Ms Kirsten Heath

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's name: Ms Kirsten Heath

Teacher reference number: 1067632

Teacher's date of birth: 29 August 1987

Location teacher worked: Warwickshire, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 14 November 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 Ms Kirsten Heath formerly employed in Warwickshire, West Midlands.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 14 November 2019.

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 Kirsten Heath: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 Application to proceed in the absence of Ms Heath 4 Request for the hearing to be held in private 6 D. Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 E. Decision and reasons 7 Introduction 7 Evidence considered by the panel 8 Findings of fact 8 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute 14 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 19 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Kirsten Heath Teacher ref number: 1067632 Teacher date of birth: 29 August 1987 TRA reference: 17747 Date of determination: 14 November 2019 Former employer: Bridgetown Primary School, Stratford-upon-Avon A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 14 November 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Ms Kirsten Heath. The panel members were Mr Paul Hawkins (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Hilary Jones (lay panellist) and Mr Chris Rushton (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Delme Griffiths of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Kayleigh Brooks of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Ms Heath was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 19 September 2019 ("the Notice"). It was alleged that Ms Heath was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. Whilst applying for the role of and/or whilst employed as a teacher at Bridgetown Primary School in Stratford-upon-Avon ("the school") she: (a) claimed to have completed her Newly Qualified Teacher induction year when in fact she had not; (b) failed to provide to the school when requested any or any sufficient evidence of having completed a Newly Qualified Teacher induction year; (c) provided false and/or inaccurate details in respect of an establishment at which she claimed to have passed her Newly Qualified Teacher induction year; (d) permitted and/or arranged for an e-mail to be sent from E-mail Account A to the school on or around 30 April 2018 which asserted that she had completed her Newly Qualified Teacher induction year when in fact she had not; (e) worked as a teacher notwithstanding that she had not completed a Newly Qualified Teacher induction year. 2. Her conduct as may be found proved at Allegation 1 lacked integrity and/or was dishonest in that her conduct was in order to improve her prospects of securing and/or retaining paid employment. Ms Heath had responded to the Notice confirming that she admitted the allegations and that the facts of those allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. C. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of Ms Heath The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Ms Heath. 5 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). The panel was satisfied that the Notice had been sent in accordance with Rules 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. The Notice, hearing documentation and various letters had been sent to Ms Heath's last known address and various attempts had been made to contact her by telephone and email. Whilst Ms Heath had not engaged or responded to the various letters and emails sent to her, she had at least responded to the Notice and confirmed that she did not intend to be present or represented. Ms Heath had also submitted a further, brief submission shortly before the hearing. The panel was accordingly satisfied that she was, plainly, aware of the hearing. The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Ms Heath'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 caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings. The panel gave careful consideration to the fact that Ms Heath 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, the panel decided that the hearing should continue in the absence of Ms Heath for the following reasons: • Ms Heath had not sought an adjournment and there was no medical evidence before the panel which indicated that Ms Heath was unfit to attend the hearing. • The panel was satisfied that Ms Heath's absence was voluntary and she had waived her right to attend. • There was no indication that Ms Heath might attend at a future date and no purpose would be served by an adjournment. • There is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time. • There is an obligation on all professionals who are subject to a regulatory regime to engage with their regulator. 6 • There was a witness present to give evidence to the panel who would be inconvenienced were the hearing to be adjourned. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel would strive to ensure that the proceedings are as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Ms Heath is neither present nor represented. Request for the hearing to be held in private The panel carefully considered a request made by Ms Heath, in her response to the Notice, for the hearing to take place in private. In determining this request the panel took account of the submissions made by the presenting officer and accepted the legal advice provided. In her short, undated letter submitted to the TRA shortly before the hearing, Ms Heath made reference to her family and health circumstances in support of her request. The request was opposed by the TRA for the reasons set out by the presenting officer. The panel took into account the fact that there is a presumption that these proceedings will take place in public and there is a public interest in the openness and transparency of the disciplinary process. The panel also noted that the outcome of the hearing will be announced in public. On balance, the panel did not consider that it was appropriate for the hearing to take place in private. Whilst the panel recognised the reasons for Ms Heath's request, it did not consider that it was appropriate, in this case, to depart from the general rule. The public interest in the hearing taking place in public outweighed Ms Heath's stated concerns. Insofar as Ms Heath alluded to health-related matters, the panel also took account of the fact that no medical evidence had been submitted. However, the panel agreed that should sensitive, personal matters arise during the course of the hearing, which was not anticipated, the public ought to be excluded at the appropriate time. D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Correspondence – pages 1 to 22 Section 2: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 23 to 26 7 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 27 to 156 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. In addition, the panel agreed to admit a short, undated letter from Ms Heath which was submitted to the TRA shortly before the hearing. This was relevant to the matters to be determined by the panel and it was appropriate to admit the document in the interests of a fair hearing. The letter was added to the case papers at page 158. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from Individual A called by the presenting officer. Individual A is [REDACTED]. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. The panel confirmed it had read all of the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. Introduction Ms Heath was employed by Bridgetown Primary School ("the School") as a reception teacher between September 2017 and December 2018. It was submitted, and the panel accepted, that a teacher is required to be appropriately qualified in accordance with applicable regulations. In summary, following an individual achieving a teaching qualification they are required to complete a Newly Qualified Teacher (NQT) induction year, at the successful conclusion of which they will attain fully qualified teacher status (QTS). Whilst there were some exceptions to the need to undertake an induction year, these were not applicable in relation to Ms Heath. It was confirmed that there was no issue as to the fact that Ms Heath had completed the academic part of her teaching qualification. 8 However, following her appointment by the School, as a fully qualified teacher, in or around April 2018 concerns arose as to whether Ms Heath had completed her NQT induction year. These matters were, initially, rais