Thomas Barge

Introduction

Thomas Barge was Head of PE at Ark Charter Academy in Portsmouth until an exam malpractice case ended his teaching career. In May 2023, with his sports science course behind schedule, he submitted other pupils’ coursework to the OCR exam board as the work of around ten pupils nominated for moderation, entered unsupported marks on the department tracker, and had pupils sign declarations for work they never saw. A professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency found all seven allegations proved in September 2026 and held most of them dishonest. On behalf of the Secretary of State for Education, decision maker Stuart Blomfield prohibited Barge from teaching indefinitely.

Background Information

Barge, born 10 October 1982, joined Ark Charter Academy as Head of PE on 6 April 2022. He had signed a declaration confirming his understanding of the JCQ and exam board requirements, completed OCR training and held an OCR NEA guidance training certificate. The panel noted his long service, the absence of previous complaints and positive employment references, though no colleague provided a statement attesting to his character.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

On 11 May 2023 the school submitted coursework scores for the OCR Cambridge Nationals Sports Studies Non-Exam Assessment to the exam board, which then requested a moderation sample. In a statement of agreed facts signed on 21 August 2024, Barge admitted amending or substituting other pupils’ work into the sample under different pupils’ names — including Pupil P’s work under Pupil A’s name and Pupil D’s under Pupil E’s — and SharePoint records showed work by one pupil in another’s folder, modified by Barge. The panel found proved that on or around 17 May 2023 he submitted approximately 10 pieces of work in the moderation sample which purported to be the named pupils’ work when he knew it was not; in an investigatory meeting on 18 May 2023 he admitted ten pieces for ten different students had been completely changed to match the grades submitted.

The panel also found he had pupils sign declarations about two weeks before moderation when their work was not present and they did not see it, and that he altered grades on the tracker spreadsheet — Colleague A found his zero placeholders replaced with other numbers, and Witness A said he made up marks for the exams officer to submit. He did not follow OCR/JCQ protocol for missing work, despite an exam board email setting out the required procedure. The panel found he said “we will find some work” or words to that effect, but did not find proven that he asked Colleague A to create pupils’ work.

Applying the legal test from Ivey v Genting Casinos, the panel had no doubt Barge knew his conduct, for each proven allegation save one, was dishonest at the time: allegations 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were dishonest and lacked integrity, and allegation 4 lacked integrity. It found breaches of the Teachers’ Standards and of Keeping Children Safe in Education, found behaviours associated with fraud and/or serious dishonesty relevant, and concluded he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The concerns came from inside his own department: on 16 May 2023 three members of the PE team met the school’s Head of Centre to raise concerns about alleged exam malpractice. The school investigated, held a disciplinary hearing on 22 June 2023 and referred the matter to the Teaching Regulation Agency on 25 August 2023. The panel convened by virtual hearing from 14 to 24 September 2026; Barge was not present and was not represented, but admitted the facts of all the allegations in his written responses, and the panel nevertheless considered the evidence in full.

In mitigation he pointed to pressure after January exam results he was told were “diabolical”, and said he regretted his actions profoundly. The panel accepted there was some regret and noted his apologies, but found he had shown no meaningful insight into the consequences of his actions and could not conclude genuine remorse. It rejected his assertion that the actions were in the pupils’ interests, finding them principally ill-judged and dishonest actions taken to protect his own career, and recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and a four-year review period.

Current Status

On 2 October 2026 Stuart Blomfield, deciding on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education, concluded that a prohibition order was proportionate and in the public interest. Barge 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 9 October 2030, four years from the date of the order at the earliest; this is not an automatic right, and without a successful application he remains prohibited indefinitely.

Impact on Their Career/Life

A teaching career Barge put at seventeen years ended with the September 2026 prohibition order. The panel found his actions were clearly deliberate and not taken under duress, and was highly concerned that a highly trained head of department had chosen to “completely disregard those rules and pursue a course of dishonest conduct”, leaving a risk such actions could be repeated. The decision maker placed considerable weight on the dishonesty, the lack of full insight and the involvement of more junior colleagues, and held the four-year review period necessary to maintain public confidence. Unless he successfully applies to set the order aside after 9 October 2030, his removal from the classroom is permanent.

Sources

• Department for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Thomas Barge” — source