Mr Kaleem Duncan

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 Kaleem Duncan

Teacher reference number: 9900737

Teacher's date of birth: 25 April 1971

Location teacher worked: Southwark, London

Date of professional conduct panel: 9 to 10 October 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 Kaleem Duncan, formerly employed in Southwark, 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 Kaleem Duncan: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 11 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 17 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 Kaleem Duncan Teacher ref number: 9900737 Teacher date of birth: 25 April 1971 TRA reference: 18974 Date of determination: 10 October 2023 Former employer: Ark Walworth Academy, London Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 9 to 10 October 2023 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Kaleem Duncan. The panel members were Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist) and Mrs Emma Hendry (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Josie Beal of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Charlotte Watts of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Duncan was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 5 July 2023. It was alleged that Mr Duncan was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. Whilst applying for the role of Science Teacher at Ark Walworth Academy and/or following his appointment, he provided false and/or misleading information, and/or failed to disclose relevant information, namely; a. Claimed to have the following qualifications which he did not in fact hold and/or failed to evidence: i. QTS Certificate ii. Degree Certificate iii. Teaching Qualifications b. Held himself out as holding QTS when this was not the case; c. Failed to provide references upon request; d. Failed to disclose that he had worked at: i. Bethnal Green Academy (now Mulberry Academy) 2000-2015 ii. Ark Elvin Academy 2015-2016 e. Stated that he had a career break due to illness in 2015-2016 when in fact he had worked at Ark Elvin Academy; f. Failed to disclose that his employment at Bethnal Green Academy (now Mulberry Academy) ended when he was dismissed for gross misconduct. 2. His conduct as may be found proven at 1 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest in that he: a. Misrepresented himself to gain and/or retain employment as a qualified teacher; b. Sought to conceal a disciplinary incident in order to obtain and/or retain employment. 5 Preliminary applications The panel noted that since the date of the referral to the TRA in this case, new ‘Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ were published in May 2020 (the ‘May 2020 Procedures’). The panel understands that the earlier provisions contained within the April 2018 Procedures (the ‘April 2018 Procedures’) apply to this case, given that those provisions applied when the referral was made. Although the panel has the power to direct that the May 2020 Procedures should apply in the interests of justice or the public interest, the panel had received no representations that this should be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, the panel confirms that it has applied the April 2018 Procedures in this case. Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Duncan was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Duncan. The panel was provided with a bundle of documents relevant to the presenting officer’s application to proceed in the absence, which demonstrated extensive attempts by the TRA to contact Mr Duncan. This included: • Trace reports undertaken on 16 February 2021 and June 2022. • Attempts to contact Mr Duncan by post at various address, including those identified by the trace report, those included in the referral form and those provided by another school where Mr Duncan was said to have worked between June 2020 and August 2021. • Attempts to contact Mr Duncan by telephone. • Attempts to contact Mr Duncan by email. The attempts to contact Mr Duncan were unsuccessful: letters were returned marked as “not known at this address”, “not called for” and “undelivered”; telephone calls were not answered; and emails were not responded to. Mr Duncan did not engage with the TRA at all. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr Duncan in accordance with the April 2018 Procedures. The panel was also satisfied that the TRA 6 had done all it reasonably could to notify Mr Duncan of the professional conduct panel hearing. The panel concluded that Mr Duncan’s absence was voluntary and that he was or ought to be aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Duncan had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. The panel was aware that a hearing had previously been listed for November 2022 which was postponed by the TRA. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Duncan was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place, particularly given the time that had already elapsed between the alleged conduct that gave rise to the allegations against Mr Duncan and the professional conduct panel hearing. Finally, the panel considered the effect on the TRA’s three witnesses of a further delay to these proceedings. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings wer e as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Duncan was neither present nor represented. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 19 • Section 2: TRA witness statements – pages 21 to 68 • Section 3: TRA documents – pages 70 to 292 • Section 4: Teacher documents – none provided The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. 7 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • [REDACTED] • [REDACTED] • [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. On 16 May 2019, Mr Duncan submitted an application for the position of Teacher of Physics at Ark Walworth Academy (‘the School’). He applied via the Times Educational Supplement (“TES”). Mr Duncan’s application form contained details of three previous positions: • Science Teacher at [REDACTED] from September 2018. • Science Teacher at [REDACTED] from September 2017 to July 2018. • Science Teacher at [REDACTED] from September 2016 to July 2017. The application form also contained various questions and declarations. Those pertinent to this matter are as follows: • On the first page of the application form, Mr Duncan included a Department of Education number for himself; answered “yes” to indicate that he had QTS; and answered “B. Ed at RTP (London, GB) 2000-2003” in respect of his teacher training. • In response to a question about whether there were gaps in his employment history, Mr Duncan wrote: “Yes – From Summer 2015 to summer 2016”. • In the education section there was a space to insert details of Mr Duncan’s higher education qualifications, however none were provided. The application form reads “Higher education, none provided”. • In the referees section Mr Duncan gave three referees, one from [REDACTED], one from [REDACTED] and one from [REDACTED], an agency. 8 • In the declaration section there was a question about whether Mr Duncan had been subject to any disciplinary action in his current or previous positions, or had any allegations made against him. This question was marked as “Not answered”. [REDACTED], and [REDACTED], interviewed Mr Duncan on 20 May 2019. [REDACTED] told the panel that, during the interview, [REDACTED] asked Mr Duncan whether he had been subject to any previous disciplinary action and he confirmed that he had not. [REDACTED] was also mindful of the gaps in Mr Duncan’s employment history. In [REDACTED] oral evidence, [REDACTED] told the panel that the School’s application form requires job applicants to set out their entire employment history. [REDACTED] said that some applicants find this cumbersome, especially as they may not even be selected for interview. Therefore, whilst it is not good practice, some applicants do not include their employment history on their application forms. Mr Duncan applied for the role via the TES, which [REDACTED] said was an easier application form to complete as the TES stores an applicant’s employment history which can be easily transported into different application forms. [REDACTED] made a verbal and conditional offer of employment to Mr Duncan for the role of Teacher of Science at the end of the interview on a one year fixed term contract. [REDACTED] handwrote on his application form: “Appointed 1 yr fixed term. Subject to comp