Friday 18 March 2011

St. Augustine's complaint against the ISI

Many court documents can be obtained by members of the public. And I have done so in the case of the complaint by St. Augustine's School against the ISI. There are all sorts of other ways of obtaining information as well, for instance through the Freedom of Information Act. It isn't hard once you know how.

So that nobody can accuse me of selective quotation from it, I'm publishing in full the Statement of Grounds, essentially the facts behind the complaint as claimed by the school. This is a public domain document, I have every right to publish it.

In what has been provided below, I have made just a single change from the wording of the document as provide to the court. The Statement of Grounds names two teachers who have left the school. These are the two teachers who, according to the ISI, should have been reported to the ISA on their departure. I've removed their names and called them "[Teacher A]" and "[Teacher B]" instead.

I have the original document and am happy to provide a copy to any parent on request, so that you can see for yourself that the wording is accurate except for these two changes.

In future articles, I will provide a commentary on what this all means. But read this all first.

=====================

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ST. AUGUSTINE'S PRIORY SCHOOL LIMITED Claimant

- and-

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS INSPECTORATE Defendant

STATEMENT OF GROUNDS

Summary

1. St. Augustine's Priory School Limited is a registered charity which operates an independent Catholic day school for girls under the name St. Augustine's Priory (''the School").

2. The Independent Schools Inspectorate ("ISI") is a body approved by the Secretary of State for Education under section 163 of the Education Act 2002 (as originally enacted) for the purpose of conducting inspections of independent schools and making reports on such schools.

3. ISI conducted an inspection of the School on 23rd and 24th March and 4th to 6th May 2010 and concluded inter alia, in a report ("the Proposed Report") intended to be published on 2nd November 2010 pursuant to the provisions of the applicable inspection framework, that the quality of governance, leadership and managements, whilst good in some aspects, is unsatisfactory overall because it has not ensured that safeguarding procedures and practice meet the required standards.

4. The School objects to that judgment on the grounds that it is based on errors of fact and law, is unfairly inconsistent with other reports and is a judgment which no reasonable inspecting body could have reached.

5. The School accordingly seeks orders directing ISI to reconsider the terms of the Proposed Report. On 1st November 2010 the School obtained an interim Order from Mr. Justice Butterfield restraining publication until trial of this claim or further order.

The facts

6. In the course of the initial inspection on 23rd and 24th March 2010, the inspectors, led by Mrs. Culligan, the reporting inspector, assessed whether the School complied with the requirements set out in the Education (Independent Schools Standards) (England) regulations 2003, S.I. 2003 No. 1910, as amended ("the regulatory requirements").

7. The Proposed Report states that the inspectors concluded that at the time of the initial inspection the School failed to comply fully with the regulatory requirements because, inter alia:

(1) the School failed to ensure that any persons whose services were no longer used because they were considered unsuitable to work with children were always reported fully to the Independent Safeguarding Authority within one month of leaving the School;

(2) the School failed to ensure that appropriate checks and central register entries were made, an alleged failure which was said to include failing to ensure that enhanced Criminal Records Bureau ("CRB") checks were always obtained and recorded for a governor as necessary.

8. The Proposed Report further states, having regard to those conclusions, that:

(1) the School's arrangements for welfare, health and safety are inadequate;

(2) the child protection policy is unsatisfactory overall and at the initial inspection significant failures in referral practice were identified;

(3) governance of the school is unsatisfactory overall because it does not monitor closely enough the School's arrangements for safeguarding;

(4) leadership and management of the educational aspects of the School are mostly good but weaknesses in safeguarding practice make them unsatisfactory overall.

9. The Proposed Report therefore sets out in one of the three paragraphs recording the inspector's main findings that the quality of governance, leadership and management, whilst good in some aspects, notably in supporting high attainment and excellent personal development, is unsatisfactory overall because it has not ensured that safeguarding procedures and practice meet the required standard.

Referrals

10. The concerns expressed to the headmistress of the School, Mrs. Frances Gumley-Mason ("the Headmistress") by Mrs. Culligan at the time of the initial inspection as to failure always to make full referrals to the Independent Safeguarding Authority within one month related to (a) [Teacher A] (b) [Teacher B] (c) Father Gregory Chillman.

11. [Teacher A] was employed at the School from 1st September 2007, was suspended from 7th February 2008 (at which time she was already on sick leave) and her employment ended on 31st May 2008. The suspension was imposed on the ground that [Teacher A]'s CRB disclosure contained information relating to her husband and son which she said was inaccurate and was pending an amended disclosure. The Headmistress decided that under the statutory and guidance provisions then applicable referral was not required or appropriate. After speaking to Mrs. Culligan, the Headmistress made inquiries of the Independent Safeguarding Authority and was informed that [Teacher A] was "definitely not referral material". The Headmistress subsequently informed Mrs. Culligan of this.

12. [Teacher B] was employed at the School from 1st September 2007 and was suspended on 3rd December 2008 following written complaints from two groups of sixth form pupils on 1st and 3rd December 2008. He responded to the complaints by e-mail received on 5th December 2008 and subsequently, having sought advice from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, resigned on 18th December 2008. The Headmistress decided that under the statutory and guidance provisions then applicable referral was not required or appropriate.

After speaking to Mrs. Culligan, the Headmistress made inquiries of the Independent Safeguarding Authority and was informed that it was "up to her" whether or not she made a referral in respect of [Teacher B]. The Headmistress decided in all the circumstances to do so. The Headmistress subsequently informed Mrs. Culligan of these matters.

13. For many years Father Gregory Chillman was the School's chaplain and a governor. The appointment to the office of chaplain was made not by the School but by the Abbot of St. Benedict's Abbey, a monastic foundation connected with St. Benedict's School, a nearby Catholic school originally for boys which has recently become co-educational. At the time of the initial visit the School was aware of one allegation only relating to Father Gregory's conduct at the School, involving a conversation in January 2004 with two sixth form students in the sixth form common room in the presence of other students. No complaint was made by the students involved in the conversation themselves. On investigation by the Headmistress it appeared that Father Gregory had made an ill-judged remark and it was agreed that he should receive further training on child protection issues. The Headmistress decided that under the statutory and guidance provisions then applicable referral was not required or appropriate.

14. At about the same time the School became aware of an allegation of historic abuse, taking place in the 1970s, newly made by a former male pupil of St. Benedict's against Father Gregory. The School had no knowledge of this matter, save that the allegation had been made. The School was advised by the relevant local authority, the London Borough of Ealing, on 10th April 2010 that there was no reason to be concerned for the safety of students at the School.

15. The Headmistress informed Mrs. Culligan of these matters. Further, the Headmistress has been advised by both the Independent Safeguarding Authority and by the London Borough of Ealing that since Father Gregory has never been employed by the School it is not for the School to make any referral.

16. In those circumstances, the School contends that:

(1) there has been no failure on its part to ensure that any persons whose services are no longer used because they are considered unsuitable to work with children are always reported fully to the Independent Safeguarding Authority within one month of leaving the School;

(2) there have been no cases in which the School has been obliged to make a referral to the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

CRB and other checks

17. The regulatory requirements were amended with effect from 1st May 2007 to require schools to keep a central register recording checks made on staff and proprietors and amending the requirements as to who should be checked and in what manner.

18. Mrs. Culligan required the School to obtain an enhanced CRB disclosure in respect of a governor, Brigadier Cantley, although he was appointed a governor before 1st May 2007 and thus before such a requirement applied to governors who were not the chair of the governing body.

19. Mrs. Culligan criticised the checking procedures undertaken in relation to [Teacher A] although:

(1) the regulatory requirements did not oblige the School to obtain a CRB disclosure in respect of a person (such as [Teacher A]) who had worked in a school in England in a position bringing her regularly into contact with children or young persons during a period ending not more than three months before the date of appointment;

(2) the School had obtained references in respect of [Teacher A] from her previous school stating that there was no reason why she should not work with children and that CRB checks had been undertaken prior to her previous appointment;

(3) the School itself (consistently with the applicable regulatory requirements if a CRB disclosure was required) appointed her for a probationary period subject to CRB checks which were applied for on 18th May 2007. The regulatory requirement was to obtain a disclosure before or as soon as practicable after appointment;

(4) although no disclosure document was produced for [Teacher A] until December 2007, that delay was outside the School's control.

20. In those circumstances, the School contends that standards which are erroneous in law have been applied in determining whether or not the School complied with the regulatory requirements relating to CRB and other checks.

Unfair inconsistency

21. It is demonstrable from other reports on the Defendant's web site that on an initial inspection visit schools are frequently found to have failed in complying with the regulatory requirements in some respects. Typically, where such errors are comparatively minor and improved procedures for the avoidance of such errors in future have been instituted, the failures and the improved procedures are both noted and there is no main finding which adversely reflects on the governance, leadership and management of the school.

22. The report on the School departs from this pattern, despite the inspectors' finding that the governors had identified a number of specific and appropriate procedures to be put into action with immediate effect and the further fact that Mrs. Culligan informed the School that its amended child protection policy was "watertight". The School is thus at a loss to know what more is still required.

23. The tenor of the report is to treat regulatory failures as continuing (as shown by the terms of paragraph 8 above) instead of as having been remedied (as illustrated by the matters set out in paragraph 22 above).

24. St. Benedict's itself was inspected by the Defendant in November 2009 and received a favourable report in respect of its child protection policies. It was reinspected in April and May 2010 because a member of the public had drawn the Defendant's attention to public records of six prosecutions or civil actions brought in connection with the Abbey and St. Benedict's School. On reinspection the Defendant recorded a number of failings in St. Benedict's approach to safeguarding and expressed the judgment that the governors' commitment to St. Benedict's rule of love and forgiveness "appears on occasion to have overshadowed responsibility for children's welfare". Notwithstanding that criticism, there was no revision of the overall assessment of governance as good and leadership as excellent.

25. This is of particular relevance because on publication of the Proposed Report the School will come under an obligation to send copies to parents and guardians, many of whom also have children at St. Benedict's. The favourable assessment of St. Benedict's is liable to be compared with the unfavourable assessment of the School.

Legal basis of challenge

26. The School respectfully submits that the Defendant is amenable to judicial review because in inspecting schools it is carrying out a statutory function in the public interest on behalf of the Department for Education under the terms of an agreement with that Department. Its reports are published on its web site and supplied to the Department and are available to be read by any member of the public. A principal purpose of the reports is to determine whether an independent school is satisfying the statutorily prescribed standards for independent schools in England.

27. It is the School's case that:

(1) the Defendant's conclusions as to the School's compliance at the initial visit with the regulatory requirements relating to safeguarding are based on errors of fact and law in relation to referral and checking obligations and cannot be supported;

(2) the Defendant's conclusions as to the School's continuing failures to comply with the regulatory requirements (it as the Proposed Report appears to imply, it is alleged that there are continuing failures) are based on no material and are contrary to statements made to the School by the Defendant;

(3) the Defendant's conclusions as to the governance, leadership and management of the School are unfairly inconsistent with the conclusions reached in other cases and as such are in breach of the Defendant's own guidelines for preparing reports;

(4) having regard to all the matters set out above, the conclusions reached as to the governance, leadership and management of the School are conclusions which no reasonable body of inspectors could have reached.

28. In the premises, the Defendant should be directed to reconsider the terms of the Proposed Report in the light of the matters set out above.

27 comments:

  1. It is interesting that the report says that the school was aware of only one allegation against Father Gregory Chillman in January 2004 for an 'ill-judged remark.' In fact at the same time there was another much more serious complaint by a menber of the sixth form whose parents made the complaint because she was being stalked by Father Gregory and forced to answer questions of a sexual nature while being physically held against her will. Why was this complaint not included in the report?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Which barristers and solicitors were involved for the school?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Charity Commission website names the school's solicitors as follows.

    Elliots, Bond & Banbury
    53 The Broadway
    Ealing
    London
    W5 53T

    ReplyDelete
  4. 22. The report on the School departs from this pattern, despite the inspectors' finding that the governors had identified a number of specific and appropriate procedures to be put into action with immediate effect and the further fact that Mrs. Culligan informed the School that its amended child protection policy was "watertight". The School is thus at a loss to know what more is still required.

    Now here we have a lead inspector who is very far from being experienced in safeguarding giving an 'opinion' about a safety critical document. The ISI , as you have seen from the cavalier inspection of St Benedict’s, understands very little about safeguarding, and let’s not forget this is (ISC) members inspecting fellow ISC members. They have no motivation to find anything. Had St Benedict’s not blown up in the ISI’s face and exposed this inspectorate for the incompetent it is, they would have found nothing at St Augustine’s. But alerted by the connection between St Benedict’s and St Augustine’s I speculate the Mrs. Culligan was alerted to the possibility of trouble well in advance.

    What did Mrs. Culligan allegedly say about the St Augustine’s safeguarding policy – it is 'watertight!' This links to a previous post that provides an analysis of the current safeguarding policy if you have any doubt. The current policy does not conform to the guidelines of the Ealing Safeguarding Children’s Board, and fails to commit to irrevocable reporting all allegations to the LADO – clause 15.2.1.

    Veritas

    ReplyDelete
  5. How does that woman get away with it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The real queston is what are we all left still not knowing?

    The inspection remit of the ISI is limited and they are poor at safeguarding.

    What did they not look look into becasue it was outside remit, and what did they miss that was within remit?

    And did they inspected against the non returned referrals? We are left uninformed.

    Add this to what we know and things do not look good for Friday.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In paras 12 and 13 the timescales for decisions seem confused. It has been stated on this blog countless times that referrals need to be made within one month. Does this mean that the headmistress made the decision not to refer within the month of the staff leaving and this decision was questioned by the ISI, or does it mean she didn't make any decision until until the issue was flagged by inspectors?

    ReplyDelete
  8. 16.07, you have alighted on an important matter. Since the introduction of the SVGA 2006, which kicked in last year, some changes have occurred. But both these incidents preceded the new Act.

    Para12. At the time the teacher was suspended in 2008 the Education Acts applied. The law then stated that when a teacher resigns in circumstances where had he not done so he would have been dismissed as a result of his/her behaviour towards a child – then the school MUST return a notification within one month of the departure.

    Mrs Gumley- Mason asserts she spoke to the ISA (which suggests this was at the time of the ISI inspection as it did not exist in 2008) which said it was her decision whether she returned a Notification. This is quite wrong. This statutory requirement to return a Notification has been operating since c.1960 and was only redacted last year on the introduction of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. A Notification should have been returned by Mrs Gumley-Mason within 30 days of the departure of the teacher.

    Para 13. Once again this incident predated the SVGA 2006. I would first like to quote from the ISI follow up report into the matters at St Benedict’s school.
    (iii) referrals (to the LADO) are made not only where a case is considered by the school to be serious and criminal;

    The words in brackets have been added by me.

    Here we have Gumley-Mason by her own admission investigating an ‘incident’, in which the Chairman of the Board of Governor’s is involved, a man who is her friend, and who is her boss. After her completely impartial investigation of the incident she concludes she need take no action. The Headmistress decided that under the statutory and guidance provisions then applicable referral was not required or appropriate. And this is from a head who is incapable of even getting the current child protection policy to comply with Ealing Safeguarding Children’s Board guidelines.

    What should have happened was that the matter should have been referred to the forerunner of the Ealing SCB which was called the Area Child Protection Committee at the Local Authority. It was not. Following the independent assessment of the ‘incident’ a decision would have been made independently of Gumley-Mason as to whether a Notification should have been returned to the DCSF. None of this happened. Here we have an example of child protection ‘old school’ style.


    Referral to the Independent Safeguarding Authority
    5.49 If on conclusion of the case the school or FE college ceases to use the person’s
    services, or the person ceases to provide his/her services, the school or FE college
    should consult the LADO about whether a referral to the ISA is required. If a referral
    is appropriate the report should be made within one month. See paragraph 2.36 for
    more information on how to make a referral.

    Source - Safeguarding Children Safer Recruitment in Education 2010

    ReplyDelete
  9. Paragraph 24, at the end, may give a psychological insight into what it's all about for Gumley-Mason. She could be jealous that Mr Cleugh was rated an excellent leader, and she herself was slated by the ISI.
    Jealousy, however, does not seem a good reason to spend fee income from hard-working parents, money that the school could have spent on things which benefit pupils directly, on pointless legal actions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Paragragraph #24 raises a very important matter about the ISI inspections.

    24. St. Benedict's itself was inspected by the Defendant in November 2009 and received a favourable report in respect of its child protection policies. It was reinspected in April and May 2010 because a member of the public had drawn the Defendant's attention to public records of six prosecutions or civil actions brought in connection with the Abbey and St. Benedict's School. (insertion by poster - Nothing like six had appeared in the court because most of these incidents were concealed from the public eye, but if I am mistaken Mr West will correct my error) On reinspection the Defendant recorded a number of failings in St. Benedict's approach to safeguarding and expressed the judgment that the governors' commitment to St. Benedict's rule of love and forgiveness "appears on occasion to have overshadowed responsibility for children's welfare". Notwithstanding that criticism, there was no revision of the overall assessment of governance as good and leadership as excellent.

    And this last point is absolutely correct – Even when their reports are proven mistaken the ISI will make no revisions to their reports. You as parents, cannot appeal against the content of a report. Only the school (being inspected) can appeal, or another school which is a member of the ISC. And such an appeal must go through the complaints ‘procedure.’

    St Augustine's decided to ignore the complaints procedure by instead using the biggest stick available, the High Court. In the circumstances as we can see, this was a triumph of vanity over common sense given the content of the Grounds document which demonstrates the school broke the law. I am unsurprised that the solicitors acting for the school failed to spot this. Mind you one needs to have specialist knowledge of the subject of safeguarding. Coming to it ‘fresh’ is like tangling with an octopus.

    To start it is important to recognise two problems in the current law relating to child abuse:
    • It is a patchwork of different types of law often created as a specific reaction to a particular scandal. It has no cohesion and can be contradictory. It is, for want of a better description, the Dangerous Dogs Act writ large.
    • It is unwieldy. There are hundreds of different rules in different places.

    So any legal firm new to this subject will be challenged.

    But nonetheless the solicitors did make an, albeit limited to a single, valid point in their grounds about the November report giving a glowing account of the shrewd administration of St Benedict's.

    In the second report which was published on a date unstated, the management quite clearly don’t glow any longer. In fact the opposite is the case because it makes clear the failings that have occurred. The “advisers” did not come out of it well either.

    Q - why has the November report not been revised to make clear incompetence of the St Benedict’s management?

    Don't expect Christine Ryan (ISI) to answer the question - there isn't an answer that can be justified. The biggest part of the problem is the ISI are not independent of the schools they are inspecting.

    And why does this inspectorate not provide the publication date of their reports?

    Without inspection and publication dates being clearly stated how will any prospective St Augustine’s parent be informed that this report was held up for months by the school taking action in the High Court to stop its publication? If I was able to clearly see the dates I could ask a question and receive an answer which can form part of my decision making process.

    Without the dates I cannot even see the question to ask. Maybe that’s the idea.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 13.08's comment is worrying. If true then it may appear that some facts were withheld in the above document and that the school was, indeed, aware of a much more serious allegation.
    Mr West, do you have any knowledge of this alleged incident?

    ReplyDelete
  12. 13.08 Possibly because there is no record of these incident in the school records.

    a) You cannot inspect against such matters if nothing exists to inform you of the occurrence.

    b) Remember the ISI is expert in 'not seeing' and not reporting on safeguarding matters (St Benedict’s, and others be assured). It has a Nelson approach to safeguarding inspection i.e. only when matters are 'so' incompetently handled do they feel able to criticise a member school.

    They also tend to follow Ofsted protocols.

    Ofsted's policy is not to comment on any safeguarding issues if in the opinion of the (non specialist inspector) the matter has been adequately handled by the school.

    The definition of 'adequate' is unspecified. Ofsted and ISI only keep inspectors notes for a limited period before they are destroyed. So if matters are not included in the inspection reports the safeguarding history of the setting is expunged.


    Safeguarding inspection 2011.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 8.29. You make an important point about the ISI Complaints Procedure. We do not know that the school did not use the ISI complaints procedure as well. However it is doubtful that Gumley-Mason would have dared to go beyond stage one of the official procedure. Stage one is essentially paper-based. When a school pursues a complaint to stage two or stage three the result can be a full or partial reinspection of the school. It seems unlikely she would take this risk because it would involve inspectors talking to many more people than her and she would lose control of the situation. She would also have had to explain all the lies and secrecy surrounding the pathway to publication of the report.
    The fact that the solicitors misunderstood what was happening and what is needed is not surprising. Matters of this nature are somewhat more complex, as you rightly point out, than the odd divorce or bit of house conveyancing.
    Now, if Mrs Gumley-Mason would now like to waste some more of fee-paying parents' money bringing legal action against Elliot, Bond and Banbury apparently Stone King in Bath are very good. They act for the ISI and St Benedict's.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well she might well have gone to stage 1 of the ISI complaints procedure - it would seem illogical to initiate High Court proceedengs without doing so.

    Stone King also act for others, but usually in the defence of institutions where abuse has been discovered.

    I can name a firm that knows safeguarding law very well and uses this knowledge to promulgate safeguarding policies, to its largely independent school clients, which are designed to justify the non-reporting of actual and alleged child abuse to the authorities including the LADO.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Who was responsible for writing the Child Protection Report for St.Augustine's?

    ReplyDelete
  16. How much might such action have cost the school, and by implication the parents?
    Ideas anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  17. 10.49 - This is an interesting question that needs to be asked at the meeting on Friday. Clarification of the responsibilities of the Trustees and the Governors is needed.

    The Trustees of the Charity, and the Chairman of the Board of Trustees as the registered owner of the school, has a statutory responsibility for Safeguarding in the school. (See video link below). In the absence of a Trustee other than the Chairman of the Board St Augustine’s Priory School Ltd., being made responsible for safeguarding, then it is Mr D.P.A.Murphy MA.(Oxon) with whom the buck stops and he needs to attend the meeting on Friday. This should be made clear on the school's website.

    This Statutory duty cannot be delegated to a loose group of individuals called a Board of Governors. This board however can and I suspect has responsibility for the day to day operation of matters just as any management structure is required to perform, but nonetheless the bucks still stops with Mr Murphy and the day/day operation of safeguarding with Mrs Gumley-Mason and the Governors.

    Sadly those who hold the statutory responsibility infrequently understand what it means. I suspect the Trustees of St Augustine's fall into this category which is inexcusable. The statutory responsibilities for the Trustees of maintained or independent schools are the same as far as SAfeguarding is concerned, but some of the legislation falls in different Acts because of the commercial nature of independent schools. This is part of the complexity of this subject that a previous poster mentioned.

    This link takes you to a Teacher TV video which provides you with the responsibilities of Governors/Trustees. I recommend you look at the whole video, your time (15 minutes) will not be wasted and will provide a good insight to what school administrations should be doing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Another video from the same source, which this time shows you what has not been happening at St Augustine’s.

    A very worthwhile 15 minutes which will provide an understanding for parents about what should happen when a school is faced with an allegation. In light of the ISI report and the posting at 13.08 above, Mrs Gumley-Mason could do with watching it in full given she is safeguarding ‘lite’ despite her b eing the ‘designated officer’and hopefully being trained every two years as recommended by DfE guidance. In the current safeguarding policy the school still does not commit to referring all allegations to the LADO, in direct contravention of the Ealing Safeguarding Children's Board guidelines. This film shows why immediate referrals to the LADO are so important for all concerned.

    Mrs Gumley-Mason is meant to be in charge of protecting children, not the balance sheet.

    Ironically if defence of the balance sheet prevails over the protection of the child, inevitably and as a consequence of the actions taken to defend the balance sheet, more perpetrators are attracted to a setting knowing full well it is an accommodating place in which to operate. How this happens is very simple. Perpetrators always operate more effectively in numbers, St Benedict’s is an example. This is called shoaling.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 10.49.

    The answer to your question about who wrote the child protection policy is the version of the policy at the time of the failings was written, as every other policy seems to be, by...

    Mr Andrew Mason,

    The estate factor husband of the headmistress!

    ReplyDelete
  20. You have got to be joking the gardner being allowed to right the chid protection policy. They might as well have aked the cleaner. What else has he been allowed to do? The governors need to answer how they can keep the incompetent head in power she should be sacked.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I now think the governors need to resign allowing this moron of a man to write a policy safe guarding our children.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The governors need to resign, and the Chairman of the Board of Trustees needs to inform the meeting why he has failed so spectacularly in his statutory responsibilities for safeguarding.

    Was the board told the truth of the staff departures, and did they inform the Trustees?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Parents be warned - the headmistress has finally called a staff meeting about the report. This will happen on Thursday (24th). She may plan to use this to try out the arguments she hopes to use with parents…………… or if the atmosphere matches the notoriously threatening chapel meeting she will be asked no questions at all.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Deepest Sympathy having to sit in a room with that dictator.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I do hope Mr and Mrs G-M have read these blogs! My family log on every evening and are being kept very entertained by comments made by parents and the lack of remorse shown by G-M
    on the running of the school and the dangers employing staff who have not been properly checked This is an appalling lack of judgement on her part and she should step down from her post immediately along with her husband, we have not the slightest idea why he is needed in the capacity of an "estate Factor" this is laughable when you google for a definition.

    Mr West you should be congratulated on your honesty, hard work and mostly for caring with regard to the well being of the pupils of St Augustines. I do hope you will join the parents on Friday 25th March 2011 as the "leader", oops dictator Mrs Gumley Mason will be giving her speech, is it to much to hope that it will be her last and will resign.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Here here! I second all of the above.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mrs Gumley Mason and the Trustees should start listening to parents. My children do not attend St.Augustines(thankfully), they have heard how awful the school is and liken the headmistress to a tyrant. Ealing is a small knit community.

    ReplyDelete