Mr Sunjit Kang

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Sunjit Kang

Teacher reference number: 3550116

Teacher's date of birth: 15 February 1985

Location teacher worked: Stockton-on-Tees, North East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 16 to 17 December 2025

Outcome type: Prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Sunjit Kang formerly employed in Stockton-on-Tees, North East England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Sunjit Kang: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 3 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Sunjit Kang Teacher ref number: 3550116 Teacher date of birth: 15 February 1985 TRA reference: 23758 Date of determination: 17 December 2025 Former employer: The Grangefield Academy Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually between 16 and 17 December 2025 to consider the case of Mr Sunjit Kang. The panel members were Dr Martin Coles (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Anila Rai (lay panellist) and Ms Elizabeth Tongue (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Tom Walker of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges. Mr Kang was not present nor represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 29 September 2025. It was alleged that Mr Kang was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: Whilst working as Head of Department and subject teacher at The Grangefield Academy (‘the Academy’): 1. In or around October 2023, you: 4 a. inflated pupils’ exam marks for the pupils set out in Schedule A; and/or b. in respect of the assessment titled ‘R094 - Visual Identity and Digital Graphics’, added to and/or amended pupils’ work, purporting it to be their own, for the pupils set out in Schedule B; and/or c. completed and/or amended exam authentication forms, purporting them to have been completed by pupils as set out in Schedule C. 2. Your conduct at 1(a) and/or 1(b) and/or 1(c): a. lacked integrity; and/or b. was dishonest. Schedule A 1. Pupil Q; 2. Pupil H; 3. Pupil E; 4. Pupil R; 5. Pupil S; 6. Pupil T; 7. Pupil U; 8. Pupil V; 9. Pupil W; 10. Pupil G; 11. Pupil X; 12. Pupil O; 13. Pupil Y; 14. Pupil Z; 15. Pupil AA; 16. Pupil AB; 17. Pupil AC; 18. Pupil AD; 19. Pupil AE; 20. Pupil AF; 21. Pupil AG; 22. Pupil N; 23. Pupil AH; 24. Pupil AI; 25. Pupil P; 26. Pupil AJ; 27. Pupil M; 28. Pupil L; 29. Pupil F; 30. Pupil AK; 31. Pupil AL; 32. Pupil AM; 33. Pupil K; 34. Pupil A;5 35. Pupil AN; 36. Pupil AO; 37. Pupil J; 38. Pupil B; and/or 39. Pupil I. Schedule B 1. Pupil B; 2. Pupil E; 3. Pupil G; 4. Pupil I; 5. Pupil K; and/or 6. Pupil M. Schedule C 1. Pupil A; 2. Pupil B; 3. Pupil O; 4. Pupil P; 5. Pupil L; and/or 6. Pupil M. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 5 to 7 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 21 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 22 to 33 Section 5: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 34 to 471 Section 6: Teacher documents – pages 472 to 475 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). 6 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: • Witness A [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. By way of background, Mr Kang was employed by the Academy as Head of ICT and Business from 1 September 2022 until 31 March 2024. On 14 November 2023, a moderation team for the OCR exam board reported concerns about the authenticity of the work submitted on behalf of pupils. This resulted in an investigation into the conduct of Mr Kang in relation to the management and assessment of controlled work in one unit which he had submitted on behalf of pupils. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against you proved, for these reasons. Whilst working as Head of Department and subject teacher at The Grangefield Academy (‘the Academy’): 1. In or around October 2023, you: a. inflated pupils’ exam marks for the pupils set out in Schedule A; and/or b. in respect of the assessment titled ‘R094 - Visual Identity and Digital Graphics’, added to and/or amended pupils’ work, purporting it to be their own, for the pupils set out in Schedule B; and/or c. completed and/or amended exam authentication forms, purporting them to have been completed by pupils as set out in Schedule C. As regards allegation 1a. the panel reviewed a copy of the document recording the original marks awarded to pupils and the re- moderation marks by two senior Academy Trust employees. There were significant disparities between the marks. The marks given by Mr Kang were all significantly higher than the re-moderation marks. 7 Mr Kang was questioned about this by the Academy and in the course of the investigation stated that he had used ‘best case scenario marks’. His case was based on a hypothetical scenario in which (in the case of Pupil C) what the pupil would have achieved if they attended the additional drop- down sessions scheduled to allow pupils to complete additional work. This scenario was fanciful and it was inappropriate to apply it to assessed work. The disparities were also significant and outside any reasonable margin of error or appreciation. The panel reviewed Schedule A and was satisfied that allegation 1a. was found proved on the basis of the pupils referred to therein. As regards allegation 1b, it is said that Mr Kang submitted work on behalf of pupils which had not been completed by that particular pupil. The basis for this allegation was that Mr Kang had inflated the grades of pupils and was then required to provide work which evidenced the inflated grades. The panel reviewed a number of examples of work where the name and/or signature of one candidate is present in the work of another. Mr Kang was questioned about this by the Academy and in the course of the investigation stated that this was an error and that he had not checked the individual pupil name and candidate number. However, the pattern of the way this had been done, and its repetition was not indicative of it being an error. Indeed, the actions were entirely consistent with an attempt to provide evidence to support grades which had been inflated. The panel reviewed Schedule B and was satisfied that allegation 1b. was found proved on the basis of the pupils referred to therein with the exception of Pupil B. As regards allegation 1c. the panel heard evidence that the examination board required each candidate to sign a declaration to confirm that the work was their own and any assistance given and/or sources used, including AI tools, had been acknowledged. All students were to sign these authentication forms, which were then to be kept on file. The panel received a document recording the different signatures completed by some of the pupil candidates for the purposes of comparison. In the course of the investigation, and in a meeting on 28 November 2023, Mr Kang was asked for copies of candidate authentication forms for pupils whose work he was responsible for submitting. It subsequently transpired that Mr Kang had printed off copies of these forms from his IT account after this meeting and thus long after the time when they should have been completed (ie prior to the submission of the assessments). The printer log displays records that multiple blank templates were printed. The panel heard evidence that Mr Kang had asked colleagues for the unit code for the work, which would not have been required had the forms already been signed. A number of pupils stated that they did not sign an authentication form (Pupil A, B, L, and M). Other pupils stated that they signed a form but could not be exactly sure as to when they signed their forms. All the authentication forms are dated 22 September 2023, however there were a number of indicators that the authentication forms were not signed on that date, which included statements from pupils (such as Pupil K) that he had signed it in January 2024. 8 This is concerning as it does not follow the exam guidance required by JCQ and OCR, which states that before submitting their work, each candidate must sign a declaration to confirm the work is their own and any assistance given and/or sources used, including AI tools, have been acknowledged. The panel heard evidence that Head of Departments received a copy of these JCQ guidelines and this guidance was also circulated by the Subject Director. The panel also noted that Mr Kang was an experienced teacher who was, or should have been, aware of these guidelines. The panel reviewed Schedule C and was satisfied that allegation 1c. was found proved on the basis of at least four of the pupils referred to therein (Pupils A, B, L and M), as there was no evidence to support that this had taken place with Pupils O and P. As regards Pupils A, B, L and M, the panel was satisfied that these authentication forms were submitted by Mr Kang as opposed to the pupils. The panel was not satisfied with the explanation given by Mr Kang in representations to the TRA and finds allegation 1c,