Ms Bianca Beaudoin

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: Ms Bianca Beaudoin

Teacher's date of birth: 29 November 1981

Location teacher worked: Withernsea, Yorkshire and the Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 21 November 2024 to 22 November 2024

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 Ms Bianca Beaudoin, formerly employed in Withernsea, Yorkshire and the Humber.

Ms Bianca Beaudoin: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Bianca Beaudoin Teacher ref number: 3844138 Teacher date of birth: 29 November 1981 TRA reference: 18909 Date of determination: 22 November 2024 Former employer: Withernsea High School, Near Hull Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 21 and 22 November by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Bianca Beaudoin. The panel members were Ms Jasmin Choudhury (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Maxine Cole (lay panellist) and Ms Gill Lyon (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Ben Schofield of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Kiera Riddy of Browne Jacobson LLP. Ms Beaudoin was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 28 August 2024. It was alleged that Ms Beaudoin was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed: 1. During the 2018/19 academic year, in respect of the VTCT qualification examination(s), she amended the work of one or more pupils work; 2. Her conduct as may be found proven at 1 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest, in that she; a. made amendments when she knew or should have known that this constituted an improper level of assistance; b. amended the work intending to submit it as the pupils’ own work and/or to secure a mark/grade which was higher than the pupil would have achieved for their own work. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of Ms Beaudoin The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Ms Beaudoin. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba; GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162). Before the panel was a copy of the Notice dated 28 August 2024, along with a Royal Mail Special Delivery tracking ticket, setting out proof of delivery to Ms Beaudoin’s address on 30 August 2024. This included an image of the package and the signature of the recipient at the address. The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings ("the Notice") had been sent in accordance with Rules 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2018 ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. Also before the panel was a number of other communications sent to Ms Beaudoin, including letters sent by recorded delivery. The presenting officer submitted to the panel 5 that Ms Beaudoin had not engaged in any of the TRA’s processes including its investigation and preparations for this hearing. The panel was satisfied that proactive and persistent efforts had been made to bring the hearing to Ms Beaudoin’s attention. The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Ms Beaudoin’s absence or to adjourn, in accordance with Rule 4.29 of the Procedures. The panel had regard to the fact that its discretion to continue in the absence of a teacher should be exercised with great caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings. The panel gave careful consideration to the fact that Ms Beaudoin is not in attendance and will not be represented at this hearing, should it proceed, and the extent of the disadvantage to her as a consequence. On balance, t he panel decided that the hearing should continue in the absence of Ms Beaudoin for the following reasons: • Ms Beaudoin had not sought an adjournment and there was no medical evidence before the panel which indicated that Ms Beaudoin was unfit to attend the hearing due to ill-health. • The panel was satisfied that Ms Beaudoin’s absence was voluntary and she had waived her right to attend. • Given Ms Beaudoin’s non-engagement, there was no indication that she might attend at a future date such that no purpose would be served by an adjournment. • There is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time. • There is a burden on all professionals who are subject to a regulatory regime to engage with their regulator. • There is a witness present to give evidence to the panel who would be significantly inconvenienced were the hearing to be adjourned. Having decided that it is appropriate to proceed, the panel were mindful to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Ms Beaudoin was not present nor represented. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: 6 Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 7 to 8 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 9 to 39 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 40 to 124 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 125 to 440 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. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2018, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from Witness A who was called by the TRA. No witnesses were called by the teacher. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Ms Beaudoin was employed by Withernsea High School (the “School”) from November 2016 as a teacher in the hairdressing section of the School’s Hair and Beauty Department. Ms Beaudoin did not hold ‘qualified teacher status’, she was employed by the School as an unqualified teacher and instructor. Ms Beaudoin was also a qualified assessor for City and Guilds and taught the VTCT Level 2 VRQ Hair and Beauty Course to pupils in Year 9 to Year 13. Following a concern being raised about potential assessment malpractice being raised by a colleague on 26 March 2019, the School undertook an investigation, in line with the School’s local authority processes. Following the conclusion of the Local Authority’s disciplinary process, they made a referral to the TRA on 12 November 2019, which has resulted in this hearing. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. During the 2018/19 academic year, in respect of the VTCT qualification examination(s), you amended the work of one or more pupils work; 7 Evidence of Witness A Witness A gave evidence before the panel at the hearing. Witness A’s evidence was that he is the [REDACTED] at the School and had been appointed to that position in September 2018. Previously to that, he had been in the School’s senior leadership team since 2006. On the morning of 27 March 2019, Witness A explained that he met with Person A, who had contacted him to talk about an issue. Person A explained that another teacher (Witness B) had approached him the previous day with a concern that Ms Beaudoin was seen editing pupils’ assessment work the day before. An investigation was undertaken. The pupils’ work which had been electronically submitted to Ms Beaudoin, could no longer be accessed by those pupils once submitted to her. The versions of the pupils’ work found on Ms Beaudoin’s account were checked. It showed Ms Beaudoin was recorded as the last user to save the pupils’ documents and the dates and times were consistent with what Witness B and Person B had reported. Additionally, the versions of work the pupils originally submitted was also separately recovered from the pupils’ own accounts. During the investigation these two versions were compared and a number of significant differences were noted between them. As part of the investigation it was found that four pupils’ work had been edited post submission. These four pupils were ones that had previously failed the assessment and this work was their second attempt at the assessment. Ms Beaudoin was interviewed during the investigation by Witness A. Her explanation was that she accepted making the amendments to the pupils’ work. However, there were still 12 days until the submission deadline at that point (on 26 March), and it was her intention to go back to the pupils to help them consider revisions to their work prior to the final submission date. Ms Beaudoin further explained she was going to use her amended versions as examples to show the pupils. Evidence of Witness B In a previous case management hearing, the panel granted an application by the TRA to adduce the evidence of Witness B as hearsay evidence. Witness B had provided a statement to the TRA. In that statement she explained that she was a [REDACTED] at the School since 2010. [REDACTED]. She stated that on 26 March 2019, she was walking down the corridor and as she was passing the salon, she looked through a glass window on the door. Inside, she saw the pupils for that lesson and that they were not undertaking any work.