Nana Opong

Introduction

Nana Opong is a former teacher at Sutton Coldfield Grammar School for Girls, banned from teaching for three years before any review in April 2025 after admitting an elaborate pattern of boundary-breaking contact with a pupil he had never even taught. Between roughly 2022 and 2023, Opong sent the pupil personal surveys, emailed her from a personal address, asked her to send photographs of herself, told her he “look[s] at photos of her from time to time”, called her “Princess [Pupil A]” behind her back, and declined to delete the pictures she sent — then asked her to “delete everything”, warned he could get in trouble at work, and told her that if she ever tried to blackmail him he would retaliate by throwing eggs at her window. He admitted every fact, admitted dishonesty, and admitted unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people and recommended a three-year review period; the decision maker confirmed it.

Background Information

Opong taught at Sutton Coldfield Grammar School for Girls in Birmingham from September 2019 until October 2023 — a selective grammar school, which makes the single-pupil focus of his conduct the case’s defining feature. The pupil at the centre, Pupil A, was on the school roll until the end of the 2022/23 academic year, and Opong had not taught her; the panel stressed he “purposefully sought to communicate with” her despite that. His messages mixed compliments on her appearance and intellect with requests for contact and images, and the conduct only came to light through Pupil A’s own disclosure — not through anything Opong volunteered. The decision records no prior concerns about his teaching; his record was otherwise unblemished, which the panel weighed in mitigation. He was an experienced teacher with up-to-date safeguarding and boundaries training, which the panel weighed in aggravation.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. Opong admitted the facts of all allegations, that they amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, and that his concealment was dishonest and lacked integrity. The panel made its own independent findings, all on admissions; no criminal charge is recorded.

The messages speak for themselves, and the panel quoted them. Opong sent Pupil A and one other pupil a personal survey asking questions like “what do you love” and “what thoughts or things instantly make you more relaxed” — sent to just two girls, outside the school year, unrelated to any educational purpose. He used a personal email address to contact her and proposed a standing arrangement: “to keep our conversation fresh let’s keep in touch via email once a week.” He asked her to send photographs of herself, told her they “make me happy. Very lovely pics. No chance – I wouldn’t delete them,” and admitted he would “look at photos of her from time to time”. The comments the panel quoted included: “Well you look well and rested. I am trying not to say too much… You know - I call you Princess [Pupil A] behind your back”; a passage admiring her “child like qualities” — cuddly toys, Disney films, the baby section of shops — alongside her “amazing” looks and “gentle and kind personality”; and “I know like a beautiful! butterfly, you will one day fly away… We are just at the wrong / opposite side of the spectrum”. When concealment became the priority, he asked her to “delete everything”, said he could “get into trouble at work for keeping in touch”, and — in the message that most struck the panel — indicated that if Pupil A ever tried to blackmail him over their contact, he would retaliate by throwing eggs at her window. He admitted this whole course of conduct, including that he sought to conceal it and that doing so was dishonest and lacked integrity, citing the Ivey dishonesty standard in his own admissions.

The panel’s aggravating findings were pointed: the conduct was deliberate, targeted a single pupil he had never taught, was “repeated and multi-faceted”, and made the girl uncomfortable — “It also appeared to have resulted in Pupil A being made to feel uncomfortable”. The dishonesty was affirmative and coached: he involved the pupil in her own concealment, including the blackmail-retaliation message, which the decision maker later singled out as “the attempt to coerce a pupil to be party to that dishonest behaviour”. In mitigation, the panel credited his unblemished record, full engagement with the TRA, admissions, and “some regret, remorse and insight” — while noting the insight was “emerging rather than complete”, since he still suggested some concerns were exaggerated or false. It settled on three years, expressly finding a longer period would be disproportionate.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The conduct surfaced through Pupil A’s disclosure, not through any school detection or Opong’s own admission to the school — a fact the panel flagged twice as evidence he knew it was wrong. The decision records no press coverage and no criminal referral outcome; the consequences were professional. Opong left the school in October 2023, and the case reached the TRA as an admitted-facts meeting rather than a contested hearing. The published decision stands as the public account of what happened, including the messages in his own words. For the school, a teacher contacting a pupil he never taught — through personal channels, with photographs, concealment instructions and a blackmail warning — is the archetype the safeguarding training exists to prevent, and the panel noted he had received exactly that training.

Current Status

The panel convened on 10 April 2025 and issued its determination the same day, finding all allegations proved on Opong’s admissions and recommending a three-year review period. On 15 April 2025, Marc Cavey, deciding for the Secretary of State, confirmed the sanction: Opong is prohibited from teaching indefinitely, barred from any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England, and may apply for the order to be set aside from 23 April 2028 — three years from the order — with no guarantee of success. The decision maker adopted the panel’s reasoning, adding that the dishonesty and the coercion attempt required the three-year term to maintain public confidence. He retains a 28-day appeal right; no published record shows an appeal. A 2028 application would need to show the full insight the panel found only emerging.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Opong’s case documents how far a boundary breach can run on messages alone: no physical contact, no conviction, no victim beyond the girl whose discomfort never reached the school until she disclosed it herself. His “Princess” compliments, weekly-email pact, photo requests and finally the blackmail-egg message form a complete arc from over-familiarity to coached concealment — all admitted. The three-year review term places him in the lighter tier of bans, reflecting the panel’s view that his dishonesty was serious but not the most serious, and his record otherwise clean; but the order is indefinite by default, and his route back runs through a 2028 panel that will test whether the “emerging” insight matured. The case’s standing lesson, quoted almost verbatim in the sanction, is that involving the child in hiding the teacher’s own misconduct — asking her to delete everything, warning her off blackmail — converts a boundaries case into a dishonesty case, and the decision maker treated that as the heart of it.

Sources

• Dept for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Nana Opong” — source