Mrs Carolyn Akers

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 Carolyn Akers

Teacher reference number: 0340543

Teacher's date of birth: 6 December 1971

Location teacher worked: Weymouth, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 22 October 2025

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 Carolyn Akers, formerly employed in Weymouth, South West England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mrs Carolyn Akers: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Carolyn Akers Teacher ref number: 0340543 Teacher date of birth: 6 December 1971 TRA reference: 19213 Date of determination: 22 October 2025 Former employer: Budmouth Academy, Weymouth via Prospero Teaching Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 22 October 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mrs Carolyn Akers. The panel members were Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Olayinka Oshoko (teacher panellist) and Ms Charlotte Kelly (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Graham Miles of Blake Morgan LLP Solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mrs Carolyn Akers that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mrs Akers provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mrs Akers or her representative. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Meeting dated 7 October 2025. It was alleged that Mrs Carolyn Akers was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. On one or more dates between 12 June 2019 and 10 February 2020, while engaged by Budmore Academy, Chickerell Rd, Weymouth, DT4 9SY as a Supply Science Teacher she: (a) Commented to Pupil A in her class that “if you took him outside and shot him, no one would miss him”, or words to that effect; (b) Commented to Pupil A that s/he “will be transgender when he is older”, or words to that effect; (c) Hit Pupil A on the head with a booklet; (d) Called Pupil A “stupid” and/or “wet”, or words to that effect. 2. On or around 5 February 2020, during a recruitment process for a role at King Arthur’s School she: (a) failed to disclose information in relation to a previous and/or current LADO investigation when she knew or ought to have known that she should have informed King Arthur’s School; (b) provided a false/misleading reason for leaving her previous position at Budmouth Academy. 3.By her actions as set out in allegation 2 above, she was dishonest. Mrs Akers admitted the alleged facts and also admitted that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Mrs Akers signed a statement of agreed facts to that effect on 5 September 2025. 5 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 4 to 6 Section 2: Notice of Referral, response and Notice of Meeting – pages 7 to 31 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and presenting officer representations – pages 32 to 42 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 43 to 80 Section 5: Teacher Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 81 to 148 Section 6: Jurisdiction – pages 149b to 153 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 2020, (the “Procedures”). Statement of Agreed Facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mrs Akers on 6 September 2025. Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered this case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting the TRA agreed to a request from Mrs Akers for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mrs Carolyn Akers was engaged as a Supply Teacher of Science at Budmouth Academy (‘the Academy’) between 12 June 2018 and 24 February 2020. She had been placed in that role through an agency known as ‘Prospero Teaching’. In February 2020, a complaint was made about Mrs Akers’ language and conduct by the parent of a pupil at the Academy. The LADO was informed and an investigation began. 6 The Academy was then informed by the LADO that Mrs Akers had been subject to a different LADO investigation in 2018 whilst working at Queen Elizabeth’s School following an allegation that she had made inappropriate comments to pupils and placed a scientific clamp on a pupil’s nose. That matter had resulted in Mrs Akers’ dismissal from Queen Elizabeth’s School, had been considered at a LADO meeting and was also referred to [REDACTED]. However, when notifying Mrs Akers of this decision on or about 30 October 2018, Mrs Akers was informed (in relation to her dismissal) that she ‘would be required to disclose the facts of this matter to future employers’. On 13 March 2020 a referral was made to the TRA by the Academy in respect of the alleged conduct at the Academy. In February 2020, Mrs Akers applied for employment at King Arthur’s School. It was alleged that, in doing so, Mrs Akers provided a false explanation for leaving the Academy and did not disclose that she had been subject to either of the LADO investigations. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: It was alleged that you are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. On one or more dates between 12 June 2019 and 10 February 2020, while engaged by Budmore Academy, Chickerell Rd, Weymouth, DT4 9SY as a Supply Science Teacher you: (a) Commented to Pupil A in your class that “if you took him outside and shot him, no one would miss him”, or words to that effect; The panel noted that allegations 1(a) to 1(d) were investigated by the Academy following a parental complaint. The record of the investigation indicated that some pupils were interviewed. The panel was not provided with their individual accounts, but was provided with a summary recorded by staff at the time. Mrs Akers made a clear and unequivocal admission in the statement of the agreed facts that she had made the alleged comment to Pupil A during a lesson. The panel found allegation 1(a) proved. (b) Commented to Pupil A that s/he “will be transgender when he is older”, or words to that effect; The panel noted that allegations 1(a) to 1(d) were investigated by the Academy following a parental complaint. The record of the investigation indicated that some pupils were 7 interviewed. The panel was not provided with their individual accounts, but was provided with a summary recorded by staff at the time. Mrs Akers made a clear and unequivocal admission in the statement of the agreed facts that she had made the alleged comment to Pupil A during a lesson. The panel found allegation 1(b) proved. (c) Hit Pupil A on the head with a booklet; The panel noted that, when spoken to as part of the Academy’s investigation, Mrs Akers admitted that she had hit Pupil A on the head with a piece of paper. The record of the Academy’s investigation indicated that pupils had stated that it was a booklet. There was no evidence that any injury was caused. Mrs Akers made a clear and unequivocal admission in the statement of agreed facts that she had hit Pupil A on the head with a booklet during a lesson. The panel found allegation 1(c) proved. (d) Called Pupil A “stupid” and/or “wet”, or words to that effect. The panel noted that allegations 1(a) to 1(d) were investigated by the Academy following a parental complaint. The record of the investigation indicated that some pupils were interviewed. The panel was not provided with their individual accounts, but was provided with a summary recorded by staff at the time. Mrs Akers made a clear and unequivocal admission in the statement of agreed facts that she had called Pupil A ‘stupid’ and/or ‘wet’. The panel found allegation 1(d) proved. 2. On or around 5 February 2020, during a recruitment process for a role at King Arthur’s School you (a) failed to disclose information in relation to a previous and/or current LADO investigation when you knew or ought to have known that you should have informed King Arthur’s School; The panel considered the application form submitted by Mrs Akers and noted that she had answered ‘yes’ to the question: ‘Are you subject to any conditions or prohibitions placed on you by the DfE?’ but failed to provide any specific details as requested. However, the panel saw an email which referenced Mrs Akers’ employment interview in which it was stated that Mrs Akers had made no mention of any safeguarding concern and lied about her current status. 8 Mrs Akers admitted in the statement of agreed facts that, during the recruitment process at King Arthur’s School, she had failed to disclose either the previous LADO investigation (arising from her conduct at Queen Elizabeth’s School in 2018) or the (then) ongoing one arising from her role at the Academy that was underway at the time of the recruitment process. Mrs Akers also acknowledged in the statement of agreed facts that she was aware that she was required to disclose the LADO investigations during the recruitment process at King Arthur’s School. The panel found allegation 2(a) proved. (b) provided a false/misleading reason for leaving your previous position at Budmouth Academy. Mrs Akers admitted in the statement of agreed facts that she provided a reason for leaving the Academy that was false or misleading in that she stated in her application form, which the panel had sight of, that she had left the Academy to secure a permanent position elsewhere, rather than as a result of a misconduct allegation. The panel found allegation 2(b) proved. 3. By your actions as set out in allegation 2 above, you were dishonest. Mrs Akers admitted that her conduct in allegation 2 was dishonest. The panel noted that the statement of agreed facts recited the two-stage test for dishonesty as set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67. Mrs Akers admitted that her conduct was dishonest by reference to that test. Mrs Akers admitted that she had understood that she was required to disclose the two LADO investigations, but had failed to do so. Mrs Akers also admitted that she had given a false or misleading reason for leaving the Academy. Mrs Akers also acknowledged that her actions and inactions would be viewed as dishonest by ordinary decent people. The panel noted that the offer of employment was withdrawn when the full facts became known to the school. Based on the evidence presented and the admissions made by Mrs Akers, the panel was satisfied that Mrs Aker’s conduct in allegations 2a and 2b was dishonest. The panel found allegation 3 proved. 9 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found all of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Mrs Akers admitted that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel took these admissions into account, but made its own determinations. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mrs Akers, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel noted that the preamble to the Teachers’ Standards includes the statement that: ‘Teachers act with honesty and integrity’. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mrs Akers 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 o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others o not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different … beliefs • 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. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. 10 The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mrs Akers, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Keeping Children Safe In Education (“KCSIE”). The panel considered that Mrs Akers was in breach of paragraph 7 of the 2018 version which stated that all staff have a responsibility to provide a safe environment in which children can learn. The panel also considered whether Mrs Akers conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that the offence of serious dishonesty was relevant. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mrs Akers amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mrs Akers was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mrs Akers’ actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. It considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Mrs Akers’ conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Mrs Akers was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the Panel found that the offence of serious dishonesty was relevant. The panel considered that Mrs Akers’ conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. For these reasons, the panel found that Mrs Akers’ actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely, the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. There was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings of dishonesty and frustrating the safer recruitment process. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mrs Akers were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mrs Akers was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Mrs Akers in the profession. The panel was presented with limited evidence of her contribution to the teaching profession in the form of employment references. These were insufficient to support a conclusion that there is a public interest in retaining Mrs Akers in the profession. The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation of both the public and pupils, is that members of the teaching profession maintain an exemplary level of integrity and ethical standards at all times. In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Mrs Akers. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case were: 12 • serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; • misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; • failure in their duty of care towards a child, including exposing a child to risk or failing to promote the safety and welfare of the children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE); • violation of the rights of pupils; • actions or behaviours that … undermine fundamental British values of … mutual respect and tolerance of those with different … beliefs. • dishonesty or a lack of integrity, including the deliberate concealment of their actions or purposeful destruction of evidence, especially where these behaviours have been repeated or had serious consequences… Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. There was evidence that the teacher’s actions were deliberate. There was no evidence to suggest that Mrs Akers was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation. Mrs Akers was previously referred to the LADO for similar conduct, which resulted in a dismissal by the school. The panel saw references provided in connection with her applications for employment. However, Mrs Akers has not provided any references or testimonials for the purposes of these proceedings. [REDACTED]. Mrs Akers has not provided the panel with any information as to the level of her insight or remorse. The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, it would not be a proportionate and appropriate response to recommend no prohibition order. Recommending that the publication of adverse findings would be sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mrs Akers of prohibition. 13 The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mrs Akers. The repeated nature of her conduct and dishonesty in seeking to conceal her conduct were significant factors in forming that opinion. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for it to decide to recommend a review period of the order. The panel was mindful that the Advice states that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances, in any given case, that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than 2 years. The Advice indicates that there are certain types of case where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. The Advice also indicates that there are certain other types of cases where it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of a longer period before a review is considered appropriate. These include: • serious dishonesty; Although there was no evidence of physical harm to a child, the panel noted the behaviour on each occasion involved inappropriate physical contact with a child. As already mentioned, Mrs Akers has not provided the panel with any information as to the level of her insight or remorse. Furthermore, as there was an element of repetition in her behaviour, the panel could not be confident that there is no risk of the conduct being repeated. The panel was concerned that, after the first instance which resulted in a LADO referral and her being dismissed, the behaviours were repeated. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for a review after a period of four years. Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of both sanction and review period. 14 In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mrs Carolyn Akers should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of four years. In particular, the panel has found that Mrs Akers is 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 o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others o not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different … beliefs • 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. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mrs Akers involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance Keeping children safe in education (KCSIE). The panel finds that the conduct of Mrs Akers fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include findings of serious dishonesty and inappropriate physical contact with a child. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In considering that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a 15 prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mrs Akers, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel has observed: “There was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings of dishonesty and frustrating the safer recruitment process.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comment that “Mrs Akers has not provided the panel with any information as to the level of her insight or remorse.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence of insight and remorse means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel has observed: “Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mrs Akers were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of serious dishonesty in this case and the impact that such a finding has on the reputation of the profession. I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, in the absence of a 16 prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mrs Akers herself. The panel has commented: “The panel was presented with limited evidence of her contribution to the teaching profession in the form of employment references. These were insufficient to support a conclusion that there is a public interest in retaining Mrs Akers in the profession.” A prohibition order would prevent Mrs Akers from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of her contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning the serious and repeated nature of the behaviour. The panel has said: “The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mrs Akers. The repeated nature of her conduct and dishonesty in seeking to conceal her conduct were significant factors in forming that opinion.” I have also placed considerable weight on the panel’s comment that there was no information available to it on Mrs Akers’ level of insight and remorse. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore to the contribution that Mrs Akers has made to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision, in light of the circumstances in this case, that is not backed up by evidence of insight and remorse, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order. I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended a four-year review period. The panel has noted that the Advice indicates that in cases involving serious dishonesty the public interest will weight in favour of a longer review period. I have considered the panel’s comments: 17 “Although there was no evidence of physical harm to a child, the panel noted the behaviour on each occasion involved inappropriate physical contact with a child.” “As already mentioned, Mrs Akers has not provided the panel with any information as to the level of her insight or remorse. Furthermore, as there was an element of repetition in her behaviour, the panel could not be confident that there is no risk of the conduct being repeated. The panel was concerned that, after the first instance which resulted in a LADO referral and her being dismissed, the behaviours were repeated.” I have considered whether a four-year review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate period to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, factors mean that allowing a two-year review period is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the serious nature of the misconduct, the lack of evidence of either insight or remorse, and the risk of repetition. I consider therefore that a four-year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. This means that Mrs Carolyn Akers is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. She may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but not until 30 October 2029, four years from the date of this order at the earliest. This is not an automatic right to have the prohibition order removed. If she does apply, a panel will meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful application, Mrs Akers remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mrs Carolyn Akers has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date she is given notice of this order. Decision maker: David Oatley Date: 24 October 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.