PICTURED: Married headteacher who had sex with a colleague for four hours in his office

This is the married headteacher who spent almost four hours having sex with a colleague in his office while chaos reigned in his school.

Four fights broke out and three teachers were assaulted while Executive Head Adam Price and a fellow teacher, identified only as Person B, stripped off to ‘engage in sexual activities.

There was outrage this week when the Teaching Regulation Agency allowed Mr Price, 40, to continue in his profession despite the stain on his copybook.

In not banning him from teaching again, Duncan Tilley, who chaired the hearing, said: ‘The panel noted Mr Price’s insight into his misconduct and the consequences of it. He expressed remorse that appeared to the panel to be genuine.

‘The devastating impact that his conduct had had on him and his family led the panel to conclude that the risk of repetition was low.

‘The panel considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient.’

Mr Price was in charge of Northern House School Academy Trust, a pupil referral unit in Wolverhampton, when the incident occurred on January 27 2020.

The hearing was told that on the day three members of staff were absent and that ‘Person B’ had cancelled one staff member’s off-site training to fill the gaps.

But she then joined Mr Price in his office for a three hours and 50 minutes during which time fellow staff members were assaulted and four fights broke out between pupils.

Their shocking behaviour and secret affair came to light a month later, after anonymous letters were sent to the school prompting Mr Price to resign in disgrace.

Duncan Tilley told the hearing in Coventry ‘Mr Price was referred to the TRA on 20 February 2020.

‘It was reported that two anonymous letters had been received by the school which had questioned the behaviour of Mr Price and another member of staff, Person B, including the nature of their relationship.

‘One of those letters questioned what they had been doing during the day in Mr Price’s office when pupils and other staff were on site.

‘A review of CCTV footage for 27 January 2020 was undertaken which revealed that Mr Price and Person B had been engaging in sexual activities in Mr Price’s office that day.’

The married headteacher spent 3 hours and 50 minutes in his office with Person B where they engaged in sexual activities

He added: ‘Mr Price admitted that on 27 January 2020 he and Person B were together in his office for much of the working day; approximately 3 hours 50 minutes in total.

‘During this time, Mr Price admitted that he and Person B engaged in sexual activities and there were periods of time when Mr Price and Person B were unclothed.

‘The panel heard that on the day in question there had been three assaults on staff and four separate fights between pupils.

‘The referral document also stated that three members of staff who worked in the school were off that day and that, because of this, Person B had requested additional cover and cancelled one employee’s scheduled off site training.’

Mr Price also admitted breaching Northern House School’s ‘Relationships at Work’ Policy by failing to declare a personal relationship with Person B.

The panel turned down Mr Price’s application for anonymity but stopped short of banning him from teaching.

It recommended no teaching ban as Mr Price had a previous good history and had made a valuable contribution to the profession, working with challenging pupils.

John Knowles, speaking for the Education Secretary, said: ‘In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Price, there was a public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils, given that in acting as he did on the day concerned, he failed to place the safety and welfare of children above all considerations.

‘However, based on all of the evidence presented, the panel concluded that the risk to pupils arising from his conduct was not significant.’