Teacher at Millfield Science and Performing Arts College in Thornton-Cleveleys found guilty of serious professional misconduct

The teaching professional conduct panel heard on October 17-18, that Warren Mitchell was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct whilst employed as a teacher at Millfield Science and Performing Arts College between September 1, 2016 and 31 December 31, 2019.

The committee heard Mitchell submitted made-up coursework grades to the examining board, before students had even finished their work. However, he escaped being barred from the profession after the panel heard numerous positive character references and was told he was going through a divorce and had been made homeless when the offences took place.

The hearing heard that between March and May of 2019, Mitchell allowed his business studies students to continue working on their coursework after the deadlines permitted by the assessment plan; submitted marks to the Examining/Awarding Body, Pearson, that he knew were estimated and/or not achieved at the time he submitted them; instructed one or more pupils and/or supporting staff to produce work to justify the marks he had submitted; and failed to send and/or delayed the sending of the sample of work as requested by the external verifier. If proven of the above allegation, his conduct was also alleged to be dishonest and lacking integrity.

At the beginning of the hearing it was made clear by Mr Mitchell’s representative that he accepted all of the allegations and that they amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. Before the hearing commenced, the panel read nine documents relating to the case and during it, they heard from three unnamed witnesses.

The panel also heard that in September 2018, registration of a cohort in Year 10 for Business BTEC took place, but between 29 January to 15 February 2019, Mr Mitchell was on sick leave for non-work related stress.

Once back in work, he also allowed students to work on the coursework up until May 1 2019, despite Mr Mitchell previously providing their grades on April 29 2019. In fact, one witness explained that one student had not even started the assignment by the time Mr Mitchell sent their marks in.

The hearing heard how Mr Mitchell then effectively directed staff and students to match the standard of student work to the marks he had already provided. One student reported that Mr Mitchell deleted some of his work so as to bring it in line with the grade he had submitted, although Mr Mitchell denied this.

Pearson had asked for samples of the student’s work on March 28 2019, with the official deadline being March 29, but they did not receive the samples until the weekend of May 5-6.

The panel heard how Mr Mitchell was suspended on May 2, 2019 following concerns raised by parents and staff. He then resigned on October 31 2019, prior to a planned disciplinary hearing on November 13, 2019. On 6 August 2020, Pearson Malpractice Committee issued Mr Mitchell with a written warning.

In conclusion, the malpractice committee found Mr Mitchell guilty of the four parts of allegation one, but did not consider that Mr Mitchell’s actions constituted ‘deception’ as defined in their guidelines. They also accepted the mitigating personal circumstances affecting him at the time of the error.

For allegation two, the panel concluded that “Mr Mitchell’s conduct had clearly been dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary decent people”, and found he had failed to act with integrity. They therefore found allegation one and two to be proven.

When considering whether to impose a prohibition order on Mr Mitchell, they considered the public interest, which they found it to be in, but also mitigating circumstances, namely that Mr Mitchell had been going through a divorce, had been made homeless in the January and was under immense stress, as well as the character references he received.

The panel summarised: "Mr Mitchell accepted that he made a wrong decision that he deeply regrets. The panel felt that this was simply a one off period of time and that Mr Mitchell made a poor decision which they felt would not be repeated again. He had shown insight and regret in respect of his behaviour.

“The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an 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 had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession.”

The Secretary of State supported the panel’s decision.