Ms Louisa Yakit

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 Louisa Yakit

Teacher reference number: 0666468

Teacher's date of birth: 26 October 1981

Location teacher worked: Kent, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 31 March 2025 to 4 April 2025

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 Louisa Yakit formerly employed in Kent, South East England.

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 Louisa Yakit: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Louisa Yakit Teacher ref number: 0666468 Teacher date of birth: 26 October 1981 TRA reference: 20999 Date of determination: 4 April 2025 Former employer: Skinners’ Kent Academy, Kent (the “School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 31 March 2025 to 4 April 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Yakit. The panel members were Ms Mona Sood (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Aruna Sharma (teacher panellist) and Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Elizabeth Gilbert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Rosa Bennathan of 3 Raymond Building, who was instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP. Ms Yakit was present and was represented by Ms Gurpreet Rheel of Cornwall Street Barristers. The hearing took place in public, save for parts which were heard in private, and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing dated 18 November 2024. It was alleged that Ms Yakit was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as a Teacher at the Skinners’ Kent Academy: 1. In or around May 2022, Ms Yakit: a) provided one or more pupils with improper assistance during their preparation time for the French GCSE speaking examinations in that Ms Yakit: i) told them what they needed to write down and/or say; and/or ii) provided them with written assistance and/or answers b) provided one or more pupils with improper assistance during their French GCSE speaking examination in that Ms Yakit: i) allowed pupils to see prepared answers and/or directed pupils to answers displayed on your computer screen; and/or ii) held up prompts and/or mouthed answers to pupils 2. Ms Yakit’s conduct at paragraphs 1ai and/or 1aii and/or 1bi and/or 1bii above was: a) Dishonest; and/or b) Demonstrated a lack of integrity Ms Yakit admitted the facts of the allegations, save for allegation 2(a) which she took a neutral position on and therefore denied. Ms Yakit also admitted that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 8 to 11 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 12 to 20 5 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 21 to 46 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 47 to 539 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 540 to 584 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 consideration of this case, the panel also had regard to the Procedures. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer:  Witness A: [REDACTED]; and  Pupil 7 – former pupil at the School. Ms Yakit also gave oral evidence and her representative called the following witnesses:  Witness B: [REDACTED]; and  Witness C: [REDACTED]. 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 Yakit was employed as the head of modern foreign languages at the School from 4 July 2016. On 4 May 2022, the School was made aware of suspected malpractice in respect of Ms Yakit following a disclosure by a year 11 pupil to a member of staff. An investigation was subsequently undertaken by the School which concluded on 27 May 2022. The School made a referral to the TRA on 26 July 2022. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 6 The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. In or around May 2022, you: a) provided one or more pupils with improper assistance during their preparation time for the French GCSE speaking examinations in that you: i) told them what they needed to write down and/or say; and/or ii) provided them with written assistance and/or answers Ms Yakit admitted allegations 1(a)(i) and 1(a)(ii). The panel considered exhibit 40 of Witness A’s written statement, which was a document entitled ‘AQA Instructions for the Conduct of Exams in Summer 2022 - GCSE Modern Foreign Languages’. The panel noted this document outlined the scope and requirements associated with the preparation time for a French GCSE speaking examination and noted the following statements in this regard:  “It is a requirement of the specification that all candidates have exactly 12 minutes’ preparation time and invigilation arrangements must be in place to facilitate this. If a student reaches the end of the 12 minutes’ preparation time and the teacher- examiner is not ready to start the test, the student must be asked to stop their preparation by the invigilator, turn over their notes and cards so they are not visible and remain under supervision until the teacher-examiner is ready to start the test”;  “After the student has completed the 12 minutes’ preparation period, he/she should move to the exam room, remaining under supervision and retaining his/her copies of the role-play card and photo card. Any notes on the role-play card and photo card made by the student on the MFL additional answer sheet/exam stationery should be taken into the exam room to be used during the first two parts of the test”; and  The teacher-examiner cannot “let the candidate know in advance the questions or topics within each theme which will be covered during their own speaking test” or “re- test a candidate during the speaking window, apart from in the limited circumstances listed”. The panel also considered exhibit 27 and exhibit 28 of Witness A’s written statement, which Witness A described in her written statement as the “invigilator’s register” in respect of the French speaking examination. The panel noted that both exhibits showed a timetable for the speaking examinations undertaken at the School on 4 and 5 May 2022, which outlined when each pupil was undertaking the examination, the examiner present and the location of the examination. Specifically, the panel noted that the 7 timetable had a manuscript note of the start and end times of the preparation time provided in the preparation room. The panel noted from the timetables that Pupils 1, 2, 4, 16, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 34 undertook examinations with Ms Yakit on 4 May 2022, whilst Pupils 7, 8, 9, 17, 21, 24, 27, 33, 36 and 37 undertook examinations with Ms Yakit on 5 May 2022. Pupils 32 and 35 were originally noted as having an examination on the afternoon of 5 May 2022 but they were rescheduled. The panel acknowledged that 12 minutes of preparation time was recorded for each of the pupils which was consistent with the time permitted by the instructions outlined in exhibit 40. Ms Yakit stated in her oral evidence that she could not recall her conduct with each individual pupil yet could remember how she conducted the examinations generally. Ms Yakit stated in her written statement that she “asked certain students to rewrite” their notes to “ensure they can effectively use their notes during the exam”. Ms Yakit explained in her oral evidence that their original notes were not formulated properly or could not be easily understood by the pupil. Ms Yakit also “reviewed their candidate sheets and notes” and also helped them “structure their responses in a way that would allow them to communicate effectively”. In her written statement, Ms Yakit stated that she “provided more specific assistance by completing practice runs” with “most” of her pupils. Ms Yakit further stated in oral evidence that practice runs were provided immediately prior to the examination to allow the pupils to familiarise themselves with the examination as they had not all been afforded the opportunity to sit a mock examination. When questioned by the panel, Ms Yakit accepted in her oral evidence that “practice runs” were not permitted within the examination rules. The panel considered the oral evidence of Pupil 7, as well as Pupil 7’s two written statements, one of which was prepared as part of the School’s investigation and dated 13 May 2022 (“Investigation Statement”) and the other which was prepared for the purposes of the TRA’s case and dated 18 April 2023 (“TRA Statement”). The panel noted that Pupil 7’s Investigation Statement and TRA Statement were inconsistent in places, however Pupil 7 clarified in her oral evidence that her Investigation Statement was rushed and she admitted that she failed to capture all the relevant information due to the stressful circumstances she found herself in. The panel was satisfied with this explanation as Pupil 7’s Investigation Statement was written by her when she was 16 years old or under at the time of the examinations, during which time she would have been under pressure. Pupil 7 stated in her oral evidence that she was provided with 12 minutes of preparation time in