Mark Rowley
Introduction
Mark Rowley is a former teacher at Hazel Wood High School in Bury who was banned from teaching indefinitely in November 2025 after a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) professional conduct panel found that he had pursued a pupil with sexual messages, a handwritten letter and social media contact, and had then sought to cover his tracks and steer her account to the police. The panel found all of the allegations proven, concluded that his conduct was sexually motivated and dishonest, and recommended an indefinite prohibition order with no review period — a recommendation the Secretary of State’s decision maker implemented in full, also stripping him of any right to apply to teach again.
Background Information
Rowley worked at Hazel Wood High School from 1 September 2013 and was a Head of Faculty who had completed Level 2 safeguarding and child protection training, which the panel said left him fully aware of his obligations to report concerns. A school witness described him to the panel as a very competent teacher who achieved excellent exam results, and the panel acknowledged a lengthy teaching career with no previous disciplinary issues referred to the TRA. The school suspended him on 22 June 2022; he resigned from his post on 29 September 2022.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Sexually motivated contact with a pupil, then a cover-up. A TRA panel found every particular below proven on the balance of probabilities. Rowley did not attend the virtual hearing on 5 November 2025 and was not represented; because his earlier admissions were equivocal, the allegations were treated as not fully admitted.
Between about May and October 2022, Rowley gave Pupil A his personal mobile number and personal email address and exchanged texts and emails with her. Messages recovered from his phone by the police included “Ur right it’s still warm- so led on bed nearly naked.” He referred to her as his temptress, called her a “sex goddess” — an admission he passed off as a joke — told her he loved her, and sent her a handwritten letter saying he would love for them to continue by talking, phoning, texting and meeting up; Pupil A told police he handed it over alone in a classroom and asked her to put it in her pocket and show no one. He also tagged her in a TikTok video of himself, followed her on social media and messaged her through alternative accounts after she blocked him: “I created those alternative accounts to see if u would block me”. The panel found the conduct as a whole was inherently sexual in nature, with no plausible alternative explanation, and inferred that it was in pursuit of sexual gratification or of a future sexual relationship.
The cover-up, in the panel’s findings, compounded the abuse of trust. He asked Pupil A to destroy the letter, which warned it would be embarrassing and dangerous if anyone else found it, and deleted his correspondence with her — including the TikTok account and its messages — once he knew his conduct was being investigated, later admitting in a police interview that he deleted them because he knew it was wrong. In June 2022, as the police became involved, he texted her repeatedly: “Stick to the story”. She told police he was telling her what to say, to lie. Contact continued even while he was on bail conditions prohibiting it, and he was arrested again as a result. The panel found this conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people, and further found that he had failed to report that he believed Pupil A was attracted to him, that he had given her personal advice, or that she had sent him photographs of herself — “Can’t believe I’ve had to delete every photo and vid uv sent me this week”, he texted her.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The school became aware of the situation only through a third-party disclosure, and by late June 2022 the police were involved: Rowley was interviewed on 24 June 2022 and again on 4 October 2022, after officers downloaded his phone. The panel found behaviours associated with the offences of sexual communication with a child, abuse of trust, controlling or coercive behaviour, harassment, stalking and serious dishonesty to be relevant; the published decision records the interviews, the arrest and the breached bail, but records no criminal conviction. The panel said public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as his were not treated with the utmost seriousness, and found breaches of the Teachers’ Standards, Keeping Children Safe in Education and Working Together to Safeguard Children. It acknowledged his ability as an educator but concluded he had exploited his position of trust, causing significant harm to a pupil, and that the public interest outweighed any case for retaining him.
Current Status
Rowley is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. In a decision dated 12 November 2025, Sarah Buxcey, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, accepted the panel’s recommendation of no review period, concluding that allowing one would not be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession given the seriousness of the findings, the lack of insight or remorse and the risk of repetition. Going further than the usual route back, she decided that in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved, Rowley shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. The order takes effect from the date it is served on him, with a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days.
Impact on Their Career/Life
A dozen years at Hazel Wood High School ended in resignation and a permanent ban with no route back. The panel rejected any suggestion that the conduct was out of character: it ran for months, escalated in severity and did not stop even after his arrest. It found no genuine remorse — Rowley shifted blame onto Pupil A, at one point producing WhatsApp messages from October 2024 to argue she had wanted contact and accusing her of lying — and concluded there was a high risk of repetition. His competent teaching and clean disciplinary record counted for little against findings that he had fundamentally breached the standards expected of a teacher and exploited a position of trust.