Teacher ZZZ

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: Teacher ZZZ

Location teacher worked: Yorkshire and the Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 22 September 2025 and 23 to 26 September 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 Teacher ZZZ, formerly employed in 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.

Teacher ZZZ: 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 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 17 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: Teacher “ZZZ” Teacher ref number: [REDACTED] Teacher date of birth: [REDACTED] TRA reference: [REDACTED] Date of determination: 26 September 2025 Former employer: [REDACTED] Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 22 September 2025 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT and then again on 23 September to 26 September 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Teacher ZZZ. The panel members were Mr Richard Young (lay panellist – in the chair), Dr Louise Wallace (lay panellist) and Ms Elizabeth Kitcatt (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Kim Findlow of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Ben Bentley of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Teacher ZZZ was not present and was not represented at the hearing save for the public announcement where he was represented by Mr Andrew Faux of The Reflective Practice. The hearing took place in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 29 May 2025. It was alleged that Teacher ZZZ was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. He engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour on one or more occasions towards staff [REDACTED], including by sending e-mails which were: a. malicious; and b. sent from anonymous and/or fake accounts. 2. [REDACTED] he implemented a policy of sending “problematic” students home with work at 9am after registering, to return at 2pm for their afternoon mark, in order to reduce exclusions figures and improve attendance. 3. His conduct as may be found proven at 2: a. placed vulnerable students at risk while away from the School; and b. amounted to a failure to provide statutory education. 4. [REDACTED] he presented attendance data as improving, [REDACTED], when this was not the case. 5. [REDACTED]. 6. His conduct as may be found proven at 1 and 4-5 lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. In the absence of any response from the teacher, the allegations were not admitted. In the absence of response from the teacher, the allegations amounting to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute were not admitted. [REDACTED]. 5 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of proceedings– pages 5 to 11 Section 2: Anonymisation list and Chronology – pages 13 to 15 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 18 to 73 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 75 to 109 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 112 to 113 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. [REDACTED]. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – Headteacher [REDACTED] Witness B - Former Data Officer and Timetabler and Deputy Head of the School Witness C – Current Deputy Headteacher of the School Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. [REDACTED]. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 6 1. You engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour on one or more occasions towards staff [REDACTED], including by sending e-mails which were: a. malicious; and b. sent from anonymous and/or fake accounts. The panel was provided with a number of emails as follows: 1. [REDACTED] 2. [REDACTED] 3. [REDACTED] 4. [REDACTED] 5. [REDACTED] The panel was also provided with four messages sent to the school website between the dates [REDACTED]. The panel first considered whether it was proven that Teacher ZZZ was the author of these messages. In relation to the emails 1- 5, the panel was provided with a contemporaneous timeline document created by Witness A that showed the correspondence that had been sent to the police. The panel was also shown a crime report that showed a Primary Offence of “Sending letters etc with intent to create distress or anxiety, Malicious Communications Act 1988” that was reported [REDACTED]. The panel exercised caution with regard to this evidence, given it understood that it was required to turn its own independent minds to the allegations before it, particularly since there was no conviction in respect of any offence. The panel was shown a community resolution record signed by Teacher ZZZ agreeing to provide a letter of apology in relation to the matter cited above. The panel considered that Teacher ZZZ would unlikely have been prepared to have signed such a record had the emails not been sent by him. Further the panel heard evidence from Witness A who had been liaising with the police in relation to the crime report. Witness A told the panel that the police had investigated the matter and had told Witness A that the emails that were sent for investigations (cited 1-5 above) had been traced back to Teacher ZZZ’s IP address. Again, the panel exercised caution with respect to this evidence, given that it was hearsay, since the police officer had not been called to give evidence. The panel was content to admit the evidence since it was not sole and decisive and it would have been disproportionate to expect the police officer to attend the proceedings, given the other evidence available. The panel noted 7 that the evidence was corroborated by the community resolution record signed by Teacher ZZZ. The panel was also provided with an email from Teacher ZZZ’s previous representative dated [REDACTED] that stated: “My client [Teacher ZZZ] admits that he sent malicious emails to a number of staff [REDACTED] anonymously / from fake email accounts. [Teacher ZZZ] has apologised for his behaviour and continues to feel considerable remorse and embarrassment in respect of his actions. [Teacher ZZZ] acknowledges the severity of his behaviour in sending these emails and expects that his conduct in this regard will be referred to a Professional Conduct Panel hearing. [REDACTED]. The panel was satisfied that the evidence supported the fact alleged that Teacher ZZZ had been the author of emails 1-5. The panel found that the messages to the school website were outside of the timeframe set out in the allegations and that insufficient evidence had been presented that Teacher ZZZ had authored these. The panel then turned its mind to whether emails 1-5 were malicious. In considering what was meant by the word “malicious” the panel considered the wording of the crime report which referred to “Sending letters etc with intent to create distress or anxiety, Malicious Communications Act 1988” as well as the Oxford dictionary definition which is “having or showing hatred and a desire to harm someone or hurt their feelings”. Witness A provided a timeline in relation to the emails which included staff emails that were sent internally which were then responded to by Teacher ZZZ which provided more detail around the emails. This enabled the panel to consider the nature and tone of the emails as well as the context. The panel found that the emails were malicious as they all appeared to seek to undermine or deride members of staff commenting on matters such as a staff member’s merit for appointment for their role and a staff member’s integrity. This included emails that seemed to try to create the illusion that they were being sent from staff members [REDACTED]. The panel considered this approach showed particular malice and intent to cause distress. The panel considered whether the emails were sent from anonymous and/or fake accounts. Given the admittance from Teacher ZZZ and the supporting evidence including the account of what the police told Witness A, the panel was satisfied that the emails were sent from anonymous accounts (otherwise it would not have been necessary to trace the IP address). The panel was not provided with evidence that the emails were sent from fake accounts. For all of the reasons above the allegation was therefore, found proved. 8 2. [REDACTED] you implemented a policy of sending “problematic” students home with work at 9am after registering, to return at 2pm for their afternoon mark, in order to reduce exclusions figures and improve attendance. The panel had the benefit of oral evidence from Witness B and C in relation to this allegation. Both witnesses gave a detailed account of concerns within the School that some pupils were being sent home without a formal exclusion in place. Both witnesses gave consistent accounts of how this was intended to operate in practice, specifically that Teacher ZZZ was instructing teachers within the School to send certain pupils home and ask them to attend in the morning and afternoon with their parent to obtain a register mark. It was understood that work would be sent home with the pupil. However the evidence of Witnesses B and C was also consistent in that often parents would stop bringing the pupil in and that this meant little work was being given to pupils. Witness B gave a detailed explanation and confirmed that he estimated the numbers of pupils subject to this practice to be “possibly 15-20 students – extremely difficult students – some of whom were sent home for long periods of time. Two to four weeks was an example period for students to be sent home for; and probably 4 or 5 of those students missed much of their academic year [REDACTED]” Witness D provided a witness statement that was admitted as hearsay evidence which confirmed Witness B and C’s accounts that this practice was taking place at the School during the time that Teacher ZZZ was headteacher. Witness D’s evidence stated: “[Teacher ZZZ] introduced a new approach as to how the School was to deal with serious behavioural incidents such as fighting and aggression towards staff. [Teacher ZZZ] had a policy of not using ‘Fixed Term Exclusions’, i.e. it seemed to staff that ‘fixed-terming’ students was no longer an option. We were instructed to send students home with packs of work but to not officially exclude them”. and “He used the phrase ‘off-rolling’ but we did not discuss this further. I disagreed with [Teacher ZZZ] and the student was subsequently permanently excluded, but that was an exception during that period”. Witness C provided the panel with the attendance documentation for Pupil A. This showed that Pupil A was being marked as present on the register which was the data that would be on the school SIMS system. Underneath that data there was a separate log kept containing detailed notes. Those notes, also provided to the panel, showed that on days where Pupil A was marked as present, Pupil A was not, in fact, in attendance throughout the day e.g. “…Mum agreed to come at 9.15am and 2pm to get attendance mark…” and “…[Pupil A] to collect at 11.45am and 2pm” and “[Teacher ZZZ] asked [Pupil A] to stay home…meeting to be arranged for Monday”. The panel noted that this corroborated Witness C’s evidence. 9 The panel was also provided with an email from Teacher’s ZZZ’s previous representative dated [REDACTED] that stated: “[Teacher ZZZ] did direct that a small number of pupils be marked present in circumstances where they collected work to be complete offsite during the school day and returned with the completed work for marking at the end of the day. By prior agreement, those pupils were accompanied on site by their parents and met by staff. [Teacher ZZZ] denies that this was done with the primary purpose of reducing exclusion figures and improving attendance, although he acknowledges that this practice would have that effect. This practice was adopted as a inclusion support strategy, principally in respect of a small number of students [REDACTED], to sustain their engagement in education and routines for learning. Staff meeting with students provided the opportunity for staff to conduct a safeguarding check. [Teacher ZZZ] has come to understand that marking students present in circumstances where they subsequently left the school site is incorrect attendance recording and should not have occurred. Although there was good motive for the miscoding [Teacher ZZZ] accepts that this behaviour will be referred to a Professional Conduct Panel hearing”. The panel was satisfied that Teacher ZZZ had directed staff to carry out this practice at the school and then considered whether Teacher ZZZ had directed this in order to reduce exclusion figures and improve attendance. The panel heard evidence from Witness B that Witness B had been a deputy head prior to Teacher ZZZ’s appointment and that Witness B was privy to discussions around Teacher ZZZ’s recruitment and that his recruitment was seen as positive for the school. Witness B’s evidence was that Teacher ZZZ had promised he would reduce exclusions. [REDACTED] and Teacher ZZZ wanted to reduce them. Witness B was not sure at that stage how Teacher ZZZ intended to do that. Witness C provided an email [REDACTED] from Teacher ZZZ to members of staff at the School that evidenced Teacher ZZZ directing staff to send a pupil home in this way. This stated: “…I made it clear to Mum that we cannot continue to have our time wasted by her daughter. I would like her to be inconvenienced and suggest we i) ask [Pupil A] and her Mum to come into school at 9am (or thereabouts) each morning to collect work and get her attendance mark; ii) ask for [Pupil A] and her Mum to return to school at 2pm to deliver the work she should have completed in the intervening time and also for her to get her afternoon mark” and ““I think this could ramp up the pressure on Mum to address her daughter’s poor behaviour, Inconvenience the parents, Offers [Pupil A] an opportunity to undertake learning, will mean our attendance is not hit, gives colleagues some respite from her 10 appalling behaviour. We also explain to Mum that if she does not do this we will push for prosecution for non-attendance”. The panel considered this email shows that Teacher ZZZ did have in mind the impact on attendance figures but also noted that Teacher ZZZ had set out other reasons for doing this. The panel also took into account the evidence and findings in relation to allegation 4 which relate Teacher ZZZ’s communications regarding his impact on attendance at the School when considering the likelihood that Teacher ZZZ’s motives were to reduce exclusion figures and improve attendance. On balance the panel considered that Teacher ZZZ did carry out the practice in order to reduce exclusion figures and improve attendance. For all of the reasons above the allegation was therefore, found proved. 3. Your conduct as may be found proven at 2: a. placed vulnerable students at risk while away from the School; and Witness A and B provided the panel with detailed oral evidence about the community within which the School serves. [REDACTED]. Witness B told the panel that [REDACTED] and that after Teacher ZZZ took over there were fewer excluded, but many children were “missing in action”. This caused Witness B concern. [REDACTED]. The panel understood this to be a method of seeking to improve exclusions by teaching the impact of actions to the children and would reassure pupils that poor behaviour would have consequences. Witness B’s evidence was [REDACTED] and emphasised the concern this had caused him. He felt strongly that it was important that the school was a place for the children to feel safe. [REDACTED]. [REDACTED]. Witness B provided details around alternative provisions that the school had previously utilised for children to keep them in some form of education during a fixed term exclusion including offsite provision [REDACTED] which had teaching staff but the methodology was less formal than a school setting. Witness B considered this approach kept the children off the streets and kept them in a learning environment whilst this would still be reflected in the school register that the child was being schooled off site. Witness B’s evidence was that he understood this provision was not applied to the children that were being sent home under this new practice during Teacher ZZZ’s tenure. Witness B was clear that he considered that those children that were sent home would have had various vulnerabilities due to the factors highlighted. Further, Witness B’s evidence was that there was no evidence that any home visits were being carried out 11 during this time that he was aware of, and that parents would eventually stop attending school to collect work. Witness C provided detailed oral evidence to the panel in relation to the policy found proven at allegation 2. Witness C’s evidence was that she was made aware of this practice by a concerned member of staff. Witness C was concerned that this would mean it would look like a child was in school and Witness C had safeguarding concerns in relation to the risks and implications if something happened to a child when they were meant to be in school. Witness C told the panel how school staff knew the children and would daily do a welfare check when they had eyes on the child. Witness C describes how this was a practice that was done “naturally every day” but for those that were not reporting to school they were unable to do this; unless the parent brought the child to register in the morning or afternoon. Given that the parent often stopped bringing the child, the welfare checks frequently could not take place and therefore there would be periods of time where no one had seen the child or knew the status of their welfare. In relation to Pupil A, Witness C explained that this was a pupil for whom [REDACTED] so Witness C was concerned that Pupil A would be at risk of harm in the community without the school environment [REDACTED]. The panel considered that the evidence of Witnesses A, B and C was consistent in relation to the vulnerabilities of the school cohort and of those pupils sent home some [REDACTED]. The panel therefore found this allegation proven. b. amounted to a failure to provide statutory education. The panel first considered what would be required in relation to statutory education and considered that this included that the national curriculum was followed. This would be a range of subjects which it is expected a secondary school should provide to pupils. It includes relationships and sexual education tailored to the age group. It was understood from evidence provided that many of the pupils that would have been sent home in this way [REDACTED] and would therefore potentially be missing this crucial relationships and sexual education which is provided as part of the PSHE curriculum. [REDACTED]. The panel considered that it would not be possible for the children to follow such learning to this expected level at home. [REDACTED] in particular without teacher guidance would mean that this learning would not be to any satisfactory level. Indeed the panel felt that it would not be possible even with teacher’s best intentions to provide this education simply using packs of work as this would exclude practical lessons. Further there was cogent evidence that work sent home was inconsistent. 12 Certain aspects of the curriculum such as practical experiments in science lessons and PE cannot be carried out at home satisfactorily. The panel concluded that a statutory education was not being provided. The panel therefore found this allegation proven. 4. [REDACTED] you presented attendance data as improving, [REDACTED], when this was not the case. Witness C provided evidence to the panel of a newspaper article [REDACTED] with the headline “[REDACTED]” and states “[REDACTED]” and then contains a number of comments attributed to Teacher ZZZ including “[REDACTED]”. Witness C also produced the school attendance statistics between [REDACTED] which showed that the statement “[REDACTED]” was incorrect. Further Witness C gave evidence that the concerns about this data being incorrect were two fold: 1) due to the figures evidenced which clearly showed this to be incorrect and 2) because Witness C knew that there were pupils that were being sent home that were not being reflected in the figures. There was evidence provided by Witness C in relation to how the attendance figures were inputted into the school SIMS system. The evidence of Witness C was that the headteacher had overall responsibility for attendance but that there was an assistant head to maintain attendance and the Local Education Authority (“LEA”) would extract data directly from the system for the purpose of the reported figures in school attendance statistics shown to the panel. Witness B believed that those with access to the system would be the head, the head’s PA, the assistant head and another named member of staff in the office. Witness C’s evidence was that this article was shared by Teacher ZZZ with the school’s Senior Leadership Team (“SLT”) saying “that we were in the [REDACTED] for our attendance”. Witness C’s evidence was that she spoke to Teacher ZZZ about her concerns but that Teacher ZZZ was dismissive and told Witness C not to question his analysis. The panel found that there was sufficient evidence to support that the information reported in the press was incorrect. The panel considered there to be sufficient evidence that Teacher ZZZ was responsible for this [REDACTED]. In addition the panel found Witness C to be credible in relation to that Teacher ZZZ shared this internally and that Witness C’s concerns around data accuracy were dismissed. The panel considered it would be probable that if there had been reported good news this would have been fed back to the senior staff. Further the panel considered that if Teacher ZZZ had not been responsible for the article he would not have told Witness C not to question the analysis, and rather would have taken steps to correct any mis-information. 13 The panel did not consider that there was sufficient evidence produced to confirm whether or not this information was also shared with [REDACTED]. For the reasons above the panel found this allegation proved in relation to “[REDACTED]” only. 6. Your conduct as may be found proven at 1 and 4 lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. In relation to allegation 1: The panel considered Teacher ZZZ’s knowledge and belief of the facts. The panel understood that in using anonymous accounts, Teacher ZZZ would have known that he was deceiving members of school staff. This was found by the panel to be inherently dishonest, and that the ordinary honest person would have considered this to be dishonest. The panel also found that this would amount to a lack of integrity. The panel considered it was not expected of any professional to purport or imply that a communication was being sent from other members of staff in order to elicit a detrimental effect on staff receiving it. In relation to allegation 4: The panel considered Teacher ZZZ’s knowledge or belief of the facts and found that there was sufficient evidence presented to conclude that Teacher ZZZ was aware of the statistical attendance data within the school and that indeed he was fully aware that the statistical attendance data would not reflect that there were pupils absent having been sent home. There was also sufficient evidence, as set out in 4 above, that Teacher ZZZ knowingly provided this information to the [REDACTED]. If he had not provided this and the [REDACTED] had been produced with incorrect information, he would not have circulated it to the school staff; as was Witness C’s evidence. The panel considered that an ordinary honest person would consider this to be dishonest. This was found by the panel to be dishonest. The panel also found that this would amount to a lack of integrity as the evidence indicated this was a deliberate act and this was self-initiated and a self-serving action for his personal gain as well as providing a deliberately misleading position in relation to the school’s performance. As has been provided in oral evidence by Witness B and C, Teacher ZZZ came into his appointment demonstrating a clear intention to reduce exclusions and improve attendance and therefore would have clear reasons to wish to seek to show the attendance figures to be improving. Due to the reasons set out above, the panel found this allegation proved. 14 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found a number 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 Teacher ZZZ, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Teacher ZZZ 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 o treating pupils with dignity…; o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions  Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach….  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Teacher ZZZ, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Keeping Children Safe In Education (“KCSIE”). The panel considered that Teacher ZZZ was in breach of the following provisions of the [REDACTED] version of KCSIE: All children, regardless of their circumstances, are entitled to a full time education, which is suitable to their age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs they may have. Local authorities have a duty to establish, as far as it is possible to do so, the identity of children of compulsory school age who are missing education in their area. Effective information sharing between parents, schools, colleges and local authorities is critical to ensuring that all children are safe and receiving suitable education. Schools and colleges should put in place appropriate safeguarding policies, procedures and responses for children who go missing from education, particularly on repeat occasions. It is essential that all staff are alert to signs to look out for and the individual 15 triggers to be aware of when considering the risks of potential safeguarding concerns such as travelling to conflict zones, female genital mutilation and forced marriage. It is essential that schools comply with these duties, so that local authorities can, as part of their duty to identify children of compulsory school age who are missing education, follow up with any child who might be at risk of not receiving an education and who might be at risk of being harmed, exploited or radicalised. Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is everyone’s responsibility. Everyone who comes into contact with children and their families and carers has a role to play in safeguarding children. In order to fulfil this responsibility effectively, all professionals should make sure their approach is child-centred. This means that they should consider, at all times, what is in the best interests of the child. All school and college staff have a responsibility to provide a safe environment in which children can learn. The panel was not satisfied that the conduct of Teacher ZZZ, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Working Together to Safeguard Children. The panel also considered whether Teacher ZZZ’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. 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. The panel found that the offence of fraud or serious dishonesty was relevant. This is due to the dishonesty demonstrated by Teacher ZZZ in relation to allegations 1 and 4. The panel found that Teacher ZZZ’s actions amounted to serious misconduct especially given the level of dishonesty shown in more than one of the allegations. The panel considered the actions were also criminal in nature which would have been more seriously dealt with had the letter of apology not been accepted. Further, allegations 2 and 3 put children at risk of harm and breach statutory requirements regarding providing a child with appropriate education. Given the [REDACTED], this was considered by the panel to aggravate the seriousness of Teacher ZZZ’s conduct. It was also of relevance that allegations 2 and 3 related to more than one child and allegation 1 was not a one off incident but was a sustained campaign of malicious communication intended to create distress and undermine school leadership. The panel also considered that allegation 4 could have had a serious or adverse impact on the school. Witness D stated in evidence the below which indicated to the panel the negative impact of Teacher ZZZ’s actions at allegation 2 on the safety of staff and pupils: 16 “I felt very uncomfortable with the policy. It wasn’t the best way. I felt very unsafe at the School. I did not feel reassured that I was safe doing my job. The School as a whole felt out of control. There were a number of times when pastoral staff were put in positions that were unsafe (I find it hard to recall specific incidents of this due to the time that has passed)”. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Teacher ZZZ amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Teacher ZZZ was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Teacher ZZZ’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. In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Teacher ZZZ’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Teacher ZZZ was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the Panel found that the offence of fraud or serious dishonesty was relevant. This is due to the dishonesty demonstrated by Teacher ZZZ in relation to allegations 1 and 4. The panel noted that the advice is not intended to be exhaustive and there may be other behaviours that panels consider to be “conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute”. The panel considered that Teacher ZZZ’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. As a teacher and indeed as headteacher, the panel considered that Teacher ZZZ should be leading as a role model for pupils and staff as to matters of professional conduct, education and safeguarding and that his actions damage the trust placed in him. Further, the panel found his actions in relation to not providing education and possibly exposing vulnerable children to harm would undoubtedly damage the public’s perception of a teacher. For these reasons, the panel found that Teacher ZZZ’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 17 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, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. There was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings that Teacher ZZZ placed children at risk of harm and failed to provide a statutory education. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Teacher ZZZ 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 Teacher ZZZ was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Teacher ZZZ in the profession. Whilst the panel noted that Teacher ZZZ must have displayed credibility and competence appropriate to a headteacher given he was appointed to a leadership position, the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Teacher ZZZ in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher. 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. 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 Teacher ZZZ. 18 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 relevant in this case were:  serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards;  misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk;  abuse of position or trust (particularly involving pupils);  failure in their duty of care towards a child, including exposing a child to risk or failing to promote the safety and welfare of the children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE);  violation of the rights of pupils;  sustained or serious bullying (including cyberbullying), or other deliberate behaviour that undermines pupils, the profession, the school or colleagues;  a deep-seated attitude that leads to harmful behaviour;  dishonesty or a lack of integrity, including the deliberate concealment of their actions or purposeful destruction of evidence, especially where these behaviours have been repeated or had serious consequences, or involved the coercion of another person to act in a way contrary to their own interests;  collusion or concealment including: o encouraging others to break rules; o lying to prevent the identification of wrongdoing;  knowingly manipulating a school’s attendance or admission registers, or data to benefit and/or enhance a school’s attendance and/or exam results. 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. There was evidence that Teacher ZZZ’s actions were deliberate. There was no evidence to suggest that Teacher ZZZ was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation. The panel was not provided with evidence as to Teacher ZZZ’s teaching history or that Teacher ZZZ had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or that he has contributed significantly to the education sector. 19 The panel did not accept that the incident was out of character given the repeated nature of the allegations. The panel were told that Teacher ZZZ was not previously subject to disciplinary proceedings/warnings. The panel noted the letter of apology in the bundle but felt that the letter was self-serving and did not show the level of insight the panel would expect when considering the conduct. He did not refer to specific acts for which he was apologising, but only stated that he was apologising for “any upset or concerns that my actions have caused”. This demonstrated to the panel that he did not accept that anyone was adversely affected. It went on to list his personal circumstances at the time. The panel also noted it did not demonstrate how this would be avoided in the future. Finally, the panel gave consideration to the circumstances in which the note was created, this being as part of the resolution or outcome of the Police investigation as opposed to these proceedings. The panel noted an email from Teacher ZZZ’s previous representative dated [REDACTED] that stated: “My client [Teacher ZZZ] admits that he sent malicious emails to a number of staff [REDACTED] anonymously / from fake email accounts. [Teacher ZZZ] has apologised for his behaviour and continues to feel considerable remorse and embarrassment in respect of his actions. [Teacher ZZZ] acknowledges the severity of his behaviour in sending these emails and expects that his conduct in this regard will be referred to a Professional Conduct Panel hearing. [REDACTED]. [REDACTED]. [REDACTED]. However, the panel did note that Teacher ZZZ was represented and had had multiple opportunities to produce mitigation in this matter. [REDACTED]. The panel was provided with an email from Teacher’s ZZZ’s previous representative dated [REDACTED] that stated: “[Teacher ZZZ] did direct that a small number of pupils be marked present in circumstances where they collected work to be complete offsite during the school day and returned with the completed work for marking at the end of the day. By prior agreement, those pupils were accompanied on site by their parents and met by staff. [Teacher ZZZ] denies that this was done with the primary purpose of reducing exclusion figures and improving attendance, although he acknowledges that this practice would have that effect. This practice was adopted as a inclusion support strategy, principally in respect of a small number of students [REDACTED], to sustain their engagement in education and routines for learning. Staff meeting with students provided the opportunity for staff to conduct a safeguarding check. [Teacher ZZZ] has come to understand that marking students present in circumstances where they subsequently left the school site is incorrect attendance recording and should not have occurred. Although there was good motive for the miscoding [Teacher ZZZ] accepts that this behaviour will be referred to a Professional Conduct Panel hearing”. 20 The panel considered that this further showed a lack of insight in relation to the potential impact of actions referred to in the paragraph above. Their actions raised serious safeguarding concerns and it was not possible to know if pupils were supervised by parents and they could have been unsupervised whilst away from school. The panel was not convinced that his actions were an inclusion support strategy and in particular noted an email that indicated that a reason for taking this action was to inconvenience the parent or guardian of the pupils. 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. That panel considered that suggesting that adverse findings would be sufficient in this case would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Teacher ZZZ of prohibition. The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Teacher ZZZ. The panel considered that the public would be concerned at Teacher ZZZ’s actions as a teacher and headteacher who should have been leading from the front. The panel noted that Teacher ZZZ had intentionally intimidated members of staff and tried to stop his conduct being questioned. The panel further noted that teachers have a public duty in safeguarding and not exposing children to potential harm. These were factors that weighed heavily with the panel in forming that conclusion. 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. One of these include: • child neglect; In particular the panel found that Teacher ZZZ’s action in asking that pupils not attend school in circumstances where Teacher ZZZ would have known that they were at risk of harm outside of school was neglectful. 21 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. One of these include: • fraud or serious dishonesty The panel found an allegation of dishonesty proven and found this was serious in that Teacher ZZZ demonstrated a pattern of dishonest behaviour. In particular, in relation to allegations 1 and 4, Teacher ZZZ used false names and emails over a period of time to deceive on multiple occasions and also separately caused to be published false attendance statistics. As above, the panel noted the letter of apology in the bundle but was of the view that the letter was self-serving and, for the reasons set out above, did not show the level of insight the panel would expect when considering the conduct in question. The panel also noted it did not demonstrate how this conduct would be avoided in the future. The panel found that, in particular, Teacher ZZZ had not demonstrated integrity and probity and had resorted to these actions whilst in a leadership position in a deceitful attempt to make his mark and publicise his apparent success as a headteacher. The panel found this wholly incompatible with the role of a teacher. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended without provisions for a review period. [REDACTED]. 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 all 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. However, I have also noted that allegation 4 was proven in part only and have put the unproven elements from my mind. 22 The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Teacher ZZZ should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. In particular, the panel has found that Teacher ZZZ 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 o treating pupils with dignity…; o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach…. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Teacher ZZZ involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’. The panel finds that the conduct of Teacher ZZZ fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include sending malicious emails and engaging in behaviour that placed vulnerable pupils at risk. They also include conduct 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 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 Teacher ZZZ, 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: 23 “There was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings that Teacher ZZZ placed children at risk of harm and failed to provide a statutory 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: “The panel noted the letter of apology in the bundle but felt that the letter was self- serving and did not show the level of insight the panel would expect when considering the conduct. He did not refer to specific acts for which he was apologising, but only stated that he was apologising for “any upset or concerns that my actions have caused”. This demonstrated to the panel that he did not accept that anyone was adversely affected. It went on to list his personal circumstances at the time. The panel also noted it did not demonstrate how this would be avoided in the future. Finally, the panel gave consideration to the circumstances in which the note was created, this being as part of the resolution or outcome of the Police investigation as opposed to these proceedings.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence that Teacher ZZZ has developed full insight into their behaviour means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. 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 makes this observation: “The panel considered that Teacher ZZZ’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. As a teacher and indeed as headteacher, the panel considered that Teacher ZZZ should be leading as a role model for pupils and staff as to matters of professional conduct, education and safeguarding and that his actions damage the trust placed in him. Further, the panel found his actions in relation to not providing education and possibly exposing vulnerable children to harm would undoubtedly damage the public’s perception of a teacher.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of a school leader exhibiting behaviour that was dishonest in this case, and the impact that such a finding has 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.” 24 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 Teacher ZZZ themself. The panel records the following: “The panel was not provided with evidence as to Teacher ZZZ’s teaching history or that Teacher ZZZ had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or that he has contributed significantly to the education sector.” A prohibition order would prevent Teacher ZZZ from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of their contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the serious nature of the misconduct found by the panel, including the sending of malicious emails to school staff, behaviour that placed vulnerable pupils at risk of harm, and conduct that was dishonest. I have also noted the panel’s comments regarding the lack of evidence of that Teacher ZZZ has developed full insight into their actions. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Teacher ZZZ 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, 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 that no provision should be made for a review period. In doing so, the panel has referenced the Advice: “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. One of these include: • child neglect; In particular the panel found that Teacher ZZZ’s action in asking that pupils not attend school in circumstances where Teacher ZZZ would have known that they were at risk of harm outside of school was neglectful. 25 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. One of these include: • fraud or serious dishonesty” The panel found an allegation of dishonesty proven and found this was serious in that Teacher ZZZ demonstrated a pattern of dishonest behaviour. In particular, in relation to allegations 1 and 4, Teacher ZZZ used false names and emails over a period of time to deceive on multiple occasions and also separately caused to be published false attendance statistics.” I have taken into account the panel’s concluding comments: “As above, the panel noted the letter of apology in the bundle but was of the view that the letter was self-serving and, for the reasons set out above, did not show the level of insight the panel would expect when considering the conduct in question. The panel also noted it did not demonstrate how this conduct would be avoided in the future. The panel found that, in particular, Teacher ZZZ had not demonstrated integrity and probity and had resorted to these actions whilst in a leadership position in a deceitful attempt to make his mark and publicise his apparent success as a headteacher. The panel found this wholly incompatible with the role of a teacher. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended without provisions for a review period.” I have considered whether not allowing a 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 allowing a review period is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the extensive and very serious nature of the misconduct found as well as the lack evidence of either of insight or remorse and consequent risk of repetition. I consider therefore that allowing for no review period is necessary to maintain public confidence and is proportionate and in the public interest. This means that Teacher ZZZ is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations 26 found proved against them, I have decided that Teacher ZZZ shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of their eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Teacher ZZZ has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date they are given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 13 November 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.