Sarah Mitchell (Hull teacher)
Introduction
Sarah Mitchell is a former teacher, Designated Safeguarding Lead, SENCO and Assistant Vice Principal at Bude Park Primary School in Hull who was banned from teaching after a panel found she failed to act on the falsification of pupils’ attendance records happening around her — and at one point told a colleague to “just mark [Pupil 31] in” when the pupil was absent. Mitchell, 44, held the school’s safeguarding brief while absent children were being marked present during the April-May 2021 lockdown period. The panel found the failure was a safeguarding failure and that her conduct was dishonest; she was prohibited from teaching with a two-year review period.
Background Information
The case arises from the same April-May 2021 episode at Bude Park Primary School that ended the career of the school’s Principal, Shaun Conrad Allison, whose separate ban was decided by the same decision maker. In that window, staff were instructed to mark pupils who were absent as present on the attendance register. On 21 April 2021 the school’s attendance officer, troubled by the instruction, messaged a colleague: “if a child/ family where [sic] off school awaiting covid test or test results and you are been [sic] told to mark them as present in school!!!! would this be breaking any rules or regulations?” The reply came back within minutes: “this is breaking every rule and you should tell him so… what if there is a fire and the fire brigade are looking for this child… school registers are legal documents”. Mitchell was the school’s DSL and SENCO as well as Assistant Vice Principal, and continued working at the school until her resignation in June 2025, shortly before the hearing.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated, contested. Mitchell denied the core allegations; some particulars were not proved, but the panel found the central failures proved and her conduct dishonest. No criminal proceedings were reported.
The panel found that on 22 April 2021 the attendance officer raised her concerns in Mitchell’s presence, and that Mitchell did not act. It also found that when Individual D queried an instruction to mark Pupil 31 as present when the pupil was absent on around 7 May 2021, Mitchell told her to “just mark [Pupil 31] in”, or words to that effect. Two other particulars — that she failed to act during other discussions and during a staff meeting where the practice was mentioned — were found not proved, the panel being unable to correlate her presence with definite knowledge on those occasions.
The safeguarding weight of the case came from her role. The panel found that in her position as DSL she had a direct responsibility for the safeguarding of pupils, that the practice of absent pupils being incorrectly marked present continued after the concerns were raised on 22 April 2021, and that this put pupils at further risk — their whereabouts not fully known if, for instance, an emergency evacuation had occurred. Her instruction over Pupil 31 was found to be a breach of her professional duty. On the dishonesty limb, applying the Ivey test, the panel concluded that “an ordinary honest person would think that not taking any adequate action on becoming aware that absent pupils were being marked as present, and instead directing a member of staff to ‘just mark [Pupil 31] in’ when they were absent, was dishonest”.
At the hearing, which took place after her resignation, Mitchell explained that holding the DSL and SENCO roles together was “extremely challenging” and took “a lot of time and commitment to fulfil these roles to the best of [her] ability”. The panel found limited evidence that she understood the impact of her actions and inactions on the school, the pupils or the community, noted she had an opportunity while still in post to demonstrate what she would do differently, and observed that no such evidence had been provided — while also noting that she “strenuously denied” the allegations and had received a positive reference describing her as “an effective teacher, who is consistently good or better in her practice”.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The case produced no criminal charge; the consequences were professional. The panel found the proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct, breaching the safeguarding duties in Keeping Children Safe in Education, and characterised the findings as including “failing to adequately safeguard pupils and dishonest conduct”. It recommended a prohibition order with a two-year review period. Decision maker David Oatley, acting for the Secretary of State on 12 December 2025, made the order, giving weight to the safeguarding role she held and the lack of demonstrated insight.
Current Status
Mitchell is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. She may apply for the order to be set aside, but not until 16 December 2027 — two years from the date of the order. The application is not automatic; a panel would reconsider the findings and her insight before lifting the ban. The determination is dated 2 December 2025 and the outcome was published on 15 January 2026. No appeal was reported.
Impact on Their Career/Life
Mitchell lost a career that had reached senior leadership — assistant vice principal, safeguarding lead, SENDCo — over a five-week window in 2021 in which the panel found she chose institutional compliance over the duties of the safeguarding post she held. The dishonesty finding attaches specifically to inaction: knowing the register was false and directing a colleague to enter a false mark. Any return to work with children after December 2027 would require her to confront findings she denied throughout, in a system that treats the safeguarding lead’s silence as graver than a classroom teacher’s, because it was her explicit job to stop exactly this.