A maths teacher has avoided a classroom ban despite a disciplinary tribunal finding he asked a Muslim pupil if she had "a bomb" under her hijab headdress. Mark Holland, a former teacher at Great Academy Ashton in Ashton-under-Lyne, Tameside, Greater Manchester, came before the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) alleged to have make a string of insensitive remarks from March to September 2022.

Mr Holland, who left the school in September 2023, told one secondary school pupil 'In 10 years' time you're going to have nine kids to nine different dads' and called another a 'dumb blonde'. The TRA panel heard he also dubbed a different student 'The Liar' and told a another girl she 'could do better' in reference to her boyfriend.

The virtual disciplinary hearing concluded Mr Holland's conduct "fell short of the standards of behaviour expected of a teacher."

However they ruled it "did not meet the threshold for serious misconduct" and ruled his comments to the hijab-wearing pupil, who he also called 'The Nun', were "not racially motivated but were likely to be religiously insensitive".

They also ruled the respected teacher did not "intend to be malicious or unkind" but rather had "misjudged the content of the conversations as an easy way to build a rapport with pupils".

Several other allegations against Mr Holland, who had worked at the school since November 2018, were found not proven and the panel heard he continued to dispute some of the claims against him.

He was of previously good character within the profession, had "willingly apologised" for the allegations he had admitted and vowed to "adjust the manner in which he engaged pupils and would not be as open or social with pupils again".

A glowing good character statement from an unnamed colleague praised Mr Holland's years of teaching.

It read: "Mark is a thoroughly professional teacher with an ability to captivate and inspire with his skills in communicating complex mathematical ideas to learners at all levels.

"He makes learning fun and relevant and uses an extensive repertoire of techniques to engage his learners. He has an ability to connect abstract mathematical ideas to concrete activities and continually seeks ways to make the abstract relevant and entertaining as well as useful and empowering."

In a written ruling the TRA said Mr Holland's conduct "was insensitive and inappropriate and fell short of the standards of behaviour expected of a teacher."

It added: "The panel heard that Mr Holland’s actions lead to complaints from parents and pupils.

"The panel concluded that some of the comments that Mr Holland made were inappropriate, disrespectful and not the expected standard of behaviour for a teacher.

"For the allegations found proven, Mr Holland did not have regard for the Teachers’ Standards however, this did not meet the threshold for serious misconduct and therefore for unacceptable professional conduct."

Summing up their conclusion, TRA decision maker Sarah Buxcey ruled that banning him from the classroom would "not be proportionate or in the public interest".

She wrote: "I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of sanction.

"In this case, the panel has found some of the allegations not proven, and found all proven allegations do not amount to unacceptable professional conduct. I have therefore put those matters entirely from my mind.

"A prohibition order would prevent Mr Holland from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force.

"I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning insight or remorse. The panel has said, 'The panel heard and saw evidence that Mr Holland felt remorse for particular allegations and the impact of his actions. For the admitted allegations he willingly apologised. Mr Holland continued to dispute the remaining allegations'.

"I consider that the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession."