Mrs Joanna Clark

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 Joanna Clark

Location teacher worked: Hartlepool, North East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 19 to 29 November 2024 and 19 to 20 December 2024

Outcome type: No order made

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 Joanna Clark formerly employed in Hartlepool, North East 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 Joanna Clark: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 6 Summary of evidence 9 Documents 9 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 10 Findings of fact 12 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 53 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 58 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Joanna Clark TRA reference: 20365 Date of determination: 20 December 2024 Former employer: Blackhall Primary School, Hartlepool Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 19 to 29 November 2024, and reconvened on 19 and 20 December 2024, by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mrs Joanna Clark. The panel members were Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Beverley Montgomery (lay panellist) and Mr Maurice Smith (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Daniel Hales of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Charlotte Watts of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mrs Clark was present and was represented by Mr Jonathan Storey of Cornwall Street Barristers. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 6 June 2024, as amended on the application of the presenting officer at the beginning of the hearing. It was alleged that Mrs Joanna Clark was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: 1. From around March 2020 until June 2020, whilst the school was catering for key worker and/or vulnerable children on-site, she failed to attend the School and/or to provide adequate supervision or support to the on-site staff members; 2. Between around January 2019 until November 2020, she failed to keep adequate records and/or adequately inform the staffing body as to her location during working hours, and/or to be sufficiently available; 3. Between around September 2020 to November 2020, she attended Ramside Spa during working hours on one or more occasions; 4. Between around September 2020 to November 2020, she failed to remedy risks posed by an unsafe playing area; 5. She failed to ensure that DBS checks were undertaken and/or records of checks kept for one or more new staff and/or governors, and/or that DBS checks were refreshed; 6. She failed to ensure that the Single Central Record (‘SCR’) was accurate, including in that: a) Permanent members of staff were not added; b) External professionals working unsupervised with pupils were not recorded; 7. In or around 2012 she instructed individual A to add false information to the Single Central Register, prior to an audit and/or an Ofsted inspection; 8. She appointed members of staff without due process, including by; a) In or around 2020, inviting individual B to interview, and/or employing individual B for the post of teaching a reception class, without individual B having applied for the role b) In or around 2012, employing individual A as an office manager after they were unsuccessful in their interview for the role; 5 c) In or around 2018, employing individual C as an office manager without advertisement, application or interview for the role; d) Failing to ensure that records were held of jobs advertisements and/or applications and/or interviews and/or references and/or qualifications. 9. She told individual D that the governing body had declined their request to return part time after maternity leave, after the governing body had agreed to such a request; 10. On or around 20 March 2020, she told individual G that the local authority had insisted that her increased her hours to full time, when that was not the case. 11. Between around 2019 – 2020 she permitted her [REDACTED] to access the School unsupervised on one or more occasions; 12. In around 2019 she provided her [REDACTED] with an access key or fob for the School; 13. Between around March 2019 until March 2020 she deployed an office manager into the provision for 2 year olds, who was unqualified for such work; 14. From around September 2020, she staffed a reception class with a HLTA; 15. In or around September 2020, she permitted a year 2 class to include 31 children, contrary to the School Admissions Code 2021; 16. On or around 9 December 2019, she excluded SEN pupils from a whole school assembly, seeking to improve the appearance of the school to visiting members of the press; 17. In or around March – July 2020, she told parents of vulnerable children eligible to attend on-site provision, that they were not allowed to do so; 18. She demonstrated favouritism and/or discrimination, including by; a) Dividing or maintaining the division of the year 5 intake into a class (‘5G’) which included [REDACTED], in which there were no pupils with SEN or additional needs; and another class (‘5I’), all or most of whom had SEN or additional needs; b) Facilitating class 5G to experience trips, activities and/or classes that were more costly and/or frequent and/or of a greater quality than those experienced by other classes. 6 c) Deploying the KS2 teaching assistant into class 5G for more periods than any other class, despite 5G having less need than other classes; d) Asking and/or instructing Individual H to include [REDACTED] in an athletics event for which he had not been selected; 19. Between around September 2014 and October 2020, she employed Individual I to undertake around 100 days work, at a total cost of around £19,792.88 without a proper procurement system; 20. Her conduct as may be found proven at 7, 9, 10 and 17 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. 21. Her conduct as may be found proven at 8 a-c, 9, 11, 12, 17 and/or 18 above constituted discrimination. 22. Her conduct as may be found proven at allegations 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and/or 12 above constitute a failure to take appropriate action and/or to ensure appropriate action was taken to safeguard one or more pupils. Mrs Clark made no admission of fact prior to the hearing. Before the panel heard evidence, Mrs Clark confirmed that allegations 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 a), 8, 13, 14 and 19 were admitted. Further she confirmed that the facts of allegations 18 a) to d) were admitted, but that the stem of allegation 18, that she demonstrated favouritism and/or discrimination, was not admitted. She also confirmed that allegation 22 was admitted in relation to allegations 1, 5 and 6. Mrs Clark made no admission of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Application to amend allegations The presenting officer made an application to amend the allegations. The panel heard that the stem of the allegations, alleging unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, was missing from the allegations in the notice of hearing. The presenting officer submitted that this appeared to be a clerical error and that the stem of the allegations had been included in the notice of referral. The presenting officer submitted that, if the panel found any of the alleged facts proved, it must go on to consider whether those facts that are proved amount to unacceptable professional conduct, conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute or 7 conviction, at any time, of a relevant offence in accordance with paragraph 5.109 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel heard from Mr Storey on Mrs Clark’s behalf, who did not object to the amendment sought by the presenting officer. The panel noted that, although it was not before the panel, Mrs Clark had not disputed that she had received a notice of referral which contained the full stem of the allegations. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations if it is in the interests of justice to do so in accordance with paragraph 5.83 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel did not consider that the proposed amendments changed the nature and scope of the allegations in that the allegations would remain the same, but the allegations should be updated so that it would be clear to Mrs Clark that the behaviour in the allegations was alleged to be unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. As such, the panel considered that the proposed amendments did not amount to a material change to the allegations. The legal adviser drew the panel’s attention to the case of Dr Bashir Ahmedsowida v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin), 2021 WL 06064095 which held that the lateness of the amendments did not necessarily mean they were unjust, as acknowledged in the previous case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 at [56]. Accordingly, the panel granted this application and considered the amended allegations, which are set out above. Application to admit additional documents The panel considered a preliminary application from Mr Storey on behalf of Mrs Clark for the admission of additional documents. Mrs Clark’s documents were: 1. her witness statement; and 2. additional character statements contained in documents with the following file names: a. Further character statements and references 12.11.24; b. Individual S statement; c. Individual T statement2; and d. Clark further character statements. 8 The documents subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the 2020 Procedures. Therefore, the panel w