Mr Thomas Stanley

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 Thomas Stanley

Location teacher worked: Sheffield, Yorkshire and The Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 19 to 21 November 2025 and 27 January 2026

Outcome type: No order made

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 Thomas Stanley, formerly employed in Sheffield, Yorkshire and The Humber.

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 Thomas Stanley: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Thomas Stanley TRA reference: 23283 Date of determination: 27 January 2026 Former employer: Westfield School, Chorus Education Trust, Sheffield (“the School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 19 to 21 November 2025 and 27 January 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Stanley. The panel members were Miss Faye Darlington (lay panellist), Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist – in the chair) and Mrs Bernie Whittle (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Harry Taylor of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Lucy Kinder of Counsel. Mr Stanley was present and was represented by Ms Diane Ellis (trade union representative) of NASUWT. The hearing took place in public save that portions of the hearing were heard in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 27 August 2025. It was alleged that Mr Stanley was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a Teacher of Technology at the School: 1. Between on or around April 2023 to 28 June 2023, he did not act appropriately and/or his behaviour breached professional boundaries in relation to Pupil A, in that he: a) Said “you have lovely eyes and they are your best feature” or words to that effect; b) Said he feels he has “a connection” with Pupil A and/or Pupil B or words to that effect; c) On one or more occasions, he placed one or more of his hands on Pupil A’s shoulders; d) Said “why don’t you speak to me anymore” or words to that effect; and/or e) Told Pupil A that he had a crush on Pupil A’s mother. 2. On or around June 2023, he did not act appropriately and/or his behaviour breached professional boundaries in relation to Pupil B, in that he: a) Asked Pupil B “who did your hair today?” or words to that effect; b) Said “I’m still waiting to plait your hair” or words to that effect; c) Said “your hair is lovely” or words to that effect; d) On one or more occasions, stroked and/or played with Pupil B’s hair during a lesson and/or put one of more of his hands on her shoulders; e) Said “I could get lost in those eyes” or words to that effect; f) Said he feels he has “a connection” with Pupil A and/or Pupil B or words to that effect; and/or g) Told Pupil B that he had a crush on Pupil A’s mother. 3. On or around June 2023, he did not act appropriately and/or his behaviour breached professional boundaries in relation to Pupil D, in that he: 5 a) Said “have you straightened your hair, it looks nice” or words to that effect; and/or b) Said “we are mates aren’t we” or words to that effect. Mr Stanley admitted allegations 1(d), 1(e), 2(e), 2(g). He did not admit the other allegations. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 3 to 4 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 5 to 11 Section 3: Witness statements – pages 12 to 22 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 23 to 238 Section 5: Teacher’s documents – pages 239 to 252 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the witness statement of Witness 3 which was provided late and consisted of 3 pages, as well as a number of exhibits that were already in the main bundle which the panel had received. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional document that the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel 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 A Witness 2 – [REDACTED] Mr Stanley also gave oral evidence and called no additional witnesses. 6 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. On 1 September 2022 Mr Stanley commenced employment as a teacher of technology at the School. In June 2023 the School received concerns from pupils, who had said that Mr Stanley had made inappropriate comments towards them. The School subsequently investigated the allegations and, on or around 30 June 2023, notified the Local Authority Designated Officer (“LADO”). On 24 August 2023 Mr Stanley resigned from the School. His last day of employment at the School was 31 August 2023. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against Mr Stanley proved, for these reasons: 1. Between on or around April 2023 to 28 June 2023, you did not act appropriately and/or your behaviour breached professional boundaries in relation to Pupil A, in that you: e) Told Pupil A that you had a crush on Pupil A’s mother. Mr Stanley admitted this allegation in his response to the notice of hearing, his written witness statement, and in oral testimony. Mr Stanley explained to the panel that the chronology of events of the DT lesson on 28 June 2023 were, broadly, as follows. Mr Stanley noticed Pupil A lying on the floor, laughing and giggling. He did not know why she was doing this. Mr Stanley explained to the panel that, in the context of the overall behaviour of students in the School, this was a very low level disruption incident. As such, he did not feel it necessary to report it formally. He gave his view that Pupil A was usually a good student; describing her as a confident and vocal individual. Mr Stanley asked Pupil A why she was on the floor and he asked her to get up. Mr Stanley was unsure of why Pupil A then left the classroom but agreed that it could have been to go to the toilet, as Pupil A confirmed in her evidence. Mr Stanley stated to the panel that when Pupil A had left the classroom, Pupil B had asked him why he did not punish Pupil A, and then repeatedly asked him “do you have a crush on Pupil A?”. Mr Stanley felt that Pupil B was effectively goading him for a reaction. Mr Stanley explained that he tried to deflect Pupil B’s questions by saying “no, [I don’t have a crush on Pupil A] I have a crush on her mum”. Mr Stanley made this comment to Pupil B in front of the other students in the 7 class, who Mr Stanley described as being shocked. Mr Stanley explained that he immediately recognised this was an inappropriate comment to make. In response Pupil B said to Mr Stanley “I’m going to go to [the headteacher] and get you done”. Pupil A then returned to the classroom, at which point it appears to be accepted by the parties that Mr Stanley notified Pupil A of what he had said. The panel also heard evidence from Pupil A in relation to this allegation. Pupil A’s account largely supported the account given by Mr Stanley, albeit that Pupil A was not present in the classroom when he initially made the comment to Pupil B. Pupil A’s evidence was that she did not recall lying on the floor as Mr Stanley had alleged. In the panel’s view it is not material whether or not Pupil A was on the floor in the build up to the comment being made; the agreed fact is that the comment was made by Mr Stanley. Pupil B did not attend to give witness evidence, nor did she provide a written witness statement. The only evidence provided by Pupil B was the student incident report dated 30 June 2023. The panel decided to admit this as hearsay evidence but carefully considered what weight to attach to it in respect of this allegation. This evidence was not sole and decisive in respect of this allegation. It sought only to add further context to the allegation which Mr Stanley admitted in his own evidence. The panel did not attach significant weight to Pupil B’s account for this reason. In the panel’s view, the chronology of events Mr Stanley described in respect of this allegation was more likely than not to be correct. Mr Stanley’s own evidence was particularly persuasive to the panel, which found that he had recognised the inappropriateness of the comment and how that likely made [REDACTED]. For the reasons above, the panel finds this allegation proved. 2. On or around June 2023, you did not act appropriately and/or your behaviour breached professional boundaries in relation to Pupil B, in that you: e) Said “I could get lost in those eyes” or words to that effect; Pupil B’s account is recorded in the student incident report dated 30 June 2023. In that report, Pupil B stated “[Mr Stanley] came up to me and looked in my eyes and said I could get lost in those eyes”. Pupil B alleged that this occurred in the same [REDACTED] that Mr Stanley had made a comment about Pupil A’s mother, [REDACTED]. Pupil B did not attend to give witness evidence, nor did she provide a written witness statement. The only evidence provided by Pupil B was the student incident report dated 30 June 2023. The panel decided to admit this as hearsay evidence but carefully considered what weight to attach to it in respect of this allegation. The panel was not provided with any other documenta