Mr Michael Watt

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 Watt

Teacher reference number: 0038656

Teacher's date of birth: 10 October 1978

Location teacher worked: North Yorkshire, north England

Date of professional conduct panel: 21 to 30 November 2022

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 Watt, formerly employed in North Yorkshire, north 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 Watt: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 9 Documents 9 Witnesses 10 Decision and reasons 10 Findings of fact 11 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 19 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Michael Watt Teacher ref number: 0038656 Teacher date of birth: 10 October 1978 TRA reference: 18161 Date of determination: 30 November 2022 Former employer: Colburn Community Primary School, North Yorkshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 21 November 2022 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Michael Watt a joint hearing together with Individual E. The panel members were Mr John Martin (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist) and Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Sarah Price of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Lucy Coulson of No5 Chambers, instructed by Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Watt was present and was represented by Mr Simon Harding of The 36 Group Chambers. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing dated 22 September 2022. It was alleged that Mr Watt was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as a Headteaher during the academic year 2017/18: 1. In respect of the Key Stage 2 assessment, he caused and/or permitted and/or failed to prevent maladministration including by; a. In relation to writing tests; i. passing off guided work as independent pupil work; ii. excessively scaffolding pupil work; b. indicating to pupils during tests that the answer they had provided were right and/or that they should review answers which were incorrect; c. providing unauthorised/prohibited equipment to pupils during tests; 2. His conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1 above lacked integrity and/or dishonesty in that he was seeking to unfairly improve assessment outcomes for one or more pupils. Following an application to amend the allegations (see below), the panel decided to amend the allegation as follows: It was alleged that Mr Watt was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as a Headteacher during the academic year 2017/18: 1. In respect of the Key Stage 2 assessment, he caused and/or permitted and/or failed to prevent maladministration including by; a. In relation to writing assessments; i. passing off guided work as independent pupil work; ii. excessively scaffolding pupil work; 2. His conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1 above lacked integrity and/or dishonesty in that he was seeking to unfairly improve assessment outcomes for one or more pupils. 5 The allegations were not admitted. Preliminary applications Application to amend/discontinue allegations Ms Coulson, on behalf of the TRA, made an application to amend the allegation. Specifically, to amend the typographical error, so it read "Headteacher", rather than "Headteaher", to amend "tests" to "assessments" as that more accurately reflected the evidence. Ms Coulson also applied to remove allegation 1.c, namely: 1.c. providing unauthorised/prohibited equipment to pupils during tests Ms Coulson submitted that there was insufficient evidence and that this particular of the allegation should be removed. The application was not opposed by Mr Harding, on behalf of the teachers. The panel heard and accepted legal advice. The panel has a discretion under paragraph 4.56 of the disciplinary procedures to amend an allegation or a particular of the allegation at any time before making findings of fact, if it is fair and in the interests of justice. The panel found that it was fair and in the interests of justice to discontinue allegation 1.c. A further application was made by Ms Coulson to discontinue allegation 1.b, namely: 1b. indicating to pupils during tests that the answer they had provided were right and/or that they should review answers which were incorrect Ms Coulson submitted that she had been made aware on the first day of the hearing that the TRA had discontinued allegation 1.b in late 2019 and that particular 1.b should not have formed part of the allegation which this panel is required to determine. The application was not opposed by Mr Harding, on behalf of the teachers. The panel heard and accepted legal advice. The panel was very disappointed that this allegation had been included in the notice of proceedings and found that it was fair and in the interests of justice to discontinue allegation 1b. Application for special measures Ms Coulson made an application for special measures in relation to each of the TRA's four witnesses. Dealing with each witness in turn: Witness A Ms Coulson submitted that Witness A should be treated as a vulnerable witness, as she has complained that she would feel intimidated by Mr Watt and Individual E if she was to 6 attend the hearing in person and gave evidence in the same room as them. It was submitted that Witness A should be allowed to give evidence by way of video link. Mr Harding submitted that there was an objection to Witness A being treated as a vulnerable witness, as there is no evidence of intimidation. However, in the interests of proceeding swiftly, there was no objection to her giving evidence remotely by video link. Witness B Ms Coulson submitted that Witness B is one of the [REDACTED] at Colburn Community Primary School (“the School”), and due to circumstances at the School, if she were to attend the hearing in person, there would only be [REDACTED] at the School during that time. It was submitted that Witness B should be allowed to give evidence by way of video link. Mr Harding confirmed there was no objection to Witness B giving evidence by video link. Witness C Ms Coulson submitted that Witness C should be treated as a vulnerable witness as she has complained that she would feel intimidated by Mr Watt. It was also submitted that she is one of the [REDACTED] at the School, and due to circumstances at the School, if she were to attend the hearing in person, there would only be [REDACTED] at the School during that time. It was submitted that Witness C should be allowed to give evidence by way of video link. Mr Harding submitted that there was an objection to Witness C being treated as a vulnerable witness, as there is no evidence of intimidation. However, in the interests of proceeding swiftly, there was no objection to her giving evidence remotely by video link. Pupil H Ms Coulson submitted that Pupil H is a child (under 16) and should be considered as a child witness. It was submitted that the following special measures should be put in place for Pupil H: to give evidence remotely by video link; to have a witness supporter (her mother); not to have sight of Mr Watt and Individual E when giving evidence; and for any questions from Mr Watt and Individual E to be asked via their representative. Mr Harding did not oppose the application in respect of Pupil H. It was confirmed that Mr Harding would ask any questions of Pupil H, on behalf of Mr Watt and Individual E. In considering the application, the panel heard and accepted the legal advice. The panel was mindful that the Rules define a vulnerable witness as people whose quality of evidence is likely to be adversely affected at a hearing. The panel noted that 4.71 includes any witness who complains of intimidation. 7 The panel considered the application in stages: whether the complaint of intimidation was genuine, whether witnesses were vulnerable and if so, whether they should give evidence at all. If the panel considered the witnesses should be permitted to give evidence, it would go on to consider whether special measures were necessary. In determining whether the complaint of intimidation was genuine, the panel had regard to the guidance in R (Levett) v Health Care Professions Council [2013] EWHC 3330 (Admin). The panel recognised that it did not need to, and should not, make a factual finding as to whether the teachers had been involved in any deliberate act of intimidation, but the panel should be satisfied that there were some background circumstances that could give rise to those feelings. The panel recognised that it needed to determine whether each witness was in genuine fear of intimidation at a hearing and not simply whether they had been the subject of alleged intimidation in the past. Having carefully considered the submissions put forward by both Ms Coulson and Mr Harding, the panel made the following decision: Witness A The panel was not provided with evidence that Witness A was a vulnerable witness. However, in the circumstances, it accepted that Witness B should be able to give evidence remotely by way of video link. Witness B In the circumstances, the panel accepted that Witness B should be able to give evidence remotely by way of video link. Witness C The panel was not provided with evidence that Witness C was a vulnerable witness. However, in the circumstances, it accepted that Witness C should be able to give evidence remotely by way of video link. Pupil H The panel accepted that Pupil H should be treated as a child witness and that the proposed special measures should be imposed, namel