Ms Paula Atkin

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 Paula Atkin

Location teacher worked: Stoke-on-Trent, West Midlands.

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 January 2026 to 14 January 2026

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 Ms Paula Atkin, formerly employed in Stoke-on-Trent, West Midlands.

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.

Mrs Paula Atkin: Professional conduct panel 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 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Paula Atkin TRA reference: 23447 Date of determination: 14 January 2026 Former employer: St Peter’s Church of England Academy, Stoke-on-Trent Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 12 January 2026 to 14 January 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mrs Paula Atkin. The panel members were Mrs Beverley Williams (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Stephen Chappell (lay panellist) and Ms Teresa Perry (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Nicholas West of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mrs Atkin was present and was represented by Mr Lawrence Shaw of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT). The hearing took place in public save that portions of the hearing were heard in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing dated 27 October 2025. It was alleged that Mrs Atkin was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as Business and Computing Teacher at St Peter’s Church of England Academy: 1. On or around 12 May 2023, she submitted Creative iMedia coursework marks to OCR which she had altered and/or made up. 2. On or around 18 May 2023, she knowingly submitted pupils’ coursework to OCR that she knew was not accurate and/or was misleading of pupils’ achievements in that: a) When pulling together the sample coursework requested by OCR: i. she added other pupils’ work to the moderation sample, so that it supported the mark that she had previously given pupils; and/or ii. For pupils where they had no coursework at all, she submitted other pupils’ coursework instead to OCR. 3. Between on or around 17 April 2023 to May 2023, she did not store pupils’ Creative iMedia coursework safely and securely and/or ensure that this was happening. 4. Her conduct at allegation 1 and/or 2ai and/or 2aii was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. Mrs Atkin admitted allegations 1, 2, and 4 and denied allegation 3. 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 6 to 8 Section 2: Notice of Hearing and response – pages 9 to 16 Section 3: TRA Witness Statements – pages 17 to 34 5 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 35 to 616 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 617 to 689 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the 2020 Procedures. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] Witness B – [REDACTED] Witness C – [REDACTED] Mrs Atkin also gave oral evidence and called on the following witness: Witness D – [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. On 17 April 2023, Mrs Atkin commenced her employment as a Business and Computing teacher at the School, which involved teaching the Cambridge Nationals in Creative iMedia Oxford Cambridge and RSA (‘OCR’) qualification. On 11 May 2023, Mrs Atkin uploaded the pupils’ marks for Creative iMedia coursework to OCR. On 18 May 2023, Mrs Atkin sent hard copy samples of the pupils’ Creative iMedia coursework to OCR. On 5 June 2023, the School became aware that OCR had contacted it to request electronic copies of the pupils’ Creative iMedia coursework. On 6 June 2023, Witness C told Witness B that there was an issue with sending the electronic copies to OCR. 6 On 7 June 2023, Witness B had a meeting with Witness C and Mrs Atkin, and determined that it could not be identified which coursework had been sent to OCR and which work had been submitted for which pupil. On 8 June 2023, Witness A investigated Mrs Atkin’s alleged conduct in submitting Creative iMedia coursework marks which she had altered, and misleading coursework. It was also alleged that Mrs Atkin did not store the pupil’s coursework safely to enable this to happen. On 21 March 2024, the OCR referred the matter 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: Whilst working as Business and Computing Teacher at St Peter’s Church of England Academy: 1. On or around 12 May 2023, you submitted Creative iMedia coursework marks to OCR which you had altered and/or made up. Mrs Atkin admitted allegation 1 in her written response to the Notice of Hearing dated 18 November 2025. Notwithstanding Mrs Atkin’s admission, the panel went on to make its own determination of the facts. The panel considered Mrs Atkin’s written statement and oral evidence which stated that Witness C told her that the pupils’ grades were “very far from their target grades”. Mrs Atkin’s evidence was that the attendance for year [REDACTED] was “terrible” and that she only saw half the cohort whilst she was teaching at the School. Mrs Atkin’s written statement stated that, on 18 April 2023, Witness C “suggested that we looked at entering grades to OCR which were closer to their target grades than their actual coursework marks would give them”. The panel had sight of the spreadsheet that Witness C emailed to Mrs Atkin on 19 April 2023 containing the pupils’ target grades. Mrs Atkin submitted in her evidence that the provision of the spreadsheet was as a result of a suggestion from Witness C to bridge the gap between the actual grades and the target grades. Mrs Atkin stated that she transferred spreadsheet data received on 19 April 2023 to a spreadsheet with grade boundaries for R082. The panel had sight of an email dated 19 April 2023 from Mrs Atkin to Witness C where she stated, “I have also found an old 7 marksheet for R082, I have checked the grade boundaries and they appear to be the same”. Mrs Atkin stated that, in May 2023, Witness C told Mrs Atkin to enter marks which were closer to the pupils’ targets for pupils who had no coursework or insufficient amounts of coursework. Mrs Atkin’s evidence was that she did not raise concerns regarding Witness C’s instruction because Witness C was Mrs Atkin’s line manager and Mrs Atkin had not passed her probationary period yet. Mrs Atkin, [REDACTED] and Witness C had a meeting on 11 May 2023 to enter the pupils’ marks onto the system. The panel considered Mrs Atkin’s written evidence that on 11 May 2023, “I went into the exam officers room with my spreadsheet that I had completed with the incorrect inflated marks contained on it. I began to reel off the results for the 2 units to the examinations officer”. Mrs Atkin further stated that Witness C attended the meeting late but was present for most of the meeting. The panel considered Witness C’s written statement and oral evidence. Witness C was Mrs Atkin’s line manager when Mrs Atkin commenced working at the School in April 2023. Witness C stated that on 11 May 2023, [REDACTED], Mrs Atkin and Witness C had a meeting to enter the marks into the system. Witness C explained that her role in the meeting was to check that the number Mrs Atkin was saying was the number being entered into the system by [REDACTED]. Witness C stated that when she arrived at the meeting, [REDACTED] and Mrs Atkin were halfway through entering the marks onto the system. Witness C stated that Mrs Atkin had a paper copy of the spreadsheet of marks and was saying the marks for [REDACTED] to enter into the system. Witness C stated that she saw Mrs Atkin’s spreadsheet of marks that Mrs Atkin used in the meeting which looked different to the spreadsheet Witness C provided Mrs Atkin when Mrs Atkin first joined. Witness C explained that using different spreadsheets was not unusual because each teacher typically had their own marking records. Witness C stated that she did not have access to the spreadsheet that Mrs Atkin used in the meeting on 11 May 2023 and that she did not check the marks that Mrs Atkin was reading out against the coursework. Having considered the evidence before it, the panel was satisfied that the TRA had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mrs Atkin had submitted Creative iMedia coursework marks to OCR which she had altered and/or made up. The panel therefore considered that the TRA had discharged the burden of proof in relation to allegation 1 and this allegation was found to be proven. 2. On or around 18 May 2023, you knowingly submitted pupils’ coursework to OCR that you knew was not accurate and/or was misleading of pupils’ achievements in that: 8 a. When pulling together the sample coursework requested by OCR: i. you added other pupils’ work to the moderation sample, so that it supported the mark that you had previously given pupils; and/or ii. For pupils where they had no coursework at all, you submitted other pupils’ coursework instead to OCR. Mrs Atkin admitted to allegations 2(a)(i) and 2(a)(ii) in her written response to the Notice of Hearing dated 18 November