ICO

Last summer, I made a Subject Access Request to my previous school. There were a number of issues that I wanted to be sure about. 

The first set of data I received was suspiciously minimal. Many documents that I remember were not included.

So, I made another request. 

This time, it took an age to arrive - the documents I had hoped for were still not included. And some of the intel related to two other individuals called Alex. I jest not. 

Frustrated, I ended up making a complaint to the ICO about the way the school had dealt with the issue. The ICO is the ‘UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.’

Here are extracts of the results of their investigation.

________________

Dear Alex,

Thank you for raising data protection concerns about [the] School.

(…)

Subject access

They received your first subject access request on 28 May 2021 and this was responded to on 25 June 2021. You explained to us that as you considered data to be missing you made a second request to them. They have confirmed that they received this request on 27 June 2021. This request was responded to on 7 September 2021.

We have considered all the information provided and we are of the view that the school has not complied with its DPA obligations in this instance. The DPA states that an organisation has a calendar month to respond to a request. The school failed to fully respond within the statutory timeframe. This is an infringement of the DPA.

The school has explained that the delay occurred as the SAR statutory timeframe overlapped with the school holiday period and no staff were available to work on the request. The DPA does not allow for an extension because of school holidays, therefore a school should factor in holiday periods and take steps in order to comply with the timescales.

We note that the school did make you aware that it would not be responding to your request until after the summer holidays, which can be deemed as good practice but nevertheless, it did fall short for the reasons stated above.

Disclosure

Moving on to the disclosure of third party data, you did raise this with the school on 20 September 2021. In an email to the school you told them that they had sent to you data relating to two other individuals with the name Alex.

From what you have explained to the ICO this is likely to be an infringement if third party data has been inappropriately disclosed to you. It is probable that the data should have been redacted/removed or a summary of just your data supplied to you.

Once the school has investigated this, we will ask them to confirm if an infringement has occurred. That said, we will still make recommendations to the school on this issue.

The school has apologised on this point and admits that at the time no steps were taken to investigate this matter. The ICO raised this directly with the school and we note that you have now been contacted about this issue.

We will liaise with the school on this matter as you have been advised by the local authority that you should not have any contact with the school. We do note that your Union has recently raised this fact with the school, but we will also reiterate the point. It is a great shame, but had the school initially acted when you first brought this to their attention, the issue of you having no contact with the school would have been avoided.

We will follow this up with the school and ask them to keep us updated.

(…)

There are no further actions for us to take, but we have decided to keep a copy of the concerns that you have raised on file. This will help us to build up a picture of the school's information rights practices. Should we receive further concerns about the school we may take this case into consideration when deciding regulatory action.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

________________

It was all very revealing of the system that has been established at the school: a system of smoke and mirrors. Since then, the ICO has been in touch with me and I was informed that there had been no data breach -  as no significant third party data had been disclosed to me.

However, this decision was based on two documents that I sent the ICO that I had to track down myself because the school who should have been responsible for this task refused to do so. There are more documents but this will mean that I will need to sift through hundreds of others – something to look forward a rainy day...

Excuses

I was going to stand up to my gaslighting, bullying, narcissistic head, but:

• Why bother?
• I was far too busy - what with the kids, hobbies, etc.
• She’d been horrible to me before and there was no way I was putting myself through that again - sod that;
• I was too scared;
• I didn’t want to make a scene;
• John and Celia said, "The ones who were victimised were just troublemakers anyway."
• I was far too much of an ambitious prick -wanting to ingratiate myself with her- to rock the boat;
• She’s got the establishment behind her, and you can’t take on the establishment - right?
• Surely things will get better - won’t they?
• Frankie said, "Imagine what she'd do to you!"
• I was way too much of a coward; 
• The bullied ones were way too political and loud;
• It was too late…

(Après Alabaster Deplume)

A pattern emerges

On 08/04/19, at 15:49, the first Monday of half-term holidays, I received an email from the head. She started off by apologising for emailing at the start of the holidays. However, she then informed me that she urgently needed to speak to me about the Year 6 end of year residential trip - which I was leading.  Allegedly, there was documentation missing from the documents that I had given her, and I had put her in a position where she could not sign the trip off and send to the local authority for final authorisation.

She made it clear that she expected that all information be gathered to comply with LA requirements before being passed to her. Patronisingly, she wrote that I should appreciate the urgency of this as I had first been asked for this information by the business manager in January. She added that I may even have put the trip in jeopardy. 

At 16:35, I responded by email: “Please let me know which documents are missing. As far as I can remember, it was fairly easy for me to get them online last year.” 

I also left a message on her mobile and got in touch with the business manager who was unable to tell me what documents were missing and seemed embarrassed by the head’s stance. 

There was no response during the holidays. 

At all. 

As someone who suffers from anxiety, this had meant that my holiday had been clouded by worrying about PGL being in jeopardy and what mistakes I could possibly have made despite leading it successfully before. My family was worried at how withdrawn I was. 

On the first day back after the holidays, I was ‘invited’ to a meeting with the head. It quickly became apparent that I had not omitted any documents and that the trip had never been in jeopardy. 

No apology was issued. 

I told her about responding to her ‘urgent’ message immediately and having had to response from her. She told me that she did not have to get in touch during holidays, even though she herself had sent me her email on the first day of holidays. Great consistency there… 

When I mentioned my anxiety issues, she said this was “not her fault”: nice… 

Subsequently, my organisation of the trip was questioned a couple more times. On one such occasion, she was forced to admit she was wrong. 

Who acts like that? Was it genuine incompetence which led her to question my organisation? Mean-spiritedness? Gas-lighting?

For the record, the trip was a great success.

Thus begun the previously mentioned pattern of sending passive-aggressive, often threatening missives just before weekends and  holidays to let issues fester. An accusation that ironically she later used herself against my union. You couldn’t make it up…

Staff wellbeing

Before leaving the school, I had an exchange of e-mails with my then line manager - who also happened to be the Mental Health Lead. Not that she ever did much for staff. Apart from an ineffective survey that was never acted upon. The emails were about how staff wellbeing had not been taken into account at the school.

Below are the last two emails we sent each other.  

____________

Dear [Mental Health Lead],

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my reflections in your capacity as both my line-manager and as the school Mental Health and Wellbeing Lead. I also appreciate your kind words at the end of your response.

I agree that there may have been a miscommunication in relation to the staff survey that you organised, possibly due to my absence. I am pleased to hear that action was taken following it. I would be interested to know what this action involved.

I concur that staff wellbeing issues are personal and varied. However, we also have to recognise patterns when they occur in workplaces. At [the school], I have not been the only member of staff to experience absence from work due to poor mental health in the last year. Moreover, I am not the only member of staff to be concerned about this pattern. During a NEU meeting held last December, members at [the school] agreed that staff wellbeing needed to be addressed more effectively; in particular, colleagues were concerned that the school's conception of what wellbeing meant was being imposed upon them by the school's leadership. Colleagues agreed to suggest a workshop or staff meeting with the title, 'what would staff wellbeing look like at [the school]?' Unfortunately, due to my absence and [the other union rep]'s disciplinary action, we were not able to properly feed this back to [the head] until April. We have received no comment from her about this suggestion, but can you confirm that this suggestion has been shared with you for your consideration?

You may know that an attempt was made by some staff to ask for the context of my breakdown to be reviewed by the school. Again, we have received no commitments pertaining to how the school's leadership intends to change and improve its approach to staff wellbeing as a result of this, which is very disappointing. I do note that, in your response, you do not acknowledge any particular issue at [the school] pertaining to staff wellbeing. Would this be a fair assessment of your position?

Finally, I just wanted to query the meaning of your phrase, 'the boundaries and expectations of staff wellbeing'. I would be troubled by any notion that there are limits to staff wellbeing, or even that staff wellbeing must be balanced with children's wellbeing. We agreed in a number of conversations together, and in a NEU meeting last year that staff wellbeing and children's wellbeing are complementary, not in a state of opposition. Well teachers teach well. 

I wish you all the best in your role helping to support the wellbeing of children and staff at [the school] in the future.

Best regards,

Alex

____________ 

Below is the response I received – its brevity speaks volumes…

____________

Hi Alex,

Thanks for your comments.

Best wishes,

[Mental Health Lead]

____________

Any school that fails to value the wellbeing of its staff is ultimately going to fail its children. Schools are organic places - miserable undervalued teachers make for miserable undervalued pupils. 

We also need to look after our teachers – they are the critical and pivotal force in providing an environment where students can feel safe, happy, healthy and, therefore, learn! (WB Survey) 

If you have a happy staff, then I think that leads to you being happy in your own classroom, and leads to happy relationships with the children, and the children with each other. (Primary School Teacher) 

Following the breakdown

After my nervous breakdown of 07/11/19, which I hold the head to be responsible for, I was on sick leave for a long time. Far longer that needed as it would turn out, again due to the head making it difficult for me to return. Not because I was too ill, but because it was apparently so challenging for her to find time in her busy schedule to organise the back to work meetings. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Almost as if she did not want me back... This can be discussed at a later date.

On 04/12/19, I was invited for an Occupational Health Consultation - here is the report:

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CONSULTATION REPORT

Background

Thank you for your management referral. I met with Mr Alex Gwinnett in clinic (...) on Wednesday, 4 December 2019. He attended alone and gave consent to the consultation. I spoke to the Head Teacher pre-consultation (...). No post-consultation phone call for reasons I explained on the phone to the Head Teacher.

Current Issues

I note the contents of your referral. The Head Teacher also stated that Mr Gwinnett had been on a monitoring programme for the last year for performance issues.

Mr Gwinnett confirms going on sick leave on 5 November 2019 due to worsening anxiety and depression secondary solely to work-related issues. He does have a history of anxiety and depression but had been stable on a low dose of medication for some years. However, in the last academic year, with increasing stressors at work, his condition had been deteriorating leading to dose of medication being increased more than once.

Broadly, he has described his stressors in the workplace are to do with the attitudes of senior management and senior management having unrealistic expectations.

He went on sick leave after receiving an e-mail from the Head Teacher and I believe you would be aware of this. His anxiety worsened to such a degree, he struggled to speak and his concentration deteriorated further. His GP has added more medication to help with anxiety and suggested a type of medication to help with sleep. His anxiety remains significant and his mood low despite medication. He has been referred for psychological therapy and is waiting for an assessment phone call. His GP has warned him of the long waiting times.

His anxiety and depression have resulted in poor concentration and headaches as well.

OH Opinion 

Mr Gwinnett was very stressed and anxious when discussing work-related issues. His mood was low though he has good insight.

He describes symptoms consistent with his diagnosis. I have also advised that he inform his GP of the headaches in case stress has raised his blood pressure which is not uncommon. Average waiting times for psychological therapy on the NHS is around 12 weeks though many have waited longer. Mr Gwinnett continues to see his GP regularly for review.

Given the cause of the deterioration in his anxiety and deterioration is solely work-related issues, should these remain unresolved, he is only likely to worsen despite medication and/or psychological therapy.

Management Advice

In response to the questions which you posed in your referral letter:

What is the employee's current fitness for work?

He is unfit for work.

*****

Subsequently, I was invited to a meeting at school with the head to take place on 18/12/19:

held under Capability Procedure… talk about kicking a man while he is down... Below is a paraphrased version of the letter (of 19/12/19) I received detailing the minutes from the meeting, with my footnotes and written response.

*****

Informal Meeting (Review Absence)

The head began by clarifying that it was an informal meeting and accepted the request from my union case worker to remove any reference to it being held under stage 1 (informal) of the School's Capability Absence Procedure[1].

The main points of the discussion were:

I was currently not well enough to return to work and had been prescribed with a high dose of anti-depressant medication. I had had also been referred for psychological therapy. I was clear that I wanted to return to my teaching role and had hoped that this would return in the new term as I had missed teaching the children and wished to get back to having some structure and routine. I asked for clarification regarding a detail contained within the Occupational Health report, stating that I had been "on a monitoring programme for the last year". The head alleged that this was incorrect and was down to a miscommunication with the Occupational Health Advisor[2].

I told her that I felt undervalued and criticised despite working very hard and stated that my class children had made progress. I considered that the email of 05/11/19 had listed targets that were not SMART[3] and that she had sent this negative communication without due regard to my health. I said the impact of the communication had led me to have a "clinical breakdown".

The head then stated that all teachers are: required to be working at a minimum level that meet national Teaching Standards, and work consistently within school policies[4]. She added that the school had recently adopted a coaching and mentoring model for its monitoring and evaluation cycle, and that prior to my absence I had meetings with her to support me on a one to one basis in addition to the support provided by other members of the leadership team[5]. She explained that the email was following areas for development identified from external consultants and specifically from peer review feedback received about my performance[6] and that she had then undertaken a "drop in observation" of my teaching lesson in line with school policy. Due to time restraints, she had followed this observation up in writing to detail the areas for improvement[7]. Apparently, it had always been her intention to then arrange a follow up one to one meeting to agree a plan with SMART targets[8]. She stated that she had no prior medical evidence as to my current medical condition or evidence of the existence of any Health & Safety Risk Assessment and had been assured by me that I was well enough to be in work[9]. She assured me that she would from that point on discuss all feedback in person before any written feedback was provided as would all the leadership team.

She also offered private counselling via [an organisation] to be paid for by the school[10].

She ended the letter by stating that she hoped that my health would improve and that I understood that I was a valued member of the teaching team - missed by the children and my work colleagues[11].

*****

Extracts from my response of 03.01.20

I would like to make several points in response which I can also send in hard copy if required.

    o I believe that I have been working to (national Teaching) standards throughout my teaching career.

    o The meetings you had with me were about my subject leadership not regarding any presumed support needs for my teaching. I had spent a significant amount of time on computing because I had reason to believe this took precedence over MFL. When you expressed concern about MFL, I took immediate steps to complete my action plan targets.

    o None of the peer review feedback was shared with me. At no point before your 'drop-in' was I informed of anything being remiss in my teaching practice. Surely, this goes against the principles of the 'coaching and mentoring model for our monitoring and evaluation cycle' that you have adopted.

    o I had clearly expressed on more than one occasion in meetings with you that I had been struggling with work-related anxiety and depression which was triggered by the lack of time to carry out additional activity beyond teaching my class. Before the e-mail of 05/11/19, you had even suggested that I take time off (in your e-mail to me of 31/10/19 you said "if you need time at home then I am sure we can support this") although I still do not see how this suggestion takes account of my repeatedly expressed concerns about not having enough time to complete the extra-curricular tasks.

    o   I note your offer of confidential individual counselling (not mentioned in our meeting) but in the first instance I prefer to pursue the full range of support options available to me that exist outside the school's budget.

---

[1] This meeting had originally been touted as just that: a clearly aggressive strategy to ‘show me the door, to use the head’s parlance.

[2] Upon arriving at my Occupational Health appointment of 06/07/19, the doctor informed me that she had been told to call the school. At that stage, I was in a terrible state mentally, I could hear the head’s voice from the phone conversation which was triggering to say the least. The doctor herself was visibly embarrassed and apologetic about this most unprofessional request.

[3] See previous post: The Nervous Breakdown (May 8) – the document was as unSMART as unSMART could be.

[4] I did both.

[5] This support was only linked to leadership and was not helpful: merely trying to make me do her bidding or worse to set me up for failure.

[6] Why was this not shared with me prior to the ‘drop-in’ – surely the least a professional head would do, particularly if adopting a mentoring philosophy. Rather than trying to ‘catch me out’.

[7] The email was vast and would have taken a much longer time to type than to relate in a groovy coaching way, Also, either you adopt a ‘coaching and mentoring approach’ where all feedback is verbal or you do not…

[8] How terribly convenient.

[9] On several occasions, I had mentioned my issues with mental health (see document below). On one occasion the previous year (to be blogged about at a later date), I had confronted her about how her gaslighting behaviour had worsened my anxiety, she had claimed it was not her fault. Nice…

[10] Sorry – but how patronising and hypocritical.

[11] At least she was honest and did not include herself here…

 

Second letter to the governors - July 21

I discovered today to my great surprise that I had omitted -thus far- to include the letter below. This is the letter that I sent to the Chair of Governors to 'officially' set whistleblowing procedures under way on 22/07 once I knew that certain members of staff who had remained when I left would not be targeted by the head. Reading through it again, I am still outraged that nothing came of this at all. It is a clear indictment of how a good school had its sense of community crushed and a toxic culture established. The lack of any gesture, apart from washing its hands of the problem by passing it onto the council, in turn makes it an indictment of the Governing Body - showing little regard for staff being and SLT accountability.

_______________

Dear [Chair of Governors],

   

I am writing to you to formally raise a whistleblowing concern relating to [the head]: specifically her treatment of staff at [the school] and the toxic culture she has created there.    

   

I have waited one year after my departure from the school to raise this as I judged that doing so any earlier would risk further unprofessional treatment by [the head] to the staff who remained working there.   

  

I initially raised a number of concerns with the governing body in a letter sent on 20/07/20. In your reply you said that the issues raised were 'duly noted', although what steps if any were taken are unclear. 

   

In my own case, I had a nervous breakdown in November 2019 triggered by [the head]’s unreasonable treatment of me over a period of time. I was a union representative, and was repeatedly victimised for trying to fulfil my role in raising concerns shared by the majority of NEU members at [the school]. [The head]’s bullying of me took the form of intense and sustained micro-management and criticism over several months concerning my union activity, subject management, teaching and my professionalism. After I fed back a number of particular concerns on 19/10/19, relations worsened. The minutes of this meeting were sent to my co-representative and myself. We both disagreed with the way many of the points had been written up, but were told that the minute-taker agreed with her version so no amendments could be accepted. The minute-taker left [the school] this year, and is happy to confirm to you directly if wished that the minutes were written up by [the head] herself and did not give a balanced account of the meeting. 

  

[The head] has a blatant disregard of unions and how they function. The school has had active and collaborative union representation for years without any issue, but because of the consistently unpleasant treatment meted out by [the head] to staff reps in recent years, the (…) NEU branch officers have noted that no one has stepped forward to be rep in the 2021-22 academic year.  

  

As you will know, I have asked you in your capacity of Chair of Governors why I was not involved in an investigation into my breakdown and you have yet to give a clear answer. Another colleague, also a union rep, left [the school] in the same academic year – 2019-20 – following a period of absence due to work-related stress and anxiety, a result of victimisation by [the head]. I am aware of at least three other members of staff who were signed off work with work-related stress and anxiety; two of these have since left the school. 

  

This makes five staff members, at least, who were signed off work with work-related stress and anxiety in the last two years; occupational health reports will attest to this. (It’s worth noting that in the 20 years of the previous headship, the number of people signed off work with work-related stress was precisely zero.) Exit interviews from these outgoing staff members, where these interviews took place, would have included many details which should have been looked at and acted upon. 

  

I reiterate what I have written before: it feels very much as if there is lack of accountability within the management of [the school]. The impression is that my mental health and that of my colleagues is of little concern to the head and there appears to be little interest in the excellent results that were achieved by my classes and the years of hard work that all those of us who were “walked to the door” gave to the school. ([the head]'s modus operandi is to “walk to the door” any member of staff that she did not want in post; she stated this to other members of staff, one of which is happy to attest to this if required.) 

   

I am raising these concerns with you openly. My previous attempts to raise concerns with the governing body were acknowledged, but I am not aware of any action that was taken as a result. I hope that this formal whistleblowing will ensure a full investigation and I am willing to take part in this; I am happy for my identity to be revealed and to provide more specific examples of wrongdoing. 

  

I worked at [the school] for many years, and one of the school’s strengths was that the staff team was like a family. Everyone was valued and everyone trusted each other. It is deeply upsetting to me and for many of my colleagues, current and ex-employees alike, to see this change as a result of one person’s need for (often coercive) control over staff. People are now scared to speak up in case they are the next to be targeted – they have seen what happens to anyone who does not toe the line. This is not a good way to manage people and it does not create a pleasant working environment. For the sake of the school, and for its pupils and community, I urge you to consider the health and safety of its staff. If this is not addressed, there is a strong likelihood that incidences of staff suffering work-based stress - which I know from my first-hand experience to be both significant and damaging - are likely to happen again. 

  

I would like an assurance that these concerns will be taken seriously and investigated promptly. I would also like an assurance that I will be informed of the outcome of this investigation. 

Best regards,   

   

Alex Gwinnett 

_______________

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm still waiting...

Inaccuracies in the article

This letter was sent to the newspaper that published the article set out in a previous post. There were a number of inaccuracies (some already mentioned in the footnotes of the post) that my fellow whistleblowers and I deemed necessary to address.

                                                                    ***            

We would like to express our gratitude to the [newspaper] for revealing the toxic culture at [the school] to the wider public.

In the interest of transparency, we would like to point out several factual inaccuracies put across by the Chair of Governors: 

·    Children on roll: It was stated that [the school] was oversubscribed with 379 pupils. The school has a capacity of 470.

·    Ofsted: The most recent Ofsted report was over two and a half years ago; it concluded the school's earlier performance was 'good' with outstanding areas.

However, the Chair does not concede that the previous year's Ofsted had given a 'good' rating and proposed another visit the next year to potentially give the school 'outstanding'.

The school's performance in May 2019 along with the parents' approval statistics quoted were arguably due to the school's earlier achievements and environment.

We believe that a thriving well-established culture of mutual respect and professionalism, with an outstanding focus on the Arts, had been established long before the arrival of the current head.

·    Staff turnover: well over half the long-standing staff have departed since the current head has been in place: far beyond what one would expect under new leadership.

·    Mental Health: Mental Health is claimed to be a priority: since 2019, 4 members of staff have left citing mental health issues: there was no process and support.

Furthermore, the Mental Health Lead left in July 2021.

·    Grievances, complaints and appeals: we do not agree that “immediate action (was taken) in response to issues raised." There was no investigation into the nervous breakdown of Alex Gwinnett for example. 

·    Whistleblowing: We were disappointed that [the] council decided not to proceed with the whistleblowing procedures on the grounds that it was not in the public interest.

More than 15 people were lined up to support the case.

 

                                                      Former members of staff of [the] School