Mr Michael Beresford

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 Michael Beresford

Teacher reference number: 0136351

Teacher's date of birth: 19 June 1967

Location teacher worked: Manchester, north west England

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 June 2021

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 Michael Beresford, formerly employed in Manchester, north west 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 Michael Beresford: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2021 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 14 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Michael Beresford Teacher ref number: 0136351 Teacher date of birth: 19 June 1967 TRA reference: 18624 Date of determination: 25 June 2021 Former employer: Oasis Academy Temple (formerly Temple Primary School), Manchester Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 23 to 25 June 2021, to consider the case of Mr Michael Beresford (Mr Beresford). The panel members were Steve Woodhouse (teacher panellist – in the chair), Duncan Tilley (lay panellist) and Juliet Berry (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Sarah Vince of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Beresford was present and was represented by Jonathan Storey of Counsel. The hearing took place in public and was recorded, save for part of the hearing relating to the teacher’s [REDACTED] which were heard in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 28 April 2021. It was alleged that Mr Beresford was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as the Executive Headteacher at the Oasis Academy Temple (formally the Temple Primary School) from March 2016 to December 2018; 1) In respect of the key stage 2 standard assessments, he caused and/or permitted and/or failed to prevent maladministration, specifically by; a) on or around 14th May 2018 excessively assisting Pupil A during the English grammar, punctuation and spelling Paper 1; b) on or around 14th May 2018 overemphasising words which he read out to pupils during the English grammar, punctuation and spelling Paper 2; c) on or around 15th May 2018; i) providing one or more pupils with additional time and/or guidance on answering the paper during the reading test; ii) excessively assisting Pupil B and/or Pupil C during the reading test; d) on around 16th May 2018 excessively assisting one or more pupils during the Maths Paper 1 (arithmetic); e) on or around 16th May 2018 excessively assisting one or more pupils during the Maths Paper 2 (reasoning); f) on or around 17th May 2018 excessively assisting Pupil A during the Maths Paper 3 (reasoning); 2) His conduct as may be found proven at 1 lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Mr Beresford admitted to the facts of allegations 1(a), 1(c)(i), 1(c)(ii), 1(d), 1(e), 1(f) and 2. Mr Beresford did not admit to the facts of allegation 1(b). Mr Beresford accepted that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Excluding the Public 5 The panel considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”) and paragraph 4.57 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession (the “Procedures”) to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. This followed a request by the teacher’s representative that part of the hearing relating to [REDACTED], should be heard in private. The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(3)(b) of the Regulations and the second bullet point of paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures that the public should be excluded from the hearing. The panel took into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. On this occasion, however, the panel considered that the request for part of the hearing to be heard in private was a reasonable one given the concerns about confidential matters relating to the [REDACTED] being placed in the public domain. The panel took into account the considerable amount of written evidence including [REDACTED]. The panel had regard to whether the teacher’s request ran contrary to the public interest. The panel is required to announce its decisions in public as to whether the facts have been proven and whether those facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In the event that the case continues any decision of the Secretary of State will also be in public. The panel considered that in the circumstances of this case where the facts are so intertwined with private matters relating to the [REDACTED] that the public interest will be satisfied by these public announcements. Those public announcements will ensure that public confidence in these proceedings and in the standards of the profession are maintained. The panel therefore decided that it was in the public interest for the hearing to be held in public but decided it would hear parts relating to Mr Beresford’s [REDACTED] in private. Amendment to the stem of the allegation An application was made by the teacher’s representative to amend the word “formally” in the stem of the allegation in the Notice of Proceedings to “formerly”. In addition, the panel recognised a factual error within the stem of the allegation relating to the period from which Mr Beresford was employed at the School. The panel sought to amend the period from “March 2016 to December 2018” to “January 2017 to December 2018” as Mr Beresford was employed at the School from January 2017. 6 The panel has the power to, in the interests of justice, amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts of the case have been proved. Before making an amendment, the panel was required to consider any representations by the presenting officer and by the teacher, and the parties have been afforded that opportunity. The presenting officer agreed to the change of word from “formally” to “formerly” in the stem of the allegation and both the presenting officer and teacher’s representative consented to the change in time period from which Mr Beresford was employed at the School, namely from “March 2016 to December 2018” to “January 2017 to December 2018”. The panel considered that the amendments, being a correction of a typographical error and factual error, would not change the nature, scope or seriousness of the allegations. There was no prospect of the teacher’s case being presented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage, and therefore no unfairness or prejudice could be caused to the teacher. The panel therefore decided to amend the allegation as proposed. The stem of the allegation was therefore amended to: It was alleged that Mr Beresford was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as the Executive Headteacher at the Oasis Academy Temple (formerly the Temple Primary School) from January 2017 to December 2018. 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 2 to 3 Section 2: Notice of Referral and response and the Notice of proceedings and response – pages 5 to 22 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 24 to 71 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 73 to 320 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 322 to 595 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 who were called by the presenting officer on behalf of the TRA: Witness A – REDACTED Witness B – REDACTED The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses who were called by the teacher’s representative on behalf of Mr Beresford: Witness C – former parent governor, Oasis Academy Temple Witness D – parent of pupils attending Oasis Academy Temple during Mr Beresford’s employment Witness E – former colleague, Oasis Academy Aspinall Witness F – former Chair of Governors, Oasis Academy Temple Witness G – former colleague, Oasis Academy Temple In addition, Mr Beresford gave oral evidence at the hearing. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. During May 2018, key stage 2 pupils at Oasis Academy Temple (“the School”) undertook national curriculum tests (commonly known as SATs). Allegations of malpractice arose following conversations between pupils and members of staff at the School. The allegations suggested that there had been over-aiding by Mr Beresford during the SATs. On 8 June 2018, the Standards and Testing Agency (“STA”) commissioned Manchester City Council to undertake an investigation into the administration of the SATs at the School. As a result of the Council’s findings, the STA decided upon a full cohort annulment for all subjects. On 10 September 2018, an investigation began to determine who was responsible for, aided and/or abetted or was complicit in the maladministration. On 30 November 2018, Mr Beresford was invited to attend