The buck stops here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TO BE CONCLUDED

How did it all go wrong? - The Final Answer

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

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

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

What pleases parents most:

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

What parents would like to see improved:

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

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

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

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

Back to the brink!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TO BE CONTINUED