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:

0338325

Teacher's date of birth:

17 October 1975

Location teacher worked:

Lincolnshire, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel:

13 April 2018

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 Kenneth Maidens, formerly employed in Lincolnshire, East Midlands.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on13 April 2018.

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 Kenneth Maidens: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2018 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 D. Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 E. Decision and reasons 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 6 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 9 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Kenneth Maidens Teacher ref number: 0338325 Teacher date of birth: 17 October 1975 TRA case reference: 16077 Date of determination: 13 April 2018 Former employer: Spalding Monkshouse Primary School, Spalding A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the Agency”) convened on 13 April 2018 at 53 – 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Kenneth Maidens. The panel members were Mr Geoffrey Penzer (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Sarah Evans (teacher panellist) and Mr Michael Lewis (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Danks of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the Agency was Ms Naomh Gibson of Browne Jacobson LLP Mr Maidens was present and was represented by Mr Ed Brown of NASUWT. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 5 October 2017 (as amended at the hearing). It was alleged that Mr Kenneth Maidens was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. At Boston Magistrates Court on 3 rd March 2017, he was convicted of assault by beating, an offence wh ich occurred on 27 th June 2016, contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, s39. He was given an unpaid work requirement and ordered to pay a Victim Surcharge of £85 and costs of £620. Mr Maidens accepted that he was convicted for the above offence. He therefore admitted allegation 1 as well as it being a relevant offence. There was however no Statement of Agreed Facts. C. Preliminary applications The panel cons idered an application from Ms Gibson to amend the allegation to more accurately reflect the wording of the offence within the Memorandum of Conviction. Mr Brown did not object and indeed stated he would have been making the same application were the Agency not to. In light of the amendment more appropriately reflecting the evidence and there being no objection to the application, it was clearly in the interests of justice for the application to be allowed. D. 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 1 to 10 Section 2: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 11 to 46 Section 3: Teacher documents – pages 47 to 67 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following document from Mr Maidens:  A parents' questionnaire from March 2016 as pages 68 to 70. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. 5 Witnesses The panel did not hear any oral evidence. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. Mr Maidens had been employed at Spalding Monkshouse Primary School since January 2016 as a teacher. On 27 June 2016, an incident involving physical force by Mr Maidens on Pupil A was witn essed by a student , which led to a concern being raised and Mr Maidens' suspension from Spalding Monkshouse Primary School. This incident led to Mr Maidens being criminally convicted in March 2017 of assault by beating. Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: We have found the followin g particular of the allegation against you proven, for these reasons: 1. At Boston Magistrates Court on 3 rd March 201 7, you were convicted of assault by beating, an offence which occurred on 27th June 2016, contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, s39. You were given an unpaid work requirement and ordered to pay a Victim Surcharge of £85 and costs of £620. The panel considered the Memorandum of Conviction at page 46 of the bundle, which provides unequivocal evidence that Mr Maidens was convicted of the offence as set out in the charge. The panel also note Mr Maidens ' admission to this conviction and finds this allegation proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mr Maidens in relation to the facts it has found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel consider that by reference to Part Two, Mr Maidens is in breach of the following standards:  Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by 6 o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position; o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions;  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted t hat the Mr Maidens' actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting. The incident leading to the conviction involved physical force on a pupil in a school setting and the panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety of pupils. The panel has also taken account of how the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Maidens' behaviour in committing the offence could affect the public confidence in the teaching profession given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Maidens' behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment which is indicative that the offence was at the less serious end of the possible spectrum. The panel are in no doubt that the conviction involved an element of violenc e. Whilst the degree of violence ma y be disputed, it is clear that any violence by a teacher against a pupil is completely unacc eptable and contrary to the necessary standards. It would be perverse for such a conviction of a teacher not to be considered relevant. The panel has also read Mr Maidens' evidence that the incident took place when he was trying to assist Pupil A. However, the panel considers that a finding that this conviction is a relevant offence is necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of Mr Maidens' conviction of a relevant offence , it is necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel has to consider whether it is an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it is in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have a punitive effect. The panel has considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and having done so has found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely: 7  the protection of pupils;  the maintenance of public confidence in the profession; and  declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In light of the panel’s findings that Mr Maidens' conviction involved a degree of violence against a pupil, there is a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils. Similarly, the panel considers that pub lic confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if cond uct such as that found against Mr Maidens was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel considered that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also presen t as the conduct found against Mr Maidens was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. Notwithstanding the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Maidens. In carrying out the balancing exercise , the panel has considered the public interest considerations both in favour of and against prohibition as well as the interests of Mr Maidens. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proven. In the list of such behaviours, those that are relevant in this case are:  serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards;  misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk;  abuse of position or trust involving a vulnerable pupil. Even though there were behaviours that would point to a prohibition order being appropriate, the panel went on to consider whether