Mark Migallos

Introduction

Mark Migallos was a teacher of mathematics at a school in England whose name was withheld in the published decision. In March 2025 a professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency found that he had developed an inappropriate sexual relationship with a pupil, referred to throughout as Pupil A: exchanging pages of personal messages, meeting her off school premises for sexual activity, supplying her cannabis and failing to act when she was at risk. He admitted the allegations in a signed statement of agreed facts, “as a result of his full and frank disclosures to the School”. The Secretary of State’s decision maker banned him from teaching for life, with no review period and no entitlement to apply for restoration.

Background Information

The decision records that “Mr Migallos was employed as a teacher of mathematics at the School from [REDACTED]”, the employer named only as “the School” to protect the pupils’ identities. The school’s code of conduct required teachers to limit their contact with pupils to academic work or formal activities organised by the school. The panel saw evidence that he had “previously received an informal written warning around maintaining professional boundaries”. After Witness A was informed of allegations, he was suspended, a disciplinary hearing was held and his employment was terminated. He signed a statement of agreed facts on 22 August 2024.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

The panel found that Migallos’s relationship with Pupil A began as tutoring and had “quickly become a personal one in October or November”. He set up a Google Classroom on the school system “so that they could communicate through private messages”, and 22 pages of exchanges followed, largely personal rather than academic. Pupil A was assured the messages were not monitored; Migallos wrote that he had “never had any filter or anything to hide from [Pupil A]” and “I don’t go around telling every student my deepest darkest secrets, just the ones I trust and think need to hear it”. The messages also referenced a bottle of rum next to his bed and a forged parental note to get Pupil A out of a lesson, and his car left at school to “go drink (priorities)”. He video-called her regularly and admitted the calls had no academic purpose. He admitted meeting Pupil A off school premises in his car, where they “engaged in masturbation over clothing, kissing and sexual touching”, and kissing her on the school’s premises.

He admitted supplying Pupil A with cannabis and smoking it with her in his vehicle, saying she should try it with someone who “knows what they’re doing and can practise safe usage”; he accepted he had not reported her drug use because “it all got deeper and deeper”. The panel found he placed Pupil A at risk of injury and/or harm by failing to act adequately or at all when she was at risk during a video call: he notified neither the school, her parents nor emergency services, instead seeking to contact Pupil B on Instagram from 07:23 — “This is an emergency. Don’t say I told you anything or that you know anything. But you absolutely need to check and message [Pupil A] today, go to her house even… She can’t know I told you. But she’s pushing me away and I can’t do anything.” The panel held that “Involving Pupil B in checking on Pupil A was not an adequate action”, and that the entire conversation evidenced a failure to maintain proper boundaries with Pupil B. Pupil A confirmed “that they had a romantic relationship with some sexual contact”.

He also admitted that “he attended School under the influence of alcohol and brought in coffee with rum to drink during the school day”, and to consuming cocaine, ketamine and cannabis; police found him in possession of cannabis, for which he was issued with a penalty of £90, and a police case summary confirmed “a small quantity of cannabis had been located in the boot of Mr Migallos’s car”. The panel found the conduct “was, by its very nature sexual” and sexually motivated. One allegation was not proven — that he drove after consuming an amount of alcohol which affected his ability to drive and/or which wholly or partly resulted in him crashing his vehicle — because the police report recorded no mention of intoxication.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The hearing took place in private to protect the pupils’ identities. Having found allegations 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 proved, the panel concluded that Migallos was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. It found breaches of the Teachers’ Standards, of Keeping Children Safe in Education and of Working Together to Safeguard Children, and that “the offences of controlling or coercive behaviour; possession, supply or production of class A drugs; possession with intent to supply; and supply or production of illegal substances of any classification were relevant”. It said he “abused his position of trust by engaging in a personal and sexual relationship with Pupil A and potentially caused her harm”, and recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and no review period.

Current Status

On 12 March 2025 the decision maker, David Oatley, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, imposed a prohibition order. Mr Mark Migallos is “prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England” and “shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach”. Oatley endorsed the panel’s findings of serious sexual misconduct that was sexually motivated, noting that although Mr Migallos “had expressed remorse”, he “could not provide any adequate assurance regarding the risk of repetition”. The order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher, and Migallos “has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order”.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Migallos’s teaching career ended with his dismissal, and the prohibition order closes every route back: because no review period was set, he can never apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach in England. He told the panel he had been a “great teacher”, but the panel saw no evidence of exceptionally high standards or of significant contribution to the sector, and could only note his hope of stopping “such idiotic things”. The decision maker placed considerable weight on the seriousness of the misconduct and on the risk of repetition. Migallos had accepted the “certainty of [his] prohibition from teaching”.

Sources

• Teaching Regulation Agency, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Mark Migallos” — source