A head teacher has dodged a teaching ban after taking a trip to a luxury spa while “working from home”.

Joanna Clark, the ex-head of Blackhall Primary School in Durham, was seen swimming in October 2020 during working hours.


A misconduct investigation found that she had visited the four-star Ramside Hall Hotel and Golf Club on two more occasions when she was meant to be working.

However, the Teacher Regulation Agency (TRA) let her off without a teaching ban after claiming that a ban would “deprive the public of her contribution to the profession”.

The TRA let her off without a teaching ban after claiming that a ban would “deprive the public of her contribution to the profession”

Getty

The panel heard that there was a “gradual deterioration” in Clark’s availability during her work hours between January 2019 and November 2020.

She was seen at the Spa on October 16, a decision she says she regretted deeply.

In November 2020 Clark went on sick leave after anonymous allegations were made against her to Durham County Council.

She was later suspended by the school, and finally resigned on August 31, 2021.

MORE LIKE THIS:

The TRA launched its own investigation, finding that 11 out of the 22 allegations against her were true.

Three of these relate to her attendance, whereabouts and spa visits.

However, the chairman of the panel, David Oatley, said banning her would deprive people of her contribution to her work.

The report said: “Mrs Clark had made a valuable contribution to the profession in the past and could do so again.”

Swimming pool

A misconduct investigation found that she had visited the four-star Ramside Hall Hotel and Golf Club to swim (Stock Image)

Getty

The document also acknowledged that the teacher was facing “difficult personal circumstances” during the period.

Oatley said: “I have agreed with the panel that there are extensive mitigating factors present in this case and that there is a strong public interest in retaining Mrs Clark in the profession.”

“For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest.”