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:

8766560

Teacher's date of birth:

8 March 1966

Location teacher worked:

Kent, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel:

9 to 20 January 2017

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 Jane Porter, formerly employed in Kent, South East England.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on 9 to 20 January 2017.

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.

Ms Jane Porter: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2017 2 Contents Contents 2 A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 3 C. Preliminary applications 5 D. Summary of evidence 7 Documents 8 Witnesses 8 E. Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 9 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct 33 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 34 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 36 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Jane Porter Teacher ref number: 8766560 Teacher date of birth: 8 March 1966 NCTL case reference: 13514 Date of determination: 20 January 2017 Former employer: King’s Farm School (employed by Kent County Council, seconded to King’s Farm School), Kent A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened from 9 January 2017 to 20 January 2017 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Ms Jane Porter. The panel members were Ms Jean Carter (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Anthony Greenwood (lay panellist) and Mrs Kathy Thomson (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Parminder Benning of Eversheds LLP. The presenting officer for the National College was Ms Samantha Paxman of Browne Jacobson LLP. Ms Jane Porter was present on days 1 to 8 of the hearing and was represented by Mr Patrick Llewelyn of Counsel. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 16 August 2016. It was alleged that Ms Jane Porter was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct in that whilst employed as executive headteacher at King’s Farm School between January 2014 and August 2014 she: 4 1. Failed to ensure that adequate health and safety and/or safeguarding procedures were in place at the school, including in respect to: a. construction work being carried out without a risk assessment and/or consultation and/or planning for the safeguarding of pupils resulting in pupils accessing the work site; b. one or more pupils being asked to move furniture without supervision, resulting in minor injury to at least one pupil; c. making changes to safeguarding procedures and/or responsibilities without consultation and/or communication with relevant staff; 2. Failed to ensure the adequate provision of support for SEN pupils by compromising the provision agreement between Kings Farm School and Ifield School (which serves SEN pupils) by making changes to the nursery without consultation; 3. Displayed inappropriate and/or bullying behaviour towards staff, including in that she: a. humiliated and/or undermined members of staff members on a number of occasions; b. made one or more changes to staff roles and responsibilities without consultation or explanation; c. carried out lesson observations in a way that was inconsistent and/or inaccurate and/or unfair on one or more occasions; d. provided an unfair reference on one or more occasions; e. undertook disciplinary action against one or more members of staff and/or imposed suspension and garden leave without appropriate communication and/or investigation on one or more occasions; 4. Failed to appropriately manage the overall running of the school, including in that she: a. failed to ensure the availability of enough appropriately qualified and experienced staff; b. failed to follow appropriate recruitment processes; c. failed to arrange for a clearly appointed person in charge to be on site during an off-site inset day; 5. Engaged in the maladministration of EYFS assessments in that she: 5 a. requested that these were changed after the local authority moderation; b. instructed staff to amend the data without consultation with the class teachers; c. provided data that was misleading and/or inaccurate in that it did not reflect the level of attainment for the cohort of pupils; d. failed to provide parents with a written report on their child’s progress against EYFS ELG’s as required in the assessment and reporting arrangements. As stated in the response to the Notice of Proceedings dated 3 September 2016, the above allegations have not been admitted. However, at the beginning of the hearing, Ms Porter admitted the facts of allegations 5.a., b., c. and d., but did not accept that they amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. C. Preliminary applications Admission of Documents The presenting officer made an application to admit two photographs, the first in replacement of the photograph at page 644 and the second photograph as an additional document. These photographs are a clearer version. The teacher’s representative had no objections to the admission of these documents. The teacher’s representative made an application to admit into the evidence the witness statement of Individual A. The teacher’s representative stated that they had experienced delays in collating evidence, as Ms Porter is no longer within the employ of King’s Farm School (“the School”). The document provides probative evidence that will assist the panel in reaching its decision when determining the allegations. Therefore, the document is relevant. Turning to the issue of fairness, it was submitted that the statement had been circulated previously. The presenting officer had no objections to the inclusion of this document. The panel had regard to paragraph 4.18 of the Teacher misconduct - Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession (“the Procedures”) which provides the “panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered relevant to the case”. In view of the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the panel held that the documents were relevant and would assist in determining the allegations raised. Furthermore, the panel considered the need for fairness. The panel is comprised of experienced members, who will accordingly afford the document the appropriate weight in due course. The panel was minded to exercise its discretion and admit the documents. 6 Redaction The teacher’s representative made an application seeking to redact references to another investigation. These references are noted in pages 66, 94 and 615. It was submitted that references to allegations not forming part of these proceedings should be taken out. Whilst the presenting officer had no objection to the proposed redaction on page 615, it was submitted that the other references were not prejudicial to the teacher and provided context to the allegations forming part of these proceedings. The panel had regard to paragraph 4.22 of the Procedures which provides that “where there is a dispute … in relation to the relevance and/or admissibility of documents … an application will be made to the panel for a determination…” The panel also notes that pursuant to paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures, “the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case.” The panel therefore considered it does have a discretion to decide whether to redact evidence from the bundle, as there is a dispute as to the relevance of the parts of the documents sought to be redacted. The panel was minded to exercise its discretion and redact the reference at page 615 of the bundle. Turning to the references at pages 66 and 94, the panel had regard to the seriousness of this case, and the potential consequences for the teacher and has accepted that fairness to the teacher is of prime importance. Furthermore, the panel notes that these proceedings should be conducted in an investigative manner and that they must confine their deliberations to the allegations forming part of these proceedings. The panel considered that, on balance, these are serious allegations and the panel found that the evidence on pages 66 and 94 to be probative and relevant as it will provide context to the allegations raised in these proceedings and to the evidence given by the witnesses. Therefore, these references are not to be redacted. Admission of further documents The presenting officer made an application to admit into the evidence an organisation chart of the School at the relevant time. It was submitted that this was a relevant document which would assist the panel when they are determining the allegations as it provides context. The teacher’s representative had no objections to the admission of this document. The panel had regard to paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures which provides “the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered relevant to the case”. In view of the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the panel 7 held that the document was relevant and would assist in determining the allegations raised. Furthermore, the panel considered the need for fairness. The panel is comprised of experienced members, who will accordingly afford the document the appropriate weight in due course. The panel was minded to exercise its discretion and admit the document as page 962a. The presenting officer made a further application to admit into the evidence documents relating to the e-mails found at pages 663 to 666 of the hearing bundle. It was submitted that the additional documents provide clarification on the sequence of events, evidencing when the documents attached to the e-mail were created and sent to the recipient. The teacher’s representative had no objections to the admission of this document. The panel had regard to paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures which provides “the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to