Tariq Ali

Introduction

Tariq Ali taught science at Carleton High School in West Yorkshire until his dismissal on 27 November 2018, and later at Parkwood E-ACT Academy in Sheffield from July 2020. The Teaching Regulation Agency case against him had two halves. First, between January and July 2018 he maintained a personal channel with a Year 11 pupil — messages on the school’s homework platform about matters unrelated to homework, late at night and on non-school days, conversations about his own mental health and hers, a personal email address handed over in the school car park while he was on sick leave — while never reporting her disclosed welfare issues to the school’s safeguarding system. Second, on his Parkwood application he answered “no” to having ever been dismissed and to ever facing disciplinary action, and wrote “2015 to 2019” on his CV — all untrue. A panel found the dishonesty proved on 1-3 August 2022, and decision maker Sarah Buxcey banned him from teaching with a two-year review bar.

Background Information

Ali was Carleton’s science teacher and inter-trust physics representative; his contract was terminated on 27 November 2018 after disciplinary proceedings and an unsuccessful appeal, and he subsequently brought an Employment Tribunal claim against the school, settled by agreement dated 1 May 2019 with a compensation payment. In July 2020 Parkwood E-ACT Academy hired him as a science teacher on the strength of a CV and application form containing the false answers. The pupil channel had run from January to July 2018: Ali contacted Pupil A and invited her to message him through the school’s “Show My Homework” platform, whose messaging function was intended for homework. The exchanges covered her welfare and personal matters, were initiated by both sides, and continued late at night and on non-school days. In July 2018 he messaged her: “Hi [Pupil A]. You win. I lose. I am not well enough to be in school. The battle was too much. I am in the car park before and after school… Keep strong and do not let it win”, and she replied in the early hours about them both being “strong enough to get through this”. On 24 July 2018, while on sick leave, he met her at the school car park at home time and gave her his personal email address.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Personal messaging and car park meetings with a vulnerable pupil, safeguarding reports never made, then “no” answers about his dismissal on a new job application; banned with a two-year review bar. He engaged with the regulator and admitted much, but the panel treated his explanations as limited insight.

The panel found Ali messaged Pupil A about non-homework matters, called her “chicken” — a term it found did not itself cross a boundary — and spoke to her about his own mental health when, by his account, he was “not thinking straight”. It found he had been on clear notice of her safeguarding circumstances yet never used the school’s CPOMS reporting system, an orange form, or the designated safeguarding lead route; enquiries of CPOMS found nothing recorded, and the colleagues he claimed to have told did not recall it. The panel found this left the school blind to information about a vulnerable pupil — including a matter he alone knew — and that his car park meeting and personal-email handover crossed professional lines. On the job application it found both “no” answers incorrect and the CV dates wrong. His explanations — that the settlement agreement bound him to silence, that settlement meant the dismissal was “retracted”, that compensation meant he had effectively been made redundant — were rejected as grounds, though the dishonesty finding carried an element of premeditation that deprived Parkwood of the chance to test his employment history.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel was unusually even-handed. In Ali’s favour: an otherwise unblemished record, classroom competence never called into question, medical evidence that his own experiences at the time played some part in his conduct, a genuine desire to help Pupil A with no evidence of improper motivation, partial engagement and admissions, and long-running proceedings. Against him: deliberate breaches of boundaries despite training and school policy, an inadequate understanding of safeguarding that posed a risk of harm to a vulnerable pupil — albeit not categorised as high — limited insight, limited regret, and dishonesty with an element of premeditation in the job application. The panel found the safeguarding failure the gravest element: Ali took it upon himself to support Pupil A without qualification to do so, risking the undermining of efforts by the school, her family and other agencies. It recommended prohibition with a two-year review, which Buxcey imposed on 5 August 2022, agreeing two years proportionate to satisfy public confidence.

Current Status

Ali is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the order to be set aside from 11 August 2024, two years from the date of the order — an application that is not automatic; without a successful application he remains prohibited for life. The order took effect on service, with a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days. The determination is dated 3 August 2022. He did not attend the hearing, having expressly confirmed he would not, though he had engaged with the TRA beforehand and made admissions in a statement of agreed facts the panel accepted as evidence but not as formal admissions, treating the allegations as denied. No criminal proceedings are recorded in the decision.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The case is the regulator’s clearest recent illustration that safeguarding duty attaches to information a teacher receives, not to formal role: Ali never laid a hand on Pupil A and the panel accepted he wanted to help, yet the ban rests principally on his failure to route what he knew into the system — the panel calling it a duty to ensure the school was kept abreast of all material information about her wellbeing. Its express finding that in each of these respects, as found proved, he “crossed the line” despite helping intentions is the precedent value. The second half of the case shows the long memory of discipline: an Employment Tribunal settlement that paid him compensation did not erase the dismissal for dishonesty purposes, and the CV dates written two years later turned a closed dispute into fresh proven dishonesty. For Ali, the two-year review bar — among the shortest issued — reflects the panel’s finding of a desire to help and no improper motivation; the set-aside window opened in August 2024.

Sources

• Dept for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Tariq Ali” — source