty, despite Mr Spelacy's assertion as to it not having occurred to him at the time that his actions were dishonest, the panel was satisfied that Mr Spelacy had knowledge that his actions were contrary to the AQA assessment criteria which had been provided to him on a number of occasions, most recently by email in November 2022. It was considered that the ordinary decent person would know that the conduct was dishonest. 7 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Spelacy, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to the Preamble of the Teachers’ Standards, Mr Spelacy was in breach of the requirement to act with honesty and integrity. Mr Spelacy was required to make the education of pupils his first concern, and in impacting the integrity of their assessments, he was not acting in their best interests. The panel further considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Spelacy was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality; and • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Spelacy fell significantly short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher. The panel also