Mr Christopher Balls: Professional Conduct Panel Meeting Outcome Panel Decision and Reasons on Behalf of the Secretary of State for Education

Mr Christopher Balls: 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 8

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11

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

Teacher: Mr Christopher Balls aka Mr Kit Watson

Teacher ref number: 1664862

TRA reference: 18992

Date of determination: 28 September 2020

Former employer: Harris Academy Purley

Introduction

A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 28 September 2020 via video conference to consider the case of Mr Christopher Balls.

The panel members were Mr John Armstrong (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Esther Maxwell (lay panellist) and Mr Ian Carter (teacher 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 Balls that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Balls provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Ms Sherelle Appleby of Browne Jacobson LLP Solicitors, Mr Balls or his representative, Mr Christopher Ford of NASUWT.

The meeting took place in private.

3 Allegations

The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 19 September 2020.

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

1. During the 2018/2019 academic year in respect of the OCT Level 3 Cambridge Technical Diploma in Business he; a. submitted marks in relation to Pupil A and/ or Pupil B which were not justified by the work they had completed; b. altered work submitted by Pupil A and/ or Pupil B; i. without their knowledge; ii. in an attempt to ensure that the discrepancy between the quality of the work and the mark he had submitted would not be noted; 2. His conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1 above lacked integrity and/ or was dishonest. Mr Balls has admitted the facts of the allegations and has admitted that he is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

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 – page 2

4 Section 2: Notice of Referral, response and Notice of Meeting – pages 3 – 11b

Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 12 to 17

Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency (the “Agency”) documents – pages 18 to 69

Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 70 - 74

The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting.

Statement of agreed facts

The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Balls on 28 July 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 Balls 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 Balls, also referred to as Kit Watson, was employed as a teacher of business and economics by the Harris Federation at Harris Academy Purley (“the School”) from 1 September 2017 until 31 August 2019. On 4 June 2019, the assistant principal raised a query with the principal regarding two pieces of work ahead of submissions by the School being sent for moderation. The head of centre was informed and the moderation was cancelled pending an internal investigation. Mr Balls was subsequently barred by OCR’s Malpractice Committee from any involvement in OCR examinations and assessments for a period of two years. Mr Balls was referred to the Agency by OCR on 20 December 2019.

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:

5 1. During the 2018/2019 academic year in respect of the OCT Level 3 Cambridge Technical Diploma in Business you; a. submitted marks in relation to Pupil A and / or Pupil B which were not justified by the work they had completed. In a statement prepared for the School’s internal investigation, the assistant principal explained that she had noticed unfamiliar language in two pupils’ work. She described how she had checked the work against the email submissions from the pupils sent to you and this confirmed they were not the same.

In your statement prepared for the School’s internal investigation dated 3 July 2019, you confirmed that you assessed the pupils’ work and believed that the pupils had completed it to the required standard and submitted the grades. When compiling the sample of work, you stated that you had realised that two students had missed out on elements of content that they were required to cover to satisfy the assessment criteria. You stated that you had the work electronically, so you decided to edit the two pieces of pupils’ work so that it satisfied the assessment criteria. You stated that you reassessed the work and submitted it for moderation.

In response to a Notice of Referral dated 9 June 2020, you admitted the allegations set out in a letter to you of 27 May 2020. Those allegations are the same as those under consideration today.

In a statement of agreed facts signed by you on 28 July 2020, you admitted all of the allegations.

In your representations requesting a meeting, it was confirmed that you accept the allegations against you.

This allegation is therefore found proven.

b. i. altered work submitted by Pupil A and/ or Pupil B without their knowledge. For the same reasons as referred to in respect of allegation 1a, this allegation is found proven.

ii. altered work submitted by Pupil A and/ or Pupil B in an attempt to ensure that the discrepancy between the quality of the work and the mark you had submitted would not be noted. For the same reasons as referred to in respect of allegation 1a, this allegation is found proven.

2. Your conduct as may be found provide at Allegation 1 above lacked integrity and/ or was dishonest.

6 You have admitted this allegation in your response to the Notice of Referral, your statement of agreed facts and your representations requesting a meeting.

It is apparent from your statement for the School’s internal investigation that you appreciated that two students had missed out elements of content that they were required to cover to satisfy the assessment criteria and, in that knowledge, you decided to edit their work so as to satisfy those criteria. You have referred to having felt under a great deal of pressure and stress at the time, and that you were responsible for several examination groups, all of which were reaching a crucial assessment point in their qualifications. You, therefore, understood that editing the pupils’ work at this time would likely impact upon that assessment. The panel considers that the ordinary honest person would regard those actions as dishonest.

It is fundamental to the teaching profession that pupils’ own work is assessed, and you have not adhered to that principle. The panel, therefore, considers that your conduct lacked integrity.

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

Having found a number of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

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 Balls in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Balls was in breach of the following standards:

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.

The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Balls fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The pupils had a right to expect that their own work would be assessed, and Mr Balls’ actions undermined that right. The School’s practices with regard to assessment, and wider public confidence in the examination system, were undermined by Mr Balls’ actions and led to the matter being considered by the awarding body.

The panel also considered whether Mr Balls’ conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 10 and 11 of the Advice.

The panel found that the offence of fraud or serious dishonesty was relevant.

7 The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct.

Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Balls was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct.

The panel took into account the way 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 also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way they behave.

The panel, therefore, found that Mr Balls’ actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

Having found the facts of particulars 1 and 2 proved, the panel further found that Mr Balls’ conduct amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and 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 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 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 as the protection of pupils, the protection of other members of the public, 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 Balls, which involved amending pupils’ work to justify his assessment grade of their work, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils given that pupils had a right to expect that their own work would be assessed. Similarly, members of the public have a right to expect that grades awarded to pupils reflected those pupils’ achievement.

8 Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Balls was 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 Balls was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated.

The panel considered that these public interest considerations outweighed any interest in retaining Mr Balls within the profession, given the panel’s findings regarding his dishonesty and lack of integrity.

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 Balls.

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 Balls. 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.

Although dishonesty has been found, in this case serious consequences did not follow due to the vigilance of the School’s quality assurance systems.

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.

In the light of the panel’s findings of dishonesty, it is clear his actions were deliberate.

Mr Balls’ statement for the School’s internal investigation stated that he felt under a great deal of pressure and stress at the time, and that he was responsible for several examination groups all of which were reaching a crucial point in their qualifications. The panel has not seen any evidence that this pressure exceeded that experienced by all teachers around the period of assessments. However, the panel accepted that Mr Balls was a relatively junior member of the profession.

Mr Balls had a previously good history and the panel accepted that the incident may well have been out of character, albeit this experience was limited, given that he only completed his NQT year in July 2018.

9 Mr Balls’ own representations refer to him having a good record of professional performance, but the panel has seen no independent evidence of this. The only evidence before the panel as to his professional ability is contained within four statements of pupils produced during the School’s internal investigation. However, the panel was unable to reach any conclusions from these given the little information contained within them as to Mr Balls’ teaching ability. No statements have been produced attesting to Mr Balls’ character.

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, it would not be a proportionate and appropriate response to recommend no prohibition order. Recommending that the publication of adverse findings was sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Balls of prohibition.

The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Balls. Acting dishonestly and compromising the integrity of the assessment process was a significant factor in forming that opinion, given that reliance placed upon that process by both pupils and the public. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect.

The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to recommend that a review period of the order should be considered. The panel was mindful that the Advice states 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 2 years.

The Advice indicates that there are behaviours that, if proved, would militate against the recommendation of a review period. One of these behaviours includes fraud or serious dishonesty. The panel found that Mr Balls was responsible for dishonesty in the conduct of assessments.

The panel noted that Mr Balls admitted his actions at the first opportunity when he was asked about the work that had been submitted for the two pupils. He provided a statement for the School’s internal investigation confirming his actions. The representations submitted by his representative on his behalf state that Mr Balls “is genuinely remorseful for his actions, not only because of their impact on him, but more importantly because he accepts that they had a potentially negative impact on students”.

10 The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate in all the circumstances for the prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for a review period after two years, given that Mr Balls admitted the allegations at the earliest opportunity.

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 both sanction and review period.

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 all of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Christopher Balls (aka Mr Kit Watson) should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of two years.

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

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.

The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Balls fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession.

The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a finding of dishonesty relating to the public examination system.

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 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 Balls, and the impact that will have on him, is proportionate and in the public interest.

11 In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children. The panel has observed that Mr Balls’ behaviour, “involved amending pupils’ work to justify his assessment grade of their work,”. 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 Balls admitted his actions at the first opportunity when he was asked about the work that had been submitted for the two pupils. He provided a statement for the School’s internal investigation confirming his actions. The representations submitted by his representative on his behalf state that Mr Balls “is genuinely remorseful for his actions, not only because of their impact on him, but more importantly because he accepts that they had a potentially negative impact on students”.

The panel also note that, Mr Balls’ own representations refer to him having a good record of professional performance, but the panel has seen no independent evidence of this. The only evidence before the panel as to his professional ability is contained within four statements of pupils produced during the School’s internal investigation. However, the panel was unable to reach any conclusions from these given the little information contained within them as to Mr Balls’ teaching ability. No statements have been produced attesting to Mr Balls’ character.”

I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel observe, “members of the public have a right to expect that grades awarded to pupils reflected those pupils’ achievement.”

I am particularly mindful of the finding of dishonesty and lack of integrity 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 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 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 Balls himself. The panel found little evidence that Mr Balls had made an outstanding contribution to the profession but they do note, “Mr Balls had a previously good history and the panel accepted that the incident may well have been out of character, albeit this experience was limited, given that he only completed his NQT year in July 2018.”

12 A prohibition order would prevent Mr Balls from teaching and 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 dishonesty and lack of integrity. The panel has also said, The panel found that Mr Balls was responsible for dishonesty in the conduct of assessments.”

I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Balls has made to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain 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 intended aims of a prohibition order.

I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended a 2 year review period.

I have considered the panel’s comments “The pupils had a right to expect that their own work would be assessed, and Mr Balls’ actions undermined that right. The School’s practices with regard to assessment, and wider public confidence in the examination system, were undermined by Mr Balls’ actions and led to the matter being considered by the awarding body.”

Nonetheless the panel has also said that a 2 year review period would “be appropriate and proportionate”.

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, I believe that it is.

This means that Mr Christopher Balls 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 3 November 2022, 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 Christopher Balls remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely.

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

Mr Christopher Balls 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.

Decision maker: Alan Meyrick

Date: 30 September 2020

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