Unknown Teacher

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions himself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher reference number:

9564853

Teacher's date of birth:

24 September 1971

Location teacher worked:

Greater Manchester, North West

Date of professional conduct panel:

11 to 15 March 2019, 18 to 22 March 2019 and 16 and 18 April 2019

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 Mrs Naheed Parveen Earl formerly employed in Greater Manchester, North West.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Rd, Coventry CV1 2WT on 11 to 15 March 2019, 18 to 22 March 2019 and 16 and 18 April 2019 and on 17 April 2019 at The Holiday Inn, Hinckley Road, Coventry CV2 2HP at 9.30am.

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 Naheed Parveen Earl: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decisions and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 4 B. Allegations 5 C. Preliminary applications 7 D. Summary of evidence 11 Documents 11 Witnesses 12 E. Decisions and reasons 12 Panel’s recommendations to the Secretary of State 27 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 30 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Naheed Parveen Earl Teacher ref number: 9564853 Teacher date of birth: 24/9/1971 TRA reference: 16743 Date of determination: 18 April 2019 Former employer: Lowerplace Primary School, Rochdale. A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 11 to 15 March 2019, 18 to 22 March 2019 and 16 and 18 April 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT and on 17 April 2019 at The Holiday Inn, Hinckley Road, Coventry CV2 2HP, to consider the cases of Mrs Naheed Praveen Earl, Ms Adele Honeyman, Mrs Cathryn Bolton, Ms Gail Marsh and Mrs Katy Yates. The panel members were Mrs Kathy Thomson (former teacher panellist – in the Chair), Ms Fiona Tankard (teacher panellist) and Mr Martin Pilkington (lay panellist). The legal advisor to the panel was Mr Graham Miles of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Ben Bentley of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mrs Naheed Parveen Earl was present from 11 to 14 March 2019 and was represented by Mr David Swinnerton of Counsel until 19 March 2019. Thereafter, Mrs Earl was not present and not represented. Ms Adele Honeyman was present on 11 to 15 March 2019 and 17 April 2019 and was represented throughout the hearing by Mr Philip Dayle of Counsel. Mrs Cathryn Bolton was present and was represented by Miss Gurpreet Rheel of Counsel. Ms Gail Marsh was not present and was not represented. Mrs Katy Yates was present and was represented by Mr Jonathan Storey of Counsel. 4 Save that part of the evidence of Mrs Katy Yates was heard in private, the hearing took place in public and was recorded. 5 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in Notices of Proceedings dated 31 May 2018 addressed to Mrs Naheed Parveen Earl, Ms Adele Honeyman, Mrs Cathryn Bolton, Ms Gail Marsh and Mrs Katy Yates. In respect of Mrs Naheed Parveen Earl: It was alleged that Mrs Naheed Parveen Earl was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as the Headteacher of Lowerplace Primary School she: 1. Between 9 May and 12 May 2016, engaged in and/or instructed one or more members of staff to engage in the maladministration of one or more of the Year 6, National Curriculum SATs papers; 2. Failed to disclose her conduct and/or the conduct of others in the first instance. 3. Her conduct as set out at allegations 1 and/or 2 was dishonest. Mrs Earl denied the facts alleged in allegations 1, 2 and 3. C. Preliminary applications As to whether the hearing should proceed in the absence of Ms Gail Marsh Ms Marsh was not present and not represented. After hearing submissions from the presenting officer and receiving legal advice, the Chair announced the decision of the panel as follows: The panel has decided that the hearing should proceed in the absence of Ms Marsh for the following reasons: • The Notice of Proceedings has been served in accordance with paragraph 4.11 of the disciplinary procedures. • The panel has received written confirmation from Ms Marsh's union representative that Ms Marsh will not be attending the hearing and that she is content for the hearing to proceed in her absence. The panel is satisfied that Ms Marsh has voluntarily waived her right to be present. • There is no application for an adjournment and there would be no purpose in adjourning. 6 • Although the panel will not have the benefit of hearing from Ms Marsh in person, the panel has received a statement of agreed facts and other documents and submissions on behalf of Ms Marsh, which the panel will take into consideration. • It would be contrary to the interests of witnesses, the other teachers and the public interest for the hearing to be adjourned. As to whether part of the hearing should take place in private Mr Storey made an application on behalf of Mrs Yates for part of the evidence of Mrs Yates to be given in private. The presenting officer did not object to the application. After receiving legal advice, the Chair announced the decision of the panel as follows: The panel has considered the application by Mr Storey on behalf of Mrs Yates for part of the evidence of Mrs Yates concerning her health to be heard in private. The panel is satisfied that, in respect of this part of the evidence of Mrs Yates, the public interest in the hearing taking place in public is outweighed by the teacher's right of privacy. Accordingly, although the remainder of the hearing will take place in public, the panel will hear this limited part of the evidence of Mrs Yates in private. The panel is aware that other teachers have referred to health matters in their written evidence and the panel is content to adopt a similar approach in relation to their evidence. As to the absence of Mrs Earl on 15 March 2019 On 15 March 2019 (Day 5 of the hearing) Mrs Earl was not present. Mr Swinnerton explained to the panel that he had been informed by his instructing solicitors that Individual C, [redacted] was due to see his GP that day. Mr Swinnerton stated that Mrs Earl returned home on the 14 March to be with Individual C. Mr Swinnerton stated that Mrs Earl had informed his instructing solicitors that she was content for the hearing to proceed without her and would not be returning the following week. Mr Swinnerton confirmed that he had the instructions necessary to complete his cross-examination of Ms Honeyman on 15 March, but that an attempt would be made to clarify Mrs Earl's position regarding attending the hearing the following week. After hearing submissions from the other parties and receiving legal advice, the Chair announced the decision of the panel as follows: Mr Swinnerton has explained that Mrs Earl is unable to be here today due to Individual C’s health. Mr Swinnerton has confirmed that Mrs Earl is content for the hearing to proceed in her absence and that she will not be attending the hearing today or next week. Mr Swinnerton has helpfully confirmed that he has instructions from Mrs Earl which enable him to complete his questioning of Ms Honeyman today, but he would like to clarify Mrs Earl's instructions in terms of her attendance at the hearing after today. 7 The panel is conscious that Ms Honeyman is not able to attend the hearing next week, and all of the parties agree that her evidence should be concluded today. In the light of Mr Swinnerton's confirmation that he is able to complete his questioning of Ms Honeyman, the panel is satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed with the hearing today to the conclusion of Ms Honeyman's evidence. The panel has decided that the hearing will then be adjourned until Monday. This will also avoid Mrs Bolton's having to start her evidence today and remain on oath over the weekend. Mr Swinnerton has confirmed that he will update the panel as to Mrs Earl's position on Monday morning. If there is to be an application for an adjournment on behalf of Mrs Earl, the panel expects to be provided with appropriate evidence in support of such an application. As to whether the hearing should proceed in the absence of Mrs Earl On 19 March 2019 (Day 7 of the hearing) Mr Swinnerton provided the panel with copies of emails from Mrs Earl dated 15 and 19 March 2019 to Mr Swinnerton's instructing solicitors and a copy of a medical certificate relating to Individual C dated 15 March 2019. In her email dated 15 March 2019, Mrs Earl stated: 'I have had to leave Coventry last night and return home [redacted]. The proceedings of this week have taken their toll on me and with Individual C’s current health I have made the difficult decision to not attend the rest of the hearing. I hope that my counsel can continue to represent me in my absence and I confirm that I do not wish the hearing to be adjourned or rearranged in my absence but will rely on my statement and the evidence submitted.' Mr Swinnerton informed the panel that, since Friday 15 March, his instructing solicitors has endeavoured to clarify whether Mrs Earl would attend the hearing this week. Mr Swinnerton had also been awaiting clarification as to whether Mrs Earl's union would continue to fund her representation if Mrs Earl did not attend. Mr Swinnerton stated that Mrs Earl had reiterated that she would not be attending the hearing and her union had confirmed that, in these circumstances, the funding of her representation would not continue. In her email dated 19 March 2019, Mrs Earl stated: 'Please find Individual C’s sick note. I left the hearing on Thursday 14 th due Individual C [redacted]. Unfortunately, I cannot attend the rest of the hearing. I agree with you that counsel does not have to attend the remainder of the hearing but instruct counsel to forward the attached documents on my behalf to support the statement that I have already submitted.' The panel reviewed the sick note from his general practitioner, which stated that Individual C was assessed on 15 March 2019 and found to be [redacted]. Mr Swinnerton confirmed that Mrs Earl had voluntarily waived her right to attend the hearing and that he had not been instructed to make an application for an adjournment on her behalf. In 8 relation to the other documents