Ms Sarah Clancy

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 Sarah Clancy

Teacher reference number: 0239189

Teacher's date of birth: 23 September 1972

Location teacher worked: Whitby, Yorkshire and the Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 26 to 29 January 2026, 12 March 2026 and 1 April 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 Sarah Clancy, formerly employed in Whitby, Yorkshire and the Humber.

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.

OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Ms Sarah Clancy: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2026 2 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 35 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 40 3 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Sarah Clancy Teacher ref number: 239189 Teacher date of birth: 23 September 1972 TRA reference: 20542 Date of determination: 1 April 2026 Former employer: Eskdale School, Whitby Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 26 to 29 January 2026, 12 March 2026 and 1 April 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Sarah Clancy. The panel members were Mr Richard Young (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Amanda Godfrey (teacher panellist) and Mr Scott Evans (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Kimberley Clayton of Birketts LLP solicitors. The Presenting Officer for the TRA on 26 to 29 January 2026 was Ms Sherelle Appleby of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. The Presenting Officer for the TRA on 12 March 2026 was Ms Oyin Makinde of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Ms Clancy was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 11 November 2025. It was alleged that Ms Clancy was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed at Eskdale School (the “School”) between November 2018 and May 2021: 1. She failed to take appropriate action and/or ensure appropriate action was taken with respect to safeguarding disclosures concerning one or more pupils in that she failed to report to the headteacher that: a. There had been an incident whereby two children had sexually touched a girl; b. That a child had brought a bladed instrument to school; c. That a child with suicidal tendencies attended school in need of attention; d. That a child’s father had died. 2. Her conduct at 1(a) above was despite being asked by the headteacher whether there were any safeguarding concerns to raise. 3. She engaged in inappropriate discussions with office staff at the School in which she discussed: a. A pupil being sexually active; b. A child’s sexual preferences; c. The fact that a child had seen his mother naked and that this could constitute grooming. 4. She engaged in inappropriate discussions with parents of children at the School in which she: a. Stated that Individual A, [REDACTED] had failed in his safeguarding duty; b. Encouraged a complaint to be made. 5. She engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour towards one or more staff members within the Whitby Schools Partnership, including by making comments to other staff members to the effect of: a. Calling Individual A a misogynist; 5 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE b. Stating that Individual A drinks and takes drugs on a weekend; c. Stating that Individual A had been employed to drag the School down; d. Stating that Individual B lacks competency and professionalism; e. Stating that Individual C was “bordering unfit to be in post”; f. Stating that Individual D “has form for getting pissed”; g. Commenting on Individual E’s ability to do their job. Ms Clancy denied allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 2, 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 4(a), 4(b), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(e), 5(f) and 5(g) as set out in her response to the Notice of Proceedings (undated). Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of proceedings and response/anonymised person list – pages 21 to 32 Section 2: TRA witness statements – pages 34 to 189 Section 3: TRA documents – pages 191 to 2020 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 2022 to 2034 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Ms Clancy’s written response to the hearsay application dated 24 January 2026 – to be numbered pages 2035 to 2037; • Character references from [REDACTED], dated 31 December 2025 – to be numbered pages 2038 to 2039; • Character reference from [REDACTED], dated 23 January 2026 – to be numbered pages 2040 to 2044; and • Character reference from [REDACTED] (undated) – to be numbered pages 2045 to 2047. 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. 6 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 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] [REDACTED], despite the direction at an earlier Case Management Hearing on 17 June 2025 that he may use a witness supporter, chose to give evidence without the proposed supporter. 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 October 2017, Ms Clancy commenced employment at Eskdale School. On 22 November 2018, Ms Clancy allegedly sent text messages to Witness A which said that Individual D “has form for getting pissed”. On the first day of term in September 2019, there was an announcement that a pupil’s father had passed away and that Ms Clancy was aware of the father’s passing. It is alleged that Ms Clancy failed to inform Witness A, [REDACTED], of the pupil’s [REDACTED]. On 2 October 2019, there was an incident involving three pupils, Individual A and two other colleagues. It is alleged that Ms Clancy invited one of the pupil’s parents to make a complaint against Individual A in relation to the interaction. In October 2019, there was an incident where a pupil was verbally threatened by an external IT contractor. A few days later it is alleged that Ms Clancy had encouraged that pupil’s parent to make a complaint about how Individual A had handled the incident. On 27 November 2019, Witness A spoke to an external trainer and it is alleged that Ms Clancy told the external trainer that a child with [REDACTED] was in need of attention and that she had failed to inform Witness A of this. It is alleged that Ms Clancy failed to inform Witness A that two pupils had sexually touched a female pupil on 3 December 2019. 7 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE It is alleged that Ms Clancy failed to inform Witness A that a child had brought a bladed instrument to the School on 10 December 2019. On an unknown date, an unnamed individual submitted a written statement which alleged that during a meeting, Ms Clancy had said that Individual A had been employed to drag the School down and took drugs and drank on the weekends. On a date which is unclear, Ms Clancy allegedly sent a text message to Witness A which said that Individual B “lacked competency and professionalism” and that Individual C was “bordering unfit to be in post”. On 28 October 2019, [REDACTED] disclosed to Witness A that Ms Clancy had allegedly inappropriately discussed with staff members a pupil’s sexual activity; another pupil’s sexual orientation; and had submitted that a pupil had seen his mother naked and had allegedly stated that this “could constitute grooming”. On 5 November 2019, Witness A disclosed to [REDACTED], concerns relating to Ms Clancy’s conduct. On 6 January 2020, Ms Clancy was suspended from the School. On 14 May 2021, Ms Clancy’s employment with the School ended. On 21 January 2022, the matter was referred to the TRA. 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: Whilst employed at Eskdale School between November 2018 and May 2021: 1. You failed to take appropriate action and/or ensure appropriate action was taken with respect to safeguarding disclosures concerning one or more pupils in that you failed to report to the headteacher that: a. There had been an incident whereby two children had sexually touched a girl; Ms Clancy denied allegation 1(a). The panel considered the written and oral evidence of Witness A. He stated that Ms Clancy was the Designated Safeguarding Lead (“DSL”) at the School and when he created the job description for the role of DSL, he emphasised that safeguarding at the School should be approached as a team responsibility and that he had communicated 8 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE the key expectations to Ms Clancy. He also explained to her that the School was “not an island” and that information needed to be shared appropriately. In his oral evidence, Witness A reiterated the importance of working collaboratively and said he believed that Ms Clancy understood the need to report matters accurately. He stated that, in October 2019, Ms Clancy had requested that the role of DSL be incorporated permanently into her job description, and it was agreed that this would be done with a review after one year. Witness A said that their working relationship was initially positive, however this changed after Ms Clancy offered a role to an individual who had been