Ian Edward Shilling
Introduction
Ian Edward Shilling, born in 1984, was Head of Music at Newlands Girls’ School in Berkshire from September 2012 until 31 October 2020. In December 2025, a professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) found all the allegations against him proved: a pattern of sexualised messages, letters, images and gifts directed at pupils and former pupils, physical contact with two girls, and concealment of the exchanges from their families. The panel found his conduct was of a sexual nature and sexually motivated. On its recommendation, the Secretary of State’s decision maker prohibited him from teaching indefinitely, with no review period and no entitlement to apply for restoration.
Background Information
Shilling spent eight years heading the music department at Newlands Girls’ School, an all-girls school in Berkshire. The school referred him to the TRA on 29 October 2020. The panel — Mrs Julie Wells in the chair, with lay panellists Mrs Shabana Robertson and Mrs Alexandra Burton — sat virtually from 1 to 10 December 2025. Shilling was not present and was not represented. He had signed a Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts on 11 November 2025, admitting most allegations in full or in part, while denying the physical contact particulars and the claim that he encouraged pupils to send photographs without clothing.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Findings, not convictions. The findings below come from a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel which found the allegations proven on the balance of probabilities. They are regulatory adjudications rather than court judgments: Shilling was not present and not represented at the hearing, the decision references no criminal proceeding, and the allegations he disputed were treated as denied.
The panel found that in July 2019, during a school residential trip, Shilling repeatedly held one-to-one conversations with Pupil A, including a private meeting in his hotel room one morning which left her feeling “uncomfortable”. It found he put his hands on Pupil A’s hips in the swimming pool on or around 22 July 2019 as two colleagues looked on, held her hand through the gap between coach seats on the journey to the trip, and placed his hand on the lower back and upper bottom of Pupil C during a class photograph in or around March 2020. These physical contact particulars, which he denied, were all found proven. Two days after the pool incident, a senior colleague recorded reminding him that nothing more should happen “by way of the blurring of pupil/teacher boundaries”.
Much of the proven conduct was admitted. Shilling admitted sexual conversations with Pupil A in person and by email, including a sexual limerick; messages telling Pupil C she had “the hottest, sexiest body in the world” and that “it is clear why men are turned on and driven wild by your looks. This one included”; discussions of his personal and sexual life; messages containing kisses, hearts and emojis; sexual letters and cards; images including photographs of his bottom and penis and a picture of himself in underwear holding a French baguette; screenshots of pupils’ photographs; being alone in a vehicle with a pupil; out-of-hours contact by text and social media; and gifts including underwear, penis-shaped items and a wind instrument inscribed “blow and tug gently”. The panel also found proven, on evidence he disputed, that he encouraged Pupil A, Pupil B, Pupil C and Pupil E to send photographs of themselves without clothing, creating an environment in which pupils felt expected to comply.
The panel found his conduct was sexual in nature and sexually motivated, that it continued after he was spoken to by managers in July 2019, and that instructing pupils not to tell anyone about the messages and gifts was dishonest and lacked integrity. His behaviour, it concluded, “was not a momentary lapse of judgment, but was a calculated course of action in pursuit of sexual gratification”, and his apology was “self-serving”. All four allegations were found proven and amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published decision records no wider public or media reaction; the documented consequences are regulatory. The panel recommended prohibition with immediate effect, citing strong public interest in safeguarding pupils and upholding standards, and finding that public confidence in the profession “could be seriously damaged” if Shilling were given any opportunity to return to teaching. On 15 December 2025, decision maker David Oatley, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, imposed an indefinite prohibition order with no review period and decided that Shilling “shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach”. The ban prevents him from teaching in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Witnesses who described him as a capable head of music were noted, but the panel found this outweighed by the seriousness of his conduct.
Current Status
Shilling is prohibited from teaching indefinitely. The order takes effect from the date it is served on him, and his only route of challenge is an appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice; the published record documents no appeal. The determination is dated 10 December 2025 and the decision was published on GOV.UK in December 2025. Because no review period was set, he cannot reapply for eligibility to teach at any future date, and the prohibition applies across every type of regulated educational and children’s setting in England. The decision stands as the authoritative public record of the findings against him.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The prohibition order permanently ends Shilling’s teaching career in England. The panel found he showed a lack of insight and genuine remorse, leaving a risk of repetition, and that his conduct had caused real harm: Pupil C described feeling as though she were in an “abusive relationship that she could not leave”, and Pupil E said the experience continued to affect her, struggling to “trust anyone”. With no review period, the published findings and lifetime ban constitute the final stage of the regulatory process against him.