A DISGRACED Stourbridge teacher found guilty of fraud and dishonesty has been banned from the country’s classrooms.

The indefinite ban was imposed on Edward Cox, aged 33, who was a key computing and business teacher at Redhill School, following a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) disciplinary hearing in Coventry.

Imposing the ban on behalf of the Education Secretary, Alan Meyrick - chief executive of the TRA - said the findings of misconduct against Mr Cox were “particularly serious as they include a finding of fraud and serious dishonesty”.

At the tribunal hearing Mr Cox admitted dishonesty involving pupils' exam work. He was said to have submitted one or more pieces of work to an exam board as if it had been produced solely by a pupil when he knew that was not the case.

And he was said to have submitted grades or marks for one or more pupils to the board which he knew would not reflect the grade or mark the pupil would have received for their own unaided work.

He accepted his conduct “lacked integrity and/or was dishonest” and that it amounted to “unacceptable professional conduct” which could bring the teaching profession into disrepute, say the panel findings.

The findings say Mr Cox was employed at the school from September 2015 to February 2018 as “cross curricular coordinator of ICT and/or head of computing science and/or business.”

The incidents complained of took place in the academic year for 2018/2019.

Imposing the ban Mr Meyrick said the disciplinary panel had found Mr Cox guilty of “misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession”.

The ban is an indefinite one but the way was left open for Mr Cox to seek to have it lifted after five years.

However, Mr Meyrick stressed that if he does seek to have it lifted he will have to go before another tribunal and satisfy them he is fit to return to the classroom.

In some cases where the way is left open for teachers to seek to have bans lifted a period of two years is set.

But Mr Meyrick said he did not consider it appropriate in this case to set the period at two years. He said: “I am particularly mindful of the finding of fraud and serious dishonesty in this case and the impact that such a finding has on the reputation of the profession."