Mr Alan Prince: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education

August 2017

2

Contents

A. Introduction 3

B. Allegations 3-4

C. Summary of evidence 4

Documents 4

Statement of agreed facts 4

D. Decision and reasons 5-11

Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11-15

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15-16

3

Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State

Teacher: Mr Alan Prince

Teacher ref number: 9142186

Teacher date of birth: 11 March 1967

NCTL case reference: 15704

Date of determination: 15 August 2017

Former employer: Wistaston Church Lane Academy, Cheshire

A. Introduction

A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 14 and 15 August 2017 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Alan Prince.

The panel members were Ms Jean Carter (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Fiona Tankard (teacher panellist) and Mr Tony James (former teacher panellist).

The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Robin Havard of Blake Morgan LLPsolicitors.

The presenting officer was Ms Samantha Paxman of Browne Jacobson LLP.

Mr Prince was present and was represented by Ms Louise Price, 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 17 May 2017.

It was alleged that Mr Alan Prince was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that:

Whilst employed as the headteacher at Wistaston Church Lane Academy he:

1. Improperly administered the Key Stage 2 SATs Mental Maths assessment in or around May 2015 by:

a. Amending scripts outside of controlled conditions:

b. Failing to keep the scripts securely stored in that he:

i. Failed to keep the scripts locked in the cupboard;

4

ii. Kept the scripts in a room to which all members of staff had access;

c. Signing the headteacher declaration form stating that the scripts had been securely stored when this was not the case.

2. His conduct as set out in 1(a) and 1(c) above was dishonest.

Mr Prince admitted the facts of allegation 1(a) and that such conduct was dishonest. On that basis, he admitted allegation 2. Based on such admissions, he admitted that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

Mr Prince denied the facts of allegation 1(b)(i) and 1(b)(ii) and 1(c). Therefore, in respect of the facts alleged at paragraph 1(c), Mr Prince denied that he had been dishonest in accordance with allegation 2.

C. Summary of evidence

Documents

In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included:

Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 2 to 4

Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and response – pages 6 to 12

Section 3: NCTL witness statements – pages 14 to 17

Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 19 to 162

Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 164 to 299

In addition, following the announcement of the panel's decisions in respect of its findings

of fact and its decision in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely

to bring the profession into disrepute, the panel agreed to consider by way of mitigation a

variety of original documents with regard to Mr Prince's work whilst at Wistaston Church

Lane Academy (‘’the Academy’’). The presenting officer raised no objection to the panel

considering such documents.

Save for those documents to which reference is made above, the panel members

confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing.

Witnesses

The panel heard oral evidence from the following witness called by the teacher

representative:

Witness A

5

Mr Prince gave evidence on his own account.

Statement of Agreed Facts

The bundle of documents includes a Statement of Agreed Facts signed by Mr Prince and Ms Brooks on behalf of NCTL on 1 and 2 May 2017 respectively.

D. Decision and reasons

The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:

The panel has carefully considered the case and reached a decision.

The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing.

Brief Summary

Mr Prince started his teaching career in September 1992. In 1998 he commenced

employment at the Academy, which became an Academy in January 2015.

In September 2004, Mr Prince was appointed as the headteacher of the Academy having

previously been the deputy headteacher.

On 18 May 2015, Mr Prince submitted a declaration confirming that the Key Stage 2

SATs Mental Maths assessments, sat by 58 pupils, had been properly administered in

accordance with the Standards and Testing Agency ("STA") arrangements.

The STA discovered that the test papers of 26 of the 58 pupils had been changed and

could only have been changed outside of controlled examination conditions.

On 27 January 2016, the STA annulled the assessment papers of those 26 pupils.

On the instruction of the board of governors of the Academy, an investigation was carried

out by Heads HR UK Limited ("Heads HR") into the maladministration of the tests. Mr

Prince denied any involvement in the maladministration of the tests.

On 30 April 2016, Mr Prince was suspended and, on 31 July 2016, he resigned from his

post as headteacher of the Academy.

It was not until the inception of these proceedings that he admitted that he had made

changes to 26 of the papers to increase the marks achieved by those pupils.

Findings of fact

Our findings of fact in respect of the particulars of the allegations are as follows:

Whilst employed as the headteacher at Wistaston Church Lane Academy you:

6

1. Improperly administered the Key Stage 2 SATs Mental Maths assessment in or around May 2015 by:

a. Amending scripts outside of controlled conditions:

The facts of this particular of allegation 1 have been admitted and therefore are found

proved.

The following admissions are made by Mr Prince in the Statement of Agreed Facts:

"8. Mr Prince admits that he amended the scripts of 26 pupils outside of controlled

conditions. Mr Prince agrees that the scripts he changed are set out in the letter

from the STA to Mr Richard Barratt, Chair of Governors, dated 27 January 2016.

9. Mr Prince accepts that the changes he made are accurately set out within the

document produced by Ms Hogan, which is labelled ‘Evidence of

maladministration – Mental Mathematics 2015’ and marked ‘App 5’.

10. Mr Prince accepts that to amend scripts in the manner set out above amounted to

him improperly administering the assessments."

The panel makes the following additional findings of fact:

Mr Prince accepted that, at the time of the Key Stage 2 SATs in May 2015, he was aware

of the assessment and reporting arrangements with regard to the tests and of his

responsibilities as headteacher as set out in the 2017 key stage 2: Assessment and

Reporting Arrangements (ARA) (‘’the Guidance document’’) issued by the STA. This

includes not only the manner in which the tests had to be conducted but also

arrangements with regard to security of the test papers themselves.

It states in clear terms in the section relating to the headteacher's responsibilities that:

"You are responsible for ensuring that pupils' answers are their own and that they are not

amended after the tests".

Mr Prince had concerns relating to the likely results with regard to the mental maths and

in his view it was an area of weakness.

On the day of the tests, namely 13 May 2015, an external moderator from the Local

Authority, Individual A, had been in attendance at the Academy monitoring the manner in

which the tests were organised. She had requested that the room in which the tests were

to be taken should be reorganised so that there would only be two pupils to a desk

instead of three.

After the pupils had sat the tests, the person responsible for administering the tests,

Individual B, had the task of bringing the test papers to the room in which they were to be

7

kept, namely the Electrical Storage Room ("ESR") which was located opposite Individual

B's room in the junior building. Whilst this was done, Mr Prince was with Individual A who

was taking her leave.

Mr Prince said that he then came to Individual B's office and asked Individual B if he

could have a look at the test papers to see how the pupils had done. Individual B left him

on his own in the room as she went off to see to other tasks.

Whilst Individual B was out of the room, Mr Prince saw the test papers of the 58 pupils on

the table which had been put in a pile in alphabetical order. He then started to go through

them and proceeded to change some of the answers on 26 of the papers.

In his written statement, Mr Prince stated that he had corrected two to three answers out

of the 20 questions set out in a pupil's paper so as to add two to three marks to that

pupil's total, "which could potentially have increased the proportion of pupils achieving a

Level 4 or a Level 5 and help maintain the Academy's "Outstanding," Ofsted rating."

Also in his written statement, Mr Prince states that this process could not have taken

much more than 10 minutes.

When giving his oral evidence, the panel did not find Mr Prince to be either credible or

reliable. He stated that, in hindsight, the changes he had made in the marks would not

have, in fact, made any difference to the overall outcome but this is clearly in conflict with

the position he accepts in his written statement that the alterations were aimed at

improving the results of 26 out of 58 pupils who sat the test in order to protect the

Academy's status with Ofsted.

In his written statement, he said that the time it took to make the alterations would not

have been much more than ten minutes. In his oral evidence, he stated that it would have

taken five to six minutes, then seven to eight minutes. Later in his evidence he stated that

it would not have taken more than eleven to twelve minutes.

When asked how he knew what the right answers would be, he stated that he had the

question sheet next to him and he would also look at the answers the "clever clogs" in the

class had given; he would then look at the answers given by the "strugglers" and change

their answers.

Mr Prince states, and the panel finds, that he knew immediately that what he had done

was wrong. However, he did nothing and states that he, "was consumed with guilt and

stricken with panic as I see that anyone who is asked whether tampering with test scripts

is dishonest would respond in the affirmative. The period May 2015 to January 2016 was

one of immense regret, fear and upset up to the telephone call in January 2016 from the

STA."

8

However, when the STA investigated the matter in January 2016, Mr Prince did not admit

that it was he who had altered the test papers. Indeed, in the course of the investigation

which was undertaken by Individual C of the Maladministration Team at the STA, and in

subsequent emails, Mr Prince suggested other possibilities for the alteration of the

papers. He was also asked to notify his chair of governors, Individual C, of a meeting by

forwarding an email he had received from Individual D which he failed to do. The panel

finds that he deliberately failed to inform Individual C of the proposed meeting.

Mr Prince was then interviewed on 11 March 2016 and 29 April 2016 by Individual E of

Heads HR and then Individual D, Individual E and Individual F of Heads UK respectively.

In both interviews, he did not say that it was he who had altered the papers. He

suggested that as the code to the ESR door was known to everyone, anyone could have

gained access. He subsequently said to the panel that this was not true and it was a ploy

that he had dreamed up to deflect attention away from himself. However, this ploy led to

a number of staff going through the ordeal of being interviewed, to include the deputy

headteacher, Individual C, Individual B, her assistant, Individual G, and Individual H. A

number of them had to answer questions about whether they had altered any of the

papers. Mr Prince was aware that such interviews were taking place.

As stated, on 30 April 2016, Mr Prince was suspended from his employment as

headteacher at the Academy and he finally resigned on 31 July 2016. It was not until

December 2016 that he formally admitted that it was he who had altered the assessment

papers of the 26 pupils.

As stated, the panel finds the particular proved.

b. Failing to keep the scripts securely stored in that you:

i. Failed to keep the scripts locked in the cupboard;

This is denied by Mr Prince.

As stated, the scripts were kept in the ESR. Responsibility for overseeing the storage of

test materials had been delegated to Individual C with Mr Prince having overall

responsibility.

The STA advise in the Guidance document under the heading,"Test material storage and

access" is clear.

Mr Prince states that entry to the ESR was controlled by means of an access code.

Therefore, when the door was closed, it was locked. To that extent, the panel accepts

that the ESR, which is a small room opposite Individual B's room, would be locked and

the scripts were therefore secure. There was also a log book as required by the guidance

and a notice which warned against unauthorised access.

9

Individual A also states in her interview that the scripts, "were kept in a locked room and

they had a log book for who entered."

Consequently, on the basis of the wording of this particular, the panel did not find it

proved.

ii. Kept the scripts in a room to which all members of staff had access

This particular was denied by Mr Prince.

Mr Prince states that his assertion in the course of the investigation that the code to the

ESR door was known by everyone, which meant that anyone could have gained access

to the ESR and thereby the papers, was a deliberate untruth. It was an attempt to

mislead those investigating the allegation of maladministration into believing that any

member of staff had the opportunity to alter the scripts.

However, when confronted with this particular, Mr Prince changed his version of events.

He now maintains that, over and above the code which had to be applied to gain access,

there was also a mortice lock, the key for which was in the possession of only three

people, Individual C, the caretaker, and himself. He states that the alarm console for the

junior building was located in the ESR. Consequently, at the start of each day, the

caretaker would have to open the outside door to the building by using one key. That

would set off the alarm and so he would have to move quickly to the ESR door and use

another key and input the code to gain access to the alarm console to switch the alarm

off.

At the end of the school day, the caretaker would set the alarm and lock the ESR, locking

the outside door on his way out.

The panel does not accept Mr Prince's evidence. He raises the existence, and use, of the

mortice lock for the first time in his witness statement for the purpose of this hearing. He

makes no mention of it in his interviews in the course of the investigation. He may say

that was all part of the ploy to mislead the investigation. However, he makes no mention

of it in the submissions made on his behalf by his solicitors in December 2016.

No evidence has been produced from the caretaker. Furthermore, and more particularly,

Individual B, Individual G and Individual C, are all interviewed about the security of the

room. It was clearly in their interests to indicate that the room was secure. The panel

considers that it would be an obvious measure that would have been brought to the

attention of the investigators if the door to the ESR was locked in this way over and

above the access code. However, all three of them only make reference to the code.

Individual B says that the ESR has a key pad lock and that, "people are aware of the

code". Individual G and Individual C only make reference to the code.

10

Finally, in their interview of Individual A, the investigators only refer to the door having a

key code and Individual A states that, as the Academy was considered a low priority, she

would probably not have asked who knew the code. No mention is made of any other

means of locking the door.

The panel finds Mr Prince's very recent evidence on this issue to be wholly lacking in

credibility. It is not satisfied that there was a mortice lock on the ESR door in addition to

the key pad. Even if there was, the panel is not satisfied that it was locked in accordance

with the system and routine suggested by Mr Prince.

The panel therefore finds this particular proved.

c. Signing the headteacher declaration form stating that the scripts had been securely stored when this was not the case.

This is denied by Mr Prince.

The panel relies on its findings in respect of particular 1(b)(ii) above. Furthermore,

Individual A states in her interview that, had she been aware that the key code was

known by everyone, as stated by Mr Prince, that, "I would have put an "N" in question 4

and that it would have to be resolved immediately."

For these reasons, the panel finds this particular proved.

2. Your conduct as set out in 1(a) and 1(c) above was dishonest.

In respect of particular 1(a), the panel relies on its findings of fact set out above. Whilst

denied in the Statement of Agreed Facts, at the hearing, Mr Prince admitted that his

conduct in amending the 26 scripts outside controlled conditions was dishonest. He had

also admitted as much in his written statement.

The panel is in no doubt that, by the standards of reasonable and honest people, his

conduct was dishonest. Furthermore, he knew at the time he altered the scripts that, by

those standards, his conduct was dishonest. The panel finds this allegation in respect of

particular 1(a) proved.

As for particular 1(c), the responsibilities of the headteacher with regard to the security of

the SATs scripts as prescribed by the STA are clear and Mr Prince has acknowledged

that he was aware of those requirements at the material time. However, the measures

taken with regard to the storage and access to the test material were known not only by

Mr Prince but by other members of staff who had a responsibility in respect of the

process and the means of access to the ERS was via a key pad and code. It was not

only Mr Prince who confirmed that a number of members of staff knew the code to gain

access to the room in which the test material was stored. There was also a sign on the

door at the time of the SATs tests and a log book. Individual A was also aware that

access to the room was via a key pad and code. What she did not know was the number

11

of people who were aware of that code and who could therefore gain access to the room

in which the scripts were stored.

The panel considers that, on looking at the arrangements which existed and comparing

those arrangements with the requirements of the STA, a reasonable and honest person

may well conclude that, when he submitted the declaration confirming that the scripts had

been securely stored, he was acting dishonestly because he knew that a number of staff

could have gained access to the room and thereby the scripts. However, taking into

account all the circumstances, with other members of staff knowing of the arrangements

that existed, the panel is not satisfied that, at the time he submitted the declaration, Mr

Prince knew that, by the standards of reasonable and honest people, he was being

dishonest.

Therefore, the panel does not find this allegation proved in respect of particular 1(c).

Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute

Having found allegations 1 and 2 proved to the extent outlined above, the panel has gone

on to consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amount to unacceptable

professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

In doing so, the panel has taken account of what is accepted by Mr Prince as set out in

the Statement of Agreed Facts, namely:

"15. Mr Prince admits the facts of allegation 1(a) against him and that they

amount to Unacceptable Professional Conduct as set out in rules 2.3 – 2.4

of the Disciplinary Rules for the regulation of the teaching profession which

may be defined as misconduct of a serious nature, falling significantly short

of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher in accordance with the

guidance set out in the Department of Education advice document ‘The

Prohibition of Teachers’.

16. Mr Prince admits that the facts of allegation 1(a) also amount to conduct

that may bring the profession into disrepute as set out in rules 2.3 – 2.4 of

the Disciplinary Rules for the regulation of the teaching profession which

may be defined as behaviour which is directly related to an individual’s

suitability to be a teacher and which, if proven, may bring the profession

into disrepute, in accordance with the guidance set out in the Department of

Education advice document ‘The Prohibition of Teachers’."

In reaching its decision, the panel has had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct:

The prohibition of teachers, which the panel refers to as “the Advice”, and the Teachers'

Standards.

12

The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mr Prince in relation to the facts found proven,

involve breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considers that by reference to

Part Two, Mr Prince is in breach of the following standards:

Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of

ethics and behaviour, within and outside school;

Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and

practices of the school in which they teach, and

Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory

frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

The panel is satisfied that Mr Prince is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct in that

his conduct fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. This is in

respect of allegations 1 and 2.

The panel has taken into account how the teaching profession is viewed by others and

considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the

community. The panel has taken account of the uniquely influential role that teachers,

particularly headteachers, can hold in pupils’ lives and that pupils must be able to view

teachers as role models in the way they behave.

The nature of the misconduct, which, in respect of particular 1(a) effectively amounts to

cheating, has led to a finding that Mr Prince has been dishonest. The panel views this as

very serious. The conduct displayed would likely have a negative impact on Mr Prince’s

status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public perception. When considering

elements of behaviour concerning trust and honest dealing, it is the worst possible

example that a headteacher could set the pupils of his academy. The panel therefore

finds that Mr Prince's actions constitute conduct that may bring the profession into

disrepute.

Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State

Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct

that may bring the profession into disrepute, it is necessary for the panel to go on to

consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition

order by the Secretary of State.

In reaching its decision on its recommendations to the Secretary of State, the panel has

taken into consideration all that has been submitted, in terms of Mr Prince's further

evidence, the oral submissions made on his behalf by Ms Price, and the documentation

which has been placed before the panel at this stage of the proceedings.

13

In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order

should be made, the panel has to consider whether it is an appropriate and proportionate

measure, and whether it is in the public interest to do so. The panel reminds itself that

prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has

been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect.

The panel has considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the

Advice and having done so has found a number of them to be relevant in this case,

namely the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and

upholding proper standards of conduct.

The panel also acknowledges that there is a public interest in a teacher who is able to

make a valuable contribution to the profession being able to continue in that profession,

as outlined in the judgment in Wallace v Secretary of State for Education [2017] EWHC

109 (Admin). The Wallace judgment also stated that a finding of unacceptable

professional conduct and conduct which may bring the profession into disrepute, and the

formal publication of the findings of misconduct, are of themselves detrimental and

illustrate that such misconduct is wholly unacceptable.

The panel’s findings against Mr Prince involve a deliberate course of conduct in order to

misrepresent the academic achievements of pupils. He has been found to be dishonest

in relation to such conduct. The panel is also very concerned with Mr Prince's conduct

once the maladministration was discovered, namely his denial of responsibility and his

attempts to deflect responsibility elsewhere. The panel therefore considers that the two

elements of the public interest test mentioned above are engaged.

It is critically important that pupils' academic progression is based on their own efforts

and ability. As for staff at the academy, a number of those involved in the administration

of the SATs tests were unnecessarily brought into an investigation which included an

enquiry into their own roles and conduct following the discovery of maladministration.

This went on for a number of weeks and must have been extremely stressful for all

involved.

The panel considers that public confidence in the profession could be seriously

weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Prince was not treated with the

utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.

Similarly, the panel considers that a strong public interest consideration in declaring

proper standards of conduct in the profession is also present as the overall conduct

found against Mr Prince is far outside that which can reasonably be tolerated. Mr Prince

disregarded the need to adhere to, and comply with, national guidelines with regard to

the administration of SATs tests, guidelines which are unambiguous and with which he

accepts he was fully familiar.

14

Notwithstanding the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel

considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition

order taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Prince.

Whatever the recommendation of the panel, Mr Prince's professional reputation will be

adversely affected by these proceedings. In the particular circumstances of this case, the

public findings of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the

profession into disrepute are sanctions in themselves and will be with Mr Prince

throughout his future professional life.

In carrying out the balancing exercise the panel has considered the public interest

considerations both in favour of and against prohibition as well as the interests of Mr

Prince. The panel has taken further account of the Advice, which suggests that a

prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proven.

In the list of such behaviours, those that are relevant in this case are:

serious departures from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards;

abuse of position or trust;

serious acts of dishonesty.

Even though there were behaviours that would point to the appropriateness of a

prohibition order, the panel went on to consider whether or not there were sufficient

mitigating factors to militate against the appropriateness and proportionality of a

prohibition order, particularly taking into account the nature and severity of the behaviour

in this case.

However, the panel is satisfied that Mr Prince’s actions were deliberate, and that he was

not acting under duress.

Nevertheless, the panel has read the testimonials and references submitted on his

behalf. The references include accounts from both parents and professional colleagues.

They speak of Mr Prince's commitment to the profession and the academy. A consistent

theme is that he had the ability to be inspirational and that he provided a caring and

supportive environment in which pupils were able to flourish.

The panel has listened carefully to the evidence of Witness A, who attended to give very

supportive evidence on behalf of Mr Prince, who maintained that he continued to believe

that Mr Prince was a person of integrity.

It is clear from this evidence that Mr Prince was a competent and well-regarded

headteacher.

15

The panel is prepared to accept that, prior to the misconduct giving rise to these

proceedings, there is no evidence to suggest conduct of a similar nature. The panel

therefore accepts that Mr Prince had been a person of good character. To this extent, the

panel accepts that his conduct in May 2015 can be categorised as an isolated incident.

The panel has heard about the level of stress experienced by Mr Prince at the time. He

was under considerable pressure and, from Witness A observations as well as Mr Prince

himself, he had clearly taken on a great deal in terms of training to be an Ofsted

inspector, dealing with the academisation of the Academy and involvement in NPQH

training programmes, to name but three of the areas in which he was involved at the

material time. He also outlined some of the personal issues with which he was having to

contend.

However, whilst sympathetic to the very difficult personal and professional circumstances

faced by Mr Prince, the panel does not accept that this provides an adequate explanation

or excuse for Mr Prince's conduct.

It was also not until December 2016 that Mr Prince accepted that it was he who had

altered the scripts. Up until then, he had not only denied any involvement but, as stated,

had endeavoured to mislead the investigation by putting forward alternative explanations

which he knew to be untrue. The panel has also found Mr Prince's evidence to be lacking

credibility in material respects with regard, for example, to the measures taken to secure

the scripts in the ESR.

The panel is also not satisfied that Mr Prince has shown a sufficient level of insight or

remorse in relation to his conduct.

Despite the seriousness of his dishonest conduct, Mr Prince seeks to argue to the panel

that it should not recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition is necessary or

proportionate and that all he wishes to do is to return immediately to a senior leadership

position in a school. Whilst the panel had listened carefully to his evidence that he has

learned from his past conduct and experience, the panel is not convinced that he has

illustrated that, through his level of insight, such conduct has been fully remediated to the

extent that there is no risk of repetition or that any such risk is at a level which is

acceptable. In the panel's view, there is a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of his

overall conduct.

As for remorse, the panel is struck by the absence of any genuine apology from Mr

Prince for his conduct and for the consequences of his conduct, for example, for his

colleagues who were directly affected by it and also the academy's reputation. The panel

had heard evidence of the serious and significant consequences for Mr Prince and his

family not only if a prohibition order were to be made but also for the effect it has already

had on his life since July 2016. This included difficulty in obtaining a job in an academic

setting which, understandably, is not surprising but the panel does not underestimate its

16

effect. However, the panel is left with the sense that the personal adverse consequences

experienced by Mr Prince outweighed any contrition he felt for the wider consequences

of his actions, particularly for his former colleagues. He expressed his concern for leaving

his "legacy in tatters" as opposed to any concern for the staff and pupils at the Academy.

The panel is of the view that prohibition is both proportionate and appropriate. The panel

has decided that the public interest considerations outweigh the interests of Mr Prince

even though he has clearly suffered considerably already as a consequence of his

behaviour.

Accordingly, the panel makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a

prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect.

The panel has gone on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for it to decide

to recommend that a review period of the order should be considered. The panel is

mindful that the Advice advises that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be

circumstances in any given case that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply

to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be

less than two years.

The recommendation of the panel, whilst not in any way designed to be punitive, must

take account of the risk of repetition of the sort of behaviour which has led to these

proceedings against Mr Prince. The panel has already made observations in this respect

and also has made its judgment in respect of his level of insight and remorse.

The Advice indicates that there are behaviours that, if proven, would militate against the

recommendation of a review period. However, having considered that guidance, the

panel has decided that, whilst serious, this is not a case where it would be proportionate

to recommend that there should be no entitlement for Mr Prince to request a review.

The panel considers that it would be proportionate in all the circumstances for the

prohibition order to be recommended with provision for a review after a period of two

years.

Such a period would adequately mark the seriousness of Mr Prince's conduct. It will also

provide a suitable period during which Mr Prince can further reflect on his behaviour and

the consequences of his behaviour and develop more insight. Finally, it will enable Mr

Prince to continue to seek the advice and support that he may need to ensure that the

risk of a repetition of such behaviour and poor judgment is minimised.

17

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State

I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the

panel in respect of sanction and review period.

In considering this case I have given very careful attention to the advice that is published

by the Secretary of State concerning the prohibition of teachers.

In this case the panel has found some of the allegations proven and found that those

proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring

the profession into disrepute. Where the panel has not found allegations proven, I have

put those matters entirely from my mind. The panel has made a recommendation to the

Secretary of State that Mr Prince should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a

review period of two years.

In particular the panel has found that Mr Prince is in breach of the following standards:

Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of

ethics and behaviour, within and outside school;

Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and

practices of the school in which they teach, and;

Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory

frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a finding of dishonesty

on the part of a headteacher.

I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in

the public interest. In considering that for this case I have considered the overall aim of a

prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the

profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would

achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher.

I have also asked myself whether or not a less intrusive measure, such as the published

finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession

into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider

whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have

considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Prince, and the impact that will have

on him, is proportionate.

In this case I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect

children. The panel has observed “When considering elements of behaviour concerning

trust and honest dealing, it is the worst possible example that a headteacher could set

the pupils of his academy.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from

being present for future pupils. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on

18

insight and remorse which the panel sets out as follows, “is also not satisfied that Mr

Prince has shown a sufficient level of insight or remorse in relation to his conduct.”

In my judgement the lack of insight and remorse means that there is some risk of the

repetition of this behaviour and this risks future pupils’ SATs test being undermined.

Indeed the panel specifically say, “the panel is not convinced that he has illustrated that,

through his level of insight, such conduct has been fully remediated to the extent that

there is no risk of repetition or that any such risk is at a level which is acceptable.” I have

therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision.

I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public

confidence in the profession. The panel observe, “The panel views this as very serious.

The conduct displayed would likely have a negative impact on Mr Prince’s status as a

teacher, potentially damaging the public perception.”

I am particularly mindful of the finding of dishonesty in this case and the impact that such

a finding has on the reputation of the profession.

I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of

all teachers and that failure to impose a prohibition order might be regarded by the public

as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations I have had

to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed

citizen.”

I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional

conduct, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as

being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this

case.

I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Prince himelf. I have read

all the positive coments concerning Mr Prince, including those set out by the panel

specifically as, “Mr Prince's commitment to the profession and the academy. A consistent

theme is that he had the ability to be inspirational and that he provided a caring and

supportive environment in which pupils were able to flourish.”

A prohibition order would prevent Mr Prince from continuing that work. A prohibition order

would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period

that it is in force.

In this case I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning the

lack of insight or remorse. The panel has said, “In the panel's view, there is a lack of

appreciation of the seriousness of his overall conduct.’’

As for remorse, the panel is struck by the absence of any genuine apology from Mr

Prince for his conduct and for the consequences of his conduct, for example, for his

19

colleagues who were directly affected by it and also the academy's reputation. The panel

had heard evidence of the serious and significant consequences for Mr Prince and his

family not only if a prohibition order were to be made but also for the effect it has already

had on his life since July 2016. This included difficulty in obtaining a job in an academic

setting which, understandably, is not surprising but the panel does not underestimate its

effect. However, the panel is left with the sense that the personal adverse consequences

experienced by Mr Prince outweighed any contrition he felt for the wider consequences

of his actions, particularly for his former colleagues. He expressed his concern for leaving

his "legacy in tatters" as opposed to any concern for the staff and pupils at the Academy.

I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that

Mr Prince has made and is making to the profession. In my view it is necessary to impose

a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published

decision that is not backed up by remorse or insight does not in my view satisfy the public

interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession.

For these reasons I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the

public interest in order to achieve the aims which a prohibition order is intended to

achieve.

I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case the panel has

recommended a 2 year review period which is the minimum period set out in the

legislation.

I have considered whether a 2 year review period reflects the seriousness of the findings

and is a proportionate period to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the

profession. In this case, having taking all of the factors into account I conclude that a two

year review period is sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the

profession.

I consider therefore that a two year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance

of public confidence in the profession.

This means that Mr Alan Prince is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but not until 24 August 2019, 2 years from the date of this order at the earliest. This is not an automatic right to have the prohibition order removed. If he does apply, a panel will meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful application, Mr Alan Prince remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely.

This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher.

Mr Alan Prince has a right of appeal to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order.

20

Decision maker: Alan Meyrick

Date: 21 August 2017

This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.