Former assistant headteacher at East Ham school struck off for faking pupil attendance records

Imtiaz Nabi worked at Langdon School in East Ham Picture: Steve Poston

Imtiaz Nabi worked at Langdon School in East Ham Picture: Steve Poston - Credit: Archant

A former assistant headteacher who admitted doctoring registers in a bid to improve attendance statistics has banned from the profession.

Imtiaz Nabi, who worked at Langdon School - now Langdon Academy - between 1995 and 2009, has been prohibited indefinitely from teaching and may not apply for the decision to be set aside for two years.

No explanation was given as to why it took until this year that a notice of proceedings was served on Mr Nabi, despite a member of staff who provided evidence to the hearing being interviewed as part of an investigation in 2011.

The Teaching Regulation Authority conduct panel heard how between April 2007 and February 2009, when he resigned, Mr Nabi would “frequently falisfy the attendance figures which were presented for the lower school [Years 7 and 8] to ensure that these were above 95 per cent”.

This, the report of the hearing states, was because the Sussex Road, East Ham school’s headteacher at the time, Vanessa Wiseman, would “focus on any recorded attendance below 95pc”.

Among the amendments Mr Nabi made to the paper registers was changing the letter ‘H’ for authorised holiday to a ‘B’ denoting education off site, because this would count the pupil as present in attendance statistics.

He would also change ‘E’ for excluded to a ‘B’, which was explained as not being an exclusion because work was being sent home.

Most Read

During the hearing, Mr Nabi admitted to the “serious matter” of falsifying registers, which could “have the effect of disguising a safeguarding concern in relation to a child who is absent”.

The report stated that “whilst there is no evidence that pupils were placed at risk, there is a need for attendance records to be accurate from a safeguarding perspective”.

The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Nabi amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected.

It recognised that at the time, Mr Nabi was operating “under significant pressure” and that he felt “scared and did not want to be shouted at”.

Mr Nabi, the panel ruled, had also showed “insight and contrition” and was of “previous good character”.