A professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency convened between March 29 and April 3 to consider the case of Inderjeet Panesar.
It was decided his conduct lacked integrity and breached school policy – but the panel also recognised he was a good teacher who generally contributed positively.
The case of the Oaks Park High School maths teacher was considered jointly with two other teachers who have not been named in the report – individual F and individual H.
All three teachers have resigned from the school.
READ MORE: One of last surviving D-Day war veterans dies at 98
The report stated that at the heart of the matter is “the allegation that all three teachers had instructed or arranged for one or more pupils to mark work completed by other pupils, in exchange for payment.”
The teachers admitted this allegation but it was made clear that there were some areas of disagreement relating to the wider circumstances and context.
All three teachers maintained that they had not approached the pupils, but that the pupils had approached them.
The panel concluded that it was more likely that the pupils had approached Mr Panesar and individual H.
For individual F, the position was less clear – according to the report, the teacher confirmed he engaged in a discussion with three pupils and introduced the topic of pupils marking papers for payment.
The panel found that one pupil would receive papers to be marked and would distribute the papers between other pupils.
This same pupil would receive payment and divide the money between the rest of the pupils.
Another pupil only marked papers for Mr Panesar and was paid separately, the report said.
Pupils provided records to the panel, showing that the amounts paid to the students totalled £43 from Individual F, £22 from Individual H and £70 from Panesar.
The teachers provided the pupils with mark schemes to assist with marking the papers.
READ MORE: London marathon ‘lap of honour’ to remember ‘hero’ paramedic killed at work
The assessment papers marked by the pupils were internal assessment papers and were not used for external assessment purposes, according to the report. They were for a range of year groups across the school.
According to the teachers, the papers were not multiple choice and included some questions which required pupils to consider the mark schemes and exercise judgment.
Though all three teachers denied being aware of the fact, the hearing heard that one or more of the pupils involved were from a financially disadvantaged background.
According to the report, individual F and Mr Panesar said that they had particularly heavy workloads at the time the misconduct took place.
The panel found it proven that Mr Panesar had instructed and/or arranged for pupils to mark work completed by other students for payment.
READ MORE: Illegal HMO sees landlord and property management company fined thousands
It also found proven that this conduct lacked integrity, breached confidentiality, breached the school’s Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy (by increasing pupil workload) and the school’s Assessment and Feedback Policy.
The report said: “The panel was satisfied that Mr Panesar’s conduct amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession.”
It went on: “The panel felt strongly that assessment informs teaching; it is at the heart of what teachers do and it enables teachers to assess what areas pupils have understood and where improvements might be required.
“If assessments are not marked properly by teachers, the teacher may not have this level of understanding and may not be able to appropriately tailor lessons to pupils’ needs.
“Some of the papers Mr Panesar arranged for pupils to mark were used to inform grades as part of the school’s reporting window assessment, which would have resulted in unreliable working grades and predictions.”
The panel additionally found that Mr Panesar’s actions may bring the profession into disrepute.
The panel considered some mitigating factors in Mr Panesar’s case, including his workload at the time.
It decided that Mr Panesar was a good teacher who “had positively contributed to the schools he worked at” and concluded that his conduct, whilst serious, was at the less serious end of the spectrum of seriousness.
The report said: “The panel found Mr Panesar to be an exceptionally credible, honest and open witness who was fully engaged in the proceedings…
“He was clearly ashamed and embarrassed of his past conduct and, at times, he was self-critical to a significant degree.”
The panel decided that it would not be proportionate to recommend a prohibition order in this case.
For all the latest Education News Click Here
For the latest news and updates, follow us on Google News.
