A Liverpool maths teacher who sent more than 200 emails to a teenage girl and told her he would find her the “perfect boyfriend” has escaped sanction. Between January and March 2024, Jamil Wali told the girl “you mean a lot to me” and shared messages about his own private life while working at Kings Leadership Academy in Dingle.
The conclusion of a Teacher Regulation Agency (TRA) hearing into his conduct was told how Mr Wali accepted he had not maintained professional boundaries and had sent inappropriate and personal messages to the girl. Some of the messages were sent as early as 5am and after 11pm at night.
Conduct deemed at “lower end of the spectrum”
This amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and actions that could bring the teaching profession into disrepute. Panel members have chosen not to impose any sanction on Mr Wali as this was deemed at the “lower end of the spectrum” of offences.
In July, a public hearing was told how Mr Wali joined Kings Leadership Academy in September 2022 to teach maths. Duncan Tilley, TRA panel chair, said around 204 emails were sent by Mr Wali to the teenager who he came to refer to as “mate”. He accepted that this was inconsistent with professional boundaries expected by teachers.
Messages described as “highly personal”
The string of emails came to the attention of the school’s safeguarding lead and Mr Wali was suspended pending an investigation. Mr Tilley told the hearing how the maths teacher had sent messages that were highly personal including statements such as “you mean a lot to me”, “I am always here”, “I’ve got your back” and “that’s what friends are for”.
It was said Mr Wali discussed his own friendships and relationships as well as sharing personal experiences and past romantic experiences. Mr Tilley said it was the TRA’s view that Mr Wali appeared to assume the role beyond that of a teacher, rather the girl’s primary source of support.
Defence argues case was “weak”
The panel found he also continued to engage with the student, known as pupil A, and did not fully follow guidance on safeguarding. The hearing was told how Mr Wali said in his evidence that “with the benefit of hindsight communications had become overly familiar” and he accepted it was inappropriate.
Officials said the teacher “had intended to provide support not qualified to deliver” because he could help her. This was deemed to be inappropriate and unprofessional, rather than sexual. Mr Tilley said Mr Wali’s actions had created an overfamiliarity between the student and teacher, but he denied seeking to isolate pupil A from other support methods. Mr Wali did however create a “dependency and reliance” for the girl on him.
Jonathan Storey, representing Mr Wali, said the case against his client was “weak” and described the teacher as a “serious, insightful and conscientious young man”. He said pupil A had turned to the teacher as he was someone who was helpful to her and Mr Wali was of the belief he could continue to support her.
No prohibition order imposed
Decision maker David Oatley wrote in a report published last week how there had been a “strong public interest” in a sanction against Mr Wali given the “serious findings of inappropriate and excessive communications with a child”. It was said officials had taken into account the teacher’s personal circumstances and background, including his evidence regarding his journey into teaching and his commitment to supporting pupils from backgrounds similar to his own.
Mr Oatley wrote: “The panel considered that Mr Wali had the potential to make a positive contribution to the profession in the future. There was evidence before the panel that Mr Wali, who was an Early Careers Teacher at the time of the misconduct, nonetheless had shown ability to become an educator.”
While Mr Wali’s actions were found to be deliberate, there was no evidence to suggest he was acting under extreme duress. Mr Oatley said the conduct found proved was at the “less serious end of the spectrum” and decided a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest. He added: “I consider that the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession.”
