This is possibly the longest post I have published on the blog. Apologies for not being able to make it more succinct but I think that it could not have been any further abridged than it has been.
Back in March this year, having had no luck with school’s grievance
procedure or the council, I made an official complaint to the DfE. The next
month, I received this initial response:
Dear Mr Gwinnett,
Thank you for your email of 21 March,
regarding your complaint about […] Primary School.
le
I was sorry to read about the situation you
described and can understand your reasons for writing to the Department for
Education. Unfortunately, I am afraid I must explain that, as schools are the
employers of teachers and the wider school workforce – either directly through
the governing body or via delegated management from the local authority – the department is unable
to intervene in individual staff grievance cases. This is because these are
private matters between employee and employer.
It may be useful for you to know however, that schools have a
statutory responsibility to ensure that they have appropriate procedures in
place to afford members of staff the opportunity to seek redress for any
grievances they have about their employment[1].
To pursue your grievance with
the school, you may wish to request a copy of its staff grievance procedure and
work through it stage by stage.
As I am sure you are aware, a school’s headteacher is responsible
for the educational performance of the school and for the internal
organisation, management and control of the school, which includes the
management of staff. The governing body’s role is to hold the headteacher to
account for exercising professional judgement in these matters and for the
performance of all other duties[2].
Where the actions of a headteacher are the
subject of a complaint, it would be appropriate to raise the matter directly
with the chair of governors which I can see from your email that you have
already done.
Governing bodies should be well aware of
their responsibilities when it comes to their staff – in relation to both
employment law and equalities legislation – and also of the fact that
those responsibilities are subject to scrutiny through employment law
procedures, including the Employment Tribunal process, should it be shown
that they have failed to discharge them…[3]
And so began, a series of emails and many phone calls with the DfE. While they could certainly have been more efficient and quicker, let it be known that they have always been extremely polite, and some of my interlocutors extremely helpful and thoughtful.
What follows is my response to the above email - on 25/04/22:
Dear […],
Thank you
for your kind and helpful mail.
I have
been advised that I should go down the whistleblowing route with the DfE. A
number of ex-staff members and governors have been affected and this has had/is
still having a wider effect on the school thereby is most assuredly in the
public interest. The toxic culture at [the school] has not just meant 30+
employees have left but 5 members of staff actually had mental breakdowns and
many others have had issues with stress and anxiety. Surely this is larger than
a private employment issue. These individuals would like to have their voices
heard and are keen to participate in such a whistleblowing endeavour.
Moreover,
the huge turnover of staff has had a detrimental effect on the pupils of the
school as a large proportion of the school's excellent teachers and
administrators has affected continuity, experience, quality teaching and
general effectiveness of the school.
Please
could you let me know if this is a viable possibility?
Best
regards,
Alex
This took a bit of chasing up to get a response, but on 26/05/22 it came
through:
Dear Mr
Gwinnett
Thank you for your email of 25 April regarding your complaint [...]
Please let me begin by apologising for the delay in responding to you.
I was sorry to read about the further details you have
described regarding your complaint.
I should explain that unfortunately, we are unable to provide individually
tailored advice for your specific case.
As you may already be aware, a whistleblower is a
worker who reports certain types of wrongdoing. This will usually be something
they have seen at work - though not always.
The wrongdoing a whistleblower discloses must be in the
public interest. This means it must affect others, for example the general
public. Complaints
that do not count as whistleblowing include personal grievances (for example
bullying, harassment, discrimination) which are not covered by whistleblowing
law, unless the particular case is in the public interest. These should
be reported under an employer’s grievance policy.
Whistleblowers are protected by law and individuals should
not be treated unfairly or lose their job because they ‘blow the whistle’.
Individuals can raise concerns at any time about an incident that happened in
the past, is happening now, or an incident they believe will happen in the near
future.
I understand from your previous correspondence that you have sent a
whistleblowing email regarding your concerns to the Chair of Governors. We
would suggest raising concerns in line with
your employer’s whistleblowing policy in the first instance (…)
After seeking advice from the fantastic people at Protect, on 30/05/22 I
responded with this:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am not sure I was clear enough when putting our
case to you:
We did go through [the school’s] whistleblowing
policy: an independent party was assigned the case as the governing body
claimed that it could not take the lead as we were critical of its handling of
the toxic culture that pervades the school. The independent party claimed it
was not in the public interest. Shortly after this decision was made, a letter
of commendation appeared on this company’s website from [the council] –
potentially a conflict of interest.
I am not a solitary whistle-blower here. There are
about 20 of us (and the number is growing) who wish to testify: teachers,
office and premises staff (as I mentioned – 5 of whom left with mental health
issues – definitely coming under public interest), governors, and parents
(whose children were moved to other schools due to the lack of SEN provision
and toxic culture).
I have attached a broader summary of the situation
at [the school].
It’s unfortunate that you have not clearly addressed
why you do not consider our concerns to be within your remit (my reading at
least). Please could you provide some clarification in the matter?
Yours sincerely,
Alex Gwinnett
This was when the DfE went somewhat cold on me. From that point onward, until September, I was calling on a weekly basis to see how my complaint was being dealt with. Eventually, I was told to put in all in writing – again…
Here we go - starting with this from 23/09/22:
1. Toxic culture
leading to huge staff turnover and mental health issues
2. HR and restructuring irregularities
3. Union rep victimisation
4. Data protection breaches
5. Financial irregularities
6. Safety issues
7. Partisan Board of Governors
8. Defensive and dismissive Education Authority
9. Lack of SEN provision
10. Failure to respond to grievances and
whistleblowing
There are many people who would like to be part of
the whistleblowing process - ranging from ex-staff to parents and ex-governors.
While I left the school over two years ago, many of the above issues are still
ongoing.
This is a continuation of an ongoing case with the
DfE. I have been told by the advice guideline to put this in writing again as I
have been frustrated at the lack of progress in this case and the fact that I
have not been kept in the loop.
This was followed by this more detailed document on 07/10/22 – some of this features in previous posts:
For the past decade,
I have been employed by [the council] and continue to work in the borough. I
suffered a nervous breakdown in November 2019 due to the treatment of [the head
teacher of the] Primary School since September 2018. `I have suffered from PTS
since this date and ongoing depression, aggravated by an allegation made
against me last summer. However, I now work in a school with a positive and
professional ethos. The [previous] head, the Board of Governors, and [council]
have not provided adequate duty of care and been hostile to requests for
accountability and transparency.
1. Bullying and toxic culture. Sudden huge churn
of staff after [the head]’s arrival and her harassment/gaslighting of a number
of teachers through sustained victimisation focused on undermining their skills
and competencies. This led to 4 medically recognised breakdowns due to
workplace stress, and numerous staff forced out after long careers […] and
clear evidence of excellent results, with use of a payoff and NDA in one case.
Parents scared to complain.
2017-2018
Class teacher left at end of year due to disagreeing with [the head’s] EYFS
vision before she even began headship.
2018-2019
During academic year:
• Special Needs Coordinator’s contract not renewed
despite excellent results and years of experience (replaced with inexperienced
person from [the head]’s previous school);
• Specialist reading teacher retired early after
feeling poorly treated;
• Cleaning team x4 resigned after feeling poorly
treated;
• Class Teacher x 2, one left at start of year and
one retired early, after feeling poorly treated
At end of academic year:
• Class Teacher moved onto other job feeling
poorly treated/disliking direction school had taken;
• Teaching Assistant (very experienced) resigned
after feeling poorly treated;
• Class Teacher (also English subject leader)
moved onto other job after being poorly treated;
• Office worker (pushed out); Premises Assistant
(pushed out); Head of governing body left due to being unhappy with new
direction of school.
2019-2020
During academic year:
• Class Teacher left before Christmas after being
poorly treated;
• Teaching Assistant left before Xmas;
• Class Teacher (also union rep) left in summer
term after mental health issues prompted by [the head].
• Class Teacher (also union rep) disciplined for
breach of GDPR having raised wellbeing concerns with Governing Body using a
non-work email address. School’s claims of ICO investigation disputed by ICO
itself in writing. School made likely GDPR breaches in hearing; not reported.
Investigation conducted by [the head], who was central to the raised concern,
hence conflict of interests. Appeal request not engaged with; [council]
unresponsive. All of this indicative of victimisation.
At end of academic year:
• Class Teacher x 2 left at end of academic year
(one of them being me, also a union rep).
2020-to-date
• Business Manager & office worker leave
during academic year after mental health issues caused by issues with [head];
• Bursar summarily dismissed;
• Class Teachers x 3 left (one of whom was a union
rep);
• Several TAs and mealtime supervisors lost jobs
in restructure;
• 3 other governors – possibly more - have also
left (at least 2 because of [the head]).
Over 30 members of staff[4]
2. HR and Restructuring. Despite taking over a
successful team and a positive school community:
o [the head] harassed and gaslit staff (teachers
and teaching assistants) to make sure they were ‘walked to the door’ ([the head’s]
preferred phrase for her approach);
o [the head] instigated cronyism, appointing own
contacts without holding open recruitment process or holding open process then
choosing lesser qualified and less able acquaintances;
o [the head] did not mitigate for the loss of
staff adequately, running [the school] on minimal staff and requiring teaching
assistants to replace teaching staff for substantial periods. Basic legal safety
standards not maintained e.g. those in early years didn’t have legal
requirement of first aid certification.
3. Union rep victimisation: (…) distaste for union presence, disregard for
procedures, breaches of confidentiality. [The head] introduced a new code of
conduct for staff, claiming to all staff and union that it had been agreed with
(…) HR and unions, neither of which was true (which she admitted). Eventually 3
reps were forced out in succession to secure now minimal, if any, union
presence at the school. Notes from a meeting taken by school office employee
were doctored.
4. Data protection
breaches:
o [The head] falsely accused a staff member of a
serious data breach in an allegation made to intimidate him (part of being
‘walked to the door’) - this remains on his record despite being found to be
baseless.
o [The head] regularly invited a data manager from
her previous school after hours and (allegedly) on weekends – this was in
non-official capacity (the Head of Governors has confirmed he was not on
payroll or otherwise contracted) and [the head potentially] shared confidential
data with him on (…) staff and school finances.
o Subsequently, it would appear [the head] made
significant movements on removing data this resulted in instances such as
wiping 15 years’ worth of a staff member’s own data despite this being held in
a [council] account (not belonging to [the school])
o In June 21, AG made SAR. [The head] sent an
all-staff email in July 2021 requesting emails more than 1 year old were
deleted, which followed AG’s SAR made in June. (AG left [the school] in July
2020. Incomplete data was supplied for AG’s SAR despite his repeated requests,
data supplied also breached GDPR by including emails concerning another person
named Alex – and [the council] has dismissed all these concerns (disputing
email sent by [the head] and claiming the SAR has been entirely complied with).
o AG’s SAR did however reveal lack of impartiality
of Chair of Governors + many documents missing. DPO clearly partisan too and
incompetent: he included e-mails sent to 3 different people called Alex. A
complaint was made to ICO in Dec 21 – the school was found wanting.
5. [The school]’s financial situation: [it would appear
the head] drained the school finances, mostly through [their] extensive use of
consultants; attempted to place blame for financial mismanagement on the
school’s longstanding business manager which subsequently led to her being
signed off work for stress before leaving the school – the business manager was
included in the c15 ex staff/governors giving evidence to the whistleblowing
action initiated.
6. Safety: [head] assured parents all Covid safety
procedures were being followed but it was teaching union representatives that
had to ensure Government guidance was in place to protect students and
teachers. [The head] also brought in new contractors to carry out cosmetic
decorating work during lockdown period when non-essential staff were forbidden
from schools, claiming this work was ‘essential safety maintenance’. When a
child brought a knife into the school’s breakfast club and threatened another
child, [the head] did not follow appropriate procedures.
7. Defensive/Partisan Board:
o The board [especially the Chair of Governors]
has consistently refused to acknowledge or investigate criticism of [the head]:
several, separate grievances have been made – none upheld.
o A governor who is a freelance journalist has
twice shown conflict of interest relating to [the head]. [They] commented on
the [highly critical][5] article in the [local paper]
in defence of [the head] without stating [their] role on the Board. Since
published an extremely positive piece on [the head] on the Guardian Job website
(then removed [presumably because they] did not declare own interest by holding
a Board role at [the school]. It [was for a period] been put back up with
addendums at the top and bottom of the article.
o There was never an investigation made into AG’s
nervous breakdown precipitated by victimisation/gas-lighting. A letter was sent
to [the Chair of Governors] by colleague on behalf of the union. The content
was ignored but he was given bogus disciplinary for data breach despite
assurances from [the Chair] that confidentiality would be respected.
8. Defensive and dismissive Education Authority: [the
council]’s position is that ‘no complaints have been upheld’. It seemingly
refuses to recognise any pattern or consistency in the complaints made and
seems willing to accept the staff churn and several staff breakdowns as nothing
unusual. At the instruction of its legal team, it has refused to meet AG and
union representatives to discuss any further concerns. It has consistently
sought to portray conduct of ex staff as unprofessional: a representative of the
legal team has accused AG of repeatedly “harassing staff” (…) in correspondence
concerning the SAR when he was in touch with a single office manager, and on
good terms, about this issue. AG has made formal complaint to ICO.
9. Repeated
incidences of petty behaviour: [the head] threw away the personal property
(teaching resources) of ex staff before they had access to the school to
collect it. One ex staff member was compensated £100 but the concerns of other
staff were disregarded even after pursuing through channels as [the head] had
directed. [The head] threw out a plaque put up in the school library for the
previous headteacher and threw away hundreds of pounds’ worth of brand-new
books the PTA had added to library - the previous headteacher had requested
that the substantial collection organised for her retirement be used not on a
gift but on school resources.
10. Whistleblowing: In June 2021, a considerable
number of ex-employees and governors came together to whistle blow. HR accepted
this and said that they would be handling the procedure as they and [the Chair
of Governors] deemed [the] governing body couldn’t because of allegations made
against them. [The council] were very slow to activate procedures (voluntarily
or due to incompetence?) There was a delay in getting details of independent
investigator – [they] had been expecting to be contacted for over 2 months.
Prior to this, the HR representative requested the identity of all people
willing to testify – surely an ethical breach. Eventually, the independent
investigator ruled that the whistleblowing was not of “public interest” – by
this stage turnover had been huge, 4 people leaving with mental health issues,
and numerous accusations of poor treatment, bullying, victimisation and
gas-lighting.
11. Serious allegation made June 2021: Days before
AG’s Y6 residential at new school, AG was informed by sympathetic current head
that unable to lead the trip. AG had led the Y6 trip for the prior 2 years of
Y6 career and been involved for many years previously. She had needed to remove
him from the trip because a complaint had been made about which needed to be
investigated. No further information about this could be made available. Much
later it was revealed to be a historical allegation about AG’s conduct from
when at [previous school] and that apparently a student AG once taught had
complained to the police. It was a highly traumatic period – AG was left to
speculate what could possibly have happened – in theory, serious allegations of
this kind are required to be investigated fully within a two-week period. AG
made aware of the issue in late June and only heard it had been dropped in
September. No official documents were ever shared, even in redacted form. There
was no duty of care from [the council] – he was never proactively contacted by
them, and never updated on whether there had been any developments, nor was he
ever contacted by anyone involved in investigating. There was no communication
from the LADO, and was stonewalled by [the council] whenever tried to make
contact proactively. There was no opportunity for closure after the alleged
judgement was made that the case should be dropped: [the council] said the LADO
could not be contacted at that point as the postholder had left shortly after
the judgement had been made. Throughout there has been only hearsay but no
documentation.
The allegation came shortly after AG had formally
set in train a whistle-blowing procedure and very soon after [the head] would
have been made aware of this. Was this a coincidence? When others who had left [the
school] were told about the allegation, most of them said, unprompted, that
attempting to smear AG was in all likelihood [the head’s] doing as a way to
subvert the whistleblowing and an unpleasant tactic that was entirely
consistent with [the head]’s bullying. HR claimed to be 100% sure [the head]
not involved but never explained how they could have this confidence. HR has
since refused to talk to AG – apparently after being advised by Council’s legal
department, which seems highly suspicious in itself.
This came through on 26/10/22:
Dear
Alex Gwinnett,
Thank
you for your correspondence dated 7 October, I have been asked to respond as a
member of the Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Team.
Schools
have a statutory responsibility to ensure that they have appropriate discipline
and grievance procedures in place to afford members of staff the opportunity to
seek redress for any grievance they have. Where the actions of a headteacher
are the subject of a complaint, it would be appropriate to raise the matter
directly with the Board of Governors following the schools’ published grievance
procedure.[6]
Governing
bodies should be well aware of their responsibilities on behalf of their staff
(and former staff) in relation to both employment law and equalities
legislation and also the fact that those responsibilities are subject to
scrutiny through employment law procedures, including the employment
tribunal process, should it be shown that they have contravened them[7]…
I can confirm I
have shared your previous and recent correspondences with Ofsted and [the
council] LADO.[8]
I
hope you are able to resolve the issues you have raised (…)
My response on 31/10/22:
Further to an
ongoing complaint made to the DfE about the misconduct of the head teacher of [the]
Primary School, I was contacted by [the Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Team] who has shared my previous and recent
correspondences with Ofsted and [the council’s] LADO.
Please could you let
me know if this concludes your involvement in the matter? Protect has advised
me that while you may not be able to share your findings and/or decisions, that
you may be able to give me a broad idea so as to know how to proceed thereafter.
Best regards,
Alex Gwinnett
Their response of 15/11/22:
Dear Mr Alex Gwinnett,
Thank you
for your correspondence dated 31 October, I can confirm that this now concludes
the departments involvement in the matter.
[The] Local
Authority have advised that they are looking into the concerns you have raised.
The
Department appreciates you taking the time to raise these important matters
with us (...)
After consulting both Protect and my union, I
sent this email to the council requesting that my whistleblowing request go ahead as it should
have over 18 months ago:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I
understand that the DfE have been in touch with [the] Council (and its LADO)
requesting that you take over their investigation and reconsider your decision
not to open an investigation following my WB referral. Could you therefore
advise me of the action you intend to take considering this request?
I
note that I have received advice from Protect to the effect that my concern is
likely to be in the public interest contrary to the conclusion reached by the
HR consultant hired by [the council] at the time. The NEU is also eager that
this request be considered seriously. I am sure that you are aware that there
are many witnesses who would like to be called upon to testify.
I
trust that a renewed attempt will be made to review this matter in light of the
DfE's request and expect to hear from you at your earliest convenience.
Best
regards,
Alex Gwinnett
Let’s see what happens…
[1] Sadly,
as I have mentioned several times, these were very much left wanting, and very
much favouring those at the top of the structure.
[2] As
I have made it adamantly clear, the school’s Board of Governors is completely
in the head’s pocket and has rather large issues with integrity and duty of
care...
[3]
Who knows? Maybe, an avenue worth pursuing now new developments have come to
light.
[4]
Several more have left since this was sent to the DfE.
[5]
See previous posts.
[6] It
would appear she had not been privy to prior correspondence.
[7] Idem.
[8]
This was the only glimmer of hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment