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
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
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.
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
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
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
Friday, September 7, 2007
Complaints, a Satsuma and Pornography
My first view of Marton County Primary School (as it was called then) was in 1998, when I looked round it as a parent of a child nearing school age. Not having entered a primary school for some years, I was immediately impressed by the ambience of the place. As soon as I passed through the front doors I was struck by the warmth of my environment. This was not a physical warmth – just a feeling that I had entered a place that felt comfortable and friendly. One could sense that this was a busy place, and that there was almost a feeling of excitement about both the children and the staff. I realised in the course of my visit that this was almost certainly a direct result of the attitude of the Head Teacher, whose enthusiasm for her work was infectious. That same enthusiasm was evident in both the staff and the pupils, and I knew at once that I wanted my daughter to be a part of it.
Over the next few years, I found my faith to be justified, with my daughter Mollie clearly benefiting from her experiences. My son Matthew started there two years later, by which time I had already become a parent governor. Throughout their time at the school, it was consistently clear how well the school was run, and that the Head Teacher’s influence was significantly effective in producing the results that mattered.
The acronym “T-E-A-M” (Together Everyone Achieves More) was never better illustrated. It was with great personal sadness that I heard of the Head's retirement in 2004, and I did not envy anyone stepping into her shoes. She would be a tough act to follow! When the news broke about the problems being encountered by staff just twelve months later, I was prepared to make allowances for the new Head Teacher. After all, she would perhaps have found herself in a difficult position, and would it not be only natural for her to wish to make a few changes? Joining such a well-established team of teachers and support staff may have seemed a little intimidating, and I felt the need to check out for myself just how much of the apparent disturbances were down to a resistance to change. The following is a statement from one member of staff, written within the first few months of Mrs Coupe’s arrival:
“The staff are not adverse to changes – L was always up at the forefront when it came to new initiatives and changes were necessary. Marton has always been a school which has moved forwards – however they were always done in a democratic way open to negotiation and discussion by all. Inevitably some people were disappointed as they didn’t get what they wanted but the process was always followed through openly and with acceptance. Now we are working in a dictatorship – no open discussion/negotiation takes place. She appears to think and treat us as though we are in a failing school which is NOT the case, she is using and manipulating statistics/PANDA reports to suit her cause. A school that gets 70% - 80% pass rate for SATS is NOT failing. She has no concern/appreciation for the people ie. the children behind those results, she just sees them as figures or a statistic to champion her cause. She is in my opinion completely power-mad. The staff are in such despair it is unbelievable, many think she is deranged!!!”
So what about the governors? Were they not aware of these sentiments? Surely there would have been questions raised at governors meetings?
“Ruth will have made everything sound very straightforward as she wanted to try to manipulate (NAMED GOVERNOR) into her way of thinking. We know from witnesses and evidence that she has spoken to at least 5 governors privately as she did with (NAMED GOVERNOR) in order to secure her way of thinking at that governors meeting. This has been reported to the LEA as she should NOT have done this. She is VERY manipulative with words and says what you want to hear all the time if she wants something from you however she then does exactly what she wants regardless. She will also have made the issues seem small because she wants them implemented however they clearly are not and will have a massive impact on both children and staff. The way that she is rail-roading implementation by dictatorship is a BIG worry to the staff also.”
Note that the writer refers to the LEA being informed. This would almost certainly have been through the School’s Link Adviser, Steven Collinge. It would appear (following information supplied regarding procedures conducted at subsequent governors meetings) that nothing was ever done to correct Mrs Coupe’s handling of matters at such meetings. That is, until the then Chair of Governors (David Taylor) resigned for personal reasons in July 2005. His replacement (Mike Turner) is well known to have been a staunch supporter of Mrs Coupe, and was no doubt delighted to let his name go forward for election… One of his first actions was to propose a radical change to the school’s complaints procedure – ensuring that any complaint made against the Head Teacher would be subject to her own personal attention. The following is an extract from that proposal:
“If the Headteacher is the individual complained about, the Chair of Governors will make an initial response, but again only by letter to a verifiable parent at a verifiable address, pointing out the impossibility of dealing with the issue unless the Headteacher is involved.
From time to time the Chair will also have to deal with issues raised by members of the public. If they fall into any of the categories mentioned above they will be dealt with as stated above. Otherwise the Chair will deal with them as he/she sees fit, which will usually involve consultation with the LEA and such Governors as can be reached in whatever timescale is available. Again the response will only be by letter to a verifiable person at a verifiable address.
This policy was adopted at the full Governors meeting held on 24th November 2005.
Mike Turner, Chair of Governors.”
So – if a parent wished to make a genuine complaint against either the Head or the Chair of Governors, there would be no chance at all of it being dealt with by an independent person or body – a procedure commonly adopted elsewhere. And as we shall see – lodging a complaint with the LEA is likely to be just as fruitless! In short, the power of these particular “managers” is totally autonomous. Not a problem if they do their job properly, but in the wrong hands…?
A member of staff, writing to me in August 2005:
“We have been told that if we are not happy with the situation we have to get out. Although a lot of staff are not happy, it is not that simple to walk out of a job when you have family and mortgage responsibilities”
Thanks to the professionalism of such members of staff, the children were generally unaffected by the change of Head. Indeed, they saw very little of her, as Mrs Coupe preferred to spend most of her time either in her office, or visiting Progress House. Her interest in her pupils appeared to be purely incidental. However, there was ONE incident in January 2005 that brought her directly into the lives of one class of children – and with an unpleasant result: (some names abbreviated as they refer to serving members of staff)
The Satsuma Incident
"The layout of the classrooms is such that there is a small room in between the two classrooms. All doors were open between the rooms, so, although the teacher who witnessed the incident could not see or hear clearly what was going on, she was aware that Mrs Coupe was in the other classroom and that there was an interrogation going on, about a sucked satsuma which had been left on the floor, and no child had admitted leaving it there. The witness does not want to be identified, and has been advised by her union not to make a direct statement. What follows is therefore compiled from notes made by a third party.
The interrogation went on for about an hour. This was in the afternoon, and the children missed playtime as nobody would admit to it, and went on till home time. The two adults involved in the interrogation were Mrs Coupe and Miss M (support assistant). After the incident, they both entered the central room, laughing. Miss M called the witness in and both related to her (very proudly, as though it was really funny) what had happened:
They said that it had started when Mrs W had discovered the sucked satsuma on the floor when the children had gone to sit down at their tables. She had asked who had done it, and when nobody admitted to it, she backed herself into a corner by threatening the children they would have no playtime if nobody admitted to it. When some time had gone by, with nobody admitting to it, Mrs W went to get Mrs Coupe to deal with it, leaving Miss M in charge of the class. (Mrs W had to leave school early as she had some sort of appointment or something to do with her own children). Mrs Coupe arrived in the classroom, and began interrogating the children about who had done it. After a while, three or four children were crying as they had then been told there would be no playtimes at all THAT HALF TERM if nobody admitted to it. At this point, obviously realising they were getting nowhere, Mrs Coupe said that the police were in school (which they were - for something in upper juniors), and would not be very pleased to hear that children were not telling the truth. She said that the police would be able to look at the satsuma and work out who had sucked it. This continued for sometime, with some of the children getting more and more agitated. When Mrs Coupe said, "if nobody puts their hand up, then I am calling in the police..." one little girl (who was always as good as gold) put her hand up in a panic. Mrs Coupe took her outside and told her how naughty she had been, not to admit to what she had done etc. She told Miss M that she needed to see her mother when she came to collect her from school. As it happened, the little girl's mum was not picking her up that night, but another parent. When this parent arrived, Mrs Coupe went to talk to her and explain why the child was so upset.
When Mrs Coupe and Miss M were discussing this in the middle room after the event, the witness told me she felt so shocked about what had been done, and at Mrs Coupe's reaction to it (thinking it was funny) that she didn't know how to respond. She felt terrible for the children, and couldn't believe what she had heard. As Miss M is only young, it may have been understandable if she had maybe made an error of judgment and dealt with it by herself in this way. The witness presumed that Miss M had gone along with what was happening as Mrs Coupe was the head teacher. What really shocked her was that a head teacher had acted like this. When Mrs Coupe had gone, she told Miss M that she thought it was quite wrong to threaten young children with the police, and if she was a parent of one of those children she wouldn't be at all happy, as teachers always try to get the children to see the police as friends. Miss M seemed quite embarrassed, as she probably realised at this point that it had not been an appropriate way to deal with the situation. The two of them also discussed the fact that they did not think the little girl who had owned up to it had actually done it. They both had their suspicions about who had done it. Miss M admitted that the little girl had probably put her hand up when Mrs Coupe had said, “if nobody puts their hand up, then I’m calling in the police,” without even thinking what she was putting her hand up for – just thinking she would be stopping the police coming in.
When she got home, the witness was still shocked and told her husband what had happened. She asked him if he thought she had over-reacted. He said he didn't think so. He was as shocked as she was.
The following morning, Mrs W spoke to the witness to tell her what had happened the previous afternoon. The witness told her she already knew as she had heard directly from Mrs Coupe. She also told her she thought it was dreadful, for the reasons already mentioned. Mrs W laughed it off, and did not seem to think it was anything bad. In view of this the witness began to question her own reaction. Again, she wondered if she was over reacting. About ten minutes later, the father of the accused child came into school to see Mrs Coupe. Mrs N went down to see Mrs W, as Mrs Coupe was in assembly. Mrs W said to ask the parent to wait for Mrs Coupe to come out of assembly. After a while, Mrs N came back down and said that Mrs Coupe was going to be a long time, and she didn’t like to ask the parent to wait that long, or to come back the following Monday (this was Friday). At this point Mrs W said she would speak to him. She went up to the office, and spoke to the parent. When she returned she said he had come in to see what had gone on, as his child had come home very upset, and told him that she was not guilty. Mrs W said that he had been very pleasant about it and she had managed to diffuse the situation, without involving Mrs Coupe. The witness said she did not know whether Mrs Coupe ever knew the parent had been in."
This was not to be the last time Mrs Coupe used a threat of police action. Being married to a serving police officer may have something to do with it, but I can confirm to having been the victim of such threats myself. Mr Coupe has made his own contribution on several occasions, and was the source of an unfounded complaint made against former Councillor Jon Bamborough to the Standards Board for England. He also tried to have me disciplined by my employer for my activities on the discussion forum.
Strange then, that at a time when the police COULD have been brought in to resolve a problem, Mrs Coupe failed to do so!
Not very long after the incident with the Satsuma, a male supply teacher was discovered behaving in an inappropriate manner while supervising a class full of children. The following statement was prepared by Janet Connor (support assistant) at the time, fully expecting to have to provide it for the police. However, Mrs Coupe did not choose to do so, and specifically asked that the parents should not be informed. Draw your own conclusions: (some names abbreviated as they refer to serving members of staff)
The Pornography Incident
"Approximately one week after Mr P started as a supply teacher Miss M mentioned to me that she had noticed that whenever she entered the classroom Mr P turned off the computer monitor. I hadn’t noticed this, and on that note I went into the classroom. As soon as I entered the room Mr P switched the monitor off and began marking children’s books. I returned and agreed with Miss M. We both asked Mrs K to do the same and on entering the room the same thing happened. Again, I suggested we should mention this to the class teacher Mrs T. On telling Mrs T she said the same thing had happened on the few occasions she had entered the room. We all thought this a little strange and agreed to keep an eye on things.
I noticed that Mr P never left the classroom during the day. I asked him on several occasions if he was going to the staffroom at lunchtime and playtime, and he always declined and remained in the classroom. I noticed that Mr P often had his laptop plugged in on the carpet whilst he was using the classroom computer. I also noticed that Mr P had one of the little key things that the teachers use in school, which he used on the class computer. I asked Mrs T if the school would have provided him with one to use. She told me she didn’t think so, but that it may be his own, and she wasn’t sure if he should be using it if it was his own.
That evening I telephoned Mrs Reidy (Year 1 class teacher) and asked her advice on whether she thought Mr P’s behaviour was a little strange in class. She told me it sounded quite odd, and to keep an eye on him. The next day Miss M went into the classroom to use the computer to make up certificates for the children. She came to me and said that Mr P had jumped off his chair and asked her what she was doing, which again is strange as all the staff use the class computer regularly. Miss M said she had noticed two web sites minimized at the bottom of the screen. She said they sounded a little strange for the classroom. Mr P went outside to collect the children after afternoon play and I went into the classroom and jotted down the two sites. They were “Celeb Forum” and “Female O”, and I went straight to Mrs T in the other classroom and told her that I was now very concerned. She said she would speak to Mr Richardson (IT Co-ordinator) after school.
At home that evening I couldn’t settle, so I decided to do a search on my own computer to see if the sites were acceptable for school. I was shocked by the content of the site. It was not suitable to be viewed in school. I telephoned Mrs Reidy again and asked her to view the sites. She also advised me to check that Mrs T had been able to get hold of Mr Richardson. The next day Mr P was in the classroom when I got to school. I went straight into Mrs T’s classroom. I told her of the content of the site and she was very concerned. She told me Mr Richardson had been unable to get the history of the sites on the computer the night before, but that she would go right away and tell him what I had found. She asked me to stay with the children and she left.
Mrs T returned with Mrs Coupe and Mr Richardson. Mrs Coupe asked me to her office where I told her and Mr Richardson what sort of things were on the site. Mrs Coupe said we should move the children from the classroom and that Mr P should go with them. We told Mr P that he should bring the children to a classroom where the children were to have a talk about keeping the toilets and cloakroom tidy. I was asked to stand by the door to make sure everyone stayed there. After a while I was asked to identify Mr P’s belongings and they were moved to the other side of the classroom door. I stayed with the children. I was told Mr P was being escorted from the premises. This is my statement and is true to the best of my knowledge."
Sadly, this was not to be the last incident of its type in school.
TO BE CONTINUED…
Over the next few years, I found my faith to be justified, with my daughter Mollie clearly benefiting from her experiences. My son Matthew started there two years later, by which time I had already become a parent governor. Throughout their time at the school, it was consistently clear how well the school was run, and that the Head Teacher’s influence was significantly effective in producing the results that mattered.
The acronym “T-E-A-M” (Together Everyone Achieves More) was never better illustrated. It was with great personal sadness that I heard of the Head's retirement in 2004, and I did not envy anyone stepping into her shoes. She would be a tough act to follow! When the news broke about the problems being encountered by staff just twelve months later, I was prepared to make allowances for the new Head Teacher. After all, she would perhaps have found herself in a difficult position, and would it not be only natural for her to wish to make a few changes? Joining such a well-established team of teachers and support staff may have seemed a little intimidating, and I felt the need to check out for myself just how much of the apparent disturbances were down to a resistance to change. The following is a statement from one member of staff, written within the first few months of Mrs Coupe’s arrival:
“The staff are not adverse to changes – L was always up at the forefront when it came to new initiatives and changes were necessary. Marton has always been a school which has moved forwards – however they were always done in a democratic way open to negotiation and discussion by all. Inevitably some people were disappointed as they didn’t get what they wanted but the process was always followed through openly and with acceptance. Now we are working in a dictatorship – no open discussion/negotiation takes place. She appears to think and treat us as though we are in a failing school which is NOT the case, she is using and manipulating statistics/PANDA reports to suit her cause. A school that gets 70% - 80% pass rate for SATS is NOT failing. She has no concern/appreciation for the people ie. the children behind those results, she just sees them as figures or a statistic to champion her cause. She is in my opinion completely power-mad. The staff are in such despair it is unbelievable, many think she is deranged!!!”
So what about the governors? Were they not aware of these sentiments? Surely there would have been questions raised at governors meetings?
“Ruth will have made everything sound very straightforward as she wanted to try to manipulate (NAMED GOVERNOR) into her way of thinking. We know from witnesses and evidence that she has spoken to at least 5 governors privately as she did with (NAMED GOVERNOR) in order to secure her way of thinking at that governors meeting. This has been reported to the LEA as she should NOT have done this. She is VERY manipulative with words and says what you want to hear all the time if she wants something from you however she then does exactly what she wants regardless. She will also have made the issues seem small because she wants them implemented however they clearly are not and will have a massive impact on both children and staff. The way that she is rail-roading implementation by dictatorship is a BIG worry to the staff also.”
Note that the writer refers to the LEA being informed. This would almost certainly have been through the School’s Link Adviser, Steven Collinge. It would appear (following information supplied regarding procedures conducted at subsequent governors meetings) that nothing was ever done to correct Mrs Coupe’s handling of matters at such meetings. That is, until the then Chair of Governors (David Taylor) resigned for personal reasons in July 2005. His replacement (Mike Turner) is well known to have been a staunch supporter of Mrs Coupe, and was no doubt delighted to let his name go forward for election… One of his first actions was to propose a radical change to the school’s complaints procedure – ensuring that any complaint made against the Head Teacher would be subject to her own personal attention. The following is an extract from that proposal:
“If the Headteacher is the individual complained about, the Chair of Governors will make an initial response, but again only by letter to a verifiable parent at a verifiable address, pointing out the impossibility of dealing with the issue unless the Headteacher is involved.
From time to time the Chair will also have to deal with issues raised by members of the public. If they fall into any of the categories mentioned above they will be dealt with as stated above. Otherwise the Chair will deal with them as he/she sees fit, which will usually involve consultation with the LEA and such Governors as can be reached in whatever timescale is available. Again the response will only be by letter to a verifiable person at a verifiable address.
This policy was adopted at the full Governors meeting held on 24th November 2005.
Mike Turner, Chair of Governors.”
So – if a parent wished to make a genuine complaint against either the Head or the Chair of Governors, there would be no chance at all of it being dealt with by an independent person or body – a procedure commonly adopted elsewhere. And as we shall see – lodging a complaint with the LEA is likely to be just as fruitless! In short, the power of these particular “managers” is totally autonomous. Not a problem if they do their job properly, but in the wrong hands…?
A member of staff, writing to me in August 2005:
“We have been told that if we are not happy with the situation we have to get out. Although a lot of staff are not happy, it is not that simple to walk out of a job when you have family and mortgage responsibilities”
Thanks to the professionalism of such members of staff, the children were generally unaffected by the change of Head. Indeed, they saw very little of her, as Mrs Coupe preferred to spend most of her time either in her office, or visiting Progress House. Her interest in her pupils appeared to be purely incidental. However, there was ONE incident in January 2005 that brought her directly into the lives of one class of children – and with an unpleasant result: (some names abbreviated as they refer to serving members of staff)
The Satsuma Incident
"The layout of the classrooms is such that there is a small room in between the two classrooms. All doors were open between the rooms, so, although the teacher who witnessed the incident could not see or hear clearly what was going on, she was aware that Mrs Coupe was in the other classroom and that there was an interrogation going on, about a sucked satsuma which had been left on the floor, and no child had admitted leaving it there. The witness does not want to be identified, and has been advised by her union not to make a direct statement. What follows is therefore compiled from notes made by a third party.
The interrogation went on for about an hour. This was in the afternoon, and the children missed playtime as nobody would admit to it, and went on till home time. The two adults involved in the interrogation were Mrs Coupe and Miss M (support assistant). After the incident, they both entered the central room, laughing. Miss M called the witness in and both related to her (very proudly, as though it was really funny) what had happened:
They said that it had started when Mrs W had discovered the sucked satsuma on the floor when the children had gone to sit down at their tables. She had asked who had done it, and when nobody admitted to it, she backed herself into a corner by threatening the children they would have no playtime if nobody admitted to it. When some time had gone by, with nobody admitting to it, Mrs W went to get Mrs Coupe to deal with it, leaving Miss M in charge of the class. (Mrs W had to leave school early as she had some sort of appointment or something to do with her own children). Mrs Coupe arrived in the classroom, and began interrogating the children about who had done it. After a while, three or four children were crying as they had then been told there would be no playtimes at all THAT HALF TERM if nobody admitted to it. At this point, obviously realising they were getting nowhere, Mrs Coupe said that the police were in school (which they were - for something in upper juniors), and would not be very pleased to hear that children were not telling the truth. She said that the police would be able to look at the satsuma and work out who had sucked it. This continued for sometime, with some of the children getting more and more agitated. When Mrs Coupe said, "if nobody puts their hand up, then I am calling in the police..." one little girl (who was always as good as gold) put her hand up in a panic. Mrs Coupe took her outside and told her how naughty she had been, not to admit to what she had done etc. She told Miss M that she needed to see her mother when she came to collect her from school. As it happened, the little girl's mum was not picking her up that night, but another parent. When this parent arrived, Mrs Coupe went to talk to her and explain why the child was so upset.
When Mrs Coupe and Miss M were discussing this in the middle room after the event, the witness told me she felt so shocked about what had been done, and at Mrs Coupe's reaction to it (thinking it was funny) that she didn't know how to respond. She felt terrible for the children, and couldn't believe what she had heard. As Miss M is only young, it may have been understandable if she had maybe made an error of judgment and dealt with it by herself in this way. The witness presumed that Miss M had gone along with what was happening as Mrs Coupe was the head teacher. What really shocked her was that a head teacher had acted like this. When Mrs Coupe had gone, she told Miss M that she thought it was quite wrong to threaten young children with the police, and if she was a parent of one of those children she wouldn't be at all happy, as teachers always try to get the children to see the police as friends. Miss M seemed quite embarrassed, as she probably realised at this point that it had not been an appropriate way to deal with the situation. The two of them also discussed the fact that they did not think the little girl who had owned up to it had actually done it. They both had their suspicions about who had done it. Miss M admitted that the little girl had probably put her hand up when Mrs Coupe had said, “if nobody puts their hand up, then I’m calling in the police,” without even thinking what she was putting her hand up for – just thinking she would be stopping the police coming in.
When she got home, the witness was still shocked and told her husband what had happened. She asked him if he thought she had over-reacted. He said he didn't think so. He was as shocked as she was.
The following morning, Mrs W spoke to the witness to tell her what had happened the previous afternoon. The witness told her she already knew as she had heard directly from Mrs Coupe. She also told her she thought it was dreadful, for the reasons already mentioned. Mrs W laughed it off, and did not seem to think it was anything bad. In view of this the witness began to question her own reaction. Again, she wondered if she was over reacting. About ten minutes later, the father of the accused child came into school to see Mrs Coupe. Mrs N went down to see Mrs W, as Mrs Coupe was in assembly. Mrs W said to ask the parent to wait for Mrs Coupe to come out of assembly. After a while, Mrs N came back down and said that Mrs Coupe was going to be a long time, and she didn’t like to ask the parent to wait that long, or to come back the following Monday (this was Friday). At this point Mrs W said she would speak to him. She went up to the office, and spoke to the parent. When she returned she said he had come in to see what had gone on, as his child had come home very upset, and told him that she was not guilty. Mrs W said that he had been very pleasant about it and she had managed to diffuse the situation, without involving Mrs Coupe. The witness said she did not know whether Mrs Coupe ever knew the parent had been in."
This was not to be the last time Mrs Coupe used a threat of police action. Being married to a serving police officer may have something to do with it, but I can confirm to having been the victim of such threats myself. Mr Coupe has made his own contribution on several occasions, and was the source of an unfounded complaint made against former Councillor Jon Bamborough to the Standards Board for England. He also tried to have me disciplined by my employer for my activities on the discussion forum.
Strange then, that at a time when the police COULD have been brought in to resolve a problem, Mrs Coupe failed to do so!
Not very long after the incident with the Satsuma, a male supply teacher was discovered behaving in an inappropriate manner while supervising a class full of children. The following statement was prepared by Janet Connor (support assistant) at the time, fully expecting to have to provide it for the police. However, Mrs Coupe did not choose to do so, and specifically asked that the parents should not be informed. Draw your own conclusions: (some names abbreviated as they refer to serving members of staff)
The Pornography Incident
"Approximately one week after Mr P started as a supply teacher Miss M mentioned to me that she had noticed that whenever she entered the classroom Mr P turned off the computer monitor. I hadn’t noticed this, and on that note I went into the classroom. As soon as I entered the room Mr P switched the monitor off and began marking children’s books. I returned and agreed with Miss M. We both asked Mrs K to do the same and on entering the room the same thing happened. Again, I suggested we should mention this to the class teacher Mrs T. On telling Mrs T she said the same thing had happened on the few occasions she had entered the room. We all thought this a little strange and agreed to keep an eye on things.
I noticed that Mr P never left the classroom during the day. I asked him on several occasions if he was going to the staffroom at lunchtime and playtime, and he always declined and remained in the classroom. I noticed that Mr P often had his laptop plugged in on the carpet whilst he was using the classroom computer. I also noticed that Mr P had one of the little key things that the teachers use in school, which he used on the class computer. I asked Mrs T if the school would have provided him with one to use. She told me she didn’t think so, but that it may be his own, and she wasn’t sure if he should be using it if it was his own.
That evening I telephoned Mrs Reidy (Year 1 class teacher) and asked her advice on whether she thought Mr P’s behaviour was a little strange in class. She told me it sounded quite odd, and to keep an eye on him. The next day Miss M went into the classroom to use the computer to make up certificates for the children. She came to me and said that Mr P had jumped off his chair and asked her what she was doing, which again is strange as all the staff use the class computer regularly. Miss M said she had noticed two web sites minimized at the bottom of the screen. She said they sounded a little strange for the classroom. Mr P went outside to collect the children after afternoon play and I went into the classroom and jotted down the two sites. They were “Celeb Forum” and “Female O”, and I went straight to Mrs T in the other classroom and told her that I was now very concerned. She said she would speak to Mr Richardson (IT Co-ordinator) after school.
At home that evening I couldn’t settle, so I decided to do a search on my own computer to see if the sites were acceptable for school. I was shocked by the content of the site. It was not suitable to be viewed in school. I telephoned Mrs Reidy again and asked her to view the sites. She also advised me to check that Mrs T had been able to get hold of Mr Richardson. The next day Mr P was in the classroom when I got to school. I went straight into Mrs T’s classroom. I told her of the content of the site and she was very concerned. She told me Mr Richardson had been unable to get the history of the sites on the computer the night before, but that she would go right away and tell him what I had found. She asked me to stay with the children and she left.
Mrs T returned with Mrs Coupe and Mr Richardson. Mrs Coupe asked me to her office where I told her and Mr Richardson what sort of things were on the site. Mrs Coupe said we should move the children from the classroom and that Mr P should go with them. We told Mr P that he should bring the children to a classroom where the children were to have a talk about keeping the toilets and cloakroom tidy. I was asked to stand by the door to make sure everyone stayed there. After a while I was asked to identify Mr P’s belongings and they were moved to the other side of the classroom door. I stayed with the children. I was told Mr P was being escorted from the premises. This is my statement and is true to the best of my knowledge."
Sadly, this was not to be the last incident of its type in school.
TO BE CONTINUED…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)