Ms Karen Horler

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 Karen Horler

Teacher reference number: 3339581

Teacher's date of birth: 11 September 1968

Location teacher worked: West Yorkshire, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 2 to 6 March 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 Karen Horler formerly employed in West Yorkshire, 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 Karen Horler: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 22 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 Karen Horler Teacher ref number: 3339581 Teacher date of birth: 11 September 1968 TRA reference: 23686 Date of determination: 6 March 2026 Former employer: The Co-Operative Academy, Leeds Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 2 to 6 March 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mrs Horler. The panel members were Mrs Beverley Montgomery (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist) and Mrs Diane Underwood (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Samantha Cass of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Mark Millin of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mrs Horler was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 9 December 2025, as amended by the panel during the hearing. It was alleged that Mrs Horler was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as the Director of Personalised Provision and Sendco at the Co-Op Academy (the “Academy”): 1. On or around 8 September 2023, she: a. did not observe a Special Educational Needs (‘SEN’) teaching assistant candidate’s lesson; b. provided a false verbal account of a lesson observation to other members of the panel in relation to a SEN teaching assistant candidate, in that she was not present. 2. On or around 14 September 2023, she: a. provided a false written account via email of a lesson observation to other members of the panel in relation to a SEN teaching assistant candidate, in that she was not present. 3. Between around January 2023 to September 2023, she a. did not conduct regular visits to Pupil A’s home during her extended period of absence from the Academy. 4. Between around January 2023 to July 2023, she: a. did not keep up to date records on the Academy’s safeguarding system regarding the home visits to Pupil A. 5. On or around 22 May 2023 and/or 3 July 2023, she: a. completed Colleague A’s formal induction review forms for him by writing comments on his behalf and/or electronically signing his name, without his knowledge or consent. 6. Her conduct at 1 (b), 2 (a) and/or 5 (a) was: a. Misleading; and/or b. Dishonest. 5 Mrs Horler made no admissions in relation to allegation 4(a) and denied allegations 1(a), 1(b), 2, 3, 5(a), 6(a) and 6(b). Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 5 to 7 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 8 to 13 Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 14 to 38 Section 4: TRA exhibits – pages 39 to 611 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 612 to 671 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • 34-page service bundle – 672 to 706 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. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the 2020 Procedures. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] Witness B - [REDACTED] Witness C - [REDACTED] Witness D - [REDACTED] Witness E - [REDACTED] 6 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 September 2014, Mrs Horler commenced employment at the Academy as the Director of Personalised Provision and Senco. On 15 March 2023, Mrs Horler, had a meeting with Pupil A’s mother, Witness D and the Deputy Headteacher where it was allegedly agreed that Mrs Horler would take on sole responsibility of conducting weekly home visits to Pupil A. On 8 September 2023, the Academy held interviews for the position of a SEN teaching assistant (“TA”) role. This process included an in-class observation. Following a complaint from one of the candidates to the Academy, it subsequently came to light that Mrs Horler allegedly did not observe the in-class recruitment exercise for one of the candidates. Between 8 and 11 September 2023, concerns about Mrs Horler’s conduct were brought to the attention of Witness C by the stepfather of Pupil A. It came to light that Mrs Horler had allegedly failed to adequately safeguard Pupil A in that she had not conducted regular home visits. It subsequently came to light that Mrs Horler failed to conduct the weekly home visits for Pupil A during an extended period of absence between January 2023 and September 2023, and that Mrs Horler allegedly failed to keep updated records on the Academy’s safeguarding system regarding the home visits to Pupil A. On 14 September 2023, Mrs Horler allegedly provided a false verbal account of a lesson observation to other members of the interview panel for a SEN TA candidate on 8 September 2023 and a false written account of the same observation by email for safer recruitment records. On 25 September 2023, the Academy conducted an internal investigation into the allegations concerning Mrs Horler. It subsequently came to light that when Witness A was successfully appointed as a High-Level Teaching Assistant (“HLTA”) at the Academy, Mrs Horler had allegedly completed and signed induction documents which recorded the induction tasks that Mrs Horler had completed with him on behalf of Witness A without his knowledge or consent. On 31 December 2023, Mrs Horler left employment at the Academy. On 8 May 2024, the matter was referred to the TRA. 7 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows. The panel considered that there was evidence in the bundle which was hearsay evidence and therefore considered the appropriate amount of weight to attach to such evidence, in each case, during the professional conduct panel meeting. You are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as the Director of Personalised Provision and Senco at the Co-Op Academy (‘the Academy’): 1. On or around 8 September 2023, you: a. did not observe a Special Educational Needs (‘SEN’) teaching assistant candidate’s lesson; Mrs Horler denied allegation 1(a). The panel considered the written and oral evidence of Witness C who explained that on 8 September 2023, the Academy had undertaken a recruitment process for a TA position. The panel then considered the written and oral evidence of Witness E who stated that Mrs Horler was responsible for carrying out the observations of the in-class tasks for both candidates for the TA position. The panel went on to consider the written and oral evidence of Witness B who explained that he was the teacher of the lesson that the candidates undertook their in-class exercise for the TA role. Witness B further stated that Mrs Horler did not explicitly tell him that he was responsible for the observations. Witness B also submitted that his role was to teach the maths lesson to the pupils and not to observe. In his evidence, Witness B stated that Mrs Horler had the observation papers with her on the day of the recruitment process and explained that the papers were used for jotting down notes for the candidates. Witness B said in his evidence that Mrs Horler had told him that the first candidate had arrived 20 to 30 minutes late, was "dressed inappropriately"; and that Mrs Horler was unhappy about this. Witness B then stated that Mrs Horler left the room after five minutes of observing the first candidate and did not return. Witness B stated, in his evidence, that Mrs Horler did not observe the in-class task for the second candidate. Witness B stated that Mrs Horler “dropped [the second candidate] off” in his classroom and then left. Witness B stated that after the in-class task, Mrs Horler verbally asked him how the in-class task for the second candidate went and he responded that the second candidate was “really good”. 8 The panel considered the email chain between Witness B, Mrs Horler and Witness E. In the email chain recorded on 13 September 2023, Witness E had asked Mrs Horler and Witness B to send the observation notes on the in-class task of the second candidate. The panel then considered the email dated 13 September 2023 which recorded Mrs Horler asking Witness B to provide her with the feedback for the candidate in Witness B’s lesson and that she would then forward to Witness E. The panel also had sight of a text message dated 14 September 2023 at 06:40 from Mrs Horler asking Witness B for the feedback. The email chain recorded Witness B sending an email to Mrs Horler and Witness E on 14 September 2023 at 08:28 which recorded Witness B stating that he was teaching at the time and was unable to observe the candidate. In his email, Witness B had stated that the candidate “worked well with [REDACTED] with a mini whiteboard”; that s he “helped explain some questions to Pupil B” and that she “worked on the [pupils’] level and moved around the room well between both [pupils]”. The panel then considered the subsequent email sent by