Jennifer Farron was banned from teaching anywhere in England after she sent dozens of emails to pupils and later asked them to delete them, raising concerns among other educators08:29, 22 May 2026A science teacher has been banned from the classroom after sending "excessive" amounts of emails to students after hours, including ones at as late as 2am, then asking them to delete the messages in a bid to cover her tracks.‌Jennifer Farron was employed at St John Bosco Arts College in Croxteth, Liverpool, for about eight years. But a teacher regulation agency report revealed how Ms Farron, 34, exchanged almost 160 emails with a student known as pupil J.‌More emails sent between the former teacher and another learner known as pupil AM. In a statement, pupil AM said while there was "nothing to hide" but they did not understand why the teacher would ask for the correspondence to be deleted.‌READ MORE: PE teacher banned after 'rubbing' pupil and telling her she was 'Premier League'READ MORE: PE teacher's vile social media rants before he was banned from teachingMs Farron was employed at the Storrington Avenue school as a science teacher from September 2017. In June 2024, concerns were raised over the teacher's messages with pupil J. Later that month, she was suspended before being sacked in February last year. She was referred to the TRA in March 2025.Before a private hearing, Ms Farron accepted she sent to and/or received an "excessive" amounts of emails from pupil AM outside of school hours. It was accepted by the teacher that several of the emails had been deleted, reports the LiverpoolEcho. The TRA heard how communications discussed relationships with other people, the pupil's emotional state and Ms Farron's own personal life. She accepted doing this, she failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. In a 90 day period, it was found almost 160 emails had been sent between pupil J and Ms Farron.‌Her messages with pupils took place between the hours of 2.14am and 10.44pm, well outside the school communication policty of emails being sent between 7.30am and 6pm. The panel noted that one email sent by pupil J in February 2024 said: "I hope youre [sic] having a nice half term." Ms Farron responded the following day which would also have been in the half term break.Emails sent late at night and in school holidays were beyond what officials from the school would expect of communications between a staff member and pupil. On December 31, 2023, pupil J messaged Ms Farron to say it had been the “worst 24 hours of my life.” In March 2024, the same pupil had emailed the teacher to say he missed her. Ms Farron accepted that in sending and/or receiving the emails, she failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with pupil J.The TRA panel considered that Ms Farron had fostered a culture whereby pupils felt they were able to send emails to her during the night and express affection towards her. The panel therefore considered Ms Farron had failed to maintain appropriate boundaries. Ms Farron accepted that during the academic year 2023 – 2024, and in relation to the school’s investigation, she asked another pupil known as AM to delete the emails between them. The former teacher also admitted she had deleted emails between her and pupil J.‌When questioned by school officials, Ms Farron said that she deleted her emails routinely. In a pre-hearing statement, she said she would regularly delete emails “in bulk” and there was “no ill intent when clearing [her] emails.” In a statement, pupil AM told the school about their communication. They said: “I don’t think any of her emails were sent in a bad way, I think it was purely just her trying to look out for me. I don’t think it’s okay the way she’s asking me to delete them. She asked me this on Tuesday 18th of June period 2, but I don’t understand why she asked me to delete them.”Pupil AM said there was “nothing to hide” and “didn’t get a chance to ask her why she wanted me to delete the emails as when she asked.” Ms Farron also admitted she suggested that pupil J visit her partner’s café and discussed her tattoos with the boy. Suggestions were made by an anonymous person that one of the tattoos was inspired by their relationship, according to the TRA report.In Ms Farron’s representations submitted for the TRA proceedings, she said that she had discussed tattoos with students on multiple occasions, but had never encouraged any student to get any tattoo. She said that she could acknowledge how this situation might be interpreted. The ex-teacher accepted that with hindsight she should have guided them away from a location that she had a link to.‌The communication between the students and Ms Farron were sent using her school account, which the TRA found had amounted to misconduct of a serious nature. The report said there had been evidence her actions were deliberate and she acted dishonestly in asking at least one pupil to delete emails relevant to the school’s investigation.Ms Farron expressed remorse in a reflective statement, saying she offered her deepest apologies to the student and their family for the distress and disruption her actions had caused. She added how she extended her apologies to her colleagues and the wider school, community, and that she understood that her actions had undermined the trust placed in the profession and caused additional strain for those who remained dedicated to their students' success.She added in hindsight, there were things she would do differently. She said it "saddens [her] the most" that "anyone might think that I would do anything other than safeguard a child," admitted her approach to relationship building as being poorly judged, leading her to overstep appropriate boundaries, and said she was "profoundly sorry" for this.Article continues belowBut the TRA were satisfied to prohibit MsFarron from teaching anywhere in England indefinitely. She may appeal the decision in three years' time. A spokesperson for St John Bosco Arts College told the LiverpoolEcho: “Ms Farron was suspended from duty pending a formal investigation in 2024. Following a full and thorough internal investigation, they were dismissed. This outcome was referred to the Teaching Regulation Agency. “