A FORMER headteacher of Wistaston Church Lane Academy who was training to be an Ofsted inspector has been banned from teaching after it found that he had tampered with exam papers.

Alan Prince, who resigned from the Academy last year amid the allegations, appeared in front of a teacher misconduct panel in Coventry, where he admitted tampering with Key Stage 2 SATs papers.

The panel heard evidence that Prince changed some answers on 26 papers when he found himself alone with the papers following the exams in May 2015.

Prince said told the panel that he had concerns about the pupils’ performance in the mental maths exam and that he was worried the school would lose its ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted grading.

He said he had the question sheet next to him when changing the answers but rather than give his own answers, he looked at answers given by what he described as the ‘clever clogs’ and copied what they had put for the ‘strugglers’.

The former headteacher denied the allegations at first, claiming that everybody knew the code to door where the exam papers were kept and suggested it could have been any member of his staff.

In his report of the hearing, Alan Meyrick, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education, said: “He was interviewed twice and on in both interviews, he did not say it was he who had altered the papers. He suggested that as the code to the ESR door was known to everyone, anyone could have gained access.

“He subsequently said to the panel that this was not true and it was a ploy that he had dreamed up to deflect attention away from himself. However, this ploy led to a number of staff going through the ordeal of being interviewed.

“A number of them had to answer questions about whether they had altered any of the papers. Mr Prince was aware that such interviews were taking place.”

Taking the panel’s views into consideration, Mr Meyrick decided to prohibit Prince from teaching indefinitely. He will be allowed to apply for a review in two years.

Mr Meyrick said: “In my judgement the lack of insight and remorse means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this risks future pupils’ SATs test being undermined.

“Indeed the panel specifically say, ‘the panel is not convinced that he has illustrated that, through his level of insight, such conduct has been fully remediated to the extent that there is no risk of repetition or that any such risk is at a level which is acceptable.’ I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision.

“I am particularly mindful of the finding of dishonesty 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 failure to impose a prohibition order might be regarded by the public as a failure to uphold those high standards.”

Despite the judgement, the panel and Mr Meyrick recognise that Prince was a headteacher who was held in high regard by his staff and parents. They accept that this was an isolated incident.

Mr Meyrick added: “The panel is prepared to accept that, prior to the misconduct giving rise to these proceedings, there is no evidence to suggest conduct of a similar nature. The panel therefore accepts that Mr Prince had been a person of good character. To this extent, the panel accepts that his conduct in May 2015 can be categorised as an isolated incident.

“The panel has heard about the level of stress experienced by Mr Prince at the time. He was under considerable pressure and, from Witness A observations as well as Mr Prince himself, he had clearly taken on a great deal in terms of training to be an Ofsted inspector, dealing with the academisation of the Academy and involvement in NPQH training programmes, to name but three of the areas in which he was involved at the material time.

“He also outlined some of the personal issues with which he was having to contend.

“However, whilst sympathetic to the very difficult personal and professional circumstances faced by Mr Prince, the panel does not accept that this provides an adequate explanation or excuse for Mr Prince's conduct.”