Mr Mark Holland

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 Mark Holland

Location teacher worked: Ashton-under-Lyne, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 27 to 29 November 2024, 13 January 2025, 18 and 19 February 2025, and 5 March 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 Mark Holland formerly employed in Ashton-under-Lyne, North West 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 Mark Holland: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 9 Documents 9 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 20 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 22 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Mark Holland TRA reference: 22581 Date of determination: 5 March 2025 Former employer: Great Academy Ashton, Ashton-under-Lyne Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 27 to 29 November 2024 and 5 March 2025 virtually, to consider the case of Mr Mark Holland. The panel convened privately on 13 January and 18 and 19 February 2025 to consider this case. The panel members were Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Lucy Childs (teacher panellist) and Ms Amanda Godfrey (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Priyesh Dave of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Mark Millin of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Mark Holland was present and was represented by Ms Hayley Webster of Matrix Chambers. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the notice of hearing dated 13 September 2024. It was alleged that Mr Mark Holland was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as Mathematics Teacher at the Great Academy Ashton (“the School”): 1. Between around March 2022 and December 2022, Mr Holland made inappropriate and/or offensive comments to pupils and/or acted in an inappropriate manner in that: a. He called Pupil A “Hideous [Pupil A]”, or words to that effect and/or wrote this name on the board; and/or b. He called Pupil B “Football Girl”, or words to that effect; and/or c. He called Pupil C “The Liar,”, or words to that effect; and/or d. He told Pupil D’s girlfriend, Pupil E, that she “could do better” or words to that effect; and/or e. He told Pupil F and/or Pupil G, “In 10 years’ time when we meet again you’re going to have 9 kids to 9 different dads” or words to that effect; and/or f. He called Pupil F “Jaws” and/or said “I’m only joking Jaws, you’re beautiful” or words to that effect; and/or g. He said to Pupil G “Bet you have loads of boyfriends with your looks” or words to that effect; and/or h. He called Pupil H “[Pupil H] the Nun”, or words to that effect, despite that pupil being of Islamic faith; and/or i. He asked Pupil H, “have you got a bomb under there?”, or words to that effect, referring to Pupil H’s hijab and/or you touched Pupil H’s hair; and/or j. He told one or more pupils that the Quran is “not true” and/or “wrong” or words to that effect; and/or k. He called Pupil I “a dumb blonde” or words to that effect. 2. On or around 13 December 2022, Mr Holland did not safeguard Pupil J in that you asked Pupil J in front of her class why her picture was not on her school profile when you knew, or ought to have known, this was due to safeguarding concerns. 3. His comments at 1f) – 1g) were sexually motivated and/or of a sexual nature. 4. His comments at 1h) – 1j) were racially motivated. The following allegations were admitted by Mr Holland: • Allegations 1b, 1d partially, and 2. The following allegations were denied by Mr Holland: • Allegations 1a, 1c, 1e, 1g, 1h, 1i, 1j, 1k, 3, and 4. 5 Allegation 1f was partially admitted but following clarification during oral evidence from Mr Holland this allegation was denied in full. Further, Mr Holland denied that all allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Application of Removal of Hearsay Evidence from the Hearing Bundle The panel considered an application from the teacher’s representative to remove hearsay evidence from the bundle. The evidence appears on several occasions within the bundle presented to the panel. As the TRA and panel had no notice of the application, the panel has reviewed the bundle in full, including these documents. The documents that the teacher’s representative applied to remove are: • Pupil F Incident Report dated 8 March 2022 • Pupil G Incident Report dated 9 March 2022 • Pupil R Incident Report dated 16 March 2022 • Pupil T Incident Report dated 16 March 2022 • Pupil D Incident Report dated 8 July 2022 • Pupil D Incident Report dated 12 July 2022 • Pupil Q Incident Report dated 15 July 2022 • Pupil E Incident Report dated 19 July 2022 • Pupil A Incident Report dated 8 November 2022 • Pupil B Incident Report dated 8 November 2022 • Pupil M Incident Report dated 8 November 2022 • Pupil U Incident Report dated 12 December 2022 • Pupil X Incident Report dated 12 December 2022 • Pupil H Incident Report dated 13 December 2022 • Pupil V Incident Report dated 12 December • Pupil AA Incident Report dated 13 December 2022 6 • Pupil Y Incident Report dated 13 December • Pupil O Incident Report undated • Hand written notes from meeting with Witness A Under paragraph 5.33 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020 (“the Procedures”), the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. Hearsay evidence is, therefore, admissible in these proceedings subject to the requirements of relevance and fairness. Each of the incident reports follow the same format regarding their form. The panel appreciate the contents of each document is different. The panel was satisfied that the documents were relevant to the case due to each individual student providing information that is relevant to the allegations to be heard by the panel. Regarding Witness A’s Hand written notes, although the panel were not able to hear from the pupils (Pupil H, Pupil I, and Pupil AA) the panel will have the opportunity to hear from Witness A. Both parties accepted that that the documents were relevant to this hearing. The central question for the panel was whether it is fair in the circumstances to allow evidence to be put forward by the presenting officer without the opportunity for the witness to be cross-examined by the teacher. The panel understood that Mr Holland had received notice that the TRA would only be calling two named witnesses and if he had any concerns about the documents or the lack of pupil witnesses, would have been able to notify the TRA earlier or request a case management hearing to consider this matter. The panel considered evidence provided of the effort made to secure the attendance of the pupils who wrote the student incident reports but there was no evidence provided that all or any of the pupils could be presented as witnesses. The pupils have not provided witness statements and therefore could not be compelled to give evidence. The panel accepted that it would likely be cumbersome to have 17 pupil witnesses give evidence and disproportionate based on the allegations at hand. The panel understood that the pupils ranged from year 7 to 11 when the reports were made and therefore at the time of the hearing a number of those witnesses would be under the age of 16. The panel will have the opportunity to hear from two witnesses. One of which collated a number of the student incident reports and both witnesses assisted with the investigation the School held against Mr Holland. Witness A was due to give evidence and was present when interviewing the three pupils and therefore could speak to the nature of her notes of their discussion. The panel had regard to the seriousness of the allegations in this case, and that it is open to the panel to recommend prohibition in this case if the allegations are found proven. 7 The panel also considered the importance of the evidence and whether it constituted a critical part of the evidence against the Mr Holland. The panel noted that for the majority of allegations, a number of the student incident reports are used in support of the allegations. For those allegations (allegations 1c, 1g and 1k) where there was predominately the evidence from single student incident report (reports from Pupil O, Pupil G, Pupil Y) the bundle does make reference to these allegations in other formats, such as the disciplinary process and the evidence from Witness A. During the disciplinary process, these allegations were put forward to Mr Holland and therefore provided additional context to Mr Holland’s responses. The panel noted that the student reports from Pupil O, G and Y were not solely used for allegations 1c, 1g and 1k and also go on to support other allegations in this case. Therefore, the panel concluded that no one student incident report was the sole and decisive evidence for any one allegation. In the circumstances, given that the evidence is not sole and decisive and that the panel accepts that it is impractical to have 17 pupils give evidence in this case; the panel decided that there were sufficient safeguards to protect the teacher against any unfairness caused by being unable to cross-examine the pupils. The panel at the appropriate time will be provided with a hearsay warning, and the panel will determine what weight, if any it should attach to the evidence. With regard to the overall question of fairness the panel noted that the teacher and their representative had the opportunity to review the documents within the bundle in advance of the hearing and with sufficient time to b