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