Tuesday 15 November 2011

No Governors at St. Augustine's

With all the publicity that has surrounded St Benedict's over the last few days, it has been hard to credit the extraordinary goings-on at St. Augustine's Priory School. The following has come from a number of impeccable sources. For obvious reasons, I am not going to say who.

The School currently has no Board of Governors. With the possible exceptions of Dr Dowling-Branagan and Mrs Kendall, the Trustees have told all the Governors that they have not been "confirmed in office" by the trustees.

It appears that they received a letter from Mr Murphy to the effect that he required them to sign a letter promising to adhere to the Instrument of Governance before they could be confirmed. This has apparently never previously been required, and Governors of any school by definition have to act within their defined powers as governors. In phone conversations between them, I understand that the governors decided to wait until their meeting on November 9th and discuss the issue there before deciding whether to sign.

Mr Murphy arrived at the meeting with a solicitor in attendance. He handed out a letter to the governors. The letter was threatening in nature and required them to sign to agree the terms of the instrument of government immediately, or the governors' meeting could not continue. A very stormy meeting followed, and there was no resolution. Mr Murphy made it clear that the governors' meeting could therefore not take place and that he required them all immediately to leave the premises. They requested to remain while they discussed matters, as private individuals if necessary.

Mr Murphy was adamant. One of the governors pointed out that they had been invited in not by Mr Murphy by by the headmistress, and it was for her to withdraw the invitation. Mr Murphy remained adamant, and said that if they wished to continue their conversation, they must do so in the car park. It was a remarkably petty demand on his part.

The governors in further discussions amongst themselves over the next couple of days concluded that it would be better to sign the letter and then to be able to get on with the urgent business of the arrangements to recruit the new headteacher. However, it seems that Mr Murphy is taking the view that this is not sufficient, and that a decision of the trustees is now needed to confirm them in office, and that a decision on this point has not yet been made.

So, the current situation seems to be that there is no quorum of Governors at present, so in effect there is no Governing Body.

This for all practical purposes renders aspects of the school's safeguarding policy inoperative, because there is no suitably trained Safeguarding Governor to oversee it. The Complaints procedure is also inoperative, because there are no Governors to hear any complaints.

Some of the (former) governors have informally met with staff to appraise them of the situation. There has been a staff meeting attended by Mr Murphy at which he was by all accounts robustly questioned.


This is not the first time this term that Mr Murphy has interfered with the decisions of the governors operating validly within the areas of responsibility delegated to them by the Instrument of Governance. Earlier this term, it came to the attention of the governors that Mr Mason had requested of an IT technician passwords to staff email accounts, and that the technician in all good faith had provided them. On learning of this, the governors suspended both of them while the school computers could be re-secured.

It seems that Mrs Gumley Mason appealed to the Trustees and that Mr Murphy advised the governors that he was taking over the matter and that the Governors no longer had any part to play. Apparently the Instrument of Governance allows for this to happen if the headteacher appeals to the Trustees. The governors threatened to resign unless the issue was returned to them since it fell squarely within their delegated responsibilities. Mr Murphy backed down.


This latest action by Mr Murphy seems to me to be highly irresponsible, As I understand it, the diocese and the ISI have been informed and the DfE is going to investigate. These actions are damaging the Charity's reputation and may potentially damage the charity's income, if parents decide that enough is enough and take their children away from the school. And most importantly they are putting in jeopardy the charity's ability to fulfil its charitable objectives, the education of the pupils.

It is worth noting that Lord Carlile's principal recommendations for St Benedict's concern its governance. Carlile has noted that the St Benedict's governance arrangements are that all decision-making powers are in the hands of the board of Trustees, that all the trustees must be monks of Ealing Abbey, and the chairman of trustees is the Abbot. There is a Board of School Advisers, which in fact makes recommendations and decisions in much the way that a Board of Governors might be expected to, but that in fact the BSA has no powers, and the Trustees can ignore any decision or recommendation from the BSA if they choose to.

Lord Carlile described this arrangement as "wholly outdated and demonstrably unacceptable". What strikes me is how close it is to the arrangements currently in place for the governance of St Augustine's. Admittedly the St Augustine's Trustees are not monks, but in all other respects, the comparison is very close, in that there are two boards, one of which has delegated some powers formally or informally to the other, but which can be taken away at any time and for any reason.

The existing argument shows how very unsatisfactory those arrangements are in the event of a disagreement between the Governors and the Trustees.

Lord Carlile has recommended that other independent faith schools should review their governance arrangements, and that his proposals (essentially of a single governing body with a wide range of experience, and a lay chair and lay majority) are meant to be broadly appropriate for all independent faith schools, of all religions and denominations. Certainly, his recommendations should be studied by St Augustine's.

I suspect that the argument is in fact over who has control over the appointments process for the new headteacher. That is the most important decision that the school needs to take in the immediate future, and it would seem that the Trustees are alarmed at the approach to the matter being taken by the governors.

But at the moment, it doesn't matter in the slightest who has control of the process. I cannot imagine that any competent headteacher would be prepared to take up the post amidst such a shambles. Any prospective headteacher worth his or her salt is going to do some research on the school, if only by typing the name of the school into a search engine to see what comes out. What on earth would anybody think about the recent goings-on at St. Augustines? There's not the slightest point in wasting money on placing an ad for the new headteacher until the present crisis is amicably resolved and some stability is restored. That means getting the governing body back in place, hammering out an agreement concerning an appointments panel for the headteacher, and agreeing that the Instrument of Governance needs to be reviewed and amended, probably to merge the two boards and have a single governing body so that these kinds of deadlocks cannot happen again.

The sooner this happens, the better for the children. They are the ones who matter here. I hope that everybody concerned will remember that.

195 comments:

  1. "Any prospective headteacher worth his or her salt is going to do some research on the school, if only by typing the name of the school into a search engine to see what comes out."

    Unfortunately all this means is that the only applicants will be those who are too well aware that they can't get a job anywhere else, and are seizing on this opportunity to sneak in where angels fear to tread.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you, Jonathon, for posting on this. I fear we St Augustine parents have a battle on our hands.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My bet is that Gumley Mason will be appointed as a trustee or will be chair of trustees after she leaves the post of headmistress. This will enable her to retain control of the school even if she is not headmistress. The whole thing is shocking and has been contrived to give her maximum control now and in the future.These people must be stopped and kicked out immediately to prevent any more damage to our school.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We can only presume that our hard earned fees have yet again been used by Murphy and Gumley Mason to pay the solicitor who attended the meeting with the governors.

    The behaviour of Murphy and Gumley Mason is insulting to everyone, they are only out for themselves and not for the good of the school.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've heard the shredder is working overtime! Does anyone know how we could get that stopped?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The shredder should be stopped immediately, but of course no one can enforce this, the woman should leave now enough is enough.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As parents we need to act now and in unison - no more apathy please. We need to deluge ISI and the diocese , everyone who can help us stop these shameful individuals ruin the school we love so much. And teachers, if you really are united now and the blind have had their eyes opened can you plase speak as one and ask her to leave???? Where's the vote of no confidence..??

    ReplyDelete
  8. Can you please advise if the school should be open with no governors safe guarding the children's welfare!

    ReplyDelete
  9. 09:47 - I think your comment is spot on.
    Why on earth would Gumley Mason put herself through all this grief, when she only has a few weeks to go, without there being something for her at the end of it, i.e. being a trustee of the school.

    What do the Gumley Mason's and Murphy have to gain fron these latest actions against the governors ? Gumley Mason and Murphy have now at last shown that they are indeed unscrupulous and corrupt and cannot be trusted to be Head and Chair of Trustees.


    I feel that Gumley Mason should be excluded from the Centenary Ball on Saturday or better still the event should be cancelled as it is not going to be any sort of celebration.

    The press need to latch onto this story now and bring it out into the public domain.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I feel these individuals are dragging the school down!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can you please advise what the "Instrument of Governance" you have to adhere to. Furthermore, have the previously appointed Governors not followed these terms of "Instrument of Governance".
    This is all becoming very confusing, what explanation is being given for the conduct of Mr Murphy and for a solicitor to be present, is the the normal practice.
    Mrs GM is leaving office in 4weeks time, I do not fully understand why this is all necessary. The Governors are in place to ensure the integrity of the school and children.
    This is an appalling and compromising situation yet again putting children's safety on a back burner.
    I will be carefully considering, and i'm sure not the only parent to look for alternative schools. This is an intolerable situation with no clarity on why this came to fruition!

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Trust is set up so that the Trustees legally have a right to dismiss the governors as they please, and they have a right to override decisions made by the governors as they please. This leaves us and our children at the whim of the trustees, who are anonymous to the parent body. (I've never laid eyes on them, and I have had children at the school for quite a long time.) Rumour has it they are all personal friends of Mrs Gumley-Mason. If we want to try to change how the school is organised, we will need to consolidate as a parent body at some point soon, I think.

    In the meantime, parents should write letters to the school, registering their disapproval of the course of events re: Board of Governors. You can also contact the ISI at 020 7600 0100 to register your concern.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Whats the explanation on this latest SAGA? It does not make any sense, can I remind Mr Murphy this is a school not a high ranking Government Office. Why are we not been given a TRUE account as to why he feels this is necessary and for Mrs GM yet again taking such unprecedented actions, have you something to hide that you are not disclosing? Do you think all parent are without brains?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear Mr Murphy and Mrs Gumley Mason
    An explanation is needed, as to why you felt it necessary to hold a Governors meeting, to bully them and then effectively sack them from their positions. Your actions leave an impression of running scared. From what may I ask, when you only have a few weeks at St. A. remaining.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't think she gives a damn about what the parents think. I'm sure she does have something to hide. That's why the shredder is working overtime.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 11.47

    If we want to try to change how the school is organised, we will need to consolidate as a parent body at some point soon, I think.

    This sentence says it all. I am afraid parents cannot just sit quietly on their hands. You are expressing clear opinions for the type of school you want. Your recently appointed new representatives to the Governing board, and your wishes have now been trashed with a click of the fingers.

    The trustees clearly do not care about you, the fee paying parents. Your only option is to get together. You need to get organised. Failure to do so will lead to more of the same behaviour from the Trustees which will cause many problems throughout the school.

    There are some good staff at St Augustine's. They will not put up with this for much longer. CV's will be being despatched wholesale by several at present, and who can blame them? Staff can only do so much. Parents being organised can do a great deal because your fees are the lifeblood of the business.

    Parental 'fee' resistance next term will bring Murphy and the other Trustees to book. Personally I would place fees in an Escrow account pending a resolution to all the matters you want to see resolved which you send directly to Murphy when you have set up the group, sorted a constitution, and hammered out the shopping list. All this needs to be done yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  17. beware what you wish for. i was appointed chair of governors (and was also a fee paying parent)after a period of acrimony, instability and power broking at a prep school. despite all my and my new board of governors efforts, the divisions within the school lead me, after a year, to close it down. there were no winners particularly amongst the children/pupils, who had to sever friendships and find new schools at differing stages of their academic careers. we adults it seems could not see the wood for the trees and entrenched opinions and egos got in the way. the school is for the benefit of the pupils and not a battle ground for waring factions...

    ReplyDelete
  18. That woman can not be a Trustee, she's a compulsive liar, bully, deceitful,
    I for one would remove my girls immediately if that woman has any more to do with that school.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Parents and teachers phone the ISI and let it be known that you are not happy with the events that have occurred.
    There is now no complaint procedures for the school.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mrs Gumley Mason, would it not have been better to leave on a less positive note than leave an acrid taste in ones mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  21. As A Parent I have been encouraged by what the Governors set out to achieve. They have been transparent in their plans for a new Head and moving the school forward to better and greater things which it clearly will achieve if let.

    They have kept us informed all along in the recruitment process as much as they could, given the circumstances. They have acted with courage by not signing a document which is clearly not in the schools interest. Then being bullied, by David Murphy and his solicitor by threats of being having their position taken away.

    It has been Mr Murphy who has put the school in to a vulnerable position for years.( did he ever answer your letter Johnathan ?)

    The Parents and the staff are totally behind the 6 Governors. They were prepared to stand up to this individual who clearly does not have the children, the future of the school or fee payers at heart.

    It is clear that Mr and Mrs David Murphy have acted (and it seems clear now with Mr and Mrs Mason) with their own agenda.

    Where are the other Trustees ? do they know of the situation were they part of this decision.

    I am sure all the parents would like to meet you Mr and Mrs Murphy and the other Trustees, after all you claim to be the guardians of the school and our girls futures.

    The Parents and staff are united in getting rid of decaying rot.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I can't believe what I'm reading, it's incredulous what is going on, she needs to stand now, before she destroys the school.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 13.28

    there are no Governors at present, parents have to do something to ensure procedures are in place for the wellbeing of the children, at present this is not the case.

    ReplyDelete
  24. There may be news organisations expressing an interest in speaking to parents about his. If you are willing to speak to the news, please email me and I will pass any names on as appropriate. It will be for you to decide whether to speak "on the record" (i.e. with you name attached), or "off the record" (i.e. where what you say can be published, but not with your name attached) or "not for use" (where it can't be published, but can be used to guide further researches).

    ReplyDelete
  25. The Gumley Mason's and Murphy are a complete disgrace and ought to be ashamed of themselves. They have clearly been shown to be arrogant and compulsive liars.
    The Gumley Mason's have been paid high salaries out of our school fees and this is they way they treat the school.
    Staff, pupils and parents, it is now time to take action against these individuals and get rid of them for good.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Fame at last for the Gumley Masons .

    ReplyDelete
  27. The centenary ball should be cancelled what is there to celebrate , that woman has brought the school to its knees.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Invasion of privacy should not be taken lightly, the gardner now acting as a private eye accessing staffs private emails, he should be sacked on the spot why would the gardner be in the IT suite, surely he should be in his greenhouse potting plants!
    I have never known a gardner with such power.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 14.22

    I agree, what do you suggest?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I am amazed she is still in command, how can GM get away with her decisions without repercussions, her husband is no better and Mr Murphy should be held up over this latest twist in the goings on at the school. Who is he answerable to? I feel they ought to be informed, this is worse than the goings on at St Trinnians, they could make a film based on St Augustines no script would be required!

    ReplyDelete
  31. She gets away with it due to her friendship with the Murphys,that is why Mr Murphy over rode the Governors decision to suspend Mr Gumley Mason, what else has been covered up?

    ReplyDelete
  32. 14.36. Stop watering him...

    ReplyDelete
  33. The Trustees are bombproof provided they adhere to charity rules and remain financially responsible. After that you can do nothing other than be creative.

    What will stop them dead in their tracks is paying next terms fees via an ESCROW account along the lines suggested @ 13.10.

    Money will focus the attention of the Trustees. Using ESCROW is not refusing to pay fees - it is making the money available to the school predicated upon the delivery of prescribed and reasonable performance criteria which you set as a group. This arrangement would focus hearts and minds of the board.

    The schools costs will continue, the largest being staff salaries. The fees are in sight of the Trustees but untouchable until the reasonable performance criteria are met which are designed to stabilise the school and provide a course for the future.

    None of this is terribly difficult - it just requires parents to make decisions and then to stick until you secure success.


    There is little else you can do in any practical sense.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Please, go easy on the name-calling if you want to your comment published.

    ReplyDelete
  35. How are the Trustees re-numerated.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I would suggest that we give a terms notice
    then we write to the church authorities and
    request they setup a free school
    who owns the property

    ReplyDelete
  37. All parents need to do this, but how do we get started.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Whoever organised the forthcoming party needs to think long and hard as to whether it should go a head, personally I think it would be in very bad taste, due to the latest revelations.

    ReplyDelete
  39. oh dear 16.24, read my post - 13.28

    ReplyDelete
  40. 16.24 - you appear to be suggesting 'do nothing.' Or am I mistaken?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I agree wholeheartedly with 13:28. I don't want this school to close. It is potentially a gorgeous school and when the Head finally goes, there is wonderful potential there. We do not want to shoot ourselves in the foot so we need to act together but we need to think through the consequences of our actions or we will find ourselves home schooling as there is not enough space in the local schools to take all our girls!!

    ReplyDelete
  42. 13.28 reply - if the head is going at christmas why the unseemly haste? is it for revenge or for the good of the pupils (note i say pupils, not school). in my experience these things can tear a school apart, as factions will form and struggles for power will occur...

    ReplyDelete
  43. 17.10

    My comment wa definitely no suggesting we do nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  44. 17.23

    I agree its a wonderful school and a majority of the teachers are to. What cannot be allowed to happen is the Trustees and Governors remain in place and they carry on with the same mindset, which is what i'm afraid will happen.

    ReplyDelete
  45. 13.28 reply - what happened at my school was that the head was muscled out, a meeting was called, some parents supported the governors and the head and some didn't, a vote was taken, we "won", the losers took umbrage and took their children away to start a new school, we were left with a depleted roll and appointed a new head. the parents in the middle who only wanted a good education for their children were left bewildered and started to drift away. the opposite faction never managed to start their own school. much bad feeling all round. you may think it could happen to you but we all think that of everything in our life don't we?...

    ReplyDelete
  46. As parents we have no power to decide if the school remain open or not, nor will the school, the best thing that could happen is the Head and her shadow and her puppets the Trustees all stand down immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The school has always had if you don't like it you no were the door is attitude and the same applied to the Governors, unbelievable what an attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  48. 13.28 - you will never get all the parents to agree on one course of action and the school knows this and will adopt the "divide and rule" approach. the more participants the easier this is. this is the problem with independent schools and their trustees and governors, too many vested interests. the silent majority just drift away. i can't pretend to offer the easy answer but just wanted to share my own experience in a similar situation. tread carefully and don't whisper in corners...

    ReplyDelete
  49. She has single handed brought the school to its knees, shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
  50. 13.28- see my 18.09 reply. you need a respected figure head, seen to be impartial and above politics (if that is possible). anyone from within your own ranks will never command overall respect or trust and will be easily picked off...

    ReplyDelete
  51. What on earth is happening at the school, I can't believe what i am reading, are there no Governors at St. Augustine's? What is the complaints procedure?

    ReplyDelete
  52. 18.09 - you are gripped by inertia.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Gumley masons are having a meeting with the Murphy's tonight, wonder what they are plotting and planning?

    ReplyDelete
  54. 19.07 inertia? see 18.45 - it's me.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Has the Law not be broken? By dismissing the Governors who were elected and voted for by the parents,who are impartial and to lend an ear and to aid in disputes. Who do children and parents go for assistance, this is very worrying that Mrs GM and Mr Murphy have such power and over rule the electorate.

    ReplyDelete
  56. They should be ashamed, I hope they are taking minutes! Children are very precious and they should be heard and respected, what sort of person would take away the safe guarding? A Christian school, we should be questioning the ethics!

    ReplyDelete
  57. There is no need to worry that should the Head be asked by the Trustees to leave tomorrow, the School would fall apart. Mrs Wilson is a very able Principal Deputy fully supported by the staff. It would be best for the school for her to take over now. The prospect of the Gumley Masons as Trustees is appalling.

    ReplyDelete
  58. What an awful situation to be in, reading this blog has opened my eyes to exactly what has been occurring in the school, under the management of Mrs Gumley-Mason, Mr Murphy and the Trustees. I find it incomprehensible the duration, and the apathy of those in charge not to have stamped the problems out, and to admit their failings. How can the school run democratically without Governors, is this not unlawful? I phoned the ISI this afternoon and was informed that they had been inundated with calls from concerned parents, and are informing the Department of Education as a high priority with regard to the school management. I sincerely hope there will be a swift conclusion for all, and that Mrs Gumley-Mason does the honorable thing and steps down from her position with immediate effect along with Mr Murphy who has not behaved in a gentlemanly and Christian manner.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I do apologise 19.07 - I am incorrect. I will go into the garden and eat worms!

    ReplyDelete
  60. I am appalled at the behaviour of the trustees. The Governors have rightly started a transparent approach to finding the best head for our daughter's school. This I am sure all parents and teachers applaud. I am very tempted to shout "Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish" at this Saturday's school ball where no doubt us parents will be forced to listen to more self centred verbal rubbish from GM. I believe the only way of releasing the school from the clutches of the GMs and Murphys is through embarrassment by shining a light on these individuals. They seem to have no interest in our daughters' education and use the school for their own power games. Us parents really must act by whatever the means the Governors feel they need our support. If I get enough posts I will voice our opinion at the Ball.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I am shocked at the mere thought that, that deceitful, spiteful woman could become a trustee, leave the school alone you have caused enough damage, get yourself a hobby.
    21.05. If you don't want to listen to her at the ball don't go boycott it, I have tickets but after what I have read I will certainly not be attending, as that would make me a hypocrite just like her.

    ReplyDelete
  62. She needs to step down with immediate effect, and so do the Trustees, who can remove the Trustees, who is ultimately responsible for employing them and who are they answerable to?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Does anybody know what the legal footing of the Trust is? Do they not have to publish their accounts and constitution? What can parents do to maintain a voice in this, other than withhold their fees?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Don't go to the Ball that will speak volumes when parents don't turn up and there are empty seats, I for one am not attending, I will not be seen to be associating or supporting her and her regime enough is enough what is there to celebrate?

    ReplyDelete
  65. In answer to your question see the posting @ 15.21

    ReplyDelete
  66. 22:03
    That's wonderful - but it isn't going to happen. At least not simply on your say-so.

    So you have to decide what you're going to do about it.

    ReplyDelete
  67. who are the trustees answerable to?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Ok Jonathon, can you tell me if the ISI or Department of Education can actually do anything? Or are we wasting our time complaining to them.

    ReplyDelete
  69. If I was actually going to the ball, (which I am not due to lack of funds ) I would not be happy to witness such behaviour towards the Gm's, dreadful as their conduct has been and continues to be. If you don't want to celebrate the centenary of the school by means of a ball, then don't go. Don't spoil it for the people who have been looking forward to it.

    ReplyDelete
  70. As I understand it, the Trustees are removable only upon death or incompetence, or if they step down. It's basically a lifetime appointment, and they were appointed by GM years ago when she set up the Trust following the era of the Sisters.

    ReplyDelete
  71. The facts appear to be that the governors were unhappy with the way in which the trustees had written to them, finding the tone of Murphy's letter threatening and patronising, and also unhappy to sign a document that was out-dated and had been breached in multiple instances.
    They submitted requests to the Trustees to vary some clauses of the document, which were no longer applicable. On this basis they felt unable to sign and were not extended the courtesy of accommodation in the school to discuss the matter further. They were told by Murphy they could discuss this in the car-park.
    The decision to sign needed further discussion than was allowed for in a car-park on a winter evening, and upon such discussion they agreed to sign and submitted their signed letters early on Monday morning to the school. They believed the matter then resolved, but Mrs Gumley-Mason, it appears, has sent out a letter saying there are new governors in place, although not announcing who they are.

    ReplyDelete
  72. 19.53 GMs just back in Rathgar now.

    ReplyDelete
  73. The ISI can probably do nothing, except pass it up the line to the DfE.

    The DfE probably will do nothing unless there is strong evidence of some legal wrongdoing. I don't think sacking the governors counts. They are probably entitled to do that provided they replace them within a reasonable period of time.

    The Charity Commission can intervene, if they think some charity law has been broken or if they consider that the trustees have acted recklessly in terms of the reputation or financial stability of the charity, or have imperilled the ability of the charity to meet its charitable objectives. You can call them and see.

    Provided you continue to pay the fees and send your children there, I suspect that the charity commission is unlikely to intervene. I might be wrong, but I would say don't count on intervention.

    So the situation is very simple:


    You have no rights.


    Therefore, if you're going to achieve anything, you're going to have to do it by politics.

    You can all write to Murphy expressing your opinion and asking him to step down. Then you will have to decide what to do if and when he shows no sign of doing so.

    At this point, you have three choices.

    1. Accept that you have no rights and carry on as if nothing has happened

    2. Move your children to another school

    3. Try the escrow account idea. The only thing that you can do is choke off the school's supply of money until the trustees start to be reasonable.

    I don't know if it will work, I'm not a lawyer. You need to find one who can advise you. I recommend that you do so immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  74. In the current situation there is, unfortunately, only one option - galvanise the parents and send a clear message to the trustees that the status quo is unacceptable. I can't imagine that the trustees wanted to get into this situation, they stumbled into it through their own incompetence - most of them have been retired for at least 10 years - they're completely out of touch and not the type of trustees this school deserves!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Hello 22:36. I don't think Mrs G-M set up the Trust, though she may have a grip on it. I believe it was set up in 1941. Accounts are viewable up to 2008 online.

    ReplyDelete
  76. The problem is that nobody wants their card marked...... There are too many parents in the school who whinge and moan and do nothing. As parents we are witness to a frenzied activity on this blog and on our emails backwards and forwards from one class to another, but nobody has stepped out of their comfort zone and actually made an appointment to try to see GM and her cronies. A few have written letters but it is just that - a few. This will not work and I am as guilty as the rest....... Having just returned from the meeting at Benedict's where I did speak out, when push comes to shove, you're on your own.........

    ReplyDelete
  77. Amazing how things have moved - what a roller-coaster. The drip drip of lies and discontent gradually building to the point where her position was apparently untenable. The decision to resign and move on. Good news -tempered only by the fact that she continued to interfere and make appointments and decisions which would extend beyond her departure. Worrying signs.

    However, still think positive - she will be gone soon. Encouraging communications from the Governors about a sub-committee being formed to find the right candidate for the new Head to lead the school into a new phase. New Parent-Governors with solid backgrounds and careers in modern society and up to date with technology and working practices. Mrs GM apparently allowing them to make progress. It all seemed so positive for the long-term.

    And now – this sorry state of affairs. You have to hand it to her – she seems to have sewn everything up so cleverly (aka deviously) that she can still control everything. One has to ask why though? Why is she so desperate to remain in charge? Surely she would want to move on and put this behind her?

    She did good things for the school once. That will all be forgotten and her reputation forever clouded should this bitter situation continue. She is in cloud-cuckoo land if she thinks it will pass. It won’t.

    Let us hope she comes to her senses and remembers her Christian values. This situation is clearly terrible for the school that she professes to love as well as the children in her care.

    I hope she sees sense and allows the Governors back into position so they can move on with finding the right Head to lift the school up from this low point.

    It goes without saying that Mr Murphy should also depart. He is destroying his own reputation with his amateur barrack-room lawyer posturing.

    A pair of loose cannons doing damage that is quite tragic. I hope they will do what is best for the school and allow the new Governors to bring their experience and enthusiasm to bear helping the school to move on with further delay.

    Please step aside and stop your bitter interfering. There are others who should resign among the Trustees and Governors but I mention the main protagonists only here.

    ReplyDelete
  78. As you discovering parents all too late, when things go wrong in the private system you, the fee paying parents have no rights - none, nix, nada, zip, zero.

    The ISI can and will do nothing. The ISC which owns the ISI, and which represents independent school associations including SHMIS of which St Augustine’s is a member, will also do nothing. The DfE can do very little because this is a private school.

    The only time that the DfE will get involved is relating to safeguarding and serious regulatory failings which the ISI should spot. A Devil in Damart will not raise an eyebrow – eccentric trustees will prompt slumber in them all. The independent schools registration team at the DfE might break wind – but that’s about it. It is a private company and a registered trust. It can do what it likes within reason – and that is what you are complaining about – not a breach of regulations.

    Financial mismanagement will prompt some action by the charity commission.

    Otherwise moms and pops – you are on your own. Welcome to the OK Coral of the education. Private schools are fiefdoms and parents have no rights and no powers.

    So we are back to getting parents together to effect change because the power you have lies in the lifeblood fees you pay to the school for the commercial services they provide to a member of your family. As indicated earlier, a tourniquet can be very motivational particularly if there is a group of like minded no nonsense parents who will not blink. You’ve got nothing else – you better start getting organised.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Well thank the good Lord that some one is! Watch this space !

    ReplyDelete
  80. 22:33
    What exactly is there to look forward to?

    ReplyDelete
  81. 23:19 - Yes, there is a 1941 Trust, and then there was a new trust set up in 2002. That refers to the 1941 Trustees, so I assume they are the nuns, although I don't know that for certain.

    But I believe the 2002 Trust, which now governs the school, was organised by Mrs G-M, and all the trustees were chosen by her.

    There is no doubt that over the years, Mrs Gumley-Mason has done much for the school. But she and the Trustees are now stepping in the way of progress that we all know would be heartily welcomed at the school.

    One might ask, "why is she so concerned about the appointment of her successor" if she is leaving in a few short weeks?

    I don't know her motivations. And that, I suppose is the problem. We were promised a fresh outlook, representation of the parents, and more transparency when we elected parents governors. And now these have been removed, along with the only governors any of us know or recognise by face.

    The new headteacher will be chosen by the Trustees and new governors, who have been personally put in place by Mrs G-M over the last few days. We will know nothing of the process, and will therefore always wonder if we got the best candidate or simply someone somehow connected to the Powers That Be.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Think about it: The Headmistress, who is retiring in a matter of weeks, orchestrated, via the Trustees, the removal of virtually the entire Board of Governors, who had been working hard to find a replacement head teacher.

    Why?

    We've all been waiting for our letter from Mrs Gumley-Mason (why didn't she use ParentMail?), but I have seen it and can tell you it is a marvel of fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  83. It is already in circulation.

    It is an own goal to end all own goals!

    At last Gumley-Mason shows her true colours to the parents IN WRITING!

    ReplyDelete
  84. It's time for you, the parents, to get together and decide what sort of school you want for your children. Whether the behaviour of the head and the trustees is a model that you want for your children.

    If you don't, then you have to stand up and do something about it, together. No leaving it to others. If you do nothing, you will get the school you deserve, not the school you want.

    If you do nothing, then you won't get a good new head, because no competent headteacher is going to want to come into such a poisoned atmosphere. Experienced heads these days want and expect to see a sound and functioning governance structure around them which has parental support.

    If you do nothing, staff morale will slump and the best teachers will leave, and so academic standards will drop.

    If you do nothing, those who tried to do something and failed for lack of support will be taking their children out of the school. If they are not quickly replaced, the income of the school will fall and so cutbacks in staff and materials will have to be made.

    Doing nothing means that things will get worse.

    ReplyDelete
  85. If the trustees collectively own the school (land and buildings)as per the previewed letter under what legislation can we force any action? The new Governors were trying to create the school we as parents wanted and because of this they were removed!

    ReplyDelete
  86. I agree, schools get the governance they deserve.....GM has been there for years, no one challenged her, she has grown into this tyrant due to the acquiescence of parents. Now is your chance, be brave, be bold - put your heads above the parapet - push for the change you want!

    The governors who were removed should form a committee, backed by the parents and start making alot of noise. NOW IS THE TIME !

    ReplyDelete
  87. In law the trustees case is watertight, there are no legal grounds for removing them. They have breached the trust of parents, they have acted against the best interests of the children at the school, but their legal case to be trustees is sound. Putting school fees into an escrow account could be challenged in the courts and could result in pupils being excluded for non-payment of fees.

    The real fight with the trustees is about hearts and minds - do they have the will for a fight? Can the parents,1000 of them, be mobilized to put there anger across - vigils outside the school, mobilization of the media, silent vigils outside trustees homes, letters to MPs, Ministers, the Church! Do the Trustees want this, I think not! This will be a battle of wills, ultimately the trustees want an easy life if you want change then concerted action is necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Maybe it's time to involve the media as we need some urgent action and publicity. And please, elected ex governors, organise a parents meeting urgently. You have already been given the support of the parents by being elected.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Should the Diocese of Westminster not be informed to this appalling state of affairs!

    ReplyDelete
  90. 09;53

    I agree the Media might give them the jolt back to reality they need.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Look, if you think the media need to be informed, call them. You don't need anybody;s permission, and the more calls the newsdesk of any particular organisation gets, the more likely they are to believe there is something behind it.

    Likewise the ISI, the DfE the Charity Commission and the diocese. Call them. At the very least it can stir them into action. Don't rely on others to do it for you, that way everybody will expect others to do it and nobody will actually do anything.

    Remember that one of the sacked governors is Deacon Anthony Clark, who is a diocesan inspector! There is no chance that he would have been refusing to act in accordance with his duties as a governor.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Aren't we the parents supposed to vote in new Governor's?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Photos of the GM's partying on Saturday will be akin to 'Nero fiddled whilst Rome burned'. What is there to celebrate? She is destroying our school all because of her over inflated delusions of grandeur!

    ReplyDelete
  94. Did she resign in order to quietly sneak in as trustee, but then it all backfired as the governors took too long to sign the document. By showing that they were suddenly capable of 'backbone' she got rid of them, its amazing what getting your daughter out of the school can do for spinal regeneration. GM is suffering from Megalomania and thus the school is suffering as a result! She really has to go before she does any more damage!

    ReplyDelete
  95. try James Gates @ Ealing Gazette, I'm sure he'd appreciate the contact he wrote many of the articles on St Benedicts. But hurry, copy deadline looming!
    0208 600 7004

    jamesgates@trinitysouth.co.uk

    ReplyDelete
  96. Well her letter tells us absolutely nothing, just waffling on about matters that haven't been questioned.
    Who are the new Governors more friends of hers i expect, aren't we the parents supposed to have a say.....
    The situation goes from bad to worse, and Gumley don't think us parents are at all concerned about your departure, best thing that could happen to the school.

    ReplyDelete
  97. First page full of your usual clap trap, you are not funny in fact it is tedious and boring reading the tripe you insist on sending us.
    Why does every single letter how ever important starts with such trivial nonsense grow up!

    ReplyDelete
  98. I'm not sure if the St Augustines story has got quite the same punch as the St Benedicts affair, if served up as a story before any of the major broadsheet newspapers. It might come across as a rather petty Barchester Towers-type squabble as opposed to something which rocks a major institution such as the Catholic Church. Any journalists beg to differ? Anyone involved with the media have any thoughts on this? Maybe on the back of the St Benedicts story the "another Catholic school in turmoil" approach might be enough to get the media interested. It is in many respects similar to the St Benedicts story in that layers of opaque behaviour and secrecy, cronyism and possible corruption, are being gradually pulled away.

    ReplyDelete
  99. 12:40
    Couldn't agree more. Gumley masons usual rubbish. Is it true that a protest is being organised outside the Millennium Hotel in Mayfair on Saturday night? If so count me!

    ReplyDelete
  100. Will Gumley Masons chum, Fr.Gregory Chillman be attending the centenary celebrations at the millennium Hotel on Saturday?

    ReplyDelete
  101. I was expecting a letter regarding The Board of Governors instead we get a letter talking about dinosaur eggs and Child Protection, is she for real what is she covering up now?
    Who are the new Governors? Were did she find them? aren't parents supposed to have some input?

    ReplyDelete
  102. 13:09
    Wouldn't be surprised, after all she invited him to the Carol Service even though he had been banned from contact with children! Remember this woman believes that she is totally above the law!!

    ReplyDelete
  103. Who are the new Governors?

    I have not seen my letter yet as she has chosen not to use email - doubtless another delaying tactic. It isn't included on the website under the "Headmistress letters" section either (surprise, surprise.......)

    Would any kind soul be able to list the names of the newly-inflcited Governors on this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  104. The letter should have included the names of the new Governors why didn't it?
    Her letter had all the trademarks of her i've got something to hide, waffling on about things that aren't relevant at this moment in time.

    ReplyDelete
  105. New Governors include Sooty (easy to manipulate and he can only squeak anyway), Mother Teresa (she's dead so shouldn't cause much trouble), Andrew Mason (just as a non-partisan observer you understand), Nancy dell'Olio ( recently kicked off Strictly Come Dancing, and she's a lawyer you know) and the owner of Cherry Pye Exotic Clothing Store (to bring a bit of much-needed fun to governors meetings)

    ReplyDelete
  106. I understand quite a few people were called on Saturday to ask them to be Govenors?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Existing parents? Or others?

    ReplyDelete
  108. I suspect that the 'new governors' haven't really been selected yet, hence no listing of names. She's probably on the prowl seeking sycophants to fill the posts asap! She might even appoint her chum, Chillman as Child Protection Officer!

    ReplyDelete
  109. I can't believe that, we had perfectly good Governors in place, and they are being replaced by people who received quick phone call, desperation comes to mind as Governors needed to be in place by Monday morning.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Love the choice of Governors! 14:12

    ReplyDelete
  111. She didn't call me. Should I be offended? I am probbably ineligible to be fair (being under the age of 75).

    ReplyDelete
  112. Why do no parents actually confront GM and Murphy?
    You have every right with regard to her decision making and how she justifies herself. Its all very well posting on this Blog your displeasure, actions speak louder than words. She is to leave at the end of this term, you as parents have to make a stand for your children and confront Mrs GM. Things will never change until this happens and you stand up to her bullying antics!

    ReplyDelete
  113. 15:07 - It's because you can't spell...

    ReplyDelete
  114. How embarrassing is it to have GM phone to ask you to be a governor?

    ReplyDelete
  115. We parents know that if we complain individually then GM will make our daughters lives a misery! She is a bully.GM makes the girls curtsey to her if they meet GM in the school corridor! Totally ridiculous, she is quite unbelievable! New parents often glow about her, but slowly the real GM surfaces and parents quickly lose their enthusiasm for her. The only way to change the school is as a united group and put elected parent governors in control. This will only be achieved by exposing GM and her old cronies to the wider public as she will not release control quietly. Sadly poor St Augustine’s will need to be dragged through the mud.

    ReplyDelete
  116. It is quite beyond me that the Head is the person seeking the governors. It is like the CEO of a PLC seeking the board of Directors who are meant to hold him to account. But of course they won't becasue she is leaving. Perhaps she is becoming a consultant to the Trust? Has anyone considered this?

    I know this woman departs in just a few weeks, so the letter and the events we are witnessing are motivated by something else. The question is what?

    Welcome to the "hallucinogenic" world of St Augustine's Priory - twinned with Los Angeles.

    ReplyDelete
  117. she is probably trying her utmost to recruit her old cronies and gullible parents as she does need two at least on the board. Our phone is on permanent answer phone, I rather like your idea 14:12.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Mud washes off and memories are almost as short as attention spans. Your thrust though 16.44 is correct - fail to get together - then you may as well start looking elsewhere for your daughters.

    I hear there may be an opportunity shortly for an exchange of ideas among like-minded parents. Here's hoping.

    ReplyDelete
  119. What a surprise Gumley Mason was an Advisory Governor at St. Benedict's, she obviously taught them well, look at all the deceit and secrecy now surrounding St. Augustine's.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Look at Gumley Mason - her early career built on associations with Kit Cunningham allowing her to move up in the Catholic writers' guild and he then married her and baptised her children, then her association with Soper and Pearce who appointed her Head of St Augustine's, where she then went on to support Chillman and allowed him there even when on restricted ministry. The email she sent out was total rubbish. I saw him at the Christmas service. Add to this the problems with CRB checks and then Teacher A and Teacher B where she had failed to act decisively, as well as all the allegations of bullying made on this blog. And the lies.

    I will never understand how someone who is a mother could allow children to be put at risk.

    ReplyDelete
  121. 16:54 Agree with you. Also look at 15 November 09:47

    ReplyDelete
  122. What is really concerning me is the fact that the new Governors have not been named, are there actually any Governors appointed, and how can we find out?

    ReplyDelete
  123. LBC Radio 97.3 - Nick Ferrari would be a good one to contact. Lead his researchers to this blog perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  124. 17.56 - Yes but I mean a paid consultant to the Trust. In such a role she would almost be untouchable.

    ReplyDelete
  125. I’ve just heard that the parents Governor’s have just been re-instated? Is Mrs Gumley Mason backing down? Will she leave gracefully after all? What about Mr Murphy resigning?

    ReplyDelete
  126. The Diocese have intervened and the Governors have been reinstated.

    Going to the media is not the answer as it can do more harm than good for the school, think what damage it will do to your children and staff moral as it has done in St Benedict's.

    As parents and staff we are united and progress has been made, but we must continue with professionalism and commitment

    ReplyDelete
  127. Yes, very good news that the governors have been reinstated.

    Parents made a difference here. And let's hand it to the staff who have been very strong in support of the ousted governors -- they can't have been in a good place lately. The stress must be unbelievable there. They deserve our thanks, wholeheartedly!

    But let's not be complacent. There are still many concerns as to the legal structuring of the governance of the school, and, I am sure, questions from the parent body about recent events.

    I've heard there is to be a meeting on Friday for parents. I'll be there!

    ReplyDelete
  128. But seriously, our plea:

    Can someone pls confirm that:
    - there is or are a married Mr & Mrs Murphy as Trustees of St Aug?
    -that Mr Murphy Chair of Trustees has been trustee since 2002,or was he in power before incorporation too?
    - that the Trustees are to resign in rotation but are able to be, & have then been, reelected ie in officio in perpetuity ad infinitem..forever & ever?
    - that presently only the Trustees themselves can vary the Deed?
    -& please oh please will the Diocese, or our Bishop Trustee, not intervene & remedy this archaic & unchristian structure from within & regain the faith we Augustinians once had?

    ReplyDelete
  129. It's interesting because the governors were never appointed according to Murphy, they had not signed the governance dictat document, so how can they be reinstated?

    It's black smoke. Let's see the detail.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Mr Murphy needs to resign and Gumley must never be allowed to hold a position of power within the school again, she has been proven to be a liar and a bully.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Her letter to parents was black smoke too - rambling on about things that are not what we have been asking for answers to.

    The jolly hockey-sticks intro was tired and a sign that we were not going to get proper answers. We are bored with her failure to provide straight answers.

    The brief bit that covered the archaic set up of the school and the ownership and governance structure raised more questions than produced answers. It looked like a copy and paste job to me from something prepared by a solicitor at further expense.

    As for the unprofessional and vile suggestion that she has been very busy with staff jockeying for position post her departure...utter tripe and contemptible. She is trying to divide and rule once again but it seems she has lost nearly all her supporters among parents and staff alike. She has no mandate any more (apart from Mr and Mrs Murphy).

    She has shown her true colours and everyone would like her to go and let the school move on now. She must stop hampering progress. Let us hope the Diocese can make her see sense - no-one else has managed to thus far. The weight of opinion on this blog and letters and phone calls to the school and authorities have all played their part.

    We need to keep the pressure on so the Diocese remains interested. I am sure they don’t want more bad publicity given what has been going on at St Bens.

    The sensible suggestion that we should remain professional and dignified is right. Publicity from local press and TV will only damage our school and prevent us getting a good new Head.

    ReplyDelete
  132. The Diocese or, rather, Archbishop Vincent is on record as saying that they have no jurisdiction - in ecclesiastical terms - over Ealing Abbey. I wrote to AB Vincent asking him if this meant that the Benedictines were not, after all, Roman Catholics but in fact some breakaway order answerable to nobody but their own hierarchy. His Gracelessness didn't reply. My point here, speaking as an OP with memories of St Augustine's, is that the Diocese is about as useful as tits on a bull from your collective viewpoint. As for the suggestion that media attention will damage your interests, this is an unworkable argument. If publicising what has gone on there damages the school ands prevents any respectable teachers from applying to work there, this surely demonstrates that you have a serious problem on your hands as parents funding St Augustine's. Meanwhile, your daughters remain at risk.

    ReplyDelete
  133. About SIXTY members of staff signed a letter of support for the ousted governors.
    Readers may draw their own conclusions about what this now means for Gumley-Mason's ability to lead the staff (in particular having criticised them to parents in writing) and the security of her position. We await with interest the letter of apology for her behaviour; methinks we may wait a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  134. To all the staff who signed the letter - well done.

    It is rare for staff to get together in this way, and an indication of the depth of feeling that exists against the current regime headed by the Murphy's who are having their strings pulled by Gumley Mason.

    The archane structure of Trustees and Governors is unhealthy and would wisely be removed although I accept this will take a time because of the challenge involved in removing the grip the Trustees have on the company. It could well be a long war with many problems along the way.

    One of the first places the Governors may wish to consider looking, provided the instrument of Government permits which I somehow doubt, is the finances of the place which naturally centres on the bursars office.

    There are reasons for these recent events, and an the Governors would wisely get to the bottom of it all.

    ReplyDelete
  135. I do wonder why this has been so viciously fought from the G-M's and Trustees point of view, considering they don't have girls at the school?

    As parents, we want what is best for our girls and their education. This must surely include transparency and due process which, in these current times, necessitates the ability to stand up to scrutiny?

    ReplyDelete
  136. Well, well things are changing....apparently Governors re-instated 20.28 comment!

    But, how did we get here, how did this all start, how do we stop it happening again?

    It would appear that the structures for Governorship at St Augustine's are archaic.

    see Companies House - webcheck - St Augustine's and for £1 you can download Articles Association 2002 - worth a read! The trustees are there forever - re- nominate themselves every year - average age mid 70's - out of touch!

    While you are there, school accounts 2010 also £1, v. interesting read...is GM really paid that much??!?

    Why did the trustees/governors not suspend the member of staff responsible for child protection when an excluded priest was allowed in the school?

    What actions did they take against the person responsible?


    The trustees/governors owe a duty of care to every child in the school, why did they not exercise it?

    The answers to these questions are broadly the same, they were answerable to GM, not the other way round. Oh, and she was/is responsible for child protection!!

    Without major changes in the governance of the school ie the structures that the Trustees operate within then we could be facing similar problems in years to come.

    The Church as such, has no direct legal control over St Augustine's much the same as St Benedict's, but they have huge influence.What we need, as parents, is that the Archbishop exercises that authority and ensures that the trust governoring St Augustine's is updated and bought into the modern age. The Carlile report was very clear in recommending new styles of governance that could help avoid similar child protection issues arising in the future.We need transparency, due process, representation...is this really too much to ask for? Why doesn't the Archbishop use his influence to make sure this happens, make St Augustine's a beacon for these new methods and let the school move on.

    Unfortunately, it is only with the Archbishops support and influence that these changes we all seek are realisable.

    Please take 5mins out of your busy days and contact him, let him know your concerns, ask for his support, because things could move very quickly...

    Write to him, call him, email him

    Archbishop Vincent Nichols
    Vaughan House,
    46 Francis Street,
    London SW1P 1QN

    020 7798 9033
    archbishop@rcdow.org.uk

    And,if this doesn't produce results in the next few days, we'll need to escalate things...

    ReplyDelete
  137. One wonders how many members of staff would have signed if they thought that she Wasn't leaving!

    ReplyDelete
  138. Is it true that there will be a protest outside The Millennium Hotel in Mayfair?

    ReplyDelete
  139. At long last we are all fighting back! Teachers, parents standing together. Thank you to the teaching staff who have signed a letter to reinstate the Governors and to go against the Bully, this for our girls and their safety.
    I will be phoning Archbishop Vincent Nichols this afternoon and I hope all parents will do the same.
    Lets rid our girls and ourselves of these odious individuals

    ReplyDelete
  140. f you are a safeguarding aware parent tehre is a very interesting point on Gumley Mason’s letter. I agree with an earlier contributor BTW in also speculating the Q&A section of this letter has been prepared for her by perhaps the school’s solicitors.

    As Headmistress, I am also the School's Designated Safeguarding (Child Protection) Teacher. There is nothing (so far as I know) to say that the Head of a School must take on this role, but I felt that since - as Head - the safeguarding buck stops with me in any case, it made sense for me to take on this responsibility rather than some other member of staff.

    The first two sentences display ignorance of the facts. In all schools the Head by default is responsible for safeguarding if no one else is appointed. Clearly no one else was appointed and so she is appointed by default. Contrary to the suggestion in this, she is not doing anyone any favours by being the DSO.

    Having a Head as the DSO means you have an ineffective DSO. It’s the same as having the Captain also acting as chief engineer. A good DSO needs time to do the job effectively. The Head is also never the easiest person for any pupil to go and see – parents do we all remember going to see the Head when we were children?

    Now imaging going to see Gumley Mason with a secret - the biggest secret any child can have.

    For this and other reasons, the Head is probably the most inappropriate person to be the DSO. Anyone responsible for dishing out punishment cannot be an effective DSO.

    Other claims are made under “regulations” in the letter which I will make comment about when time permits.

    ReplyDelete
  141. 20:28
    Heard that she couldn't get any takers for gov posts, so has decided 'better the devil you know' and re-instated them. These Governors if you recall are the very ones that we were calling ineffectual sycophants, no wonder she wants them back! Let's hope that they have developed some backbone during their suspension!

    ReplyDelete
  142. I'm afraid that your confidence in Archbishop Vincent may be sadly misplaced. The man will not get involved in anything that vaguely resembles trouble. He is an adept political operator who is interested in the advancement of his career. This is why I had major concerns about such a man becoming Archbishop.

    The situation at St. Augustine's is horrendous with that arrogant woman in charge. Unfortunately, I believe that the best hope is to get a strong reforming Head to replace her who has parental support. Ultimately, if the Trustees are in their 70s, they will be keen on an easy life and should be co-operative once GM is removed.

    ReplyDelete
  143. St Benedict's take note. Lord Carlisle was asked specifically were the current Governors and Advisers the correct people to bring the school forward and form part of the new structure.

    He quite clearly said YES. But what did they do in all the years that the abuse continued at the school. Nothing

    ReplyDelete
  144. Lets hope she leaves now after everything she has done, she is an absolute disgrace, she has lied to us parents once again.

    ReplyDelete
  145. What else would he say - they are paying his substantial invoice.

    Having read the report and reflected upon it there are very strong reasons for saying it is more polish than oak and it contains a very significant error at a key clause which demonstrates the extent of his non understanding of safeguarding guidance.

    ReplyDelete
  146. My daughter has been told NEVER to curtsy to GM, it's just plain nonsense. What an over inflated opinion she has of herself. Deluded woman, simply deluded !

    ReplyDelete
  147. By being DSO it meant that she did not have to report it, so that it appeared that bullying or abuse never occured at the school!

    ReplyDelete
  148. Who does she think she is Queen Gumley Mason, how ridiculous. One has to earn respect!

    ReplyDelete
  149. Her ridiculous behaviour is in part due to the sycophants who surround her at the school!

    ReplyDelete
  150. Has the woman no shame, why is she still there she needs to stand down with immediate effect, she has proven that she cannot be trusted.
    Go now and leave the school you pretend to love so, alone you have done nothing but damage a good school with your power mad ways.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't mind the curtseying, at least in the junior school. St Augustine girls are known for being well-mannered and well-behaved, and that is not by accident.

    So let's not get distracted by small things we might find annoying about the school or Mrs Gumley-Mason, and concentrate on important issues, such as:
    1. Will the newly reinstated governors be allowed on the panel to choose the new head teacher?
    2. Will the governing documents allow governors to do their jobs without veto power from the Trustees?

    There are still some real issues here, and now is the time to ensure the school moves forward with grace and purpose. It can and will, as long as parents remain informed and engaged.

    ReplyDelete
  152. So, the governors have been reinstated, and where most of them were GM's chums before, they are now being hailed as heroes. Aren't these the same governors (bar the new two parent governors) who were much derided only a few months ago by all the "Anonymous" writers on this blog?

    I think this blog is an excellent forum to get an update on what's happening at the school as the school itself is obviously not very good at communicating any news or they tend to be half truths at best. However this blog is also unfortunat in that it gets hijacked by a select group which tends to whip up a frenzy based on rumour and anecdotal evidence.

    Let's not forget most of us joined the school purely because of GM, her quirkiness and her ability to run it effectively. We reviewed both St A and NH&E at the same time and felt NH&E was a profit making institution interested in results only whereas ST A was more about bringing up our little girls into mature and sensible adults.

    I think the time is right for GM to move on however let's not treat her like we do our politicians - i.e. forget all the good things they have done and only remember the odd mistake or two.

    I for one will be sad to see her go but am looking forward to a new and exciting era at St A with a new head, a bunch of governors with a bit of a back bone and trustees who are waking up to their responsibilities.

    Let's not destroy this school through in-fighting as the alternatives are far and few in between. NH&E (all about results, kicked out if your child is below average), Harvington (good school but in a house with grounds the size of a postage stamp) or St B (see press!). As for the state schools, the less said the better.

    signing this as anonymous in case someone somewhere is taking notes !

    ReplyDelete
  153. Odd mistake or two are you joking, she's blatantly lied to us, never communicates the facts, and a bully.

    ReplyDelete
  154. must say I broadly agree with 12.03

    We are where we are, how do we go forward should be the focus, looking back doesn't really help. Learning the lessons from the past to make sure it can't happen again is a MUST!

    The old Trustees/Governors aren't inherently evil they are just out of their depth and ill equipped for the role - that's assuming they even are aware of it's requirements. As things move forward what we must ensure is that the Trustees/Governors better reflect the needs of current and future parents. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to achieve this!

    ReplyDelete
  155. 12.03
    This was the only all girls' Catholic school in the area for 11-18 year olds. We didn't even consider NH&E. Gumley- Mason wasn't at all 'quirky' as you put it, at our interview. Girls ARE told to leave St Augustines if their GCSEs aren't up to scratch! Totally agree about the Governors, as also posted by 09:45.We have found GM to be a habitual liar, not a healthy attribute in a Head Mistress! Delighted she is leaving, the school will be all the better for her departure!

    ReplyDelete
  156. I certainly didn't choose the school because of GM. She was a concern for me from the start. I DO want my daughter to acheive excellent GCSE grades and to fulfill her potential! The non elected Governors have a lot to answer. Why didn't they control GM? Why did they allow her to be the Child Protection Officer? Which Governor was responsible for Child Protection when Fr Gregory, on restricted ministry, was allowed into our girls'school? Have they stepped down? Why was GM contacting parents to be Governors? Who gave her permission? Why haven't the Governors and Trustees asked her to leave from immediate effect? I do not want her to have any further input into my daughters' education.

    ReplyDelete
  157. well 13:34 not so sure about "the school will be better for her departure", not now that some parents and guvnors' have got the taste for blood. Don't know what it is about 2011 - seems to be the year of protests and toppling of "so-called dictators". I presume the plans for the big sit-in camp outside the annual ball are well underway?

    ReplyDelete
  158. 13.56
    I wonder who you are?

    ReplyDelete
  159. 13:56
    About time some of the parents and governors woke up!

    ReplyDelete
  160. Marvellous - let's reintroduce inertia 13.56 and Frances will waft across during the ball and give you a huge wet kiss as a thank you.

    Now there is a prospect to conjure.

    ReplyDelete
  161. 14:20 - I am an St A parent and concerned just as much as everyone else right now. I also made the comments at 12:03....and having avidly followed this excellent blog for a while, want to ensure this forum discusses real facts and not propogate the rumour mill.

    It is rather annoying when the remarks are so personal at times and am sure rather hurtful to the likes of GM, who after all has devoted a large chunk of her life to this school.. To be honest there is not much difference between what the likes of GM are being accused of and the behaviour of some of the contributors here. Alas, not much I can do about that except share my thoughts.

    Anyways, it seems there is a parents forum at another school this week - which is rather worrying and a shame we can't have it at our own school. In case GM or the trustees are reading this, please take note...(am sure they are reading this !) It is easy to hide behind an anonymous post (like myself here)than show up at this meet, unless everyone wears a hoodie of course ! !

    Is there a secret password to be allowed in?

    ReplyDelete
  162. IT WELL PAST TIME THAT THIS SCHOOL SERVED THE LOCAL COMMUNITY .WHY IS A CHURCH SCHOOL FEE PAYING ANYWAY. WHO DO THEY WANT TO KEEP OUT 'THE POOR!THIS SCHOOL SHOULD NOW CHANGE TO A FREE SCHOOL.THEY COULD THEN AVAIL OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO IMPROVE FACILITIES
    THE JUNIOR SCHOOL AND THE SENIOR SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE DIFFERENT HEAD TEACHERS.ST.A IS NOT A GREAT SCHOOL 50% OF THE PUPILS SCRAPE AND ACCEPTABLE GRADE.FOR THE MONEY NOT ACCEPTABLE THE CHURCH AUTHORITIES COULD SEE IT AS PAYING RESTITUTION

    ReplyDelete
  163. Heard that Mrs G-M now not going to the ball! Hopefully those going can now enjoy the evening.

    ReplyDelete
  164. It is rather annoying when the remarks are so personal at times and am sure rather hurtful to the likes of GM, who after all has devoted a large chunk of her life to this school.. To be honest there is not much difference between what the likes of GM are being accused of and the behaviour of some of the contributors here.
    Personally I think You're nuts!

    ReplyDelete
  165. Have just made a few phone calls to other local schools in the West London area. All whom I have spoken to have been innundated with calls from St A parents looking to move their daughters. Well done Mrs GM for trying to bring down the school.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Regarding GM "devoting" a large chunk of her life to the school - look at the accounts and work out her possible salary! Either the teaching staff are greatly overpaid or GM (and the gardener) took a v handsome salary!

    ReplyDelete
  167. 15:53
    I try to allow as many comments through as possible, in order to give people the chance to assess the strength of feeling involved. I delete the more obvious name-calling ones, and I delete those which are telling obvious untruths. But as far as possible, I publish everything on all sides of the argument, both pro- and anti-GM.

    ReplyDelete
  168. 14.49 Anyways, it seems there is a parents forum at another school this week - which is rather worrying and a shame we can't have it at our own school.

    Well if it was held @ St Augustine's, Murphy would turn up with a solicitor and sling everybody out.

    ReplyDelete
  169. 15:53
    I also think 14:59 has got it so wrong. Is s/he
    really a parent at the school or is this just another sidelining exercise to keep us from discussing the real issues?

    ReplyDelete
  170. 15.53

    I have no sympathy at all for Gumley Mason and if these remarks hurt her so be it, you obviously do not understand the pain and suffering she has caused.

    ReplyDelete
  171. It's a shame that we actually NEED a parents meeting! Mrs GM and her Trustees have created this need! It is a shame that we need to go elsewhere to air our views and be listened to!

    ReplyDelete
  172. Heard that GM IS going to the ball and has spread a rumour to the contrary. Wonder why? Maybe she's worried that 14:59 will turn up in a hoodie!

    ReplyDelete
  173. Mr West Sorry, I posted the blog at 15:53 and forgot to put quotation marks on 14:59's posting.It should have read
    14:59
    "It is rather annoying when the remarks are so personal at times and am sure rather hurtful to the likes of GM, who after all has devoted a large chunk of her life to this school.. To be honest there is not much difference between what the likes of GM are being accused of and the behaviour of some of the contributors here".
    Personally I think You're nuts!

    ReplyDelete
  174. 14:59
    FGM has consistently lied to the parents and staff. She paid herself and her husband extraordinary salaries from the parents purses for the last 17 years!
    So for you to say " To be honest there is not much difference between what the likes of GM are being accused of and the behaviour of some of the contributors here." .......Is totally outrageous!

    ReplyDelete
  175. What reputable candidate for the headmistress' job would apply for it after reading some of the hysterical and venomous comments on here? Talk about a poisoned chalice!

    ReplyDelete
  176. 16.57
    I totally agree with everything you say.
    And 17.26 How dare you judge us we are speaking the truth, if you don't like it, Tough.
    Anyone applying for the job will do their research and realise they will have a challenge on their hands after the Mess Gumley has left, they will also realise us the parents really care about St.Augustine's.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Gumley Masons one supporter obviously commenting.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Poisoned chalices present huge opportunities for ambitious people. Far better to go into a dispeptic school than takeover from a brilliant head, which we have certainly not had.

    Alleged "hysterical and venomous" comments have arisen as a result of the lies we have all been peddled, and which let's not forget, were revealed to us by this blog. People are angry and that anger is understandably being expressed.

    The problem has been identified and is in the process of being addressed, there may be secondary infections, but with the patient in intensive care the prognosis is improving.

    ReplyDelete
  179. 1657, It really isn't much use to post on this blog that FGM and AM have 'extraordinary salaries' without saying what those salaries are.

    1622, don't you think you should be specific about what that 'pain and suffering' you claim FGM has caused are?

    1630, what is the point of your posting?

    I am concerned that at this potentially distressing time for parents and girls, this blog is generating more heat than light.

    Please, if you have useful information to share, then do so.

    But don't treat this valuable forum as an opportunity for unsubstantiated alarmism, which helps absolutely noone.

    ReplyDelete
  180. 18.55

    Aren't we defensive, I wonder why? The blog has done nothing but inform us of what has been happening at St. Augustine's, something Mrs GM should have done. If she had been honest from the start this blog would not have materialised, it's her own fault.
    Your concern is overwhelming, don't read it if it so distressing, and I think you will find everything printed on the blog is the truth, which is obviously hard for to comprehend.

    ReplyDelete
  181. How can anyone defend this woman, she has bought this upon herself - you reap what you sow!

    Was she concerned about child protection issues? NO

    Was she concerned about her own reputation? YES

    That's why she sought judicial review regarding the ISI report rather than sort out the problems. Hence, when the second report was published months later the same issues were still unresolved. Is this the kind of person you want running the school, with your daughters going to it? NO


    Is she fit to run the school? NO

    What of the trustees and governors to whom she reports and is accountable,they ran scared of her and are now scurrying around seeking legal advice. A little late I would suggest!!

    And we are supposed to feel sorry for this lot? NO, NO, NO

    ReplyDelete
  182. 18.55 please read the preceding post @ 18.52. Let's all reduce the volume to 3 and use future forums positively. Tempers are understandably charged but clear, calm and collected action and thinking is required.

    ReplyDelete
  183. .Don't get sucked in to many of these comments made by people who don't have children at the school. If you are a genuine parent then you know the existing head has 4 weeks left at the school, in the meantime we have wonderful Mrs Wilson.

    St A's is a beautiful school and its run by dedicated deputy heads and commited teachers. My girls would not want to be anywhere else and they have a sibling else where very near by, with a different experience.
    Yes there is change but isn't that a good thing. The school is a treasure to any prospective head to uncover.
    If you are genuine parents posting please don't be short sighted, or negative, St Augustine's hasn't had much support from its local parish in ealing, who have their own agenda.

    Our strenght is us the parents and staff - That's what makes our school special.

    ReplyDelete
  184. 18:55

    Good to know that you are reading this...

    ReplyDelete
  185. What we may be sure of is that Mrs Gumley Mason is retiring. That seems to be a 'sensible decision' on her part.
    What we are not sure of is who will be the next permanent head.
    What we need to be sure of is that this whole sorry mess can never happen again.
    What we need is to know that our newly reinstated governors have put in place proper checks and balanced to ensure it cannot.
    Mrs Gumley Mason is not the problem, she is the manifestation of it. She is not the disease, she is the symptom.

    Governors - put in place those checks and balances for the sake of the future of the school.

    Parents and staff - support your governors in this task.

    ReplyDelete
  186. 1936, I am not defending FGM, and I agree with you that this blog is performing a useful service.

    My point is that at this time it would be better to be clear-headed and practical.

    It would be really useful to find some informed suggestions on how things might develop from here.

    Are there known better models for school Trust / Governor relationships to be structured?

    Are there precedents for parent power being translated into constitutional reform, or influencing the appointment of a new head?

    Is there, frankly, any point at this stage in agitating, or would it be wiser to let the dust settle?

    If the Trustees are legally and practically immoveable, then perhaps we'd better get used to them.

    If they can be moved and reformed, it would be good to hear some ideas about how.

    I don't believe this is a news story, and I think it very important that the poor staff of the school have a chance to recover and get on with the largely very good job they do of educating our daughters.

    FGM is going. Rather than wasting time on the rights and wrongs of that, we should be focusing on the future, and how we strike a balance between shaping it, and living with it.



    (1855)

    ReplyDelete
  187. 20:28
    Retiring?! We heard that she was pushed and he was suspended (on full pay)!

    ReplyDelete
  188. We are allowed to write as we find. The school has a head teacher who seems totally incapable of telling the truth. Who squanders our school fees on frivolous lawsuits and unless you are a sycophant, treats us with contempt! Very few of us are members of the glee club so
    Don't tell us how we must feel, thank you very much!!

    ReplyDelete
  189. The concern is that the existing governors and trustees are not cabable of implementing the correct checks , balances and procedures. If they were we would not be here now! They have the legal authority to run the school, the headteacher reports to them. Everything that has gone wrong should have been dealt with by them. They chose not to act. Do you really want to give them another chance?

    ReplyDelete
  190. Sorry if this has been answered in the last half of the above comments, but...

    Is this Murphy the same chap who used to teach R.E. at St B's ?

    ReplyDelete
  191. 21:29
    There are quite a few new governors, for instance Prof Bennett, Deacon Clark and the two elected parent governors. They were in no way responsible for the decisions about the lawsuit, because they weren't governors at the time.

    We don't know who made that decision or who knew about it at the time. It is a question that would be worth asking.

    ReplyDelete
  192. I agree with anonymous 17th November 20.21. As a parent with girls who have been at the school for several years I feel I have to comment.

    The current teachers are hard working and committed. I have asked my girls if they want to change schools, the response is a definitive no. We only have 4 weeks to wait before Mrs Wilson can take over the role. And I have, after last nights meeting, absolute confidence in the Board of Governors and staff to do the right thing for our girls and the school when the current head leaves.

    With this foundation to build on I am confident that the right person will look on the Head Teacher Vacancy as a desirable position.

    ReplyDelete
  193. The worst will be over soon.We will have a New Head who will bring fresh hope to the school teachers and parents.Let's look forward to a positive start with the excellent work of the governors.I attended the meeting last friday and was impressed we have such a caring and professional group of parent governors.They spoke of how to move ahead and had such as a positive outlook.I commend their efforts.

    ReplyDelete