A female PE teacher who hauled a terrified 12-year-old schoolgirl across the floor of a girls’ changing room because she was taking “too long” to tie her shoelaces has been allowed to continue teaching – sparking outrage among parents and child safety campaigners.

Charlotte Venables, a sports teacher at Stewards Academy in Harlow, Essex, grabbed the Year 8 pupil by the ankle, yanked her foot off the bench and sent her tumbling to the floor before seizing her by the wrist and dragging her out into the corridor in front of other shocked children.

The shocking incident, which happened on 6 September 2022, was captured on the school’s own CCTV and described in detail during a misconduct hearing by the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA).

Despite admitting unacceptable professional conduct and behaviour capable of bringing the teaching profession into disrepute, Venables has been spared a prohibition order that would have banned her from the classroom for life.

The TRA panel ruled that her actions were “entirely out of character”, that she had shown “deep” remorse and “exceptional” remediation, and that a ban would not be “proportionate” or in the public interest.

The decision has left many asking whether teachers who use physical force on vulnerable pupils are being held to a low enough standard – especially when the victim is a young girl in a state of undress in a changing room.

The moment a simple request turned into a disturbing display of force

It was a routine PE lesson at the secondary school in Harlow when Venables grew frustrated with the pace at which pupils were leaving the girls’ changing room to start the session.

According to the TRA panel findings, several girls were still inside when the teacher began counting down from 60 seconds, warning that she would “lock them in” if they did not hurry up.

One 12-year-old girl – referred to only as Child A – was sitting on a bench calmly tying her shoelaces. She politely asked for just 20 more seconds to finish.

Instead of waiting, Venables allegedly reached for the girl’s shoe, pulled her ankle and foot off the bench, causing the child to fall heavily onto the floor.

The teacher then grabbed the pupil by the wrist (or right arm) and dragged her across the changing room floor and out into the corridor, all while other children watched in disbelief.

Another pupil, Child C, was also allegedly pushed out of the room.

CCTV footage played during the hearing reportedly showed the full sequence, leaving panel members in no doubt that excessive force had been used.

Venables later admitted pulling the girl’s foot, causing her to fall, and dragging her by the wrist. She insisted her only intention was to “hurry the children along” so the lesson could begin on time and that she had not meant to harm or distress the child.

The pupil was left upset and shaken by the incident. Her parents were informed, and the school launched an internal investigation. Venables failed to properly report the full details to her superiors at the time, another factor considered by the panel.

‘Unacceptable professional conduct’ – but no ban

At the virtual hearing held between 2 and 4 March 2026, Venables admitted the key allegations against her.

The TRA panel found that she had used inappropriate and/or excessive force by:

• Pulling Child A’s ankle/foot off the bench
• Causing the girl to fall to the floor
• Grabbing her by the wrist/arm
• Dragging her across the floor and out of the changing room

She also admitted conduct capable of bringing the teaching profession into disrepute and failing to report the incident adequately.

Despite these serious findings, the panel decided against imposing a prohibition order – the strongest sanction available, which would have prevented her from teaching in any school, sixth-form college or children’s home in England.

In their published decision, the panel noted that Venables had shown genuine insight into her behaviour, expressed deep remorse, and had taken “exceptional” steps towards remediation since the incident.

They described the case as “genuinely exceptional” and concluded that a ban was not proportionate. Instead, no further order was made, meaning she remains free to teach.

Venables, who began working at Stewards Academy in September 2018, is no longer employed there, but the ruling allows her to seek work at other schools without the stain of a formal prohibition on her record.

Parents’ outrage: ‘How would you feel if this was your daughter?’

The lenient outcome has triggered a storm of criticism from parents, education unions and child protection groups.

Many have questioned how dragging a child across the floor in a changing room – a private, sensitive space where girls are often in a state of undress – can be viewed as anything other than a serious safeguarding failure.

One furious parent commented online: “If a parent did this to a child in public they would be arrested for assault. Why is it acceptable for a teacher?”

Another asked: “What message does this send to children? That teachers can manhandle you if you’re not fast enough?”

Child safety campaigners have pointed out that physical restraint should only ever be used as a last resort in schools, and even then with strict guidelines to avoid injury or humiliation – particularly with female pupils in changing rooms.

The fact that the incident occurred in front of other children has also raised concerns about the emotional impact on the wider group, who witnessed their classmate being treated in such a rough manner.

Stewards Academy, a science specialist secondary school, has not issued a detailed public comment on the TRA decision, but sources say the school took the matter seriously at the time and cooperated fully with the investigation.

Venables’ defence: ‘I was just trying to get the lesson started’

During the hearing, Venables told the panel she had become exasperated because the changing room process was taking too long and the lesson was being delayed.

She claimed she reached for the girl’s shoe to encourage her to move, not realising the force would cause her to fall. She insisted the dragging was not aggressive but an attempt to get the pupil out of the room quickly.

Her representatives emphasised that this was a one-off incident in an otherwise unblemished teaching career. Colleagues provided character references describing her as dedicated, enthusiastic and generally calm with pupils.

The panel accepted that the behaviour was “entirely out of character” and noted the significant personal reflection and remorse she had demonstrated in the years since.

They also took into account that no lasting physical injury was reported, although the emotional distress to the child was acknowledged.

The wider debate: Discipline, physical contact and teacher shortages

The case has reignited heated national debate about classroom discipline, the use of physical force by teachers, and whether the system is too quick to excuse misconduct when staffing pressures are high.

With chronic teacher shortages in subjects like PE, some argue that panels are reluctant to ban competent staff unless the behaviour is repeated or particularly egregious.

Critics counter that safeguarding children must always come first, and that any use of force on a child – especially a young girl – should carry serious consequences.

Education Secretary has faced calls in recent years to clarify guidelines on “reasonable force” in schools, with many teachers complaining they feel unsupported when dealing with challenging behaviour, while parents worry about overreach or abuse of power.

Unions have warned that without clear boundaries, incidents like this risk damaging trust between teachers, pupils and families.

What happens now for Charlotte Venables?

Although spared a ban, Venables’ career has undoubtedly been damaged. The public findings of the TRA panel will remain on record, and any future employer is likely to scrutinise her closely.

She must still comply with any conditions set by the school where she eventually works and demonstrate ongoing commitment to professional standards.

For the pupil involved, now several years older, the memory of being dragged across the floor in front of her peers may linger far longer than the official process.

Her family has not spoken publicly, but it is understood they cooperated with the investigation and hoped for stronger sanctions.

A troubling message for parents?

Many parents across Essex and beyond are left uneasy by the ruling. The image of a grown woman dragging a child by the wrist and ankle because she needed a few extra seconds to tie her shoelaces feels, to them, like a basic failure of care and control.

“How would you feel if this was your daughter?” has become a common refrain on social media and in parent forums.

Others have defended the decision, arguing that teaching is a high-pressure job, that mistakes happen, and that a one-off lapse in judgment should not end a career when genuine remorse is shown.

The TRA panel clearly took the latter view, describing the case as exceptional and prioritising Venables’ overall record and remediation over a lifetime ban.

Yet for critics, the decision risks sending the wrong signal: that physical handling of pupils, even in frustration, will not always result in the ultimate professional penalty.

As schools grapple with rising behavioural issues post-pandemic, the balance between discipline and safeguarding remains delicate and highly contentious.

Charlotte Venables may have kept her right to teach – but the court of public opinion appears far less forgiving.

The full TRA decision and reasons have been published on the GOV.UK website, providing parents and teachers with a detailed account of the evidence, admissions and panel’s reasoning.