Gaslighting part two - weeks leading up to the breakdown

On Thursday 10/10/19, a union meeting was held (as referred to in previous post - Gaslighting part one). I led the meeting as union rep. It was a well-attended meeting and a relief to members to be able to have a forum to discuss the ways the school had changed – with a particular focus on the toxic culture that had been taken root.

This was when her campaign of victimisation really began.

On 14/10/19, I received a charming missive from her informing me that there had been no leadership direction from me in MFL thus far and that the subject would need additional focus the next term so that the children did not miss "yet more learning”. I had been given both computing and MFL subject leadership against my wishes that September. I had focussed on computing – what with it being a core subject…

Was the email being sent so soon after the union meeting a coincidence? Doubtful. Did she feel threatened? Certainly.

On the morning of 15/10/19 (the day my co-rep and I were due to feed back to her), at staff briefing, we were given a sound ‘telling off’ by the furious head. Like a class of naughty school children. It became clear that the contents of the meeting had been leaked to her. An unforgivable act: a union is only as strong as its members. Obviously, this goes completely against union rules and ethics. It wouldn’t be last time such a breach was committed.  

Gas-lighting being her forte, we were informed that the Ofsted report before she arrived was basically a sham. That in fact the Ofsted officials who visited under her headship had agreed with her that in fact we had been ‘requiring improvement’. That she had turned the school around and enabled real ‘good’ judgement we received. Basically, she was telling us we were pants. She told us that we needed to ‘stop moaning’. She referred to the school as her school. Not ours. Hers…

Later that day, we had a union feedback meeting. Present were the head, an office worker (who later herself had a breakdown and left the school), my co-rep and myself. The head was fully aware of every point on the union meeting agenda and confirmed that members of staff had told her of ‘moaning’ at the union meeting. She repeatedly refused to acknowledge that she had been ‘pissed off’ during the briefing that morning. However, overall, the meeting was calm. 

After the meeting, I had a brief one-to-one with her where I told her how offended I had been by her aforementioned e-mail. I explained that, as she was fully aware, I had worked extremely hard on computing – way beyond the time given to me for leadership. She apologised and stated that it was a relief that I was being open to her...

To anyone who may think that this represented progress, I’m afraid disappointment looms. On 18/10/22, the day before half term holidays, I received another charming missive (there was a distinct pattern of sending emails before weekends and holidays to allow people to stew) telling me she had been reflecting on what I had said about "struggling" to complete all of the tasks that fall within my areas of responsibility. To give me the guidance and assistance that I had allegedly articulated that I needed to complete my leadership tasks, she informed me that I was to be put on a support plan.

I had never said I was struggling.

I had never articulated that I needed guidance and assistance.

I had clearly stated that the only issue was time.

More gas-lighting.

I went to see the head that day after receiving the mail mainly because I was so upset with the mention of a support plan – a term generally used for failing teachers. She explained that this was not the case and that nothing would be on record – highly doubtful. I repeatedly requested that such terminology not be used – she stated that maybe such terminology had negative tones under the previous head but not under her. I responded that this had nothing to do with it; that this was personal conviction. I also stated that I took great pride in my job. Then came this absolute gem of pedagogical wisdom: “there is no place for pride in primary education.” 

On the same day, my co-rep and I received another e-mail about the union feedback meeting. We had disputed the minutes given back to us and requested some changes. She informed us however that the document sent were notes written by an independent party. She claimed our annotations were inaccurate and could not be included. Here is a copy of an email sent to me by said independent party: