Georgina Graham (Barnsley teacher)
Introduction
Georgina Graham is a former Early Years Foundation Stage teacher at Hunningley Primary School in Barnsley who was banned from teaching after a panel found she used inappropriate and excessive force on two young pupils during a lunch-hour incident in March 2023 — dragging a distressed girl across the dining hall floor by one hand, and grabbing a boy by the wrists, lifting him and dropping him on the floor. Graham, 48, did not attend her Teaching Regulation Agency hearing, so the case proceeded as disputed, but the panel found the central allegations proved against the weight of staff evidence and her own written admissions. She was prohibited from teaching with a three-year review period.
Background Information
The incident occurred on 17 March 2023 in the dining hall and adjoining corridors of Hunningley Primary School, during the lunch period, while Graham was working as the school’s EYFS teacher. Pupil A, a young girl, had become upset and overwhelmed by her surroundings; a colleague had sat calmly with her and she had calmed down before the encounter with Graham. Pupil B, a young boy, paused outside the dining hall to “regroup” before going in. Both children were described by the panel as vulnerable. Multiple members of staff witnessed parts of what followed and gave statements to the school, to the police, and to the TRA.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated, disputed, absent. Graham was absent from the hearing and the allegations were taken as not admitted, though she had made admissions in correspondence. Several particulars were found not proved; the core force allegations were proved. A police referral produced no reported charge.
What witnesses described was consistent and physical. One colleague, whose evidence the panel found honest and credible, described hearing a scream and turning to see Graham holding Pupil A’s hand and shouting at her to get up while the girl lay on the floor, then dragging her across the floor by one hand, “almost like a child dragging a teddy or a doll along the floor behind them”. The girl was screaming “no stop let go”, kicking and crying; her bottom half was limp as she was pulled along. Another colleague described Graham lifting Pupil A with her hands under her arms from behind, the girl’s feet off the ground, putting her down in a foetal position, then carrying her two-handed and “dumping” her in the classroom, where she was dropped on the floor. The panel found the dragging, the picking up and the dropping of Pupil A proved as excessive force.
Pupil B’s treatment, minutes later, followed the same pattern. A colleague walking him to the hall said Graham walked up behind him with no warning and grabbed him by the wrists, after which his body “dangled” as she dragged him into the hall and dropped him on the floor, telling him words to the effect of “you can stay there, on the floor” as he sat and cried. The panel found the wrist-grab, the lifting and the dropping proved, observing that Pupil B posed no risk to anyone when he paused to regroup, and that Graham had pre-empted his actions based on his past behaviour rather than assessing the situation. In correspondence seeking agreed facts, Graham had admitted the physical contact, that her intervention was inappropriate, and that she dropped Pupil B as she lowered him, saying she had been in shock at her own “wrong decision”.
Not everything was proved. The panel found not proved the allegations that she pulled or lifted Pupil A from her chair, that she slammed her hands down on the table in front of Pupil A, and one further allegation, putting those matters entirely from its mind. It also found proved that after the incident with Pupil A she continued to interact with her despite other members of staff telling her to stop or offering to help, and that she shouted loudly and aggressively at the girl. On insight, the panel accepted Graham made admissions, but found it “limited as she had sought to justify the level of force used and challenged the seriousness of her conduct”, with no evidence she had learnt from the incidents or could recognise and manage a loss of control.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The school referred the incident to the police, and witnesses gave police statements, but no criminal charge was reported. The regulatory panel found the proved conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct, breaching the Teachers’ Standards on treating pupils with dignity and safeguarding their wellbeing, and described “serious findings of using inappropriate and excessive force in relation to two vulnerable pupils”. Public confidence, it said, could be seriously weakened if such conduct were not treated with the utmost seriousness. It recommended a prohibition order with a three-year review period, and decision maker David Oatley, acting for the Secretary of State on 17 December 2025, made the order.
Current Status
Graham 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 order to be set aside, but not until 7 January 2029 — three years from the date of the order. The application is not automatic; a panel would reconsider the findings and the panel’s conclusion that her insight remained limited because she had justified the force rather than accepted its seriousness. The determination is dated 16 December 2025 and the outcome was published on 19 January 2026. No appeal was reported.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The ban closes a teaching career over a single lunch hour, but the panel’s reasoning makes clear why the regulator treated it as more than a bad day: two children, both vulnerable, both physically handled in ways witnesses compared to dragging a doll, and a teacher who in correspondence called her own intervention a mistake while continuing to justify the force used. Any application after January 2029 would have to confront the panel’s finding that she had not shown she could recognise and manage a loss of control — the specific thing an EYFS post demands.