An education panel found that a mathematics teacher at Great Academy Ashton in Ashton-under-Lyne asked a Muslim pupil if she had a bomb under her hijab, but did not ban him from the profession.
Mark Holland faced a professional conduct hearing convened by the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) after allegations surfaced that his remarks and behaviour toward students were offensive, insensitive, and, in some cases, religiously inappropriate.
While the panel concluded that his actions did not amount to “unacceptable professional conduct,” they ruled that his behaviour could bring the teaching profession into disrepute.
The case centred around a litany of complaints from pupils and parents at the school, where Holland had been employed since November 2018.
Among the proven claims, Holland was found to have called a pupil “hideous” as part of a classroom group activity, told another student’s girlfriend that she “could do better,” and remarked to two girls that they’d end up with “9 kids to 9 different dads” in a decade’s time.
Islamophobic comments
Most controversially, he referred to a Muslim pupil’s hijab by calling her “the Nun” and asked: “Have you got a bomb under there?” — comments the panel deemed religiously insensitive but not racially motivated.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
One pupil, in her student incident report dated December 13, 2022, stated: “Mr Holland has been making comments about my hijab since he started teaching in year 10 calling nun all the time for the way that I wear my hijab…”
Other pupils corroborated the report but the panel regarded the reports as “hearsay evidence” and attributed less weight to them than Mr Holland’s evidence.
Mr Holland said that he didn’t call the pupil “a nun” but said that her headscarf was like a nun’s habit.
Nevertheless, the panel concluded on a balance of probabilities that this allegation was proven.
The same pupil also alleged that Mr Holland had asked her: “Have you got a bomb under there?”, or words to that effect, referring to her hijab and that he touched her hair. Other students corroborated this report.
Mr Holland denied the allegation.
On a balance of probabilities, the panel found it proven that Mr Holland said to the pupil: “Have you got a bomb under there?” or words to that effect, but did not find it proven that he touched her hair or attempted to do so through her hijab.
Other allegations and ruling
Holland admitted some of the allegations, such as making the “could do better” remark in a school corridor, but denied others, including claims of sexually or racially-charged intent.
His defence, represented by Hayley Webster of Matrix Chambers, argued that his comments were misjudged attempts to build rapport with students rather than malicious acts. The panel largely accepted this, noting that Holland “did not intend to be unkind” and that he expressed remorse for the incidents he acknowledged.
Of the 11 specific allegations of inappropriate comments, eight were fully or partially proven, including the religiously insensitive remarks. Yet claims that Holland called a pupil “a dumb blonde” or dismissed the Quran as “not true” were either reinterpreted or dismissed for lack of evidence.
The panel found while his conduct fell short of the Teachers’ Standards (expectations that educators uphold dignity and respect), they stopped short of labeling it “serious misconduct.”
Instead, they concluded that five of the proven allegations risked “tarnishing the profession’s reputation,” citing complaints from parents and pupils as evidence of public perception damage.
“The panel considered that Mr Holland’s conduct in making offensive comments to pupils could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher,” the report stated.
Despite this, the panel recommended against a prohibition order – a sanction that would have barred Holland from teaching. They highlighted his “previously good history” in the profession and a glowing testimonial from a colleague, who praised his ability to “captivate and inspire” learners.
Weighing public interest factors — like maintaining confidence in the profession — against Holland’s contributions as an educator, they deemed publication of their findings sufficient.
“The nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the spectrum,” they argued, emphasising proportionality.
Sarah Buxcey, deciding on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education, upheld this recommendation on March 10. She acknowledged the potential risk to pupils but placed “considerable weight” on Holland’s remorse, his lack of malicious intent, and his value to the profession.
“A prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest,” she concluded, affirming that the public airing of the case met the need to uphold standards.
Holland’s employment at Great Academy Ashton ended in September 2023 following a disciplinary process, but he remains free to teach.
