Mr Michael Davu

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: Mr Michael Davu

Location teacher worked: Milton Keynes, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 16 December 2025 to 18 December 2025

Outcome type: No order made

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 Mr Michael Davu formerly employed in Milton Keynes, 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.

Mr Michael Davu: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 20 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 25 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Michael Davu TRA reference: 23266 Date of determination: 18 December 2025 Former employer: Milton Keynes Academy, Milton Keynes Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 16 December 2025 to 18 December 2025, by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Michael Davu. The panel members were Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Pamela Thompson (lay panellist) and Ms Sue Davies (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Corrish of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Michael Bellis of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Davu was present and was represented by Ms Gurpreet Rheel of Cornwall Street Chambers. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 1 October 2025, as amended further to a preliminary application. It was alleged that Mr Davu was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, while employed as a teacher at Milton Keynes Academy, Fulwoods Drive, Leadenhall, Milton Keynes, MK6 (‘the School’): 1. Between approximately 31 March 2023 and the 30 May 2023 he: a. Allowed one or more pupils to prepare and / or amend work after the examination deadline had elapsed; b. Assisted in modifying one or more pupils work after the examination deadline had elapsed; c. Did not obtain signed declarations from pupils when he was required to do so. 2. Between approximately the 31 March 2023 and 12 July 2023 he submitted false and /or inaccurate marks in relation to one or more of the following pupils: a. Pupil T; b. Pupil A; c. Pupil G; d. Pupil U; e. Pupil R; f. Pupil K; g. Pupil W; h. Pupil X; i. Pupil Y; j. Pupil B; k. Pupil I; l. Pupil Q 5 m. Pupil P; n. Pupil M; o. Pupil Z; p. Pupil AA; q. Pupil BB; r. Pupil S; s. Pupil DD; t. Pupil N; u. Pupil EE; v. Pupil FF; w. Pupil O; x. Pupil GG; y. Pupil HH; z. Pupil II; aa. Pupil JJ; bb. Pupil LL; cc. Pupil MM; dd. Pupil OO; ee. Pupil D; ff. Pupil E; gg. Pupil F 3. His conduct as may be proven at any of allegations 1 (a) and/or 1 (b) and/or 2 was dishonest. Mr Davu admitted allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 2 and 3, and further admitted that his conduct in respect of allegations 1, 2 and 3 amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, including as set out in 6 the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Davu on 16 April 2025 and within Mr Davu’s witness statement of 15 December 2025. [REDACTED] 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 3 to 4 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of proceedings – pages 5 to 31 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and teacher representations – pages 32 to 40 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 41 to 81 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Section 5 – Further TRA documents – pages 82 to 85 Section 6 – Further teacher documents – pages 86-109 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The TRA did not call any witnesses to give oral evidence at the hearing. Mr Davu gave oral evidence. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Davu commenced employment at what is now known as Milton Keynes Academy (the “School”) in or around 2011 as iMedia Course Leader and Vocational Lead Teacher. At 7 the time to which the allegations relate he held the title of Head of Business, Computing and Vocational Lead. On 10 July 2023, [REDACTED] was notified that coursework had not been submitted on time for the R085 and R090 iMedia examinations. The missing work was uploaded on this date and confirmation was received from the exam board, OCR. On 19 July 2023, the School was informed by OCR that the accompanying Unit Recording Sheets (URS) that were submitted by Mr Davu were blank for 15 students. During an investigation meeting on 19 July 2023 and a further meeting on 20 July 2023, allegations emerged that Mr Davu had seemingly worked with certain pupils to amend their work after the examination deadline for that work and had allegedly submitted inaccurate marks to the examining body. It was also alleged that Mr Davu failed to obtain required signed declarations from pupils and provide these to the examination board. On 26 February 2024, the matter was referred to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: In respect of all the allegations, the panel carefully considered the oral and written witness evidence and exhibits. The panel scrutinised the entire bundle, including the additional evidence it had agreed to admit. The panel scrutinised the TRA’s documents concerning the investigations and the meetings of the School surrounding these allegations. The panel noted that the evidence within many of these documents was hearsay but considered that the evidence was relevant and formed part of the official investigations. The panel therefore admitted the hearsay evidence after careful consideration in each case but noted that the evidence should be considered cautiously, including in relation to the appropriate amount of weight to be placed on it. The panel carefully considered the witness statement of Mr Davu which it had agreed to admit into evidence and the documents to which the statement referred. The panel noted that Mr Davu had admitted all of the allegations in their entirety but was aware that the burden remained on the TRA to prove the case to the standard of the balance of probabilities and the panel preceded to consider the evidence carefully on that basis before making its findings. 8 The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Between approximately 31 March 2023 and the 30 May 2023 you: a. Allowed one or more pupils to prepare and / or amend work after the examination deadline had elapsed; The panel noted that Mr Davu made a clear and unequivocal admission in the statement of agreed facts that between 31 March 2023 and 30 May 2023, he had allowed one or more pupils to prepare and/or amend work after the examination deadline had elapsed. Notwithstanding his admission, the panel made a determination based on the evidence available. The panel considered Mr Davu’s letter dated 26 May 2023 sent to parents/guardians of pupils who were selected for moderation by the examination body for their iMedia coursework. The letter set out that preparation was required before the students’ work was sent to the exam board, and that students who were selected for moderation were required to come into the School on 30 May 2023 (during half term) to prepare their work. The panel had sight of emails from [REDACTED], to Mr Davu dated 25 May 2023 which stated “should we invite the selected I Media students in for a day in half term?” and stated that Mr Davu was to contact parents of students to inform them of the “intervention session” that was to take place on 30 May 2023. [REDACTED] email further stated that Mr Davu was to send [REDACTED] a list of students and should give each student a letter before they left the School site the following day and suggested that he spoke to the pupils as they enter the gates the next morning. The panel had sight of an undated email from [REDACTED], which stated that [REDACTED] was “trying to support [Mr Davu] in preparing a half-term intervention session” and explained that this was because the iMedia sample needed to be sent on 5 June 2023. The email stated that “on Tuesday 30th May, the 28 students below, will be invited in from 9am-3pm to ensure their sample is complete”. The email from [REDACTED] further stated that Mr Davu “must speak with each student face to face to ensure they understand the importance of this and that this is compulsory” and repeated [REDACTED] suggestion that Mr Davu spoke to the students in the morning. The panel considered Mr Davu’s oral and written evidence including his witness statement dated 15 December 2025. Mr Davu stated that the facts specified in allegation 9 1(a) occurred between 8 May to 30 May 2023 and explained that the external submission deadline for controlled assessment marks was 15 May 2023. Mr Davu’s evidence was that he invited the pupils to attend the School with the support and the knowledge of [REDACTED]. Mr Davu stated that he felt pressure from [REDACTED] to improve the marks of the coursework. The panel noted that within his witness statement Mr Davu stated “I admit that between 8 May 2023 and 30 May 2023 I allowed pupils to continue preparing or amending work after the official examination deadline had passed. I take full responsibility for this decision.