Conclusion

Since September 2004 there have been many, many casualties. Teachers, support staff, children, parents, husbands, wives, council officers, union representatives and more – all have been affected in so many different ways, and yet life still goes on. It has to. Each day that the school opens its doors there are still children who need to pass through and take away whatever they can on their journey towards adulthood. What has happened at Marton will not prevent children from receiving an education; it will not prevent members of staff from taking home a wage. Nor will the events at Marton Primary School be of any interest to the millions of people around the globe who are more concerned with where their next meal is coming from, whether they will targeted by a terrorist tomorrow – or even who is going to win “The X Factor”…

But the story of what has been happening in this corner of the local community has still touched many lives – and the worrying thing from my point of view is how many more it could still affect?

Throughout the pages of the story I have been telling there is one clear message: Something went wrong, and it still hasn’t been put right. If it had, then there would have been no need to share this “personal reflection” with the outside world. If I have learnt one thing over the last two years, it has been that there can be no faith placed in figures of authority that anyone will actually DO anything to put things right. Like so many other people involved in both this dispute and in others nationally, we have been banging on doors to get someone in authority to listen – and the common response seems to be one of casual disregard – “I can’t see the problem, therefore it does not exist.”

To be fair, our Members of Parliament in Blackpool South and Fylde have both acknowledged that there IS a problem, but because the government of the day does not want to know, they feel their hands are tied, and so can do nothing.

Oddly enough, it is widely acknowledged within the media that bullying in the workplace is more rampant in the teaching profession than anywhere else. The Times Educational Supplement regularly runs stories of teachers being bullied by head teachers, with limited support from their unions. The sort of thing that has been happening at Marton is only one incident in a long-running national story – and still it is ignored by the Government.

And yet even the sternest cynic can not ignore the message that comes out of this particular story: We have seen how Marton Primary School functioned without incident for over 12 years, with government statistics and inspections confirming its status as being an effective part of the community; we have seen a dramatic change in the attitudes of its members of staff since September 2004, and a sharp rise in the number of staff leaving; we have seen a dramatic plunge in the numbers of pupils on the school roll; we have heard alarming stories of the way in which the school has been governed, and rumours of corruption within the Council itself – a Council which publicly maintains that the problems at the school are now resolved. But they are NOT resolved. It is still the case that something went wrong, and it still hasn’t been put right.

If it were TRUE that the problems HAD been resolved, then we would have seen a totally different story since September 2005: According to the statement made by Mrs Coupe just one month before, Mrs A had been the root cause of the problem, and it was claimed that “the atmosphere lifted” once she was no longer on the premises. By that time, Mrs A’s “fellow conspirators” Jill Reidy, Janet Connor and Lisa Taylor had all either been removed, or been signed off with stress. So – no excuse then for the whole school not to start to get back to “normality” from that point on, especially with the total (and very public) backing of the LEA. There was even the Post-OfSTED Action Plan to use as a guide, where the vision of the head teacher was applauded – so long as everyone backed her.

So why didn’t they back her? Why did parents continue to remove their children? Why did staff still look for other teaching posts? The fact remains – something went wrong, and it still hasn’t been put right.

And now we have to face up to the consequences: The school is still in a mess. Those staff that remain have recently been told by their Head that none of them are to be recognised for promotion this year because “none of them are good enough”… How does that reflect on the woman who is supposed to be their mentor? The numbers of pupils on the school roll are barely sufficient to maintain staff numbers at their present level. Any further reduction will result in someone losing their job. The atmosphere at Marton Primary School has NOT lifted – and precious few members of staff are singing the praises of their Head Teacher – who hides behind the door of her office even more than she used to.

What will happen next? Well – depending on who you are and where you sit, the answer is very much up to you. If you are a Blackpool Councillor, you could try asking questions. After all, there have been some changes of personnel in that quarter, so maybe you might be more successful this time; if you are a governor at Marton School, you could ask yourself whether your own personal input has helped improve the situation or not; if you are a parent of a child at Marton School, perhaps you need to seriously ask yourself whether your child is getting the right standard of education there.

And what about everyone else? Suppose you have no connection to the school whatsoever, why should you take any interest? Well – how about this: It is my contention that the people who govern this country (or any country) all started to learn their first impressions of the world and their place in it from a teacher at primary school. Those first impressions count, believe me. “Give me a girl at an impressionable age, and she is mine for life” is the oft quoted phrase from “The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie”. All that a child absorbs in those early years helps to shape their attitudes to life, to the world, and to everyone they meet. So what if they are mis-led? What happens if the standard of the education they are given is allowed to slip? What does happen to a group of children who lose their friends because their parents mysteriously remove them? What if the only children left are from homes where the parents really don’t give a damn what goes on in school anyway?

This (in my opinion) is what is now being allowed to happen at Marton, and will inevitably have a wider impact on the community. Blackpool already stands charged as a town full of tat, with depressing images of drunken louts, graffiti splattered buildings and litter-strewn streets. It is becoming known as a town in decline, and desperately needs to polish up its present, tarnished image. That can not be achieved just by cosmetic camouflage, brightening up the tourist spots and town centre. This used to be a place “where people come first” – but the attitude I have met from Blackpool Council since September 2005 is just the opposite.

It starts with a child. A child should be allowed to grow up learning all the wonders of life, associating with others and learning how to relate to them. A child should learn about love and hate, about good and evil, and be guided on the right path to take. Where that child meets confrontation, it should learn how to resolve it. We are taught that this is a civilised world, a democratic world where everyone is entitled to voice their opinions – and not one where the bully should prevail.

In September 2004, the bullying started at Marton Primary School. Something went wrong, and it STILL hasn’t been put right.







All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)

THIS BLOG IS NOW OPEN FOR COMMENTS!

The buck stops here

It was always my intention, when starting this “personal reflection”, to detail as much as possible the events from the appointment of Mrs Coupe as Head Teacher through to the present day. I am aware that this account has followed a strictly chronological pattern over the first academic year 2004 – 2005, but that the detail of events since August 2005 has been provided somewhat piecemeal. This is partly because I feel it important to know how the situation developed until it became public knowledge just how much of a problem really existed at Marton. Since August 2005 I have been very much personally involved, and the journey since that date has been one of discovery. By its very nature, the story of those discoveries has been done in retrospect – much of what I have learnt (and shared with others) has only reached me in piecemeal fashion, and so the details in previous chapters have been categorised according to subject.

In this chapter, I want to pull together some of the details not yet discussed into a picture that sums up where the problem ultimately lies: with Blackpool Borough Council. (Okay – I agree that bullying head teachers is a national problem, but the government already admits that they don’t want to know – so the initial burden of responsibility IS with the local authority, wherever you happen to be in this country.)

Let me start with the Action Group: This was formed by myself and my ex-wife Jane in October 2005 when we realised the need for parents to be able to talk to each other about our concerns. We felt that we would have a better chance of getting answers to our questions if we acted together, pooled our resources, and made it clear to the Council that we had legitimate cause to ask what was happening at our children’s school. Following some criticism of parents on local radio by David Lund, I wrote to him on 12 October 2005:

“…Those of us who had enjoyed the experience of seeing Marton Primary School run by Mrs L were shocked at how suddenly the school had changed – and we wanted to know why. There were still several teachers there who had also enjoyed happier days before xxxxx arrived, and I was horrified to hear from one of them that “we have been told that if we are not happy with the situation we have to get out”. This was not an isolated story. In sharing my concerns with others, I started to hear more and more how xxxxx had intimidated any member of staff resistant to change, and threatened disciplinary action against anyone voicing their feelings outside school. Little wonder that Mr R left after several years of loyal service, even if it was only with the promise of a temporary job. These are frightened people, Mr Lund! They are crying out for someone to help them. Their livelihoods are at stake as well as their principles, and they have no confidence in anyone at Progress House because they know how much their Head Teacher frequents the place! Who can they trust?

So they leak information to parents – and you know the result. I’ve told you all this so that you know we are NOT being a “vindictive minority”. These are not idle “troublemakers” (to use xxxxx’s words) set to make mischief without good reason. Some of those who were involved in the appointment of this lady as Mrs L's replacement are bitterly regretting their recommendation! While I understand that it is entirely natural for you, in your official position, to show support for a Head Teacher, you also knew Mrs L over a period of years, and knew what sort of person she was. What do you know of this woman? Have you thought of asking Mrs L (unofficially, of course) what she feels about her replacement? Ask yourself WHY staff are frightened. And if they are frightened, what about parents of lesser resolve than myself, who fear for their children, worried that they could face expulsion for no good reason? These are not groundless fears when people look at the situation Mrs A found herself in – and we have no knowledge at all about why she was suspended.

Let me ask you directly – for those parents and members of staff who have so desperately wanted to keep their identities secret, what guarantees can you give that they would not suffer any retribution if they spoke to you in person? How could they trust you not to pass on information to a woman with such a reputation for manipulation that she now has most of the staff at Marton, and 90% of the school governors publicly supporting her? What price this minority?”

Mr Lund’s response was to invite me to meet with him at Progress House on 18 October 2005. On the surface, it appeared to be a fruitful meeting, with Mr Lund conceding that parents had valid reasons to be concerned, and appreciating that the new website forum helped people to voice their thoughts without risk of recrimination. He followed it up with a letter to me the following day:

“…On a fundamental level it would appear that you and I have a similar wish with regard to Marton School, in that it needs to settle down as soon as possible. With all those concerned with the school able to direct 100% of their effort towards the education and welfare of the pupils.

To this end and in order to ensure that effective communication is in place, thus reducing the impact of any ‘miscommunication’, my officers and I are prepared to work with you and other parents to support or enhance the existing arrangements.”

I wrote back in similar terms, informing him (as agreed) on the outcome of a public meeting to which he had been invited, but was unable to attend. Sadly, Mr Lund never responded to my letter in any way. So much for “effective communication”…

One item that we aired at Progress House on that day was the issue of pornography (see earlier chapter). The official line was that the LEA were satisfied that the incident had been handled efficiently within the school, and that appropriate action had been taken. However, the impression I got from Mr Lund was that he knew a lot less about the details than I did! It may be that he was being deliberately vague, but it is interesting that, several months later, his recollection of the details was rather different from the version provided by the witness. On 15 February 2006 Mr Lund wrote to me:

“…The computer and computer system used at the time was investigated and revealed that two websites with idiosyncratic names were accessed. The websites were investigated by our technicians and the material on them was not declared to be pornographic but were blocked in any case immediately to prevent any accidental further access. The possibility of images being accessed from a CD or pen drive bearing a complete website, however, is much more of a probability and it is more than likely that this was the case as there was no evidence of access of other sites on the system.”

Mr Lund then went on to say that a much safer filtering system was to be placed on the Marton computer system, in response to parents’ concerns – just in case! Pornography may be a subjective issue – what some consider pornographic would be viewed as “glamour” or even “art” by others. But to my mind, the sites viewed by that supply teacher were sufficiently pornographic as to shock at least two adult teachers. The question of whether a CD or pen drive had been used became irrelevant when, in the weeks just prior to Mr Lund’s letter to me, a hardcore pornographic website was found to have been accessed in after-school club. When this was revealed by the Action Group in a letter to the school governors on 26 February, the technicians were sceptical yet again – but tested the system and found it to be true.

What I must hasten to add here is that these were matters that the LEA would not have taken any action over if they had not been badgered into it by the Action Group! The issue of pornography on the school’s computer system was an important one, and Mrs Coupe’s attitude was merely exasperation that the person on duty was not taking enough care! There was a similar reaction from the Chair of Governors (Mike Turner) and the Chief Executive of Blackpool Council when the school’s ICT technician was discovered to have used a photograph of a schoolgirl on his personal website without her knowledge. The parents of the girl were horrified when they saw how that particular web page had links to “gay” sites, and yet their concerns were given very casual replies. So far as I am aware, no disciplinary action was ever taken against the technician.

I am personally appalled by the lack of interest shown by most members of Blackpool Council to the seemingly casual way that parents and staff have been treated on an individual basis. It has only been when parents (and other interested parties) have banded together under the “Action Group” banner that there has been any reasonable reaction. Our first Press Release in November 2005 was copied to every Blackpool Councillor – and only one responded! That came after David Lund was quoted in the local paper as threatening parents with legal action for possible defamatory remarks. Former Councillor Jon Bamborough takes up the story:

“My initial thoughts were that for someone to remove their child from their school that there must be some real issues there. I know that I would be very reluctant to move my children away from their friends. I would have to have tried everything else first. When I heard David Lund on the radio, effectively trying to gag the parents and the Action Group, then I knew something was seriously wrong here. I have been a governor myself so am not unfamiliar with school procedures. I contacted Alan Veale who had just sent a press release to all the Councillors and asked to meet him. I was shocked at what I was told in our subsequent meeting. What really concerned me were three things: (1) The suspension of a senior, well respected teacher and trade union rep, (2) the pornography allegations and (3) the falling rolls.

I tried to raise these issues at a Council meeting but was barred from asking any questions regarding Marton School. I then had a meeting with David Lund who said he could only discuss the last two points. However, he didn’t seem to understand the real threats posed by the lack of security on the computer system. He also misled me, whether intentionally or not, on the falling rolls issue. Indeed, it took me three attempts before I finally got near the true figures.

I also had a meeting with Councillor Ivan Taylor who was very condescending towards my fears and repeatedly referred to Beverley A as “Betty,” which further extricated any confidence I had left in him! I also spoke to several other senior officers from the LEA and concluded that I was not going to get any answers from official sources.”

Jon did not waste any time in trying to tackle the issue within the Council. As one of the members of the Scrutiny Committee that considered matters relating to children’s services, he had every right to raise questions directly with David Lund. Then there was the issue of cost. While Mrs A remained suspended on full pay, there were additional salary costs being incurred from the input of supply teachers, not to mention any costs involved over the investigation over the suspension itself. The longer we waited for this particular issue to be resolved, the more the costs would mount up! So whose budget did these costs come out of? Would there be any impact on the Blackpool tax payers?

But the Leader of the Council, Chairman of the Committee and Councillor Ivan Taylor (portfolio holder for children’s services) was having none of it. Whenever Jon tried to ask questions he was shouted down by Taylor and his supporters, and told his questions were not relevant. David Lund’s responses to Mr Bamborough’s questions were always economical with the truth, and he was particularly evasive when asked to clarify the numbers of pupils who had been withdrawn from Marton by their parents. The Action Group did their own research on this, and were able to provide a much fuller (and more accurate) picture of the actual numbers than Mr Lund ever supplied! In the 14 months from October 2004 to December 2005, 50 pupils were found to have been removed, out of which 42 were known by us to have been withdrawn to other schools in the area. With his particular flair for presentation, David Lund initially claimed that only 23 children had been moved… Indeed, the “official” line from Blackpool Borough Council on the falling numbers at Marton has been that this merely reflects the fall in the local birth-rate figures. However, figures recently supplied by the Government show that Blackpool has maintained a surplus of 8% over its total number of school places since 2004! (The national average is 12% for 2006) So – if these figures are to be believed, the only explanation for other schools NOT showing a fall in their numbers is that they had to take up the surplus of pupils from Marton. Indeed – the same source of these statistics showed a drop of 18.4% for Marton Primary School over the same period.

Councillor Bamborough made every effort to maintain an impartial and independent stance in his efforts to elicit the truth. He contributed to the Forum website inviting anyone connected with the school to contact him in private, and to give their version of events. The purpose of this was to use his own office to try and ensure that the Council could exercise its democratic powers to ensure that the whole situation was brought to a satisfactory end as soon as possible. Mr Bamborough also tried a direct approach to his fellow Liberal Democrat, the Chairman of Governors, Mike Turner. But a phone-call in early 2006 resulted in Mr Turner trying to dissuade Mr Bamborough from getting involved, whereupon he received a polite but firm refusal. Shortly afterwards, Mr Turner was anything BUT polite when he called a staff meeting at school and forcibly banned any members of staff from contacting Mr Bamborough. The words he used were slanderous, and provoked several teachers to ignore his demands, as they were so disgusted at his behaviour. It was at this same meeting that Mr Turner deliberately identified one member of staff as being a witness in support of Mrs A – thus ensuring that the scheduled hearing for her Grievance could not be impartial. From my own experience of Mike Turner, I would suggest that this act of his was not deliberately malicious, but borne out of his own ignorance of the procedures that needed to be followed. Unfortunately, for someone holding such a position of responsibility, such ignorance is no excuse.

There was to be a further personal attack on Jon Bamborough – this one being (initially) more successful. Over the next few months there were several contributions made to the website Forum by teachers serving at the school. Where before they had been cowed into silence by the threats of disciplinary action, several now felt that they were not going to put up with that kind of intimidation any longer. Encouraged by the intervention of an active Councillor, even Jill Reidy and Mrs A decided to put their own side of the story – although this was only to be given to Jon Bamborough in the first instance. Once he had heard their story, he encouraged Steve Weaver, the Chief Executive of Blackpool Council, to listen for himself. In the meantime, the “leaks” of what was really happening in school were becoming an embarrassment to some people, and a campaign to fight back against both myself and Councillor Bamborough began in earnest.

The first attack was aimed at me. Ruth Coupe made a complaint to the police that she was being personally harassed by me, and stated that wording I had used in one particular post on the Forum implied a personal threat. This resulted in a phone-call to me from a local police officer, asking for an interview. Far from what Mrs Coupe had obviously intended, I have never felt less intimidated! The conversation was overtly casual and friendly, but intended to make a point. I became aware of how Mrs Coupe was viewed by others, and I found that the police were anxious to ensure that they did not have to act as referees over something that should never have been allowed to reach such an acrimonious stage. I was advised to be very careful of the wording I used in my posts, because while it was their professional opinion that I had NOT said anything wrong, and that I could NOT be said to be personally harassing anyone, I should be careful not to allow any further possibility of such accusations. The police officer agreed with me that Mrs Coupe held a public office, and that I was entitled to criticise her in public if I felt it was warranted.

Shortly afterwards, it was to be Councillor Bamborough’s turn. This time it was Ruth Coupe’s husband who made the attack – using the facilities of the Standards Board for England. This organisation “polices” the activities of public servants, and has the power to censure local councillors if it is deemed that they are not acting in a manner befitting of their station. Mr Coupe lodged a complaint that Councillor Bamborough had used his position to make personal attacks on his wife through the website Forum. Jon Bamborough again:

“The Standards Board enquiry was ridiculous. Mr Coupe made a number of absurd allegations, which the Standards Board for England was bound to investigate. During this investigation however, I was legally barred from making any comment whatsoever regarding allegations or revealing who had made the allegations. Indeed, should I have still been a Councillor, I would still be unable to reveal the exact nature of the allegations or reveal the name of the person who made them!!! However, I am no longer a Councillor and so I am not bound by the Standards Board anymore. I can confirm therefore that it was Mr Coupe who had made the allegations which were ALL dismissed by the Standards Board Investigation. The Investigation concluded that I had acted in a proper manner by raising the issues that I raised and by asking the questions that I asked. They also concluded that my involvement with the Marton School Forum (website) was also done in a proper manner, befitting a Councillor.”

It was only shortly after the Standards Board closed their files that another attack became apparent: In mid-January 2007 somebody sent several copies of a confidential file to various organisations, including British Sky Broadcasting and the Daily Telegraph. Details of this file have been revealed in earlier chapters, but the act of releasing it was a major disaster for the local authority. Whoever had personally stood at a photocopier making several copies of a 100 plus page A4 document that should have been destroyed months before was taking a very deliberate and risky decision. Such an act could scarcely be done in the local library at ten pence a sheet, and the likelihood of having such facilities in the home is highly remote. It would also be unlikely that the document had been taken to a commercial printer, with so many of the pages marked “confidential”, as is the front page. It has to be assumed that whoever took this bold act had personal access to a photocopier inside an office, or even a school… Even in those circumstances, whoever did it would have to have been someone that no-one was likely to question if found copying “confidential” material. Then there is the question of who had access to the file in the first place? Even David Lund was under the impression that the file had been only issued to a list of named persons that had been found with the copied file. That list contains 13 names – all governors at Marton School, including Mrs Coupe. But in reality, the file had only been distributed to a much smaller circle of governors, and to the union representative for Mrs A. We can certainly discount the latter, as Mrs A was the intended target for this attack, so who does that leave?

Of course, having reported the discovery of the file to the police at the end of January, the LEA were soon onto the case, and launched an official “investigation” that was about as “independent” as that conducted by Linda Marsh (see earlier chapter). The report into that investigation has never been published, so far as I am aware, but the “unofficial” verdict is that it seems likely that the perpetrator was a school governor, identity unknown.

Another coincidence followed in February 2007. Within weeks of the discovery of the circulation of the leaked file, I was under another personal attack from Mr Coupe. At this stage I had not even made public what I had discovered, but Mr Coupe suddenly saw fit to again complain about my activities on the website Forum. On this occasion, he tried to convince my employer that I had been using work facilities to harass his wife. His argument (in a phone-call to my Area Manager) was that many of the posts I had made on the Forum had been done in work time, and that I was clearly using the Internet to do so from a computer at my desk. What he did NOT know was that I am entitled to do exactly that – during my lunch break, which I can take at any time between 12 noon and 2pm. My Area Manager politely and firmly told Mr Coupe that such activities were not under his control, and that he had no cause to discipline me. I was entitled to access the Internet at lunchtimes, and so long as I did not let my interest in the school interfere with my work, then no action could (or would) be taken against me. My boss informed me of his conversation after the event, and gave his support should I find myself under any further pressures as a result. A few days later he also told me that Mr Coupe had followed up his phone-call with a letter, basically repeating the same argument! Curiously, I later had a THIRD conversation with my boss – this time as a result of an email complaint forwarded from Head Office, purporting to be from a lady – and again trying to complain along the same lines!! (“Some of the same phrases were used…”)

It is my guess that the Coupe family were getting desperate. They wanted so much to stop all the public airing of the problems centred around Marton School. The website is a tool that has been a thorn in their side for over two years, and they were convinced that I was personally responsible for it. In fact, my IT skills are far too basic to allow me to claim that responsibility, but I do applaud the person or persons who HAVE taken on that task. Now that the matter of the leaked document has been so publicly aired (partly through the Forum and partly through these chapters), there have been no more personal attacks.

But the buck finally stops with Blackpool Borough Council. It is they who “owned” the leaked file, and who therefore carried responsibility to ensure it remained confidential. It was their responsibility to investigate who breached that confidentiality, why they did it, and how they did it. Similarly, it was the Council’s responsibility to ensure that the correct procedures were followed in the investigation over Mrs A’s suspension. It is the Council that has to authorise expenditure on such matters, and to show accountability for the spending of public funds. The Council has a dedicated Scrutiny Committee that looks into all matters relating to children’s education in the borough, and in which democratic debate should be seen to be done. The local authority also takes responsibility for the appointment of several governors at each school in Blackpool, educates them on their duties, and appoints a clerk to take accurate minutes of governors’ meetings. In this, there is a clear path of accountability to ensure that all the things that have gone wrong at Marton Primary School should NOT have gone wrong – but that where it is clear that there have been mistakes, omissions or even criminal activity, then it should be made clear to all concerned that Blackpool Borough Council has the capacity to admit where it went wrong, and to start to put things right.

I leave the final word on the Council’s activities to Jon Bamborough:

“Following meetings or conversations with all of the principals involved in this saga (from Steve Weaver the Chief Exec, David Lund, Ivan Taylor, Roy Fisher, Mike Turner, a number of senior council officers, a number of teachers and staff from Marton, former and current governors of Marton, members of the Action Group, parents who have removed their children etc……. almost everyone involved apart from Mrs Coupe!!!!) my own conclusions are that there has been a massive cover up of issues at Marton School and within the LEA at Blackpool Council. All the evidence is there! It just needs an independent, competent person with authority to carry out a proper investigation. It is nothing short of a disgrace that so many careers have been ruined over this, that the lives of so many young people have been disrupted. Someone, somewhere should have taken the responsibility for this sham. At least Roy Fisher, the former Council Leader, lost his job (deservedly so in my opinion). Roy was Chair of Governors at Layton school, and it was when I was at a Council meeting that it was revealed that Mrs A was working at Layton School. I thought because she was working for the LEA again her suspension was over, and that I could now ask questions! All the Councillors refused to answer any questions and when Roy Fisher got home, he rang the Head Teacher of Layton School and made it clear that he did not want Mrs A working there any more. This is the kind of politics I hate and quite frankly, I’m glad to be out of it!”


TO BE CONCLUDED

How did it all go wrong? - The Final Answer

In August 2004, Marton Primary School stood on the brink. This was the start of a new era. The previous Head Teacher had been there since the school’s inception, and now it was to get a new one. Would Ruth Coupe be facing an impossible task? What approach should a new Head take on picking up the reins? With a total complement of just over 500 pupils and around 60 staff, Marton Primary School was certainly a step up from Mrs Coupe’s previous experience at other schools in Chorley.

There are some interesting points that emerge from Ruth Coupe’s history in that area: She was appointed Deputy Head at Primrose Hill County Primary in 1995, moving to acting Head in 1998, and taking over the reins there officially a year later. Primrose Hill is only a small school with 156 children currently on the role (DFES figures). Mrs Coupe continued as the Head there until January 2004, when she was moved by the local authority to Coppull Parish Church School, a short distance away (197 pupils in 2004). I can find no official reason for this move, but one source states that it was to cover for long term sick absence. Curiously, another source claims that she told parents there that she had been brought in “to turn the school around and improve results”, and I am reliably informed that this same claim was made to the panel of governors at Marton when she attended for interview (one month later) in February 2004. This seems highly unlikely, however, in the light of the OfSTED reports for Coppull. The report published for 2000 shows the school to have been doing very well, with consistent improvements being made. Digging a little deeper, I found an OfSTED report for Primrose Hill from 2003, while Mrs Coupe was still Head Teacher there. At this time there were only 148 pupils, and the school was considered to be of a “good” standard, and the leadership to be “very good”. However, there is one curious extract relating to parents that I feel worthy of note:

As usual, a sample of parents’ views was sought, and the report lists what they liked most, and what they would like to see improved. The list below is reproduced from that 2003 report –

What pleases parents most:

Most children like school
Behaviour is good
The teaching is good
Children are expected to work hard and achieve well
The school helps children to become mature

What parents would like to see improved:

The amount of homework
Information about their children’s progress
The school’s partnership with them
The school’s approachability
The range of activities outside of the school day

I find some curious parallels in the second list – especially on “approachability” and “the range of outside activities”. These are the same points that were immediately highlighted by both members of staff and parents at Marton once Ruth Coupe introduced so many changes.

In looking at where Mrs Coupe has come from, the important thing to note is the size of the schools. Throughout her teaching career she never experienced a school with more than 240 pupils, and then came to Blackpool to a school of more than twice that size. By the end of 2003, for whatever reason, she was looking for a move. Up to that time she had both lived and worked in the Preston area, but the vacancy at Marton would be under a different education authority (did she jump or was she pushed?), and would carry an increase of salary because of the size of the school.

Whichever way you look at it, this was a major step up for Ruth Coupe, and one would imagine that she would approach her new colleagues with a determination to get them firmly behind her, and to deliver on the expectations of that February interview.

Back to the brink!

The colleagues that would be the first of the Marton staff members to work with the new Head were Val Brookes (Deputy Head) and Mrs A (Assistant Head and KS2 Co-ordinator). Together with Ruth Coupe, these were the Senior Leadership Team (SLT). The SLT first met during the summer holidays to make initial preparations for the new term, and to discuss the points left for discussion by the previous Head (see previous chapter). By all accounts, this meeting was amicable and professional throughout. It was followed on 1 September by an INSET day for all staff at which the SLT set out the details of the recommendations as a result of that earlier meeting. Again, there were no problems or conflicts, although some of the proposed changes were not universally greeted with enthusiasm. School opened the next day (2 September). One week later, on Tuesday 7 September, the SLT met for a second time, and I believe it was at this meeting where the first indications of the trouble ahead began to appear.

To quote Mrs Coupe’s own words – “the school secretary interrupted a leadership meeting to ask about letters which had not been sent to the parents of the Year 6 SEN (Special Educational Needs) children in respect of a river trip. Mrs A said that two SEN children could not go on the trip because of their inability to walk. I felt strongly that no-one should be excluded. Mrs A insisted that the previous Head (Mrs L) had supported her in this decision and had said that there should be no disruption to the learning of the majority because of a minority and that the SEN children had never been on the river trip because of this. ….. Mrs A also stated that the SEN children had never gone on the PGL trip. I informed Mrs A that if the children wanted to go, then provision must be made for them. I knew that PGL catered for physically disabled children and assured Mrs A that Boreatton Park had the facilities to support inclusion under the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act).”

Now, when I first read that extract from Mrs Coupe’s statement in the leaked disciplinary document, my sympathies were with her. Anyone who stands up to protect the interests of a minority needs to be listened to, in my view. After all, that has been a key argument against the LEA in the Action Group’s campaign over the last two years!

However, such a statement does warrant investigation into the thought processes behind it, and so I have made my own enquiries on the subject. In the absence of Mrs A, I have relied on information from other parties, notably Mrs L, and Ally Duffy at Boreatton Park. To begin with, I asked Mrs L what her viewpoint was on the river project and the participation of disabled children. The following is a summary of our conversation –

Firstly, one has to understand what the trip is for, and what it involves. This is an educational outing, not a picnic, and involves experiments conducted by the children so that they can both see and feel the impact of water on the environment. For example, one test involves standing in the water and measuring the time an object takes to travel over a set distance. If a child is unable to walk, it is simply not practical to expect them to wade into a river, no matter how small it may be. Another important point is the risks involved. Every official trip outside the school environs has to be “risk assessed”. The children’s health and safety is paramount, and so there has to be a system in place for proper checks on the environment that the children will meet, and on any equipment involved. Also, all school staff have to hold suitably recognised qualifications in caring for their charges, as well as the staff operating any equipment at the site in question. The list is endless, but the well publicised tragedies in recent years highlight the need for such measures. While it may be an appointed teacher who leads any expedition outside a school, it will always be the Head Teacher who carries the personal responsibility in the event of anything going wrong. In the case of a river trip, the details of such an event are always well publicised to parents beforehand, giving them an opportunity to refuse to let their children take part if they wish. Similarly, in the case of SEN children, the policy had always been to inform them of what the trip would involve, and to suggest alternative arrangements that may be better suited to the individual needs of their children.

Okay – so what about PGL? For those who don’t know it, this is an organisation that provides “adventure holidays” for young people, with the target mainly being schoolchildren. Check out their website at www.pgl.co.uk. The centre used by Marton Primary School is at Boreatton Park in Shropshire, and the trip has been a popular annual event each summer term for Year 6 children. I asked Schools Co-ordinator Ally Duffy from PGL about Mrs Coupe’s claim that the centre supported physically disabled children. She told me that, while the holiday accommodation itself does support people with physical disabilities, because of the nature of the activities on offer (see website), it was not practical to offer any further concession to children with physical disabilities. This would vary according to the nature of each disability, but there would be no refusal for any child wanting to attend. In practice, however, it might mean a child having to simply watch their friends from the sidelines. Because of this, PGL would normally encourage individual parents to make a site visit first to assess whether this would be acceptable for their child. PGL did not have any specialised lifting equipment, and could not accept any liability for injury in the event of a child taking part in an activity for which they were not properly prepared.

The view shared by Mrs A and Mrs L was that PGL catered for the majority of the children in their care, and that it was better to go there, and to offer SEN children a suitable alternative, rather than to send ALL the children to a specialised site that DID cater for disabled children, but with a much higher cost to all concerned.

In the event, as a result of Mrs Coupe’s insistence on SEN children being given the opportunity to go to PGL, one boy in a wheelchair DID accompany the trip in July 2005. The boy (child A) was accompanied by Mrs Norbury (the school’s SEN Co-ordinator) and her husband, who not only had to act as the boy’s personal carers, but also had to share his bedroom! Child A managed to take part in archery and swimming, but when it came to canoeing, the trip nearly ended in tragedy… Neither Mrs Norbury nor her husband had any previous experience of using a canoe, and child A could not be physically assisted by any of the PGL staff (see above). As a result, the boy generally dragged himself along the ground whenever he could. However, when it came to boarding a canoe, both he and Mrs Norbury ended up in the water. In other circumstances, this accident may have been seen as comical, but it could so easily have been tragic. The question has to be asked – was it right that this child should have been placed in those circumstances? And whichever the answer, who carried the responsibility of making a decision and taking responsibility?

But to return to that fateful meeting of Tuesday 7 September – in the light of the above information, the situation now takes a subtly different perspective: While Mrs Coupe paints herself as championing the cause of the disabled minority, she was also speaking from the position of the person who has to take ultimate responsibility for outside school activities. Her stated knowledge of the facilities at Boreatton Park was inaccurate, and she is describing a conflict of opinion between herself and an existing member of staff who had previous experience to bear on both situations. Should she not have allowed Mrs A to explain properly why she felt that the SEN children had to be treated differently? Bearing this in mind, it becomes clear now why Mrs A began to feel some concern about the reaction she got from her Head Teacher that day. With Val Brookes being the only other person present at that meeting, would it not have made better sense for Ruth Coupe to have asked the school secretary to wait for them to discuss the matter thoroughly, possibly after the other items on the agenda had been covered? It appears that she did not do so, and instead voiced her personal opinions on the spot. Val Brookes also refers to that meeting within her own statement – “Mrs A said that they (the SEN children) could not/did not normally go. I am aware that this had happened before, and I had raised the matter with Mrs L, who had said she would speak to Mrs A and ensure it would not happen again.” Mrs L’s reaction to that statement was un-printable!

So, from that date on, a division in both professional and personal opinions sealed the fates of the Head Teacher and her Assistant. I understand from my interviews with several other people more closely associated with the school that there continued to be many difficulties over the arrangements for that particular trip to PGL. While Mrs A was the nominated leader, she relied on Mrs Coupe to sign the necessary paperwork, and to make appropriate arrangements for child A’s attendance. Perhaps because the new Head had not had any experience in that position before, somehow there were delays and “misunderstandings” which nearly caused Mrs A to step down as expedition leader in favour of Mrs Coupe. It seems (with hindsight) more likely that it was the way that their relationship had broken down that caused there to be so many difficulties over the administration of PGL 2005.

The Final Answer, then, comes down to the way in which Mrs Coupe conducted herself as Head Teacher in her new school within one week of the new term. In my view, and if I were in her position, I would have wanted to draw on the experience and inside knowledge of the most senior members of my leadership team. I would already be aware that the Deputy Head had only been there for one full academic year, so it would seem sensible to listen to the views of the other member of the team – who had been at the school for twelve years – and to encourage her confidence and enthusiasm for a new management style. Instead, Mrs Coupe allowed a knee-jerk reaction to an un-planned incident to colour her professional relationship with Mrs A. It is my belief that this single event has been the catalyst for everything that followed. She behaved unprofessionally on that occasion, causing her Assistant Head to view her as someone who may not be the right person for the job. (Not an entirely unreasonable supposition from someone who had been part of the interviewing panel, and who had been given a very different impression in February of that year.)

That “step up” for Ruth Coupe was her nemesis. I feel that she became overwhelmed with the responsibilities she took on, and that she was (and is) totally out of her depth. I can only surmise that her eventual fate will become easier for her to adjust to, as the school continues to contract in size. From 506 in 2004, the total number of pupils has fallen this term to around 380… If she continues to hold sway for another couple of years, she may well get the school down to a size with which she is more familiar.

TO BE CONTINUED

Head into Trouble!

One thing that has constantly puzzled me over the last two years was how on earth Ruth Coupe could imagine she would be able to sustain her position. She told the panel of governors who interviewed her exactly what they wanted to hear; she clearly had a great deal of intelligence, and was not without several years of experience, but when she took up her post at Marton, there was no possible way she was going to mask her lack of suitability for the job. Don’t get me wrong, I am not criticising Mrs Coupe’s academic abilities, but as she immediately set herself up as a leader “with a vision”, I still find it incredible that she seriously thought she would be able to fulfil that “vision” without meeting opposition. I can only assume she had supreme belief in her powers to influence others into her way of thinking. That – or she knew she could rely on some other powerful people in positions of influence, perhaps keen to see a new version of Marton Primary School that reflected well on their own leadership.

But before we look at a head teacher with one vision, let us look at another: Mrs L (Lynn) had been the head since the school opened, and chose to retire for personal reasons, none of which had anything to do with the school’s academic success (or otherwise). In fact, Marton Primary was enjoying an enviable reputation: One governor volunteered the following observation in a letter to the Chairman in May 2004 (four months BC) – “Marton is a centre of educational excellence. It is a part of the community. It offers all children a happy and caring learning environment. It is at the forefront of new initiatives and always ready to embrace change. All of this is to the credit of those who have been involved over the years -children, parents, teaching and support staff, Governors, the LEA and, perhaps most importantly, the Head teacher. Under the leadership of Lynn, the school has gone from strength to strength and in my view it is her vision, motivation, drive and determination that has made Marton what it is today.”

In fact, similar words to those above were used by none other than David Lund, Director of Children’s Services, at the ceremony held at the school to mark Lynn’s retirement just two months later. It is hard to believe that this same gentleman has so publicly backed Mrs Coupe over the last three years in systematically destroying most of the hard work done by her predecessor.

I shall return to those changes later, but first I feel I should explain that much (but not all) of the details provided in this instalment originate from Mrs L herself. In February this year, after reading the contents of the leaked disciplinary file for myself, I felt there were several individuals who needed to be aware of the file’s existence. Mrs A was obviously the first one, as the act of leaking the document was clearly a malicious attempt to damage her career. But the file also contained material that was very likely to cause considerable upset to others. I was soon to visit Mr and Mrs L at their home in Burnley, and it is as a result of that visit that the details which follow are now being aired in public.

It is not generally known that (for the most part) the incidents of 2004 to 2005 passed un-noticed by the former head for two reasons: 1) Lynn was enjoying her first year of retirement by spending most of it touring abroad with her husband, and 2) the staff at school did not feel it was right to trouble her about what should really have been none of her concern. However, Mrs L made two personal visits to Marton during the year – once to follow a well-established tradition in providing the staff with chocolates as a “de-stress” treat in the week of the OfSTED inspection, and on another occasion as a guest at an assembly near Christmas. This was the only time she came face-to-face with her successor – and met a VERY frosty reception! Determined not to let it upset her retirement, Lynn shrugged it off and put the incident behind her.

Then something very strange occurred in June 2005. Just after returning from a holiday in Venice, Lynn received a phone call from the LEA. This was an enquiry from the Assistant Director of Children’s Services Rob Brophy, and he wanted to know how much she knew (and was involved in) the present difficulties to be found at Marton School, bearing in mind he had heard that she had attended a meeting with some of the staff there! Lynn was astonished, as she had NOT attended such a meeting, and had been in Italy at the time anyway. She told Mr Brophy that she was only aware that there were problems because of the enquiries she had received for references from members of staff who were clearly looking to find alternative employment. So far as anything else was concerned, she told him “I would not have retired if I still wanted to be involved.” She also said that she was very concerned that her name had been discussed without her knowing.

A little later, Lynn was contacted by Dick Greenfield of the NAS/UWT. He was acting on behalf of Mrs A, and asked if she would be prepared to make a statement about her own knowledge of the school, and to answer some questions of a professional nature about both Mrs A and Mrs Reidy in their capacity as union representatives. The following are Lynn’s own words, taken from a copy of her reply to the NAS/UWT that she gave me earlier this year, and written on 25 June 2005:

However, I have now been contacted by the NAS/UWT and am happy to make the following statement about circumstances before I retired.


· Ethos of Marton Primary School – August 2004

Marton had a caring philosophy where every individual was valued and treated with respect, where everyone mattered – children, governors, parents and staff. A safe and secure environment was in place so that the whole school community could feel happy and be able to develop. High quality teaching and learning took place.

· Strengths of Marton Primary School – August 2004

1. Teamwork – strong team of all staff who worked together and respected each other. Strong Senior Leadership Team with whole school vision.
2. Broad and balanced curriculum – well planned and monitored
3. Foundation Stage
4. SEN and Inclusion
5. Music
6. PE/Sports
7. PHSE – especially Health Ed, Drugs, Sex Ed and Circle time
8. Art & Display
9. Reading development throughout the school, supported by Better Reading Partnership
10. Extended curriculum – wide range of clubs and squads
11. Before & after school care
12. Parental partnership
13. Planned developments in Workforce Reform – supporting reducing staff workload & providing an exciting curriculum for all children

Lynn then went on to list the recommendations made at a meeting between herself and her Senior Leadership Team (including Mrs A) in August 2004. These were left with Mrs Coupe for the start of term:

· Areas for Development, Marton Primary School – August 2004

1. Numeracy – progression and continuity, especially ay KS2 – being addressed through the provision of 3 sets in each year group at KS2 and training especially for new staff.
2. Extended writing – continue to develop through extensive training lead by English coordinator – planned 3 sets for literacy in September 2004 & more training.
3. Replanning curriculum teams – not an area for development, but, because of recent staff changes and young staff – a lot of time needs to be given to this
4. Continue to build on individual tracking of children to monitor progress
5. Revisit marking and response policy because of staff changes to ensure consistency
6. Continue to look at timetables linked to workforce reform and DFES requirements.
7. Support Year 2 as lower SAT & PIPS results in 2004 after having made good progress in previous years – maybe due to change of staff

All other developments shown in Curriculum Action Plans.

Dick Greenfield also asked Lynn for her views on the newly published OfSTED report:

· Comments re Inspection Report (seen on Internet)

1. This doesn’t seem like the same school!
2. If Marton was drastically underachieving over the last 5 years why wasn’t I informed by the school adviser, we had to ask for advisory teacher input, which was only provided in 2003-2004.
3. This is so different from the last 2 inspection reports and comments from anyone who has visited and spent time in the school – comments from prospective parents, parental surveys when asked what we can do to improve, advisers and advisory teachers, college supervisors for students, staff from other schools who have come to observe etc.
4. Although there had been staff changes since the previous inspection, quality of teaching was always monitored very closely and support given. Perhaps staff were too stressed with the whole process in this OfSTED to perform well.

At this stage, Lynn had no idea at all of the depths of despair that had now been reached by many of her former colleagues. As mentioned above, she had personally visited the school with a gift of chocolates to help “de-stress” the teaching and support staff, being all too aware how much of a strain such an inspection could cause. Her comments in 4 above indicate that her only conclusion was that the stress levels were still too high. Would that she had known just how high!

But it is her comments below that were probably of more value to Mr Greenfield:

In addition I have been asked to comment on:

How staff relationships were managed

Staff relationships were managed very openly and honestly. As Marton was a school with a large staff it was important that communication was clear and any issues dealt with fairly. The Deputy Head and Assistant Head as well as other senior members of staff made sure they picked up on any concerns and brought those for discussion. These issues might be personal, affecting a member of staff’s performance, teaching concerns, use of support staff etc. Union representatives fed back on any union issues and these were discussed with myself and other senior members of staff.

What the relationship between all staff was like

Everything was very open. Staff were professional towards each other and respected each other’s opinions even though they might not always agree. The senior staff played a key role in this maintaining a whole school vision.

How whole school issues and individual staff/school issues were handled by you as HT, SMT, staff in general (teachers and non-teachers) and the teacher unions.

It was important for staff to be involved in any issues that involved whole school decisions so that they had ownership. Any concerns /ideas/issues were discussed in depth as Senior Leadership meetings so that ideas and thoughts could be shared and agreed upon. These were then taken to the rest of the staff – DHT – through meetings with support and lunchtime staff, Key Stage coordinators at Key Stage meetings and at full staff meetings. Senior staff and myself would then monitor progress.
Depending on individual issues, anything that was really sensitive was dealt with by myself and treated confidentially.

· What Mrs A’s role in the school was and how she was regarded by the staff in general

A senior and well respected member of staff. Very proactive in moving the school forward and dealing with any problems. The majority of staff would go to her for help and advice. Staff knew that she could be relied upon. Her role in school was to work in partnership with the Deputy Head especially in the management of the curriculum, to make sure communication was effective and together pick up on any issues so that school ran smoothly. A key coordinator in literacy – very skilled as well as cross-curricular themes and dimensions. As Key Stage 2 coordinator she had a key role in making sure KS2 ran smoothly, liaising with other Key Stages to ensure the smooth running of the school. Any issues that arose from this key management role were fed back to SLT meetings.

The part Mrs A and Jill Reidy played as union reps and when an issue was contentious how it was resolved - was the union obstructive,

There had been a number of union reps over the years at Marton, BA and JR being the reps that were in post when I retired. All acted in the same way as Marton was an open school and issues were discussed and dealt with. I had regular feedback from reps after meetings and was given copies of any union issues. If there was anything contentious then time was given to this, often discussing with SLT to seek a resolution. Sometimes compromises were made for instance if changes needed to be made but there were organisational or financial restrictions. Union reps would then feed this back to the rest of their members. I never found any of the unions or their representatives obstructive. They are there to represent the best interests of their members.

· Did Mrs A and Jill Reidy lead a group that was resistant to change

I never experienced any resistance to change from BA or JR. Like other staff, they were enthusiastic and involved in developing lots of new ideas, this was because staff were involved in decision making processes, were consulted, and understood when change was needed. Marton was well known for being innovative and open to change, the school regularly had visitors from various parts of the education service to look at what was happening. New initiatives were always discussed openly and planned as a whole school.

David Lund has described the school as coasting - please give your reaction to that

I am amazed that Marton could be thought of as coasting. If a school is only to be assessed on results, then KS2 results were steadily improving. A lot of progress had been made at KS1 apart from 2004 results. The School Improvement Plan addressed any issues in raising standards; a school is more than statistical results.

· Mrs Coupe has described Marton as a failing school, a 'D' grade school - please describe why this was not the case

For Blackpool schools there is a need to understand and sell the Blackpool context as this impacts on children’s learning and the progress they make. This includes the low starting point for many children, a higher % of SEN, the impact of parents working in the tourist industry, the hidden FSM and the seasonal changes in this etc.

Please say if you think the staff in general and Mrs A and Jill Reidy in particular would be obstructive to a new head teacher because of their loyalty to you.

All staff were nervous about the change, as I had been at Marton since it opened. It was Mrs A in particular who was so positive about Mrs Coupe becoming the Head teacher, she reassured staff who were a bit unsure and said that it would be a really positive move for the school. As Marton had always been a happy school and open to change, there was no reason to think that another change would make a difference. Certainly, in the Summer term the staff were wishing me well for my future and were looking forward to a new Head teacher.

· What part did a) the governing body and b) parents, play in the decision making process?

As with the staff, there was a clear and open relationship with the Governing Body. Anything that required a decision was shared in detail giving all the information so that the Governors were fully informed. All issues or changes were discussed and decided by the Governing Body following LEA and Government guidelines.
Parents were kept fully informed and consultations took place as needed via questionnaires, letters, meetings etc. Their opinions, eg. On homework or SEN issues were listened to and taken into account.


As both a parent, and as a governor, I can personally endorse Lynn’s last comments. And as an interested party who has interviewed governors who have had personal experience under Mr Turner’s Chairmanship, I can confidently state that the present “regime” works very differently, and does NOT adhere to LEA or Government guidelines.

From this point on, Mrs L joined the ranks of those parents who were only just beginning to realise the severity of the problems now besetting the school. While the first Discussion Forum website was being set up, Mrs A approached her former Head for a reference – and naturally gave her more detail on events leading up to that time. As she would with any member of staff, Lynn was happy to provide such a reference.

Lynn was now in a difficult position: Her retirement meant that she no longer held any official connection to the school, and she did not wish to implicate herself in a debate that, on the face of it, had nothing to do with her. On the other hand, some of the news that was reaching her DID cause her grave concern. As more detail was fed back to her, it became apparent that her own professional reputation was being maligned. Lynn was still affiliated to the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), and from that point on her own trade union began to take a close interest.

There are several areas that took their attention, as Mrs Coupe had freely admitted to more than one member of staff at Marton that she had “inherited a failing school”. Months later, one Blackpool Councillor clearly shared that view when he wrote to a parent “The current head teacher was appointed by the governors with a brief to raise standards which were deemed to be unsatisfactory by OFSTED, a situation which had existed for a number of years prior to her appointment.” Even more seriously, one teacher at the school who provided a statement in support of Mrs Coupe claimed that she was “aware that Mrs L has been involved in the current situation, and believe that is within her character”. That same statement even included allegations of bullying and favouritism against the former head teacher. Given that this statement was recorded by the redoubtable Linda Marsh (see previous chapter), I can only observe that these references to Mrs L had no place at all in a document relating to the suspension of Mrs A! And it is just this point which the NAHT has been involved with, on Lynn’s behalf.

However, the fact is that each of these statements were made, are well documented, and are therefore potentially libellous. Add to that the issue of a document containing such statements being deliberately leaked to the media, and it is understandable that Mrs L has now taken a much more personal interest in events at Marton since her retirement.

So what was done by Blackpool Borough Council in response to Lynn’s concerns? In effect, precisely nothing. The NAHT has been in regular correspondence with Mr Lund’s office since September 2005, and the responses it has received have been pretty much the same throughout – pleading ignorance, and denying responsibility. As we have all seen recently, the so-called “investigation” into the leaked disciplinary file merely resulted in a statement to say that it could not be proven who was responsible. As Lynn had written personally to Steve Weaver (Chief Executive of Blackpool Council) with a number of questions over the sudden appearance of this file with its damaging contents, she had expected at least a copy of the report, and a full response to her questions. She got neither. All she received was a very brief statement that there had not been anyone identified, and which was even addressed to the wrong trade union!

This last twelve months have been extremely fraught for Mrs L. Aside from school issues, she has been in particularly poor health as a result of an abortive hip operation. She should have been able to make a better recovery, but the personal stress she has suffered as a direct result of the problems at Marton school has been highly upsetting, and no doubt added adversely to her general state of health. Her husband John has given me this present statement on Lynn’s behalf:

“Lynn has been upset that she has been embroiled in something happening in Blackpool – still going on 3 years into her retirement, over which she seemingly has no control, at a time when her health has been worsening. Although any documents recovered in this current investigation have now been destroyed she is concerned about any others that may still be in circulation and about the role of the governors in including the statement about her and then their apparent lack of security in allowing the documents to enter the public domain. Despite Mr Weaver’s reassurances she is not confident that the matter has ended, as no mention has been made at any time about the role of the governing body, which seems to be able to act independently – she cannot find anyone to whom they are answerable or who deals with complaints other than their own complaints procedure within the school.

She has contacted what was the DfES who have confirmed in writing that any disciplinary action against a teacher is the legal responsibility of the Governing Body, yet this seems to have been ignored by Blackpool authority.

Although she has been retired for three years she values her reputation in teaching, especially in the 12 years she worked as a Head Teacher in Blackpool and so finds this situation stressful. She always thought that she had a healthy relationship with Mr Lund – and respected what he was doing while she worked in Blackpool. She played an active part in Blackpool, alongside Jo Hurst the deputy, in giving talks etc to other teachers and new head teachers at the request of the authority. Staff members of other schools regularly visited Marton to view Marton’s approach to various aspects of their work. Mr Lund’s own speech at the final assembly for Lynn was very warm and appreciative so it is all the more surprising then that Mr Lund has allowed the rumours to be perpetuated and allowed the document to remain.”

TO BE CONTINUED

Repercussions

It may now start to become clearer to the reader just how important was the leaking of one particular document. Somewhat like the first crack in the wall of a dam, once that little bit of information came out, it became so much easier to find out more. Even as I write this page, more facts (and I do mean “facts”) are reaching my ears. From where I sit, the view of Blackpool Council is becoming clearer – and it is not a pretty sight!

Earlier, I referred to the author of that leaked file: Linda Marsh acted as the Investigating Officer for the Council (by whom she was employed), and it was her job to carry out an “independent” investigation to see whether there really was a case to answer against the Assistant Head. To establish the answer to that question, she carried out a series of interviews with staff at the school, and with the LEA. As referred to earlier, there were 11 interviews with school staff recorded in the document. But this only accounts for approximately one sixth of the school complement, so was this a fair cross section of the school community? It appears not.

To begin with, the fateful meeting between Mrs Coupe and Mrs A that immediately preceded the suspension was attended by two other staff members. One of these was the Deputy Head Teacher Val Brookes, who supplied a statement supporting her Head Teacher. The other one was Roger Farley – and he did NOT provide a statement. Could this be because he had already supplied one for the Grievance lodged by Mrs A? For whatever reason, Linda Marsh did not see fit to take a statement from an important witness. Or if she did, it was never included in her finished document!

But there’s worse: because there were TWO other statements taken from staff members that never reached the published document. The reason why is because these particular witnesses were NOT prepared to support the views of Mrs Coupe, and refused to speak against Mrs A. It has even been reported to me that one of these witnesses was asked by Linda Marsh to change his statement to show Mrs A in a bad light! This teacher subsequently left the school, and has provided written evidence of Linda Marsh’s shameful conduct.

It could not get much worse, could it? Or then, maybe it could…

Let’s take a look back at how the news broke over the conclusion to the suspension, once agreement had been reached through ACAS. On 6 July 2006 The Citizen newspaper announced “Two teachers involved in the dispute will not return to Marton School – but will continue their careers at other schools without ‘any obstacles’ it was revealed. …(The dispute) involved the suspension of assistant headteacher, ********, and the absence of another, un-named teacher who has been on long-term sick leave.” That other teacher was Jill Reidy, who was signed off with stress in February 2005, and has been unable to resume her teaching career since.

But hold on a minute! We also know that BOTH teachers were subject to a confidential agreement at the conclusion of the suspension business, and BOTH received financial compensation. So why are there now TWO teachers affected here, when we have already established that only ONE was suspended, and that the leaked Disciplinary file was intended to look at that ONE suspension? Perhaps maths was never my strong point, but would you agree that something doesn’t quite add up?

For the answer to that question, let us return to the redoubtable Linda Marsh. As I have said, her brief was to look at whether there was a case to answer over the suspension of Mrs A. This was her conclusion:

“5.6.4 Consequently I conclude that both individually and collectively the allegations may be considered to be gross misconduct.”

But then she continues:

“5.7 Additional Conclusion
Throughout the investigation, witnesses referred to the behaviour of staff other than *********. From the information contained in the witness statements, the behaviour of Mrs Jill Reidy, Mrs Janet Connor and Mrs Lisa Taylor could be deemed to be serious misconduct, and a disciplinary investigation into their actions may need to be considered.”

That statement should NEVER have been included in that document. This is like a barrister in a court of law opening the case for the prosecution, pointing to the public gallery, and singling out three other spectators to stand up in the dock with the defendant! Marsh made a personal observation as a result of the enquiries she made, and that single statement alone makes a complete mockery of the “independent” tag to her report. None of these three members of staff were aware that they were ALSO subject to any investigation until the report was published in March 2006. But why were they picked out in any case?

Mrs Reidy was a union representative with Mrs A, and had therefore backed her in her confrontations with Mrs Coupe, but then she had been off sick for five months before the suspension took place. Ironically, it was Linda Marsh’s own department (Human Resources) that would have been charged with the duty of welfare throughout Mrs Reidy’s sick absence.

Mrs Connor was a support assistant, charged with caring for a child with SEN (Special Educational Needs), and unlike Mrs A or Mrs Reidy, was directly employed by the LEA. She had complained to the LEA about Mrs Coupe, but without result, so she made the decision to remove her children from the school. As a direct result of that action, David Lund removed Mrs Connor, and placed her in a different school.

Mrs Taylor was also a support assistant, in the employ of the Council, but her circumstances were slightly different: She was the parent of a child in Mrs A’s Year 6 class, and she was also Mrs A’s teaching assistant, so when the suspension took place she found herself in a unique position. Ruth Coupe wanted her to lie to her own daughter about the reasons for her teacher’s mysterious absence, but she refused to do so. I should add that Mrs Taylor was also a governor at the school and a representative of the public services union UNISON. She was certainly extremely well qualified to know all about the various conflicts that had been building up since the arrival of the new Head Teacher, and she had been vocal in her support of Mrs A. Now with her own daughter upset, demanding to know why she couldn’t see her teacher to say goodbye for the last time, Mrs Taylor was placed in a very emotional position. Ruth Coupe did not take refusal lightly, and made several threats of disciplinary action should she find that Mrs Taylor had “gone public”. The pressure of that last week was too much. Mrs Taylor became ill, and has been signed off work with stress ever since (over two years). So she too has been in receipt of the care and attention of Linda Marsh’s department!

Please note that Mrs A, Jill Reidy and Lisa Taylor were ALL trade union representatives – whose duty it was to represent the voices of their colleagues in discussions with their respective managers.

So here is the answer to another question: Why were there TWO settlements made once the suspension issue was concluded? Because the LEA had caused TWO teachers to be investigated, and were therefore responsible for clearing their names to allow them to resume their careers. So far as Mrs Connor and Mrs Taylor were concerned, both were still employees in receipt of their salaries, so the question of careers did not enter into it.

This only leaves one other person, also subject to unwarranted criticism in Linda Marsh’s report, and now about to re-join the repercussions of Blackpool Bungling Council’s shameful conduct: Mrs L, former Head Teacher of Marton Primary School.


TO BE CONTINUED

The Biggest Mistake Of All

Throughout the time period over which Marton Primary School has been declining (2004 to the present), much of the reason for its problems can be attributed to mistakes – errors of judgement by persons who are highly paid NOT to make such catastrophic errors. These are people whose day-to-day workload can have far reaching impact, because their every decision can influence the lives of so many others. In the normal course of events, the training and experience of these influential managers would be sufficient to ensure that they could be relied upon to do their job properly. No local authority would willingly put itself into a position where its entire structure and hierarchy could be questioned as corrupt by numerous members of its own public.

The fact remains that those mistakes WERE made – and several of them have already been admitted to. Surely the biggest mistake (since the appointment of Marton Primary School’s present Head Teacher) was Mrs Coupe’s own decision to suspend her Assistant Head Teacher. The second biggest mistake was the decision of David Lund to back her in that decision. It was that suspension that particularly triggered public awareness that something was wrong with the school – drastically wrong. Without that, we may have raised our eyebrows in surprise over the OfSTED “under-achieving” result, we may have expressed our sorrow when the Chair of Governors resigned, we may even have raised a few questions over the reasons why some members of the school staff had removed their own children from the school – but each of those issues could have been adequately passed off by Mrs Coupe or the LEA as purely incidental. The school continued to open its doors, and our children (generally) still came home with the same old stories about what their day in class had been like.

The difference now was that the Assistant Head (Mrs A) was a major figure – a popular, long-serving teacher (twelve years) who had been a mainstay of the previous Head's era. Many school children had passed under her wing to flourish at English in particular (as noted by OfSTED), and her absence at the school’s Leavers Assembly that year could not help but be noticed. Many of her Year 6 class were in tears that they could not say goodbye, or to present their little gifts to the teacher who had prepared them so well for the step up to high school. Parents did ask the question (of Mrs Coupe), and were lied to. The Head Teacher had sworn her staff to secrecy – but the dreadful news was soon to come out. A public outcry began – and has never stopped after over two years! If there had been a valid reason for Mrs A’s suspension – say, for assaulting a child – we would all have raised our hands in horror, the details would all have been made public, and everyone could have moved on. Justice was done… But justice was NOT done! The suspension was not valid, and after years of doubt, unanswered questions, and some appalling examples of bureaucracy gone mad, it is high time that the full story came out:

The difficulties I have had in piecing this story together would make a separate story in itself. There is no single source for this. It would have been so much simpler to have gone straight to the Assistant Head and Mrs Coupe themselves, and taken statements, but both parties are subject to a “gagging” order as a result of an agreement signed over a year ago. Instead, I have had to rely partly on information I obtained from persons close to both parties prior to that agreement being signed, and partly on statements provided more willingly once a document came into my hands that had been “leaked” on behalf of Mrs Coupe. Without the benefit of that document, much of what you are about to read may never have come out.

Earlier in this account I referred to the confrontations that began to take place between Mrs Coupe and certain members of her staff. These arose because the new Head’s ideas for improving the school were sometimes queried by senior teachers, who were alarmed at the possible impact on both their colleagues and the children in their care. For instance, the special reading incentive “ERIC” (Everybody Reads In Class) was suddenly dropped without any proposal for an alternative. As this incentive had been extremely successful in developing both children’s confidence and reading abilities, there was understandable concern over its demise.

The school has a staff of around 60, and most of these had been at Marton for several years – a sure sign of stability and success. Part of that was down to the careful consideration given in the sharing of duties allocated by its Head Teacher. Mrs Coupe decided to alter the balance, and to change the duties of some staff without any apparent regard to their experience or aptitude. Staff became unsettled. Some had been given “promotion”, and therefore felt they should be loyal to Mrs Coupe, while others felt cast aside because they had expressed some disagreement. The cracks were certainly starting to show very early in the Autumn of 2004, but no one had any idea of the “earthquake” to come.

As a union representative, and a member of the Senior Management Team, Mrs A was in prime position to speak directly to Mrs Coupe about the reservations felt by her colleagues. Feeling she was getting nowhere with the Head, she finally turned to the LEA for help, and was summoned to a meeting with David Lund. Far from offering her any support, Mr Lund made it very clear that he expected Mrs A to back her head teacher 100% - or face consequences which would be detrimental to her own career… Thankfully, she ignored his advice, preferring to show loyalty to her colleagues.

But there were further incidents of intimidation and harassment, and in the first week of July 2005 Mrs A lodged a formal “Grievance” (complaint) against Mrs Coupe through her own union (NASUWT). Just over one week later, on 14 July 2005, after a final meeting between herself, Mrs Coupe and two colleagues, Mrs A was suspended by her Head Teacher for “allegations of potential gross misconduct”. She was immediately escorted off the premises by Stephen Collinge, Link Adviser to the LEA. The details of these “allegations” were to remain unknown to all but a few for the next eight months, and Marton School staff were told to say nothing at all to anyone, or face disciplinary proceedings themselves. A week later, at the Leavers Assembly, parents of Year 6 children were told that Mrs A was “indisposed”.

During the months that followed, while parents were exasperated at the lack of answers coming out of either the school or Progress House, two very important documents were being prepared: The first of these related to the Grievance lodged on the Assistant Head's behalf, and eventually ran to over 100 pages, comprising statements from around 30 staff members prepared to testify against Mrs Coupe. The other was relating to a Disciplinary Investigation following Mrs A’s suspension, and would be carried out “independently” by one of the Council’s own officers… The document that was produced for the Disciplinary is the one that was subsequently leaked, and found its way to me, but it was first produced in March 2006 – one month AFTER a hearing was called for the aforementioned Grievance to be heard.

In fact, departures from established rules and procedures have a lot to do with the reasons why Mrs Coupe’s case against her Assistant broke down. Included within the leaked file is a 19 page statement from the Investigating Officer, summarising statements taken from Mrs Coupe and several others. This officer (Linda Marsh) admits that a meeting took place with Mrs A's representatives on 15 September 2005, in which the NASUWT complained that allegations referred to in the letter of suspension served on Mrs A exactly mirrored the allegations made in her own Grievance against Mrs Coupe! The implication was that the charges levelled by the Assistant Head were now being twisted against her, painting Ruth Coupe as the victim. It was a direct result of this conflict that the meeting was then adjourned, and no further meeting took place until January 2006. Curiously, the statements supporting Mrs Coupe contained within the file were all recorded between July and October. In addition to Mrs Coupe’s own statement (September 2005), there are 11 others from Marton school staff, and five from the LEA. Two staff members are since said to have asked for their statements to be withdrawn, one saying she had been asked to lie, and another that she had been promised promotion. One wonders what happened during the three months between the last statement being recorded, and the January meeting…

It is my understanding that several things went on between October 2005 and January 2006: To begin with, in October 2005 the Marton School Action Group was formed, and the present Discussion Forum was established on the Internet. I had my first (and only) meeting with David Lund, and in November 2005 (after being threatened with legal action by Mr Lund) the Action Group attracted the attention of Councillor Jon Bamborough. Questions started to be asked in Council Chambers, and a legal wrangle broke out between NASUWT and the LEA over the need for the Grievance to be heard before the Disciplinary. Even the Council’s own Legal Department backed that one, and recommended a reciprocal investigation into the conduct of Ruth Coupe. Their recommendation was ignored!

One would normally expect, for justice to be seen as fair and transparent, that a Grievance hearing against a Head Teacher would be very carefully assembled and prepared. The hearing was to be held by a panel of three (Marton) school governors under the supervision of the LEA. While I cannot provide any details of exactly what was said at this event, I can say that the hearing was abandoned by Mrs A's union representative after the panel were only prepared to examine the first three pages of the 100 page Grievance document! In the meantime, the Director of Children’s Services had been actively promoting Mrs Coupe’s endeavours at the school among Blackpool Councillors and Heads of other schools in an attempt to counter the gathering negative publicity.

So now, with the publication of the Disciplinary document in March (5 months after recording the last statement), a date was set for a hearing. Immediately, the LEA ran into trouble. The recommendation in the Investigating Officer’s report was that there was a case to answer – which meant that, if a hearing accepted that report, dismissal was inevitable. But the NASUWT pointed out that such a decision would be illegal if the Grievance had not been heard, and further action could take place that would be exceedingly embarrassing for the Council.

With time running out, the arbitration services of ACAS were finally brought into play in early June 2006, and the LEA were forced to compromise. Both actions were dropped entirely, and Mrs A was left with a clean record, and free to resume her teaching career. Both she and Mrs Reidy were paid an undisclosed sum of money by way of compensation for losing their positions at Marton Primary School, and both parties signed an agreement that they would not disclose details of their respective actions.

And that really should have been the end of that sorry little story, but as we shall see – it wasn’t.

TO BE CONTINUED

OfSTED Inspection - and Two Departures

One of the real “hot potatoes” for discussion around Marton Primary School has been the OfSTED inspection of April 2005, and its subsequent effect. Now, I am not an education specialist, and my role as a parent meant that (like most other people), I had a fairly limited knowledge of what the purposes of such an inspection may be, how it should be conducted, and how to interpret the results. I have learnt a lot more in this particular department since 2005, and (without going into too much detail) I feel it is appropriate to share my new knowledge here.

Basically, an OfSTED inspection is a Government tool to measure the effectiveness of a school, and to make suitable recommendations for improvement where appropriate. As a result of that inspection, the Government can impose certain demands on a school and the LEA, should the standards of education be found to be “unsatisfactory”. The inspections themselves are conducted by private companies operating to government contracts, and the inspectors visiting the schools will normally have served as teachers or head teachers themselves. The 2005 inspection was conducted by a company called “Peakhause”, who lost their contract shortly afterwards to another called “Nord Anglia”. The rules by which these companies operate have recently been changed, principally in an effort to “tighten up” the standards by giving considerably less notice of a visit. Further details relating to these periods of notice have already been posted by Richard Thornton on the Discussion Forum, so I do not intend to repeat them here.

Prior to the 2005 inspection there had been two other OfSTED inspections at Marton – both of which found the school to be operating to a “good” standard, and with several mentions of “excellent” in some areas. Some relatively minor action points had been noted on each occasion, and these were already either in place, or noted for action prior to Mrs Coupe’s arrival. In the summer of 2004 there was no reason for anyone to feel that the school was declining in its standards in any way. The previous incumbent had already proved her abilities as head teacher, and she was careful to ensure her successor would receive the school and its staff in as good a condition as possible. As stated in the introduction, some preparatory work had already been made for recommendations for change to the curriculum and working practices.

So – with such a good background to its academic standards, what was it that brought about that result of “under-achieving” in the 2005 report?

With the benefit of hindsight, I believe it was a mixture of genuine incompetence, poor decision making, and selfish greed. Firstly, while Ruth Coupe had made an excellent impression at her interview, her approach to her colleagues during her first few weeks at Marton displayed an appalling example of people skills – skills that are surely an essential quality for a head teacher. Quite simply, I believe she was not equipped (mentally) for the demands of a school so much bigger than her previous posts. She was probably out of her depth, and resorted to the lame excuse of “leave it with me” for almost every issue demanding her attention. The letter from “Investors In People” was probably forgotten about, and almost certainly was never mentioned during the numerous visits she made to Progress House seeking guidance.

And what of David Lund? The Director of Children’s Services should certainly not be blamed for the school governors’ poor choice of head teacher, but now he was faced with having to instruct Ruth Coupe on how she should run the school! Don’t forget that this is a man who never rose above the rank of “Deputy Head” himself, so he was never really qualified to give the necessary advice himself. Perhaps he should have taken a different choice of action at that stage, but I believe he felt this would be an opportunity to take direct control himself – effectively running the school by proxy. That view is certainly borne out by his appearance at the school on the day of the OfSTED inspectors’ arrival. There would normally be no need for the Director of Children’s Services to make such an appearance, and it must certainly be seen as significant. It is my view that the events over the months leading up to the inspection made Mr Lund realise that the school was in serious trouble, and he was very concerned that the inspectors might point the blame in the right direction…

But lets go back a little to look at some of the reasons I draw those conclusions:

Prior to a full OfSTED Inspection, the head teacher must ensure that a “Form S4” is completed, and made available to the inspection team. This is a fairly lengthy and involved questionnaire from OfSTED that is intended to provide the school’s own evaluation of its performance in specific areas that are of interest to the inspectors. The idea is that it will provide a baseline of information to which the inspectors may refer when making their own observations. The responsibility for its completion lies with the head teacher – who is expected to “involve other key staff and governors” for the necessary information. In this particular case, Mrs Coupe is believed to have completed the form entirely by herself, and it took several requests from colleagues in “The Action Group” before we were able to obtain a copy of this form under the Freedom of Information Act, and to have it examined by members of Mrs Coupe’s staff.

I reproduce below some extracts from the S4 Self-Evaluation form for 2004-2005. This comes in three parts – first the question posed on the form (in bold type), then Mrs Coupe’s response (in red), and finally the Comment on that response by members of staff:

1c How would you rate the school’s improvement since its last inspection?
(4 – average)

What has improved most? – ICT provision.
Comment: This came out very badly in the OfSTED report and there have been continuing problems ever since, including concerns about security and child safety in terms of internet access.

What still needs improvement, and what action is being taken? – Performance Management to be linked to whole school targets – a new system is currently being established and assessors trained.
Comment:2004 – 2005: Performance Management was never carried out, despite it being a legal requirement, and the benchmark for teachers’ progression. This could have serious repercussions on teachers’ progression, the governors and HT. No assessors have been trained. Two members of staff were asked to do Performance Management without training. There has been no mention of Performance Management so far this academic year.

5a How well does the curriculum meet pupils’ needs? (3 – above average)

How do you know? – provision for learning outside the school day with Homework club, Booster sessions and extra-curricular clubs.
Comment: No clubs Autumn term 2005. Only four booster sessions in 2004-2005.

What are the best and most innovative aspects of the curriculum, and why? - ….Health Week.
Comment: No Health Week 2004-2005.

8b. How effective is the management of the school? (3 – above average)

How do you know? – governors fulfil their statutory responsibilities for Performance Management.
Comment: No Performance Management took place 2004-2005. Governors were unaware that PM had not been performed. OfSTED found the governors did not fulfil their statutory duties, although this was disputed by governors.

In what ways does the management of performance need improvement, and what action is being taken? – Performance Management to be strengthened – with training for assessors.
Comment: No PM has been performed 2004-2005 (see above). No training undertaken.

In what ways does the management of performance need improvement, and what action is being taken? - induction procedures for new staff.
Comment: There were no induction procedures for new staff in place, and none have been implemented since. DHT criticised by LEA for not monitoring NQTs.

8c What are the most significant aids or barriers to raising achievement?

What are the most significant aids? – HT and DHT with a shared philosophy.
Comment: This is not true. The DHT has not always agreed with the HT, and has criticised her in private to other staff, parents and OfSTED inspector. The DHT has not been consistent in her views, altering them according to her audience.

What are the most significant aids? – Effective support from the LEA.
Comment: There had been no significant support from the LEA pre-September 2004, when the school was supposedly under-achieving. After the LEA Audit, there was a feedback meeting, at which it was suggested good practice be shared. As no staff were told who was exhibiting good practice, this could not be done.

What are the most significant barriers and what is their effect? – high staff turnover in recent years……Many experienced staff have moved on.

Comment: This is not true. Turnover of teaching staff, in particular had been average to low. Only the HT and DHT had moved on, along with four other experienced members of staff, since the previous inspection, six years previously.


Clearly, Mrs Coupe’s views of her school were not always consistent with her own staff – who were not given the same opportunities to express their views to the inspectors. Some of the answers given by Mrs Coupe could be put down to ignorance or incompetence, but several seem to me to be deliberate lies. Mr Lund would have been aware of the content of the form, and MAY have contributed towards its completion, but one does have to ask what their intentions were in providing the OfSTED team with such inaccurate information?

We all know the result: The school was found to be under-achieving, but with OfSTED recommending that the management team pull together behind the vision of the head teacher! So – no blame was cast in the direction where it SHOULD have lain, and the overall impression was given that Mrs Coupe was going to be the school’s saviour…


Departures

By the time that the OfSTED team visited Marton Primary School, it was becoming clear to staff members (if not the parents) that the proverbial rot had set in. Already, one senior teacher (Mrs Reidy) had been signed off with stress, and at least one other staff member was to follow for the same reason. In Mrs Reidy’s case, she had been directly involved in confrontations with Mrs Coupe, acting on behalf of other members in her capacity as a union representative. She was also a very conscientious teacher (she taught my own daughter), and highly respected by her colleagues.

Work-related stress and depression are extremely difficult diseases for anyone to understand if you have not experienced them yourself. Your every waking moment is subject to an irrational sense of despair, often bringing you to lengthy periods of feeling a need to shut yourself off from the outside world. You are aware of the irrationality of it all, but you have no control over it. I have been down that route myself, and I never want to go there again. In my case, it was not work-related – indeed, my return to work was almost a kind of therapy. However, imagine then how much more awful it must be, that the very thing you have built your career on, that you came to love, and that pays your mortgage, just cannot be tolerated any more.

Mrs Reidy is no longer a teacher. She had to sacrifice her life’s work because of the chaos brought about by the appointment of Ruth Coupe. It has to be a pretty serious problem for people’s whole lives to be turned upside down in such a way. And yet David Lund has belittled the efforts of others to draw attention to the impact of the change of management at Marton School. Indeed, he has directly contributed to it, personally intervening to remove support assistant Janet Connor from the school, following her own complaints to him, and her decision to move her own children to different schools. Tit-for-tat. “Make a complaint, and you’re out.” That was becoming the philosophy at the school. No wonder teachers were becoming terrified of the consequences of speaking up against their head teacher – they had seen what had happened to others.

And worse was to come, with the sudden disappearance of an Assistant Head Teacher…

TO BE CONTINUED