Assistant Head Teacher's 'Weird' Texts to Former Pupil Exposed in Disciplinary Hearing
A former assistant head teacher and safeguarding lead at a Cornish college has been found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct after sending inappropriate text messages to a former pupil. David Egford, who served as assistant principal at Launceston College in North Cornwall, engaged in communication described as sexual in nature during exchanges over several days in early 2024.
Crossing Professional Boundaries
The Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) disciplinary panel determined that Egford's messages crossed professional boundaries when he communicated with the former pupil, who was under 18 at the time and had recently left the college. According to the hearing report published in January, the conversation began when Egford was asked by a third party to provide career support to the former pupil but quickly turned inappropriate.
"I kind of forgot I wasn't supposed to be and I liked it and I took it too far and honestly liked the fact I thought you were in bed and not dressed," Egford told the former pupil in one message, which he described to the panel as a "clumsy joke." He later asked the pupil to delete this exchange.
Disciplinary Proceedings and Dismissal
An investigation was launched in January 2024 after concerns were raised about Egford's communications with the former pupil. The college permanently dismissed Egford following a disciplinary hearing in March 2024. He had been appointed as the college's designated safeguarding lead in 2014 and promoted to assistant principal in 2016.
The panel heard that Egford admitted his behavior had crossed professional boundaries but denied allegations that it was sexually motivated or that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. He acknowledged making inappropriate comments but maintained there was no evidence he received sexual gratification from the exchange or pursued a future sexual relationship.
Panel Findings and Consequences
Marc Cavey, reporting on behalf of the secretary of state for Education, stated: "The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Egford amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession." The panel found Egford guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
Despite these serious findings, the TRA panel decided not to bar Egford from teaching, describing the incident as "an unprofessional lapse of judgment, during an exemplary career profession." The panel noted his 14-year tenure at Launceston College with no previous suggestions of unprofessional behavior.
Context of the Messages
The inappropriate exchanges occurred over two or three days in January 2024. According to the hearing report, the conversation began when the former pupil mentioned feeling cold, to which Egford responded by telling her to put more clothes on. The situation escalated that evening when Egford sent the message about thinking she was "in bed and not dressed."
There was one additional message where Egford commented on how pretty the former pupil looked despite having bags under her eyes and suggested she "needed to spend more time with him." All inappropriate exchanges stopped after this point, and Egford continued to help the former pupil with her job search.
Safeguarding Implications
The panel emphasized the particular seriousness of Egford's position as both a senior staff member and designated safeguarding lead. "The panel found this behaviour to be totally unacceptable for any teacher but even more so in this case where Mr Egford was a senior member of staff and the designated safeguarding lead," Cavey reported.
The former pupil felt sufficiently uncomfortable with the messages to report them to the college, prompting the investigation. The panel considered that using social media, sending messages outside working hours, and the content straying beyond career advice all contributed to developing an inappropriate relationship.
However, the panel made a distinction between the sexual nature of the contact and sexual motivation, finding that while one message was overtly sexual, there was no evidence of sexual motivation. Cavey added: "There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Egford was a risk to pupils or children."
