Miss Alexandra Slay

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Miss Alexandra Slay

Teacher reference number: 3847757

Teacher's date of birth: 13 April 1992

Location teacher worked: Epsom, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 8 to 10 April 2026

Outcome type: Prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Miss Alexandra Slay formerly employed in Epsom, South East England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Miss Alexandra Slay: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2026 2 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 39 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 44 3 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Miss Alexandra Slay Teacher ref number: 3847757 Teacher date of birth: 13 April 1992 TRA reference: 22940 Date of determination: 10 April 2026 Former employer: Epsom and Ewell High School, Epsom Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 8 to 10 April 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Miss Alexandra Slay. The panel members were Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Robert Dowey (teacher panellist) and Ms Amy Barron (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Shanie Glen of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Miss Slay was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public save that portions of the hearing were heard in private and was recorded. 4 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 21 January 2026. It was alleged that Miss Slay was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that, whilst working as Teacher of Maths at Epsom and Ewell High School (“the School”): 1. Between 2019 and 2023, she gave her personal mobile number and/or personal email address to one or more pupil(s) in Schedule A. 2. Between 2019 and 2023, she: a) sent inappropriate and/or over familiar text messages and/or emails and/or letters to one or more of the pupils in Schedule B; and/or b) sent emails to one or more of the pupils in Schedule C within which she shared details of her personal life; and/or c) sent emails to one or more of the pupils in Schedule D within which she shared details of other pupil(s) and/or School staff members; and/or d) sent emails and/or text messages and/or letters to one or more pupils in Schedule E within which she fabricated stories about her being in a conflict and/or war zone and/or sustaining injuries 3. As a result of her conduct at paragraphs 1 and/or 2a and/or 2b and/or 2c and/or 2d, she developed inappropriate relationships with one or more pupil(s) and/or breached the boundaries of a teacher-pupil relationship with one or more pupil(s); 4. As a result of her conduct in paragraph 2d she caused and/or had the potential to cause stress and/or alarm to one or more pupil(s). 5. She did not report on CPOMs and/or to the Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) and/or to the deputy DSL, the safeguarding concerns referred to in Schedule F. Schedule A i. Pupil A; ii. Pupil B; iii. Pupil C; iv. Pupil I; 5 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE v. Pupil J. Schedule B i. Pupil A; ii. Pupil B; iii. Pupil C; iv. Pupil D; v. Pupil E; vi. Pupil F; vii. Pupil G; viii. Pupil H; ix. Pupil I; x. Pupil J. Schedule C i. Pupil A ii. Pupil B iii. Pupil F Schedule D i. Pupil A ii. Pupil C iii. Pupil D iv. Pupil E v. Pupil H vi. Pupil I Schedule E i. Pupil A 6 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE ii. Pupil B iii. Pupil C Schedule F i. Concerns regarding Pupil A’s [REDACTED] ii. Concerns raised by Pupil B regarding [REDACTED] iii. Concerns regarding Pupil C’s [REDACTED] iv. Concerns regarding Pupil H’s [REDACTED] v. Concerns regarding Pupil I’s [REDACTED] vi. Concerns regarding Pupil J’s [REDACTED] In the absence of a response from the teacher, the allegations were not admitted. There was also no admission of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 7 to 8 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 9 to 13 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 17 to 37 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 38 to 1002 The panel also had sight of an anonymised list, which was provided separately to the hearing bundle, together with a timeline which was provided by the presenting officer (which cross-referenced to the relevant evidence in the bundle). In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession dated May 2020 (the “Procedures”). 7 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witness called by the presenting officer: 1. Witness A, [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In December 2016, Miss Slay commenced work as a Teacher of Mathematics at Epsom and Ewell High School (“the School”). On 26 May 2023, Miss Slay became Head of Year at the School. On 16 August 2023, the Individual C met with the [REDACTED] of the School to raise concerns about communications between Miss Slay and Pupil A. A referral was made to the Local Authority Designated Officer (“the LADO”), and also to the police. On 1 September 2023, an Investigating Officer was appointed by the School. On 4 September 2023, a second referral was made to the LADO and the police. On 8 September 2023, the School interviewed Pupil B, Pupil G and Pupil H as part of its investigation. On 18 September 2023, the police informed the School that they would not be continuing their investigation. On 3 October 2023, Miss Slay attended a disciplinary interview. On 16 October 2023, the investigation report was finalised and submitted. On 9 November 2023, Miss Slay resigned from the School. On 16 November 2023, a disciplinary hearing took place. On 19 December 2023, Miss Slay was referred to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 8 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE 1. Between 2019 and 2023, you gave your personal mobile number and/or personal email address to one or more pupil(s) in Schedule A. The panel heard oral evidence from Witness A, who [REDACTED] at the time of the investigation, and who was appointed [REDACTED] by the School. The panel also had sight of Witness A’s written witness statement to the TRA dated 21 November 2024. The panel found Witness A to be a credible witness as her testimony was consistent, and her evidence was supported by a large volume of contemporaneous documentary evidence within the bundle. The panel heard how concerns first came to light when Individual C met with the [REDACTED] of the School on 16 August 2023, to raise concerns regarding Miss Slay’s communications with Pupil A that she had found on Pupil A’s mobile phone. Witness A explained that the concerns were that Miss Slay was communicating with Pupil A via a personal mobile phone. Witness A stated that Individual C provided photos that she had taken from Pupil A’s phone, which were of text messages exchanged between Miss Slay and Pupil A. Witness A stated that Individual C appeared to be genuinely concerned for Miss Slay’s welfare, as the messages indicated that Miss Slay had been injured whilst fighting in combat. The panel had sight of the photos of the text messages on Pupil A’s phone which were provided by Individual C to the School in the hearing bundle. These photos showed text messages that Pupil A had been exchanging with a contact named “[REDACTED] Slay”. The panel also had sight of a photo taken of the contact information saved to Pupil A’s phone for “[REDACTED] Slay”, which revealed a mobile telephone number. Witness A confirmed that the mobile number that was used for the contact “[REDACTED] Slay” and in the accompanying text messages matched that of Miss Slay’s mobile number, which was on her personal file. The panel had sight of the investigation report prepared by Witness A, which was finalised and submitted on 16 October 2023. The investigation report stated that Miss Slay “admitted to sharing her mobile number with [Pupil A] in June.” The panel also had sight of the typed-up notes of Miss Slay’s disciplinary interview at the School on 16 October 2023. The interview notes were not signed but Witness A confirmed that these were the notes taken from her interview with Miss Slay. The notes showed that, during her disciplinary interview, Miss Slay was asked: “The messages are on personal devices, from yours to [Pupil A]. Can you explain how this happened?”. In response to this question, Miss Slay stated: “It was just before Pupil A’s exams had finished – [they] said [they] felt at a bit of a blocked road – [they] said ‘you have been a big support. I’m worried I won’t have that support anymore’. [REDACTED]. [They] had become dependent on my advice at school. It started during a [REDACTED] lesson. I was waiting in the corridor for 9 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE students to change – I just said hello to [them]. 2 days later [they] came into my classroom – [REDACTED]. [They] said [they were] having a bad day. Communication became more frequent. [REDACTED].