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:

8074775

Teacher's date of birth:

17 April 1958

Location teacher worked:

South Yorkshire, Yorkshire and the Humber

Date of professional conduct panel:

24 to 26 January 2017

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 Simon Pringle, formerly employed in South Yorkshire, Yorkshire and the Humber.

The proceedings were held at Ramada Hotel and Suites, Coventry, CV1 3GG at 9.30am on 24 to 26 January 2017.

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 Simon Pringle: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2017 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 3 C. Preliminary applications 4 D. Summary of evidence 5 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 E. Decision and reasons 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Simon Pringle Teacher ref number: 8074775 Teacher date of birth: 17 April 1958 NCTL case reference: 14772 Date of determination: 26 January 2017 Former employer: Brinsworth Manor Junior School, Rotherham A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 24 to 26 January 2017 at Ramada Hotel and Suites, Coventry, CV1 3GG to consider the case of Mr Simon Pringle. The panel members were Ms Jean Carter (lay panellist – in the chair), Dr Rob Cawley (teacher panellist) and Mr Alex Osiatynski (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Harpreet Marok of Eversheds LLP. The presenting officer for the National College was Mr Ben Chapman of Browne Jacobson LLP. Mr Simon Pringle was not present but was represented by Ms Lisa Hancox of St Phillips Chambers. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 16 November 2016. It was alleged that Mr Simon Pringle was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as headteacher at Brinsworth Manor Junior School, Rotherham between 26/04/2011- 30/09/2015 he: 1. Prepared and/or instructed staff to prepare false information, including: 4 a. Information regarding student progress; b. Lesson observation feedback; 2. Presented one or more items as described in Allegation 1 above to external visitors; 3. Failed to address staff concerns about false information on one or more occasions; 4. In doing so as in Allegation 1, 2 and/or 3 above he was dishonest. The above allegations are admitted in part. C. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher The panel has considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel is satisfied that the National College has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19.a. to 19.c. of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (“the Regulations”). The panel is also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complies with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession, (“the Procedures”). The panel has determined to exercise its discretion under Paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Pringle. The panel understands that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In making its decision, the panel has noted that Mr Pringle may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel has taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. Mr Pringle has responded to the Notice of Proceedings, in which he has expressed that he will be legally represented at the hearing. Therefore the panel considered that Mr Pringle has voluntarily absented himself from the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place. The panel has had regard to the requirement that it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of the hearing taking place. 5 There is no indication that an adjournment might result in Mr Pringle attending the hearing. Mr Pringle’s legal representative has indicated that she is able to obtain instructions from him throughout the course of the hearing. The panel has had regard to the extent of the disadvantage to Mr Pringle in not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him. The panel has the benefit of Mr Pringle’s legal representative and is therefore able to ascertain the lines of defence. The panel is also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. The panel also notes that there are four witnesses present at the hearing, who are prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient for them to return again. The panel has had regard to the seriousness of this case, and the potential consequences for the teacher and has accepted that fairness to the teacher is of prime importance. However, it considers that in light of Mr Pringle’s waiver of his right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses; that on balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time is in favour of this hearing continuing today. Application to admit additional documents The panel considered whether to admit the following additional documents: 1. Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts; 2. Letter from doctor of Individual A dated 18 January 2017; 3. Supplementary Witness Statement of Mr Simon Pringle dated 20 January 2017; and 4. Further Witness Statement of Mr Simon Pringle dated 23 January 2017. These documents had not been submitted in accordance with Paragraph 4.20 of the Procedures which requires each party to submit to the panel and the other party to the proceedings, a copy of the document at least four weeks prior to the hearing. Despite this neither the presenting officer, nor the teacher, through his legal representative, had any objections to the additional documents being added to the bundle. The panel took the legal adviser’s advice on the late admissibility of evidence into consideration and were satisfied that all three documents could be admitted. 6 Application to exclude the public The panel has considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Regulations and paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures to exclude the public from part of the hearing. This follows a request by Mr Pringle’s legal representative that the part of the hearing dealing with his mitigation evidence should be in private. The panel has determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(3)(b) of the Regulations and the second bullet point of paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures that the public should be excluded from this part of the hearing. The panel has taken into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. On this occasion, however, the panel considers that the request for the hearing to be heard in private, is a reasonable one given concerns about confidential matters relating to the teacher’s health and private life. The panel has had regard to whether Mr Pringle’s request runs contrary to the public interest. The panel is required to announce its decisions in public as to whether the facts have been proven and whether those facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In the event that the case continues, any decision of the Secretary of State will also be in public. The panel considers that in the circumstances of this case, where the facts are intertwined with private matters relating to the teacher’s health and private life, the public interest will be satisfied by these public announcements. The public announcements will ensure that public confidence in these proceedings and in the standards of the profession is maintained. 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 3 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 4 to 11 Section 3: NCTL witness statements – pages 12 to 50 Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 51 to 303 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 304 to 378 7 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following:  Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts (pages 303A – 303E)  Letter from doctor of Individual A dated 18 January 2017 (page 303F)  Supplementary Witness Statement of Simon Pringle dated 20 January 2017 (pages 379 – 383)  Further Witness Statement of Simon Pringle dated 23 January 2017 (pages 384 – 385) The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from: Witness A Executive headteacher on behalf of the NCTL Witness B Teacher on behalf of the NCTL Witness C Teacher on behalf of the NCTL Witness D Assistant headteacher on behalf of the NCTL 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. The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. Mr Simon Pringle was employed at Brinsworth Manor Junior School from April 2011 and became headteacher on 26 April 2011. On 16 June 2015, Witness A was asked to attend a meeting with staff where allegations