Suspended Oasis Academy Teacher Avoids Ban

Jill Turetzky carried pupil into class after he refused to return from break

The playground at Oasis Academy Putney

April 3, 2024

A teacher at a school in Putney has been allowed to go back to teaching after carrying a pupil across a playground when he refused to return to class. Jill Turetzky started working as a primary school teacher at Oasis Academy Putney in September 2019 and resigned in June 2020 following the incident.

A Teaching Regulation Agency panel found in February Ms Turetzky engaged in inappropriate physical contact with the year one pupil, who was described as vulnerable, during the incident on January 24, 2020. The school suspended Ms Turetzky four days later and she resigned from her position on 3 June.

The teacher misconduct panel viewed CCTV footage of the incident which showed Ms Turetzky speaking to the pupil for around 20 seconds while he was in a teepee in the playground after he refused to return to class following lunchtime break. She then pulled him up from the floor by his arms and out of the teepee.

Ms Turetzky placed her arm to the side of the pupil’s neck and across his upper chest and momentarily lifted him off the ground before taking him across the playground to the entrance of the classroom. The panel found she effectively carried him across the playground as he could not fully bear his own weight. It saw he showed signs of distress as he tried to pull her arm from across his chest and that he was saying or shouting something.

A witness said in a statement for the hearing – held from 19 to 23 February– that the pupil was screaming he could not breathe after Ms Turetzky dragged him out of the teepee, but that she ignored him and continued to take him into the classroom. He said she continued to hold onto him after they returned to the classroom and released him after the doors were locked. The panel was provided with an account of the incident from the pupil where he reported that he “couldn’t breathe”.

Ms Turetzky said she recalled the pupil yelling but did not hear him say he could not breathe. The panel considered it was likely she had not appreciated what the pupil was shouting as she was caught up in the incident.

It found she continued her physical intervention on the pupil in the playground and the classroom despite him showing signs of distress, and that it was more likely than not that he said he could not breathe.

The panel concluded Ms Turetzky’s actions amounted to unacceptable professional conduct but that imposing a prohibition order on her would be inappropriate. It accepted she was experiencing personal difficulties at the time of the incident and that it was out of character.

It said she had previously shown “exceptionally high standards” in her personal and professional conduct and had chosen to work with pupils with special educational needs after resigning from the school, which she has done successfully for two years “without incident”.

A report on the outcome of the hearing, published on 13 March, said: “The panel was satisfied that Ms Turetzky had developed insight into her actions and is remorseful for them.

She referred to the wellbeing of Pupil A and his mother having been very much always on her mind and that she reflects on the impact of her actions on a daily basis and how they would have affected him. She referred to feeling a great deal of guilt for the incident and said that it has ‘laid a shadow on who I am’.”

Ruling on behalf of the Education Secretary, Marc Cavey agreed with the panel’s recommendation not to impose a prohibition order on Ms Turetzky. He wrote, “In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning the degree of insight that Ms Turetzky has demonstrated into what appears to be a one-off incident, her previous good character, her contribution to the profession over a long period and the fact that, in its view, the misconduct found was at the less serious end of the possible spectrum.

“For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest. I consider that the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession.”

Charlotte Lilywhite - Local Democracy Reporter