Ms Lyndi Corston

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: Ms Lyndi Corston

Teacher reference number: 8663700

Teacher's date of birth: 21 February 1964

Location teacher worked: East Sussex, England.

Date of professional conduct panel: 14 January 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 Ms Lyndi Corston, formerly employed in East Sussex, 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.

Ms Lyndi Corston: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Lyndi Corston Teacher ref number: 8663700 Teacher date of birth: 21 February 1964 TRA reference: 25119 Date of determination: 14 January 2026 Former employer: Engage Education/Workwell Limited, London Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 14 January 2026 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Ms Lyndi Corston. The panel members were Mrs Michelle Chappell (teacher panellist – in the chair), Dr Martin Coles (former teacher panellist) and Dr Sheila Cunningham (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Delme Griffiths of Blake Morgan LLP, Solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Ms Corston that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Ms Corston provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Ms Corston or a representative. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 5 January 2026. It was alleged that Ms Corston was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into, in that whilst working as a supply teacher at Rye Primary School: 1. She appeared in explicit content available to the general public and/or behind a paywall, including: a. on an unknown date in 2024, she created and/or appeared on an OnlyFans account, which included nudity; b. between January 2023 and January 2025, she engaged in making a sexually explicit video or videos, which appeared on the internet; c. she appeared on pornographic websites under the description “granny schoolteacher”. Ms Corston admitted the facts of the allegations and that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and 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, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 4 to 5 Section 2: Notice of referral and response – pages 6 to 21 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts – pages 22 to 26 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 27 to 98 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 99 to 112 Section 6: Notice of meeting – pages 113 to 113(a). The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. 5 In the consideration of this case, the panel also had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Ms Corston on 3 December 2025. 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 advance of the meeting the TRA agreed to a request from Ms Corston for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing, if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Ms Corston was previously engaged by Workwell Limited trading as Engage Education, on an agency basis. She was an Early Years Foundation Stage teacher. From around November 2022, she was regularly placed at Rye Community Primary School (“the School”) on a short term, supply basis. On 11 September 2024, whilst working at the School, concerns were raised that Ms Corston may have had an OnlyFans account, after a push notification from that site was seen on Ms Corston’s phone by a colleague. This was accepted by Ms Corston. She declared that the account was hers and it involved nudity but not sexual acts. It was not in her personal name. This led to Ms Corston being asked to close the account and to sign an enhanced code of conduct, which she did. However, on 6 January 2025, Engage Education was notified that Ms Corston had been identified on a pornographic website engaging in sexual activity. This led to an investigation and a LADO referral. Ms Corston was subsequently referred to the TRA. 6 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. You appeared in explicit content available to the general public and/or behind a paywall, including: a. on an unknown date in 2024, you created and/or appeared on an OnlyFans account, which included nudity; b. between January 2023 and January 2025, you engaged in making a sexually explicit video or videos, which appeared on the internet; c. you appeared on pornographic websites under the description “granny schoolteacher”. Ms Corston admitted the facts of allegations 1(a) to (c), which the panel considered together. She fully accepted that: • She created and appeared on an OnlyFans account, which included nudity. • She appeared in an explicit video involving sexual intercourse, which was available on the internet, either behind a paywall freely available. • She consented to the production of the video and willingly participated in it. • The video appeared on one or more pornographic websites, under the description ‘granny schoolteacher’. The panel did take into account that there was limited, first-hand direct evidence in relation to the allegations and Ms Corston’s conduct. Not least, no images or recordings were included in evidence and whilst there is reference to certain individuals having viewed them, the precise circumstances were vague and unclear. However, Ms Corston had consistently and unequivocally accepted her actions as alleged, during the course of the previous investigations, on several occasions, and in these proceedings, culminating in her completion of a statement of agreed facts. On this basis, on the balance of probabilities, the panel found allegations 1(a) to (c) proved. 7 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Ms Corston, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Ms Corston was in breach of the following standards:  Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school …  Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach … The panel also considered whether Ms Corston’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that none of these offences was relevant. Over and above these matters, the panel recognised that whilst Ms Corston had a right to a private life and there is a limit to the scope of professional regulation, that was not an unqualified right. In this instance, Ms Corston was working as a teacher at the time of her behaviour. She was required to comply with the School’s policies and procedures whilst she was placed there. In relation to the video, it was accepted by Ms Corston that she was identifiable as a teacher, whether or not through positive choice. It was not apparent that there were any limitations placed by her upon the extent to which the video could be used. She was plainly at risk of being recognised, which happened, and that in turn brings public confidence into consideration. She chose to be depicted in the manner she was and willingly participated in a publicly accessible pornographic video and a personal OnlyFans account. She was in a position of responsibility as a teacher and members of the public rightly expect teachers to set a good example. 8 Accordingly, whilst conduct outside of the education setting, this was conduct that linked to the way she fulfilled her teaching role and could, potentially, have led to pupils being exposed to, or influenced by, the behaviour in a harmful way. The panel could not exclude the possibility that, had these matters become widely known within the School community, older pupils at the School could have become aware of Ms Corston’s actions. The panel was, therefore, satisfied that the conduct of Ms Corston amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Accordingly, the panel was s