Unknown Teacher

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions herself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher reference number:

7235295

Teacher's date of birth:

4 July 1954

Location teacher worked:

Birmingham, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel:

7 to 9 September 2015

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 Robin Reynolds, formerly employed in Birmingham, West Midlands.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on 7 to 9 September 2015.

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.

Mrs Beverley Reynolds & Mr Robin Reynolds: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2015 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 8 D. Summary of evidence 10 Documents 10 Witnesses 11 E. Decision and reasons 11 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 28 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Beverley Reynolds 30 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Robin Reynolds 31 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teachers: Mrs Beverley Reynolds Mr Robin Reynolds Teachers' ref numbers: 7370710 7235295 Teachers' date of birth: 26 August 1955 4 July 1954 NCTL case references 10955 and 10957 Date of determination: 10 September 2015 Former employer: Woodgate Primary School, Birmingham A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 7 to 9 September 2015 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Beverley Reynolds and Robin Reynolds. The panel members were Mr Paul Bompas (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Jean Carter (lay panellist) and Mr Peter Cooper (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Guy Micklewright of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the National College was Mr Stephen Brassington of Counsel, instructed by Nabarro solicitors. Mr Reynolds was not present but was represented by Mr Andrew Faux of Counsel. Mrs Reynolds was neither present nor represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the two Notice of Proceedings dated 23 June 2015. It was alleged that Mrs Beverley Reynolds was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed at Woodgate Primary School ("the School"): 1. On a date unknown in May 2011 she administered an examination in an inappropriate manner in that she: a) told pupil(s) an answer; b) instructed staff to erase pupil(s') incorrect answers and tell them to do it again. 2. On 16 May 2012 she administered a Mathematics Paper A SATs examination in an unprofessional manner in that she: a) allowed pupils to receive unauthorised additional time; b) allowed and/or arranged for an excessive number of staff to invigilate the examination; c) allowed pupil(s) to talk to each other; d) allowed pupil(s) to compare answers; e) told pupil(s) answer(s); f) provided pupil(s) with hints about certain questions; g) pointed out and/or allowed staff to point out errors to pupil(s); h) erased answers for pupil(s); i) allowed or failed to prevent other staff erasing answers for pupil(s); j) allowed or failed to prevent other staff from assisting pupil(s) with how to work out the answer to questions; k) placed a pupil's tracing paper on the examination paper in a way which assisted the pupil with answering the question; l) left the examination room to check answer(s); m) carried a completed examination paper in such a way that pupil(s) could see answers. 5 3. On 16 May 2012 she inappropriately instructed the School Receptionist to stall the examination moderator if (s)he arrived. 4. In 2012 she amended pupil(s) test papers including: a) Mental Arithmetic papers; b) Reading test papers. 5. Her actions as set out at paragraph 4 above were dishonest in that she intentionally falsified examination records. 6. On one or more occasions, she inappropriately checked pupils' completed Mathematics Paper A SATs examination papers so that she would know how many marks they needed in their Mathematics Paper B SATs examination. 7. She acted unprofessionally to complainants/suspected whistle-blower(s) in that: a) on or around 16 May 2012 she confronted Witness A and said words to the effect, "I am appalled. You have a cheek discussing with anyone what has gone on in my classroom"; b) in relation to paragraph 7(a) above her manner was intimidating and/or aggressive; c) she deliberately isolated and/or ignored them; d) on or around 5 September 2012, she threw a diary at Witness A. 8. On or around 13 June 2012 she provided a false account when interviewed in that she: a) denied that inappropriate levels of assistance had been given to pupil(s) during the Mathematics Paper A SATs examination on 16 May 2012; b) initially denied that pupils had been given extra time during the Mathematics Paper A SATs examination on 16 May 2012. 9. On or around 22 January 2013 she provided a false account when interviewed in that she: a) denied pupil(s) had been given more than five minutes extra time during the Mathematics Paper A SATs examination on 16 May 2012; b) denied having changed answers on any examination script, stating she had only reinforced what the pupil had written because it was faint. 6 10. Her actions as set out at paragraphs 8 and/or 9 above were dishonest in that she intentionally provided information which she knew to be false. Mrs Reynolds did not formally admit any of the allegations, although she did indicate in her correspondence with the National College that a number of matters were not in dispute. Mrs Reynolds has indicated through correspondence that she accepts that her actions constitute unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. It was alleged that Mr Robin Reynolds was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as Headteacher at Woodgate Primary School ("the School"): 1. Following concerns that the Mathematics Paper A SATs examination taken on 16 May 2012 had been improperly conducted he: a) inappropriately investigated the matter himself despite the fact it concerned the conduct of Beverley Reynolds ("BR"), his wife; b) failed adequately to investigate or have investigated concerns that pupils had: i. received additional unauthorised time; ii. received inappropriate assistance. c) failed appropriately to escalate the concerns uncovered during his investigation; d) told Witness C that her concerns should not be discussed outside the school; e) failed to explain to staff how their complaints would be dealt with and/or failed to keep them informed; f) told BR the name(s) of those who had complained about her; g) his actions as set out at paragraph(s) 1(a) and/or (b) and/or (c) and/or (d) and/or (e) and/or (f) were motivated by a desire to: i. minimise the concerns raised, and/or; ii. protect the School, and/or 7 iii. protect BR. 2. On 16 May 2012 he did not properly store SAT papers in that he was seen with SAT papers on his desk: 3. In 2012 he amended and/or allowed pupil(s) test papers to be amended including: a) Mental Arithmetic papers; b) Reading test papers. 4. His actions as set out at paragraph 3 above were dishonest in that he intentionally falsified examination records: 5. He subjected and/or allowed other staff to subject the suspected whistle-blowers to inappropriate behaviour by: a) failing to take appropriate steps to protect their identities; b) ignoring them; c) encouraging or allowing other staff to ignore them; d) reassigning them in order to split them up; e) telling Witness D that Witness A was a whistle-blower. 6. After he was told that there was going to be a Standards and Testing Agency ("STA") investigation and that he should only inform the Deputy Headteacher of this, he inappropriately told other staff, or allowed other staff to be told; 7. He knew or ought to have known his actions as set out at paragraph 6 above could prejudice the STA investigation; 8. During the STA investigation he acted inappropriately in that: a) he told Witness D to say when interviewed that: i. SATs papers were locked in a cupboard until the examination started; ii. SATs papers were packaged up after the examination and put in Individual A’s room until collected by the courier. b) by his conduct as set out at paragraph 8(a) above he was trying to influence Witness D’s evidence; 8 c) his conduct as set out at paragraph 8(a)(ii) above was dishonest in that he knew the SAT papers had been brought to his office prior to being packaged up; d) he asked Witness D what she had told the investigators after her interview; e) when he spoke to Witness D as set out at paragraph 8(d) above, his tone was forceful and/or intimidating; f) when escorting Witness A to her interview, he failed to take any action when Individual B told Witness A in his presence "remember what you say affects the school and be aware of what you say", or words to that effect; g) he knew that Individual B's actions as set out at paragraph 8(f) above were intended to try to influence Witness A’s evidence; h) he asked Witness A what she had told the investigators after she was interviewed; i) he advised BR to amend her account only after he had ascertained the evidence against her was strong. 9. During a meeting on 5 December 2012 he falsely stated that he was never present during SATs examinations. 10. His conduct as set out at paragraph 9 above was dishonest in that he knew that he had administered a SATs examination in May 2012. Mr Reynolds admitted particulars 1 a) and 5 e). Mr Reynolds accepts unacceptable professional conduct but not conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. C. Preliminary applications The panel heard a number of preliminary applications. In respect of each application the panel considered the submissions of the parties carefully and accepted the advice of the legal advisor. Proceeding in absence The presenting officer applied to proceed in the absence of Mrs Reynolds. The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been properly served on the teacher in according with the Teacher Misconduct – Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession ("the Procedures"). The panel noted that in her response to the Notice of Proceedings dated 15 July 2015 that Mrs Reynolds stated that she does not intend either 9 on attending the hearing or being represented. The panel therefore concluded that Mrs Reynolds had voluntarily decided to waive her right to attend at the hearing as well as her right to be represented at the hearing. The panel did not consider that an adjournment would be likely to result in Mrs Reynolds' future attendance. The panel acknowledged the wider public interest in the expeditious disposal of regulatory proceedings; the interests of Mr Reynolds in having the allegations against him disposed of; and the potential effect of any further delays on the witnesses who are due to give evidence. Accordingly, the panel decided to proceed in Mrs Reynolds' absence. Application to proceed in private The presenting officer applied to the panel for the evidence relating to Mrs Reynolds' health, including documentary evidence in the bundle, to be held in private. The panel granted this application, considering that the public interest in a fully public hearing was, in respect of matter pertaining to the health of the teachers and of other witnesses, outweighed by the private interests of those persons in having the details of their sensitive personal information kept private. It therefore determined that where any oral evidence is given or submissions made about the health of any person in the proceedings, then to no more than the minimum extent required the panel will sit in private. No documents which solely relate to health matters shall be available to the public. Where documents contain a mixture of health and non-health matters, then those parts of the documents which relate to health matters shall not be made available to the public. Application to amend The presenting officer applied to the panel to amend paragraph 10 of the Notice of Proceedings relating to Mr Reynolds. He requested that the number "7" in the text be changed to the number "9". He said that this was an amendment which could be made without injustice as it was a typographical error. The application was not opposed by Mr Faux on behalf of Mr Reynolds. The panel decided to allow the application. In the panel's view it was an obvious typographical error and no prejudice appeared to have been caused to Mr Reynolds by virtue of the nature and timing of the application. Invitation to amend During the course of opening the case for Mr Reynolds, Mr Faux invited the panel to consider at some point during the proceedings amending the Notice of Proceedings in respect of Mr Reynolds, utilising its powers under paragraph 4.56 of the Procedures to amend an allegation or particulars of an allegation of its own motion. 10 In correspondence dated 26 March 2015, a proposed revised allegation was proffered to the National College on behalf of Mr Reynolds. That allegation accepted Mr Reynold's guilt of unacceptable professional conduct ("UPC"); that he had failed to administer the SATs correctly; that he had failed to carry out an adequate investigation; and that he had failed to adequately question witnesses as part of that investigation. No admissions were made in that correspondence – nor are made today – in relation to those parts of the allegation which alleges dishonest behaviour and subjecting whistle-blowers to inappropriate behaviour. The proposed revision had been rejected by the National College. Mr Faux submitted that this was a case where a reasonable and proportionate resolution would be for his client to be found guilty of UPC on the basis of the revised allegation and that it was appropriate for the panel to take this course notwithstanding the National College's objection to it. The panel decided not to take the course it was invited to by Mr Faux. In the panel's view, there were a number of very serious allegations faced by Mr Reynolds arising from the evidence of a number of witnesses. These included allegations of dishonesty and allegations which amount, in effect, to the bullying of junior staff members. These are allegations which should be publically aired in order to uphold public confidence in the regulatory process. This is particularly so given how important public confidence is in the honesty and integrity of a headteacher at a primary school. Secondly, for the panel to take this approach it would, in effect, be stepping into the shoes of the prosecutor. Whilst it accepts that the proceedings are investigative rather than adversarial, in reality it is the National College which decides which allegations a teacher is to face and is required to prove them. It is not for the panel to usurp that function. D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 2 to 4 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 8 to 22 Section 3: NCTL witness statements – pages 25 to 177 Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 180 to 198 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 200 to 490 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. 11 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from:  Witness A (via video-link) – former Teaching Assistant at Woodgate Primary School  Witness B – former Teaching Assistant at Woodgate Primary School  Witness C – former Teaching Assistant at Woodgate Primary School  Witness D – former Receptionist at Woodgate Primary School E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: We have now carefully considered the case before us and have reached a decision. We confirm that we have read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. This matter arises out of the maladministration of SATs examinations at Woodgate Primary School and the events which followed three whistle-blowers bringing their concerns firstly to the Headteacher, Robin Reynolds, and then to the attention of the Standards and Testing Agency ("STA"). Beverley Reynolds, a teacher at the school and a member of the Senior Leadership Team ("SLT"), was alleged by three Teaching Assistants to have facilitated cheating during the Year 6 Mathematics SATs examination on 16 May 2012, and indeed in a previous examination in 2011. Those Teaching Assistants were Witness A, Witness B and Witness C. It was said that prior to the examination in 2012 that they and the Receptionist, Witness D, were instructed by Mrs Reynolds to stall the moderator should he or she arrive at the premises. During the examination itself it was said that a number of inappropriate events took place, including: allowing pupils additional time to complete the examination; providing pupils with prompts and hints about the answers or in other ways providing pupils with opportunities to discover what the answers to the questions were during the course of the examinations; and permitting pupils to talk and confer. The National College's case is that the Teaching Assistants who did this were provided with an "indirect instruction" from Mrs Reynolds, i.e. that it was abundantly clear what was expected of them and no explicit and direct instruction was required. It is further said that Mrs Reynolds herself amended the pupils' test papers. Mr Reynolds is alleged to have been complicit in the amending of pupils' test papers, making adjustments to them in his office prior to them being collected by the Parcelforce courier. 12 Following the examination, a number of the Teaching Assistants discussed their concerns regarding the manner in which the examination had been conducted and what they were being required to do. Individual C, a teacher present during that discussion, in due course informed Mr Reynolds, who then spoke to each of the Teaching Assistants individually shortly thereafter. Mr Reynolds was the husband of Mrs Reynolds. It is said that he acted inappropriately by taking it upon himself to investigate the concerns of the Teaching Assistants when there was a conflict of interest and that the manner in which he did conduct that investigation was inadequate. The Teaching Assistants appear to have been concerned that Mr Reynolds was not treating their concerns with the requisite level of seriousness and so decided to escalate their concerns by making a complaint direct to the STA. Following that complaint being made an investigation was carried out by the STA. What is then said to have begun in earnest is two things: firstly, an attempt to cover up what was alleged to have happened by leaning on staff to give false accounts when questioned during the investigation, as well as by the two teachers giving knowingly false accounts to the investigators themselves; and, secondly, an endeavour by both teachers to isolate, intimidate or otherwise act inappropriately towards those members of staff who were suspected of being the whistle-blowers. Findings of fact Our findings of fact in respect of Mrs Beverley Reynolds are as follows: We have found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for these reasons: The panel was very impressed with the evidence it heard from those witnesses who came to give oral evidence before it. It considered their evidence to be credible, sincere, consistent, coherent and accurate. It did not consider that their evidence was tainted by any improper motive or desire to embellish. The panel was very conscious of the fact that it did not have the benefit of being able to see the evidence of the two teachers tested as they have voluntarily absented themselves. In addition, it has not had the opportunity of hearing the evidence of those witnesses who have given statements in support of Mrs Reynolds tested as, notwithstanding the National College writing to her stating that their evidence was not accepted and they were required for cross-examination, they did not attend. As a result, where there was a conflict between the oral evidence adduced by the National College and the accounts of the teachers and/or the defence witnesses the panel felt it could give more weight to the evidence of the witnesses who gave oral evidence. 13 1. On a date unknown in May 2011 you administered an examination in an inappropriate manner in that you: a) told pupil(s) an answer; b) instructed staff to erase pupil(s') incorrect answers and tell them to do it again. The panel accepts the evidence of Witness B and Witness C that during an examination in May 2011 that pupils were asked to change an incorrect answer by Mrs Reynolds, and to erase incorrect answers and tell the pupils to do it again. The panel notes that Mrs Reynolds is silent in her statement as to whether or not she accepts these allegations, save to say that in 2011 the school was under pressure from Ofsted. 2. On 16 May 2012 you administered a Mathematics Paper A SATs examination in an unprofessional manner in that you: a) allowed pupils to receive unauthorised additional time; This particular is not disputed by Mrs Reynolds and is consistent with the oral evidence which the panel have heard. b) allowed and/or arranged for an excessive number of staff to invigilate the examination; The panel accepts the oral evidence of the number of staff invigilating the examination on 16 May 2012 and accepts that the number in question was excessive within the context of the National Curriculum assessments 'Test administrators' guide'. There is no evidence of any reason for the unusually high number of staff present. There is no dispute that Mrs Reynolds was present throughout the examination, directly involved in its invigilation, and was leading the test administration. It therefore follows that she was aware of the high number of test administrators present. As a senior member of teaching staff she had the ability to be able to control who was present and who was not. It is clear to the panel that she was the reason for the numbers of staff present. c) allowed pupil(s) to talk to each other; Mrs Reynolds denies this allegation. All the Teaching Assistants are consistent in their account that this did occur. For the reasons given above the panel prefer the oral evidence of the Teaching Assistants. d) allowed pupil(s) to compare answers; Witness B's and Witness C's evidence was that the layout of the room and the seating arrangements were such that the pupils may have been able to see the answers written by other pupils. Witness A's evidence was that the pupils were talking to each other and showing each other their examination paper. This was an examination room where there 14 was a lot of talking and where the examination was not being carried out under proper examination conditions. Whilst not all of the witnesses directly observed pupils showing each other their examination papers, all of the witnesses were clear that the pupils were talking to each other. The panel is therefore satisfied that it is more likely than not that the pupils did compare their answers, either by talking and/or by showing each other their examination papers. e) told pupil(s) answer(s); f) provided pupil(s) with hints about certain questions; g) pointed out and/or allowed staff to point out errors to pupil(s); h) erased answers for pupil(s); i) allowed or failed to prevent other staff erasing answers for pupil(s); j) allowed or failed to prevent other staff from assisting pupil(s) with how to work out the answer to questions; k) placed a pupil's tracing paper on the examination paper in a way which assisted the pupil with answering the question; l) left the examination room to check answer(s); m) carried a completed examination paper in such a way that pupil(s) could see answers; The panel is satisfied by the oral evidence of all three Teaching Assistants that the administration of the examination was not in accordance with the STA guidance, insomuch as staff and pupils were freely talking; staff were actively assisting pupils; providing hints about certain questions; and erasing answers. They gave evidence of how they were afraid of Mrs Reynolds. The panel concluded that Mrs Reynolds was actively encouraging and indeed participating in these activities, including carrying around a completed examination paper which the witnesses describe as being carried in a way which could easily be seen. The Teaching Assistants gave evidence that there came a time when, it having been drawn to her attention that one of the 'model answers' was incorrect, Mrs Reynolds left the room in order to ascertain the correct answer. Mrs Reynolds accepted in her response to the Agreed Statement of Facts dated 17 March 2014 that she left the room to check an answer with either Individual D, a maths teacher, or Mr Reynolds. However, she denies that she told the pupils the answer to that question. Witness C gave evidence that Mrs Reynolds told the pupils the correct answer to that question. The panel considers that, on the balance of probabilities, Witness C's evidence is accurate and correct. 15 3. On 16 May 2012 you inappropriately instructed the School Receptionist to stall the examination moderator if (s)he arrived. There is no dispute that this conversation took place and that this request was made. The only matter in dispute is whether this was said in jest or not. The panel does not accept that this was said in jest. It accepted the evidence of Witness D that this was a serious instruction which was to be taken as such. She had worked at the school for the entirety of Mrs Reynolds' tenure and it is reasonable to expect her to be able to accurately judge when Mrs Reynolds was joking and when she was not. The instruction was then repeated to the Teaching Assistants shortly thereafter, also in the presence of Witness D who was working nearby. The panel accepts their evidence that it was intended as a serious instruction. The panel finds that to give such an instruction was quite inappropriate. Even if such a comment was said in jest, in the panel's view that would still have been an inappropriate thing to say given the serious nature of the occasion. 4. In 2012 you amended pupil(s) test papers including: a) Mental Arithmetic papers; b) Reading test papers. Both of these matters have been expressly admitted by Mrs Reynolds in her response to the Agreed Statement of Facts and in her witness statement. Individual E, an expert Forensic Examiner of Handwriting and Questioned Documents, has given unchallenged evidence that these papers have indeed been amended. The panel therefore finds both of these particulars proved. 5. Your actions as set out at paragraph 4 above were dishonest in that you intentionally falsified examination records. The panel finds that the test papers were intentionally falsified. It is not possible, on the basis of the facts the panel have found proved, to do so inadvertently. The panel finds that any reasonable and honest teacher would consider the deliberate falsification of SATs papers to be a dishonest act. In her witness statement Mrs Reynolds states that when she amended the English paper answers her actions were not premediated and that, in effect, she was not thinking clear and consciously. The panel rejects this. It is clear to the panel that the evidence demonstrates consistent endeavours by Mrs Reynolds to manipulate examination results. The panel considers that Mrs Reynolds was clearly aware that what she was doing was dishonest. 6. On one or more occasions, you inappropriately checked pupils' completed Mathematics Paper A SATs examination papers so that you would know how many marks they needed in their Mathematics Paper B SATs examination. Both Witness B and Witness C described in their evidence how Mrs Reynolds would indicate that a pupil required a certain amount of marks to get to reach the required level 16 based upon their mark in Paper A. The panel accepts this evidence as accurate. The panel accepts the evidence of Witness D that the security of examination papers was not in accordance with the required procedures. There was ample opportunity for Mrs Reynolds to check the Paper A scripts. The panel infers from the contents of the conversation that she must have checked the relevant examination papers and did so for the purpose of finding out how many marks the pupils required in Paper B. Accordingly the panel finds this particular proved. 7. You acted unprofessionally to complainants/suspected whistle-blower(s) in that: a) on or around 16 May 2012 you confronted Witness A and said words to the effect, "I am appalled. You have a cheek discussing with anyone what has gone on in my classroom"; b) in relation to paragraph 7(a) above your manner was intimidating and/or aggressive; Mrs Reynolds denies both limbs of this allegation, although does not dispute that the conversation took place. The panel finds credible and accurate the account of Witness A that this comment was directed to her by Mrs Reynolds during the course of that conversation, or at least words approximating to it. It accepts that Mrs Reynolds invaded her personal space during that conversation. The panel concludes that this comment could not have been anything other than intimidating for Witness A coming as it did from such a senior member of the teaching staff. Witness A described herself as opinionated and confident. The panel considers that, at that time, she would have been a person of reasonable fortitude. If she perceived that the manner of what was said was intimidating and aggressive then in the view of the panel it can properly be said that the actions of Mrs Reynolds were indeed that. All the witnesses described Mrs Reynolds as being intimidating in her manner after the Teaching Assistants had raised their concerns. The panel therefore finds that both sub-particulars of this particular are proved. c) you deliberately isolated and/or ignored them; It is not in dispute that Mrs Reynolds intentionally isolated the three Teaching Assistants. What is in issue is whether she acted unprofessionally in doing so. Mrs Reynolds asserts that she did this because she was of the view that it was best to keep social and professional contact to a bare minimum following the whistle-blowing allegations being made. However, the perception of the three Teaching Assistants was that the isolation which they were subject to was a form of victimisation as a result of the disclosure they had made. The panel concluded that the correct characterisation of the isolation which the Teaching Assistants were subjected to is the latter. Witness D described in her evidence how Mrs Reynolds had referred to them as the "three witches…they are stirring up trouble in their little coven" and that they had "sent her [Witness A] to Coventry". It is 17 clear to the panel that the manner in which the three Teaching Assistants were treated by Mrs Reynolds was entirely unprofessional. d) on or around 5 September 2012, you threw a diary at Witness A. The panel accepted the evidence of Witness A that a diary was thrown by Mrs Reynolds in her direction. It is not clear whether it was intended that that diary actually hit her. However, the panel concluded that for Mrs Reynolds to throw a diary at a junior colleague in the manner in which she did was entirely unprofessional. 8. On or around 13 June 2012 you provided a false account when interviewed in that you: a) denied that inappropriate levels of assistance had been given to pupil(s) during the Mathematics Paper A SATs examination on 16 May 2012; b) initially denied that pupils had been given extra time during the Mathematics Paper A SATs examination on 16 May 2012. It is clear from the transcripts of the interviews with Individual F that these accounts were indeed given by Mrs Reynolds. The panel have already concluded that there were inappropriate levels of assistance given during the examination and that pupils had been given extra time. Mrs Reynolds' account given in that interview was therefore inaccurate and thus false. 9. On or around 22 January 2013 you provided a false account when interviewed in that you: a) denied pupil(s) had been given more than five minutes extra time during the Mathematics Paper A SATs examination on 16 May 2012; It is clear from the transcripts of the interviews with Individual G that Mrs Reynolds only accepted that she gave no more than five minutes extra time to the pupils. The panel have already concluded that pupils had been given more extra time than that. Mrs Reynolds' account given in that interview was therefore inaccurate and thus false. b) denied having changed answers on any examination script, stating you had only reinforced what the pupil had written because it was faint. This account was provided through her union representative during the interview with Individual G. In her response to the Statement of Agreed Facts Mrs Reynolds has accepted that she did amend the examination scripts. She accepts in her 'Submission (including mitigation)' document that "…the alteration of scripts, in particular, is amongst the worst of professional breaches of trust, of which I remain deeply ashamed." In her 18 witness statement Mrs Reynolds does not assert that the account given was correct, merely stating that the account was one given by her union representative. Taking into account her admissions, the panel's findings in relation to the other allegations against her and the unchallenged findings in the expert report, the panel concludes that this account was inaccurate and therefore false. 10. Your actions as set out at paragraphs 8 and/or 9 above were dishonest in that you intentionally provided information which you knew to be false. The panel finds that Mrs Reynolds acted dishonestly in giving the account she did to Individual F. Mrs Reynolds was the person who herself provided that information to the interviewer and therefore could not have done anything other than intentionally conveyed that information. The panel has found that Mrs Reynolds was intricately involved in the inappropriate administration of the examination on 16 May 2012. She was the person in the school primarily responsible for the administration of SATs and therefore would have known well what the guidance required. The panel concludes that she must have known that the account she was giving was entirely false. For the same reasons, she would have known that telling Individual G that the examination lasted no longer than an extra five minutes was false. In the panel's view a reasonable and honest teacher would consider that knowingly providing false information during a formal investigation is dishonest. The panel concludes that Mrs Reynolds must have known that what she was doing was dishonest. In respect of the account given by Mrs Reynolds' union representative to Individual G regarding the alteration of answers on the examination scripts, the panel concludes that she did intend for that account to be given. Whilst it is right to say that the account was given by her representative and not by her, she was present the entire time and was able to correct anything he said which was inaccurate. Indeed, she is recorded as interjecting at one point to say "I would not normally do this and I tried to block it out of my mind". She did not take that opportunity to correct anything said by her representative. The panel concluded that at the time the account was given Mrs Reynolds knew that the account given was false and that, for the reasons given above, her actions were dishonest. 19 The panel's findings in respect of Mr Robin Reynolds were as follows: We have found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for these reasons: 1. Following concerns that the Mathematics Paper A SATs examination taken on 16 May 2012 had been improperly conducted you: a) inappropriately investigated the matter yourself despite the fact it concerned the conduct of Beverley Reynolds ("BR"), your wife; Admitted and proved. In the panel's view a serious set of allegations had been made against Mrs Reynolds and, as her husband, he was subject to a significant conflict of interest. Whilst it was not inappropriate of Mr Reynolds to conduct a very preliminary investigation of what the broad nature of the cheating allegations were, as soon as he became aware that his wife was implicated it was then incumbent on him to cease being involved. b) failed adequately to investigate or have investigated concerns that pupils had: i. received additional unauthorised time; ii. received inappropriate assistance. The panel accepts that there was a duty on Mr Reynolds to carry out a preliminary investigation having been told that concerns had been raised about the way in which the Paper A SATs examination had been conducted. The panel accepts that an investigation of some sort was carried out in that, having had the concerns initially brought to his attention by Individual C, Mr Reynolds went and spoke to the Teaching Assistants to gather information. However, the panel does not accept that his investigation was an adequate one. The questions which he asked, such as they were, were insufficiently probing and the answers did not appear to be properly recorded. The panel rejects the suggestion that the Teaching Assistants did not provide Mr Reynolds with sufficient information; it was incumbent on him to elicit it. The panel accepts the evidence of Witness A where she says that Mr Reynolds said to her "You know how it works with SATs? You know we need to get good results, don't you?" and that "lessons will be learned". He said that he would speak to the "other girls". The panel infers from the fact that he did not elicit as much information as he should have done that the reason for not doing so was because he did not wish the matter to be followed up with the necessary degree of rigour and purpose. 20 c) failed appropriately to escalate the concerns uncovered during your investigation; The allegations which were made by the Teaching Assistants were extremely grave indeed. The STA guidance requires a Headteacher where there appears to have been evidence of cheating where pupils have gained an advantage by doing so to report the matter to the STA. That he did not do. d) told Witness C that her concerns should not be discussed outside the School; There is no dispute that this conversation took place. The panel accepts as correct the impression which Witness C formed that at the time Mr Reynolds was attempting to minimise the problem. In the panel's view, Mr Reynolds was seeking to hush up the alleged cheating rather than to deal with it fully and openly. That was the reason for the comment being made, and not for some otherwise creditable motive, such as avoiding witnesses' evidence becoming contaminated. e) failed to explain to staff how their complaints would be dealt with and/or failed to keep them informed; There is no real dispute that the staff were neither informed of the process of how their complaints were dealt with nor the progress made. In his witness statement Mr Reynolds states that he thought "the action of reducing staff numbers would have been seen as evidence of the action taken…" . The only feedback which any member of staff appears to have received was when Witness A was told that "lessons will be learnt". In the panel's view it was incumbent on Mr Reynolds to inform all three members of staff what the process was for dealing with their complaints, even if that was little more than a very brief overview and suggesting that they read the school's policies. Furthermore, it was also incumbent on him as matters progressed to say, at the very least, that matters were being investigated. He did not do either of these things. f) told BR the name(s) of those who had complained about her; Witness A describes how around 2.30pm on 16 May 2012 Individual C, the teacher who she assists, left their classroom, apparently to report her concerns to Mr Reynolds. Witness D gave evidence that on that same day she saw Mrs Reynolds going into the office of Mr Reynolds around 2.45pm. She then describes her leaving the room in a rage at around 3pm. Witness A’s evidence was that she was then confronted by Mrs Reynolds at around 3.15pm. The panel infers from this sequence of events that during that meeting between Mr and Mrs Reynolds he told her who the identities of those who complained about her were. 21 g) your actions as set out at paragraph(s) 1(a) and/or (b) and/or (c) and/or (d) and/or (e) and/or (f) were motivated by a desire to: i. minimise the concerns raised, and/or; ii. protect the School, and/or iii. protect BR. The panel finds each sub-particular of this particular proved in respect of each of the above particulars pleaded in its preamble. The panel concludes that the motivations behind Mr Reynolds' actions were indeed those set out above. It infers this from the various comments which were made to staff; from the inadequate nature of the investigation; the failure to escalate the concerns to the correct level; and the fact that at a later stage he asked Individual F "can we play this down?" 2. On 16 May 2012 you did not properly store SAT papers in that you were seen with SAT papers on your desk: Mr Reynolds in his witness statement accepts that it was very possible that he had SATs papers on his desk on the basis that he had to place them in alphabetical order and make a record of any which were missing due to pupil absence. He denies the allegation on the basis that, apart from when being used by pupils, the papers were unopened and locked in a cabinet in his room and then, as soon as possible, were locked up again. However, the guidance requires that at the end of the test the test papers should be collected in and immediately put in order and packed away. Taking the papers for a period of at least two hours for the Headteacher to pore over them is not consistent with this requirement. Accordingly the panel find this allegation proved. 3. In 2012 you amended and/or allowed pupil(s) test papers to be amended including: a) Mental Arithmetic papers; b) Reading test papers. Witness D’s evidence was that after the examination she saw Mr Reynolds with the SATs papers on his desk with a pencil in his hand. Her evidence was that she had seen him do this in previous years but that she had never seen him write anything. Mr Reynolds accepts that it was possible that Witness D did see what she describes seeing as it is necessary for the examination scripts to be put into an alphabetical order. On the balance of probabilities, the panel is not satisfied that Mr Reynolds did himself amend the test papers. 22 However, the panel infers from the fact that the courier was told that at 12.15pm he could not take the test papers away because Mr Reynolds had yet to look at them, that him doing so was an established procedure. The evidence of Witness D suggests he was looking at the papers for at least a period of two hours. In the panel's view it is unlikely that he would not have noticed the amendments which his wife had made. He did not stop the test results being sent off nor did he inform the STA. For those reasons the panel finds proved that he did allow test papers to be amended. 4. Your actions as set out at paragraph 3 above were dishonest in that you intentionally falsified examination records. In Mr Reynolds' witness statement he accepts that he had taken on responsibility for completing the record sheet. For all SATs there is a headteacher's declaration which must be filled in. Page 20 of the STA guidance states that "submission of the form confirms the tests have been administered in accordance with the statutory requirements set out in the Key Stage 2 ARA and that the security and confidentiality of the tests have been maintained". He knew at the time he was filling it in that amendments had been made to the examination papers and that as a result he was giving false information. To do that would be regarded, in the panel's view, as dishonest by reasonable and honest teachers. Mr Reynolds must have realised that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards. Accordingly the panel find this allegation proved. 5. You subjected and/or allowed other staff to subject the suspected whistle- blowers to inappropriate behaviour by: a) failing to take appropriate steps to protect their identities; b) ignoring them; c) encouraging or allowing other staff to ignore them; d) reassigning them in order to split them up; Mr Reynolds accepted in his response to the Agreed Statement of Facts that as Headteacher he was responsible for ensuring that the school whistle-blowing policy was adhered to by both himself and by other members of staff. He acknowledged that the atmosphere in the school was strained as a result of the maladministration of SATs. The panel is satisfied that the identities of the whistle-blowers were revealed when they should not have been; that there was a practice among the staff of ignoring the three people suspected of being whistle-blowers; that staff were actively encouraged to ignore them; and they were reassigned in order to split them apart. The panel is clear that there appeared to be two 'camps' in the school. The responsibility to prevent the above taking place is, ultimately, the headteacher’s. He was clearly aware of what was going on and yet did not take any steps to prevent it. Whilst it is not possible for the panel to resolve who took the decision to reassign the suspected whistle-blowers, it was nevertheless something which was ultimately his responsibility. The panel readily infers that the 23 motivation behind the decision, the timing being as it was, that the whistle-blowers were indeed reassigned in order to split them up. The panel accepts the evidence of the Teaching Assistants that they felt that, after they had blown the whistle, both Mrs and Mr Reynolds were not speaking to them and that neither were other staff. On the balance of probabilities the panel is satisfied that Mr Reynolds was involved in encouraging other staff to ignore the suspected whistle-blowers as well as ignoring them himself. e) telling Witness D that Witness A was a whistle-blower. Admitted and proved. 6. After you were told that there was going to be a Standards and Testing Agency ("STA") investigation and that you should only inform the Deputy Headteacher of this, you inappropriately told other staff, or allowed other staff to be told; It is accepted by Mr Reynolds in his witness statement that he told not only the Deputy Headteacher of the STA investigation but that he also told Individual C. The panel considers that this was inappropriate because he had been directly instructed to tell nobody other than the Deputy Head. It is clear to the panel that the information was distributed further than these two people as the Teaching Assistants became aware of the investigation at a point that they should not have been. However, the panel cannot be satisfied that Mr Reynolds' evidence that he directly instructed both the Deputy Headteacher and Individual C not to tell anybody else is untrue. It is entirely reasonable to expect such an instruction to be followed. Therefore, the panel finds this allegation proved on the basis that Mr Reynolds himself inappropriately informed other staff of the investigation, namely Individual C, but not that he allowed other staff to be told. 7. You knew or ought to have known your actions as set out at paragraph 6 above could prejudice the STA investigation; Mr Reynolds says that he did not realise at the time that the STA investigation could be prejudiced if he spoke to Individual C. The panel does not accept this account. Having been told that he must not speak to any member of staff other than the Deputy Headteacher, he must have been aware that the reason for being given that instruction was to avoid that investigation being prejudiced in some way. The panel finds that Mr Reynolds did know that there was a risk that speaking to other members of staff about the investigation might prejudice it but nevertheless went on to do so anyway. 24 8. During the STA investigation you acted inappropriately in that: a) you told Witness D to say when interviewed that: i. SATs papers were locked in a cupboard until the examination started; ii. SATs papers were packaged up after the examination and put in Individual A’s room until collected by the courier. b) by your conduct as set out at paragraph 8(a) above you were trying to influence Witness D’s evidence; The panel accepts Witness D’s evidence with regards to the contents of this conversation as accurate and credible. She did not accept when it was put to her in cross-examination that when interviewed "all she can do is to talk about what you know". The panel rejects Mr Reynold's account of what was discussed. The clear inference which the panel draws from the contents of the conversation, which it found to have taken place, was that Mr Reynolds was taking advantage of his senior position in the school to persuade Witness D to give inaccurate evidence to the investigators. c) your conduct as set out at paragraph 8(a)(ii) above was dishonest in that you knew the SAT papers had been brought to your office prior to being packaged up; The panel finds that the papers had not been packaged up immediately and Mr Reynolds has accepted that the papers were laid out in his office. He would have known these facts at the time that he spoke to Witness D. In the panel's view a reasonable and honest teacher would consider asking a more junior member of staff to give an inaccurate account in a formal investigation is dishonest. The panel concludes that Mr Reynolds must have been aware of this at the time. It therefore finds that Mr Reynolds acted dishonestly. d) you asked Witness D what she had told the investigators after her interview; e) when you spoke to Witness D as set out at paragraph 8 (d) above, your tone was forceful and/or intimidating; There is no dispute that there was a conversation between Witness D and Mr Reynolds after her interview. Mr Reynolds denies that he asked her what she had said during her interview. The panel prefers the account of Witness D about the contents of both the conversation which took place immediately after her interview and the second conversation which she says took place in his office. It considers her account to be 25 accurate and credible. The panel considers it likely that, Mr Reynolds having asked her to give inaccurate evidence during her interview prior to her being interviewed, he would then wish to find out whether she had followed his instructions. The panel finds that during the second conversation the questions were asked of her in a forceful tone which led to her feeling intimidated. This resulted in her being upset by what she describes as a "confrontation" to the point where she felt she might not be able to come into work the following day. h) you asked Witness A what she had told the investigators after she was interviewed; The panel accepts the evidence of Witness A that Mr Reynolds asked her what she told investigators. 9. During a meeting on 5 December 2012 you falsely stated that you were never present during SATs examinations: It is clear from the transcript that Mr Reynolds said to the interviewer that he was not present during SATs examinations. He accepts in his witness statement that this was inaccurate (although he asserts that this was because he was mistaken). The panel therefore concludes that he did indeed make a false statement during that meeting. We have found the following particulars of the allegations against you not proven, for these reasons: 8. During the STA investigation you acted inappropriately in that: f) when escorting Witness A to her interview, you failed to take any action when Individual B told Witness A in your presence "remember what you say affects the school and be aware of what you say", or words to that effect; g) you knew that Individual B 's actions as set out at paragraph 8(f) above were intended to try to influence Witness A's evidence The panel considers the evidence of Witness A to be credible as regards her recollection of the contents of this conversation. Mr Reynolds says that he has no recollection of this conversation having taken place, although Witness A 's account is that he was present. Individual B has provided a signed witness statement saying that she does not recall having any conversation with Witness A at all at the time of taking her to her interview and that Mr Reynolds was not present to hear any such conversation had it taken place. The panel has not had the benefit of seeing Individual B 's account being tested in oral evidence. It therefore considers that the weight which it can give to her account is less than the weight it can give to the account of Witness A. It prefers the account of Witness A. 26 However, the only evidence to suggest that Mr Reynolds heard what was said is Witness A’s assertion in her evidence that he did. In the absence of any further evidence to assist the panel regarding, for example, the proximity of Mr Reynolds to Individual B and Witness A during that conversation it cannot be satisfied that he was aware that that comment had been made. As a result the panel is unable to find these two particulars proved. i) you advised BR to amend her account only after you had ascertained the evidence against her was strong. Having been permitted by the STA to be present as her 'representative or friend', there is no dispute that after Mrs Reynolds had given a response to allegations put to her by the investigators he asked for a break. During the break he canvassed with the investigators the strength of the evidence against Mrs Reynolds and was told that the evidence was strong. Mr Reynolds' account is that he then spoke to his wife and, having formed the view that she had not been telling the full story, encouraged her to do so. The interview then recommenced and some of the answers which Mrs Reynolds gave differed from the answers she had given at the outset of the interview. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Reynolds' account of the discussion he had with his wife is untrue. The panel considers that, having by then been permitted to act as Mrs Reynolds' representative by the STA, there was nothing inappropriate in him having this conversation with his wife. Accordingly this allegation is not proved. 10. Your conduct as set out at paragraph 9 above was dishonest in that you knew that you had administered a SATs examination in May 2012. Mr Reynolds says that when he said at the meeting on 5 December 2012 "as head teacher I am not present in the tests as I do not want to raise anxiety" that he was mistaken. The first question for the panel is whether it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that, during that meeting, Mr Reynolds knew that the statement he made was false. The panel is not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to show that he had that knowledge and was not simply mistaken, a mistake he later corrected. As a result, the question of whether or not Mr Reynolds knew during that meeting that, were he present, he would be regarded as an administrator of the examination does not fall to be considered. The panel therefore cannot find that Mr Reynolds' actions were dishonest. 27 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found a number of the allegations to have been proven, the panel has gone on to consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in respect of each teacher. In doing so, the panel has had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which we refer to as “the Advice”. Having found the facts of particulars 1 to 10 proved, we further find that Mrs Beverley Reynolds' conduct amounts to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Our reasons are as follows: Teachers are required to act with honesty and integrity and to uphold public confidence in the profession. Pupils, parents, teachers and the wider public are entitled to trust that school examinations are conducted in an appropriate manner. SATs are important examinations for Year 6 pupils due to the effect they can have on their later education in a secondary school. By dishonestly amending examination records and administering examinations in such a way so as to distort what should be the true results and mislead anybody who later sought to rely upon them, Mrs Reynolds was acting wholly inappropriately and unprofessionally. She then compounded this conduct by orchestrating a campaign of bullying and intimidation of those junior staff who had the courage to bring her apparently systematic maladministration of SATs examinations to light. She did this with the clear intention of seeking to cover up what she had been doing. When a formal investigation was eventually carried out by the STA, once again as a result of the brave actions of the three Teaching Assistants, she sought to dishonestly mislead investigators. The panel has concluded that Mrs Reynolds' actions amounted to a serious departure from the standards of conduct expected of a teacher and that her conduct amounts to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Having found the facts of particulars 1 to 8 (e), 8 (h), and 9 proved, we further find that Mr Robin Reynolds' conduct amounts to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Our reasons are as follows: As Headteacher, Mr Reynolds was the senior person in the school and therefore in a particular position of responsibility. It was incumbent on him to ensure that he acted with 28 scrupulous integrity when these issues came to light. As Headteacher and the husband of Mrs Reynolds his responsibilities were to ensure that the investigations into the allegations which had been made regarding the maladministration of the SATs examinations were investigated thoroughly and properly, and not tainted by his obvious conflict of interest. He should have been supportive of the whistle-blowers and protected their position in the school and ensured, so far as it was open to him to do so, that the STA investigators were able to carry out an effective investigation. This he did not do. Mr Reynolds was instead complicit in the maladministration of the examinations, dishonestly certifying that the examinations had been carried out appropriately when he knew that that they had not. He was directly involved in seeking to repress the complaint which had been made by the three Teaching Assistants and permitted those three members of staff to be subject to a campaign of intimidation and marginalisation. This was further compounded by his efforts to persuade members of staff to lie to investigators during a formal interview in order to protect the school and to protect his wife. His actions were a discreditable abuse of his authority and position. The panel has concluded that Mr Reynolds' actions amounted to a serious departure from the standards of conduct expected of a teacher and that his conduct amounts to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State The panel has gone on to consider whether it is appropriate to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order be imposed on one or both of the teachers. The panel's decision in respect of Mrs Beverley Reynolds is as follows: The panel considers Mrs Reynolds' conduct to be extremely serious, engaging as it does the following factors identified in page 10 of the Advice:  there was a serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers' Standards;  her misconduct seriously affected the education of pupils;  she had a deep-seated attitudinal problem;  she abused her position of trust;  she acted in a persistently dishonest fashion and endeavoured to cover her actions up; and  she carried out a sustained course of bullying more junior colleagues. 29 The panel gave consideration to what mitigating factors are present and considers them to be extremely limited. The panel accepts that Mrs Reynolds has a previous good history; has a number of supportive testimonials as to her character; and there is some medical evidence to suggest that she may have acted out of character as a result of being diagnosed with a number of medical conditions in and around 2011 and 2012. However, the panel felt it could not place much weight on that evidence given that it cannot know what the GP had been told by Mrs Reynolds, [redacted]. The panel considers that the public interest requires the making of a prohibition order in order to protect pupils, to uphold the reputation of the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, and outweighs the interests of the teacher. Furthermore, the panel considers that the conduct of Mrs Reynolds was so serious that she should not be permitted to apply for a prohibition order to be set aside. The panel therefore recommends to the Secretary of State that Mrs Beverley Reynolds is prohibited from teaching without permission to apply for the prohibition order to be set aside. The panel's decision in respect of Mr Robin Reynolds is as follows: The panel considers Mr Reynolds' actions to be particularly serious given that he was the most senior person in the school. He is in a position where he is a significant role model not only for pupils, but also for more junior staff. His conduct engages the same factors in the Advice as does the conduct of Mrs Reynolds. The panel considered the mitigation available to it to be extremely limited indeed. Mr Reynolds is a teacher of previous good character who would appear to have provided long service as a teacher. Beyond that the panel does not have the benefit of any further information. The panel considers that the public interest requires the making of a prohibition order in order to protect pupils, to uphold the reputation of the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, and outweighs the interests of the teacher. Furthermore, the panel considers that the conduct of Mr Reynolds was so serious that he should not be permitted to apply for a prohibition order to be set aside. The panel therefore recommends to the Secretary of State that Mr Robin Reynolds is prohibited from teaching without permission to apply for the prohibition order to be set aside. 30 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Beverley Reynolds I have carefully considered the findings and recommendations of the panel in this case. The panel has found all the allegations proved and considers the facts to amount to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The facts in this case relate to Mrs Reynolds inappropriately administering examinations and then going on to provide false accounts when interviewed. The panel has found dishonesty in respect of her providing false accounts. Mrs Reynolds’ actions are a serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel has found the following public interest considerations to be relevant in this case:  The protection of pupils;  Upholding the reputation of the profession; and  Declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. The panel has found very limited mitigation in this case and has recommended prohibition as an appropriate and proportionate sanction. I agree with that recommendation. The panel consider Mrs Reynolds’ actions to be so serious that she should not have the opportunity to apply to have the order set aside and I agree with the recommendation. This means that Mrs Beverley Reynolds is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against her, I have decided that Mrs Beverley Reynolds shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of her eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mrs Beverley Reynolds has a right of appeal to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days from the date she is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Paul Heathcote Date: 16 September 2015 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State. 31 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Robin Reynolds I have given careful consideration to the findings and recommendations of the panel in this case. The panel has found a range of allegations proved and considers the proven facts to amount to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The facts in this case relate to Mr Reynolds inappropriately investigating the alleged maladministration of examinations when there was a clear conflict of interest in that it concerned the conduct of his wife. The panel has found that Mr Reynolds was complicit in the amendment of test papers and the falsification of examination records. The panel has also found dishonesty. Mr Reynolds’ actions are a serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel has found the following public interest considerations to be relevant in this case:  The protection of pupils;  Upholding the reputation of the profession; and  Declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. The panel has found very limited mitigation and has recommended prohibition as an appropriate and proportionate sanction. I agree with that recommendation. The panel consider Mr Reynolds’ actions to be so serious that he should not have the opportunity to apply to have the order set aside and I agree with the recommendation. This means that Mr Robin Reynolds is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Robin Reynolds shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Robin Reynolds has a right of appeal to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Paul Heathcote Date: 16 September 2015 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.