Grant Nightingale
Introduction
Grant Nightingale was a history teacher at The Brunts Academy, part of the Evolve Trust, in Mansfield, where he had worked since April 2019. Between around March and October 2020 he exchanged inappropriate messages with two pupils through the school’s email system, discussed his own mental health and personal life with them, met them alone outside his professional role, and made inappropriate comments to and in front of other pupils, including about their sex lives. A TRA professional conduct panel found almost all of the allegations against him proven and concluded that the conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. On 23 July 2025 the decision maker, David Oatley, prohibited him from teaching indefinitely, with a review period of five years.
Background Information
Nightingale had worked in schools since 2013 in a variety of classroom roles, including teaching since 2015, and had received a formal warning at a previous employer for breaching professional boundaries with pupils. The case surfaced in October 2020 when Person A discovered emails between Nightingale and the two pupils on Pupil 1’s phone and raised concerns with the School. A safeguarding record of 16 October 2020 noted other pupils had discussed inappropriate comments by Nightingale in lessons. The School dismissed him on 22 October 2020, Pupil 5 raised further concerns on 10 November 2020, and a referral was made to the TRA on 16 November 2020. Nightingale signed a statement of agreed facts admitting the allegations on 23 January 2025, the TRA agreed to consider the case without a hearing at his request, and the panel met virtually on 21 July 2025.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Panel findings, on admitted facts. Nightingale admitted the facts of all four allegations in his signed statement of agreed facts, but the panel considered the evidence in the bundle and made its own determination.
Between March and October 2020, the panel found, Nightingale exchanged inappropriate messages with Pupil 1 and Pupil 2 via the School’s email system. The messages included comments such as “I’m always here to listen and help in any way that I can”, “as long as you are okay than I’m okay”, “I can assure you that people care”, “I think you’re fab”, “Wish I had my 11s in the class though” and “I’m really not that scary”. Pupil 1 stated that after he gave her his school email address they contacted each other ‘multiple times per week and sometimes multiple times a day’, and that he would reach out when she did not, asking “how have you been?” and “how are you sleeping at night?”. The panel found allegation 1 (a) proven and 1 (b) partially proven: as he admitted, he passed on some concerns, but shared emails with the safeguarding leads “but not the entirety of the communication and has been very selective”.
Allegation 2 covered boundary breaches, all found proven: he discussed his own health and wellbeing and his personal and home life with the two pupils; met them at lunchtimes and break times outside his professional role, including alone; would end online sessions with a class and restart a video call with Pupil 1 or Pupil 2 alone; emailed them outside normal school hours; and took no action when the pupils messaged him that they “miss” and/or “love” him, telling a social worker that it did not cross his mind to discourage such comments.
Allegation 3 concerned comments made to or in front of pupils, all found proven: he said he would be “disappointed if they made the wrong choices” about Pupil 5’s and her friends’ sex lives; referred to Pupil 5’s former girlfriend as a “smackhead” and to Pupil 3’s former boyfriend as a “nonce”; told Pupil 5 “I would cuddle you if I could cuddle you”; informed a class of [REDACTED] students how many times he had had sex at their age and when he lost his virginity; and told a group of pupils who was in his “top 5 shag list of teachers”. The panel found allegation 4 proven, holding that the conduct in paragraphs 1 to 3 constituted a failure to maintain professional boundaries, breached repeatedly, “with at least three pupils, over a prolonged period of time”. The conduct breached the Teachers’ Standards and Keeping Children Safe in Education and amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The panel “did not consider that there were any material mitigating circumstances or that Mr Nightingale had demonstrated any insight into his behaviour or demonstrated any remorse for the manner in which his actions could potentially have harmed pupils”, saw no evidence that he had “demonstrated exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or had contributed significantly to the education sector”, and considered that he “represented a significant continuing risk to children” with “a grossly insufficient awareness of, or alternative care for, the fact that he was employed to be a teacher of pupils rather than their friend”. It recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and a five-year review period, and the decision maker, David Oatley, imposed the order on 23 July 2025. The decision is a regulatory record and notes no press coverage.
Current Status
Nightingale is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. The order carries a five-year review period: he may apply for it to be set aside, but not until 1 August 2030 at the earliest, and this is not an automatic right. Without a successful application, he remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. The order takes effect when served on him, and he has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of being given notice of it.
Impact on Their Career/Life
A career in schools dating back to 2013 ended with his dismissal in October 2020 and the prohibition order that followed. The panel’s finding that his boundary breaches, including at a previous school, “appeared to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour”, and its conclusions on his lack of insight and remorse, remain on the public record for any future application to set the order aside. The published decision permanently records the findings of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.