Melton teacher banned from classroom after admitting inappropriately touching pupils

Richard Newman taught business studies at John Ferneley College, at the time, a government report states.

Mr Newman admitted in a statement that “his physical contact with pupils was not minimal, limited in duration, age appropriate or justified”.

He said he was ashamed at the thought he had upset his pupils.

The panel investigating his behaviour said his actions were “clearly inappropriate”, “deliberate” and breached the school’s safeguarding policy.

He has been handed a classroom ban for his behaviour.

An initial investigation was opened by the school after two members of staff overheard female students saying he had “massaged their shoulders” and reported the conversation.

Six students gave evidence. Student A told the school Mr Newman would touch and massage her back during lessons and she had witnessed Mr Newman touch Student F’s arms and hair. Student B claimed Mr Newman would stand behind her and massage her shoulders most lessons and she had seen Mr Newman do the same to Student A.

Student C said she had seen Mr Newman go behind Student D and massage her shoulders and touch her ears. Student D said Mr Newman “fiddled” with her hair and ears, massaged her shoulders and whispered the answers to questions in her ear.

Mr Newman admitted in a letter sent by his solicitor to the panel that he had “on occasion patted or tapped students on the back, shoulder or arm; patted students on the head or shoulder or ruffled their hair and spoken quietly to students whilst standing next to or behind them to discuss their work”.

He “did this in order to reassure and encourage students or reinforce positive feedback [and] he did not intend to make students feel uncomfortable”, he said.

However, the panel ruled it was “clearly inappropriate for a teacher to touch pupils in this manner or whisper in their ears”.

“Mr Newman engaged in physical contact with pupils without good reason and, in doing so, he failed to observe proper boundaries and he failed to act in accordance with the spirit of the school’s safeguarding and child protection policy,” the report added.

Mr Newman submitted a statement to the panel expressing his regret and shame at his actions.

“I have spent a lot of time reflecting,” he said.

“Having considered how I have conducted myself in a classroom, I have been particularly devastated that I have made any young person feel uncomfortable. In my mind this is unforgivable.

“The thought that I have, in any way, upset a young person makes me feel ashamed. I would never do this again.

“If I ever went back into the teaching professions I would change my actions completely and adopt a much more professional approach.”

The panel did note that Mr Newman’s record was previously unblemished and he appeared to be a good teacher.

A number of supportive testimonials were submitted to the panel by his former colleagues, saying he always acted professionally.

A prohibition order has been made against Mr Newman banning him from teaching in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He can appeal this in two years.