Ho Cheng

Introduction

Ho Cheng is a former class teacher at Dilkes Academy in South Ockendon, Essex who was banned from teaching indefinitely in April 2025 after admitting that he lifted a Year 1 pupil off the ground in an unjustified physical hold — placing his arms behind the six-year-old’s and onto the back of his neck, carrying him “like arrest” in the pupil’s own words — and then failed to report the incident to his school. Cheng admitted both the facts and that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct; the decision maker, Sarah Buxcey, imposed an indefinite prohibition order with a two-year review period on 16 April 2025.

Background Information

Cheng joined Dilkes Academy as a class teacher on 1 September 2023. On the afternoon of 19 December 2023, while his class of Year 1 pupils was getting ready to go home, he used a physical intervention against Pupil A — a boy who was not following his verbal instructions — in order to move him. Pupil A reported the incident to his parent that evening; the parent spoke to Cheng on the morning of 20 December, and Cheng apologised but did not report the incident to the school. Later that same day Cheng performed a second physical assisted move on Pupil A, during which the pupil hit him; a staff member reported that incident to the Designated Safeguarding Lead, and in the afternoon Cheng told the school he had received a complaint from Pupil A’s parent about the previous day’s handling. The Deputy DSL contacted the Local Authority Designated Officer, who advised the school to investigate; Cheng was suspended on 20 December 2023. During the investigation he admitted that he “grabbed” Pupil A by his shoulders and arms and lifted him so that his feet were off the floor. He ceased employment at the school on 11 March 2024. Cheng requested his regulator case be handled without a hearing and admitted the allegations in a signed statement of agreed facts, represented by the National Education Union; the panel met privately on 11 April 2025.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Admitted. Cheng admitted the facts of both allegations and that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in his notice-of-referral response and statement of agreed facts. No criminal charge arises from the conduct in the published record.

The statement of agreed facts recorded Cheng’s own admissions: that during the afternoon of 19 December 2023 he lifted Pupil A off the ground and carried him using a hold which involved putting Pupil A’s hands behind his head; that “the physical intervention was not reasonable or proportionate in the circumstances”; and that it “was inappropriate and caused harm to Pupil A in that Pupil A immediately cried and that he suffered pain and discomfort in his shoulders.” The panel corroborated the admissions with the school’s investigation evidence, admitted after finding it reliable: Pupil A’s interview the day after the incident — “I wouldn’t sit on the carpet… He did this to me (lifted hands behind head, like arrest) he carried me” — and, asked whether his feet had been on the floor, his answer: “No!”. The panel also had the accounts of other pupils in the classroom, which corroborated him. The second allegation, the failure to report, was proved on the chronology: the incident happened on 19 December, the parent raised it on the morning of 20 December, and Cheng reported it to the school only that afternoon — and only after a separate incident that day had already been reported to the safeguarding lead by a colleague. The panel found the conduct breached the Teachers’ Standards on treating pupils with dignity and breached the safeguarding duties in Keeping children safe in education.

Public Reaction and Consequences

No press coverage attaches to the case; the published decision is the public record. The school’s investigation, the LADO referral and the suspension preceded his departure in March 2024; the regulator’s ban followed a year later. The panel found “an unjustified and illegitimate physical contact with a pupil and a failure to report the incident promptly” engaged a strong public interest in the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, and recommended prohibition with a two-year review period — the sanction appropriate to serious physical conduct that stopped short of the assault convictions that draw no-review orders. Buxcey adopted the recommendation on 16 April 2025, weighing in the ban’s favour the protection of pupils and public confidence. The near-repeat the day after the first incident — a second assisted move that drew a struck pupil — sat behind the findings as context the school’s evidence captured but the allegations did not charge.

Current Status

Cheng is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the order to be set aside from 2027 — two years from the date of the order at the earliest — but this “is not an automatic right to have the prohibition order removed”; a fresh panel would weigh any application against the public interest then. Without a successful application he remains prohibited for life. The determination is dated 11 April 2025, with the decision maker’s order dated 16 April 2025, effective from service. He retains a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice; the published record shows none was filed.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Cheng’s case sits in the regulator’s middle band for physical conduct: unlike the assault convictions that draw life bans with no review, his conduct drew admissions, no criminal proceedings in the published record, and a two-year gate — but the ban itself is indefinite and nationwide either way. The decision’s signal on reporting is as strong as the one on the hold: the failure to self-report an incident a parent had already raised converted a single-piece-of-contact case into a two-allegation finding, and the second physical move the following day — in front of colleagues — is what brought the safeguarding system in. For teachers it confirms that physical interventions on young pupils outside trained, recorded, proportionate technique are unjustified by non-compliance alone, and that the school hears the incident from the parent before it hears it from the teacher at its peril. For schools the case shows the LADO route converting a classroom incident into a regulator ban inside sixteen months.

Sources

• Dept for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Ho (Shing Calvin) Cheng” — source