Sheffield High School for Girls: Teacher who emailed pupil calling her ‘Fuzzy Eyes’ is banned

Andrew Thomas was working as an English teacher at Sheffield High School for Girls when he gave the pupil his personal phone number, sent emails referring to her by the nicknames ‘Fuzzy Eyes’, ‘Tweetie’ and ‘Starlet’, discussed her personal life, and had one-to-one sessions with her on Google Meet outside of school hours, a professional conduct panel heard.

In February 2021, the pupil, who it has been suggested developed an ‘infatuation’ with Mr Thomas following his failure to ‘maintain appropriate professional boundaries’, sent him a document stating ‘Happy Valentines Day. I love you’.

The panel ruled that Mr Thomas’ actions amounted to ‘unacceptable professional conduct’, and he was banned from teaching indefinitely at any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. The ban will remain in place for at least two years, until March 30, 2025, which is the earliest date on which he can apply for the prohibition to be lifted.

Teacher’s conduct fell ‘significantly short’ of standards expected

The panel's ruling, published on Friday, March 31, states: “The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Thomas fell significantly short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher. It showed a fundamental disregard for the school’s policies and procedures including those relating to safeguarding.”

Mr Thomas, aged 49, had worked at Sheffield High School for Girls as a part-time English teacher since 2006. On May 24, 2021, a concern was raised by a member of staff at the school regarding his conduct and he was suspended from the school that day, pending investigation. A disciplinary hearing was held on June 17 that year and his last day of employment there was June 23, 2021.

Mr Thomas admitted the allegations against him, which also included giving the pupil a lift in his car without following the correct school procedures, something he said he ‘stupidly thought’ would be OK as another teacher was travelling with them to what was a farewell meal for students. He denied that the pupil had been ‘vulnerable’, though the panel ruled that this was the case.

Regarding the one-to-one sessions on Google Meet, which took place between December 2020 and April 2021, he said these were to help her with her revision and coursework, at a time when Covid was disrupting face-to-face teaching, and on one occasion to ‘reinforce professional boundaries’ after the pupil had sent him the document stating ‘I love you’.

Teacher gave pupil mobile number ‘out of genuine concern’ but admitted it was a ‘grave error’

Mr Thomas said he had given the student his personal mobile number ‘out of genuine concern and a sense that he was the best person to help’ her, though he now acknowledged it was a ‘grave error’. The panel heard how other members of staff had also given the same student their numbers.

Regarding the nicknames he used in emails to the pupil, he said ‘Tweetie’ was a name he used once after the student told the class about her nickname at a previous school, while ‘Starlet’ was a term he also used just once in a ‘joking reference’. When the pupil referred to her eyes being ‘fuzzy’ as she tried to type an email, Mr Thomas replied: “Of course I will have a look at your essay, Miss Fuzzy Eyes.”

Mr Thomas said all those emails had been sent in the run-up to Christmas when everyone was ‘laughing and joking, trying to make the best of what was going to be an awful Christmas because of lockdown restrictions’, though he acknowledged that he should never have used the terms. He also admitted sending a series of non-school related emails during December with ‘advent’ images, saying he saw his actions as ‘cheering someone up’.

Student sent teacher photos of her bedroom

Other emails exchanged between the pair included one from the student with photos of her bedroom, stating ‘as you took an interest in my redecorating but couldn’t see it properly through the camera I thought I’d send you some after the lesson’. The panel stated that her sharing aspects of her personal life was ‘encouraged and validated’ by Mr Thomas, who made comments including ‘just been having a shave for the first time in four days’.

Mr Thomas stated that while, on reflection, he could see these discussions were not professional, ‘they were borne out of the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the pandemic and his genuine, if misguided, attempt to offer support’.

Teacher described Valentine’s message as a ‘horrifying bolt from the blue’

The Valentine’s message from the student in February 2021 was described by Mr Thomas as a ‘horrifying bolt from the blue’. He stated that he should have realised that his help and friendliness might have been interpreted as ‘something more’ and that he ‘blamed himself’ for possibly giving her the wrong idea.

He said he arranged a Google Meet with her to make it clear her feelings were not reciprocated but that he found himself in an ‘impossible situation’ at that point as if he informed the school it would be ‘misinterpreted’. He also claimed he believed it would cause disruption and embarrassment for the student at a crucial time in her studies, so he resolved to try to manage the situation until the pupil left the school in May.

The panel heard how the student’s parents had informed the school back in July 2020 of concerns their daughter ‘had an infatuation towards Mr Thomas’ but a member of staff had investigated and found ‘nothing of concern’. The concern was not shared with Mr Thomas, his former colleague told the panel, but she had spoken with him to highlight how the pupil was a student about whom there were concerns and that any concerns raised with him should be logged with the school.

The panel heard how Mr Thomas had a previously good history, with one colleague calling him a ‘fantastic teacher’. Mr Thomas recognised there were things he would ‘do differently’, the panel heard, like not communicating outside of school hours and being ‘more reserved’ in his tone of communication.

"He has stated that he recognised that increasing the personal connection with Pupil A was a mistake that he regretted and chastised himself for,” the panel’s findings state. However, the panel was concerned that he had sought to shift some of the blame for his actions onto the school for not alerting him to the possibility of the pupil developing an infatuation with him – something it said should have been apparent to him.