Mrs Michelle Holmes

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: Mrs Michelle Holmes

Location teacher worked: Wakefield, West Yorkshire

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 October 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 Mrs Michelle Holmes, formerly employed in Wakefield, West Yorkshire.

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 Michelle Holmes: Professional conduct panel meeting 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 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Michelle Holmes TRA reference: 22952 Date of determination: 25 October 2024 Former employer: Ossett Academy, Ossett Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 25 October 2024, to consider the case of Mrs Michelle Holmes (“Mrs Holmes”). The panel members were Mr Dara Islam (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist) and Ms Gill Lyon (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mrs Holmes that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mrs Holmes provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Ms Laura Ryan (Kingsley Napley LLP), or Mrs Holmes. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 18 October 2024. It was alleged that Mrs Holmes was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as Head of Performing Arts at Ossett Academy: 1. On or around 11 May 2023, she edited and/or submitted coursework for at least one pupil, purporting it to be their own work. 2. Her conduct at paragraph 1: a) was dishonest; b) lacked integrity Mrs Holmes admitted the facts of the allegations and that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 5 to 6 Section 2: Notice of referral and response to notice of referral – pages 7 to 19 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts – pages 21 to 25 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 26 to 517 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 518 to 527 Section 6: Notice of meeting – pages 528 to 529 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. 5 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mrs Holmes on 9 July 2024. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mrs Holmes for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mrs Holmes commenced employment at the Ossett Academy (“the School”) as Head of Performing Arts in September 2013. On 11 May 2023, concerns were raised by an employee at the School to a senior member of staff regarding discrepancies between the work that was originally submitted to the School by Year 11 drama pupils and the work that was then uploaded to the portal for assessment by an external examination board. On 15 May 2023, a senior member of staff met with Mrs Holmes to discuss the discrepancies in the work. Mrs Holmes stated that the reason for the discrepancies in the work was due to her editing pupils’ work before submitting it for external assessment. A disciplinary investigation was carried out by the School. Mrs Holmes resigned from the School on 31 August 2023. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On or around 11 May 2023, you edited and/or submitted coursework for at least one pupil, purporting it to be their own work. Mrs Holmes admitted this allegation. Mrs Holmes accepted in the statement of agreed facts that around May 2023 she had falsified coursework for the Year 11’s GCSE work, specifically the Component 3 External 6 Assessment, belonging to thirteen pupils and submitted the falsified coursework to the relevant exam board. Mrs Holmes accepted she had made changes to spelling, grammar and formatting in all submitted work and that the content of the final submissions for twelve of the thirteen pupils differed from the original work completed by the pupils. It was accepted that one of the thirteen entries was not changed beyond formatting and spelling. It was further accepted by Mrs Holmes that four of the thirteen entries were significantly altered by rephrasing, re-paragraphing and that additional content was added. It was also accepted that eight of the thirteen entries had some variation in terms of the falsification of work, which included grammatical improvements and the changing of sentences. The statement of agreed facts also stated that Mrs Holmes altered the coursework as the pupils were at risk of failing the course. The panel had sight of the notes from the School’s investigation interview with Mrs Holmes. Mrs Holmes stated that she was not directed by anyone to make changes to the pupils’ work but “felt pressure because of AIM meetings etcetera, where I've been told that historically my results were poor. And previously in the year, the year 10, C2 work Pearson had lowered their grades, so I felt fearful that I would be put on capability.” Mrs Holmes immediately confirmed in the School’s investigation that she had made the changes to the pupils’ work. During the School's investigation interview, Mrs Holmes was referred to the pieces of work where changes had been made. Mrs Holmes accepted that some of the changes were significant. When asked for an explanation about the different degrees of alterations being made, Mrs Holmes stated “Because those students that have got the biggest amount of changes were in danger of failing massively and hadn't taken the exam seriously either they'd not submitted notes, they arrived late and they’d not taken the support available I guess. And that had been something that I'd logged on Bromcom. And I just, I felt pressure that my results would be under huge scrutiny and that it was fear of, of capability, like I said but also, I would say having looked at the exemplars from, like other schools that the calibre of work was very different but also, I've not been through the C3 exam, not in COVID so it's a bit of an unknown”. The panel also had sight of the School’s investigation interview with a senior member of staff who was informed by an employee about the discrepancies between the Year 11 work which was uploaded for external examination and the work which was stored internally by the School. This senior member of staff confirmed in the investigation interview that Mrs Holmes had immediately admitted that she had edited the Year 11 pupils’ work. The panel noted that Mrs Holmes’s admission was consistent with the evidence. 7 The panel had sight of the original work which was submitted by the Year 11 pupils and the work which was uploaded to the external examination board. The panel noted that there were some significant discrepancies between the work. The panel found allegation 1 proved. 2. 2. Your conduct at paragraph 1: a) was dishonest; Mrs Holmes admitted this allegation. The panel needed first to ascertain, subjectively, the actual state of Mrs Holmes’ knowledge or belief as to the facts. Secondly, the panel needed to determine whether Mrs Holmes’ state of mind was honest or dishonest by the application of the objective standards of the ordinary honest person. The panel firstly turned its mind to the actual state of Mrs Holmes’ knowledge or belief as to the facts. The panel felt that Mrs Holmes was aware of what she was doing was wrong when she made the changes to the Year 11 pupils’ work. Mrs Holmes stated in the School’s investigation that the reason for amending some of the Year 11 work beyond spelling and grammatical errors was because some of the students “…were in danger of failing massively and hadn't taken the exam seriously either they'd not submitted notes, they arrived late and they’d not taken the support available…” Mrs Holmes stated that she “felt pressure that my results would be under huge scrutiny and that it was fear of, of capability”. The panel noted that amending and submitting the amended Year 11 work to an external examination board was a deliberate and a conscious decision. Furthermore, the panel determined that Mrs Holmes’ state of mind at the time would be regarded by the standards of ordinary, decent people to be dishonest. The panel found allegation 2(a) proved. b) lacked integrity Mrs Holmes admitted this allegation. When considering a lack of integrity, the panel recognised that this allegation connotes adherence to the ethical standards of one’s own profession and involves more than mere honesty. It is linked to the mann