Duncan Jackson
Introduction
Duncan Jackson was Head of Physical Education at Felixstowe School in Suffolk, where he had taught since September 2010. In late April and early May 2024 he submitted inflated coursework marks to an exam board for the NCFE V Cert Health and Fitness qualification, let pupils keep amending their work after the marks deadline had passed, and amended a pupil’s work himself. A Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) professional conduct panel in April 2026 found all the allegations against him proved and dishonest β findings he had admitted in full β and the decision maker for the Secretary of State prohibited him from teaching indefinitely, rejecting the panel’s view that publication alone would suffice. He cannot apply to have the order set aside until 1 May 2028 at the earliest.
Background Information
According to the TRA decision, Jackson began his teaching career in 1999 after completing his PGCE at Marjon in Plymouth and had taught in London, Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, Vietnam and Suffolk β around 24 years in total, roughly 15 of them as a head of department. He became Head of PE at Felixstowe School on 1 September 2010. The NCFE course whose assessment he mishandled was new, with the 2024 year 11 group its first cohort. Concerns were raised in May 2024; the school’s disciplinary hearing followed on 9 July 2024, its outcome was appealed at a hearing on 25 August 2024, and the matter was referred to the TRA on 27 October 2024.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. The findings below come from a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel applying the civil standard β the balance of probabilities β in a published regulatory record. They are regulator findings, not criminal convictions. Unlike most cases of this kind, Jackson admitted every allegation β including dishonesty and lack of integrity β in his response of 15 April 2026, attended the hearing, was represented by Sam Denham of the NASUWT, and gave oral evidence; the panel nevertheless made its own determination on the facts.
On or around 29 April 2024 Jackson submitted marks to the exam board that were “inaccurate and/or not reflective of the work completed by pupils”. The school’s coursework tracker showed the “original marks with comments” table from 29 April against the “entered marks” table from 30 April: all 30 students’ marks differed, with an average difference of 21 marks β “substantial increases rather than minor adjustments”. Jackson accepted the marks were not an accurate reflection of the students’ work, saying he had entered what he believed pupils could achieve with more time. A colleague pushed back before submission, asking of unfinished coursework, “surely they need to finish before I can feedback?”.
Between 29 April and 3 May 2024 he allowed and instructed pupils to amend their work after the marks submission β pupils were taken out of other subjects’ lessons, including science, to complete coursework after the deadline had passed. When a teacher raised this on 3 May, the head teacher and a deputy used the school’s Impero screen-monitoring software and recorded video of Jackson editing a pupil’s coursework on his computer that evening, after hours, rewriting it in the first person. He said he realised he was “going too far”, stopped, and closed his laptop; in evidence he acknowledged people might read the untracked edits as an intention to submit teacher-amended work and that he could not distinguish his changes from the pupil’s own.
The panel found Jackson knew β and in any event ought to have known β the conduct was not permissible: the exam board declaration confirmed marks were “accurate and ready to be taken forward for moderation”, the school’s policy stated that once work is assessed “candidates are not allowed to revise it”, and JCQ guidance classifies inventing or changing marks for internally assessed components as malpractice. Applying Ivey v Genting Casinos, the panel found the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people β “if cheating in a test is viewed as dishonest, then a teacher facilitating or engaging in such conduct would be viewed as at least equally, if not more, serious and dishonest” β and under Wingate a serious lack of integrity that undermined “the integrity of the national examination system”, risked drawing pupils themselves into dishonest conduct, and gave his school’s pupils an unfair advantage over others.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The panel found serious-dishonesty behaviours present but noted the conduct involved “an element of planning” applied across a cohort rather than a momentary lapse; it accepted he may have been motivated by a desire to support his pupils, that there was no personal gain, and that it arose from “a period of overwhelming pressure” affecting a single class of 26 pupils over a limited period. In mitigation it accepted a considerable build-up of pressure β multiple exam courses, GCSE moderation, a departmental review, a half-term ski trip β though pressure “is not equivalent to extreme duress”. Positive testimonials described a committed, well-regarded teacher; he was “deeply regretful”, had admitted everything from the outset, and showed genuine remorse, making the risk of repetition low. The panel nonetheless found the threshold of exceptionally high standards not met. It recommended no prohibition order at all β publication of the findings only.
Current Status
The panel’s determination is dated 16 April 2026. Decision maker Stuart Blomfield, deciding for the Secretary of State on 24 April 2026, disagreed with the panel’s sanction, giving considerable weight to the serious dishonesty, the involvement of pupils in it, and the risk a published decision without full insight would not maintain public confidence. Jackson is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the order to be set aside, but not until 1 May 2028 β two years from the order β and this is not an automatic right. He has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice of the order. The outcome was published in April 2026.
Impact on Their Career/Life
Jackson lost his employment in July 2024 and had not worked as a teacher since, which the panel accepted had significantly disrupted his career and livelihood. He told the panel he had reduced his voluntary commitments, developed a “toolkit” for recognising when to ask for help, and engaged in ongoing therapeutic intervention. The panel credited him with helping move Felixstowe School from an ‘Inadequate’ to a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating and accepted the misconduct concerned one class in an otherwise unblemished career, but the prohibition stands unless a future panel sets it aside after 1 May 2028.