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