Tsvetelina Kaliszan
Introduction
Ms Tsvetelina Kaliszan was a class teacher at Elm Tree Primary Academy in Wednesbury with around twenty years in teaching and a clean record. On 3 May 2024, during a soft play session, a pupil referred to as Child A urinated in the ball pit. A Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) professional conduct panel later found that Kaliszan hit the child twice on his bare bottom intending to physically chastise him, and that she failed to report it that day — the only allegation she admitted. On 19 June 2026 the decision maker for the Secretary of State prohibited her from teaching indefinitely, with no set-aside application possible until 25 June 2028.
Background Information
According to the TRA decision, Kaliszan commenced employment at the academy as a class teacher on 1 September 2023. The panel noted her twenty years’ service and clean record, with no information suggesting previous disciplinary proceedings or warnings. The conduct surfaced that afternoon: a colleague reported it to the headteacher within about an hour and wrote a contemporaneous account. The next day Kaliszan contacted the school acknowledging she had done “something bad”, and on 7 May she admitted making physical contact with Child A at a meeting with the academy and its trust, after which a referral was made to the Local Authority Designated Officer. The matter was referred to the TRA on 26 November 2024.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. Findings by a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel, acted on by the decision maker for the Secretary of State, are a matter of published regulatory record — they are not criminal convictions. The panel found proved that Kaliszan hit Child A on his bare bottom intending to physically chastise him, and that she failed to report it that day; she admitted only the reporting failure, denied the rest and maintained her actions were “misconstrued”. The hearing was fully contested.
On 3 May 2024, between approximately 1:30pm and 2:00pm, Kaliszan was supervising pupils in the soft play area when Child A urinated in the ball pit and allegedly removed clothing from the lower half of his body. Witness B’s handwritten statement, written the same day, recorded: “Lina got up and lifted him from the ball pit and realised he had wee himself. She slapped him on him butt 2, and said what have you done”. Witness B recorded saying “Lina, what are you doing?”, while Individual B said “Lina you need to be careful!”.
At the hearing, Witness B described Kaliszan lifting Child A from the ball pit, placing him face down across her lap and smacking his bare bottom twice with an open palm — “not a light tap” but “it was a clear smack”, audible above the background noise and consistent with skin-on-skin contact. Individual B’s account, though hearsay, was consistent; all three adults present gave evidence of physical contact. Kaliszan’s own account was that she tried to pull up his trousers and placed “one hand on his shoulder and one hand on his bottom as a tap to make him leave the room”, fearing other pupils would be triggered. The panel instead found “two smacks in short succession with an open hand”, that the bottom was bare, and that it “simply did not consider that these conflicting positions taken by the teacher were factually reconcilable on any basis” — it could not conceive that hitting a child bent over her knees was a way to encourage him to move, and found the intention was chastisement.
On or around 29 July 2024, Kaliszan accepted a police caution under a Community Resolution Form for the offence of “wilfully assault young person under 16”, contrary to section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, by “placing a hand on” Child A “whilst looking after him at Elm Tree Primary Academy Friar Park Rd, Wednesbury, WS10 0TB on 03/05/2024 after he urinated in the ball pool”.
The panel found the conduct breached the Teachers’ Standards and Keeping Children Safe in Education, and breached the academy’s policies — including its CPI Safe Intervention Policy, which states that “It is always unlawful to use force as a punishment”. Physical abuse of a child in these terms “represented a serious transgression by a teacher of their most basic and fundamental task, to keep children safe”. She was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
Public Reaction and Consequences
In mitigation, the panel noted Kaliszan’s twenty years’ service and clean record, positive witness evidence about her abilities as a teacher, and that the incident was “a one-off occurrence which had clearly occurred in a situation of some intense stress and pressure for the teacher”; witness evidence suggested a family crisis that day, though this and photographs of cuts and bruises on her finger and arm were untested. Against that, it found her actions were deliberate, that no evidence suggested she acted under extreme duress, and that she had shown no meaningful insight or remorse, regretting only that her actions were “misconstrued”. Although the child cruelty and/or neglect offence type was triggered, the panel judged the facts “towards the lower end of the spectrum” and recommended a prohibition order with a two-year review period.
Current Status
The panel convened virtually on 15 to 17 June 2026; Kaliszan was not present and was not represented. Its determination is dated 17 June 2026, and the decision on behalf of the Secretary of State was signed by decision maker David Oatley on 19 June 2026. She is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any academy, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. She may apply for the order to be set aside, but not until 25 June 2028, and this is not an automatic right. She has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice, and the decision was published in June 2026.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The prohibition order ends a twenty-year teaching career in England, and the accepted caution for wilfully assaulting a young person remains on her record. The panel found she had not identified her motivations and triggers and had not shown she was not at risk of repeating her behaviour — though it saw “a potential possibility” that, if she applied herself, she could develop the insight and resilience needed to address that risk. Until any successful set-aside application, the published decision stands as a permanent public record.