Mrs Carol Barker (Rial)

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mrs Carol Barker (Rial)

Teacher reference number: 8775060

Teacher's date of birth: 16 July 1964

Location teacher worked: Nottingham, East Midlands.

Date of professional conduct panel: 4 to 6 March 2024

Outcome type: prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mrs Carol Barker (Rial) , formerly employed in Nottingham, East Midlands.

Mrs Carol Barker (Rial) Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 20 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Carol Barker Teacher ref number: 8775060 Teacher date of birth: 16 July 1964 TRA reference: 19225 Date of determination: 6 March 2024 Former employer: Woodlands Academy, Nottingham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 4-6 March 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mrs Carol Barker. The panel members were Mr John Martin (former teacher panellist in the chair), Mr Stephen Chappell (lay panellist) and Mrs Anne Davis (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Jermel Anderson of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Louisa Atkin of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mrs Carol Barker was not present but was represented by Colin Henderson from The Reflective Practice. He attended to deal with preliminary matters and to address the panel in relation to the allegations that were faced by Mrs Barker; he withdrew from the hearing once the TRA was in position to open its case, in accordance with his professional instructions. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. The panel retired into private session to deal with some sensitive matters, private matters are highlighted in red. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the notice of proceedings dated 03 January 2024. You are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/ or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, whilst employed by the Raleigh Learning Trust (“the Trust”)as a teacher and/ or Principal at Woodlands Special School (“the Academy”): 1. On or around 28 May 2011, you caused or allowed the submissions of a reference to Nottingham City Council (‘The Council’) that: a. Stated that Person A ‘has worked on a voluntary basis…for about 5 years’; b. Did not refer to Person A’s arrest in connection with the sexual assault of a child in 2009(‘the 2009 arrest’). 2. Your conduct at 1a) was: a. Misleading; b. Dishonest in that you intended to create a false impression that Person A had continued to work on a voluntary basis since on or around 2006. 3. Your conduct at 1b) was: a. Misleading; b. Dishonest in that you were aware of the 2009 arrest. 4. In or around September 2015: a. You did not carry out adequate pre-appointment checks of Person A and/or assessments of Person A’s risk to children arising from the 2009 arrest; b. You did not carry out adequate pre-appointment checks of Person C. 5. Following concerns raised on or around 18 March 2016, regarding Person A placing his hand inside Pupil B’s clothing, you did not: a. Escalate the concerns to LADO prior to 1 April 2016; b. Inform the parents of Pupil B. 6. In or around August 2018, you did not carry out adequate pre-appointment checks of Person D. 7. On or around 4 September 2018, whilst Person A was on temporary leave, you caused or allowed Person A to receive a ‘three point’ pay rise. 8. Your conduct at 7 above was inappropriate in that: a. Person A was not scheduled to receive a salary progression in September 2018; b. The salary progression exceeded Person A’s grade. 5 Through her witness statement and her representative, Mrs Barker admitted allegations 1a,1b, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, 5b and 7. Mrs Barker denied allegations 2b, 3b, 4b, 6, 8a and 8b. Mrs Barker’s representative confirmed that she admits to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in relation to allegation 4a. Mrs Barker made no further admissions in relation to misconduct. Preliminary applications Proceeding in Absence The panel considered an application from the TRA to proceed in the absence of Mrs Barker. It heard submissions in relation to this and received the legal advice which it accepted. The panel determined that given the response provided by Mrs Barker as confirmed by her legal representative, it could safely determine that she had voluntarily absented herself from the process. Furthermore, it noted the explicit waiver of her right to attend in both her witness statement, and the submissions made by her representative as a clear indication that there was no benefit to seeking an adjournment in these circumstances. The panel was also mindful of the significant public interest matters in this case, and determined that their significance outweighed any potential prejudice faced by Mrs Barker in these circumstances. Accordingly, the panel determined it was appropriate to proceed in the absence of Mrs Barker. Privacy application The panel considered an application from Mrs Barker’s representative to deal with some sensitive matters in private. It heard and accepted legal advice in relation to this. It considered that given the nature of what was raised by Mrs Barker’s representative, her Article 8 rights were engaged. It also was mindful that whilst it must have regard for the open justice principle, there was no particular public interest in the specific issues being raised in public. The panel additionally felt that it was capable of retiring to private session should the specific issue be raised, though it was agreed by parties that it was unlikely for this to occur. Accordingly, the panel felt it was both in the public interest and the interests of justice for the matter to proceed in public, save for mention of the sensitive issues that formed the basis of the application that was made by Mrs Barker’s representative. 6 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 6 to 13 Section 2: Notice of referral, notice of proceedings and responses – pages 14 to 23 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 24 to 80 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 81 to 1426 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 1427 to 1470 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2018, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from • Witness A [REDACTED] • Witness B [REDACTED] • Witness C [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. The panel was presented with witness statements of the above witnesses in addition to those produced by Person C, [REDACTED], [REDACTED], Person A [REDACTED] Person B. The TRA also provided the panel with a significant volume of investigative material, in addition to employment documentation and policy and guidance documents. Whilst waiving her right to attend, Mrs Barker also provided a series of documents. Her documents included witness statements from Individual A [REDACTED], Individual B 7 [REDACTED], Individual C [REDACTED], Individual D [REDACTED], as well as a statement from herself. Mrs Barker’s statement was also accompanied with a series of exhibits which mainly came in the form of training certificates. Mrs Barker was first employed by the School in September 1992. She progressed through the organisation, before being appointed to the position of Headteacher in September 2010. Person A undertook voluntary work at the school [REDACTED], and then worked as a nursery nurse [REDACTED]. In September 2009, Person A was arrested in connection with an allegation of sexual assault pertaining to a child [REDACTED] and an article was published in local media detailing this allegation 5 days later. On 28 May 2011, Mrs Barker gave a reference to Nottingham City Council in relation to Person A. Person A subsequently applied for a role at the school on [REDACTED], and was offered a role as a Teaching Assistant which commenced on [REDACTED]. Person C was employed by the school on [REDACTED] and raised concerns about Person A’s behaviour in the same month. [REDACTED], Person C raised concerns about Person A’s behaviour towards Pupil B and discussed these matters with Mrs Barker. Following several internal school meetings, Mrs Barker eventually advised the LADO of concerns raised about Person A on [REDACTED]. In June 2018, Mrs Barker received notification that Person A had been arrested for an allegation of a sexual nature against a child. Person A was subsequently advised to stay home pending further clarification with the LADO and Police. Following instruction from Mrs Barker, Person A’s salary was uplifted in September 2018. Mrs Barker was then informed in November 2018 that police were investigating concerns in relation to the incident from 2009, in addition to the more recent allegation. An internal investigation was subsequently facilitated and Person A left the school in the early part of 2019. In March 2019 police confirmed that the investigation in relation to Person A’s conduct involved sexual assault by touching of a boy under the age of 13 and sexual assault by digital penetration of a boy under the age of 13; Person A was then charged in September 2019. Person D, who had been appointed on [RED