Joshua Reed
Introduction
Joshua Reed, a music teacher and assistant head of the music faculty at Haven High Academy in Lincolnshire, was banned from teaching for life in June 2021 after admitting a sexual relationship with a pupil that began when she was still at the school — taxi rides home, a hand under her skirt, kisses in a pub toilet, and sexual activity in his car, local woods and a country lane — followed by messages asking the girl to send him images of herself while drunk. When the school investigated the first incident in September 2014, Reed lied: he denied having her phone number, denied contacting her afterwards, and privately asked her to “cover” him. He continued the relationship despite written advice to stay away from her, blocked her on Snapchat to hide the contact from colleagues, and admitted the whole course of conduct on agreed facts, drawing a prohibition order with no review period.
Background Information
Reed first joined Haven High Academy as a music teacher in 2010, and from 1 September 2016 until his dismissal on 21 March 2019 was assistant head of the music faculty. Between March 2014 and 2015 he developed an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with a pupil, anonymised as Pupil A, exchanging multiple messages of a personal and sexual nature and engaging in sexual activity on a number of occasions outside school premises and hours, with Reed and/or Pupil A consuming alcohol, sometimes to excess, on some of those occasions. The relationship and its cover-up spanned the period before and after a September 2014 investigation into his conduct towards her, and continued through written warnings, his promotion, and his eventual dismissal five years later.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
A music teacher’s two-year sexual relationship with a pupil — lies to investigators, “best stay that way” messages, and a ban with no way back.
The agreed facts traced the relationship from its start. In March 2014 Reed went with Pupil A to another person’s home, shared a taxi to hers, put his hand under her skirt or stroked her leg, and invited himself into her home. That July he flirted with her, told her “your legs look really good in that dress”, stroked her leg, entered the ladies toilet of a pub with her and kissed her. From September 2014 he was collecting her from home in his car, touching her leg, kissing her and engaging in sexual activity with her; further sexual activity followed in the local woods in October 2015, on a country lane in April 2015, and on other occasions in August 2015. Their messages discussed drinking and her being drunk, her using his hot tub while naked, his looking at her bottom in a leotard, and requests that she send an image of herself while drunk and a further image with her top pulled down or without a bra — to which he answered “it definitely will” when sexual activity between them was raised. When the school investigated the pub incident on 1 September 2014, Reed said he had never exchanged numbers with her and had not contacted her since — both untrue — and in the days after the incident had messaged her that he should have gone to her house, asked what she had told a colleague, and asked her to “cover” him by saying nothing had happened. He then blocked her and deleted Snapchat so she would not appear in his regular contacts, instructed her not to tell anyone, told her “best stay that way” about the secret, and told her to delete their messages and not to attend a school play. All of this continued after written advice of 3 September 2014 that he should not be alone with her and should not exchange numbers with her.
Reed admitted the facts in full, admitted the conduct was of a sexual nature and sexually motivated, and admitted the cover-up was dishonest and lacked integrity. Because the admissions were total, the case was decided without a hearing on a signed statement of agreed facts. The pattern the panel recorded — lies to the first investigation, concealment instructions to the pupil, and persistence after written warnings — is the full aggravating set the regulator weighs for the no-review tier, and decision maker John Knowles imposed the prohibition without a review period on 17 June 2021.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The school’s handling stretched across five years: a September 2014 investigation that Reed successfully deceived, written boundary advice the same week, a continued relationship in defiance of it, and a dismissal in March 2019 only when the full relationship finally surfaced. The decision records no press coverage, no police outcome, and no public statement from Reed or the school — his account exists only as the signed admissions. Pupil A’s correspondence was read by the panel as part of the bundle. The consequences for Reed compounded: dismissal from the faculty post he had been promoted into, and a prohibition that, without a review period, forecloses teaching in England permanently.
Current Status
Mr Reed is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. The order carries no review period: in the decision maker’s words, “I have decided that Mr Reed shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach.” John Knowles made the order on 17 June 2021, taking the decision on behalf of the Secretary of State; Reed retains a right of appeal to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days of service. His March 2019 dismissal stands on his employment record, and the admitted facts — including the deception of the 2014 investigation — are a permanent regulatory finding.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The case is the site’s fullest record of a relationship that survived its own discovery: the September 2014 investigation, the warnings, the deletion instructions and the “cover” request document a teacher managing a pupil-co-conspirator dynamic in real time, which is what distinguishes it from the site’s single-incident cases. Its five-year arc — from a deceived investigation to a dismissal to an admitted ban — shows the regulator treating the original cover-up as an independent, career-ending dishonesty finding, not a footnote. The quoted messages, from the dress compliment to “best stay that way”, give the site one of its most complete textual records of grooming-adjacent conduct admitted end to end.