Mrs Amanda McGuinness

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mrs Amanda McGuinness

Teacher reference number: 0018460

Teacher's date of birth: 05 June 1989

Location teacher worked: Taunton, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 March to 28 March 2024

Outcome type: prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mrs Amanda McGuinness, formerly employed in Taunton, South West England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email [email protected]

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mrs Amanda McGuinness: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 9 Documents 10 Witnesses 10 Decision and reasons 10 Findings of fact 11 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 23 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 27 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Amanda McGuinness Teacher ref number: 1168460 Teacher date of birth: 05 June 1989 TRA reference: 0018460 Date of determination: 28 March 2024 Former employer: The Castle School Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually via Microsoft Teams on 25 March to 28 March 2024, to consider the conjoined case of Mrs Amanda McGuinness and [REDACTED]. This decision relates to Mrs McGuinness. The panel members were Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Janette McCormick (lay panellist) and Mrs Joanna Hurren (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Patricia D’Souza of Blake Morgan LLP, solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Sherelle Appleby of Browne Jacobson solicitors. [REDACTED] was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations against Mrs McGuinness in the Notice of Proceedings dated 12 January 2024 as amended in the course of the hearing, to align with the wording of the allegations contained in the signed Notice of Response form dated 22 March 2024. It was alleged that Mrs McGuinness 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 Food NEA she caused and/or permitted and/or failed to prevent the following: a. Previously prepared food to be used/brought/made to enhance the pupils’ assessments; b. Altering/amending/adding/re-presenting Pupil A and/or Pupil B’s work; c. Amending one or more pupils’ mark sheets to reflect alteration made to their work by her and/or her colleague(s); d. Amending one or more pupils’ time sheets to reflect the alterations made to their work by her and/or her colleague(s); 2. Her conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest in that she sought to assist pupils in obtaining marks higher than their own work merited. The email from Mrs McGuinness’ union representative to the TRA’s representatives of 12 March 2024 confirmed that Mrs McGuinness wished to admit the allegations against her as reflected in the signed Notice of Response Form dated 22 March 2024 in full. The panel also noted that Mrs McGuinness also admitted that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional misconduct and/or conduct which may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Proceeding in absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of [REDACTED] and Mrs McGuinness. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it. 5 The panel was, first, satisfied that each Notice of Proceedings for [REDACTED] and Mrs McGuinness had been sent in accordance with the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2018 ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. The panel also had regard to email correspondence received by the representatives of the TRA from [REDACTED] on 19 March 2024 in which she stated that she was unable to attend as she could not have time off from my current place of work and could not afford to do so. Also, as it is the school holidays, she also had to take care of her [REDACTED]. The Union representative for Mrs McGuinness indicated that she admitted the allegations and did not wish to participate in a formal hearing. The presenting officer submitted that the TRA’s Notice of Proceedings were sent to [REDACTED] and Mrs McGuinness on 12 January 2024. Neither [REDACTED] nor Mrs McGuinness have requested alternative dates for this hearing in order to attend. The panel considered that both [REDACTED] and Mrs McGuinness have had the opportunity to respond to the documents they have received and email correspondence had been received from [REDACTED], and from Mrs McGuinness’ union representative on her behalf. The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in [REDACTED]'s absence or to adjourn, in accordance with Rule 4.29 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2018 ("the Procedures"). The panel had regard to the fact that its discretion to continue in the absence of a teacher should be exercised with caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings. The panel gave careful consideration to the fact that [REDACTED] and Mrs McGuinness were not in attendance and would not be represented at this hearing, should it proceed, and the extent of the disadvantage to both of them as a consequence. On balance, the panel decided that the hearing should continue in the absence of [REDACTED] and Mrs McGuinness for the following reasons in particular: • The panel was satisfied that [REDACTED]'s and Mrs McGuinness’ absence was voluntary. They were aware of this hearing taking place today given the correspondence that had been received either direct from them or on their behalf and so they had waived their right to attend. There was no indication either teacher were unfit to attend. • There was also no indication that either [REDACTED] or Mrs McGuinness might attend at a future date. As such, the panel concluded that no purpose would be served by an adjournment. • There is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time including the interests of any alleged victims of [REDACTED]’s and Mrs McGuinness’ conduct. 6 • There is an obligation on all professionals who are subject to a regulatory regime to engage with their regulator. • The risk of reaching the wrong conclusion as a result of not being able to hear from [REDACTED] and Mrs McGuinness was limited given that the panel would take steps to ensure that it anticipated any relevant lines of defence on their behalf. The panel noted that it had received mitigating evidence in its papers on behalf of both teachers, there was detailed evidence within the School’s investigation, and character evidence. The panel considered that the documents contained both [REDACTED] and Mrs McGuinness’ “voices”. • The panel considered both teachers had engaged in some way in these proceedings and so the panel would not draw any adverse inference by their not being present. • The panel was also mindful that the allegations relate to five or more years ago and delaying this hearing could place additional strain on all parties, including the teachers and the witnesses, who are due to give oral evidence in this hearing. Having decided it was appropriate to proceed, the panel would strive to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible and would take steps on [REDACTED] and Mrs McGuinness’ behalf to probe the evidence submitted by the TRA. No opposition has been received from either teacher about this application and the presenting officer invited the panel to consider this application as unopposed. Overall, the panel determined to proceed in absence. Application to hear the entire hearing in private The panel noted Mrs McGuinness’ request, via her union representative, in correspondence to the TRA dated 12 March 2024, for this hearing to be heard in private. The only reason provided for this request was that Mrs McGuinness has not been a part of the teaching profession for some time. The panel was mindful of the power under paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures that enables the panel to hear all or part of the hearing in private session, if it appears necessary in the interests of justice. The presenting officer invited the panel to reject Mrs McGuinness’ application for the entire hearing to be in private. However, she submitted that details relating to Mrs McGuinness’ personal circumstances as to why she was not at work at the relevant time, and the health circumstances of Witness A, should not be referred to in public session. The panel noted that the principle of open justice is of paramount importance and derogations from it can only be justified when strictly necessary. There has to be a good reason for the claim of privacy. Any other approach would result in unacceptable inroads into the general rule that hearings are to be held in public. 7 In general, parties and witnesses have to accept the embarrassment and damage to their reputation which can be inherent in being involved. The protection to which they are entitled is normally provided by a decision delivered in public which will refute unfounded allegations. The panel determined that Mrs McGuinness had failed to demonstrate exactly why it was necessary to hold the entire hearing in private, other than her feeling uncomfortable at this. The panel noted that being concerned with the risk of adverse publicity will rarely, if ever suffice for an application for privacy. The fact that a hearing in public may be painful or humiliating is not normally a proper basis for departing from the open justice principle. Mrs McGuinness’ application for the entire hearing to be in private was therefore rejected. The panel also considered that Mrs McGuinness’ reasons for not being at the School for a certain time period was not private information. The panel conside