Andrew Bennington
Introduction
Andrew Bennington is a former teacher at Scarborough Sixth Form College who was prohibited from teaching for life after admitting that he sent a pupil a winking emoji and then, months after that pupil left, a string of sexualised Facebook messages — including a reference to having his iPad “for general internet porn”, asking “you 18 now??”, proposing a pub meeting and the message “Can be rude ?”. A Teaching Regulation Agency panel found all the allegations proved on his admissions and agreed-facts statement, and found his conduct sexual in nature. In November 2025 the decision maker prohibited him from teaching indefinitely with no entitlement to apply for restoration, the panel having found no understanding of why the conduct was wrong and no remorse.
Background Information
Bennington, born 24 November 1973, worked as a full-time teacher of students aged 16 to 18 at Scarborough Sixth Form College from 1 September 2013. The college learned of the matter through the Local Authority Designated Officer, which had received information from police raising concerns about messages he had exchanged with a former student. On 17 January 2025 he was told the college had received that concern; on 20 January 2025, at the outset of an investigatory meeting, he tendered his resignation. A disciplinary hearing went ahead on 27 January 2025 after his resignation, and the case was referred to the TRA.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Fully admitted misconduct case. This was a regulatory case decided on admissions: Bennington admitted the allegations in his response to the notice of referral and in a signed statement of agreed facts, and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The case was considered without a contested hearing. No criminal charge appears in the published decision.
In or around January 2024, while the pupil was still at the college, Bennington sent Former Pupil A a winking face emoji on social media. Between around 11 November and December 2024, after the pupil had left, he exchanged Facebook messages the panel recited from the agreed facts: “I’ve my iPad for general internet porn”; “You’re just round the corner if you ever want come round during the week”; “you 18 now??”; “If you wanna wander to a pub for a pint after work and have a catch up before Xmas just let me know”; “You’ve a near [REDACTED] waiting for your food !”; “Can meet up. Share Time in bbq hut”; and “Can be rude ?”. He also sent a message commenting on the former pupil walking around with a [REDACTED], and viewed the pupil’s profile picture. The former pupil later said they had felt fine chatting at first, until the message referring to internet porn.
The panel found the conduct sexual in nature and treated the case as having begun with a sexual communication to a pupil he taught and escalated after the pupil left. It accepted Bennington had taken some accountability — he admitted his actions during the college’s investigation, said he was “embarrassed about what he had done”, “unsent” some messages, and has stated he has “no excuse”. But it found he had expressed no understanding of why his conduct was wrong or of the impact on the former pupil, had referred to being “never going to do anything”, expressed no remorse, and concluded the risk of repetition was significant.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published decision documents institutional consequences rather than public debate. The concern reached the college from outside — via the LADO from police information — rather than through an internal complaint, and the college’s response was immediate: an investigatory meeting within days, the acceptance of his resignation at its outset, and a disciplinary hearing a week later. The panel noted one former pupil’s character evidence that they had never felt personally uncomfortable in his lessons and that “he seems like a really nice fella who wants the best for everyone”, but no statements were produced attesting to his abilities as a teacher or his character beyond that. No police charge appears in the published record; the police role was as the original source of the concern.
Current Status
The panel recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and no review period, reasoning that the Advice treats any sexual misconduct involving a child as weighing against a review and that Bennington had shown no understanding of why the professional-pupil boundary matters. The decision maker, David Oatley, agreed on 19 November 2025 on behalf of the Secretary of State: Bennington is prohibited from teaching indefinitely, cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England, and was judged not entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. The determination is dated 7 November 2025; the order takes effect when served, with a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The ban ends Bennington’s teaching career in England at the point of his January 2025 resignation, twelve years into his post at Scarborough Sixth Form College, and makes it permanent: an indefinite prohibition, no review period, and no entitlement to seek restoration. A return to teaching could come only through a successful High Court appeal. The panel’s findings mean the record he carries is not merely of messages sent but of a regulator’s conclusion that he demonstrated no insight into why they were wrong — the specific finding that drove both the ban and its no-restoration terms.