Louise Pearson

Introduction

Louise Pearson was a teacher of social sciences at Noel-Baker Academy in Derby who, in June 2019, caused or allowed OCR Child Development coursework to be submitted in the names of two pupils when the work was in fact a former pupil’s coursework with the dates changed. Both pupils independently denied ever having seen the submitted work. A Teaching Regulation Agency panel found the conduct dishonest and proved in full, and on 21 September 2023 the Secretary of State’s decision maker banned Pearson from teaching indefinitely, with the option to apply to have the ban set aside only after three years. She did not respond to the allegations or attend the hearing.

Background Information

Pearson joined Noel-Baker Academy on 1 January 2007 and had worked there for over 12 years when the malpractice surfaced. In June 2019 her class took the R020 Understanding Development Needs of a Child and R019 Understanding Equipment and Nutritional Needs exams in the OCR Child Development qualification. On 5 June 2019 OCR received a report from its assessor flagging similar and identical work within the R020 cohort, and on 14 June the school was notified of suspected malpractice in assessments. OCR requested an investigation report, and the school instigated a full investigation on 17 June 2019.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Submitted former pupil’s coursework as current pupils’ work. A panel found Pearson dishonestly caused or allowed coursework based on a former pupil’s work to be submitted for two current pupils.

During the school’s investigation, Pupil A and Pupil B were questioned and shown the coursework submitted to the exam board in their names. Both independently denied ever having seen the work in interviews on 18 June 2019 and in their written statements. Pupil B said they had not finished that section of the coursework; Pupil A said they had written theirs about their nieces, not about the child featured in the submitted coursework. That same day the two pupils located the coursework they had actually written and printed it off in front of a school witness — it was not what had been submitted.

The school’s witness, in a statement dated 26 February 2021, described showing Pearson the pupils’ real work and asking whether she recognised it; Pearson reviewed each piece for around five minutes, confirmed the work belonged to Pupil B but appeared unsure and uncomfortable, and could not explain why Pupil B had received marks for an assessment she had not completed. It was established in that meeting that Pearson had marked the submitted coursework, as her handwriting was on the papers. Pearson confirmed she marked and annotated the submitted coursework, submitted it, and that no one else had access to her user area; she offered no explanation for why she had printed Pupil E’s coursework. Printing logs recorded her printing Pupil E’s document twice, on 21 and 23 May 2019, before the submission.

The submitted coursework for Pupil A and Pupil B was identical to the R020 coursework of Pupil E, a former student who left in 2018, except for a change in the dates. The panel concluded it was “inconceivable that Ms Pearson could have been unaware that she was printing off Pupil E’s coursework on two occasions and presenting it as the work of Pupil A and B”, found the conduct dishonest, and found all four particulars proved. It found her actions deliberate: she printed the work twice within days, amended the date only, and marked both documents before submitting them. Pearson claimed she had “rushed” the submission, but the panel found no evidence she was under undue pressure.

Public Reaction and Consequences

Pearson was suspended pending further disciplinary investigation on 19 June 2019, and a disciplinary hearing took place on 12 July 2019. On 26 July 2019 OCR concluded that a malpractice offence had been committed, and the matter was referred to the TRA on 10 February 2020. The panel heard from a school witness only, admitted the pupils’ hearsay statements under the Civil Evidence Act 1995, and found Pearson’s conduct amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The exam board graded the pupils on their remaining modules, which the panel noted was not fair to pupils who completed the coursework and may have negatively affected their overall grades. It recommended an immediate prohibition order with a three-year review period.

Current Status

Pearson provided no response to the TRA’s allegations, did not attend the virtual hearing on 18 and 19 September 2023, and was not represented; the panel proceeded in her absence, finding her absence voluntary. The panel’s determination was dated 19 September 2023. On 21 September 2023 decision maker Sarah Buxcey prohibited Pearson from teaching indefinitely — she cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. She may apply for the order to be set aside, but not until 26 September 2026 at the earliest; this is not an automatic right, and a panel will consider any application. The order takes effect from the date it is served, with a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days.

Impact on Their Career/Life

A teaching career of more than twelve years at Noel-Baker Academy ended with her 2019 suspension amid the exam-malpractice investigation, and the prohibition order now bars her from teaching in England indefinitely. The panel found no evidence of exceptional personal and professional standards or significant contribution to the education sector, was unable to assess her remorse or insight, and judged that she would present an ongoing risk to the reputation of the profession. Any return remains possible only through a successful set-aside application from September 2026.

Sources

• Department for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Ms Louise Pearson” — source