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:

9144629

Teacher's date of birth:

14/01/1970

Location teacher worked:

Bromley, Greater London

Date of professional conduct panel:

17 to 23 January 2019 and 29 January 2019

Outcome type:

Prohibition 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 Paul Bilsby, formerly employed in Bromley, Greater London.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesomre House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 17 to 23 January 2019 and 29 January 2019.

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 Paul Bilsby, Mr Kevin Saunders and Mr Andrew Wallace: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 5 C. Preliminary applications 7 Documents 8 D. Summary of evidence 10 Documents 10 Witnesses 10 E. Decision and reasons 11 Findings in respect of allegations against Mr Bilsby and Mr Saunders 25 Findings in respect of allegations against Mr Andrew Wallace 31 The panel therefore found the facts of this particular proved. 38 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in respect of Mr Bilsby 40 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in respect of Mr Saunders 41 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in respect of Mr Wallace 43 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State in respect of Mr Paul Bilsby 44 Panel's recommendation to the Secretary of State in respect of Mr Kevin Saunders 48 Panel's recommendation to the Secretary of State in respect of Mr Andrew Wallace 52 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 56 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Paul Bilsby Teacher ref number: 9144629 Teacher date of birth: 14/01/1970 TRA case reference: 15032 Teacher: Mr Kevin Saunders Teacher ref number: 9754825 Teacher date of birth: 09/10/1974 TRA case reference: 15030 Teacher: Mr Andrew Wallace Teacher ref number: 9635019 Teacher date of birth: 07/10/1958 TRA case reference: 15031 Date of determination: 29 January 2019 Former employer: Ravens Wood School, Bromley A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 17, 18, 21, 22, 23 & 29 January 2019 at Cheylesmore House, Quinton Road, Coventry CV1 2WT to consider the joined cases of Mr Paul Bilsby, Mr Kevin Saunders and Mr Andrew Wallace. The panel members were Ms Mick Levens (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Martin Pilkington (lay panellist) and Ms Jean Carter (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Robin Havard of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Louisa Atkin of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Wallace was present and was represented by Mr Andrew Faux, counsel. 4 Neither Mr Bilsby nor Mr Saunders were present, nor were they represented The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 5 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notices of Proceedings as amended. It was alleged that Mr Bilsby, Mr Saunders and Mr Wallace were guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: In respect of Mr Paul Bilsby: The panel heard an allegation that Mr Bilsby was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed and/or engaged as a Vice Principal of Ravens Wood School, Bromley, he: 1. allowed and/or encouraged one or more members of staff to submit information regarding the ICT BTEC Level 2 to Pearson and/or EdExcel which he knew or should have known was false and/or inaccurate, including; a. in relation to the certificate claims which were made in July 2013; b. in relation to the learner portfolios which were provided during the course of a quality visit on 16 July 2013; 2. Failed to take any, or any appropriate action to correct the false and/or misleading impression which was being given to Pearson and/or EdExcel in relation to issues concerning the ICT BTEC Level 2 following the quality visit on 16 July 2013; 3. His behaviour as may be found proven at 1 and/or 2 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. In a letter from Mr Bilsby's union, NASUWT, dated 12 December 2018, and in a Statement of Agreed Facts signed by Mr Bilsby and dated 14 March 2017, Mr Bilsby admitted certain facts. On the basis of those admitted facts, Mr Bilsby admitted acting without integrity and unacceptable professional conduct. However, Mr Bilsby did not admit the facts as alleged in the particulars set out above. The panel therefore approached the allegations as if they were denied. In respect of Mr Saunders: The panel heard an allegation that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed and/or engaged as Principal and/or Acting Principal of Ravens Wood School, Bromley, he: 6 1. Allowed and/or encouraged one or more members of staff to submit information regarding the ICT BTEC Level 2 to Pearson and/or Ed Excel which he knew or should have known was false and/or inaccurate, including: a. In relation to the certificate claims which were made in July 2013; b. In relation to the learner portfolios which were provided during the course of a quality visit on 16 July 2013. 2. Failed to take any, or any appropriate action to correct the false and/or misleading impression which was being given to Pearson and/or EdExcel in relation to issues concerning the ICT BTEC Level 2 following the quality visit on 16 July 2013. 3. His behaviour as may be found proven at 1 and/or 2 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Mr Saunders denied the allegations. In respect of Mr Wallace: The panel heard an allegation that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed and/or engaged as a Vice Principal of Ravens Wood School, Bromley, he: 1. submitted information regarding the ICT BTEC Level 2 to Pearson and/or EdExcel which he knew or should have known was false and/or inaccurate, including by submitting an investigation report which: a. suggested that he had discussed matters with “ICT staff”, when that was not the case; b. sought to blame problems with the ICT BTEC Level 2 on staff responsible for teaching Year 11, despite the fact that Year 11 were not timetabled for ICT that Year (as work in respect of the BTEC should have been completed when they were in Year 10); c. suggested that there was not an effective Internal Verification process, when that was not the case; d. suggested that the data submitted as part of the claim for certificates had been submitted by mistake, when there had in fact been a conscious decision by one or more members of the Senior Management Team to submit it. 7 2. planned and/or attempted to interfere with Pearson’s investigation in relation to the ICT BTEC Level 2, including by; a. attempting to influence what staff would say during their investigatory interviews with Pearson; b. indicating during a meeting with staff on or around 29 August 2013 that he would “construct a narrative” following the meeting, intending that the same would be used by staff to inform their responses to questions; 3. His behaviour as may be found proven at 1 and/or 2 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Mr Wallace admitted the facts of particular 2a. In doing so, he also admitted allegation 3 in that such behaviour lacked integrity. He also admitted that such facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. Mr Wallace denied the facts of allegation 1 and particular 2b save that, in respect of particular 2b, he admitted that he had indicated during a meeting with staff on or around 29 August 2013 that he would "construct a narrative" following the meeting. Mr Wallace denied that he had acted dishonestly. C. Preliminary applications Proceeding in absence The Notice of Proceedings was sent to both Mr Bilsby and Mr Saunders by letter of 26 April 2018. The Notice is in compliance with the Teacher Misconduct – Disciplinary Procedures and provided in excess of eight weeks' notice of today's hearing. The panel is satisfied that the Notice contains the information required by paragraph 4.12 to be included. The panel also notes that both Mr Bilsby and Mr Saunders completed and returned the Notice of Proceedings form which is signed by them and dated 22 May 2018 and 26 April 2018 respectively. There has been subsequent correspondence to both persons confirming the change of dates and venue. The panel is satisfied that the proceedings have been properly served. The panel has gone on to consider whether it would be appropriate to proceed in the absence of Mr Bilsby and Mr Saunders. In accordance with paragraph 4.29 of the 8 Teacher Misconduct – Disciplinary Procedures, the panel has a discretion whether to proceed with the hearing in the absence of a teacher or to adjourn the hearing. In his response form, Mr Saunders confirms that he does not intend to appear at the hearing nor does he intend to be represented. He has also obtained legal advice and has provided a detailed response to the allegations. In the response form completed by Mr Bilsby, he confirms that he does intend to appear at the hearing and that he intends to be represented. However, subsequently, in an email from his representatives dated 31 October 2018, it has been confirmed that Mr Bilsby does not intend to attend. Again, as in the case of Mr Saunders, Mr Bilsby has provided a written response to the allegations. The panel is satisfied that both Mr Bilsby and Mr Saunders are clearly aware of today's hearing and, in the absence of any request for an adjournment, the panel concludes that they have both waived their right to attend. Whilst the allegations are serious, both have submitted written responses and therefore the panel is satisfied that it is able to fully understand the issues involved in this case and that it can reach findings of fact on th