Mr Ross Povey

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 Ross Povey

Teacher reference number: 18695

Teacher's date of birth: 25 October 2975

Location teacher worked: Manchester, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 07 October 2024 to 11 October 2024 and 14 to 18 October 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 Ross Povey, employed in Manchester, North West England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Ross Povey: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 As to whether disputed documents should be admitted 4 Application to admit additional documents 5 Application to admit statement of Mr Ross Povey 6 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 22 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education Teacher: Mr Ross Povey Teacher ref number: 0213816 Teacher date of birth: 25 October 1975 TRA reference: 18695 Date of determination: 18 October 2024 Former employer: Harrop Fold School, Worsley, Manchester Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 7 to 11 and 14 to 18 October 2024 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Ross Povey at a joint hearing with [REDACTED] (“Teacher A”) and [REDACTED] (“Teacher B”). The panel members were Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist) and Miss Rachel Kruger (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Graham Miles of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Andrew Cullen of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Ross Povey was not present and was not represented. Teacher A was present and was represented by Mr Andrew Faux of counsel, instructed by Ms Emma Willis-Payne and Ms Lauren Hilton of the Association of School and College Leaders. Teacher B was present and was represented by Mr Jonathan Storey of counsel, instructed by Ms Alicia Pimblett of the National Education Union. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 25 June 2024. It was alleged that Mr Ross Povey was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. He failed to maintain and/or ensure that staff maintained accurate records in respect of pupil attendance on one or more occasions, in that he: a. caused and/or permitted and/or failed to prevent the ‘off rolling’ of one or more pupils; b. caused and/or permitted and/or failed to prevent the amendment of one or more sets of pupil attendance data on SIMS to represent that one or more pupils attended School when he knew or ought to have known that in fact they had not; c. failed to ensure that one or more pupils were recorded as having been sent home before the end of the School day; 2. In so doing 1 above, he failed to protect pupil(s) from the risk of potential harm. 3. His conduct as may be found proven at 1 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Mr Ross Povey made no admissions of the allegations or as to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications As to whether disputed documents should be admitted In advance of the hearing, the panel received an agreed bundle of documents, which was limited to the notice of proceedings sent to each of the teachers concerned and statements and documents on behalf of the teachers. The panel was informed that there was a dispute between the parties as to the admissibility of some evidence which the TRA sought to rely upon. The panel was informed that, in accordance with paragraph 4.22 of Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2018 (“the Procedures”), a bundle of disputed documents had been prepared by the TRA and served on the other parties and the legal adviser. In making submissions to the panel as to the admissibility of the disputed evidence, the parties agreed that a determination could be made by the panel without sight of the 5 bundle of disputed documents. The parties agreed that the dispute related to the admissibility of evidence concerning years prior to the period of the allegations. It was noted that, at an earlier Case Management Hearing (CMH), the TRA had stated that the allegations related to the 2017/18 academic year when Teacher A was employed [REDACTED] and Mr Ross Povey and Teacher B were both employed [REDACTED] at Harrop Fold School (“the School”). Whilst confirming that the allegations to be considered by the panel were confined to the 2017/18 academic year, Mr Cullen submitted that evidence concerning earlier periods of time was relevant for the purpose of rebutting evidence of Teacher A and Teacher B that they were not aware of earlier ‘off-rolling’ of pupils. In support of this submission, Mr Cullen directed the panel to parts of the statements of Teacher A and Teacher B in which reference was made to the period prior to the 2017/18 academic year. Mr Faux and Mr Storey submitted that it was clear from the preparation of the bundle that the TRA had intended to rely on the disputed evidence before receiving the statements of Teacher A and Teacher B. It was further submitted that the only references in the statements of Teacher A and Teacher B to previous years were in respect of their lack of awareness of the practice of ‘off-rolling’ rather than assertions by them that there had been no ‘off-rolling’. For these reasons, they submitted that the TRA could not rely on the disputed evidence as evidence in rebuttal. After receiving legal advice, the panel considered the competing submissions in determining whether the disputed evidence should be admitted. The panel considered whether the disputed evidence was relevant to the matters to be determined by the panel and whether it would be fair to admit it. The panel concluded that the disputed evidence might reasonably be considered relevant. As to fairness, the panel carefully reviewed the statements of Teacher A and Teacher B. The panel noted that the TRA had stated at the CMH in September 2023 that the allegations related to the 2017/18 academic year. Given that the statements of Teacher A and Teacher B had been signed and submitted after the TRA had clarified the scope of the allegations at the CMH, the panel considered whether it would be fair to admit the disputed evidence. After very careful consideration, given that the scope of the allegations as defined by the TRA was confined to the 2017/18 academic year, the panel was not satisfied that potential prejudice to the teachers in admitting the disputed evidence would be outweighed by any probative value of that evidence. Accordingly, the panel determined that the disputed evidence should not be admitted. Application to admit additional documents On Day 4 of the hearing, Mr Cullen made an application to admit additional documents comprising appendices to the investigation report of Witness A, namely appendices numbered 10, 11 and 70. Mr Cullen explained that these documents had been served on 6 the parties, but had been inadvertently omitted from the bundle when it was redacted following the decision not to admit evidence relating to the period prior to the 2017/18 academic year. Mr Faux and Mr Storey confirmed that there were no objections to the admission of these documents. The panel determined that the documents should be admitted on the basis that the evidence was relevant, and it was not unfair to admit it. Application to admit statement of Mr Ross Povey On Day 8 of the hearing, Mr Faux made an application to admit a redacted written statement of Mr Ross Povey dated 4 March 2019. Mr Cullen informed the panel that he had been communicating with Mr Ross Povey’s representative in relation to the submission of written evidence on behalf of Mr Ross Povey. Mr Cullen said that Mr Ross Povey’s representative had submitted a letter confirming the outcome of a disciplinary hearing in relation to Mr Ross Povey. However, this was inadmissible in line with the principle that regulatory panels should not be referred to findings of fact from previous disciplinary hearings. As an alternative, Mr Cullen said that Mr Ross Povey’s representative had referred to a written statement which had been submitted at an earlier stage of the TRA’s investigation. Having identified that statement, Mr Cullen said that he had provided Mr Faux and Mr Storey with a copy to enable them to consider whether there were any objections from them to the late admission of this evidence. Having seen the document, Mr Faux made an application for the admission of the statement as he felt that it was of assistance to his client’s case. Mr Storey and Mr Cullen confirmed that they had no objection to the admission of the statement. After receiving legal advice, the panel determined that the statement should be admitted. The panel was satisfied that the document was relevant and that it’s admission would not cause unfairness to any party. The panel was particularly conscious that Mr Ross Povey had not attended the hearing and that it would assist the panel’s determination of his case to have the benefit of his written evidence. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received an agreed bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notices of proceedings – pages 5 to 16 Section 2: Teacher documents – pages 18 to 469 After making a determination regarding the bundle of disputed documents, the panel received an additional bundle of documents which included: Section 1: TRA witness statements and documents – pages 6 to 501 7 The panel members confirmed that they had read all the documents within the agreed bundle in advance of the hearing. The panel read all the documents within the additional