Mr Wayne Corbett

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 Wayne Corbett

Location teacher worked: Hednesford, West Midlands.

Date of professional conduct panel: 19 December 2024

Outcome type: no order made

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Wayne Corbett, formerly employed in Hednesford, West Midlands.

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 Wayne Corbett: Professional conduct panel hearing Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 19 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Wayne Corbett TRA reference: 22474 Date of determination: 19 December 2024 Former employer: Kingsmead School, Staffordshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 16 to 19 December 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Wayne Corbett. The panel members were Mr Carl Lygo (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Michele Barlow- Ward (teacher panellist) and Ms Sarah Daniel (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Eleanor Bullen-Bell of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Corbett was present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 2 October 2024. It was alleged that Mr Corbett was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as the Head of Computer Science at Kingsmead School (‘the School’): 1. Between September 2022 and June 2023, he provided inappropriate levels of assistance to pupils in preparing them for examinations in that he: a. Provided pupils with the exact and/or similar wording contained in upcoming examinations. 2. Between September 2022 and June 2023, he deliberately recorded examination results incorrectly on one or more occasions in that he: a. Recorded different results on the examination paper to those recorded on GO 4 Schools software; b. Recorded assessment data indicating 100% of assessments were completed; and c. Recorded higher marks. 3. On or around 12 June 2023, he deliberately deleted assessment data recorded on Microsoft Forms when this information had been requested by Witness A. 4. His conduct at paragraph(s) 1 and/or 2 and/or 3: a. Was dishonest; b. Lacked integrity. Mr Corbett made no admission of fact prior to the hearing. Preliminary applications Application to admit additional documents The panel considered preliminary applications from the teacher and the presenting officer for the admission of additional documents. The panel heard representations from the presenting officer and the teacher in respect of each application. The teacher’s document comprised a timeline of events he had created in respect of the School’s advertisement for a Director of Blended Learning. 5 The presenting officer did not object to the teacher’s application for the admission of this document. The document subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (‘2020 Procedures’). Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the document should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel considered the teacher’s additional document as relevant to the case and in the interests of a fair hearing for this document to be admitted. Accordingly, this document was added to the bundle. In the course of the hearing, the presenting officer made an application for the admission of an additional document to be admitted prior to Witness C’s oral evidence. The presenting officer’s document contained additional pages of computing records for marks exported from the School’s Go 4 Schools software, which was accidentally omitted as part of an exhibit within the original bundle, and this exhibit was referenced in Witness C’s witness statement. The teacher did not object to the admission of this additional document. The document subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the 2020 Procedures. Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the document should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel considered the additional document as relevant to the case and in the interests of a fair hearing for this document to be admitted. Accordingly, the document was added to the bundle. Application to amend an allegation The presenting officer made an application to amend allegation 3 so the allegation identified Witness A, rather than referring to him as Colleague A. The teacher did not object to the amendment. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 5.83 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel considered that the proposed amendment would not change the nature and scope of the allegation in that it would still relate to the same examples of misconduct which had been addressed by Mr Corbett in his written statement. As such, the panel considered that the proposed amendment did not amount to a material change to the allegation. 6 The legal adviser drew the panel’s attention to the case of Dr Bashir Ahmedsowida v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin), 2021 WL 06064095 which held that the lateness of amendments did not necessarily mean they were unjust, as acknowledged in the previous case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 at [56]. Accordingly, the panel granted this application and considered the amended allegation, which is set out above. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people– pages 5 to 8 • Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 9 to 18 • S ection 3: TRA witness statements – pages 19 to 36 • S ection 4: TRA documents – pages 37 to 385 • Section 5: Teacher’s documents – pages 386 to 388 In addition, the panel agreed to admit the additional documents referenced above. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Witness A, [REDACTED] • Witness B, [REDACTED] • Witness C, [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. 7 Mr Corbett commenced employment as a teacher of computer science at the School on 18 June 2018. On 1 September 2020, Mr Corbett was appointed as subject lead/head of computer science and ICT at the School. Between September 2022 to June 2023, Mr Corbett allegedly provided inappropriate levels of assistance to pupils in preparing them for mock examinations. In the same period, he also allegedly deliberately recorded mock examination results incorrectly. On 22 May 2023, Witness A, [REDACTED], was instructed to undertake an investigation. During the course of this investigation, on 12 June 2023, Mr Corbett allegedly deliberately deleted mock assessment data recorded on Microsoft Forms when this information had been requested by Witness A. On 5 July 2023, the investigation report was published, and a disciplinary hearing was held at the School on 6 September 2023. On 11 September 2023, Mr Corbett was dismissed from his role at the School and a referral was made to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. Between September 2022 and June 2023, you provided inappropriate levels of assistance to pupils in preparing them for examinations in that you: a. Provided pupils with the exact and/or similar wordi ng contained in upcoming examinations. The pa nel was provided with a sample of notes taken by three students in key stage 5 (Student A, Student B and Student C) during two of Mr Corbett’s lessons in March 2023. The panel considered notes taken by Student A in Mr Corbett’s lesson, compared with the questions detailed on the mock examination paper for A Level students. The panel also considered the notes taken by Student B and Student C during Mr Corbett’s lesson, compared with the questions detailed on the mock examination paper for AS Level students. The panel noted the clear similarities between the students’ notes and the mock examination papers as each student had produced a list of topics and/or subtopics in the exact order that they arose on the mock examination papers. The panel noted that this was consistent with the meeting notes from Witness B’s meeting with Mr Corbett on or around 25 April 2023, which indicated that Mr Corbett had 8 stated: “Yes I went through a list telling them ‘this is coming up and…this is coming up’ as I do with all my classes. I’ve done similar with year 12 for the upcoming mocks.” The panel also considered Mr Corbett’s oral evidence. Mr Corbett stated that “one week before the exams [he] opened the mock examination paper and listed the topics that the students needed to revise as [he] thought this was standard procedure”. Mr Corbett stated that he “wanted to give [students] a focused list to revise from before mock exams” and he thought this was “standard procedure”. Mr Corbett admitted to providing students with the precise topics in the order that they would appear on the mock examination papers, but not the exact wording or number of marks of the questions. The panel considered the oral evidence an