Ms Kaodi O’Loughlin Campbell

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: Ms Kaodi O’Loughlin Campbell

Teacher reference number: 2056188

Teacher's date of birth: 15 November 1991

Location teacher worked: Birmingham, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 22 January 2026

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 Ms Kaodi O’Loughlin Campbell formerly employed in Birmingham, West Midlands.

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.

1 Ms Kaodi O’Loughlin Campbell: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2026 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 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Kaodi O’Loughlin Campbell Teacher ref number: 2056188 Teacher date of birth: 15 November 1991 TRA reference: 23876 Date of determination: 22 January 2026 Former employer: Ferndale Primary School, Birmingham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 22 January 2026 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Ms O’Loughlin Campbell. The panel members were Ms Geraldine Baird (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Tim Foy (lay panellist) and Mrs Georgina Bean (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Clare Strickland of Blake Morgan 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 Ms O’Loughlin Campbell that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Ms O’Loughlin Campbell provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer or Ms O’Loughlin Campbell. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 13 January 2026. It was alleged that Ms O’Loughlin Campbell was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that while a teacher at Ferndale Primary School: 1. Between January and March 2023, she engaged in inappropriate communication with a former pupil, Pupil A, in that she: a. Provided Pupil A with her mobile phone number. b. Exchanged messages with Pupil A. c. Told Pupil A to delete the messages she had exchanged with Pupil A. d. Told Pupil A to contact her via social media. 2. At the time of the conduct as described at paragraph 1 above, she knew or ought to have known that Pupil A was vulnerable. 3. On one or more occasions between January 2023 to December 2023, in response to investigations into her conduct, she falsely claimed not to have contacted Pupil A via social media and/or exchanged messages with Pupil A. 4. Her conduct as described at paragraphs 1.c. and 3 above was dishonest in that she attempted to cover up for her conduct as described at paragraphs 1.a. and/or 1.b. and/or 1.d. above. 5. Her conduct as described at paragraph 1 above breached professional boundaries between her and Pupil A. Ms O’Loughlin Campbell admitted the allegations. Ms O’Loughlin Campbell admitted that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute. 5 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Anonymised person list – page 3 Section 2: Statement of agreed facts and notice of meeting – pages 4 to 10 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 11 to 53 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 54 to 146 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 147 to 161 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 Ms O’Loughlin Campbell on 4 November 2025. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting the TRA agreed to a request from Ms O’Loughlin Campbell 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. Ms O’Loughlin Campbell qualified as a teacher in 2021 and took up a post at Ferndale Primary School in September 2023. Between September 2021 and May 2022, she worked occasionally as a supply member of staff at Elmwood School (“the School”), a 6 s pecial secondary school for children with social, emotional and mental health needs. During her teacher training, she had not worked in a secondary school or school for children with social, emotional or mental health needs. Pupil A was a pupil at the School [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] met Ms O’Loughlin Campbell at the School. Concerns were raised about potential social media contact between Ms O’Loughlin Campbell and Pupil A in January and May 2023. Ms O’Loughlin Campbell was asked about this at the time but did not disclose anything. In October 2023, Pupil A made disclosures to [REDACTED] about Ms O’Loughlin Campbell. [REDACTED] provided [REDACTED] with screenshots of messages that Ms O’Loughlin Campbell had sent to [REDACTED], starting in January 2023, along with a screenshot of Ms O’Loughlin Campbell’s contact details. Multi-agency investigations followed. It was established that in January 2023, Ms O’Loughlin Campbell provided Pupil A with her contact details, and they became friends on Snapchat. Thereafter, they exchanged messages. On 1 February 2023, Ms O’Loughlin Campbell sent Pupil A a message saying: “Make sure you delete all the messages from here” In a further message, she told [REDACTED] not to save her number under her name. On 5 March 2023, she asked Pupil A to “Add me back on Snap” and subsequently sent [REDACTED] a text message telling him to “delete these messages”. On 22 November 2023, the School interviewed Ms O’Loughlin Campbell, and she said that she had not communicated with any pupils from the School after leaving in May 2022. She also said that her interactions with pupils were always formal. When shown a copy of the messages between her and Pupil A dating from 2023 she admitted that she had sent and received them. 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: While a teacher at Ferndale Primary School: 1. Between January and March 2023, you engaged in inappropriate communication with a former pupil, Pupil A, in that you: 7 a. Provided Pupil A with your mobile phone number. b. Exchanged messages with Pupil A. c. Told Pupil A to delete the messages you had exchanged with Pupil A. d. Told Pupil A to contact you via social media. This allegation was admitted and supported by evidence presented to the panel. The panel was satisfied that the admission was unequivocal and consistent with the evidence. The allegation was therefore found proved. 2. At the time of the conduct as described at paragraph 1 above, you knew or ought to have known that Pupil A was vulnerable. This allegation was admitted and supported by evidence presented to the panel. The panel was satisfied that the admission was unequivocal and consistent with the evidence. [REDACTED] Ms O’Loughlin Campbell admitted that she was aware [REDACTED]. The allegation was therefore found proved. 3. On one or more occasions between January 2023 to December 2023, in response to investigations into your conduct, you falsely claimed not to have contacted Pupil A via social media and/or exchanged messages with Pupil A. Ms O’Loughlin Campbell admitted that in a disciplinary interview in November 2023, she initially denied communicating with any of the pupils from the school after leaving in May 2022 and said her interactions with pupils were “always formal”. She also admitted that this had not been true. In her written submissions, she said that she had previously denied communicating with Pupil A when asked about it, and that she had maintained that denial in her disciplinary interview. This was consistent with the other evidence before the panel. The panel therefore found that this allegation was proved. 4. Your conduct as described at paragraphs 1.c. and 3 above was dishonest in that you attempted to cover up for your conduct as described at paragraphs 1.a. and/or 1.b. and/or 1.d. above. Ms O’Loughlin Campbell admitted this allegation. The panel was satisfied that her admission was unequivocal and consistent with other evidence, and therefore found this allegation proved. 5. Your conduct as described at paragraph 1 above breached professional boundaries between you and Pupil A. 8 Ms O’Loughlin Campbell admitted this allegation, and the panel concluded that as a matter of fact, her conduct did breach professional boundaries. It recognized that it did not have a copy of the school’s policy on this, but the panel was clear that her conduct towards a recent past pupil who had significant vulnerabilities was a breach of professional boundaries. The panel could envisage no circumstances in which the nature and type of contact that she had with Pupil A between January and March 2023 would fall within appropriate professional boundaries. Accordingly, it accepted her admission, which was unequivocal, and found this allegation proved. Findings as to unacceptable professional