Mr Olu Awofadeju

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 Olu Awofadeju

Location teacher worked: London, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 to 15 November 2024

Outcome type: No order made

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 Olu Awofadeju, formerly employed in London, 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 Olu Awofadeju: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education 15 November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Documents 13 Witnesses 13 Decision and reasons 13 Findings of fact 14 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 25 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 28 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Olu Awofadeju TRA reference: 18258 Date of determination: 15 November 2024 Former employer: Evelyn Grace Academy, London Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 12 to 15 November 2024 via Microsoft Teams to consider the case of Mr Olu Awofadeju. The panel members were Ms Nicola Hartley (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Claire Shortt (teacher panellist) and Ms Aruna Sharma (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Sam Bumby of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Sarah Vince of Browne Jacobson LLP. Mr Olu Awofadeju was present for the first day of the hearing and was represented throughout the hearing by Mr John Neckles, a lay representative. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the notice of proceedings dated 28 August 2024, as amended by the successful application made by the presenting officer at the beginning of the hearing to amend Allegation 3. It was alleged that Mr Olu Awofadeju was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that, whilst a teacher at Evelyn Grace Academy: 1) In relation to the 2017/18 assessment of Cambridge Nationals Level 2 ICT Unit R003 (Handling data using spreadsheet), Mr Awofadeju: a. Provided pupils with example model answers specific to the task. b. Provided pupils with templates to structure their answers. c. Provided detailed feedback to pupils on what amendments should be made and then allowed those pupils to make those amendments. d. Provisionally marked pupils’ work and then allowed the pupils to continue working on that work. e. Failed to ensure that pupils’ work was adequately supervised and/or monitored under controlled conditions. 2) In relation to the 2017/18 assessment of Cambridge Nationals Level 2 ICT Unit R005 (creating product & multi-media), Mr Awofadeju: a. Provided pupils with example model answers specific to the task. b. Provided pupils with templates to structure their answers. c. Provided detailed feedback to pupils on what amendments should be made and then allowed those pupils to make those amendments. d. Provisionally marked pupils’ work and then allowed the pupils to continue working on that work. e. Failed to ensure that pupils’ work was adequately supervised and/or monitored under controlled conditions. 3) By his conduct, as may be found proven in allegation 1 and/or 2, Mr Awofadeju was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. At the outset of the hearing, after the application to amend Allegation 3, the teacher admitted the facts and also admitted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 Preliminary applications Late admission of completed notice of proceedings form Mr Awofadeju returned his completed notice of proceedings form to the presenting officer and to the panel via email at the beginning of the hearing. The presenting officer had no objection to the completed notice of proceedings form being admitted. The panel determined that it was in the interests of justice, notwithstanding the fact that the completed notice of proceedings form had not been returned within the requisite time period, to admit the completed notice of proceedings form and accordingly did so. Amendment to Allegation 3 The presenting officer then made an application to amend Allegation 3, which originally read “By your conduct set out in the foregoing paragraphs, you (a) were dishonest; (b) failed to act with integrity” to read “By your conduct, as may be found proven in allegation 1 and/or 2, was dishonest and/or lacked integrity”. The panel noted that it had 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 Mr Awofadeju, and the parties were afforded that opportunity. Mr Awofadeju’s representative opposed the application on the grounds that: 1. the allegations which had been made by the TRA did not reflect the allegations which were found proven against Mr Awofadeju by the School and by OCR. In particular, no allegation was made at the previous stage that Mr Awofadeju had brought the profession into disrepute; 2. the referral was made to the TRA by an individual from OCR who, it was alleged by Mr Awofadeju’s representative, was seeking a greater sanction for Mr Awofadeju than that imposed by OCR; 3. there was no objective evidence in support of the application; and 4. the TRA has delayed in bringing both the case and the amendment application. The panel considered whether it was in the interests of justice for the application to be granted. The panel determined that the amendment proposed was a correction which did not change the nature, scope or seriousness of the allegations made against the teacher. The panel considered that it would be helpful for Allegation 3 to be re-framed in the form proposed in the amendment application, to provide further clarity to the presenting officer, teacher and the panel. The panel were however concerned that this application was made at such a late stage in the proceedings, and exercised caution to ensure that there was no unfairness to 6 Mr Awofadeju. The panel carefully considered the submissions by Mr Awofadeju’s representative, however ultimately concluded that there was no prospect of the Mr Awofadeju’s case being presented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage, and therefore no unfairness or prejudice caused to Mr Awofadeju. In particular, the panel noted that the allegations against Mr Awofadeju of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, which were the focus of the submissions by Mr Awofadeju’s representative, were contained in the notice of proceedings dated 28 August 2024. These were not being introduced as part of the amendment application, which related solely to Allegation 3. As has already been referenced, the panel were satisfied that the proposed amendment to Allegation 3 was a correction to the form of wording rather than the introduction of a brand-new allegation. In particular, the panel noted that the original Allegation 3 contained allegations of dishonesty and a failure to act with integrity, which are substantially the same allegations as those in the revised Allegation 3. Accordingly, the panel decided to grant the application to amend Allegation 3. Proceeding in absence During the course of the first day of the hearing, at which Mr Awofadeju was present, the panel was informed by Mr Awofadeju’s representative that Mr Awofadeju was unable to attend for the other days of the hearing due to his teaching commitments. On the morning of the second day of the hearing, the panel therefore considered whether to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Awofadeju. The presenting officer did not object to the panel proceeding in absence and Mr Awofadeju’s representative made submissions in support of the panel proceeding in Mr Awofadeju’s absence. The panel carefully considered this question and determined that the notice of proceedings form had been validly served on Mr Awofadeju. The panel then considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the “Teacher Misconduct – Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession”, updated April 2018 (the “Procedures”) to proceed in Mr Awofadeju’s absence, taking into account his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The panel were satisfied that Mr Awofadeju’s right to a fair trial would not be infringed, taking into account the following factors: 1. Mr Awofadeju had been present on the first day of the hearing and had consented to the remainder of the hearing proceeding in his absence; 2. Witness A, the only witness to give evidence in the hearing, had been examined both by the presenting officer and by Mr Awofadeju’s representative on the first day of the hearing, at which he was present; and 3. Mr Awofadeju’s representative had confirmed that Mr Awofadeju was not going to be giving evidence at the hearing. 7 In considering the application, the panel also considered the disruption which would be caused by adjourning the hearing at this stage, noting that: 1. Witness A was still under oath, as the panel had at that stage not yet had the opportunity to ask him questions; 2. it was unlikely that Mr Awofadeju would be able to attend any reconvened hearing given his ongoing teaching commitments; and 3. the allegations being determined by the panel related to events which had taken place in 2018 and that the referral had been made to the TRA in March 2019. It was in the interests of justice for this matter to be resolved at this hearing rather than delayed further. Accordingly, taking into account all of the above considerations, the panel determined to proceed in the absence of Mr Awofadeju. Article 3 rights During his opening submissions, Mr Awofadeju’s representative indicated t