Mr Abu Tanvir

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Abu Tanvir

Teacher reference number: 3755689

Teacher's date of birth: 1 November 1989

Location teacher worked: Greenford, London

Date of professional conduct panel: 10 November 2025 to 12 November 2025

Outcome type: prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Abu Tanvir, formerly employed in Greenford, London.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Abu Tanvir: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 6 Introduction 6 Evidence considered by the panel 6 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 20 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 25 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Abu Tanvir Teacher ref number: 3755689 Teacher date of birth: 1 November 1989 TRA reference: 21943 Date of determination: 12 November 2025 Former employer: William Perkin Church of England High School, London Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 10 November 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Abu Tanvir. The panel members were Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Francis Ekengwu (lay panellist) and Dr Sheila Cunningham (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Delme Griffiths of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Matilda Heselton of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Tanvir was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 12 June 2025. It was alleged that Mr Tanvir was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. He failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with one or more pupils, by: a. making one or more inappropriate comments, namely by i. Referring to a woman being fingered by someone with dirty fingernails; ii. Stating Gen-Z is promiscuous and/or slept around; iii. Referring to a specific pupil when explaining the differences between the male and female by highlighting the pupil’s breasts and/or weight; iv. Stating a pupil would “know all about them parts” or using words to that effect, and/or implying a pupil was a whore when discussing the psychosexual stages; v. Implying a pupil showed the symptoms of ASD / ADHD and/or should get tested; vi. Telling one or more pupils to make a Tinder account; vii. Telling one or more pupils to research ‘tea-bagging’; b. Discussing aspects of his personal life, namely why he broke up with his former partner and/or the legal agreement made with her family; c. Calling a member of staff a ‘moody bitch’ in the presence of one or more pupils; d. Suggesting that he did not like how a member of staff acts and/or stating “just because he went to Cambridge, does not mean he is better than anyone else” or using words to that effect; e. Telling one or more pupils not to talk about what he said in lessons; 5 2. His behaviour as may be found proven at; a. 1a above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated; b. 1e above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. At the outset of the hearing and in response to a preliminary application made by the TRA, allegations 1(a)(iv), 1(a)(v), 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d) were withdrawn. Allegations 1(a)(i) and 1(e) were also amended. Details of those matters are set out in the next section. In relation to the remaining allegations, they were all denied by Mr Tanvir. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 6 to 8 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 10 to 21 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 24 to 26 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 123 to 158 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 161 to 178 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the later submission from Mr Tanvir together with correspondence post-dating the Notice. These were added as pages 179 to 203. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel also had regard to the document ‘Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020’ (“the Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: • Pupil R • Individual A6 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Introduction On 31 August 2022, Mr Tanvir commenced employment as [REDACTED] teacher at the William Perkin Church of England School (“the School”). On or around 6 February 2023, an investigation commenced into Mr Tanvir’s conduct when a [REDACTED] pupil reported, by email, that Mr Tanvir had used inappropriate language in a lesson. On 7 February 2023, Mr Tanvir was suspended from duties. On 8 and 9 February 2023, other [REDACTED] pupils were spoken to as part of the School’s initial enquiries. Mr Tanvir was interviewed on 27 February 2023. [REDACTED] was subsequently appointed to conduct an investigation, at which point pupils were formally interviewed. At the conclusion of the investigation, a disciplinary process was instigated. On 19 April 2023, a disciplinary hearing was held. On 9 May 2023, Mr Tanvir was referred to the TRA. Evidence considered by the panel The panel carefully considered all of the evidence presented. It accepted the legal advice provided. The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: • Pupil R • Individual A The TRA also relied upon the accounts from other pupils, obtained during the School’s investigation, which were admitted as hearsay evidence. The panel was satisfied this gave rise to no unfairness in the specific circumstances of this case, in terms of admissibility. Individual A gave helpful information regarding the investigation process in terms where each of the pupils provided handwritten, signed statements and typed transcripts of those were included in evidence. 7 The panel recognised the need to consider the hearsay evidence with appropriate caution. Not least, it was unable to form a view as to the credibility of the individuals or explore the extent to which the particular incidents were discussed amongst the pupils, which would inevitably have happened at the time the events occurred. However, the panel did not accept the suggestion made by Mr Tanvir that pupils were improperly motivated towards him, such that the accounts may have been fabricated. There was no clear evidence to support this. Not least, it was apparent from [Individual A evidence that the pupils did not independently come forward and were approached as part of the investigation when they were identified by other pupils. That negated Mr Tanvir’s suggestion that the pupils were colluding “to get [him] out of the teaching profession”, even if it was correct to say that at least some pupils were unhappy about the extent of his absence(s) given the timing and proximity to examinations, something Pupil R referenced in their evidence. In addition, whilst there were consistency and some common themes between different accounts, there were also differences between them and acknowledgements of uncertainty in terms of recollections. That also undermined the notion of pupils conspiring improperly, even if the panel repeats that it recognised that it was likely that discussions between pupils would have been inevitable in relation to what happened in individual lessons. Ultimately, the panel determined that fairness could be met by admitting the pupils’ accounts and considering what weight attached to them, given no one account was sole and decisive in relation to the allegations that remained. It was able to consider the extent to which the accounts were, for example, supportive of the allegations, or not, and consistent both internally and with reference to other accounts. Mr Tanvir did not attend the hearing. In his absence, the panel carefully considered the responses he provided to the TRA during the course of these proceedings. The panel confirmed it had not relied upon any findings made during the School’s investigation or subsequently. Insofar as the case papers alluded to other alleged failings on the part of Mr Tanvir that did not comprise a formal allegation in these proceedings, that information was disregarded and excluded from the panel’s deliberations. That included the allegations that were withdrawn at the outset of the case and the evidence relating to them. Similarly, with reference to the various opinions set out within the evidence, the panel was mindful of the need to exercise its own judgement. It was for the panel, not anyone else, to draw inferences and conclusions from proven facts in this case. 8 The panel proceeded to form its own, independent view of the allegations based on the evidence presented to it. Findings of fact 1. You failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with one or more pupils, by: a. making one or more inappropriate comments, namely by i. Referring to a woman being fingered by someone with one or more dirty fingernails; Allegation 1(a) concerned various comments alleged to have been made by Mr Tanvir in the presence of pupils, which were said to be inappropriate and amounted to a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. In relation to each of the alleged comments, the panel therefore first considered whether the TRA had proved that the comment was made before considering, in relation to any proven comment, then whether this was inappropriate and, if so, a professional boundary breach. In relation to allegation 1(a)(i) and the specific comment set out, the panel was presented with various relevant, written accounts from pupils. In particular, it was addressed by Pupil R in their evidence to the panel. Pupil R’s statement records: “… he was explaining how he had seen a TikTok where a woman expressed that she got a UTI/STI from someone fingering her with a dirty fingernail.” The hearsay accounts from Pupil A, Pupil D, Pupil F, Pupil H, Pupil I, Pupil K, Pupil O and Pupil T all referenced this specific comment in near identical terms, for example: • Pupil K – “We were discussing relationships when Mr Tanvir suddenly mentioned seeing a TikTok post where a girl listed her sexual experiences. He then explicitly told us she was ‘fingered by dirty fingernails’, resulting in an infection. This comment was shocking, unnecessary, and made many pupils, especially the girls, feel extremely uncomfortable.” • Pupil D – “At the start of this year, January, we were studying the topic called Relationships and we were talking about physical attraction. Mr Tanvisr started speaking about how fingering girls with long nails causes infections-basically giving advice to the boys and telling them not to do that.” 9 • Student H – “The example related to a 3rd year university student who recorded the number of sexual encounters that they had within the first year of her studies (which averaged to approximately 3-5 people a week). Within this example, there was a graphic mentioning of how this woman contracted an infection due to being ‘fingered’ with unclean fingernails. (sic)” • Student T – “In one of my psychology lessons (sexual penetration theory I think) … he also said something about dirty fingernails and fingering …” This allegation was denied by Mr Tanvir, who stated that he could not “fathom speaking about this with friends or even family, let alone students”. However, the panel placed particular weight on the volume of evidence and the consistency between the pupils’ respective accounts. Based on this evidence, it concluded, on balance, that Mr Tanvir did make a comment to this effect. Whilst Mr Tanvir hinted at pupils being improperly motivated towards him in relation to this allegation, for the reasons set out above the panel did not see any evidence of this. Mr Tanvir did not and could not account for the number of pupils who referenced this specific comment and the consistency between them. The panel also concluded that this was an inappropriate comment to make and was of a nature that constituted a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. On the evidence available, the panel considered this comment went far beyond what was strictly necessary from a teaching perspective, even if several of the pupils’ accounts did link it to a particular topic being taught in terms of relationships. The balance of evidence appeared to indicate the comment linked to a video he had seen and referenced a sexual act and behaviour, in the context of which he made a comment that was over-familiar and did not differentiate with reference to the circumstances and experiences of those in the class. It negatively impacted on the class with a number of pupils reporting that they were made to feel uncomfortable, which was indicative of boundaries having been crossed, noting the tone and content of the comment, which was certainly over-casual. The panel therefore found allegation 1(a)(i) proved. ii. Stating Gen-Z is promiscuous and/or slept around; 10 Pupil R stated that they heard Mr Tanvir make a comment during a lesson that “our generation (gen z) sleep around a lot”, though in oral evidence they could not recall the learning context. Over and above Pupil R’s evidence, the panel was presented with the following hearsay accounts which alluded to comments attributed to Mr Tanvir purporting to reference, in class, the promiscuity of the pupils’ generation: • Student H - “One of the things that he frequently mentioned during these lessons where) ‘Gen Zs’ and how ‘our generation’ in particular appears to celebrate promiscuity more and accept having multiple partners or a high ‘body count’ as the norm. … he provided an example of this in within our generation to explain the biological factors relating to relationships and how men are expected to be more promiscuities than a woman to procreate more frequently and how this was consequently androcentric biased as its condiment female promiscuity.” (sic) • Student I - “He often speaks about how Genz is promiscuous and sleep around.” • Student O - “Mr Abu Tanvir had used an example which could be seen as inappropriate whilst teaching the topic of relationships in psychology. The incident occurred before the Christmas break [REDACTED]. He had actually used this example to highlight how women of “our generation” are more promiscuous.” Mr Tanvir denied this allegation, but in terms that appeared to accept that a remark referencing ‘Gen Z’ and sexual practices was raised in a [REDACTED] class discussion, stating: “This was said under the research context of an article published that spoke of how casual relationships are much more prevalent for Gen Z in comparison to previous generations within the module of relationships Psychology without making anything sound derogatory. Pupils were asked to read the articles and to lend their thoughts and opinions as to whether they agree or disagree where some agreed with it whilst others did not. The point for the conversation was in reference to the aspect of relationship psychology where we explore the ‘formation of relationships’ and linking this with current context and traditional natures of relationships of time past. Yet, I can understand as to how this can be misconstrued given the context.” Having carefully considered the evidence presented, the panel considered it was more likely than not that Mr Tanvir did make a comment referencing promiscuity in the context of ‘Gen-Z’, on at least one occasion, to his [REDACTED] pupils in class. However, the panel was unable to determine if the precise comment, in context, was inappropriate or, if it was, whether it amounted to a breach of professional boundaries. 11 The panel could envisage a scenario where such a comment could cross the threshold, particularly if it linked to the teacher’s own beliefs and was not related to teaching or research. Equally, the panel recognised that it could link directly to teaching, as suggested by Mr Tanvir and in some of the pupils’ accounts, in a manner that was not improper. Whilst that could result in pupils feeling uncomfortable, the panel did not consider that necessarily meant it was inappropriate or, if it was, that it raised boundary concerns. The panel therefore found allegation 1(a)(ii) not proved, whereby the TRA had not proved, to the requisite standard, that this comment was inappropriate or amounted to a failure to maintain professional boundaries. iii. Referring to a specific pupil when explaining the differences between the male and female by highlighting the pupil’s breasts and/or weight; Pupil R gave evidence about an occasion when they stated Mr Tanvir made a comment relating to the biological differences between men and women. Pupil R stated that whilst talking about diets, Mr Tanvir said the only way he could get breasts without hormones would be by changing his diet, and as an example, pointed out Pupil B’s breasts as being the difference between her (a woman) and him (a man). In oral evidence, Pupil R fairly conceded that whilst there was an assumption amongst the group that Mr Tanvir gesticulated towards Pupil B’s breasts, because of the topic, he could simply have been pointing at Pupil B in more general terms. Pupil B could not be sure if he was actually pointing at her breasts. Similar evidence regarding a comment of this nature being directed at Pupil B was recorded in the hearsay accounts from Pupil A, Pupil B herself, Pupil C, Pupil I, Pupil Q and Pupil T, who all recalled and recorded a comment that referenced Pupil B’s weight or breasts, or both. In particular: • Pupil A – “There’s another time, he made a comment about student B’s breasts. He was just explaining that no matter how society tries to make it look like men and women are equal, we’re not because our body’s function differently in terms of hormones and reproductive system. He said (along the lines of) He’d need a different “……” to grow to Student B’s size and gestured boobs with his hands and the whole class started laughing, me included then I turn around and see how red she’s gone because it’s so embarrassing when someone you’d consider a professional in the work environment make a comment about a [REDACTED] girls breast size.” • Pupil B – “A few months ago in class when we were learning about the “biological approach” and looking at differences between man and women studies, Mr Tanvir 12 made a comment about how me and him were different. He made hand gestures to his chest, to get across the point that I had breasts being a female and he didn’t as a male. Mr Tanvir then went on saying that if he ate a lot of food he too would grow “man-boobs” – some people in the class took it as a joke about my weight. However, I knew what he was trying to say and it made me uncomfortable and humiliated because he was essentially talking about my breasts to the entire class, as an example.” • Pupil Q – “In attempt to explain biological differences between men and women Mr Tanvir used the example of if men were to eat an excessive amount of food they would get “man boobs” and women already have breasts and used Student B’s name when he could’ve just said women generally without naming anyone. When he initially said it I thought he was saying Student B was overweight and making a weight joke but Student B explained it to me but still think he shouldn’t of named anyone especially his students when he could’ve just said women in generally.” (sic) Mr Tanvir denied making the comment alleged, stating that he would not make such a “hurtful comment”. However, having carefully considered the evidence, on balance the panel concluded that, in the context of this class, Mr Tanvir did make a comment in which he made reference to Pupil B’s breasts or weight, or both. Whatever Mr Tanvir’s motivation may have been, there was clear evidence that this comment was focussed on Pupil B and caused embarrassment and a risk of ridicule. The evidence was consistent in that regard. The panel concluded this was inappropriate in the context of the discussion that was being held, going beyond the confines of teaching relevant to the topic. By directly focussing the comment upon a specific individual, rather than generalising whatever point he was attempting to make, and taking account of the nature of it, namely referencing a pupil’s body in the presence of her classmates, the panel was also satisfied that this constituted a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. The panel therefore found allegation 1(a)(iii) proved. iv. Stating a pupil would “know all about them parts” or using words to that effect, and/or implying a pupil was a whore when discussing the psychosexual stages; This allegation was withdrawn at the outset of the hearing and, accordingly, was not considered or determined by the panel. 13 v. Implying a pupil showed the symptoms of ASD / ADHD and/or should get tested; This allegation was withdrawn at the outset of the hearing and, accordingly, was not considered or determined by the panel. vi. Telling one or more pupils to make a Tinder account; Pupil R gave evidence that they could recall Mr Tanvir telling pupils to download ‘Tinder’, a dating application. In oral evidence, they confirmed that they could not remember the precise context in which this was said but believed and recalled that there was some link to whatever was being discussed/taught at the time. Pupil I’s account also addressed this allegation, recording “he told us to make tinder accounts - only 20 mins later saying if you are 18”. Pupil N’s account also recorded that “another assumption he made was that many individuals in our class have tinder and he said if we didn’t have it we should get it”. Mr Tanvir denied this allegation and provided the following response: “In an informal meeting with my line manager and further to this - with the safeguarding lead and deputy head - I said that when we had started relationship Psychology students were told to google image Tinder profiles to read how individuals nowadays market themselves as single on their ‘bio’ page as opposed to making tinder accounts for themselves.” The panel concluded that whilst it was more likely than not that Mr Tanvir referenced ‘Tinder’ in a classroom discussion, it was not persuaded, based on the limited evidence available, which was not entirely consistent, that this was in the specific context of telling pupils to make an account. Pupil R’s evidence was not specifically aligned with that and their evidence was to the effect that the comment was linked, in some respect, to whatever was being taught. That was broadly consistent with Mr Tanvir’s explanation, which was therefore plausible in the absence of clear evidence to undermine it. This was also not suggested by Pupil N. It was only Pupil I, who was not called to give evidence, who suggested that Mr Tanvir specifically directed pupils to create accounts. The panel therefore found allegation 1(a)(vi) not proved, whereby the TRA had not proved, to the requisite standard, that a specific comment to this effect was made. vii. Telling one or more pupils to research ‘tea-bagging’; 14 Pupil R gave evidence that, on one occasion, Mr Tanvir told pupils to “search up what ‘tea-bagging’ was”, a term accepted as being a reference to a sexual act. Pupil I also addressed this, saying: “The thing that made me the most uncomfortable was when he asked us to search up what “T-bagging” is at first his links between forensics and T-Bag in prison break as an example were helpful because it helped me to widen my understanding because I love the show, at first when he asked us to search up the definition I wasn’t aware of what it meant so I didn’t think anything of it but when it came up I felt really sick and uncomfortable … .” Mr Tanvir denied this allegation. He accepted that a reference was made to this term but in a very specific context, whereby a pupil brought up a character named ‘Teabag’ that featured in a well known TV series, Prison Break. Having done so, Mr Tanvir stated that the particular pupil was about to explain to the whole class the reason as to why the individual was named ‘Teabag’, leading to him stopping the pupil from elaborating, adding that it was inappropriate but they were free to look into this if they wished to for their own context. But not within the classroom environment. When this explanation was put to Pupil R in oral evidence, they accepted it was “quite likely” and that could well have been “the progression” of the discussion. On balance, the panel concluded that, whilst Mr Tanvir may well have made a comment that was interpreted by at least one pupil as an indication to look up the term, the absence of clear evidence regarding the context was such that the panel was simply unable to determine if that was inappropriate. Pupil R’s and Pupil I’s accounts were not entirely consistent with each other and this was not an instance where other pupils recorded any recollection of the incident. In those circumstances, it was certainly possible that the discussion progressed as Mr Tanvir suggested, which was not challenged by Pupil R. The panel therefore found allegation 1(a)(vii) not proved. b. Discussing aspects of your personal life, namely why you broke up with your former partner and/or the legal agreement made with her family; This allegation was withdrawn at the outset of the hearing and, accordingly, was not considered or determined by the panel. c. Calling a member of staff a ‘moody bitch’ in the presence of one or more pupils; 15 This allegation was withdrawn at the outset of the hearing and, accordingly, was not considered or determined by the panel. d. Suggesting that you do not like how a member of staff acts and/or stating “just because he went to Cambridge, does not mean he is better than anyone else” or using words to that effect; This allegation was withdrawn at the outset of the hearing and, accordingly, was not considered or determined by the panel. e. Telling one or more pupils not to talk about what you said in class; The context to this allegation was a point in time when it was suggested that issues or concerns had been raised to the School in connection with Mr Tanvir, when it is alleged he made comments to pupils encouraging them to be supportive of him, in a broad sense. Pupil R’s written evidence was that “he asks us to ‘fight for him; because he has made lots of resources for us and tells us that we shouldn’t share what he says in class with anyone else”. When asked about this in oral evidence, Pupil R stated that it had been assumed someone had reported Mr Tanvir for a comment and they interpreted what he said as a request not to share things he said in class in that context. This issue was also addressed by other pupils, in particular: • Pupil A – “One time Ms Lauder emailed him saying she needs to speak to him and he starts telling the class that were gonna have to fight for him in terms of helping to keep his job. You can clearly see he was stressing so he’s obviously aware that he’d say things that were interpreted wrong or else he’d have no reason to stress or share it with the class.” • Pupil C – “Numerous times he’s asked us to fight for him.” • Pupil I – “He also threatened the year 12’s might get him fired and whatever happened we should have his back- he repeated this very often- being very emotionally manipulative as I started to feel bad, I conformed and didn’t speak up giving him the benefit of the doubt.” • Pupil K - “Mr Tanvir would also tell us not to talk about what is said in lesson outside of class or in the corridors. On another occasion he told us about how he was set to have a meeting with someone, I think it may have been with Miss Lauder or Mr Sangha but I don’t remember exactly who.” 16 • Pupil N – “He also mentioned that he wouldn’t appreciate if we spoke about anything he told us in class outside of class and that we should ‘take my side’.” • Pupil S – “He is also quite manipulative (we feel) as he asks us to “fight for him” because he has made lots of resources for us and tells us that we shouldn’t share what he says in class with anyone else.” This allegation was denied by Mr Tanvir, who thereby denied making any comments to this effect. Having carefully considered the evidence before it, the panel concluded that, given the breadth of evidence and the degree of consistency between the pupils’ respective accounts, on balance, it was more likely than not that Mr Tanvir did make comments that were reasonably interpreted, by several pupils, as a request for them not to talk about what he said in class. The panel also concluded that this was an inappropriate comment to make and was of a nature that constituted a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. It was inappropriate to direct pupils not to discuss classroom discussions. That was not conducive to a professional teacher/pupil relationship and a transparent classroom environment. It could be viewed as an attempt to take advantage of his status as a teacher, particularly in a context where it appeared he had concerns regarding a complaint. He should not have been seeking the assistance of pupils in this manner. The panel therefore found allegation 1(e) proved. 2. Your behaviour as may be found proven at; a. 1a above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated; Having found the facts of allegations 1(a)(i) and (iii) proved, the panel went on to consider whether Mr Tanvir’s conduct was of a sexual nature and/or sexually motivated. On the basis of the nature of his conduct and the context in which it occurred, the TRA submitted that the comments were inherently sexual in nature and the appropriate inference to draw was that Mr Tanvir’s actions were sexually motivated in relation to the making of the comments. Mr Tanvir denied the allegation. The panel also took account of the fact that Mr Tanvir was a person of prior good character, which was not challenged. Plainly, the subject matter of the lessons included sexual elements. That was apparent from the totality of the evidence and there was no indication that this was not part of the 17 A-level specification. Accordingly, whilst Mr Tanvir’s teaching approach breached professional boundaries, the evidence was indicative of the comments being linked to the course content. It followed that the panel was not satisfied that the comments went so far beyond the specification as to be regarded as sexual. Mr Tanvir’s judgement was extremely poor and the execution was inappropriate, but the context was not one where Mr Tanvir’s conduct could be said to be sexual in nature. It followed that the panel was not persuaded that Mr Tanvir’s conduct was sexually motivated. The comments, as found proved, were not of a nature that anyone could objectively derive sexual gratification from making them. There was no evidence to support a conclusion that Mr Tanvir was targeting a specific pupil and thereby seeking any form of romantic or sexual relationship. The panel therefore found allegation 2(a) not proved. b. 1e above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Having found allegation 1(e) proved, the panel went on to consider whether Mr Tanvir’s actions were dishonest and/or lacked integrity. In determining whether his conduct was dishonest, the panel considered Mr Tanvir’s state of knowledge or belief as to the facts, before determining whether his conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. With regards to lack of integrity, the panel recognised that integrity denotes adherence to the standards of the profession and therefore considered whether, by his actions, Mr Tanvir failed to adhere to those standards. Both elements were denied by Mr Tanvir. On behalf of the TRA, it was submitted in summary that, by his actions, Mr Tanvir was deliberately directing that pupils conceal the content of classroom discussions and thereby abused an imbalance of power. On balance, the panel agreed with that submission. At the general time period he was making the comments referenced in allegation 1(e), on the basis of the evidence available, the panel was not persuaded that there was any logical or rational basis for Mr Tanvir fearing for his position at the School. There was no indication that the School, up to this time, had suggested the matters raised to it had been viewed as anything other than low-level performance issues that were being dealt with by management guidance. 18 Accordingly, the panel considered it was more likely that not that Mr Tanvir’s state of mind was such that he was aware there were things he had said in class, not known to the School at the time, which could result in further concerns being raised. The panel was satisfied that this motivated his desire to instruct pupils not to disclose classroom discussions. To that extent, he abused his position as a teacher and his actions were tantamount to a deceit. On balance, the panel concluded he was instructing pupils to conceal information in circumstances where he must have known that was improper. It followed that Mr Tanvir knew what he was doing was wrong and his actions were an attempt to mislead. The panel was satisfied that was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. For the same reasons, the panel concluded that his actions lacked integrity. He had shown a deliberate and reckless disregard for the duties and the responsibilities upon him as a teacher, as someone in a position of trust. The panel therefore found allegation 2(b) proved. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found a number of of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Tanvir, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, he was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: • treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position. • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach … . The panel also considered whether Mr Tanvir’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. 19 The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. Whilst the panel had found that Mr Tanvir had acted dishonestly, the panel did not consider that this linked to an offence involving fraud or serious dishonesty. Over and above the breaches of the Teachers' Standards identified above, in relation to all of the proven allegations the panel took into account the wider context. Mr Tanvir’s failings occurred in the classroom and involved and directly impacted pupils. They occurred against a backdrop where he had received some guidance about his teaching methodology, in low-level terms, and he was also an experienced practitioner. Mr Tanvir was in a position of trust and responsibility as a teacher. He was also a role model. In addition, with reference to the specific findings made, in relation to allegation 1(a)(i), this was a particularly inappropriate and gratuitous comment. It clearly shocked the pupils present and went far beyond what was appropriate in relation to the topic being taught. In relation to allegation 1(a)(iii), Mr Tanvir inappropriately focussed his comment on a particular pupil. That caused embarrassment, a risk of ridicule and was disrespectful. In relation to allegations 1(e) and 2(b), Mr Tanvir abused his position and inappropriately sought to direct pupils to conceal matters discussed in classroom discussions. In doing so, he behaved dishonestly and his conduct lacked integrity. There was a consistent theme running through the allegations of professional boundary failings. Mr Tanvir had a duty to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with all pupils and at all times. Mr Tanvir had clearly breached his obligations in that regard, in circumstances that linked directly to his interactions with a class of [REDACTED] pupils. For these reasons, in relation to each of the proven allegations, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Tanvir amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Tanvir was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mr Tanvir’s actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. It considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. 20 The findings of misconduct are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher and could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Tanvir’s actions, in relation to each of these allegations, constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely: • the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and protection of other members of the public; • the maintenance of public confidence in the profession; and • declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings, which involved breaches of professional boundaries in the classroom and behaviour that was dishonest and lacking integrity, there was a public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and protecting other members of the public. Whilst the panel had in mind these were not safeguarding concerns per se, there were an impact on the pupils’ education. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Tanvir were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Tanvir was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. 21 In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Mr Tanvir in the profession. There was some evidence about Mr Tanvir’s abilities as a teacher. Individual A described him as experienced and knowledgeable. His teaching had been observed and no concerns were raised. He was regarded as having good subject knowledge. There was also a degree of public interest in qualified teachers remaining in the profession. However, in the specific circumstances of this case, the panel did not regard this as a strong consideration. His failings were classroom related. There were no recent character references or testimonials before the panel. It could not be said that Mr Tanvir had made an exceptional contribution to education. The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation of both the public and pupils, is that members of the teaching profession maintain an exemplary level of integrity and ethical standards at all times. The panel noted that a teacher’s behaviour that seeks to exploit their position of trust should be viewed very seriously in terms of its potential influence on pupils and be seen as a possible threat to the public interest. In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Tanvir. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that were particularly relevant in this case were: • serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; • abuse of position or trust (particularly involving pupils); • dishonesty or a lack of integrity, including the deliberate concealment of their actions. Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. The panel considered the following mitigating factors were present in this case: • Mr Tanvir had not been subject to any previous, formal regulatory or disciplinary proceedings. 22 • The allegations found proved concerned a small number of incidents, with various allegations found not proved or withdrawn. These were therefore isolated concerns in the context of his career as a whole. That said, the panel had in mind that Mr Tanvir had been spoken to whilst at the School and there was a suggestion that he had been the subject of some relevant advice at a previous employer. At the very least, that showed Mr Tanvir was on notice of and had been reminded of the expectations upon him as an educator, which he had failed to adhere to. • Mr Tanvir had not presented any recent references or testimonials. Those that were available concerned his prior application to the School and were predominantly personal in nature, albeit positively so. They were therefore provided before and without knowledge of the concerns in these proceedings. Nonetheless, Individual A gave some helpful, positive information about him. The panel proceeded from the basis that Mr Tanvir had contributed to the education sector and ought to be regarded as competent, even if there was no evidence to indicate either element as exceptional. • Mr Tanvir had engaged with these proceedings to at least some extent. However, he had not attended the hearing and he denied all of the allegations. Whilst there was some evidence of regret for the impact of his actions and what appeared to be remorse, in his submissions to the TRA, these were limited and could not be explored by the panel. This was in the context of Mr Tanvir denying wrongdoing. In doing so, he alluded to regret for the impact he may have had on pupils in terms of comments perhaps being misconstrued, from his perspective. It followed there was some evidence of insight, but it was extremely limited in circumstances where the allegations were fully denied. Mr Tanvir had not taken responsibility for his actions or demonstrated any awareness of the triggers that led him to act in this way. There was no evidence that he had taken steps to address or improve his teaching methodology to avoid similar failings being repeated. • Mr Tanvir documented personal challenges, including [REDACTED] The panel took that into account in terms of these matters being advanced as an explanation for his non-attendance. However, in Mr Tanvir’s absence and without any supporting evidence beyond one, [REDACTED] It followed that the panel determined his actions were deliberate and he was not acting under duress. • The comments in relation to allegation 1(a) were made in the context of lessons and teaching, even if they went too far. There was some link to the course specification and these were [REDACTED] pupils, such that the subject matters were not inherently improper. 23 Against that backdrop, the panel first 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. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, it would not be a proportionate and appropriate response to recommend no prohibition order. Recommending that the publication of adverse findings would be sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Tanvir of prohibition. The panel was, therefore, of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Tanvir. In arriving at that conclusion and in addition to the matters set out above, in terms of the public interest considerations and behaviours engaged in this case, the panel took into account that Mr Tanvir was an experienced practitioner who should have known that his behaviour was inappropriate and wrong. In relation to allegation 1(e), he had abused his position as a teacher and behaved dishonestly and without integrity. Further, Mr Tanvir had denied wrongdoing. As noted above, the level of insight he had shown was limited to acknowledging that comments would have been wrong had he made them, denying that he had. He had not taken responsibility for his actions. That, coupled with the fact that he had been spoken with about his classroom methodology previously and the professional boundary issues that permeated the findings, meant that the panel considered there remained, at present, a risk of repetition of the same or similar behaviour. Mr Tanvir had demonstrated no clear willingness to accept responsibility for his actions or an awareness of the triggers that caused them. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for it to decide to recommend a review period of the order. The panel was mindful that the Advice states that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances, in any given case, that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than 2 years. The Advice indicates that there are certain types of case where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. 24 The Advice also indicates that there are certain other types of cases where it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of a longer period before a review is considered appropriate. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings either. As the panel had already determined, this was not an instance of fraud or serious dishonesty. The panel decided that its findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended with provision for a review period of two years. The panel had in mind that, in the context of Mr Tanvir’s career as a whole, the failings were narrow, both in time and scope. Whilst the panel had determined that his conduct in relation to one allegation was dishonest, this was not dishonesty at the serious end of the spectrum. It was isolated and in a particular context, though still plainly wrong and unacceptable. [REDACTED] The panel also had in mind that its findings should make it abundantly clear to Mr Tanvir that his behaviour was wrong and must never happen again. It will give him an opportunity to reflect on his failings and, if he is willing and able to do so, accept responsibility for them and seek to demonstrate that he has learned lessons. If he does so, the panel considered that it was possible that, in time and assuming there was adequate remediation, it was possible that Mr Tanvir could evidence that the failings had been addressed, lessons had been learned and he could gain insight, thereby reducing the risk of repetition. If he is unable or unwilling to do so, the prohibition order will have the effect that Mr Tanvir is unable to practice indefinitely. A period of two years will also allow for a reasonable and proportionate period for reflection and will afford Mr Tanvir time and opportunity, should he wish to do so, to take and provide evidence of any rehabilitative steps and demonstrate that he has gained insight into the nature, effect and implications of his conduct, which was presently completely absent. In the view of the panel, a period of two years would be proportionate and the least intrusive measure necessary to protect the public interest. 25 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of both sanction and review period. In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found some of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In this case, the panel has found some of the allegations not proven. I have therefore put those matters entirely from my mind. I also note that, in this case, a number of allegations were withdrawn. I have also put those matters entirely from my mind. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Abu Tanvir should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of two years. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Tanvir is in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: • treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position. • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach … . The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Tanvir fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a teacher conducting himself in a way that was inappropriate in the presence of pupils as well as displaying behaviour that was dishonest and lacking in integrity. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In assessing that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published 26 finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Tanvir, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel makes the following observation: “In the light of the panel’s findings, which involved breaches of professional boundaries in the classroom and behaviour that was dishonest and lacking integrity, there was a public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and protecting other members of the public. Whilst the panel had in mind these were not safeguarding concerns per se, there were an impact on the pupils’ education.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “Mr Tanvir had engaged with these proceedings to at least some extent. However, he had not attended the hearing and he denied all of the allegations. Whilst there was some evidence of regret for the impact of his actions and what appeared to be remorse, in his submissions to the TRA, these were limited and could not be explored by the panel. This was in the context of Mr Tanvir denying wrongdoing. In doing so, he alluded to regret for the impact he may have had on pupils in terms of comments perhaps being misconstrued, from his perspective. It followed there was some evidence of insight, but it was extremely limited in circumstances where the allegations were fully denied. Mr Tanvir had not taken responsibility for his actions or demonstrated any awareness of the triggers that led him to act in this way. There was no evidence that he had taken steps to address or improve his teaching methodology to avoid similar failings being repeated.” In my judgement, the limited evidence of insight and remorse on Mr Tanvir’s part means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this place the future wellbeing of pupils in jeopardy. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel provides these comments: “In relation to whether Mr Tanvir’s actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. It considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely 27 influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. The findings of misconduct are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher and could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher inappropriately seeking to direct pupils to conceal matters discussed in the classroom in this case and the negative impact that such a finding may have on the reputation of the profession. I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Tanvir himself. I have noted these comments provided by the panel: “Mr Tanvir had not presented any recent references or testimonials. Those that were available concerned his prior application to the School and were predominantly personal in nature, albeit positively so. They were therefore provided before and without knowledge of the concerns in these proceedings. Nonetheless, Individual A gave some helpful, positive information about him. The panel proceeded from the basis that Mr Tanvir had contributed to the education sector and ought to be regarded as competent, even if there was no evidence to indicate either element as exceptional.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Tanvir from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning the lack of evidence of full insight or remorse. In particular, I have noted the following remarks: “Further, Mr Tanvir had denied wrongdoing. As noted above, the level of insight he had shown was limited to acknowledging that comments would have been wrong had he made them, denying that he had. He had not taken responsibility for his actions. 28 That, coupled with the fact that he had been spoken with about his classroom methodology previously and the professional boundary issues that permeated the findings, meant that the panel considered there remained, at present, a risk of repetition of the same or similar behaviour. Mr Tanvir had demonstrated no clear willingness to accept responsibility for his actions or an awareness of the triggers that caused them.” I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Tanvir has made to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision, in light of the circumstances in this case, that is not backed up by full remorse or insight, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order. I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended a two-year review period. I have considered the panel’s concluding comments: “The panel also had in mind that its findings should make it abundantly clear to Mr Tanvir that his behaviour was wrong and must never happen again. It will give him an opportunity to reflect on his failings and, if he is willing and able to do so, accept responsibility for them and seek to demonstrate that he has learned lessons. If he does so, the panel considered that it was possible that, in time and assuming there was adequate remediation, it was possible that Mr Tanvir could evidence that the failings had been addressed, lessons had been learned and he could gain insight, thereby reducing the risk of repetition. If he is unable or unwilling to do so, the prohibition order will have the effect that Mr Tanvir is unable to practice indefinitely. A period of two years will also allow for a reasonable and proportionate period for reflection and will afford Mr Tanvir time and opportunity, should he wish to do so, to take and provide evidence of any rehabilitative steps and demonstrate that he has gained insight into the nature, effect and implications of his conduct, which was presently completely absent. In the view of the panel, a period of two years would be proportionate and the least intrusive measure necessary to protect the public interest.” 29 I have considered whether a two-year review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate period to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, factors mean that I agree with the panel that a two-year review period is an appropriate and proportionate response to the misconduct found in this case. These elements are the lack of evidence that Mr Tanvir has developed full insight into and remorse for his behaviour, and the consequent risk of repetition, as well as the dishonesty and lack of integrity displayed. I consider therefore that a two-year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. This means that Mr Abu Tanvir is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but not until 20 November 2027, two years from the date of this order at the earliest. This is not an automatic right to have the prohibition order removed. If he does apply, a panel will meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful application, Mr Tanvir remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Tanvir has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 17 November 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.