Mr Pardeep Lahel

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 Pardeep Lahel

Teacher reference number: 0155236

Teacher's date of birth: 27 April 1979

Location teacher worked: Oldbury, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 29 November 2024

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 Pardeep Lahel, formerly employed in Oldbury, West Midlands.

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 Pardeep Lahel: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Statement of Agreed Facts 5 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 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Pardeep Lahel Teacher ref number: 0155236 Teacher date of birth: 27 April 1979 TRA reference: 22672 Date of determination: 29 November 2024 Former employer: Perryfields Academy, Oldbury Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 29 November 2024, by virtual means, to consider the case of Mr Pardeep Lahel. The panel members were Mr Martyn Stephens (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Michelle Chappell (teacher panellist) and Ms Geraldine Baird (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Lahel that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Lahel provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Ms Clare Hastie of Kingsley Napley LLP, Mr Lahel or his representative [REDACTED]. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 5 September 2024. It was alleged that Mr Lahel was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as the head of department – IT & business studies at Perryfields Academy (“the School”): 1. Between May and June 2023, in relation to the Pearson Business and Enterprise (BEN01) exam, he deliberately changed data submitted to the exam board in that he: a. Created grades for around 11 students who did not have grades recorded; b. Changed the grades recorded for around 69 students by increasing the grade; 2. Between May and June 2023, in relation to the OCR iMedia (R087/02) exam, he deliberately changed data submitted to the exam board in that he: a. Created grades for around 51 students who did not have grades recorded; b. Changed the grades recorded for around 22 students by increasing the grade; 3. Between May and June 2023, in relation to the OCR iMedia (R082/02) exam, he deliberately changed data submitted to the exam board in that he: a. Created grades for around 57 students who did not have grades recorded; b. Changed the grades recorded for around 22 students by increasing the grade; 4. Between May and June 2023, he submitted work to exam boards that did not belong to the named students; 5. His conduct at paragraph 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 was: a. Dishonest, and/or b. Lacked integrity. Mr Lahel admitted all of the allegations and that he is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. 5 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 5 to 6 Section 2: Notice of Referral, response to Notice of Referral and Notice of Meeting – pages 7 to 27 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer representations – pages 28 to 31 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 32 to 177 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 178 to 184. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of Agreed Facts The panel considered a Statement of Agreed Facts which was signed by Mr Lahel on 23 May 2024. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Lahel for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Lahel was employed at Perryfields Academy (“the School”) from 1 January 2020 as the head of department for IT and business studies. On 8 June 2023, Mr Lahel met with [REDACTED] to discuss concerns in relation to students’ coursework. On the same day, Mr Lahel was suspended from his employment pending an investigation. On 21 July 2023, a disciplinary hearing was held and Mr Lahel did not attend. Mr Lahel’s employment with the School ceased on 21 July 2023. Mr Lahel was referred to the TRA on 16 October 2023. 6 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: Whilst working as the head of department – IT & business studies at Perryfields Academy (“the School”): 1. Between May and June 2023, in relation to the Pearson Business and Enterprise (BEN01) exam, you deliberately changed data submitted to the exam board in that he: a. Created grades for around 11 students who did not have grades recorded; Mr Lahel admitted this allegation in the Statement of Agreed Facts. He also admitted that on 8 June 2023, he met with [REDACTED] of the School to discuss concerns in relation to students’ coursework. He admitted that during that meeting he had said that he did not want any of the students to “lose out” because of the teaching and learning. Mr Lahel also admitted that during an investigatory meeting on 26 June 2023, he stated that student results were really low and there was pressure on Year 10 and 11 to achieve better grades. The panel has seen a note of the meeting with Mr Lahel on 8 June 2024. Mr Lahel was asked why he would not share the coursework sample list with the staff in his team. Mr Lahel initially responded that he had wanted it so he could talk with another member of staff about it first, since that staff member can worry about organising the sample. Mr Lahel was then informed that [REDACTED] had been made aware that some of the grades inputted for students were not the grades the student had actually achieved, and Mr Lahel was asked if he had falsified any grades. Mr Lahel initially stated that he did not want any of the students to have lost out. When asked again, he repeated that he did not want any of the students to have lost out because of the teaching and learning. He was asked if the grades he had entered were accurate and Mr Lahel responded that he did not want any of the children to have lost out or get a U grade. He was asked if he had changed any student grades and Mr Lahel responded “yes”. He was asked to explain what grades had been changed and Mr Lahel stated that if a student was getting a U he awarded them a Level 2 Pass. The notes stated that “I asked how many marks that would be and he said approximately 36”. He confirmed that he had only changed the grades of students who had achieved a U grade. He stated that he had done this for the Year 11 iMedia course. He was then asked about business studies and he stated that their teacher had been happy to give some students U grades, and he had not wanted them to have U grades so he changed those too. He stated that this was only the case 7 for Year 10 students, as he was happy with the grades their teacher had awarded to Year 11 students. In the notes of the School’s investigation meeting with Mr Lahel, he confirmed that he inputted the unit marks on the exam board portal for the Pearson Business and Enterprise (BEN01), Year 10 course, and the OCR iMedia (R087/02) and (R082/2) Year 11 courses. He confirmed that he did not typically do so, and it was only the 2023 year that he had done so “as the [REDACTED] was too busy and [REDACTED] asked [him] to do it.” He stated that there was an accurate record of the marks stored on OneDrive in a departmental spreadsheet. He confirmed that the marks inputted to the exam boards were not the same as those internal records. By way of explanation, Mr Lahel stated that since starting at the School there had been lots of pressure with results, impact on progress and students, and there were lots of U grades. He stated that the pressure had been on with regards to what to do, he “had to make a decision, it was a poor decision and decision [he] regret[s].” He stated that he could not estimate how many students’ marks were changed and could only give that detail if he saw that data. The School’s investigation report contains appendix I which is described as “a comparison between the Exam Board submitted marks and the departmental spreadsheet”. The panel noted that this document contained a list of printed coursework marks for the Pearson BEN01 course as well has handwritten marks which the panel understood from the above description as being those recorded in the departmental spreadsheet. Although the data set was not entirely clear to say with certainty that the grades had been created for exactly 11 students, the panel was satisfied that, in light of Mr Lahel’s admissions and the evidence contained in Appendix 11, it was more likely than not that Mr Lahel had created grades for around