Mrs Monika Anna Cendrowicz

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 Monika Anna Cendrowicz

Location teacher worked: Birmingham, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 7 April to 10 April 2025

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 Monika Anna Cendrowicz formerly employed in Birmingham, 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.

Mrs Monika Anna Cendrowicz: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 14 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Monica Anna Cendrowicz TRA reference: 21270 Date of determination: 10 April 2025 Former employer: Smith’s Wood Academy, Birmingham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 7 to 10 April 2025 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mrs Monica Anna Cendrowicz. The panel members were Mr John Martin (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Adnan Qureshi (lay panellist) and Mrs Amanda Godfrey (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Abigail Trencher of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mrs Cendrowicz was present and was represented by Dr Martin Whitaker, who was not legally qualified. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 18 December 2024. It was alleged that Mrs Cendrowicz was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a teacher at Smith’s Wood Academy: 1. On or around 27 May 2022, she: a) Added work to approximately 13 pupil(s) GCSE art portfolio that did not belong to the pupil(s) and purporting that this was the pupil’s(s) work b) Did not remove work from Pupil A’s GCSE art portfolio that did not belong to Pupil A when asked to do so by Colleague 1; c) Said to Colleague 1 that she only inserted work for Pupil A, when this was not the case. 2. Her conduct at paragraph 1 was: a) Dishonest; b) Demonstrated a lack of integrity. The panel noted that Mrs Cendrowicz denied allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 2(a) and 2(b), as set out in the response to the notice of proceedings form, signed by Mrs Cendrowicz on 13 January 2025. Preliminary applications Amended allegation During the course of the presenting officer’s closing statement he drew the panel’s attention to its discretion at paragraph 5.83 of the Procedures to amend an allegation, and particularly the allegation at paragraph 1(a), at any time before the panel made its final decision as to whether the facts of case had been proven, if the panel determined that it is in the interests of justice to do so. The panel invited the legal adviser to provide her legal advice on this matter, which she did. 5 During the panel’s deliberations on the finding of facts, it determined that it would be in the interest of justice to consider amending the allegation at paragraph 1(a) so that it only referred to Pupil A, rather than “approximately 13 pupils”. In accordance with paragraph 5.84 of the Procedures the panel recalled the parties and invited representations on the proposal before reaching its decision. Neither the presenting officer nor the teacher or her representative made any objections to the proposal. Accordingly, the panel determined that it would amend the allegation at paragraph 1(a) so that it read as follows: 1. On or around 27 May 2022, you: a) Added work to Pupil A’s GCSE art portfolio that did not belong to the pupil and purporting that this was the pupil’s work In taking this decision the panel recognised the risk of “undercharging”. The evidence of the limb of the allegation relating to Pupil A was very strong, whereas the evidence provided by the TRA and put before the panel by the presenting officer relating to the additional artwork that had been found in the portfolios of the other pupils was extremely limited. The panel was satisfied that the teacher would not suffer any prejudice or unfairness, nor that the case would need to be presented any differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage. The teacher always understood the case before her, as it related to Pupil A. 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 7 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 15 Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 16 to 35 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 36 to 247 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 248 to 1131 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: 6 Qualification and notional component raw mark grade boundaries, OCR June 2019 Series - pages 1132 – 1134 Extract of table from OCR’s GCSE (9-1) Qualification and notional component raw mark grade boundaries November 2021 Series (published date 24 February 2022) – page 1135 Reference from Individual A - pages 1136 to 1137 Reference from Individual B – pages 1138 to 1139 Reference from Individual C – pages 1140 to 1141 Extract from KCSIE September 2021 paragraph 407 – 426 – pages 1142 to 1145 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and would read the additional documents that the panel decided to admit in the course of the first day. In consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] Witness B – [REDACTED] Witness C – [REDACTED] Mrs Cendrowicz also gave oral evidence. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mrs Cendrowicz commenced employment at Smith’s Wood Academy (‘the School’) on the 24 April 2019. On 27 May 2022, Witness A visited the art room ahead of the arrival of a moderator from OCR to moderate a sample of the year 11 GCSE artwork. He viewed the year 11 artwork 7 on display and was impressed with Pupil A’s work and took pictures of three of the pieces displayed on her board. Witness A congratulated Pupil A on her work in the dining hall and showed her the photographs he had taken of her work, to which Pupil A stated that the work was not hers. Mrs Cendrowicz allegedly admitted to Witness A that she had put her work into Pupil A’s portfolio. Witness A asked her to remove the work from the display, and it is alleged she failed to do so. Mrs Cendrowicz allegedly only admitted to putting additional work into Pupil A’s portfolio. The School reported the incident to the examination board, OCR, on 27 May 2022. A subsequent investigation by the School found that the portfolios of an additional 12 pupils in the same cohort as Pupil A included work that did not belong to them. The matter was referred to the TRA on 16 November 2022. 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 27 May 2022, you: a) Added work to Pupil A’s GCSE art portfolio that did not belong to the pupil and purporting that this was the pupil’s work; The panel noted that Mrs Cendrowicz denied this allegation (as amended). In disputing the allegation Mrs Cendrowicz stated in her witness statement and oral evidence that she accepted that Pupil A had said that the three pieces of work did not belong to her. Mrs Cendrowicz stated that she had believed the three pieces belonged to Pupil A when she had added them to the display on 26 May 2022. The panel acknowledged Mrs Cendrowicz’s resolute denial that she had knowingly placed the three pieces on Pupil A’s display or added any additional pieces in the portfolios of any other pupils that did not belong to them. However, the panel found the strength of the contemporaneous evidence regarding Pupil A’s display compelling. The panel considered the handwritten statements made on 27 May 2022, as part of the investigation, in the interviews that took place with Witness A, Mrs Cendrowicz and Pupil A and the email that Mrs Cendrowicz had sent to Witness A on 27 May 2022 at 10:58am. These all supported the allegation that Mrs Cendrowicz had added three items to Pupil 8 A’s display that did not belong to her, which the panel accepted was an admission by her that she had done so. The panel also considered the oral evidence they had heard from Witness A and Witness C at the hearing which they had found to be credible and consistent. Witness A explained that he was impressed by the artwork on display, particularly three pieces of work attributed to Pupil A, of which he had taken photographs on his mobile telephone. Witness A’s evidence was that he then saw Pupil A in the dining hall and congratulated her on her work, and showed her the three photographs he had taken, to which she had said: “that’s not my work, that must be a different year”. Witness A assumed that this was a mistake and returned to the art room to check the name on the display which confirmed that it belonged to Pupil A. He stated that he re-checked with Pupil A, who informed him for a second time that it was not her work. Witness A stated that he asked Mrs Cendrowicz if it was Pupil A’s work in her portfolio, to which she confirmed it was. He stated that he explained his concerns to Mrs Cendrowicz, and that she then admitted that it was her work which she had a