Ms Nicola Hurst

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 Nicola Hurst

Teacher reference number: 0941085

Teacher's date of birth: 17 March 1989

Location teacher worked: Manchester, north west England

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 to 15 July 2021

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 Nicola Hurst, formerly employed in Manchester, north west 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 Nicola Hurst: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2021 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Nicola Hurst Teacher ref number: 0941085 Teacher date of birth: 17 March 1989 TRA reference: 17790 Date of determination: 15 July 2021 Former employer: Bedford High School, Greater Manchester Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 12 to 15 July 2021, to consider the case of Ms Nicola Hurst (“Ms Hurst”). The panel members were Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Sonia Simms (lay panellist) and Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Jacob Rickett of Capsticks LLP. Ms Hurst was not present, but was represented at the hearing by Ms Denise Robinson, National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (“NASUWT”). The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 23 April 2021. It was alleged that Ms Hurst was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. Between 1 September 2016 and 23 May 2018, she sought to identify artwork produced by her as the GCSE work of a) Pupil C, b) Pupil E, c) Pupil H. 2. Between 1 September 2016 and 23 May 2018, she provided artwork produced by unknown pupils to a) Pupil A, b) Pupil H. for use as their own GCSE work; 3. Between 1 September 2016 and 23 May 2018, she sought to identify artwork produced by a) ex-Pupil J as the GCSE work of Pupil A, b) Pupil 3 as the GCSE work of Pupil H; 4. On a date between 1 September 2016 and 23 May 2018, she instructed Pupil 2 to assist Pupil A with their GCSE work; 5. By your conduct set out in the foregoing paragraphs, she a) was dishonest, and/or b) failed to act with integrity. 5 Ms Hurst denied all of the allegations and that they amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Proceeding in absence The panel considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that the TRA complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2018, (the “Procedures”). The panel exercised its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel took into account the principle from R v Jones that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive her right to participate in the hearing. The panel took into account the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. As the teacher’s representative was present during the hearing, the panel noted that Ms Hurst would have been aware of the proceedings and had absented herself. The panel therefore considered that Ms Hurst waived her right to be present at the hearing. The panel did not consider that an adjournment might result in the teacher attending voluntarily as the teacher’s representative informed the panel that the lengthy process has already impacted on Ms Hurst’s health and that she would not be attending the hearing. Ms Hurst was represented at the hearing and could receive instructions during the hearing, if necessary. The panel had the benefit of representations made by the teacher’s representative. 6 The panel noted that they could test that evidence in questioning witnesses attending the hearing, considering such points which are favourable to the teacher, and reasonably available on the evidence. The panel did not identify any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it and should such gaps arise during the course of the hearing, the panel may take such gaps into consideration in considering whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available and in considering whether the presenting officer has discharged the burden of proof. The panel is also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher were serious and that there was a real risk that if proven, the panel will be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to maintain confidence in the profession. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel considered that in light of the teacher’s waiver of her right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses; that on balance, these were serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time is in favour of this hearing continuing today. Additional evidence The teacher’s representative applied to admit a photograph of Ms Hurst’s original artwork. This document was not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the Procedures, and as such the panel was required to decide whether the document should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the Procedures at the discretion of the panel. The panel took into account the representations from the teacher’s representative and no objection was raised by the presenting officer to the admission of the document. Under 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 was satisfied that the document may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case as an undisputed example of the artwork produced solely by the teacher. By reason of the above, the panel has decided to admit the document and these should be paginated as follows: • Teacher’s original artwork – page 625 7 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 6 to 9 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 10 to 16 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 17 to 36 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 37 to 602 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 603 to 624 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Teacher’s original artwork – page 625 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and reviewed the additional document that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer on behalf of the TRA: Witness A – [redacted] Witness B – [redacted] Witness C – [redacted] Witness D – [redacted] No witnesses were called by the teacher’s representative. 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 Hurst was employed as a teacher from 1 September 2011 at Bedford High School (“the School”). On 23 May 2018, an allegation of malpractice in relation to examinations 8 and assessments was made by a pupil in Ms Hurst’s art class. It was alleged that Ms Hurst had included artwork in the GCSE exam portfolios of some pupils that had not been produced by them. Ms Hurst was invited on 15 October 2018 to a disciplinary hearing to be held on 5 November 2018. Ms Hurst resigned from her post as Teaching and Learning Coordinator of Art on 29 October 2018. In July 2019, the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (“AQA”) determined that Ms Hurst had committed deception by substituting candidates’ non-examination assessment portfolio work with work produced by others. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Between 1 September 2016 and 23 May 2018, you sought to identify artwork produced by you as the GCSE work of a) Pupil C, The panel considered the notes from the meeting between Pupil C, the deputy headteacher and the HR manager on 5 June 2018. Pupil C identified a drawing he had drawn previously in his sketchbook. Pupil C said “Miss had rubbed it out and Miss drew it and painted it.” “The face