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:

0330810

Teacher's date of birth:

25 February 1975

Location teacher worked:

Nottingham, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel:

18 March 2019 to 26 March 2019

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 Peter Smalley, formerly employed in Nottingham, East Midlands.

The proceedings were held at The Chace Hotel, Coventry 18 March 2019 to 22 March 2019 and Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Rd, Coventry CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 25 March 2019 to 26 March 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 Peter Smalley: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 5 D. Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 E. Decision and reasons 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 12 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Peter Smalley Teacher ref number: 0330810 Teacher date of birth: 25 February 1975 TRA reference: 16789 Date of determination: 26 March 2019 Former employer: Southglade Primary School, Nottingham (“the School”) A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 18 March 2019 to 26 March 2019 at The Chace Hotel, Coventry (18 to 22 March) and Cheylesmore House, Coventry (25 to 26 March) to consider the case of Mr Peter Smalley. The panel members were Ms Gail Goodman (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Chris Rushton (lay panellist) and Mr John Matharu (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Nick Leale of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Melinka Berridge of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Smalley was present and was represented by Mr Colin Henderson (counsel). The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 23 October 2018. It was alleged that Mr Peter Smalley was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that he failed to maintain appropriate professional standards whilst working as Head Teacher at Southglade Primary School in the period between 1 September 2013 and 12 February 2017 in that he: 1. In 2013 and 2014 did not provide staff at the school with regular and/or effective safeguarding and child protection training and updates. 2. Did not implement an adequate system and/or ensure a system was in place at the school designed to identify and record safeguarding and child protection issues. 3. Did not implement an adequate system and/or ensure a system was in place at the school to refer safeguarding and child protection concerns to external agencies. 4. Did not foster an environment at the school where staff members felt supported to raise concerns about child protection and safeguarding. 5. Approved and/or collaborated with Individual A in the preparation of a referral form for Pupil X in September 2014 which: a) Was for an incident on 18 July 2014; b) Was not approved by and/or shown to the original author of the referral form; c) Was inaccurate. 6. His actions at paragraph 5 were dishonest. 7. His actions at paragraphs 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 and/or 5 were leadership failures in respect of his responsibility to manage safeguarding within the school. Mr Smalley admitted all of the factual particulars except for paragraph 6 (dishonesty allegation). Mr Smalley also accepted that the facts as admitted above (except for paragraph 5) amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the professional into disrepute. 5 C. Preliminary applications The following preliminary matters were considered: i) It was decided by the panel that normal procedures and standard practice would be followed in relation to the anonymisation of Pupil X during the course of the proceedings and the anonymisation of anyone else whose publicised identity could lead to the identification of Pupil X during the hearing. Both representatives were supportive of this approach. The panel was aware that Pupil X had been identified in the course of press coverage of previous proceedings relating to Pupil X's death but considered that as these proceedings were examining different issues relating to Mr Smalley's professional conduct it was correct to follow normal TRA procedures with regard to the anonymisation of a child referred to in the proceedings. ii) The panel was reminded that it should put out of its mind any conclusions reached on the facts in the Coroner's Report and the Serious Case Review and agreed this approach. D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of TRA documents which included: Section A: Chronology, list of key people, summary of agreed facts and hearing running order – pages A2 to A9 Section B: Correspondence – pages B2 to B12 Section C: Witness Statements – pages C2 to C45 Section D: Teaching Regulation Agency document – pages D2 to D575 The panel also received a bundle of teacher documents which included: Section A: Witness statements – pages A2 to A41 Section B: Teacher evidence – pages B2 to B69. The panel were also provided with transcripts of the evidence given by Witness A, Witness A and Mr Smalley at the coroner's inquest. These documents appeared in a separate bundle with pagination of 2 to 352. The panel also agreed to accept the following documents into evidence during the course of the hearing: 6 i) Note of meeting held on 30 June 2014 (TRA documents D 576) ii) Backdated training records (TRA documents D 577 to 578) iii) Diary entry (TRA documents D 579) iv) Notes of safeguarding team meeting February to July 2014 (Teacher documents B70 to 91) v) Note of morning briefing on 2 June 2014 (Teacher documents B 92) vi) School behaviour policy (Teacher documents B 93 to 96) vii) Note of morning briefing on 24 March 2014 (Teacher documents B 97 to 98) viii) Notes of meeting on 28 April 2018 (Teacher documents B 99) ix) Incident report form (Teacher documents B100 to 101). The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from: i) Witness A – [REDACTED] ii) Witness B – [REDACTED] iii) Witness C – [REDACTED] iv) Witness D – [REDACTED] v) Mr Smalley vi) Witness E – [REDACTED] vii) Witness F – [REDACTED] viii) Witness G – [REDACTED] E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered the case before it and has reached a decision. 7 The panel read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. Mr Smalley was headteacher of the School from September 2013 until February 2017. This case relates to serious failures in relation to safeguarding and child protection at the School under Mr Smalley's leadership. It was alleged that staff received insufficient training in relation to safeguarding and that Mr Smalley failed to implement an effective system for identifying, recording and referring on safeguarding issues at the School. It was further alleged that he failed to foster an environment at the School in which staff felt supported to raise concerns about pupil welfare at the School. Mr Smalley was also accused of dishonestly collaborating with a colleague in the preparation of a referral form relating to Pupil X which was prepared nearly two months after the events in question, not approved by the author of the original misplaced form and was inaccurate. The case followed the death of Pupil X, [REDACTED], while a pupil at the School. Pupil X died aged seven [REDACTED]. The TRA proceedings concerned alleged fundamental and serious leadership failures by Mr Smalley, as headteacher, to manage safeguarding within the School that only came to light following Pupil X's death. Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for these reasons: 1. In 2013 and 2014 you did not provide staff at the school with regular and/or effective safeguarding and child protection training and updates. Mr Smalley admitted this particular as per the Statement of Agreed Facts. It is accepted that the only formal relevant training took place on 7 October 2013. This was training on a basic level. No other training took place in the relevant period. Those who missed the October 2013 session, including several part-time staff, were not trained at all and this would not have been rectified had it not been highlighted by the Local Authority safeguarding audit in November 2014. No training even took place after February 2014 when the new safeguarding arrangements at the School were put in place. As a result staff members were not even clear, by Mr Smalley's own admission, how and with whom they should raise safeguarding concerns. It is particularly concerning that no training took place after October 2013 despite Mr Smalley having attended that training and therefore being well aware of the importance of further training needing to take place. The training was therefore wholly inadequate. 2. You did not implement an adequate system and/or ensure a system was in place at the school designed to identify and record safeguarding and child protection issues. 8 Mr Smalley admitted this particular in his Statement of Agreed Facts. From September 2013 to February 2014 no formal safeguarding meetings took place. The [REDACTED] was Witness B, [REDACTED]. In the early weeks of the School year they had a weekly meeting covering generic matters but their professional relationship broke down and no further meetings were held. In February 2014 Mr Smalley completed safeguarding training. He introduced a new policy to be administered by a team of Witness B, Individual A, who was a newly appointed learning mentor, and himself. At that stage Individual A had not completed safeguarding training. Individual A introduced a box system for the deposit of safeguarding concern forms. However, the box was inappropriately placed in a public area of the School and everyone