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