Craig Ward

Introduction

Craig Ward is a former PE teacher at University Academy Warrington — later Padgate Academy — who was banned from teaching indefinitely after a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) panel found he sent Facebook Messenger messages of a sexual nature to a pupil, known as Pupil A, and failed to maintain professional boundaries with him and a second pupil, Pupil B. The panel also found that conduct was sexually motivated. Ward admitted the allegations in a signed statement of agreed facts, and the case was decided without a hearing. On 30 September 2021, decision maker Sarah Buxcey prohibited Ward from teaching for life, with no review period and no entitlement to apply for restoration.

Background Information

Ward, born on 17 September 1985, joined University Academy Warrington as a PE teacher on 1 January 2013; the school was renamed Padgate Academy on 1 December 2018. On or around 25 July 2018, a report was made to Cheshire Constabulary regarding messages Ward had sent to Pupil A. The police notified the Local Authority Designated Officer, who informed the school, and the school investigated in September and October 2018, after the police investigation had concluded. Ward attended an investigatory interview on 4 October 2018 but resigned on 7 January 2019 — the day before his disciplinary hearing. The published decision records the police report but not its outcome, and no criminal charge or conviction against him.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Admitted in a signed statement of agreed facts; considered without a hearing. Ward admitted all three allegations in a statement signed on 14 May 2021 and asked that the case be considered without a hearing; a TRA panel convened virtually on 28 September 2021, met in private and announced its decision in public. The findings below are regulatory findings made on those admitted facts, not criminal convictions.

The core of the case was a sequence of Facebook Messenger messages Ward sent to Pupil A. Pupil A said the contact began with football, moved on to schoolwork, then to requests to pick items up from the shop — before turning sexual. Among the messages the panel examined were “… I wanna suck u dry. I’m home in a week if ur ok for trying stuff xx” and “u know u can trust me. N it’ll be fucking tremendous xx”. Others pressed Pupil A to keep the exchange secret and promised no one would find out. Many were sent late at night or in the early hours — timestamps cited included 01:36, 02:23, 03:15 and 00:34 as well as 22:15 and 23:57 — with explicit language throughout. The panel found the boundary failures with Pupil A proved in their entirety, in direct contradiction of the school’s safeguarding policies.

The admitted facts also set out a wider pattern. Ward asked Pupil A to buy items from the shop for him, and did not always pay for them. He drove Pupil A home alone in his car, with no other adult present, without the academy’s permission or the risk assessment its policies required. On a minibus returning from a trip, Pupil A and Pupil B pretended to drink from a bottle of vodka bought for Ward as a gift; Ward encouraged them to go ahead, as a joke, quietly enough that the other teacher present did not hear. A second allegation covered the same kind of lone car journeys with Pupil B, again without permission, and was also proved in its entirety.

The third allegation was that this conduct was sexually motivated, and Ward admitted that too. Pupil A described how the early messages had seemed matey — he took the kisses Ward appended as friendly — but that when the explicit messages began he was shocked, confused, did not know how to respond and just wanted them to stop. He read the assurance that he could trust Ward as the worst message of all, because it traded on years of built-up trust. Ward apologised the next morning: “I’m really sorry. Was out of my head.” At the school’s disciplinary interview he claimed extreme drunkenness, but later admitted his conduct was sexually motivated. The panel concluded that the shop errands, the lifts and the alcohol formed a pattern of cultivating a relationship Ward intended to turn sexual.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel placed Pupil A’s account at the centre of its judgment. He described ongoing anxiety about the possibility of running into Ward around his home town, and said he had been afraid to tell anyone what happened because he worried he would not be believed that a teacher had acted this way. In his statement to the school’s disciplinary investigation he said: “This has had an effect on me and I do not feel a teacher should make a student feel like that, even though I am not in the school any more.” Ward’s admission meant Pupil A did not have to recount events to the panel itself, though the panel noted it had no evidence that sparing him was Ward’s motivation. Finding no evidence of remorse or insight before it, and noting that Ward had avoided the scrutiny of his employer by resigning the day before his disciplinary hearing, the panel recommended a prohibition order with no review period.

Current Status

Ward is prohibited from teaching indefinitely. In her decision dated 30 September 2021, Sarah Buxcey accepted the panel’s finding that the proven facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, and agreed that no review period was appropriate. Ward cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England, and — because of the seriousness of the findings — he is not entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. He had a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice; none has been reported.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The prohibition order ended Ward’s teaching career roughly six and a half years after he joined University Academy Warrington, and it did so permanently: a ban with no review period and no entitlement to apply for restoration leaves no route back to the classroom in England. The panel found he had abused his position as a teacher to pursue sexual gratification or a sexual relationship with Pupil A, causing the pupil harm, and that more serious harm could have followed had Pupil A accepted his advances. That harm is what the decision maker weighed against any prospect of Ward ever teaching again.

Sources

• Department for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Craig Ward” — source