Mrs Susan Pletnick

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 Susan Pletnick

Teacher reference number: 3742993

Teacher's date of birth: 11 February 1969

Location teacher worked: Manchester, North West England.

Date of professional conduct panel: 27 to 30 January 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 Susan Pletnick, formerly employed in Manchester, North 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 Susan Pletnick: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 12 Documents 12 Witnesses 13 Decision and reasons 13 Findings of fact 13 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 24 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 28 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Susan Pletnick Teacher ref number: 3742993 Teacher date of birth: 11 February 1969 TRA reference: 18349 Date of determination: 30 January 2025 Former employer: Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox Primary School, Salford Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 27 to 30 January 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mrs Susan Pletnick. The panel members were Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Hannah Fellows (lay panellist) and Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Josie Beal of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Holly Quirk of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mrs Pletnick was present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public (save for parts which were heard in private) and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 8 July 2024. It was alleged that Mrs Pletnick was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed at Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox Primary School between April 2013 – April 2019; 1. Between approximately July 2016 and February 2019 she obtained or attempted to obtain money, goods or services from: a. The school in that she was lent approximately £4,000 from the school’s charity account; b. One or more colleagues and/or former colleagues at the school including but not limited to; i. Borrowing approximately £4,000 from Colleague A c. One or more parents of pupils and/or parents of former pupils and/or members of the local community including but not limited to: i. Borrowing approximately £22,000 from Persons D and E ii. Borrowing approximately £1,500 from Parent F iii. Engaging person G to act as guarantor for a payment of approximately £1,400 to a charity on which she defaulted 2. She refused and/or failed to adequately or at all repay money and/or pay for goods and/or services including but not limited to those detailed at allegation 1; 3. Her conduct as may be found proven at allegation 1 was an abuse of her role as a teacher and SENCO at the school; 4. Her conduct as may be found proven at allegations 1 and 2 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Preliminary applications Application for the hearing to be heard in private The panel considered an application from Mrs Pletnick for the whole of the hearing to be heard in private on the grounds of: (a) her health; (b) the health of [REDACTED]; (c) the 5 impact on her family; and (d) privacy in that she did not wish for her financial situation to be discussed in public. The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer on the application before reaching its decision. The presenting officer objected to the application for the entirety of the hearing to be heard in private but did not object to medical evidence being heard in private. The panel was mindful that there is a public interest in professional conduct panel hearings being heard in public and a presumption that such hearings will be heard in public. The panel was also mindful that the decision would be announced publicly even if all or part of the hearing were heard in private. The panel received legal advice and considered whether Mrs Pletnick’s application was necessary in the interests of justice; in the public interest; or for the protection of the interests of children. The panel did not consider that it would be in the interests of justice, in the public interest or for the protection of the interests of children for the entire hearing to be heard in private. The panel did not grant Mrs Pletnick’s application for the entire hearing to be in private. However, the panel agreed that evidence relating to Mrs Pletnick’s health, or the health of [REDACTED] would be heard in private. The panel considered it was not contrary to the public interest for those parts of the hearing to be heard in private. The panel considered that the areas covered in the application legitimately related to aspects of Mrs Pletnick’s private life and there was no contrary public interest in those areas being discussed in public. The hearing was still being held in public and these were discrete and limited areas which would not undermine the public's ability to otherwise understand the case. Application for reasonable adjustments Mrs Pletnick made an application for reasonable adjustments as follows: • Regular breaks during the course of the hearing to enable her to compose herself. • A finish time of 12pm on Monday, 27 January 2025 [REDACTED]. • A finish time of 3pm on the remaining days of the hearing [REDACTED]. Mrs Pletnick did not provide additional medical evidence in respect of these matters. However, the panel granted Mrs Pletnick’s requests for regular breaks (and ensured that these were provided throughout the hearing) and for a finish time of 12pm on Monday, 27 January 2025. The panel agreed to keep the request to finish at 3pm on the remaining days of the hearing under review based on the progress of the matter on each given day. 6 Applications to admit additional documents The panel considered preliminary applications from both the presenting officer and the teacher for the admission of additional documents. The documents subject to the applications had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession April 2018 Procedures (the ‘2018 Procedures’). Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the 2018 Procedures. The panel heard representations from the presenting officer and the teacher in respect of each of these applications. Presenting officer’s application The presenting officer’s application was to admit a 29-page supplementary bundle. The supplementary bundle contained documents relevant to directions given by the panel at a case management hearing which took place on 17 January 2025. The case management hearing had been convened to consider a request from Mrs Pletnick to postpone this professional conduct panel hearing on the grounds of her health. As part of the postponement application, Mrs Pletnick relied upon two letters from Individual A, which were written on the headed paper of the [REDACTED] NHS Foundation Trust. However, the panel noted anomalies in respect of these letters including: (a) that they were both dated 29 November 2024, although it appeared that one of the letters had been written after the other; (b) there appeared to be pages missing from one of the letters; and (c) the panel found the tone and content of the letters unusual. The panel directed that the professional conduct panel hearing would remain listed for 27 to 31 January 2025 and made various directions, including: 1) By no later than 22 January 2025, the TRA shall make enquiries of the [REDACTED] NHS Foundation Trust to confirm that: (a) Individual A is a [REDACTED] working within the Unit and/or Trust; (b) that he authored the two letters before the panel dated 29 November 2024; and (c) whether he is aware of the TRA proceedings. 2) By no later than 22 January 2025 Mrs Pletnick should provide the missing pages of Individual A’s letter of 29 November 2024 (namely pages 2 to 5). The TRA’ supplementary bundle contained documents relevant to the first direction outlined above. Mrs Pletnick did not provide the missing pages of Individual A’s letter dated 29 November 2024. 7 The panel noted the following documents contained within the supplementary bundle in particular: • An attendance note of a telephone call between Browne Jacobson LLP and a nurse at the [REDACTED] NHS Foundation Trust on 21 January 2025. The nurse confirmed that she did not know anybody by the name of Individual A who worked or had worked at the [REDACTED]. The nurse confirmed she had worked at the [REDACTED] for 18 months. She also confirmed she had spoken with two of her colleagues who had worked there for 6.5 years and 4 months respectively, who also did not know anybody by the name of Individual A who worked or had worked at the [REDACTED]. • An email from [REDACTED] NHS Foundation Trust to Browne Jacobson LLP on 22 January 2025 which stated: “Our email database doesn’t bring up anyone by the name of Individual A, so I’ve been unable to forward this on for you. I have passed the query over to HR who will be in touch if Individual A does in fact work for the Trust.” • An email exchange between Browne Jacobson LLP and the [REDACTED] NHS Foundation Trust on 22 January 2025. Within the exchange, Browne Jacobson LLP invited the [REDACTED] to confirm the content of a telephone call, as follows: “Mr [redacted] stated that he checked the Trust’s Electronic Staff Register (ESR) for “Individual A" and informed me that it showed that no one by that name works or has worked for the Trust. Mr [redacted] then explained that the ESR shows who is and has been an employee of the [REDACTED] and covers the Trust’s employee history from 2007. Mr [redacted] did explain, however, that if the person I was looking for was ever an agency worker or locum they would not show on the Trust’s ESR.” [REDACTED] confirmed this was correct. • An extract from the website for the [REDACTED] which stated: “[REDACTED]” The website also included a referral criteria which confirmed it applied to children and young people up to the age of 18. • A copy of a search from the registers of the General Medical Council and the [REDACTED] for the name “Individual A”. The search results did not return any results indicating that “Individual A” was registered to practice as a [REDACTED] in England or that he was practising at the [REDACTED]. • A google search of the name “Individual A”, which had returned details of a [REDACTED] of that name qualified in the United States of America and now working in the General [REDACTED] Clinic at [REDACTED] in Israel. • An email from “Individual A” from the email address ‘[REDACTED]’ which appeared to have been sent to Mrs Pletnick. The email apologised for the “error” 8 made in respect of the letter “templates” and attributed the error to an apprentice who required further support. The email stated that Individual A had seen Mrs Pletnick through a “private entity”. The email did not provide details of this private entity, nor did it explain why Individual A would have the headed paper of the [REDACTED] if there was no record of him having worked there. Mrs Pletnick objected to the admission of the supplementary bundle on the basis that she submitted that it was not relevant to the hearing. The panel concluded that the supplementary bundle was relevant to the proceedings in that it related to directions set at the case management hearing on 17 January 2025. The panel also considered that its content would be relevant to any submissions Mrs Pletnick may wish to make regarding her health and, furthermore, to its assessment of her credibility as a witness. The panel agreed to admit the supplementary bundle as evidence. During cross examination, the presenting officer asked Mrs Pletnick if she had any comment in respect of the supplementary bundle. Mrs Pletnick declined to comment on the basis that she did not consider it to be relevant to the allegations. Whilst the panel did not make an express finding in respect of this matter, it did have concerns about the veracity of the letters from Individual A and the impact this had on Mrs Pletnick’s credibility. The panel was mindful that this matter did not form part of the allegations before it and it was careful to ensure it did not influence its decision. Teacher’s application Mrs Pletnick’s documents were: • An email exchange between Mrs Pletnick and TRA between 23 and 24 January 2025 regarding the admission of additional documents and reasonable adjustments. • An email from the Mrs Pletnick to the TRA dated 23 January 2025, addressed to the panel, containing her written request for reasonable adjustments. • An email from Mrs Pletnick to the TRA sent at 13.51pm on 24 January 2024 regarding the admission of additional documents and reasonable adjustments. • A screenshot entitled “[REDACTED] Email Screenshot” showing an email from Individual B attaching a word document entitled “[REDACTED]” sent at 10.19pm on 22 January 2025. • A screenshot entitled “Individual C Email” showing an email from Individual C sent at 6.58pm on 28 January 2025. 9 • A screenshot entitled “MD letter” showing an email from Individual B attaching a word document entitled “testimony” sent at 7.37pm on 22 January 2025. • An undated letter in Microsoft Word format from individual D containing a character reference. • A letter in PDF format from Individual C dated 23 May 2019 containing a reference for Mrs Pletnick, written on the headed paper of [REDACTED]. • A letter in Microsoft Word format from Individual C dated 21 January 2025 containing a character reference. • A letter in PDF format from Individual C dated 23 January 2025 containing the same character reference referred to above, but this time written on the headed paper of [REDACTED]. • A letter in Microsoft Word format from Individual E Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox School dated 5 December 2021, containing a character reference. • A letter in Microsoft Word format from Mrs Pletnick to Witness A dated 18 July 2018 containing an apology. • A letter in Microsoft Word format from Individual F NHS Foundation Trust dated 22 November 2017, in support of Mrs Pletnick’s application for the right to remain in the UK. • A letter in Microsoft Word format from Individual B dated 21 January 2025, containing a character reference. • A letter in Microsoft Word format from Individual G at Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox School dated 27 April 2017, containing a character reference and written on the headed paper of Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox School. • An undated screenshot of a text message which Mrs Pletnick indicated was from Witness A. • An email from Mrs Pletnick to the TRA sent at 13.53pm on 25 January 2025 containing a statement from her relating to the proceedings. • A Microsoft Word document containing a statement from Mrs Pletnick. • An email from Mrs Pletnick to the TRA sent at 19.49pm on 25 January 2025 containing submissions and assertions from Mrs Pletnick regarding the treatment she alleged she had received from Person D and others in her local community. 10 The presenting officer objected to the admission of the email from Mrs Pletnick sent at 19.49pm on 25 January 2025 on the basis that it was not relevant to the allegations before the panel and may be prejudicial. The panel concluded that the email was relevant to the proceedings. The panel was confident it would be able to navigate any potentially prejudicial assertions relating to those who were not present at the hearing. The panel agreed that, although Mrs Pletnick’s additional documents had not been admitted in accordance with the 2018 procedures, it would admit them as evidence, having regard to the fact that she was not legally represented. The panel noted anomalies in respect of some of Mrs Pletnick’s documents, as follows: • Despite purporting to be written by different individuals, the content and style of the letters was similar for example: o The letter from Individual C dated 21 January 2025 states: “The Tribunal addresses events that occurred some time ago. I want to highlight that Susan has already faced significant repercussions for her actions within the community. She has been subjected to public notices intended to humiliate her, and she has faced public confrontation which serves as punishment in itself.” o The letter from Individual B dated 21 January 2025 states: “The allegations that are being investigated within the Tribunal occurred a long time ago, and I would like to point out that Susan has been harshly punished by the community for her misdemeanour, having been publicly humiliated with public notices and a call to [REDACTED] from the community.” • The properties of six of the letters indicated that they had last been modified by Mrs Pletnick. They also all contained the word “unclassified” in green capital letters in the footer of the document, which also appeared on documents prepared by Mrs Pletnick herself including: (a) the statement she submitted to the panel regarding the allegations; and (b) the apology letter from Mrs Pletnick to Witness A dated 18 July 2018. The six letters are as follows: o The undated letter from Individual D. o The letter from Individual C dated 21 January 2025. o The letter from Individual E at Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox School dated 5 December 2021. o The letter from Individual F dated 22 November 2017. 11 o The letter from Individual B dated 21 January 2025. o The letter from Individual G Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox School dated 27 April 2017. • The letters purporting to be from Individual E, Individual C and Individual B also showed Mrs Pletnick as the author of those documents. • The panel was provided with two copies of a letter from Individual C. The content of the letters was identical, but one was signed and in PDF format dated 23 January 2025 and the other was unsigned and in Microsoft Word format dated 21 January 2025. During cross examination, the presenting officer put the anomalies within the documents to Mrs Pletnick and asked her if she had authored some of the character references. Mrs Pletnick stated that she had not authored the character references and indicated that this could be corroborated by the individuals. Mrs Pletnick stated that Individual B would be attending the hearing the following day as a witness and would be able to verify this. However, Mrs Pletnick subsequently decided not to call Individual B as a witness and, therefore, neither the presenting officer nor the panel could put this to her. Whilst the panel did not make an express finding in relation to this matter, it did have concerns about the veracity of some of the documents provided by Mrs Pletnick and the impact this had on Mrs Pletnick’s credibility. The panel was mindful that this matter did not form part of the allegations before it and it was careful to ensure it did not influence its decision. Application for statement of witness to be admitted as hearsay The presenting officer made an application that the statement of Person D be admitted as hearsay evidence. The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer and the teacher in respect of this application. Mrs Pletnick objected to this application. The panel was provided with an email exchange between the presenting officer and Person D in which Person D indicated that he was no longer able to assist the TRA by giving evidence at the hearing. Person D did not explain the reason he was no longer able to attend the hearing. Whilst it would have been helpful to have heard from Person D, the panel was mindful that the allegations related to conduct alleged to have taken place between 2016 and 2019. This meant there had been a significant period of time (of between 9 and 6 years) between the alleged conduct and the hearing taking place which the panel considered 12 could have caused Person D to disengage from the proceedings, although the panel did not reach a conclusion as to the reason for Person D’s non-attendance. Although Person D’s evidence was relevant to the allegations before the panel, it was not the sole and decisive evidence in relation to the allegations. Furthermore, the evidence was not such that the panel felt that it would be unable to test its reliability in the absence of the witness. The panel concluded that the balance of fairness was not against admitting the statement as hearsay evidence. Accordingly, the statement of the witness was admitted as hearsay evidence. Procedures The panel noted that since the date of the referral to the TRA in this case, new ‘Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ were published in May 2020 (the “May 2020 Procedures”). The panel understands that the earlier provisions contained within the April 2018 Procedures apply to this case, given that those provisions applied when the referral was made. Although the panel has the power to direct that the May 2020 Procedures should apply in the interests of justice or the public interest, the panel had received no representations that this should be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, the panel confirms that it has applied the April 2018 Procedures in this case. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology and anonymised person list – pages 6 to 7 • Section 2: Notice of proceedings – pages 9 to 12 • S ection 3: TRA witness statements – pages 14 to 69 • S ection 4: TRA documents – pages 71 to 148 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 151 to 158. In addition, the panel agreed to accept the TRA’s additional supplementary bundle and the 19 additional documents submitted by Mrs Pletnick, as outlined above. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. 13 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witness called by the TRA: • Witness A [REDACTED] The panel also heard oral evidence from Mrs Pletnick. At the outset of the hearing, Mrs Pletnick indicated that Individual B would also give evidence but subsequently decided not to call Individual B as a witness. This was on the basis that Mrs Pletnick said that Individual B’s evidence would not be relevant to the allegations. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mrs Pletnick commenced employment as a SENCO at Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox Primary School (‘the School’) on/around 4 April 2013. Her contract of employment, dated 25 April 2014, stated that she was employed as a teacher. In the summer of 2018, the School became aware of concerns that Mrs Pletnick had borrowed money from parents at the School and commenced a disciplinary procedure. In/around March and April 2019 the School undertook a further investigation in respect of Mrs Pletnick borrowing money. On 2 April 2019 Mrs Pletnick resigned from the School. On 1 May 2019 this matter was referred to the TRA by the School. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Between approximately July 2016 and February 2019 you obtained or attempted to obtain money, goods or services from: a. The school in that you were lent approximately £4,000 from the school’s charity account; 14 Mrs Pletnick admitted allegation 1(a). The panel was provided with a loan document dated 25 February 2016 and signed by Mrs Pletnick and “[REDACTED]” on behalf of the School. The document confirmed that the School had lent the amount of £6,204 as a loan to Mrs Pletnick to support her expenses in staying within the country. The loan document contained a repayment schedule confirming that the loan was to be repaid in instalments of £450 per month, commencing on 15 April 2016, with a final payment of £354 on 15 June 2017. The document stated that, if Mrs Pletnick missed a payment, the School reserved the right to reduce Mrs Pletnick’s monthly salary to account for the payment. The panel was also provided with a document dated 29 May 2018 which set out a record of the money lent to Mrs Pletnick by the School. The document stated that Mrs Pletnick had been lent: (a) £1,900 from the School’s funds in/around Autumn 2015; and (b) £6,204 from the School’s charity account in April 2016. It also indicated that Mrs Pletnick had made repayments of: £450 on 15 April 2016; £100 in June 2017; and £100 in July 2017 but, apart from those payments, nothing further had been received (notwithstanding the loan document she had signed). The document stated that deductions of £255.13 per month were being made from Mrs Pletnick’s salary with effect from April 2018. The panel was also provided with a letter dated 27 February 2018 signed by Mrs Pletnick and Individual G, authorising the School to make monthly deductions from Mrs Pletnick’s salary in the amount of £255.13 to repay the outstanding amount of the loan, which was listed as being £7,654. The panel considered the oral evidence and written statements provided by Mrs Pletnick. Mrs Pletnick admitted that the School lent her money. In her written statement dated 19 December 2019, she stated that the School offered to loan her £2,000 to cover her living costs after she had moved to Manchester from South Africa. She also stated that, in 2016, she approached the Chair of Governors to request a loan to assist with renewing her working visa and was lent around £6,500 from the School. In her oral evidence she described financial difficulties after moving from South Africa to Manchester and in covering the cost of visa applications and associated fees. The panel understood that Mrs Pletnick had made some repayments in respect of these loans and around £4,000 remained outstanding. The panel was satisfied that, between approximately July 2016 and February 2019, whilst employed at the School, Mrs Pletnick obtained money from the School in that she was lent at least £4,000 from the School’s charity account. 15 The panel found allegation 1(a) proven. b. One or more colleagues and/or former colleagues at the school including but not limited to; i. Borrowing approximately £4,000 from Colleague A Mrs Pletnick admitted allegation 1(b)(i). The panel considered a written statement from Colleague A dated 2 April 2019 and obtained as part of the School’s investigation. Colleague A met Mrs Pletnick whilst visiting the School as a [REDACTED]. Colleague A’s statement confirmed that she had lent money to Mrs Pletnick on a number of occasions since 2017 on the understanding that these amounts would be repaid. However, as at the date of her statement, Colleague A confirmed that the money had not been repaid and the amount owed exceeded £4,000. Colleague A stated that Mrs Pletnick had provided a number of reasons as to why she needed to borrow money and why repayment had been delayed. Colleague A also stated that Mrs Pletnick had asked her on a number of occasions not to inform the School that Mrs Pletnick had borrowed money from her. Mrs Pletnick admitted to borrowing money from Colleague A. However, she denied that she had asked Colleague A for money. Mrs Pletnick said that Colleague A was often in her office looking at paperwork and, one day, she saw some paperwork relating to Mrs Pletnick moving house and enquired about it. Mrs Pletnick informed Colleague A that she was moving but did not have money to pay for a deposit and Colleague A told Mrs Pletnick she would help her. The panel was satisfied that, between approximately July 2016 and February 2019, whilst employed at the School, Mrs Pletnick obtained money from a colleague and/or former colleague in that she borrowed approximately £4,000 from Colleague A. The panel found allegation 1(b)(i) proven. c. One or more parents of pupils and/or parents of former pupils and/or members of the local community including but not limited to: i. Borrowing approximately £22,000 from Persons D and E Mrs Pletnick admitted allegation 1(c)(i). The panel considered Person D’s witness statement, which was admitted as hearsay evidence. In his statement, Person D explained that he and Person E met Mrs Pletnick in her capacity as a SENCO at the School, because [REDACTED] at the School. 16 [REDACTED], Persons D and E were invited to meet with Mrs Pletnick. Person D stated that Person E and Mrs Pletnick spoke on a regular basis ([REDACTED] and the provisions Mrs Pletnick was putting in place in her capacity as SENCO) and became friends. Person D stated that, on 7 February 2018, Mrs Pletnick informed Person E that [REDACTED] needed to travel back to South Africa, but the travel was expensive and they could not afford it. Persons D and E agreed to lend Mrs Pletnick money to enable her to travel to South Africa and Mrs Pletnick informed them that her [REDACTED] was wealthy and they would repay the money when they arrived in South Africa. Person D transferred £5,000 to Mrs Pletnick. Person D said that, on 12 February 2018, Mrs Pletnick informed him that their flights had been cancelled and that new flights would cost a further £3,940 to travel to South Africa. Person D transferred this sum to Mrs Pletnick and gave her £500 in cash. Person D referred to another occasion in 2018 when Mrs Pletnick came to the home of Persons D and E and informed them that she needed to pay £12,800 in connection with a visa application, otherwise she would have to return to South Africa. Persons D and E transferred £12,000 to Mrs Pletnick and gave her £800 in cash. Persons D and E had to borrow money from other sources to pay this amount to Mrs Pletnick. Person D said that Mrs Pletnick and [REDACTED] had told them that the money would be returned the same day, however the repayment was not forthcoming. Person D said that Mrs Pletnick made false promises regarding repayment and, as at the date of the statement, had not repaid any of the £22,740 she owed. Person D explained that lending money to Mrs Pletnick has had devastating financial consequences for him and Person E. The panel was mindful that Person D’s witness statement was hearsay evidence that had not been tested at the hearing. However, the panel considered that it was not the sole and decisive evidence in relation to this allegation and was corroborated by other documentary evidence, including: • Transaction details from NatWest bank on 7 February 2018 showing a bank transfer in the amount of £5,000 from Person D to Mrs Pletnick. • Transaction details from NatWest bank on 13 February 2018 showing a bank transfer in the amount of £3,940 from Person D to Mrs Pletnick. • Transaction details from NatWest bank on 2 March 2018 showing a bank transfer in the amount of £7,000 from Person D to Mrs Pletnick. • Transaction details from NatWest bank on 2 February 2018 showing a bank transfer in the amount of £5,000 from Person D to Mrs Pletnick. 17 • A handwritten note setting out the amounts lent to Mrs Pletnick, which totalled £22,740. • Screenshots of messages between Person D and Mrs Pletnick in which Person D enquired about repayment and Mrs Pletnick made various promises that repayments would be forthcoming and excuses as to why the repayments had not been made. • A note prepared as part of the School’s investigation dated 13 June 2018, which set out the sums lent to Mrs Pletnick by Persons D and E and contained a personal statement from them. The information contained in this document was consistent with Person D’s written statement and the other documentary evidence. Mrs Pletnick admitted to borrowing just over £22,000 from Persons D and E, who she said offered to lend her the money. The panel was satisfied that, between approximately July 2016 and February 2019, whilst employed at the School Mrs Pletnick obtained money from one or more parents of pupils in that she borrowed approximately £22,000 from Persons D and E who, at the time, were parents of a pupil at the School. The panel found allegation 1(c)(i) proven. ii. Borrowing approximately £1,500 from Parent F Mrs Pletnick admitted allegation 1(c)(ii). The panel considered notes of a meeting that took place between Parent F and Witness A, on 29 May 2018 relating to the School’s investigation in respect of Mrs Pletnick. Parent F was a parent of a pupil at the School [REDACTED] and also [REDACTED] at the School. Parent F stated that she only knew Mrs Pletnick through the School. The meeting notes indicated that Mrs Pletnick had told Parent F she had been unwell and needed an operation. Mrs Pletnick said she could not wait to have the operation done on the NHS and needed money to have the operation privately. Mrs Pletnick asked Parent F if she knew of anywhere where she could borrow money from Parent F and [REDACTED] lent Mrs Pletnick £1,500 for this purpose, which Mrs Pletnick did not repay. Mrs Pletnick admitted to borrowing £1,500 from Parent F. In her written statement dated 19 December 2019 she said it was to pay for some dental work, but in her oral evidence she said it was for an operation for kidney stones. The panel was satisfied that, between approximately July 2016 and February 2019, whilst employed at the School, Mrs Pletnick obtained money from one or more parents of 18 pupils in that she borrowed approximately £1,500 from Parent F who, at the time, was a parent of a pupil at the School. The panel found allegation 1(c)(ii) proven. iii. Engaging person G to act as guarantor for a payment of approximately £1,400 to a charity on which you defaulted Mrs Pletnick admitted allegation 1(c)(iii). The panel considered notes of a meeting that took place between Person G and Witness A on 23 May 2018 relating to the School’s investigation in respect of Mrs Pletnick. In her oral evidence Witness A explained that Person G was a [REDACTED] at the School and prominent in the local community. The notes indicated that Person G told Witness A that he had been asked by Mrs Pletnick and [REDACTED] to be a guarantor against a loan from a Gemach. Witness A explained that a Gemach is a charitable organisation which may lend resources or money on a short-term basis to members of the community. Witness A said that it appeared Mrs Pletnick and [REDACTED] had gone to a Gemach to ask for a loan and required a guarantor for this purpose. Person G agreed to be a guarantor for the loan (an amount of £1,400). However, Mrs Pletnick and [REDACTED] did not repay the loan and Person G had to repay it as the guarantor. Mrs Pletnick admitted to borrowing money from the Gemach and asking Person G to be a guarantor. Mrs Pletnick further admitted that she did not repay the loan and Person G had to repay it as the guarantor. The panel was satisfied that Person G was a member of the local community who Mrs Pletnick had approached to be a guarantor for a loan of £1,400 from the Gemach. The panel was satisfied that this conduct took place between July 2016 and February 2019 whilst Mrs Pletnick was employed at the School. The panel was also satisfied that Mrs Pletnick had obtained money and/or a service from Person G in that: (a) they acted as guarantor which the panel considered could be a service; and (b) Mrs Pletnick was only able to obtain the loan money as a result of Person G acting as guarantor; and (c) Person G ultimately repaid the loan. The panel found allegation 1(c)(iii) proven. 2. You refused and/or failed to adequately or at all repay money and/or pay for goods and/or services including but not limited to those detailed at allegation 1; 19 Mrs Pletnick admitted allegation 2 insofar as she admitted she had failed to adequately repay the money she had borrowed. The evidence before the panel indicated that the money Mrs Pletnick had borrowed had not been repaid, either in full or at all. It appeared that significant sums were still outstanding. The panel understood that: • Mrs Pletnick had made some repayments in respect of the loan from the School. However, a significant portion of this loan (which the panel understood to be around £4,000) remains outstanding. • The loan of £4,000 from Colleague A has not been repaid. • The loan of £22,740 to Person D and E has not been repaid. In her oral evidence Mrs Pletnick stated that a few months ago, her [REDACTED] began making repayments or around £40 every now and then, although these repayments now appear to have ceased [REDACTED]. • The loan of £1,500 to Parent F has not been repaid. • Person G had received half of the £1,400 owed (as of May 2018), although in her oral evidence Mrs Pletnick stated that she believed it had all been repaid. The evidence before the panel also indicated that Mrs Pletnick had promised the amounts she had borrowed would be repaid but had subsequently failed to make repayments. In particular: • Mrs Pletnick agreed to repay the loan from the School by making monthly payments of £450 between 15 April 2016 and 15 June 2017. However, she did not make these repayments and, as of 29 May 2018, she had only repaid £450 on 15 April 2016, £100 in June 2017 and £100 in July 2017. As a result, the School began making deductions from Mrs Pletnick’s monthly salary. • Mrs Pletnick admitted that she promised to repay Colleague A but said she was unable to do so due to [REDACTED], and she did not have sufficient funds to repay Colleague A. • Mrs Pletnick said that she believed her [REDACTED] would provide the money to repay Persons D and E. However, she said this did not happen because her [REDACTED] was residing in a care home in South Africa which had control of her finances. • The bundle contained screenshots of text messages between Mrs Pletnick and Persons D and E. Within those messages Persons D and E frequently chased Mrs Pletnick for payment and explained they were struggling financially. In 20 response, Mrs Pletnick made various promises that repayments would be forthcoming and excuses as to why the repayments had not been made, including: o “I’ve spoken to the lady dealing with the transfer The transfer was sanctioned on Friday morning. She said 2 working days. It will be in today some time It’s just when the banks run their payments. But reassured from S.A it will be done today”. o “I’ve just emailed the lady dealing with my transfer explaining the urgency…so the transfer will be done. I asked the bank to please sort it out immediately tomorrow.” o “My [REDACTED] is going to the bank for me this morning to sort it out for me.” o It’s typical disgusting service from South Africa.” o “My [REDACTED] went to bank today. He has arranged for money to be sorted out tomorrow during the day. Then his associate from London will transfer into Chaim acc. So just waiting for finality on time frame tomorrow.” • Mrs Pletnick told Person F and [REDACTED] that the money would be repaid once she received money from South Africa. Person F’s [REDACTED] contacted Mrs Pletnick regularly asking about repayment and Mrs Pletnick said she was trying to sort it out, but the monies were not repaid. • Person G said he contacted Mrs Pletnick and [REDACTED] many times to ask for repayment and that they eventually repaid half of the sum in “dribs and drabs”, but the remainder was outstanding. • The bundle contained a notice placed in the local community in/around March 2019 which warned members of the community against lending money to Mrs Pletnick and [REDACTED]. The notice stated that they had borrowed “enormous amounts” of money which had not been repaid. There was not sufficient evidence before the panel that Mrs Pletnick had refused to repay the sums she owed. However, the panel concluded that there was ample evidence demonstrating that Mrs Pletnick had failed to adequately repay the sums owed and that significant sums of money remained outstanding. The evidence before the panel also indicated that Mrs Pletnick had made various assurances of her intentions to repay those who had lent her money. In cross examination, Mrs Pletnick admitted that she gave these assurances knowing she was unable to make the repayments. In her written statement of 17 December 2019, she 21 stated: “When people asked when they going to be paid, I panicked said things to please them. [sic]”. The panel was satisfied that Mrs Pletnick failed to adequately repay money to those detailed at allegation 1. The panel found allegation 2 proven. 3. Your conduct as may be found proven at allegation 1 was an abuse of your role as a teacher and SENCO at the school; Mrs Pletnick denied this allegation. She stated that she did not feel that she used her power as a teacher and SENCO to obtain money from people. She said that she had no money and was desperate, and this led her to ask people for help and/or accept money from people when it was offered. The panel was not persuaded that Mrs Pletnick had abused her role as a teacher and SENCO of the School by borrowing money from the School, Colleague A or Person G. The panel considered that these were, in effect, commercial agreements between Mrs Pletnick and those parties. There was not sufficient evidence before the panel that Mrs Pletnick had used her role as a teacher or SENCO to obtain money from those individuals. However, the panel considered the evidence from Persons D and E and Parent F that they met Mrs Pletnick in her capacity as a teacher and SENCO at the School. The panel was of the view that Mrs Pletnick would not have met Persons D and E and Parent F were it not for her position as teacher and SENCO at the School. The panel was mindful that Mrs Pletnick was a member of the School’s senior leadership team and was in a trusted position as a teacher and SENCO. The panel also considered that Mrs Pletnick’s role as SENCO meant she would be in regular contact with parents of pupils with special educational needs. She would also build relationships and trust with families of pupils with special educational needs and have a responsibility for making statutory decisions regarding their special educational needs. The panel concluded that, by borrowing money from Persons D and E and Parent F, Mrs Pletnick had abused her role as a teacher and SENCO at the School. The panel found allegation 3 proven in respect of the conduct found proven at allegation 1(c)(i) and (ii). 4. Your conduct as may be found proven at allegations 1 and 2 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Mrs Pletnick denied allegation 4. 22 However, when asked why she told Persons D and E she would be transferring them money when she knew she would not be, she accepted that this could be described as dishonest conduct. The panel firstly considered whether Mrs Pletnick’s conduct as found proven at allegations 1 and 2 demonstrated a lack of integrity. The panel considered the case of Wingate & Anor v The Solicitors Regulation Authority. The panel was mindful that, whilst professionals are not expected to be “paragons of virtue”, professional persons are in a privileged and trusted role and, as such, are subject to higher standards and are required to live up to those standards. Mrs Pletnick had borrowed money from the School, parents, a colleague and a member of the local community and had failed to adequately repay the money she had borrowed. The panel was satisfied that this amounted to a clear failure to act within the higher standards expected of a teacher. The panel was satisfied that Mrs Pletnick’s conduct, as found proven at allegations 1 and 2, lacked integrity. The panel then considered whether Mrs Pletnick had acted dishonestly. In reaching its decision on this, the panel considered the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockford. The panel was not persuaded that Mrs Pletnick’s conduct, as outlined in allegation 1 was dishonest. The panel did not consider that the act of borrowing money itself was dishonest. The panel therefore considered whether Mrs Pletnick’s conduct as found proven at allegation 2 was dishonest. The panel firstly sought to ascertain the actual state of Mrs Pletnick’s knowledge or belief as to the facts and, secondly, considered whether her conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. In considering Mrs Pletnick’s knowledge or belief as to the facts, the panel had regard to her submissions that she had borrowed money with the intention to repay it but subsequently found that she could not make repayments. The panel accepted that, when Mrs Pletnick began borrowing money, she may have done so with the intention of repaying it. However, Mrs Pletnick had continued to borrow money whilst being unable to repay the sums she had previously borrowed. The panel was of the view that, at this point in time, Mrs Pletnick must have borrowed money knowing she was unable to repay it due to her financial situation. Furthermore, Mrs Pletnick made assurances to Persons D and E that repayments would be made when she knew the payments would not be made. She sent messages to Persons D and E giving the impression that she was arranging for funds to be transferred 23 from a bank in South Africa and that the funds would reach Persons D and E imminently when, again, she knew this was not the case. The panel found that Mrs Pletnick was untruthful to Persons D and E. The panel was satisfied that Mrs Pletnick had acted dishonestly and that her conduct was dishonest according to the standards of ordinary decent people. The panel found allegation 4 proven in that: (a) Mrs Pletnick’s conduct as found proven at allegations 1 and 2 lacked integrity; and (b) Mrs Pletnick’s conduct as found proven at allegation 2 was dishonest. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 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 was satisfied that Mrs Pletnick’s conduct, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mrs Pletnick 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… • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards... The panel was satisfied that the misconduct took place within the education setting as it related to Mrs Pletnick’s interactions with the School, parents of pupils at the School and her colleagues. Whilst Person G was described as a member of the community, the panel also heard evidence that he was a [REDACTED] at the School. The panel found there was an intrinsic link between Mrs Pletnick’s misconduct and her employment at the School as a teacher and SENCO. The panel was satisfied that Mrs Pletnick’s conduct amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The panel also took account of School’s code of conduct and considered that Mrs Pletnick’s conduct was not in accordance with the standards of behaviour outlined in the code. The panel considered whether Mrs Pletnick’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. Whilst Mrs Pletnick had not been convicted of a criminal offence, the Advice indicates that where behaviours 24 associated with such offences exist, a panel is more 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. In reaching this conclusion, the panel took account of the fact that Mrs Pletnick: (a) continued to borrow money from various sources when she knew she could not repay it; and (b) made repeated promises about repayment which she knew she could not keep. The panel considered that this amounted to a course of conduct which was repeated over a sustained period of time and, as such, amounted to serious dishonesty. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mrs Pletnick was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. The panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others and 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. The panel regarded Mrs Pletnick’s misconduct as serious. It considered that the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on her status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public perception. There was evidence before the panel that Mrs Pletnick’s conduct had damaged Persons D and E’s perception of Mrs Pletnick and the School. Furthermore, the panel considered that members of the public would be shocked by Mrs Pletnick’s misconduct and would regard a teacher borrowing money from parents to be a breach of professional boundaries. The panel therefore found that Mrs Pletnick’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Having found the facts of allegations 1, 2, 3 and 4 proved, the panel further found that Mrs Pletnick’s conduct amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 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. 25 The panel was aware that 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 the following to be relevant in this case: the maintenance of public confidence in the profession; declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct; that prohibition strikes the right balance between the rights of the teacher and the public interest, if they are in conflict. The panel’s findings against Mrs Pletnick involved: obtaining money from the School, parents and colleagues; failing to repay those sums; conduct that amounted to an abuse of her role as a teacher and SENCO; and conduct that lacked integrity and was dishonest. In light of these findings, there was a strong public interest consideration in declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct in this case which the panel had to balance against the interests of Mrs Pletnick. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present. The panel concluded that Mrs Pletnick’s conduct was outside of that which could reasonably be tolerated. In particular, in the panel’s view, the very fact of a teacher borrowing money from parents was unacceptable. Furthermore, it was unacceptable to fail to adequately repay those sums and to provide dishonest assurances regarding repayments. The panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mrs Pletnick was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. 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 Pletnick. The panel was mindful of the need to strike the right balance between the rights of the teacher and the public interest. In carrying out the balancing exercise, the panel had regard to the public interest considerations both in favour of, and against, prohibition as well as the interests of Mrs Pletnick. 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: • serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; • abuse of position or trust; • dishonesty or a lack of integrity; 26 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. The panel found that Mrs Pletnick’s actions were deliberate. There was no evidence before the panel that Mrs Pletnick was under extreme duress (e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation to perform unlawful activities). However, the panel took account of Mrs Pletnick’s evidence that she found moving from South Africa to England difficult as she had no financial backing or family in England. The panel sympathised with Mrs Pletnick in this regard and in respect of her financial difficulties, however it did not consider these circumstances amounted to extreme duress. There was no evidence before the panel that Mrs Pletnick demonstrated exceptionally high standards in both personal and professional conduct and has contributed significantly to the education sector. However, the panel acknowledged that Mrs Pletnick had chosen to move to England and work with children with special educational needs and commended her for her contribution in this regard. The panel was provided with a number of character references. The panel noted that these references commented positively on: Mrs Pletnick’s ability as a SENCO; her work with children with special educational needs; and the steps Mrs Pletnick has taken since the misconduct took place. However, as outlined above, the panel had concerns about the veracity of some of these documents. The panel therefore placed limited weight on this evidence. In her oral evidence, Mrs Pletnick expressed regret in respect of her conduct and said she wished she could go back in time and change things. She explained that, at the time, she did not appreciate it was wrong to borrow money from parents and colleagues. She explained that this would have been acceptable in South Africa and she was not familiar with the cultural differences in England. Mrs Pletnick said she now understood that her conduct was not acceptable and felt that she had learned from her mistakes. She gave an example of [REDACTED] being invited to attend school trips and indicated that she would previously have considered borrowing money to fund their attendance but had not done so. Whilst the panel acknowledged that Mrs Pletnick demonstrated remorse, this was primarily in relation to the situation she now finds herself in and the impact this matter has had on her [REDACTED]. The panel did not consider that Mrs Pletnick demonstrated sufficient remorse in respect of the School, its pupils, Colleague A, Persons D and E, Parent F or Person G. 27 Furthermore, Mrs Pletnick did not demonstrate sufficient understanding and appreciation of the impact her misconduct had on those parties. The panel did not consider Mrs Pletnick showed sufficient insight in respect of her misconduct. Whilst the panel appreciated the example Mrs Pletnick provided where she could have borrowed money but did not, the panel was not convinced by her representations in this regard, particularly given its concerns about her credibility. The panel was of the view that, following the School’s disciplinary process in 2018 (at the very latest), it should have been clear to Mrs Pletnick that borrowing money from parents and colleagues was not appropriate. The panel was concerned there was a risk of future repetition because it did not consider Mrs Pletnick had taken sufficient steps to address her misconduct or learn from it. 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 Pletnick of prohibition. 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 Pletnick. The serious nature of Mrs Pletnick’s misconduct and its impact on those involved was a significant factor 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. Paragraph 50 of the Advice indicates that, where a case involves certain behaviours, it is likely that the public interest will have a greater relevance and weight in favour of not offering a review period. The panel did not find any of these behaviours to be relevant. Paragraph 51 of the Advice indicates that, where a case involves certain behaviours, 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. The panel noted that the list includes serious dishonesty, which the panel found to be relevant in this case. 28 The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate. The panel carefully considered what would be an appropriate review period. The panel was mindful of its finding that Mrs Pletnick’s misconduct (and her dishonesty) was serious. However, it was equally mindful of the need to weigh the public interest against the interests of Mrs Pletnick and propose a proportionate review period which was not punitive in nature. Having done so, the panel decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for a prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for a review period of three years. The panel was of the view that this was a sufficient period of time to enable Mrs Pletnick to: • gain full insight into her conduct; • take steps to address her misconduct and the underlying reasons for it in order to reduce the likelihood of recurrence; • acknowledge the impact on those affected by her misconduct and attempt to make amends; and • be in a position to provide accurate and verified evidence of this to a set aside panel. 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. 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 Pletnick should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of three years. In particular, the panel has found that Mrs Pletnick 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… • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards... 29 The panel finds that the conduct of Mrs Pletnick fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a finding of obtaining money from the School, parents and colleagues, failing to repay, conduct that amounted to an abuse of her role as a teacher and SENCO and conduct that lacked integrity and was dishonest 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 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 or 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 Pletnick and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which the panel sets out as follows, “Whilst the panel acknowledged that Mrs Pletnick demonstrated remorse, this was primarily in relation to the situation she now finds herself in and the impact this matter has had on her [REDACTED]. The panel did not consider that Mrs Pletnick demonstrated sufficient remorse in respect of the School, its pupils, Colleague A, Persons D and E, Parent F or Person G.” In my judgement, the lack of full remorse means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour. 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 observe, “The panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mrs Pletnick was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of behaviour that lacked integrity and was dishonest 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 30 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 Pletnick and the panel comment “There was no evidence before the panel that Mrs Pletnick demonstrated exceptionally high standards in both personal and professional conduct and has contributed significantly to the education sector. However, the panel acknowledged that Mrs Pletnick had chosen to move to England and work with children with special educational needs and commended her for her contribution in this regard.” A prohibition order would prevent Mrs Pletnick 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 lack of full insight and/or remorse. The panel has said, “Mrs Pletnick did not demonstrate sufficient understanding and appreciation of the impact her misconduct had on those parties. The panel did not consider Mrs Pletnick showed sufficient insight in respect of her misconduct. Whilst the panel appreciated the example Mrs Pletnick provided where she could have borrowed money but did not, the panel was not convinced by her representations in this regard, particularly given its concerns about her credibility. The panel was of the view that, following the School’s disciplinary process in 2018 (at the very latest), it should have been clear to Mrs Pletnick that borrowing money from parents and colleagues was not appropriate. The panel was concerned there was a risk of future repetition because it did not consider Mrs Pletnick had taken sufficient steps to address her misconduct or learn from it.” I have also placed considerable weight on the finding that “The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present. The panel concluded that Mrs Pletnick’s conduct was outside of that which could reasonably be tolerated. In particular, in the panel’s view, the very fact of a teacher borrowing money from parents was unacceptable. Furthermore, it was unacceptable to fail to adequately repay those sums and to provide dishonest assurances regarding repayments.” I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mrs Pletnick 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 full remorse or insight, 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. 31 I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended a 3 year review period. I have considered the panel’s comments “The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate. The panel carefully considered what would be an appropriate review period. The panel was mindful of its finding that Mrs Pletnick’s misconduct (and her dishonesty) was serious. However, it was equally mindful of the need to weigh the public interest against the interests of Mrs Pletnick and propose a proportionate review period which was not punitive in nature.” 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 dishonesty and lack of integrity found, and the lack of full insight and remorse. I consider therefore that a three year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. This means that Mrs Susan Pletnick 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 6 February 2028, 3 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 Pletnick remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mrs Pletnick has a right of appeal to the King’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days from the date she is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Sarah Buxcey Date: 3 February 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.