Mr Mark Jarvis: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education

September 2020

Contents

Introduction 3

Allegations 4

Preliminary applications 4

Summary of evidence 4

Documents 4

Statement of agreed facts 5

Decision and reasons 5

Findings of fact 5

Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10

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

Teacher: Mr Mark Jarvis

Teacher ref number: 3671802

Teacher date of birth: 20 February 1966

TRA reference: 18393

Date of determination: 28 September 2020

Former employer: ,

Introduction

A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened by video conference to consider the case of Mr Jarvis.

The panel members were Ms Esther Maxwell (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Ian Carter (teacher panellist) and Mr John Armstrong (lay panellist).

The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors.

In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Jarvis that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Jarvis provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted his conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Luke Berry of Brown Jacobson LLP, or Mr Jarvis.

The meeting took place in private.

3 Allegations

The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 18 September 2020.

It was alleged that Mr Jarvis was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that:

On or around 21 February 2019, he was convicted at Cambridgeshire Magistrates’ Court of the offence of battery contrary to s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and sentenced to a fine.

Mr Jarvis has admitted the fact of the allegation in a statement of agreed facts and that he has been convicted of a relevant offence.

Preliminary applications

The panel noted that since the date of the referral to the TRA in this case, new Teacher Misconduct Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession were published in May 2020 (the “May 2020 Procedures”). The panel understands that the earlier provisions contained within the Teacher misconduct disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession updated in April 2018 (the “April 2018 Procedures”) apply to this case, given that those provisions applied when the referral was made. Although the panel has the power to direct that the May 2020 Procedures should apply in the interests of justice or the public interest, the panel had received no representations that this should be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, the panel confirms that it has applied the April 2018 Procedures in this case.

Summary of evidence Documents

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

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

Section 2: Notice of Referral, statement of agreed facts, presenting officer submissions and Notice of Meeting – pages 5 to 12b.

Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency (“the Agency”) documents – pages 13 to 79

Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 80 to 118

4 Statement of agreed facts

The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Jarvis on 10 March 2020.

Decision and reasons

The panel made its decision and reasons as follows:

The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision.

In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Jarvis for the allegation to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case.

Mr Jarvis was employed in the position of unqualified DT Teacher and Hockey Coach at from 1 September 2012 to 31 August 2018. Following an incident on 20 June 2018, Mr Jarvis was suspended from the school on 21 June 2018. He had resigned prior to this incident for reasons unrelated to this matter and his employment ceased on 31 August 2018 by expiry of his resignation notice period. Mr Jarvis was charged with assault by beating on 3 December 2018.

Findings of fact

The findings of fact are as follows:

The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons:

On or around 21 February 2019, you were convicted at Cambridgeshire Magistrates Court of the offence of battery contrary to s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and sentenced to a fine.

On 10 March 2020, you admitted the facts of this allegation in a statement of agreed facts. The panel has not been provided with the Certificate of Conviction but based upon the admission you have made, the panel has found this allegation proven.

The panel noted that the statement of agreed facts records the factual background to which this conviction relates. You have agreed that, on 20 June 2018, you went to your classroom to take the afternoon registration of your form group. A pupil was chewing gum. You asked that pupil to remove the chewing gum and put it in your hand. You then asked the pupil to put his hands up and proceeded to launch a kick towards the pupil. You have admitted that your foot made contact with the pupil in the area around his thigh/ groin. You have agreed that you were originally charged with assault by beating on 3 December 2018. You entered a guilty plea on a particular basis that you did not intend to

5 kick Pupil A and that any contact was made on a reckless basis. The statement of agreed facts confirms that the court found that your actions were unintentional but reckless and that you were found guilty of reckless assault amounting to battery, contrary to s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. You were ordered to pay fines of £616.00, costs of £135.00, compensation of £150.00 to the pupil and a victim surcharge of £61.00 to central funds.

Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence

Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence.

In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”.

The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Jarvis in relation to the facts it found proved involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Jarvis was 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, by

o Treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position

o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions

Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality.

Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

The panel noted that Mr Jarvis’s actions which led to his conviction were relevant to working with children and working in an education setting given that it was a pupil who was the victim of the battery, albeit a reckless, rather than an intentional, act.

The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Jarvis’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community.

The panel noted that Mr Jarvis’s behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative that the offence was at the less serious end of the spectrum.

6 This was a case involving an offence of violence, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence.

The panel found that the evidence of Mr Jarvis’s teaching proficiency to be positive and of note; that he was experiencing [redacted] and that he had since undertaken courses in behaviour management, safeguarding and child protection.

The panel noted that it was agreed that the offence related to actions that were reckless rather than intentional. The panel noted the evidence of fellow pupils present at the time of the incident who referred to it having been “a bit jokey”, “not serious or aggressive”, that when Mr Jarvis spoke with the pupil he was “smiling and laughing, not aggressive”. This is compatible with Mr Jarvis’s account that the Magistrates recognised he did not intend to harm or injure the pupil and that witnesses present acknowledged that the incident was “horse play”. Mr Jarvis has expressed remorse for his actions and recognised that he made a serious error of judgement.

However, the panel also found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour within the school setting that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Jarvis’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession.

Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State

Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was 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 considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. 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 a punitive effect.

The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely: the protection of pupils; the maintenance of public confidence in the profession; and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct.

In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Jarvis, which involved striking a pupil in the thigh / groin there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils, given the serious findings in respect of his actions towards a pupil.

7 Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Jarvis were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.

The panel decided that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Jarvis was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated.

The panel recognised however, that there was a strong public interest consideration in retaining the teacher in the profession, since no doubt had been cast upon his abilities as an educator and he is able to make a valuable contribution to the profession.

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 Jarvis.

In carrying out the balancing exercise, the panel had regard to the public interest considerations both in favour of, and against, prohibition as well as the interests of Mr Jarvis. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that are relevant in this case are:

serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards.

Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate.

The panel accepted that Mr Jarvis’s actions were not deliberate, but were reckless.

Albeit there was no specific duress, the panel accepted that Mr Jarvis was acting completely out of character given [redacted].

The panel took into account the written evidence that was adduced attesting to Mr Jarvis’s exemplary record as a teacher. Both his line manager and the head teacher of the School provided references to another school prior to this incident confirming Mr Jarvis’s performance was outstanding in all areas. His line manager explained how he had initially been appointed as a Hockey Coach after a distinguished career as an RAF engineer, and how he was then asked to take a further role in the DT department as a Technology teacher due to his wealth of experience, approachable manner and engineering knowledge. His line manager stated that he had fulfilled and surpassed all expectations, shown clear direction, professional standards and exemplary classroom management and commitment. He referred to Mr Jarvis’s “exceptional rapport with

8 students but at the same time maintaining good standards of behaviour by engaging and inspiring the young people he has responsibility for”.

The panel noted that Mr Jarvis has since this incident completed courses in Safeguarding and Protecting Children and Lessons in Behaviour Management.

The panel has seen character statements produced for his criminal trial in support of Mr Jarvis. These consisted of:

1) A statement by a parent of a child taught by Mr Jarvis who stated that “he always cared about the welfare of children in his care. He takes health and safety matters very seriously and I have seen him on many occasions stop a child from starting to play until equipment is checked and in place…. If a child was injured it was always dealt with immediately and with kindness and compassion”;

2) A statement by a parent of two children taught by Mr Jarvis who made similar comments regarding Mr Jarvis being “very diligent about making sure the pupils were wearing the correct safety clothing” and “he would be very quick to stop a game if an injury occurred”.

3) A statement by a fellow hockey umpire who referred to Mr Jarvis as “a safe pair of hands. This means that if I have a young umpire who needs to get through an assessment or who needs some coaching support, Mark would be the first person I would think of. I can send him along to a game knowing that he would do the best for that person / young empire / any umpire. Mark is considered, measured, professional and I always get nothing but positive and great feedback on his interactions with whomever he works with”.

4) A statement by Mr Jarvis’s manager in relation to courses delivered by Mr Jarvis in relation to hockey umpiring which confirmed he had never had cause to raise concerns over his behaviour when delivering courses and never received negative comments about his course delivery.

5) A chairman of a charity support committee who attested to Mr Jarvis’s long service for his time and dedication to helping people living with a serious illness.

Mr Jarvis has expressed that he is sorry for any pain suffered by the pupil, that he recognised that the way he handled the situation was inappropriate and that he has spent numerous hours every day reflecting on why he behaved in such a way and how he could have handled the situation better. He has explained how he ought to have disciplined the pupil following the School’s agreed policies, rather than addressing a potential detention scenario in a light-hearted manner. He now recognises the pressure he was under led him to making a poor decision.

9 The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient.

The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, recommending no prohibition order was, in these circumstances, a proportionate and appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the spectrum and, having considered the strength of the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it has made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession.

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.

In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers.

In this case, the panel has found the allegation proven and found that those proven facts amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence.

The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Jarvis should not be the subject of a prohibition order. The panel has recommended that the findings of a relevant conviction should be published and that such an action is proportionate and in the public interest.

In particular, the panel has found that Mr Jarvis 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, by

o Treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position

o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions

• Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality

10 • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Jarvis, which led to his conviction was relevant to working with children and working in an education setting given that it was a pupil who was the victim of the battery, albeit a reckless, rather than intentional act. The panel noted that Mr Jarvis’s behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment which was indicative that the offence was at the less serious end of the spectrum.

I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In 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 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 Jarvis, and the impact that will have on him, is proportionate and in the public interest.

In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children. The panel agreed that the offence related to actions that were reckless rather than intentional. The panel noted the evidence of fellow pupils present at the time of the incident who referred to it having been “a bit jokey”, “not serious or aggressive”. I have considered whether a prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future.

I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which the panel sets out as follows, “Mr Jarvis has expressed that he is sorry for any pain suffered by the pupil, that he recognised that the way he handled the situation was inappropriate and that he has spent numerous hours every day reflecting on why he behaved in such a way and how he could have handled the situation better. He has explained how he ought to have disciplined the pupil following the School’s agreed policies, rather than addressing a potential detention scenario in a light-hearted manner. He now recognises the pressure he was under led him to making a poor decision”.

The panel also commented “Mr Jarvis’s actions were not deliberate but were reckless. Albeit there was no specific duress, the panel accepted that Mr Jarvis was acting completely out of character”. In my judgement, this level remorse and insight could indicate a low and limited risk of the repetition of this behaviour. 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, “Given that the nature and severity of

11 the behaviour were at the less serious end of the spectrum and, having considered the strength of the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case”.

The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it has made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession”.

I am particularly mindful of the panel’s findings against Mr Jarvis, which involved striking a pupil and there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils, given the serious findings in respect of his actions 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 the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order 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 conviction of a relevant offence, 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 Jarvis and the panel comment “The panel took into account the written evidence that was adduced attesting to Mr Jarvis’s exemplary record as a teacher.”

A prohibition order would prevent Mr Jarvis from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force.

For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate and not in the public interest for this case.

I agree with the panel that the publication of the adverse findings it has made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession.

Decision maker: Sarah Buxcey

Date: 30 September 2020

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

13