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:

1233771

Teacher's date of birth:

28 January 1982

Location teacher worked:

Chesterfield, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel:

12 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 Mark Rodda, formerly employed in full Chesterfield, East Midlands.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on 12 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 Mark Rodda: 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 5 D. Summary of evidence 13 Documents 13 Witnesses 13 E. Decision and reasons 13 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 33 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 36 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Mark Rodda Teacher ref number: 1233771 Teacher date of birth: 28 January 1982 TRA reference: 16388 Date of determination: 12 April 2018 Former employer: Brookfield Community School (“the School”) A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 9 to 12 April 2018 at The Ramada Hotel, The Butts, Coventry, CV1 3GG to consider the case of Mr Mark Rodda. The panel members were Professor Ian Hughes (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Kathy Thomson (teacher panellist) and Ms Jean Carter (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Hannah James of Eversheds-Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the Teaching Regulation Agency was Ms Louisa Atkin of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Mark Rodda was not present and neither was Mr Rodda’s representative; Jeanette Gay of National Education Union Solicitors. Mr Rodda’s representative did, however, submit some documentation to the panel and the TRA on 5 April 2018. These were some written applications and submissions in support, as well as some comments from Mr Rodda as to his comments in relation to the allegations. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 6 February 2018. It was alleged that Mr Mark Rodda was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct in that, following a Professional Conduct Panel making findings of fact in May 2016 which related to his conduct at Clifton Community School and: A. Whilst employed as a Teacher at Brookfield Community School between January 2017 and May 2017 he: 1. engaged in inappropriate physical contact with one or more pupils, including by: a. massaging their shoulders and/or back and/or neck; b. touching their hair; c. touching their face(s); d. touching their hands; e. putting his arm(s) around them; 2. made comments which were inappropriate and/or of a sexual nature to one or more pupils, by making comments including or to the effect of: a. “are you going to spit or swallow”; b. “size does matter and all the boys know it”; c. “is not a relationship if it’s your right hand”; d. “it must be my age, I can’t get it up”; e. “what I do with my partner is not what I’d do to a student”; f. “are you looking at his cock, because if you are you will need a microscope”; g. “are you tired from watching too much porn?”; h. telling Pupil C that he had “not hit puberty”; i. telling Pupil H he was going to “snap his neck”; j. “there’s nothing there” when referring to a pupil’s genital area; k. saying that he would “rather blow shit up”; 5 3. acted with lack of professional judgement, including by; a. asking for, and then borrowing, a lighter from one or more pupils; b. discussing his smoking habits with one or more pupils. B. Whilst applying for the role of Teacher at Brookfield Community School and/or following his appointment, he: 4. acted with a lack of integrity and/or was dishonest, in that he provided misleading information and/or failed to disclose relevant information in order to improve his prospects of securing and/or retaining a teaching post, including: a. in or around November 2016 by suggesting that he had left his previous employment due to “Personal reasons”, when he had resigned shortly prior to a Disciplinary Hearing concerning his conduct; b. during his interview on or around 13 December 2016, by suggesting that he had left his previous employment as a result of a change of head teacher, when he had resigned shortly prior to a Disciplinary hearing concerning his conduct; c. during a meeting on or around 22 March 2017, by suggesting that a student had made an allegation which was “proved to be false”, despite the fact that in May 2016, a Professional Conduct Panel of the NCTL (as it was then known) had made findings of a fact in relation to his conduct toward a student. C. Preliminary applications In advance of the hearing the TRA made a direction pursuant to paragraph 4.39 of “Teacher misconduct - Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession” (the “Procedures”) that Special Measures arrangements be put in place to allow the child witnesses (Pupil A, Pupil B, Pupil N, Pupil I and Pupil P) to give their evidence by way of video link providing a TRA member of staff is present at the venue supervising the link and providing the School make reasonable arrangements so that the witnesses cannot communicate with each other on the day prior to giving evidence. A number of preliminary issues fell to be considered and so the panel first addressed whether or not the hearing should continue in the absence of Mr Rodda. If the panel decided it should not, then it would not become necessary for the panel to consider the balance of the preliminary issues proposed. The panel considered whether the hearing should continue in the absence of Mr Rodda. 6 The panel is satisfied that the TRA has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel is also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complies with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Procedures. The panel has determined to exercise its discretion under Paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Rodda. The panel understands that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of Mr Rodda has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In making its decision, the panel has noted that Mr Rodda may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel has taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. The panel is satisfied that Mr Rodda is aware of the proceedings. Firstly, the Notice of Proceedings was sent to Mr Rodda on 6 February 2018 and therefore more than 8 weeks’ notice has been given. And secondly, Mr Rodda provided his completed response to the Notice of Proceedings on 7 March 2018 confirming within it that he would not be attending. He stated within that he “would like the hearing to proceed in [his] absence”. The panel therefore considers that Mr Rodda has waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place. The panel has had regard to the requirement that it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of the hearing taking place. There is no indication that an adjournment might result in the teacher attending the hearing. Mr Rodda has also indicated that he does not wish to be legally represented at the hearing. The panel has had regard to the extent of the disadvantage to Mr Rodda in him not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him. The panel will address this by taking into account the statements made by Mr Rodda during his investigator interview with the School in order to ascertain the lines of defence. The panel has noted that all witnesses called by the presenting officer who will give oral and video link evidence can be tested. The panel will do this by questioning those witnesses, considering such points as are favourable to the teacher, as are reasonably available on the evidence. The panel has identified gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it in respect of the lack of any teacher documentation and so the panel may take such gaps into consideration in considering whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available and in considering whether the presenting officer has discharged the burden of proof. The panel is also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. 7 The panel also notes that there are number of child witnesses appearing by video link, who are prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient and distressing for them to have to prepare to appear again. The panel has had regard to the seriousness of this case, and the potential consequences for Mr Rodda and has accepted that fairness to him is of prime importance. However, it considers that in light of Mr Rodda’s waiver of his right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses; that on balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time is in favour of this hearing continuing today. For the above reasons, the panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Rodda. The panel therefore directed its attention to consider the other preliminary issues. The panel received a document on 5 April 2018 setting out a number of applications, as follows: 1. An application by the teacher’s representative that the TRA’s pupil witnesses be prohibited from giving evidence in the absence of proper witness statements. 2. An application by the teacher’s representative that the written accounts/notes relati