Shaun Conrad Allison
Introduction
Shaun Conrad Allison is the former Principal of Bude Park Primary School in Hull who was banned from teaching after a panel found he caused and allowed staff to mark absent pupils as present on the school’s legal attendance register in April and May 2021, and then failed to safeguard the pupils whose whereabouts those false marks concealed. Allison, 47, admitted in his own evidence that knowingly instructing a colleague to mark four pupils present when he knew they were absent was dishonest “in a roundabout way”. The Teaching Regulation Agency panel found the dishonesty allegation proved, and he was prohibited from teaching with a two-year review period.
Background Information
Allison had been Principal at Bude Park Primary since September 2016. The case belongs to the pandemic spring of 2021: on 15 April 2021 a trust colleague emailed him noting that the school’s daily attendance was the lowest in the academy trust, and by 20 May 2021 concerns had reached the trust that attendance records at the school had been falsified. Allison attended a pre-investigation meeting on 21 May 2021, and three days later was asked to go on garden leave. The same episode ensnared the school’s Designated Safeguarding Lead, Sarah Mitchell, whose own prohibition order was decided by the same decision maker in the same week. The attendance officer at the centre of the concerns had warned in a WhatsApp message at the time that falsely marking pupils present broke “every rule” and could leave the fire brigade looking for a child marked present who was not in the building.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated, contested. Allison denied instructing staff to falsify marks dishonestly and gave evidence; the panel found the core allegations proved, with one limb (allegation 2b) not proved. No criminal proceedings were reported.
The panel found that between around 19 April and 21 May 2021, Allison caused and allowed colleagues to complete or amend attendance records inaccurately, with a schedule of pupils marked present when they were not in school. The attendance officer told the panel she had raised with Allison her worry about amending the statutory register, that he gave instructions to mark specific pupils — 3, 4, 5 and 22 — present when he knew they were absent, and that the practice continued after her concerns were raised. One allegation — that he failed to act on a specific warning from the attendance officer on around 4 May 2021 — was found not proved, the panel not being satisfied she had made him aware on that occasion.
In his own evidence, Allison denied instructing anyone to amend marks dishonestly or for gain, saying he genuinely believed he was only asking for a trust data report to be updated and did not realise this meant the statutory register was also being changed. But under questioning he accepted that knowingly instructing the attendance officer to mark pupils 3, 4, 5 and 22 as present when he knew they were absent was dishonest “in a roundabout way”. Applying the Ivey test, the panel concluded that an ordinary honest person would think allowing and instructing a pupil to be marked present when knowingly absent was dishonest, and found the dishonesty allegation proved. The panel acknowledged the pressure he was under — no deputy headteacher, one assistant vice principal instead of two, personal difficulties, and the strains of the pandemic period — but did not let it displace the findings.
The safeguarding limb followed from the false marks themselves: pupils whose absence was concealed could not be accounted for in an emergency, and there was no evidence any pupil was harmed, but the panel found Allison had failed to respond on multiple occasions to clear safeguarding concerns raised by the attendance officer and another colleague, which “constituted a failure to adequately safeguard pupils”. On insight, the panel described him as “very remorseful” but found “insufficient evidence of insight”, noting his insight “in the evidence he provided to be very limited” and that he “did not appear to have taken responsibility for his actions even though as Principal, he was directly responsible”.
Public Reaction and Consequences
No criminal proceedings were reported; the case ended Allison’s career through the regulatory route. The panel found the proved facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, including “failing to adequately safeguard pupils and conduct that was dishonest”, and recommended a prohibition order with a two-year review period. Decision maker David Oatley, acting for the Secretary of State on 10 December 2025, made the order. The case ran alongside the ban of his safeguarding lead, Sarah Mitchell, leaving the school’s senior safeguarding leadership of the period both prohibited from teaching.
Current Status
Allison 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 16 December 2027 — two years from the date of the order. That application is not automatic: a panel would weigh the findings, including the dishonesty finding, and the panel’s conclusion that his insight remained very limited. 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
Allison lost a headship held since 2016 over roughly five weeks of attendance-record manipulation carried out while his school sat at the bottom of its trust’s attendance table. The panel’s finding that a principal personally instructed false marks — and then described that as dishonesty only “in a roundabout way” — is what carried the case to a ban; the pressure mitigation was acknowledged but did not excuse it. Any application after December 2027 would start from the panel’s conclusion that he had not taken responsibility for conduct for which, as Principal, he was directly responsible.