A veteran supply teacher has been banned from the classroom after telling primary pupils that Rosa Parks never really gave up her seat on a bus and that Martin Luther King was a fraud. The case, which also involved claims that Covid was fake and Islam was “demonic”, has become a flashpoint in the debate over how far personal beliefs can be allowed to intrude into lessons with young children.
Regulators concluded that the teacher’s conduct crossed the line from controversial opinion into professional misconduct, finding that his comments about civil rights history, religion and public health risked harming pupils and undermining trust in schools. The decision has raised wider questions about how schools protect children from conspiracy theories and prejudice while still encouraging critical thinking.
The lessons that triggered a professional reckoning
The disciplinary case centred on a series of lessons in which the Teacher, later identified as Patrick Lawler, used his position at the front of the classroom to advance fringe narratives about race, religion and science. During one session with primary pupils, he claimed that Rosa Parks did not in fact refuse to give up her seat and that the famous bus protest was “all staged”, and he went on to tell the same class that Martin Luther King was a fraud, recasting the civil rights movement as a kind of elaborate deception rather than a struggle against segregation. According to a detailed account of the hearing, he also told children that the widely accepted story of Parks’s defiance was essentially a fabrication, a claim that directly contradicted the curriculum he was meant to deliver and left pupils confused about basic historical facts.
Those remarks did not occur in isolation. In the same period, he was reported to have told pupils that Covid was fake and that the pandemic was “all about money”, presenting conspiracy theories as if they were established fact. Investigators heard that he described Islam as “demonic” and “satanic”, language that regulators later categorised as Islamophobic and incompatible with the duty to promote respect for different faiths. A formal report on his conduct noted that he had also discussed sexual topics and drugs inappropriately with children, including talking about cocaine with pupils in a way that was judged to be unprofessional and potentially harmful, and that these incidents together formed a pattern of behaviour that could not be explained away as a single lapse in judgment, as set out in the findings on his classroom comments.
A long career, a trail of complaints
Patrick Lawler’s ban did not emerge from a single school or a brief stint in supply work, but from concerns that followed him across roles and regions. A Teaching Regulation Agency hearing was told that Patrick Lawler, 62, had taught in Northumberland and Bristol, and that issues had been raised about his conduct over a number of years rather than a single term. The panel heard that he had contacted a former pupil to tell them “I have failed you” and suggested they would not have passed their exams without him, behaviour that regulators said blurred professional boundaries and placed an inappropriate emotional burden on a young person, according to the account of the Teaching Regulation Agency hearing.
Previously he had taught at a school in Northumberland from 2015-20, where he had told Year 6 pupils that civil rights figures such as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were not what they seemed and that key episodes in American history were staged events rather than genuine protests. The same period saw complaints that he had spoken to children about sex in ways that were not age appropriate and had introduced his personal religious views into lessons, including describing Islam in hostile terms. A later report on his supply work in Bristol concluded that this pattern of behaviour, stretching from Northumberland to the West Country, was likely to bring the profession into disrepute and that his continued presence in classrooms posed a risk to pupils, a conclusion set out in detail in the findings on his time in Northumberland and Bristol.
From classroom controversy to an indefinite ban
Once the allegations surfaced, the case moved from school-level concern to national scrutiny, culminating in an indefinite prohibition on teaching. Most of the allegations included in a report related to Patrick Lawler’s time as a history and religious education teacher, where he was accused of using lessons to promote his own views on Covid, Islam and the civil rights movement rather than the agreed syllabus. The panel heard that he had told pupils that Covid was fake and that the pandemic was “all about money”, and that he had described Islam as “demonic”, language that was found to be discriminatory and likely to foster intolerance among impressionable children. The regulator concluded that his conduct showed a “deep-seated attitudinal problem” and that there was a risk he would repeat the behaviour if allowed to return to the classroom, a conclusion that underpinned the decision to impose an indefinite ban on Patrick Lawler.
Confirming the ruling, a civil servant on behalf of the Secretary of State wrote that “the panel finds that the conduct of the teacher fell significantly short of the standards expected” and that his comments were “incompatible with the values” that schools are required to uphold. The decision letter highlighted his description of Islam as “demonic” and his insistence that Covid was fake as examples of behaviour that undermined public confidence in education and risked exposing pupils to prejudice and misinformation. It also noted that he had shown limited insight into the impact of his words on children, and that there was little evidence of remorse or a willingness to change, factors that weighed heavily in the decision to prevent him from teaching indefinitely, as set out in the official explanation Confirming the ban.
Islamophobic language and the duty to protect pupils
Regulators placed particular weight on the way Patrick Lawler spoke about Islam, seeing it as a clear breach of the requirement to promote tolerance and respect for different faiths. In one account of his lessons, he was said to have described Islam as “demonic” and “satanic”, language that the panel categorised as Islamophobic and likely to stigmatise Muslim pupils or those from Muslim families. Another report on his conduct referred to a teacher who described Islam as “satanic” and suggested that pupils would not have passed their exams without him, a combination of religious hostility and self-aggrandisement that regulators saw as fundamentally at odds with the humility and impartiality expected of educators, as detailed in the findings on the Teacher who called Islam “satanic”.
The panel’s written decision stressed that such language did not simply reflect a private belief but had the potential to shape how children viewed their classmates and wider society. By presenting a major world religion as inherently evil, the teacher risked legitimising prejudice and undermining the inclusive ethos that schools are legally required to foster. The report also noted that his comments about Islam were part of a broader pattern of disparaging remarks about other groups and institutions, including his insistence that civil rights leaders like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were frauds and that public health authorities had fabricated the threat of Covid, a pattern that was laid out in detail in the account of the Islamophobic statements that helped lead to his prohibition.
What the case reveals about classroom boundaries
Beyond the individual misconduct, the Lawler case has become a reference point in debates about how schools handle staff who promote conspiracy theories or extremist views. Education leaders note that teachers are expected to encourage critical thinking, including discussion of contested historical interpretations, but that this must be done within the framework of evidence and respect for protected groups. In this instance, regulators concluded that telling pupils that Rosa Parks never gave up her seat and that Martin Luther King was a fraud did not amount to a nuanced critique of historical sources, but to the promotion of unfounded claims that undermined pupils’ understanding of racism and civil rights. The same applied to his insistence that Covid was fake and that the pandemic was “all about money”, which the panel saw as an attempt to substitute personal belief for scientific consensus in a way that could damage children’s trust in public health advice, as summarised in the detailed account of the Teacher who claimed the bus protest was staged.
The case has also prompted questions about how quickly concerns are escalated and whether earlier intervention might have prevented some of the later incidents. Reports on the investigation suggest that issues were raised at different points in his career, from his time in Northumberland to his supply work in Bristol, but that it took a formal Teaching Regulation Agency hearing to bring the full pattern into focus. One account of the proceedings noted that the ban will be subject to a review after four years, leaving open the possibility, however remote, that he could seek to return to teaching if he can demonstrate a change in attitude and a commitment to professional standards, a detail highlighted in the summary of the Teacher ban review process.
More from Decluttering Mom: