Teacher banned for life from classroom after '˜sexual relationship' with young pupil in Eastbourne
A teacher who formed a sexual relationship with a pupil under the age of 13 while working at an Eastbourne school before moving to a different school and '˜flirting' with another has been banned from teaching for life, a misconduct panel of the National College for Teaching and Leadership has said.
While teaching at Bede’s Prep School Nathan Waring, 37, exchanged sexual messages with the girl known as Pupil A, according to the teacher misconduct panel.
This then developed into kissing her, giving her massages and touching her ‘including under her clothes over her underwear’, said the panel.
He then moved to a director of music role at Gresham’s School in Norfolk, where details of the first relationship surfaced.
After an investigation he was allowed to continue teaching but was given strict rules about relationships with pupils by Gresham School’s head, said the panel in a report released this week.
But the panel heard Mr Waring, who resigned from the school two years ago, flouted the rules and began flirting with another female pupil and then lied about taking time off so he could meet her.
At the same time he was caught drink driving after driving back from a Pupil B’s joint birthday party.
The teachers’ professional conduct panel has now banned him from the classroom for life.
Mr Waring, who did not attend the hearing, first began exchanging messages of ‘a sexual nature’ on the former social media site Meebo with Pupil A more than 10 years ago while he worked at St Bede’s School.
When Pupil A left to go to another school he stayed in touch with her, the panel was told. She disclosed to her tutor that something had happened between herself and a teacher at her former school.
That same month he became director of music at Gresham’s School where he started an inappropriate and flirtatious relationship with a second girl, Pupil B – the panel heard.
Panel chairman John Armstrong said, “Mr Waring took a period of leave whilst investigations into Pupil A’s disclosure were undertaken.
“Mr Waring was provided with a written set of rules and guidelines by the headteacher of Gresham’s school, regarding his behaviour with students.
“This instruction was allegedly [twice] ignored by Mr Waring.”
The panel found the diaries of Pupil A proved the sexual relationship was real and not a fantasy.
Mr Armstrong said, “The panel felt that the diary was a contemporaneous account of events in Pupil A’s life and was entirely consistent with a diary for a girl of that age.
“The panel also noted that the diary captured the highs and lows of the relationship with Waring and detailed when Pupil A felt rejected.
“The panel concluded that it was clear that the diary entries were a true representation of Pupil A’s life as if this had been a fantasy/fabricated version of events then the panel felt Waring would have featured more heavily and Pupil A would not have discussed the rejection that she received from Waring, instead she may have preferred to present a ‘fairy-tale’ version of events.
“The panel was also mindful of the fact that later references to Waring within Pupil A’s diary became coded to enable Pupil A to hide this relationship had her diaries ever been read.
“Had Pupil A fabricated this story then the panel felt that these references would have been more obvious so that the reader would understand who she was referring to.”
The panel rejected an argument that Mr Waring had been suffering ‘a great deal of professional and personal stress’ and his actions had been deliberate.
Mr Armstrong said, “In respect of Waring’s relationship with both Pupil A and Pupil B, the panel considered that this was borne out of the position of trust that Waring was in.
“The panel noted that the relationships with both Pupil A and Pupil B extended past the point at which the pupils were students at the school and Gresham’s school but it was clear to the panel that these relationships were founded when both Pupil A and Pupil B were students.
“The panel also considered that, despite the fact that Waring had received warnings about his behaviour on multiple occasions and the fact that he had previously been subject to an investigation into the disclosures made by Pupil A, this pattern of behaviour continued.
“The panel confirmed that Waring’s behaviour went as far as being deep-seated and harmful.
“The panel also had regard to the aggravating factors in this case and note specifically that: the behaviours were repeated despite warnings; the behaviours were sustained over a long period of time and were not one off aberrations and lastly the unique
conditions around teaching music which involve significant one to one contact should make all music teachers particularly conscious of the need to maintain boundaries.
“The panel also noted that no evidence was proffered by Waring which provided an alternative viewpoint to the allegations submitted and showed no signs of remorse.”
Rubber stamping the ban for life Dawn Dandy on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education agreed with the panel’s finding that ‘Waring’s behaviour was ‘sexually motivated’ and described Waring’s attitude as ‘deep-seated, repetitive and dishonest in its nature’.