Mr Mark Chalcroft

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 Mark Chalcroft

Teacher reference number: 99/02632

Teacher's date of birth: 18 December 1970

Location teacher worked: St Albans, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 16 to 17 March 2026

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 Mark Chalcroft formerly employed in St Albans, 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.

OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Mr Mark Chalcroft: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2026 2 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15 3 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Professional conduct panel hearing decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mark Chalcroft Teacher ref number: 99/02632 Teacher date of birth: 18 December 1970 TRA reference: 0019432 Date of determination: 17 March 2026 Former employer: Watling View School, St Albans Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT between 16 and 17 March 2026 to consider the case of Mr Mark Chalcroft. The panel members were Mrs Christine McLintock (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Jonathan Wettreich (lay panellist) and Ms Helen Knee (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Tom Walker of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Caroline Collins of Capsticks LLP. The teacher was present but was not represented. The hearing took place in public, with some sections in private, and was recorded. 4 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 9 October 2025. It was alleged that Mr Chalcroft was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or conviction of a relevant offence, in that: Relevant Offence 1. On or around 22 February 2019, he was convicted of the following relevant offence: a. D riving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. UPC/ Disrepute He is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: 2. While employed as a teacher at John F Kennedy school between September 2000 and May 2014: a. On or around 18 October 2008, whilst Person A was holding her child, he pulled Person A causing her to fall backwards. b. On 14 November 2008, he ac cepted a police caution for the offence of c ommon assault in respect of his conduct at Allegation 2(a) above. 3. While employed as a teacher at Watling View School (“the School”) he: a. Failed to disclose to the School the conviction at A llegation 1 above, either promptly or at all. b. Told the School, that h e accepted the police caution at Allegation 2(b), for “grabbing a burglar” or words to that effect, when that was not the case. c. Failed to declare to the School, within the Staff Suitability Declaration form dated September 2018, the police caution referred to at Allegation 2(b). 4 . His conduct at any or all of Allegations 3(a) -(c), as may be found proved, was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. Mr Chalcroft admitted Allegations 1, 2 and 3. Allegation 4 was not admitted. In the course of the hearing, Mr Chalcroft gave evidence which indicated that his admission to allegation 3b was equivocal and thus the panel regarded this as disputed. 5 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE 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 7 to 9 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 10 to 42 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 43 to 48 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 49 to 718 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 719 to 722 On the day of the hearing, additional documents were submitted by Mr Chalcroft, which comprised 15 pages . These were admitted by the panel on the basis that they were relevant and there was no unfairness in their admission. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from Mr Chalcroft. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. The panel was presented with a statement of agreed facts which set out an agreed factual background to this case. Mr Chalcroft was employed as a teacher at John F Kennedy school between September 2000 and May 2014 and then as Assistant Head Teacher until February 2016. Mr Chalcroft was then employed at Watling View School from February 2016 as an Assistant Head Teacher. In 2008, Mr Chalcroft was involved in a confrontation arising out of a personal argument over property which resulted in him pushing Person A. Mr Chalcr oft was subsequently 6 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE interviewed by the police and received a caution for the offence of common assault. Mr Chalcroft accepted that his actions were in the presence of a child and had exposed the child and Person A to a risk of harm. It was accepted that no injury had been caused. Between 2000 and 2016, Mr Chalcroft was employed at John F Kennedy School. He subsequently applied for a new role at Watling View School . In 2018, Mr Chalcroft was asked to complete a staff suitability declaration which asked him whether he had received any cautions or convictions either before or during his employment at Watling View School. Mr Chalcroft answered ‘no’ to this question. The following year, in early 2019, Mr Chalcroft was convicted of drink driving. Mr Chalcroft did not disclose this to his employer until several weeks after the conviction. His disclosure arose during a telephone conversation in which his employer asked him whether he needed to disclose anything after they had already been notified of the conviction. Mr Chalcroft had a long record of [REDACTED] . The panel was presented with medical evidence which confirmed this. Mr Chalcroft gave evidence to the effect that his [REDACTED] had exacerbated what happened between 2018 and 2019, and he asserted that at the time he had not developed the insight to recognise this or take remedial action. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On or around 22 February 2019, you were convicted of the following relevant offence: a. Driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The panel received a memorandum of conviction and a PNC printout which confirmed the conviction. Mr Chalcroft also admitted that he had been convicted of this offence. The panel found the factual element of this allegation proven, namely that Mr Chalcroft had been convicted of this offence. 2. While employed as a teacher at John F Kennedy school between September 2000 and May 2014: a. On or around 18 October 2008, whilst Person A was holding her child, you pulled Person A causing her to fall backwards. b. On 14 November 2008, you accepted a police caution for the offence of common assault in respect of your conduct at Allegation 2(a) above. 7 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE The panel received evidence which confirmed that Mr Chalcroft had received a caution for the offence of common assault in relation to the incident described on 18 October 2008. The panel was presented with a record of the caution which was not disputed. Mr Chalcroft also admitted the underlying facts which had given rise to the caution. This was corroborated by documents received from the police. Mr Chalcroft admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proved. 3. While employed as a teacher at Watling View School (“the School”) you: a. Failed to disclose to the School the conviction at Allegation 1 above, either promptly or at all. b. Told the School, that you accepted the police caution at Allegation 2(b), for “grabbing a burglar” or words to that effect, when that was not the case. c. Failed to declare to the School, within the Staff Suitability Declaration form dated September 2018, the police caution referred to at Allegation 2(b). Mr Chalcroft initially admitted allegation 3. However, in the course of the hearing his position changed in relation to allegation 3b. As regards allegation 3a. the panel heard extensive evidence from Mr Chalcroft. It was accepted that his employer was aware of his [REDACTED], and had concerns about him at the material time. Mr Chalcroft gave evidence about his state of mind at th e time. Mr Chalcroft stated that he wanted to speak with his headteacher personally, and face-to-face about his conviction. It was accepted that he had tried to arrange a meeting with the headteacher after his conviction, at least twice, but that this had not been successful. However, several weeks had elapsed since the conviction. Mr Chalcroft had been present in the School at various points during this period and still failed to secure a personal meeting. The panel found that the fact of the conviction was a serious matter and it required disclosure to the School at the earliest opportunity. Notwithstanding his attempt to arrange a meeting, Mr Chalcroft failed to give suf