Susan Pletnick

Introduction

Susan Pletnick is a former SENCO and teacher at Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox Primary School in Salford who is prohibited from teaching indefinitely after a Teaching Regulation Agency panel found she obtained thousands of pounds from her school, a colleague, parents and community members between 2016 and 2019, failed to repay most of it, and lied about doing so. The panel found her conduct dishonest, an abuse of her role, and grounds for a prohibition order; the decision maker, Sarah Buxcey, imposed the order on 3 February 2025 with a three-year review period — after rejecting two NHS letters supporting her postponement application as documents the panel had “concerns about the veracity” of.

Background Information

Pletnick moved from South Africa to Manchester and joined Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox Primary School around 4 April 2013, employed as a teacher and serving as the school’s SENCO — the special educational needs coordinator. Her contract of employment dated 25 April 2014 recorded her status as a teacher. In the summer of 2018 the school became aware of concerns that she had borrowed money from parents and began disciplinary proceedings, with a further investigation in March and April 2019. She resigned on 2 April 2019, and the school referred the matter to the TRA on 1 May 2019. The panel hearing — which she attended in person, unrepresented — took place virtually from 27 to 30 January 2025, nearly six years after the referral.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated findings. The panel found proven: that between approximately July 2016 and February 2019 Pletnick obtained or attempted to obtain money from her school’s charity account (around £4,000 ultimately outstanding), from a colleague (around £4,000), from the parents of a pupil (around £22,000), from another parent (£1,500), and engaged a person to guarantee a £1,400 charity payment on which she defaulted; that she refused or failed to adequately repay; that this abused her role as teacher and SENCO; and that her conduct lacked integrity and was dishonest.

The largest sums came from Persons D and E, parents who met Pletnick through her SENCO role and became friends with her. In February 2018 she told them flights to South Africa were unaffordable; Person D transferred £5,000, then £3,940 plus £500 cash for replacement flights. Later in 2018 she came to their home saying £12,800 was needed for a visa application or she would have to return to South Africa; they transferred £12,000 and gave her £800 cash, borrowing from other sources to do it. The panel reviewed NatWest transaction records, a handwritten note totalling £22,740, and screenshots of her repayment promises — none of the money was repaid. Person D described “devastating financial consequences” for his family. Pletnick admitted borrowing just over £22,000 but said they had offered. She also admitted asking Colleague A not to inform the school about the loans. In her evidence she said she did not appreciate it was wrong to borrow from parents and colleagues, explaining this would have been acceptable in South Africa. When asked why she told Persons D and E she would repay them when she knew she would not, the panel recorded that she accepted this could be described as dishonest conduct.

A striking sideline: to postpone the January 2025 hearing on health grounds, Pletnick relied on two letters on the headed paper of an NHS foundation trust, both dated 29 November 2024, with pages missing and a tone the panel found unusual. The TRA made enquiries; a nurse who had worked at the trust for 18 months, plus two longer-serving colleagues, had never heard of the letter’s named author, and the trust’s own email database could not find him. Pletnick never provided the missing pages. The panel made no express finding — the matter was not part of the allegations — but recorded “concerns about the veracity of the letters” and its impact on her credibility, and placed limited weight on her other supporting documents for the same reason.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The case passed without press coverage; the published TRA decision is the public record. The panel found the very fact of a teacher borrowing money from parents was unacceptable, as was failing to repay and providing “dishonest assurances regarding repayments”. It found her actions deliberate, sympathised with her financial difficulties after moving from South Africa, commended her work with children with special educational needs, but concluded she showed remorse primarily for her own situation rather than for the school, pupils, colleague, parents or guarantor affected — insufficient insight. The panel recommended prohibition; Buxcey agreed it was proportionate and in the public interest, setting a three-year review period rather than the two the panel had proposed, so the order cannot be set aside before 6 February 2028 at the earliest.

Current Status

Pletnick, born February 1969, is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. The order took effect from the date it was served on her, carries a review window opening three years from the order date, and is not an automatic right to have the prohibition removed — she would need to convince a fresh panel that the order should be set aside. She retains a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice; the published record shows none. Her teaching career in England, which began with a move from South Africa in 2013, ended with a resignation in April 2019 and a formal ban six years later.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The case establishes that at the Teaching Regulation Agency, financial misconduct can end a career as decisively as sexual misconduct — a teacher who borrows from parents has, in the panel’s words, stepped outside what the profession can tolerate. The aggravating features the panel identified were the scale (over £30,000 borrowed across five sources), the pattern over nearly three years, and the dishonest assurances about repayment, compounded at the eleventh hour by questionable documents supporting her postponement bid. For safeguarding-minded schools, it is a case study in why personal financial relationships between staff and parents are treated as boundaries rather than favours — and why a SENCO’s trusted position makes the breach one of position as well as money.

Sources

• Dept for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mrs Susan Pletnick” — source