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:

3447162

Teacher's date of birth:

31 October 1967

Location teacher worked:

Gateshead, North East

Date of professional conduct panel:

14 July 2014

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 Wendy Davis, formerly employed in Gateshead, North East.

The proceedings were held at 53-55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry, CV1 3BH at 09.30 am on 14 July 2014.

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 Wendy Davis: Professional Conduct Panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education 14 July 2014 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 D. Decision and reasons 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 8 3 A. Introduction A Professional Conduct Panel (“the Panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened in a Private Meeting on Monday 14 July 2014 at 53 -55 Butts Roa d, Earlsdon Park, Coventry, CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mrs Wendy Davis. The Panel members were Mr Nick Andrew (Lay Panellist – in the Chair), Cllr. Gail Goodman (Teacher Panellist) and Mr Peter Cooper (Teacher Panellist). The Legal Adviser to the Panel was Mr Paddy Roche of Blake Morgan LLP Solicitors. The meeting took place in private and the announced decision was recorded. Professional Conduct Panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Wendy Davis Teacher ref no: 3447162 Teacher date of birth: 31 October 1967 NCTL Case ref no: 10448 Date of Determination: 14 July 2014 Former employer: Furrowfield School, Gateshead 4 B. Allegations The Panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Meeting dated 19 June 2014. It was alleged tha t Mrs Wendy Davis was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that she:- 1. Failed to provide an accurate account of her employment history and qualifications on her application form dated February 2008 to secure work at Furrowfield School, Gateshead. 2. Provided fabricated Certificates of Qualification purported to have been obtained from the University of Washington when applying to the NCTL for Qualified Teacher Status in June 2013. 3. And that her conduct in regard to both particulars was dishonest in that she deliberately sought to mislead others, and was aware of this at the time of doing so. Mrs Wendy Davis admitted the allegation and particulars. She accepted that this was a case of Unacceptable Professional Conduct and/or Conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. C. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting the Panel received a bundle of documents which included the following:- Section 1 Chronology. Pages 1 to 2. Section 2 Notice of Referral, Response and Notice of Meeting. Pages 3 to 8b. Section 3 Statement of Agreed Facts and Pages 9 to 4. Presenting Officer Representations. Section 4 NCTL Documents. Pages 15 to 46. Section 5 Teacher Documents. - None. 5 D. Decision and reasons The Panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:- “We have now carefully considered the case before us and have reached a decision. We confirm that we have read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. This case concerns the allegation and particulars set out above. There is a Statement of Agreed Facts in the case papers which reads as follows:- 1. Mrs Wendy Davis, born on 31 October 1967, was employed as a Higher Level Teaching Assistant at Furrowfield School (hereafter “the School”), Whitehall Drive, Felling in Gateshead. 2. Mrs Davis confirms that whilst working at the School she undertook teaching as described in Section 3 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012. Such teaching work included:- a. Planning and preparing lessons and courses for pupils; b. Delivering lessons to pupils whilst unsupervised; c. Assessing the development, progress and attainment of pupils; and d. Reporting on the development, progress and attainment of pupils. Allegation 1 3. Mrs Davis admits that she failed to provide an accurate account of her employment history and qualifications on her application form dated 27 February 2008 to secure work at Furrowfield School, Gateshead. The contents of such application can be considered within the PCPM bundle. 4. Mrs Davis refers to studying and acquiring a “Master of Education” qualification from the University of Washington during September 2000 – June 2003 which is untrue, as confirmed by representatives from the University of Washington. 5. Mrs Davis further states on her job application to the School that she worked at Evergreen District Elementary School during the period January 2000 – January 2004; whereas earlier in the same application form she claimed to have been employed at Thornhill Park School between September 2003 and April 2005. Allegation 2 6 6. Mrs Davis admits that she provided a fabricated Certificate of Qualification purported to have been obtained from the University of Washington when applying to the National College for Teaching and Leadership for Qualified Teacher Status in June 2013. 7. A copy of this Certificate can be considered in the PCPM bundle dated June 2003. Tina Miller (Associate Register) and Martin Howell on 5 November 2013 (Assistant Dean for Academic and Student Affairs) of the University of Washington, who confirmed that the Masters Certificate provided was not an authentic certificate. Allegation 3 8. Mrs Davis accepts that reasonable and honest people would rega rd her conduct as dishonest in respect to both allegations in that she deliberately sought to mislead others as to her employment and qualification history. Mrs Davis accepts that by the standards of reasonable and honest people she knew that her conduct was dishonest, both now and at the time of the behaviour. Unacceptable Professional Conduct 9. Mrs Davis admits the facts of the allegation against her and that they amount to Unacceptable Professional Conduct and Conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute as set out in Rules 2.3 -2.4 of the Disciplinary Rules for the regulation of the teaching profession which may be defined as misconduct of a serious nature, falling significantly short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher/behaviour which is directly relevant to an individual’s suitability to be a teacher and which, if proven, may bring the profession into disrepute, in accordance with the Guidance set out in the Department of Education Advice Document, “The Prohibition of Teachers”. Findings of Fact Our findings of fact are as follows:- We have found the following particulars of the allegation against Mrs Davis proved:- 1. Failed to provide an accurate account of her employment history and qualifications on her application form dat ed February 2008 to secure work at Furrowfield School, Gateshead. 2. Provided fabricated Certificates of Qualification purported to have been obtained from the University of Washington when applying to the NCTL for Qualified Teacher Status in June 2013. 7 3. And that her conduct in regard to both particulars was dishonest in that she deliberately sought to mislead others, and was aware of this at the time of doing so. Our reasons are that the facts of this case are admitted by the teacher as set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts and are supported by the documents in the case papers including the fabricated Certificates of Qualification purported to have been obtained from the University of Washington and Mrs Davis’ application form dated February 2008. In relation to the particular which alleges dishonesty we adopt the observations set out in paragraph 8 of the Statement of Agreed Facts. Findings as to Unacceptable Professional Conduct and/or Conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Unacceptable Professional Conduct is defined as “Misconduct of a serious nature, falling significantly short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher”. Conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute is to be judged in a similar way. In this case on two separate occasions Mrs Davis has behaved dishonestly, firstly in the details submitted on her application form in 2008 to Furrowfield School, Gateshead and secondly in relation to her application to the National College for Qualified Teacher Status in June 2013. In relation to the NCTL application Mrs Davis went to the trouble of preparing fabricated Certificates purporting to come from the University of Washington. We conclude therefore that her conduct has been not only deliberate and dishonest but also has involved a measure of planning which makes her behaviour extremely serious. It is both wilful and systematic and, potentially, brings the profession into disrepute. By behaving dishonestly Mrs Davis has breached the personal and professional cond uct elements of the Teachers’ Standards and it is clearly wholly inappropriate for members of the profession to behave in this way. We are perfectly satisfied that her admitted conduct has fallen significantly short of the standards of behaviour expected of a teacher. It is repeated conduct and constitutes a fundamental breach of public trust in the profession. Teachers should act as role models and Mrs Davis has not done so. We have no evidence that Mrs Davis actually holds the required qualifications to apply for Qualified Teacher status. We therefore judge that this is a case of both Unacceptable Professional Conduct and Conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute - as acknowledged by the teacher herself. 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State We have noted that Mrs Davis has included information about having been assaulted at Furrowfield School and indicates that she receives Disability Allowance . However these are not matters which we consider should properly be taken account o f in mitigation of deliberate and repeated incidents of dishonesty. We, otherwise, have very limited information in the case papers about Mrs Davis and she makes no attempt to explain why she has behaved as she did. We cannot assess whether she has any insight into her admitted behaviour or remorse. We consider that Mrs Davis should be prohibited. We believe the public interest requires that she should be prevented from teaching. This is a case of serious dishonesty which has been repeated and was planned. The nature of her conduct is such, that in the absence of any mitigation or explanation from Mrs Davis, we consider there should be no review period as her conduct demonstrates that she is unfit to be a member of the profession. We note that Mrs Davis says, herself, that she will not ever return to teaching. Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have carefully considered the findings and recommendations of the panel in this case. Mrs Davis has admitted the facts of the case and that t hose facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel have nevertheless properly considered the evidence before them and found the facts proven and that those facts amount to both unac ceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Mrs Davis failed to provide an accurate account of both her employment history and qualifications in her application to Furrowfield School. She went on to provide a fabricated Certificate of Qualification to NCTL when applying for Qualified Teacher Status. The panel have found, and Mrs Davis accepts, that her actions in doing so were dishonest. Mrs Davis’ behaviour has fallen well short of the standards expected of a tea cher. Mrs Davis has made no attempt to explain the way in which she behaved nor is there any evidence of insight or remorse. In the circumstances I agree that a prohibition order is an appropriate and proportionate sanction in the public interest. This is a case of serious and repeated dishonesty that was pre -planned. In the absence of any mitigation or explanation as to Mrs Davis’ actions, I agree that the prohibtion should be without provision for her to apply to have the order set aside. This means that Mrs Wendy Davis is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home 9 in England . Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against her, I have decided that Mrs Wendy Davis shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of her eligibility to teach. This Order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the Teacher. Mrs Wendy Davis has a right of appeal to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days from the date she is given notice of this Order. NAME OF DECISION MAKER: Paul Heathcote Date: 17 July 2014 This decision is taken by the Decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.