A secondary school teacher who broke the rules in a bid to help his students get better grades in their exams has been spared a complete ban from the teaching profession.

Michael Davu was Head of Business, Computing and Vocational Lead at Milton Keynes Academy when he made his bad judgement, the Teaching Regulation Agency heard.

Their disciplinary panel considered his case in December and has published its decision this month.

The panel heard Mr Davu was a respected teacher with 18 years experience when he was in charge of a group of students taking their R085 and R090 iMedia exams, equivalent to GCSEs, in early 2023.

Mr Davu admitted his wrongdoings. Picture posed by models - Getty Images

placeholder image — Mr Davu admitted his wrongdoings. Picture posed by models - Getty Images

He fully admitted to the hearing that, between March and May of that year, he allowed one or more pupils to prepare and/or amend their work after the examination deadline had elapsed and also that he assisted assisted in modifying the work of one or more pupils after the deadline had passed.

He also admitted he did not obtain signed declarations from pupils when he was required to do so.

Mr Davu said he had felt pressure from above to improve the marks of the coursework but was full of remorse and anxiety after doing so.

The hearing documents state: “The panel considered that based on the evidence, Mr Davu knew that the marks he was awarding for the coursework were inaccurate and that he had knowingly facilitated students amending their work to achieve higher grades by inviting students selected for moderation by the exams authority to a session to review their work after the examination deadline had passed and running and engaging in that session.”

It adds: “The panel was clear then that Mr Davu was aware at the time that his actions were dishonest and that this was acknowledged by him.”

The panel found proven that Mr Davu consciously chose to submit false and/or inaccurate marks in respect of his pupils’ work to the examination body and also that he had intentionally allowed a large number of pupils to prepare and/or amend work after the examination deadline for doing so had elapsed, when those pupils should no longer have access to that work.

The panel further found proven that Mr Davu had assisted those pupils in modifying their work.

"The panel noted that it was acknowledged by Mr Davu that the intention of doing this was to endeavour to allow the pupils to seek to attain, wrongfully, the false scores which he had submitted to the examination board,” state the documents.

In a statement, Mr Davu said: “I allowed pupils to continue preparing or amending work after the official examination deadline had passed. I take full responsibility for this decision. I now understand clearly that it was a breach of assessment regulations and that it compromised the fairness and integrity of the process”.

The panel decided Mr Davu had “reflected extensively and developed a very clear level of insight into his actions” and considered the chances of him ever repeating the same actions again were very low.

They said: “Reviewing the evidence the panel found that Mr Davu had demonstrated a high level of insight and remorse in respect of his actions. The panel was persuaded by Mr Davu’s evidence that he thought about his actions every day and carried the burden of his guilt in connection with them with him. The panel was clear that he understood that what he did was wrong and that it was seriously dishonest.”

The panel had to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Mr Davu in the teaching profession or whether a ban should be issued.

They concluded: “Whilst the panel had found that the unacceptable behaviour in this case was serious, it considered that, with the mitigating factors that were present, a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate or assist in this case.

"Taking into account the high level of insight and remorse which Mr Davu had displayed, the panel failed to see how prohibiting Mr Davu for a period of at least two years would produce any material change or serve any useful purpose.

It was decided that a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest.

" I consider that the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession” stated the decision maker.

Mr Davu no longer teachers at Milton Keynes Academy.