Mrs Sarah Gillett

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 Sarah Gillett

Teacher reference number: 0101554

Teacher's date of birth: 23 January 1974

Location teacher worked: Plymouth, south west England

Date of professional conduct panel: 10 October 2022 to 18 October 2022

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 Sarah Gillett, formerly employed in Plymouth, 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 Sarah Gillett: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 6 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 23 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 26 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Sarah Gillett Teacher ref number: 0101554 Teacher date of birth: 23 January 1974 TRA reference: 18694 Date of determination: 18 October 2022 Former employer: ACE Schools Multi Academy Trust Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 10 October 2022 remotely via Microsoft TEAMS to consider the case of Mrs Gillett. The panel members were Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr John Armstrong (lay panellist) and Ms Mona Sood (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Sarah Price of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Sarah Vince of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mrs Gillett was present and was represented by Mr Andrew Faux of The Reflective Practice. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing dated 5 April 2022. It is alleged that she is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed at the ACE Schools Multi Academy Trust: 1. She engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour on one or more occasions towards one or more staff members, including by; a. Threatening the dismissal of and/or engineering the redundancy of [redacted] in response to, and in retaliation for, a grievance that he raised about her in Summer 2016; b. Following the Ofsted rating in 2019 and during subsequent meetings: i. she told staff that they had let ACE down and/or were wasting tax-payers money; ii. she told staff that there was no room in the school for staff who were not performing and/or that she needed to get rid of people if they were not good enough; iii. she told staff that their mortgages were depending on it when referring to staff performance. iv. she said to the whole body of staff ‘I love ya, but I am coming for ya’ or words to that effect; c. Saying that she wanted to dismiss and/or get rid of staff ‘who had let you down’ during meetings; d. Saying to [redacted] that he is ‘tiresome’, ‘immature and plain petty’ and referring to [redacted] leadership team as ‘dysfunctional’, as a result of him asking for training and support; e. Saying to [redacted] ‘if you don’t make [redacted] redundant I will and then the Trust would decide whether or not your school needs a Head Teacher or not’ or words to that effect; 5 f. Saying in a senior leaders meeting ‘if you don’t like it here you can fuck off’ or words to that effect; g. Aggressively responding to staff members if concerns were raised; h. Displaying favouritism towards [Apprentice A] an apprentice, who was previously a vulnerable pupil at the school; i. Displaying favouritism/nepotism towards [redacted], including by; i. pressuring [redacted] to change [redacted] classroom observation rating; ii. removing Witness A as [redacted] line management due to him challenging [redacted] performance; iii. allowing [redacted] to not comply with the fire drill; iv. creating an environment where staff felt they were not being able to raise concerns about [redacted] due to fear of retribution by her; v. favourably promoting [redacted] through the ranks so that between 2012 to 2019 he moved from an NQT supply teacher to a UPR3 salary. 2. Her behaviour towards one or more staff members as may be found proven at 1a-1g above constituted bullying and/or intimidation and/or harassment; 3. Her conduct as may be proven above created an environment where staff felt inhibited from raising any concerns ether informally or through the whistleblowing policy and/or grievance polices which in turn may create a serious risk that safeguarding issues are not raised by staff; 4. She represented to the Trust that she had a master’s degree in education in circumstances where; a. she enrolled on the course but withdrew from it before taking the qualification; b. she permitted this incorrect representation to be; i. placed on the Trust’s website; ii. communicated to the DofE. 5. Her conduct as may be proven at 4 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. 6 Mr Faux confirmed that Mrs Gillett admitted the facts of particular 1d, but disputed all other allegations. Preliminary applications The panel heard an application made by the TRA to amend the allegation. In particular, the TRA requested that allegation 1h should be amended to remove reference to [redacted] and replace that with 'Apprentice A'. The panel noted that the application was not opposed by Mr Faux on behalf of Mrs Gillett. The panel heard and accepted the legal advice. The panel found that this proposed amendment did not cause any prejudice to the teacher or impact the fairness of these proceedings. The panel determined that the amendment should be made because this was in line with protocol in not naming pupils or former pupils. The presenting officer also made an application for any evidence relating to Apprentice A to be heard in private. The application was not opposed. The panel heard and accepted the legal advice. The panel accepted the application to hear Apprentice A's evidence in private to ensure that matters of a personal sensitive nature were kept private. In making this decision the panel noted that there is a presumption that proceedings should take place in public, but felt that in this circumstances, Apprentice A's private interests were reasonably engaged and there was no prejudice to the interests of justice in Apprentice A's evidence being heard in private. Next, the panel heard an application made by the presenting officer on behalf of the TRA to admit the witness statement of [redacted] as hearsay evidence. [redacted]. The application was not opposed by Mr Faux on behalf of Mrs Gillet. The panel heard and accepted the legal advice. The panel considered that it had been provided with justifiable reasons why [redacted] was not in attendance and that her evidence was not the sole or decisive evidence in relation to the allegations. The panel concluded [redacted] evidence should be admitted as hearsay evidence. During the course of proceedings, an application was made by Mr Faux on behalf of Mrs Gillett to admit the relevant school's 2011 and 2013 Ofsted reports. The TRA did not oppose the application. The panel heard and accepted the legal advice. The panel determined that the documents were potentially relevant to the issues it had to determine and it was in the interests of a fair hearing to admit both reports. Therefore, the application was granted. During the course of the proceedings, and specifically part way through Mrs Gillett's oral evidence, Mr Faux made an application on behalf of Mrs Gillett, for special measures, allowing Mrs Gillett to continue her evidence in private. Prior to this Mrs Gillett had indicated to the panel that she did not wish to give her evidence in private, despite the 7 fact that matters of her health may arise. The TRA did not oppose the application. The panel heard and accepted legal advice. The panel first considered whether Mrs Gillett was vulnerable. The panel had in mind Rule 4.71 which states the panel will treat any person as a vulnerable witness where their quality of evidence is likely to be adversely affected at a hearing, including where their evidence might be affected by any mental or physical impairment and where they require special consideration. The panel had been provided with information in relation to Mrs Gillett's health. The panel was satisfied that Mrs Gillett was a vulnerable witness. The panel then went on to consider what measures should be put in place to enable Mrs Gillett to give her best evidence. The panel considered Rule 4.72 which provides examples of possible measures. The panel bore in mind that Mr Faux had suggested that Mrs Gillett should continue her evidence in private. The panel accepted that this would be the least restrictive measure. The panel therefore directed that Mrs Gillett continue the remainder of her evidence in private. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of Hearing and Response – pages 5 to 14 Section 2: TRA witness statement and exhibits – pages 16 to 220 Section 3: TRA Documents – pages 222 to 361 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 362 to 1113 In addition to the above, the panel also received the following documents prior to the start of the hearing: • Notice of Hearing, 5 April 2022; • [redacted] During the course of the proceedings, the panel also agreed to accept two Ofsted reports from 2011 and 2013. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the hearing bundle, in advance of the hearing. The panel also read the additional documents it decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses on behalf of the TRA: 8 • Witness A • Witness B • Witness C • Witness D • Witness E The panel also heard from: • Mrs Sarah Gillett, the Teacher • Apprentice A [redacted] a former apprentice Decision and reason