The following information has been obtained from various sources, and has reached my ears over the last two years. The details given below have been verified as far as I am able, but much of the “really sensitive” stuff has been derived at, rather than verified. By this, I mean that the persons who COULD have verified it have refused to do so for legal reasons – but then, they haven’t denied it, either!
Therefore the details below should only be taken as my own slant on what I believe to have happened, and it may be that, when legal restrictions permit, the persons concerned may wish to correct any false impressions.
It is my understanding that, when Ruth Coupe was first interviewed for the post of head teacher at Marton Primary School, she came across very well indeed, and was chosen on her merits because she appeared to embodify the same spirit as her predecessor. It must be remembered that, at the time of the previous headteacher's retirement, the school had a much higher complement of pupils than it does now, that it had previously enjoyed two previous OfSTED reports rated at “Good”, and that there were no reported problems with either parents or members of staff. The governors were particularly keen to see that her work at the school since its inception should continue in the same vein, and so Mrs Coupe was selected as the person most likely to do that. Having since spoken to members of the panel who conducted that interview, I can reveal that they were bitterly disappointed in their choice.
Prior to the start of Mrs Coupe’s first term, some preparatory work was done to set out areas that it was felt warranted attention in relation to the school curriculum, and various working practices. The previous headteacher was directly involved in making these recommendations, and they were felt to be practical considerations that would assist in meeting the standards required for the forthcoming OfSTED inspection in 2005. While some of these recommendations were adopted by Mrs Coupe, many were ignored until they were incorporated as part of the Post-OfSTED Action Plan presented to governors twelve months later.
Early in Mrs Coupe’s first term, the assessors for the Investor’s In People standard wrote to Mrs Coupe to remind her that the school would need to be re-assessed in the near future to be able to maintain the standard achieved three years earlier. The letter was ignored, as were further letters, until the IIP assessors had to complain to the school that they were still illegally advertising the IIP standard 18 months later. The work that is involved between the assessors and a school in achieving the IIP standard should have ensured that the school would have met all the necessary requirements to reach at least a “satisfactory” marking in the OfSTED inspection in April 2005. It is my personal belief that the IIP letters were deliberately ignored because certain persons wanted to see an “under-achieving” result from OfSTED – backing up the impression given by Mrs Coupe to other members of staff that she had inherited a “failing school”.
This first year under Ruth Coupe saw numerous incidents arising that directly affected several members of staff. Without going into detail, there were unresolved issues that directly involved Mrs Coupe, and where members of staff under her found themselves to be in disagreement. Some of these incidents arose from the changes to the curriculum mentioned above, but others arose entirely because of the management methods used by Mrs Coupe. Some staff members felt so aggrieved that they took their complaints to the LEA, through the School Link adviser, Steven Collinge. Others had their complaints voiced in person by their Union representatives, and some items were brought up at governors meetings. None of these issues reached the ears of the parents or the general public, and some of these same issues are still subject to procedure today, nearly three years later. In the meantime, there was little or no support given to these members of staff by the LEA, the minutes of the governors meetings were “edited” to exclude anything that may be deemed controversial, and “battle lines” began to be drawn between the head teacher and union representatives.
TO BE CONTINUED...
