From classroom to spa: headteacher given green light to stay in the profession despite school-time retreat

A headteacher's professional future was called into question after she was spotted relaxing at a private spa when she was supposed to be working in school. The Secretary of State for Education had to determine whether Mrs Joanna Clark was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that could bring the profession into disrepute because of this and other allegations against her. 

Facts

Mrs Clark was the headteacher of a school from 2009 until 2021. The Local Authority received an anonymous whistleblowing complaint which raised allegations against her. The school started an investigation, but she resigned before the disciplinary process concluded.

The school referred Mrs Clark to the Teaching Regulation Agency and a professional conduct panel (PCP) reviewed the case and considered 22 allegations against her. 

She admitted many of the allegations. She owned up to having attended a spa during working hours but tried to minimise what she'd done by suggesting that she went to have a quick swim to clear her head before going straight back to work. She did, however, accept that this could amount to serious professional misconduct. There was also some dispute over how many times she visited the spa during her working hours, but the Panel concluded that she'd been there on three occasions over a three-month period.  

Mrs Clark also agreed that she had failed to attend school, provide adequate supervision and support onsite staff during the first Covid-19 lockdown when schools were open to the children of key workers and vulnerable children. And she'd failed to adequately inform staff about where she was during working hours or be sufficiently available. 

Panel decision

The Panel took into account the advice from the document ‘Teacher misconduct: the prohibition of teachers’ and concluded that all the above breached the Teachers' Standards, in particular the following standard:

• Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. 

It concluded that her conduct amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. 

The Panel also concluded that Mrs Clark was in breach of the following standards:

• Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by having regard for the need to safeguard pupils' wellbeing, in accordance with statutory provisions. 
• Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

This was because she failed to take appropriate action to safeguard pupils, was in breach of KCSIE and put the health and safety of pupils at risk. Specifically, she had failed to ensure that DBS checks were carried out and refreshed for staff, and failed to ensure the Single Central Register (where all recruitment checks are kept) was accurate. These safeguarding failures also amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. 

It also found that Mrs Clarke's actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

Was the headteacher banned from teaching? 

The Panel then had to decide if it was appropriate, proportionate, and in the public interest to recommend to the Secretary of State that she should be subject to a prohibition order which would prevent her from carrying out any teaching work.  

The Panel felt that there was a strong public interest in recommending banning Mrs Clarke from teaching. But it decided against that on the basis that:

• her conduct fell at the lower end of the scale: her safeguarding failings were serious but were, predominately, administrative in nature
• there were extensive mitigating factors (her actions were not deliberate, she'd admitted most of the allegations against her, had shown insight and remorse for her conduct, and demonstrated that she'd learnt from her experiences)
• prior to these incidents, she had been a good headteacher, no doubts had been cast about her ability as an educator and Ofsted had praised her leadership; and 
• she'd  made a valuable contribution to the profession in the past and could do so again.

It concluded that there was a strong public interest in retaining her in the teaching profession and it was not proportionate to ban her from teaching. The Secretary of State agreed. 

Our newsletters

We publish monthly employment and education newsletters. If you'd like to be added to the mailing list, please let me know.