A former headteacher who defrauded two schools of more than £15,000 has been banned from the profession. Neil Metcalf, 52, was jailed for 15 months in 2024 after pleading guilty to two counts of fraud. He abused his position as head to steal £10,800 from St Anthony of Padua Catholic Primary School, Liverpool, between 2017 and 2022 and £4,690 from Our Lady’s Bishop Eton Catholic Primary School, Merseyside, between 2022 and 2023. The fraud involved invoices relating to a company that did not exist, with the money instead flowing to Metcalf. Now the education secretary has banned him from teaching following the recommendations of a Teaching Regulation Agency panel, with a stipulation he cannot ask for a review of the decision for six years. The panel noted the former head’s conviction, and that he had opted not to go to a full hearing. It also noted his behaviour “ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed”. ‘Direct impact on school resources’ The panel found Melcalf’s actions “had a direct impact on the resources available for the education of pupils”. The report also noted that during his suspension, the second school had to employ two replacement headteachers at an additional cost of £33,500. “Furthermore, Mr Metcalf was expected to act as a role model, and committing acts of fraud did not set an appropriate example to pupils. His actions undermined the trust placed in him in his role.” Metcalf’s behaviour could also “affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents, and others in the community”. In written representations, Metcalf told the TRA that “at the time, he was struggling with spiralling debt due to loans and credit cards that he had taken out”. He did not share his problems with anyone, “which led him to make decisions that he was ‘deeply ashamed of’. The TRA report said Melcalf had explained that taking out “unwise loans” led him to commit the fraud in an attempt to “keep his head above water” amid a fear he might lose his house. But the panel noted Metcalf had committed these offences at two schools over a “significant period of time”. They said: “This was a sophisticated fraud planned by Mr Metcalf to avoid detection. He would have had many opportunities over that time to make better choices. Whilst many people struggle with financial issues, it is not an answer to resort to fraud.” ‘He abused his position of trust’ The panel did consider “whether there was a public interest in retaining Mr Metcalf in the profession”. But “whilst there was evidence that Mr Metcalf had ability as an educator, the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweighed any interest in retaining Mr Metcalf in the profession”. His behaviour “fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher, and he abused his position of trust, as was confirmed in the description of the offences for which Mr Metcalf was convicted”. The TRA panel also placed “less weight on the testimonial statements attesting to Mr Metcalf’s character, in light of his convictions for fraud. “His conviction for fraud indicated his duplicitous nature and the panel considered that, in those circumstances, it was not surprising that others would speak highly of him. “The panel noted that none of the testimonials appeared to have been provided for the purpose of these TRA misconduct proceedings, after his convictions for fraud. Those convictions clearly demonstrated that, contrary to many of the references, he was not, in fact, putting the needs of the pupils first.” Ban is ‘proportionate and appropriate’ Melcalf also told the panel that both schools “had been fully recompensed for the losses caused as a result of his actions”, the TRA said. But the panel “saw no evidence to confirm that this was the case. “Mr Metcalf’s simple reliance on this demonstrated a lack of understanding of the wider implications of his actions upon the standing of the schools concerned in the community,” the TRA panel said. They added that they “did not consider that Mr Metcalf had demonstrated that he has insight into the financial impact on the schools and the resources available for pupils, on the reputation of those schools in the local community and on the profession. “The panel considered that Mr Metcalf’s representations demonstrated chagrin at the personal consequences of his actions rather than an empathetic identification with the perspective of others.” The panel concluded a ban was “both proportionate and appropriate”, recommending one to the education secretary, along with a recommendation that a review period of six years be applied. The education secretary’s representative accepted this, banning Metcalf from teaching “indefinitely”. He cannot apply for the ban to be set aside until 29 April 2032.