Sunjit Kang
Introduction
Sunjit Kang is a former Head of ICT and Business at The Grangefield Academy who was banned from teaching after a panel found he inflated pupils’ exam marks, added to and amended pupils’ coursework and completed exam authentication forms purporting them to have been signed by pupils. Kang, 40, was absent from and unrepresented at his Teaching Regulation Agency hearing, which found every allegation proved — including that his conduct lacked integrity and was dishonest. The OCR exam board’s moderators triggered the case when they questioned the authenticity of work submitted under his name, and he was prohibited from teaching with a three-year review period.
Background Information
Kang was employed by the academy as Head of ICT and Business from 1 September 2022 until 31 March 2024. On 14 November 2023, a moderation team for the OCR exam board reported concerns about the authenticity of work submitted on behalf of pupils, prompting an investigation into his management and assessment of controlled work in one unit. The unit at the centre of the case was the R094 assessment, “Visual Identity and Digital Graphics”. The investigation compared the marks Kang had awarded with re-moderation marks from two senior academy trust employees, and found significant disparities: his marks were all significantly higher than the re-moderated ones.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated, absent. Kang did not attend or send representation to the hearing, so the allegations proceeded as disputed; all were found proved. No criminal proceedings were reported.
On mark inflation, Kang’s explanation was that he had awarded “best case scenario marks” — a hypothetical account of what pupils would have achieved if they had attended additional drop-down sessions scheduled to let them complete extra work. The panel called the scenario “fanciful”, said it was inappropriate to apply it to assessed work, and found the disparities significant and outside any reasonable margin of error. The allegation was proved across the schedule of pupils whose marks were inflated.
On the coursework itself, the panel reviewed examples of pupils’ submitted work in which the name or signature of one candidate appeared inside the work of another. Kang said this was an error — that he had not checked individual pupil names and candidate numbers — but the panel found “the pattern of the way this had done, and its repetition was not indicative of it being an error”, concluding the actions were consistent with an attempt to manufacture evidence supporting grades that had been inflated. The allegation was proved for the scheduled pupils, with one pupil excepted.
The third limb concerned the exam board’s authentication forms, which each candidate must sign to confirm the work is their own and any assistance, including AI tools, is acknowledged. Kang was asked in a November 2023 meeting to produce the forms for the pupils whose work he had submitted; it subsequently transpired he had completed and amended the forms himself, purporting them to have been completed by pupils. The panel was not satisfied with his explanations and found this allegation proved. On the overall characterisation, it found his conduct lacked integrity and was dishonest.
At sanction stage the panel noted mitigating references to his experience and good character, but found “none of these factors were sufficient to amount to significant mitigation”, and that “Mr Kang has not displayed any real acknowledgement of his failures, or any insight or remorse”. It concluded that publication of findings alone would not be a proportionate response in the public interest.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The case moved through the school’s investigation and the exam board’s moderation process to the TRA, with no criminal charge reported. The decision maker’s summary of the seriousness was blunt: the findings included “a teacher engaging in the falsification of exam entries and records as well as engaging in behaviour that was dishonest”. The panel recommended a prohibition order with a three-year review period, and decision maker Marc Cavey, acting for the Secretary of State on 22 December 2025, made the order, giving considerable weight to the absence of insight or remorse and the risk of repetition.
Current Status
Kang 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, but not until 7 January 2029 — three years from the date of the order. The application is not automatic; a panel would reconsider whether the ban should lift, starting from findings he never answered in person. The determination is dated 17 December 2025 and the outcome was published on 19 January 2026. He has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice; no appeal was reported.
Impact on Their Career/Life
Kang’s ban joins a cluster of teacher-misconduct cases built on assessment fraud, and his is among the plainer ones: the exam board’s moderators caught it, the re-moderation marks exposed the scale, and the forged authentication forms removed any innocent explanation. The pupils whose marks he inflated had grades that could not stand, and the panel noted the damage ran through the credibility of the school’s submissions. Any return to teaching after January 2029 would require a panel to overlook a finding of dishonesty he has never publicly acknowledged, having chosen not to appear and answer it.