Ms Jennifer Calderbank: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the

Secretary of State for Education

February 2020

Contents

Introduction 3

Allegations 4

Preliminary applications 5

Summary of evidence 5

Documents 5

Statement of agreed facts 5

Decision and reasons 6

Findings of fact 6

Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13

2

Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on

behalf of the Secretary of State

Teacher: Ms Jennifer Elizabeth Calderbank

TRA reference: 18034

Date of determination: 28 February 2020

Former employer: Pleckgate High School, Blackburn

Introduction

A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the

TRA”) convened on 28 February 2020 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road,

Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Ms Jennifer Elizabeth Calderbank.

The panel members were Mr Maurice McBride (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Hilary

Jones (lay panellist) and Mr Phillip Riggon (teacher panellist).

The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Danks of Blake Morgan LLP.

In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the

interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Ms Calderbank that the allegations

be considered without a hearing. Ms Calderbank 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, Mr David Mahon (of DAC Beachcroft LLP), Ms

Calderbank or her representative.

The meeting took place in private, save for the announcement of the panel’s decision,

which was announced in public and recorded.

3

Allegations

The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 21 February

2020 (this version correcting an earlier version dated 12 February 2020).

It was alleged that Ms Jennifer Calderbank was guilty of unacceptable professional

conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, whilst a

teacher at Pleckgate High School ('the School'):

1. Between April 2018 and October 2018, she sent inappropriate emails to pupils

containing:

a. references to a proposal of marriage purportedly made to her by a pupil;

b. inappropriate language with her students which crossed professional

boundaries;

c. responses that acknowledge and accept language of an inappropriate nature;

d. references to actual or romantic relationships between pupils, seeking

information about pupils' romantic relationships;

e. advice on romantic relationships.

2. On 6 June 2018, she sent inappropriate emails to Former Pupil A containing

references to:

a. their romantic relationships;

b. romantic relationships between current pupils.

3. On 6 June 2018, she requested from Former Pupil A, a 'nice photograph' of him.

4. On or about October 2018, she:

a. did not raise concerns about Pupil B who had stated that she felt like stabbing

someone;

b. sent an email to Pupil B, suggesting that she would be at fault if another pupil

'hurt himself'.

5. By her conduct in the following paragraphs, she failed to observe proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher's professional position:

a. paragraph 1;

b. paragraph 2;

4

c. paragraph 3.

6. By her conduct in paragraph 4, she failed to have regard to the need to safeguard

pupils' well-being.

By a Statement of Agreed Facts ('the Statement'), signed by Ms Calderbank on 18

December 2019, she unequivocally accepted all of the facts of the allegations and that

these amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring

the profession into disrepute.

The panel noted that the Statement contained a 'Draft' watermark on each page.

However, in the light that this document was signed and dated by both parties, the panel

was content that this was the final version.

Preliminary applications

There were no preliminary applications.

Summary of evidence

Documents

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

Section 1: Chronology – page 1

Section 2: Response to the Notice of Referral and Noting of Meeting – pages 2 to 4f

Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages

5 to 194

Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency Documents – 195 to 202

Section 5: Teacher's Representations – pages 203 to 204

The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle,

in advance of the meeting and included the updated Notice of Meeting at pages 4.e to

4.f.

Statement of agreed facts

The panel considered the Statement which was signed by Ms Calderbank on 18

December 2019.

5

Decision and reasons

The panel announced 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 Ms Calderbank for the

allegations 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.

Ms Calderbank had been employed at Pleckgate High School ('the School') since

September 2013 as a science teacher, initially in a temporary role but, from January

2014, as a permanent teacher.

In November 2018, concerns were raised with the School that Ms Calderbank had been

engaging in inappropriate email communications with a number of pupils. Ms Calderbank

was suspended and subsequently submitted her resignation in late November 2018.

An internal investigation at the School was undertaken and, in January 2019, a

Disciplinary Hearing took place that upheld the allegations arising from the email

communication.

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:

1. Between April 2018 and October 2018, you sent inappropriate emails to

pupils containing:

a. references to a proposal of marriage purportedly made to you by a pupil;

b. inappropriate language with your students which crossed professional

boundaries;

c. responses that acknowledge and accept language of an inappropriate

nature;

d. references to actual or romantic relationships between pupils, seeking

information about pupils' romantic relationships;

e. advice on romantic relationships.

6

The panel noted the Statement, in which Ms Calderbank unequivocally admitted this

allegation.

The panel also had the benefit of reviewing a number of emails sent by Ms Calderbank,

the content of which corresponded with the language set out in the allegation. The panel

was therefore content that the emails of concern had been sent by her.

All of the email discussions involved relationships between pupils, rather than Ms

Calderbank being involved in any. However, in the panel's view, teachers must maintain

clear and unambiguous boundaries with pupils and communicate in a professional

manner. Using inappropriate language and discussing matters of a personal nature with

pupils would, therefore, not be appropriate.

On this basis, the panel found this allegation proved.

2. On 6 June 2018, you sent inappropriate emails to Former Pupil A containing

references to:

a. their romantic relationships;

b. romantic relationships between current pupils.

The panel noted the Statement, in which Ms Calderbank unequivocally admitted this

allegation.

The panel also had the benefit of a number of emails sent on 6 June 2018 by Ms

Calderbank to Former Pupil A, the content of which corresponded with the language set

out in the allegation. The panel was therefore content that the emails of concern had

been sent by her.

Whilst there was no material before the panel as to when Former Pupil A left the School,

on balance, it was content that it appeared that Ms Calderbank and Former Pupil A's

relationship arose as a result of her position of teacher at the School.

The panel noted that the romantic relationships discussed were regarding Former Pupil A

and his peers. For clarity, there was no discussion, or suggestion, of any romantic

relationship between Ms Calderbank and Former Pupil A.

Nevertheless, as before, discussions of a romantic nature between a teacher and pupil

(or former pupil in this case) is inappropriate and the panel therefore found this allegation

proved.

7

3. On 6 June 2018, you requested from Former Pupil A, a 'nice photograph' of

him.

The panel noted the Statement in which Ms Calderbank unequivocally admitted this

allegation.

The panel also had the benefit of having sight of the email sent on 6 June 2018 by Ms

Calderbank to Former Pupil A, asking for a 'nice photo'. The panel was therefore content

that the email of concern had been sent by her.

As before, the panel was content that it appeared that Ms Calderbank and Former Pupil

A's 'relationship' arose as a result of her position of teacher at the School.

The panel therefore found this allegation proved.

4. On or about October 2018, you:

a. did not raise concerns about Pupil B who had stated that she felt like

stabbing someone;

b. sent an email to Pupil B, suggesting that she would be at fault if another

pupil 'hurt himself'.

6. By your conduct in paragraph 4, you failed to have regard to the need to

safeguard pupils' well-being.

The panel noted the Statement, in which Ms Calderbank unequivocally admitted these

allegations.

The panel also had the benefit of reviewing a number of emails sent by Ms Calderbank to

Pupil B, the content of which corresponded with the language set out in the allegation.

The panel was therefore content that the emails of concern had been sent by her.

In the panel's view, teachers must maintain the safety and wellbeing of pupils, which

would include ensuring that a pupil threatening harm to another was being appropriately

cared for. There was no evidence to suggest that Ms Calderbank had raised concerns or

sought any help for Pupil B after receiving the email from her.

Similarly, a teacher should not be apportioning blame to a pupil in the event that

someone else caused themselves harm. In the panel's view, such comments can cause

a pupil unnecessary and avoidable stress.

For the reasons above, the panel found both allegations proved.

8

5. By your conduct in the following paragraphs, you failed to observe proper

boundaries appropriate to a teacher's professional position:

a. paragraph 1;

b. paragraph 2;

c. paragraph 3.

Teachers have to maintain clear boundaries in their dealings with pupils (and, in these

circumstances, a former pupil), including the topics of discussion and language used to

ensure that these remain appropriate.

Whilst the panel accepts there may be an occasion when personal information has to be

divulged by a teacher or pupil, such occasions should be limited as far as possible. A

teacher entering into extended email communication with pupils on personal and

sensitive subjects, such as relationships between pupils, clearly crosses those

boundaries especially when there is no professional reason for the discussion to be

taking place.

The panel therefore found this allegation proved.

Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that

may bring the profession into disrepute

Having found all 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 Ms Calderbank in relation to the facts found

proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by

reference to Part 2, Ms Calderbank 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

9

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

practices of the school in which they teach…

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

frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

The panel considered that teachers have a responsibility to ensure that their dealings

with pupils are appropriate at all times. Entering into discussions about relationships,

when there is no professional reason to do so, does not maintain this important

responsibility.

The panel was, therefore, satisfied that the conduct of Ms Calderbank fell significantly

short of the standards expected of the profession, with the exception of allegation 3 (and

therefore 5.c). In respect of those two allegations, whilst Ms Calderbank should not have

asked Former Pupil A for a photograph, in the panel's view, this one email for which

nothing inappropriate was alleged, was not, in itself, a serious failing.

The panel considered whether Ms Calderbank’s conduct displayed behaviours

associated with any of the offences listed on pages 10 and 11 of the Advice and found

that none of these offences to be relevant.

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 findings of unacceptable professional conduct were serious (save for allegation 3

and 5.c) and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the

individual’s status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public perception.

The panel further found that Ms Calderbank's behaviour 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

10

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:

the protection of pupils;

the maintenance of public confidence in the profession;

declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct.

In the light of the panel’s findings against Ms Calderbank, which involved exchanging a

number of emails with pupils, some of which discussed matters, and used language, that

were inappropriate, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could

be seriously weakened if conduct, such as that found against Ms Calderbank, was not

treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.

There was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils

given the findings of Ms Calderbank failing to have regard to the need to appropriately

safeguard a pupil.

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 Ms

Calderbank was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated.

The panel did not have the benefit of any information, either positive or negative, as to

Ms Calderbank's capabilities as a teacher.

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 Ms Calderbank.

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 Ms

Calderbank. 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, that which is relevant in this case is:

serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the

Teachers’ Standards.

Even though a 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.

11

There was no evidence that Ms Calderbank's actions were not deliberate or that she was

acting under duress. However, the panel accepted that she did have a previously good

history.

The panel noted that Ms Calderbank had accepted the allegations at the School at the

very earliest opportunity and had also admitted the allegations before the TRA. She had

expressed remorse and had indicated an understanding and appreciation of the effect

that her actions could have had on pupils, although the panel also noted that there was

no evidence of any harm being caused.

Ms Calderbank explained in her statement to the panel that the issues had arisen out of

errors of judgement. The panel, who reviewed the emails, accepted that the

conversations between her and the pupils appeared friendly rather than anything sinister,

and Ms Calderbank had allowed her professional boundaries, as a science teacher, to be

crossed. The pupils involved had readily continued the discussions, and there was no

indication of them being coerced in any way.

The panel did consider the safeguarding aspect of Ms Calderbank's behaviour in some

detail. A pupil stating that they "…feel like stabbing someone…" must, inherently, invoke

safeguarding concerns. However, in the absence of any material to suggest otherwise,

the panel also determined that this was an expression of frustration by the pupil rather

than a true 'threat'. For clarity, the panel did consider it should, nevertheless, have been

acted on.

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 a proportionate and appropriate response.

Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the

possible spectrum and, having considered 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 made would be

sufficient to send an appropriate message to Ms Calderbank 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.

12

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 all of the allegations proven and found that some of

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

bring the profession into disrepute. In this case, the panel has found some of the

allegations do not amount to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct likely to bring

the profession into disrepute. I have therefore put those matters entirely from my mind.

The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that the findings of

unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into

disrepute, should be published and that such an action is proportionate and in the public

interest.

In particular, the panel has found that Ms Calderbank 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…

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

frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

The panel also considered that “teachers have a responsibility to ensure that their

dealings with pupils are appropriate at all times. Entering into discussions about

relationships, when there is no professional reason to do so, does not maintain this

important responsibility.”

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

13

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 Ms Calderbank, and the impact that will

have on her, 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 has observed, “the panel’s findings against Ms Calderbank, which

involved exchanging a number of emails with pupils, some of which discussed matters,

and used language, that were inappropriate.” 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, “She had

expressed remorse and had indicated an understanding and appreciation of the effect

that her actions could have had on pupils, although the panel also noted that there was

no evidence of any harm being caused.”

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 findings of unacceptable

professional conduct were serious (save for allegation 3 and 5.c) and the conduct

displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a

teacher, potentially damaging the public perception.”

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 Ms Calderbank herself. The

panel comment, “it accepted that she did have a previously good history.”

A prohibition order would prevent Ms Calderbank from teaching and would also clearly

deprive the public of her contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force.

14

For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the

public interest.

I consider therefore that the publication of the findings of unacceptable professional

conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute is proportionate and

necessary.

Decision maker: Alan Meyrick

Date: 3 March 2020

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

State.

15