Mr Markus Ryan

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 Markus Ryan

Location teacher worked: Eltham, London

Date of professional conduct panel: 04 November 2024 to 12 November 2024

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 Markus Ryan formerly employed in Eltham, London

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.

Markus Ryan: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 6 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 12 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 27 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 30 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Markus Ryan TRA reference: 19799 Date of determination: 12 November 2024 Former employer: St Thomas More Catholic Comprehensive School, Eltham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened 4 to 12 November 2024 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr Markus Ryan. The panel members were Mr Adrian Phillips (lay panellist – in the chair), Miss Louisa Munton (teacher panellist) and Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Jermel Anderson of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mrs Heather Andersen of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Markus Ryan was present and was represented by Mr Andrew Faux of Lawyers for Teachers. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 26 April 2024. It was alleged that Mr Markus Ryan was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1) He was involved in the recruitment, performance review, promotion and/or pay decisions for: a) Individual A who: i) was promoted from Learning Support Assistant to Head of School from 2004-2017; ii) received a salary increase of approximately £20,000 from 2017-2019 b) Individual B whose salary was increased by approximately £30,000 from 2014- 2019; c) Individual C whose salary was increased by approximately £10,000 from 2017- 2019; 2) His conduct as may be found prove at Allegation 1 was in circumstances where: a) He and Individual A were friends; b) Individuals B and C were Individual A’s children; c) He failed to disclose to the school your personal relationships with Individuals A, B and/or C: i) when signing the Register of Interests on or around 8 November 2018; ii) at a Pay Committee meeting on or around 10 October 2019; iii) at all. d) In respect of Individual A’s appointment to Head of School he: i) failed to advertise the role externally ii) failed to advertise the role internally; iii) failed to enact and/or document a formal recruitment process; iv) failed to involve and/or inform the Local Education Authority; 5 v) informed the Management and Resources Committee on or around 21 November 2018 that Individual A was a qualified teacher when this was not the case; vi) Informed the Management and Resources Committee on or around 21 November 2018 that Individual A held NPQH when this was not the case. e) Individual A did not hold qualified teacher status and/or sufficient expertise or qualifications for the role of Head of School; f) he informed the school’s Pay Committee on or around 19 October 2019 that Individual A had met all objectives and achieved appraisal targets when in fact: i) Individual A had been subject to Local Authority Mentoring Meetings; ii) the local authority had raised concerns regarding Individual A’s competence; iii) pupil performance had declined at Individual A’s school; iv) the school roll had reduced. 3) Acted in a manner which was for personal gain and/or failed to represent value to the school in that he: a) instructed solicitors to advance a personal complaint on his behalf at the school’s expense; b) arranged for the school to order and/or purchase and/or collect items of yachting clothing; c) failed to pay VAT on the purchase of one or more items of yachting clothing; d) incurred roaming/data charges of approximately £1,200 in excess of his allowance over 5 months in 2019 e) Arranged for the school to purchase approximately 12 containers of boric acid and/or oxalic acid which: i) are not available for public purchase; ii) were stored in his office and/or were stored in an unsafe manner; iii) were not required by the school in the quantities purchased; iv) are used for cleaning marine yachts. 6 4) Acted or attempted to act as Executive Head-teacher over Schools A, B and C in circumstances where: a) the schools were not part of a multi-academy trust; b) no formal agreements existed authorizing him to do so; c) he misrepresented the status of the partnership to the Local Authority; d) he was providing services to School’s B and C which were funded by money allocated to fund the education of Pupils at School A; e) he was in receipt of a salary which: i) did not reflect value for money ii) was based in part on his continued role as Executive Headteacher at multiple schools 5) His conduct as may be found proven at Allegations 1-4 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Mr Ryan made admissions to Allegations 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2F, 3D, 4A, 4D. He made no admissions in respect of Allegations 2D, 2E, 2Fii, 2Fiv, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C and 5. He also made no admission as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Application to admit additional evidence by the TRA The panel heard an application from the TRA to admit additional evidence. The panel heard from Mr Ryan’s representative who did not oppose the application. It also heard and accepted legal advice in respect of this application. The panel saw that the documents arose from Experian searches, which showed an address search history for Mr Ryan and also for Individual A. It was argued that these documents were directly relevant to the connection between them. The panel determined that the documents were self-evidently relevant. It also, having been advised that the person who undertook the searches, [REDACTED], may become available as a witness, determined that it would be fair to admit the documents in the circumstances, recognising that the material could be tested. 7 The application was therefore allowed, and the documents were added to the bundle in Section 6 from pages 1023 to 1030. Application to admit additional evidence by both parties The panel heard a joint application from both parties to admit further material that was directly connected to the Experian searches. The documents provided by Mr Ryan included his own Experian search material, a copy of an insurance policy taken out by Mr Ryan where Individual A was named and Rightmove documents showing the dates that a property in [REDACTED] and a property in [REDACTED] had been bought and sold. The TRA provided two further credit searches pertaining to Individual A and Mr Ryan and their connection to the two addresses, through the IDCheck platform. The panel also accepted legal advice in relation to this matter. The panel considered that these documents were intrinsically linked to the additional material that had already been provided and therefore found that they were equally relevant and were fair to admit. Accordingly, the panel admitted the additional documentation and paginated it as follows: • Mr Ryan’s documents - 1031 to 1037 • IDCheck documents pertaining to Individual A and an address in [REDACTED] – 1038 to 1040 • ID Check documents pertaining to Individual A and an address in [REDACTED] - 1041 to 1043 Application to amend allegation 2F There was an application to amend allegation 2F by the TRA. The TRA’s presenting officer advanced that there was a typographical error with the allegation pertaining to dates as expressed within the allegation. The application was not opposed by Mr Ryan’s representative. The panel also heard and received legal advice in relation to this application. The panel formed the view that there was minimal risk of prejudice to Mr Ryan in relation to this amendment, given that it did not alter the substantive nature of the case. Additionally, it considered that it would not be unfair to amend the allegation, given the minimal nature of the amendment. The panel therefore allowed the application. Allegation 2F was therefore amended from: f. you informed the school’s Pay Committee on or around 19 October 2019 that Individual A had met all objectives and achieved appraisal targets when in fact 8 To read: f. you informed the school’s Pay Committee on or around 10 October 2019 that Individual A had met all objectives and achieved appraisal targets when in fact Application to hear part of the hearing in private The panel received an application to hear matters partially in private by Mr Ryan’s representative. The application was not opposed by the TRA. The panel also heard and received legal advice in relation to this matter. It was the position of his representative, that there were certain sensitive matters pertaining to Mr Ryan’s personal life which directly engaged his Article 8 rights and therefore, the panel should retire into private session, should the matters arise. The panel considered that the matters directly engaged Mr Ryan’s Article 8 rights. It accordingly formed the view that there was no public interest in these matters being discussed publicly during the hearing. The panel accordingly determined that it would sit in private session, should any of the sensitive issues arise. The application was therefore allowed. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 12 to 20 Section