A series of (un)fortunate events...

Just a short post this weekend: I need to tell you about a reassuring development.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about yet again being totally frustrated by the unaccountability of the establishment. It was in fact an article in a national union magazine that had triggered me. I came upon the piece perchance, and there staring up at me was a picture of my previous head. They were featured among other heads in a rather flattering report. As far as good publicity goes… 

A head thought by many -locally- to be a sure enemy of the union, being put across nationally as a progressive, forward-thinking leader is quite a coup.

It was shocking and upsetting, to friends who had suffered and myself, that they had managed to get into the publication. How had nothing been flagged during background checks?

To give credit to my union, once a few of us had pointed the above situation out to them, assurances were made that more thorough checks would be made in future. 

I am even more grateful having discovered today that the article has been pulled from the online version of the publication. I was not contacted about this development, so I do not know if it is temporary or permanent but it feels as if there is some justice out there.[1]

And that the union can be counted on.

Have a good weekend one and all.

---

[1] The publication has been in touch. The removal is permanent. The editor could not have been nicer, explaining that he had also been victimised by an unscrupulous head when he was school-based. That is integrity.

Cat and mouse 2

Just before Christmas, I wrote a post about my continuing fruitless attempts at getting the council to reengage with my whistleblowing case. Not much has changed unfortunately. Despite undeniable and ongoing issues of victimisation and toxicity, the council chooses to act as if nothing untoward has happened.  

My Kafkaesque correspondence continues as you will be able to see below.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Sent: 06.01.23

Dear [HR rep], 

I hope that this finds you well and that you have had a good Christmas break.

I am writing to enquire about the progress of the re-opening of the whistle-blowing case.

I reiterate that Protect agree that my concern is likely to be in the public interest and that the NEU is also eager that this request be considered seriously. 

Can we agree that it is reasonable for me to expect a response by the end of next week (13/01/23)?

Best regards,

Alex

______________

Dear Alex

Best wishes to you for 2024.  Coincidentally, I received a reply from [the Teachers’ Pay and Conditions employee] today.  She says that she referred your complaint to the (council’s) LADO and arranged for colleagues to pass that information to you.  She also confirmed that the Department would not be taking any action at this time.

Best wishes

[HR rep]   

______________

Dear [HR rep],

Let’s begin with 2023 before rushing to 2024. 

Please find attached a photo of the email sent to me on 15/11/22. 

Am I to surmise that you are standing by your decision not to let the whistleblowing go ahead?

Regards,

Alex

______________

Dear [HR rep],

Further to my e-mail of 06.01.23, I would like to add that had you read my previous e-mails more carefully, you would have been aware that I had already brought up the fact that the DfE was not taking any further action. The explanation I got from the DfE was that this was because they were expecting [the council] to look into again properly.

You have yet to fully confirm [the Teachers’ Pay and Conditions employee]’s information that [the council] is 'looking into' the matter.  You suggest that you have not been kept in the loop but that the LADO has. You state that [the Teachers’ Pay and Conditions employee] has been in touch with the LADO and "arranged for colleagues to pass that information to you." Please could you provide me with the details of these colleagues so I may contact them directly. 

This whole process has literally been dragging on for years and sheds a poor light on [the council] in its refusal to commit to a duty of care to its staff and community. 

I reiterate that it is reasonable for me to expect a response by the end of next week (13/01/23).

Regards,

Alex

Sent: 23.01.23

Dear Alex

I am writing further to the email (…), sent to you from the [council] LADO. My email is to confirm that the Governing Body of Dalmain School and the (…) Local Authority are not intending to re-open the investigation into concerns you raised under whistleblowing.  Both parties accept the conclusions reached by the independent disputes’ resolution investigator. 

Best wishes

[HR rep]

______________

Dear [HR rep],

Thank you for getting back to me. It comes to me as no surprise that you and the governing body should accept the original decision made by the 'independent' investigator. It certainly makes it far easier for both parties. 

It is interesting that a letter of commendation can be found on said 'independent' investigator's website published shortly after the whistleblowing was deemed not in the public interest (see attached).

I am getting legal advice on this and will be in touch in due course.

Best regards,

Alex 

_________________________________________________________________________________

While this back and forth can be thoroughly dispiriting, I am increasingly able to laugh about some of the more ridiculous twists and turns. It would be good to get closure - here's hoping... In the meantime, keep on truckin'!

Interview

I am honoured to post my first (WhatsApp) interview on the blog.

Shortly after I published my previous piece, someone reached out to share their horrific experience with my previous head in the form of a comment. A lot of it was very similar to the experience of other ex-colleagues and mine own.

It is disgusting that, despite the joint efforts of those of us who suffered under her reign of toxicity to bring her to accountability, she has joined the council’s school improvement team and been able to victimise people further afield than her school. The fiefdom has expanded rather than been curtailed.

Many thanks to the very brave person who got in touch with me via a union friend. They have gone out of their way to expose the truth. Solidarity and respect.

_______________________

Interlocutor: Hi Alex, (an) ex NEU messaged me your number. I am happy to help with further evidence of X (the head at my previous school).

Me: Morning (…), thank you so much for reaching out. I was sorry to hear that you also experienced the X treatment. I have a lot of questions for you but obviously the first one is how are you doing?

Interlocutor: Morning, yes, I am good. I quit teaching because of the treatment from the new head that coincided with X. She is rotten to the core.

Me: I am really sorry to hear that. When did you leave your school?

Interlocutor: I left July last year. I went on long term sick after X was in and tightening the screw in my school as her role of improvement. She was coaching the new head at our school and I was on her radar.

Me: Who bears most responsibility for your departure? I hope you don’t mind; I am going to fire off lots of questions. Please let me know if it is too triggering.

Interlocutor: I was invited to the school one day to see how their maths lead was doing. It was meant as a sharing info type meeting. Inside I was blindsided in a meeting where her finger was pointing at me. What am I doing? What did I see in her school? Ad how am I going to do that in my school? It was a barrage of heavy questions. I had no answers because I was not ready. I was heavily bothered by her for months.

Me: (expletive) hell.

Interlocutor: Then I quit maths lead the next day because of how my head just stood there in front of her and let it happen

Me: Did you ever actually meet the maths lead there?

Interlocutor: I did but it was just a folder and how they teach maths type questions. Nothing else

Me: Jesus.

Interlocutor: X then came to my school weeks later and was in monitoring books in my class and chuckling to herself in front of me and the class when I was teaching.

Me: She came into mine with a new governor and loudly told him in front of kids that there wasn’t enough writing in English books. In front of children.

Interlocutor: That doesn't surprise me. I quit a week later as I wasn't getting along with my head and because of their monitoring BS. She kept looking for problems, so I quit a week or so later and then went on long term sick soon afterwards until July.

Me: So sorry to hear that.

Interlocutor: I follow your blog quite actively and love your work in bringing her to task: uncovering the paid advert, etc. I've spoken negatively about her to officials in the school improvement team because of the bullying tactics. Several heads I've spoken to when doing supply are shocked with her. So, I am happy sharing her name and bringing her to account.

Me: More questions: did you put in any official complaints?

Interlocutor: Only verbally to my head. Against X. Nothing came of it. Tbh I've gone from fear, to anger and resentment. Now I have grown myself and just shudder at her.

Me: Good. I’m glad you’re in a better place now.

Interlocutor: Thanks, it took a few bumps since finishing, but my mental health comes first. Not some power hungry (head).

Me: Thank you so much for reaching out. And if you want help (…), let me know.

Interlocutor: Thank you again Alex.

Me: Thank YOU! Take care (…) and talk v soon.

Public interest

I apologise in advance but, having had a particularly challenging and frustrating week, I need to offload. I have been involved in some extremely frustrating meetings underlining how unaccountable the establishment can be. None more than my previous head.

For four and a half years, X (previous head teacher) has been bringing unchallenged misery to swathes of the community: local community, staff community and -mind-bogglingly- staff from other schools in their position as school improvement partner.

I think this might the first time I have brought up the school improvement partner aspect. It is an absolute travesty that this person (who were they to be scrutinised properly would reveal such a despicable track record) has been allowed to take up such a position and bring their deeply lacking pedagogical insight to bear on other senior leaders. I have heard from colleagues from a number of these schools complain about their lack of constructive criticism and rudeness. I have been unable to find official information about this online, but it would appear that this is a paid position. What is more, I assume that it comes from the local borough’s pocket. The very local borough I work for and have complained to about this person’s deplorable behaviour. Collusion? Incompetence? Not caring?

Interestingly, this morning, I found this tucked away on the borough’s website - this lovely little testimonial from X: 

The service received from the (…) comms team has been hugely professional and supportive at a time when the school was subject to false allegations with the potential to cause significant reputational damage to our community. They worked closely with us to negotiate an extremely stressful and time-pressured period and were very generous with their advice and knowledge. They were calm, knowledgeable and reassuring, and provided much-appreciated direction through the entire situation.

I have sent an e-mail to said comms department and will be looking forward to a response.

This all brings me nicely to the question of public interest. I know I have mentioned it before, but it bears repeating. The whistleblowing case that my colleagues, parents and governors wanted to be investigated because it was deemed not to be in the public interest. This is not the case. Both Protect (a respected whistleblowing charity), and my union agree with us.

Here are just some of the reasons why it most assuredly is in the public interest:

o   There has been a lack of duty of care from the head, governing body and local council meaning that mental well-being of staff has plummeted. At least five people have left the school with mental health issues. I have written at length about my nervous breakdown and PTSD. I have just finished my third course of counselling. The trauma has meant that my anti-depressant medication was tripled. Since November 2019, I struggle in large gatherings. As for my 4 other colleagues, it is not my place to elaborate on their experience, but you can take my word for it that their traumas have taken their toll too.

o   Basic workers’ rights were disrespected (I could and will at some stage write a full post about this), and union-bashing was rife (members were approached to share contents of meetings, reps were victimised while other members were groomed to replace them). 

o   There has been a huge staff turnover – a lot of extremely talented people left the school (teaching and administrative staff) left and were often replaced with far more inexperienced people. This has meant that -inevitably- the school has become less effective and strongly built-up links with the community have been irrevocably damaged. 

o   Children have increasingly been leaving the school (and not because they have been moving but because parents and children themselves have seen a decline in standards and are aware of the toxic culture that pervades. From what I hear, there is no longer a waiting list at the school. What is more, since the 2022-2023 academic year began, at least five children have come to my new school from my previous one because of parents’/children’s unhappiness. How many more have left to other schools? 

o   There is growing evidence of a disgruntled community sharing their experience with the wider community at large. The school’s image has been tainted by the current head. How much longer can this go on unchallenged?

Does this constitute public interest? I will let you decide and would be grateful if you could leave a comment about it. I would genuinely be interested to hear other people’s views and experiences.

Motion

A very good friend of mine and highly respected unionist (I would say legendary in our borough but he probably would not approve!) has given me permission to publish what follows on the blog.

He was present in union meetings when his bullying head (being a member of the trade union and sitting in all the union meetings) intimidated members on several occasions. 

He has written this motion to go to NEU conference. It is something that I could not agree more with. If you are a member, please argue for this motion to be prioritised.

__________

Representing school leaders, allowing school groups to function

Conference notes:

1) Headteacher members are able to attend school group meetings.

2) That they are advised to not attend the entire meeting and that reps are advised to ask them to absent themselves from part of the meeting.

3) Many good headteacher members do just this.

4) Some headteacher members refuse to absent themselves from any of the meeting.

5) That, as it is advice, there is little the union can do if they refuse to leave.

Conference believes:

I. That school groups cannot function effectively where headteachers are present throughout the entire meeting.

II. That the current guidance offered to leadership members and reps is not sufficient, we need clear protocols to cover this.

III. The vast majority of our leadership members are in the union for the right reasons. However, there is a small minority that join to hinder the collective functioning of their school groups.

Conference instructs the Executive to:

Urgently investigate, and return to the next conference with proposals, about how to ensure that leadership members cannot hinder the collective functioning of school groups, whilst safeguarding leadership members rights to participation and representation.

___________

By sharing this, I hope that members will support my friend's motion. I also hope, more generally, to further reveal to a broader audience the real issue of lack of accountabilty of school leaders. Instilling such toxic cultures is unacceptable. This case is all the more shocking in that the head is a member of the union. Why is there such a disparity in the system of checks and balances imposed on teaching staff and that of school leaders? A naive question maybe, but certainly one that needs airing.

 

The Guardian - sort of...

Today, a very good friend came over. We chatted about some of our shared experiences at our previous school and our frustration that injustices had yet to be resolved. One experience came up that I have not developed in the blog thus far – an ‘article’ on the Guardian Jobs website.

At the end of last year, I included notes from correspondence with the DfE (see DfE 10.12.22):

A governor who is a freelance journalist has twice shown conflict of interest relating to [the head]. [They] commented on the [highly critical] 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] put back up with addendums at the top and bottom of the article.

Indeed, shortly after the publication in February 22 of the article in the local press (see The Article & Statements both 25.05.22 and Lack of action 29.08.22), instigated by myself, other ex-colleagues and concerned parents, an article was published online in the Guardian Jobs https://recruiters.theguardian.com/ section. As mentioned above, it was a celebration of the head’s achievements as a woman in education and ‘leading by example’… many of us with first-hand experience of working with the head felt that not only was the article entirely misleading, but we were puzzled that it was presented on the school website was as if it was a feature piece by a Guardian journalist. When we saw who wrote the article, it became clear what had happened. I would argue that this piece of hot air PR was a cynical response to the local press article: an effort in damage limitation, pulled together quickly to ensure it was at the top of any web searches - rather than the local press article detailing from a number of perspectives the toxic culture that had developed at the school under the current head’s leadership.  

As soon as I became aware of this puff piece, I sent filled in a comment on the Guardian Jobs website to point out this cynical manoeuvre. Below is the correspondence that ensued.

______________

17.03.22

Dear Alex,

Thank you for contacting the Guardian. The profile you referred to is commercial marketing content on the Guardian’s recruitment site, supplied by an external agency, and is completely separate from Guardian journalism. The content was updated to state that the author is a former governor at the school when we were made aware of this. We are not in a position to comment on the internal school matters that your email referenced.

Yours sincerely,

(…)

Head of Sales, Guardian Jobs

______________

17.03.22

Hi (…),

Thanks for getting back to me. Who should I get in touch with at The Guardian to make them aware that the school's website is claiming the article is an interview with one of your journalists?

Thanks,

Alex

______________

21.03.22

Dear Alex,

Thank you for your reply. We are aware but it appears the school have now changed the description on their website. 

Yours sincerely, 

(…)

Head of Sales, Guardian Jobs

______________

21.03.22

Thanks (…), have just checked. They took their time about it but they have. 

______________

Obviously, I had not been the only one to complain. I was soon contacted by another ex-colleague who told me that they had also been in touch with the Guardian. Shortly after, I was contacted by the parent of one of my students from the school; they advised me that a number of parents had also complained to the paper. It would appear that one parent in particular had beaten us to it and made their displeasure at this lack of integrity very clear.

The Guardian acted quickly, adding text at the end of the article to accurate credit it as being paid content written by an actual governor of the school and noting that this correction was made as soon as it was made aware of the connection. Subsequently it has been taken down (The Guardian is one of our rare papers with integrity), so while the news page of the school website still highlights the article, the link is now empty. I’m not sure why the school has kept the news snippet on there but can’t imagine these changes will have gone unnoticed by the school community. A similar article has popped up again since - this time repurposed for a headteachers’ online magazine. It is a slightly different iteration, but much of the fabrications and spin remain.