St Augustine's governance

The following email has gone out to staff & parents

We are writing to you following the letter from the Headmistress dated 15th November 2011 in which she, amongst other matters, discussed the governance of the School.

The Trustees have confirmed the appointment of the incumbent Governors.  The Governors are:-

Professor A.P. Hemingway (Chair)
Dr. M. Barnard
Professor G. Bennett
Mrs. F. Carey
Deacon A Clark
Dr. M. Dowling-Brannigan
Mrs. A. Kendall
Mrs. C. Phillips

We confirm that the first priority, led by the appointments sub-committee of the Governing Body and TES (Times Educational Supplement), is to continue the search for a new Head Teacher of the highest calibre.

The Governors, with the unreserved support of the Trustees, are committed, with appropriate advice and assistance, to review and update where necessary the Instrument of Government to ensure it provides effective transparent and accountable governance.  This process will commence immediately.  Amongst other objectives, it is hoped that this will prevent the recurrence of the difficulties recently experienced in the relationship between Governors and Trustees.

The Diocese of Westminster, although not having any direct involvement in the School’s governance, has also pledged its support and assistance.

We are committed to build on the School’s undoubted achievements, to continue and build on that success and to support the dedicated and professional Staff in providing education of the highest quality to the Pupils.

Yours faithfully,

Professor Anne Hemingway
Chairman of Governors

David Murphy
Chairman of the Trustees

Mrs Catherine Wilson
Acting Headmistress Elect

A few things here worth noting.

First, whoever was behind the attempt to oust the governors has been decisively defeated, both in terms of the governors' continued presence and in the acknowledgement of the need to review the governance arrangements. All the governors are back in place.

Second, the governors seem to have regained control over the process of appointing the new headteacher.

Third, this outcome appears to have the support of the diocese.

Fourth, it is interesting to note whose signature is absent from the email!

There have been comments on previous articles concerning the past willingness of the governors simply to go along with what Mrs Gumley Mason requested. That criticism can be made of their past behaviour. I'm not sure that it is entirely fair: if they genuinely believed that Mrs Gumley Mason's proposals were in the interest of the school, then it is reasonable for them to accept them. And it is normally a reasonable assumption that a headteacher's proposals are both well-informed and in the interests of the school he or she is head of.

However, since the publication of the ISI report, it seems to me that the governors have recently shown appropriate degrees of independence and professionalism and have managed to get to grips with the difficult situation resulting from the ISI's criticisms, Mrs Gumley Mason's subsequent announcement of her retirement and other recent events. So, whatever criticisms there may be of their past approach, it seems to me that their present approach is clearly working in the interest of the school. And that is what matters the most right now.

I suspect that there has been a whole lot of work going on in the background which hasn't been communicated in parent emails and other public communications. As far as possible, I suggest that the governors communicate more of this background work to the parents. Sorting out the appointment of the new head and the various other issues facing the school is a complex task, and the parents are going to be greatly reassured by open communication of the work that is going on. If it turns out that some task is taking longer than expected because of some unanticipated difficulty, then it is better for the parents to be told so they can understand the issues. The trust of the parents in the school has taken a battering over the last few months and an implemented policy of openness and transparency on the part of the governors can do more than anything else to earn that trust back.

The governors are back

Well, I think we all now know that the St. Augustine's governors have been reinstated. It seems that the fuss kicked up by parents phoning in all directions has had an effect.

But the turnaround didn't happen until after a quite extraordinary letter had been sent out by Mrs Gumley Mason to all parents, presumably with the authority of the Mr Murphy, the chairman of trustees. A copy of the letter has of course been passed to me (a number of copies in fact) and it is worth quoting a few key paragraphs.

The latest rumour is that all the School's Governors have been sacked; that, consequently, the School is in breach of various (unidentified but numerous) regulations, that we may have to close and so on, with hair-raising variations and embellishments.

Well, I wouldn't call it a rumour, at the time of writing it was a fact that the governors had been sacked. The business of them not being "confirmed in office" is sophistry. They had been attending governors meetings, some of them for a considerable period of time. Of course they were sacked!

Those sacked included two lawyers, the two recently elected parent governors, and a deacon who is also a diocesan school inspector. If you're going to pick a fight with that group, you had better be very sure of your ground.

What makes a difference, of course, this time around is the fact that I am retiring at the end of this term, and in any independent School the departure of a long-serving Head can create uncertainty and anxiety. Another factor that has not helped the situation is that there has been a certain amount of frenetic jockeying for position by a few members of staff in the run-up to my departure. This has been an unwelcome and unexpected distraction.

And with this, Murphy and Gumley Mason don't merely declare war on the parents by sacking their elected parent governors, they create additional enemies by attacking the staff as well. Even if it were true, it's a really bad strategic move to unite the staff and parents against you. It's a colossal error of judgement, compounding the error made by picking this fight in the first place. And in any case, all other accounts I've heard suggest that this jockeying for position is the purest fiction. There's no point in it. There's one vacancy, for headteacher. It's going to get filled by an open interview process, to which both internal and external candidates can apply. There's no purpose in "jockeying for position", because there aren't any positions to jockey for. Any staff member who wants additional responsibilities will in most cases achieve this by applying for a more senior post at another school.

Then we come to a masterpiece of creative writing, the questions and answers!

Have all the Governors been sacked?
No. A number of Governor appointments, however, were subject to approval by the Directors. The Directors were quite content to confirm the appointments of all those who had been acting as members of the Board of Governors, but made it a condition of their appointment that they (the Governors) would confirm that they would act in accordance with the Instrument of Government. Unfortunately, six individuals did not give this undertaking when asked to do so, and consequently their appointments did not take effect at that time.

That left three Govemors, one of whom has now resigned for family and personal reasons unconnected with the action of the other six. The remaining two are being joined by three appointees (so as to achieve the required quorum of five) who havs agreed to abide by the Instrument of Govemment and who, subject to their confirmation by the Directors, will take office. The Instrument of Government provides for these Governors to appoint two other Governors, and the line-up will be completed by two Parent Governors.

Well, as we all now know, this appointment of unnamed replacement governors didn't happen. But the whole business is utterly ridiculous. It makes the instrument of governance sound as if it is Holy Writ. It isn't, it's a school document, detailing the powers of the governors and certain other aspects of the way the school is run. It should be reviewed at regular intervals in order to ensure that it reflects the situation as it currently exists at the school. But the current instrument of governance hasn't in fact been updated for several years, and is demonstrably outdated and incorrect. The single most obvious flaw is that it doesn't even get the age range of the pupils right - the age range has been extended as a result of the opening of the nursery, but the instrument of governance hasn't been updated to match.

And governors, especially the lawyers among them, know perfectly well that they have act within the powers given to them. Requiring them to sign a letter, in the way it happened seems to have been a deliberate insult, designed to provoke the governors into a refusal and to walk away. Such a letter has never previously been required. So this issue of adherence to the instrument of governance is not the real issue, it is a clumsy pretext for something else altogether.

Why has an advertisement for the new Head not yet appeared in the Times Educational Supplement?
I found out the reason for this over the weekend, when I was telephoned by one of the TES staff dealing with the advertisement. He told me that one of the six (ie one of those who had refused to give an undertaking to comply with the Instrument of Government) had contacted the TES and told them to put the advertisement "on hold". This was done without my knowledge or agreement, and since the individual concerned has no authority to give such an instruction I directed the TES to place the advertisement as soon as possible. (The TES have since told me that the advertisement will appear on November 25th.)

This is highly implausible. If you engage a firm of headhunters for a top job, they do a bit more to earn their money than simply typing up an ad to put in the TES. There's a bit of preparatory work that has to be done first, because you want to ensure that the best possible candidates are minded to apply when the ad is placed. If you engage the services of recruitment specialists, you take their advice on such things. It is extremely unlikely that anybody could possibly take up the post until September, so there is time to do the job properly in order to get the best possible candidates.What matters is not that the ad is placed as early as possible, but that it attracts the best candidates.

It is extremely unprofessional for Mrs Gumley Mason to get involved in any way in the recruitment of her successor. She has no valid interest in the matter. If her primary interest had been the welfare of the school, she would have given a year's notice of her departure so as to avoid the need for an interregnum at all. Of course, Mr. Murphy is aware of the arrangements for recruiting the head including the use of consultant, and yet he must have authorised this precipitate action by Mrs Gumley Mason.

Let's think about Mr Murphy for a moment. I have no idea why he has chosen to pick this fight with the governors. The issue of the instrument of governance was trivial, and an obvious pretext. If had been the real issue, then it could have easily been sorted out with a bit of goodwill and a few phone calls, as between professional colleagues with a common objective. I have no idea what is the issue that he felt required the sacking of the governors and their replacement with appointees. It would be good if he could enlighten us.

Then there is the matter of how he went about it. This showed serious lack of judgement. First, whatever the issue is, it would have been better to get it openly discussed with the governors. It's the obvious course of action - you discuss the problem with colleagues who can help. One has to wonder why he didn't do this.

Then there is the choice of people to pick a fight with. The elected parent governors have a strong mandate, they were voted into their positions. Sacking them without good evidence of misconduct was bound to enrage the parents who participated in the election. Refusing to sign some silly letter to order doesn't even come close to misconduct. Trying to solve the problem, whatever the problem is, by sacking them was seriously unwise.

Then there was the decision to go public with the letter. If there had to be a letter to parents on the subject, Mrs Gumley Mason was the wrong person to write and sign it. She's supposed to report to the governors, not the other way round. If the letter was to be sent at all, it should have been sent out over Mr Murphy's own signature.

Then there was the issue of picking a fight with the staff. It's exceedingly unlikely that the letter was sent without Mr Murphy having looked it over first. So he approved the paragraph that took a pop at the staff. Not clever. Whoever is appointed the new headteacher, and whoever does the appointing, you still need to find ways of minimising the disruption. The last thing you need is to provoke an exodus of your best staff who are mortally offended by the insult. Another seriously bad judgement.

And then finally there is the climbdown. If the replacement of the governors was justified two days ago, it is still justified today, Mr Murphy ought to tell us what that justification is. If it wasn't justified, then the sacking shouldn't have happened in the first place.

And in any case, the ploy has failed. He's failed to shift the governors, he has provoked the ire of the parents, and has undoubtedly lost the respect and confidence of the staff. So, whatever ideas he has for taking the school forward, he's now entirely unable to implement them because he's not got any allies to work with. His only effect he can have by remaining in position is to obstruct the work of others. That's an untenable position. If he has the welfare of the school at heart, he should go.

Chillman and St Augustine's

This email has been sent to all parents of St Augustine's

Dear Parents,

Yesterday an article appeared in the Times (p.27) about Fr Gregory who was our chaplain for many years until he formally retired on October 3rd 2010. He had retired as Chair of Governors in June 2009. Fr Gregory was made aware in April 2010 of an historical accusation against him made by a past pupil of St Benedict’s School. He immediately informed this School and from that time on ceased to undertake any teaching activity at the School or to celebrate the regular weekly Mass. From that date on I had contact with the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI), Ealing Social Services, the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and the Charity Commission regarding both this allegation and an historical allegation from St Augustine’s concerning inappropriate comments made by regarding Fr Gregory in 2004. Although we were advised by the authorities that he could have supervised contact and access to the School

I, together with the Board of Governors, decided for the sake of clarity to bar Fr Gregory from the premises while school was in session. He did participate in the School Carol Service and the Feast Day Mass both public events held at Ealing Abbey. The School has co-operated fully with all relevant authorities regarding these events and will continue to do so as required.

Please note the Central Register of Appointments (CRA), which includes all pre-employment checks and CRBs is regularly updated, is audited every term and was recently comprehensively and positively reviewed by the ISI at their follow up inspection.

Yours sincerely

Mrs F J Gumley-Mason MA (Cantab) Headmistress

This communication is more remarkable for what it doesn't say than for what it does. It was in March 2010 that Chillman resigned as a trustee of St Benedict's and was placed on restricted ministry because of allegations.

I would be very interested to see the minutes of the meeting of the Governors from that time at which it was decided that Chillman should be permitted to continue formally to act as chaplain and governor, and what for what reason they decided against a clean break by simply asking for his immediate resignation, as appears to have occurred with his role as a Trustee of St Benedict's. That hasn't been stated. I'm also curious about how it can be an assistance to clarity that the reasons for the measures taken weren't communicated to the parents at the time.

I also think parents have a right to know more about this incident in St Augustine's in 2004. Did Mrs Gumley Mason know about it at the time? If so, what was done about it at the time? When was a report made to the LADO? What was the advice of the LADO? The relevant correspondence should at a minimum be provided immediately to the governors so that they can discuss it and decide what course of action should be followed.

As for the contact with the Charity Commission and everybody else mentioned, I can and will check that out. The Freedom of Information Act is a wonderful thing. The Charity Commission and Ealing Social Services are both government bodies covered by the Act, and although the ISI is a private organisation, all its papers on St Augustine's have been passed to the DfE since the DfE was added to the court case where the school sought Judicial Review of the ISI's report. The DfE most undoubtedly is covered by the FOI Act. So if it turns out that there has been a little bit of terminal inexactitude in that aspect of Mrs Gumley Mason's email, we will find out in due course.

This bit of Mrs Gumley Mason's email is fascinating: "From that date on I had contact with the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI), Ealing Social Services, the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and the Charity Commission ...". Note that she "had contact with" them. She's not saying that she "made contact with" them. It leaves entirely unstated who initiated the contact. Did Mrs Gumley Mason contact the authorities to report the issue and ask for advice, or did they contact her to ask what on earth was going on? If Mrs Gumley Mason had initiated the contact, I'm sure she would have wanted to say so very clearly.

Again, it seems to me that the relevant correspondence should be provided immediately to the Governors, so that the truth of the matter can be established.

I already have reason to think that Mrs. Gumley Mason's account may be mistaken on certain points. Here is the relevant part of a letter sent by the ISI to Mrs Gumley Mason on 6th December last year, part of the letter describing the outcome of the school's complaint against the ISI.

We would point out that, during the period between the end of the inspection visit and the issuing of the report on 29th September, concerns relating to the role of this individual and the school and the correct reporting of these were raised with ISI by more than one individual. It was necessary for ISI to consider these alongside the issues which arose during the inspection, as agreed with DfE. ISI liaised with Ealing Social Care on these matters, and attended a strategy meeting.

We agree that during the period of time in question, it was not necessary to refer Father GC to the Independent Safeguarding Authority. As Father GC has now resigned rather than resume his posts as Chaplain and Governor, the school should consider whether a referral is now required in line with its own safeguarding policy and the ISA's published guidance.

That indicates that, according to the ISI, it wasn't the school who raised the issue of Chillman with the ISI, but instead it was "more than one individual". I was one of those individuals. It also indicates that the school did not make any reference to the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) at the time.

I'll probably find out anyway via the FOI requests I intend to make.
And when I do, I'll publish it here.

The Governors' letter

A letter was sent by the governors of St Augustine's to all parents on 19 September, and it seems that some changes are afoot.

Just before I proceed to the meat of the letter, let me just address some comments that have been made over the last few days speculating as to whether any governors have resigned. According to the Accounts to July 2010 as they appear on the Charity Commission website, the following governors were in place as of that date.

Brigadier D Cantley OBE (deceased December 2010)
Dr M M Dowling-Branagan BA, MBBCh
Mrs H Grewal BA
Prof A Hemingway
Mrs A B Kendall
Prof G Bennett

Apart from Brigadier Cantley, all the governors listed have signed the most recent letter, and in addition we now have Dr M Barnard, Mrs F Carey, Deacon A Clark, and Mrs C Phillips. So it seems that no governors have resigned.

The letter starts, as one might reasonably expect, by thanking Mrs Gumley Mason for her service. It then goes on to explain that an appointments committee has been set up to manage the appointment of a new headteacher, and that they may work with "external agencies" to get the highest possible calibre of candidate. All very good. The interesting thing is the composition of the appointments committee: Professor Bennett, Dr Barnard, Deacon Clark and Mrs Carey. All new governors appointed or elected within the last year or so. It would appear that there has been something of a changing of the guard, Professor Bennett being the longest-serving governor on the committee having been appointed during the 2009/10 academic year.

They then talk about the transition period. It seems that the announcement of Mrs Gumley Mason's departure has caught the governors somewhat by surprise, since they don't yet have a set of transitional arrangements to announce. It seems to me that the transitional arrangements will need to address two separate phases of the transition. Firstly, whether there are any particular arrangements that need to be made for the remainder of this term while Mrs Gumley Mason works out her notice, and then they will need to consider separately the period between the end of the calendar year and the appointment of the new permanent headteacher.

There are a few things that will need to be sorted out: the appointment of an acting head, the arrangements for support of the acting head by the governors and senior staff, the arrangements for safeguarding, since Mrs Gumley Mason is also the Designated Teacher for Safeguarding. But by and large, there should be no great difficulty over this - a school can manage without a headteacher for a short period in the event of the illness or absence of the head. Any strategic decisions can be deferred, or taken by the governors. And in the meantime, the heads of department and the heads of year get on with the tasks that they already know need to be done.

Then the governors go on to address the governance structure of the school. It is very interesting that they have mentioned this now. The ISI report published earlier this year mentioned shortcomings in governance, but it has taken until now for a committee to be set up to look at this. Again, the composition of the committee is instructive: Professor Hemingway, Professor Bennett, Mrs Philiips, Deacon Clark and a Trustee. Mostly new governors for this job as well, particularly including Prof Bennett, a professor of law. In my view, one of the first things that needs to be addressed is the frankly unhealthy arrangement of separate boards of Trustees and Governors. There seems to be far too much scope here for differences of opinion leading to one body attempting to impose its will on the other. It seems to me that a school of only 500 or so pupils doesn't really need two separate governing bodies.

Then there's a bit of motivational stuff about the future, where they at one point say that it is an opportunity for the school to move forward, and also say that it is a turning point for the school, which seems to be a bit of a contradiction - you can't be moving forward if you perceive the need to make a turn. Quite what they mean is anybody's guess, but I don't think we need worry greatly. It's common for letters from school governors  to contain a bit of this sort of thing.

Lastly, the governors promise that this letter is the first in a series of more detailed communications aimed at keeping pupils, staff and parents as informed as possible. And that is very much to be welcomed.

Overall, this is a positive letter, it looks as if the governors are beginning to get to grips with the problems the school has had over the past 18 months or so concerning the ISI report and the school's woeful response to it. Much clearly still needs to be done, and I wish the governors all the very best in their efforts to achieve it.

Let me add one final point. The reason I have written about St Augustine's Priory School on this blog is solely because gross shortcomings in its safeguarding policies and procedures came to my attention. As soon as I am satisfied that this has been rectified, that the policies reflect best practice and are being thoroughly implemented, then I will wish the school well and cease to have any interest. On the other hand, if I think that the governors are backsliding in their efforts to ensure proper safeguarding at the school, then I will say so. My sole objective in all this has been the safety and welfare of the pupils

But it shouldn't have required all this bad publicity from me. Parents, staff and governors shouldn't have allowed the school to get into this situation in the first place. Once the school is made safe, you all have a responsibility to be vigilant in order to keep it that way. That job never ends.

An interregnum

At the same time as Mrs Gumley Mason sent the letter to all parents, another letter was sent to all staff, and a copy has been made available to me.

This letter is not much more informative than the letter to parents. No reason is given for her departure. The one additional piece of information provided is that she states that she will be handing over to Mrs Wilson, who will become Acting Headmistress with effect from 1 January 2012.

I have to say that it is most unusual for a headteacher to leave part way through the academic year. And it is even more unusual (except where the departure is necessitated by health reasons) for a headteacher to cause an interregnum by leaving before a permanent successor has been appointed and is ready to take up his or her duties. I do hope Mrs Gumley Mason is not suffering ill health - I would not wish that on anybody.

It would appear that the post has not yet even been advertised. I've just made a search of the job listings on the Times Education Supplement website (where previous vacancies at the school have been advertised) and the vacancy is not yet listed there.

I think parents (who are paying for their daughters to attend) do deserve a bit more explanation than has so far been forthcoming. It is far from ideal to leave a school with an acting headteacher. I know nothing of Mrs Wilson, I have no reason to think that she will do anything other than her very best in the post. The problem is not with the person who will be acting headteacher, but rather the disruption that will inevitably occur as a result of two changes of headteacher in quick succession.

Mrs Gumley Mason is resigning

A letter has gone out to all parents at St. Augustine's. After spending some time talking about GCSE and A-level results, Mrs. Gumley Mason has announced that she is resigning, effective the end of this year.

As many of you will know, I was a pupil here for 13 years. I have supplemented those 13 years by a further 17 years' education as Headmistress. I have watched the School I love grow. I have enjoyed almost every minute of it. However, I have to go at some point, and I can think of no better time to do that than at the end of this Centenary Year. I would like to thank all those members of staff teaching and nonteaching, who are the engine of the School's success, and all the girls, who make it unique and new and vibrant every year.

More news as I learn of the details.

My complaint to the Metropolitan Police

When the prevention of harrassment letter was served on me on 5th April, the police officer who did so refused to give me her name & number when I asked, saying that her details were on the letter itself. In fact her name and rank were (rather illegibly) given on the letter, but her warrant number, home police station and contact phone number were not included, although the printed information at the bottom of the letter indicated that this ought to have been provided.

I took a rather dim view of this, and accordingly put in a complaint to the Metropolitan Police website. On 19 May, I received a phone call from Detective Inspector Yates from Acton police station, and we had a very civilised conversation about it. He promised that he would have a word with the officer in question. We also had a discussion about Mrs Gumley Mason's complaint. It was all very amicable. After the conversation I wrote to him as we had agreed, enclosing a scan of the letter, so he could see for himself whether the information provided was adequate. This is what I wrote. (I've deleted the name of the officer concerned. I see no need to publish it.)

Dear Inspector Yates

As we discussed on the telephone today, please find attached a scanned copy of the prevention of harrassment letter served on me on 5th April. As you can see, much of the information listed at the bottom as being required is missing. Now that you have told me that that the officer's name is [name deleted], I can make that out, and probably also the rank (DC). but the warrant number, station attached and contact telephone number are not present, although clearly indicated in the printed information as being required.

As I understand it, you suggested that you would issue a verbal reminder to DC [name deleted] of the need to identify herself in response to a request from a member of the public. On the phone, I indicated that I am satisfied with this course of action. On reflection, I wish to qualify that. If this is not the first occasion of a complaint against her of this nature, then I will wish to reconsider whether my complaint should be taken any further.

You indicated that I would be invited to the station to sign a form describing the resolution of the complaint. Assuming this is the first such complaint against DC [name deleted], I see no need for a visit, I am happy for the resolution of the complaint to be on record by means of an exchange of letters or emails between us.

I have also attached for your records a copy of my letter to Mr David Murphy, chairman of trustees of St Augustine's Priory School, concerning Mrs Gumley Mason's complaint against me, requesting that if she or the school are concerned about any further comments on my blog, then they should contact me about it without delay, and that I will be entirely amenable to requests to delete any comment which is genuinely abusive. The letter was sent by recorded delivery to Mr Murphy, but I have received no reply.

I wish to place on record my reasons for writing about St. Augustine's. I am concerned by the regulatory failings in child protection measures there, including (as described in a recent report by the Independent Schools Inspectorate) failure to carry out adequate CRB, List 99 and other checks on staff, failure to promptly report allegations and incidents of abuse to the LADO, failure to notify the ISA within a month of a staff member leaving when their fitness to work with children is in question, and shortcomings in the school's written child protection procedures and the implementation thereof. It is my view that the school's child protection procedures are still significantly short of good safeguarding practice, and arguably still do not meet regulatory requirements for prompt reporting of allegations to the LADO. These matters are all the direct responsibility of Mrs Gumley Mason in her role as headmistress of the school. There is a clear public interest justification for raising these issues, and I intend to continue to do so until substantial improvements are made.

For your information, the prevention of harrassment letter, letter to the chairman of trustees and my notes of the subsequent police visit have all been published on my blog  http://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/.


Yours sincerely

Jonathan West

He replied to me today, with a very nice letter confirming what he has done, as follows.

Dear Mr West

I am glad to report that I have now done everything you asked me to do in connection with the complaint you made about the incident on 5th April.

I have spoken to DC [name deleted] and reminded her of her responsibilities to fully identify herself. Her name was on the letter but I can see from the copy that it may not have been entirely clear. She was on a very busy schedule and was attending your address at my request fitting it in amongst her already existing workload. I can confirm that she has no other complaints of this nature.

We take any complaint against the police very seriously. You have my assurance that we are committed to resolving the points you raised with us and improving the service we offer to the community.

I hope you are satisfied with the steps I have taken. You have the right of appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) if you think I have failed to follow the correct procedures. You have 28 days within which to make your appeal to the IPCC. You are advised to post your appeal in good time to ensure it reaches the IPCC before the end of the 28th day. The 28th day is on 8th May 2011. Appeals received after 28 days may not be allowed unless there are exceptional circumstances.

You might want to consider using guaranteed next-day delivery post service to ensure that your appeal is received within time.  If you do decide to appeal, this is the address to write to:

The Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH

You can have a copy of the Police record of your complaint, showing that your concerns have been formally recorded. If you would like this, you need to put your request in writing and send it to me within 3 months of the date on this letter.

Please let me close by expressing my sincere thanks. This has been a constructive process for all of us here and your cooperation has been invaluable. Thank you again.

Yours sincerely

Tim Yates
Detective Inspector
Ealing Borough

I've replied thanking him and saying that I now consider the matter closed.

Where was the report?

In the Headmistress' letter to parents on7th July 2010, Mrs Gumley Mason wrote the following.

Where is it?

I have delayed writing this letter to you in the hope that we would be in receipt of the ISI report.  It has yet to materialise. When it does, the School will have the chance to correct factual inaccuracies and it will then go back to ISI for amendments and final editing and then be returned to us when we will have a fortnight within which to make it available to all parents

Well, I can tell you where the report was. It was on her desk. The first draft of the report was sent to the school on 24th May, and Mrs Gumley Mason had already made comments to the ISI about "factual inaccuracies" in the report. By the time the letter to parents was written, there had already been quite extensive phone calls and correspondence between the school and the ISI, in the course of which the ISI notified the school that further information about safeguarding at the school had been received and that it was being discussed with the DfE and safeguarding agencies.

Teacher A

The Statement of Grounds contains this about Teacher A.

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.

This is about as uninformative as the statement about Teacher B. But it isn't what the ISI criticised Mrs Gumley Mason about. During the inspection visit, the reporting inspector asked if there had been any instances of staff who had left for reasons other than retirement, promotion, relocation etc.

In response, Mrs Gumley Mason mentioned Teacher A. She said that Teacher A had originally received a good reference from her previous school, but that the retiring head of the school had subsequently phoned her to tell her that Teacher A had done a voiceover for some sexually explicit material. Mrs Gumley Mason said that Teacher A had been dismissed immediately.

The reporting inspector asked what what action Mrs Gumley Mason had taken in notifying the appropriate authorities about the circumstances under which Teacher A had left. The response was that no action had been taken.

Again, the ISI obtained a letter subsequently sent by Mrs Gumley Mason to Ealing Children's Services, and again it did not contain the complete story as reported to the inspector, specifically omitting any reference to the telephone call from the teacher's previous employer. ISI checked with the Department for Education to see whether a referral had been made to ISA. Some months after the inspection, DfE wrote back to ISI confirming that no referral had been made, either at the time or subsequently.

One the available evidence, the ISI concluded that the LADO's advice should have been sought at the time, and that a referral should have been made.

The most remarkable thing about the case of Teacher A is that if Mrs Gumley Mason had simply kept quiet about Teacher A, the chances are quite good that the ISI would never have learned anything of the case. In essence, Mrs Gumley Mason has been betrayed by her own mouth.

It would seem that Mrs Gumley Mason was genuinely ignorant of the law on safeguarding and referrals. If she knew that she should have made a referral but didn't, then she would have kept very quiet about the case of Teacher A.But what appears to have happened is that she freely told the inspector about the case, apparently under the impression that she had done nothing wrong.

Such ignorance on the part of a headteacher and designated teacher for child protection is terrifying. The safety of 500 girls is at least in part dependent on the headteacher knowing what should be done in such cases.

It isn't even as if Mrs Gumley Mason is new to the job and still learning her responsibilities. She became Headmistress of the school in 1995. If I am correct in believing her actions are down to ignorance, then this ignorance has in all probability been going on for years and years. And the resulting shortcomings in child protection have gone undetected by probably three successive OFSTED inspections.

In a way, Mrs Gumley Mason has been very unlucky. The school has recently joined an Independent Schools Council member organisation and so the ISI become responsible for inspecting the school instead of OFSTED. Also, Father Gregory Chillman had recently come to the attention of the ISI in connection with the safeguarding failures at St. Benedict's. Had OFSTED been inspecting, or had Father Gregory Chillman not been chaplain and chairman of governors, then there is every chance that little or no effort would have been made to check the quality of safeguarding at the school, and you as parents would still have had no idea what was going on.

But then again, had the safeguarding been done properly and according to the law, there would have been no need to rely on luck.

Teacher B

In the complaint against the ISI, the school said the following about Teacher B.

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.

This is a masterpiece of obscurity. You have to admire the work of whoever drafted this document. We aren't told what the complaints were, and we aren't told whether the complaints were justified. We also aren't told whether Teacher B's email response contested the allegations. All that is stated is that the teacher subsequently resigned. On the basis of the information provided, we are in no position to make any judgement as to whether a referral to the Independent Safeguarding Authority was appropriate.

However, the ISI is aware of the nature of several allegations against teacher B. These include derogatory comments about women, refusing to allow a girl to go to the toilet, blocking her way and then presenting her with nappies and a dummy, saying he could have fathered lots of children, blocking and locking the door so girls had to reach round him, inappropriate remarks about his Nigerian girlfriend (who would do anything he
wanted), saying he would rather have AIDS than children, and other inappropriate comments including that he was looking for a girlfriend.

By any reasonable standard this is abusive and unprofessional behaviour for a teacher to display towards pupils, and offers a clear case for considering whether he is unfit to work with children and so should be placed on List 99. Such allegations should have been reported immediately to the LADO on coming to the school's notice, and should have been reported to the ISA within a month of the teacher's resignation. It would then be the job of the ISA to decide what action was needed.

However, the ISI established that a letter sent to Ealing Children's Services on 24th March 2010 (i.e. the second day of the first ISI visit, and over 2 years after the alleged incidents occurred) about Teacher B did not contain the complete story about the various allegations, and that a referral to the ISA was not made until after the ISI had visited. The ISI concluded that, contrary to what the school stated in its complaint, there was sufficient evidence to indicate that a referral should have been made.

It is a legal obligation for the school to make referrals within a month to the ISA concerning teachers who leave or are sacked when the school considers that they may be unfit to work with children. This is vitally necessary, so that if the teacher subsequently applies for a job elsewhere, CRB and List 99 checks will highlight the problem. Mrs Gumley Mason didn't do this.

So, we have here allegations of abuse by a member of staff towards pupils. It was not reported to the LADO at the time. An incomplete report was made to Children's Services after the matter was uncovered by the ISI, and a referral made to the ISA again only after the matter was uncovered by the ISI.

If the ISI had not uncovered this case during their inspection, there is no reason to think that any reports would have been made to anybody, no matter what the law requires.

Safeguarding Audit at St. Augustine's

Mrs. Gumley Mason included the following in her letter to parents on 1st April.

Tom Galvin, the Safeguarding lead in Ealing Children's Services will do an audit of the School's safeguarding policies and procedures next Thursday, 7th April. His findings will be communicated to you and any recommendations implemented.

I don't know about you, but reading that, I would be thinking in terms of an "audit" being a fairly detailed and comprehensive review. Audits are performed to ascertain the validity and reliability of information; also to provide an assessment of a system's internal control. The goal of an audit is to express an opinion on the person / organization / system (etc.) in question. So, an audit would consist of more than looking to see what the school's written procedures contain, but would also look into whether the written procedures have been and are being followed properly.

At the least it would take a full day to conduct. Given the failings already identified by the ISI, I would expect a properly conducted audit of safeguarding at the school to take a good bit more than one day for one person.

I am reliably informed that on 7th April, Mr. Galvin arrived at the school at 3pm. So he can't possibly have spent anything even vaguely approaching a full day on this. Maybe a couple of hours or so. That isn't time to do anything approaching a thorough audit of safeguarding policies and procedures. So this is not an audit.

But you can be sure that if he hasn't found anything untoward (which is probable, because he won't have had time to find much of anything at all), then this will loudly be trumpeted by Mrs Gumley Mason as an endorsement of the school and a vote of confidence in its policies.

I wonder if Mr. Galvin realises he is being used?

UPDATE: By the way, the way this is going seems to bear a remarkable resemblance to the travesty of an "independent review" that Abbot Martin Shipperlee commissioned at St. Benedict's. Philip Wright, the safeguarding officer of the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton was used in just the same way.

Eventually, the pressure mounted to the extent that the Abbot decided he needed to commission Lord Carlile to conduct a somewhat more detailed inquiry. We have yet to learn the outcome of that one.

CRB and other checks at St. Augustine's

I've now learned how bad were the failings at St. Augustine's concerning the CRB and other checks on staff that the school was legally obliged to carry out. When the ISI visited, they discovered the following regulatory failures:

• No evidence of references for 2 members of staff
• References received after appointment for 2 members of staff
• Qualifications, employment history and references dated five years before appointment
  for 1 member of staff
• No evidence of employment history or references for 4 members of staff
• No evidence for qualifications being checked for 2 members of staff
• No date of CRB/List 99 check recorded for 5 members of staff
• No date recorded for the CRB check for 2 members of staff
• No date recorded for the separate List 99 check required when the CRB check is not received until after the employee has started work, for 3 members of staff
• No date or name of checker recorded for overseas checks undertaken for 1 member of staff
• CRB received after appointment, no record of separate List 99 check or appropriate
  supervision for 10 members of staff.

In that last case, the longest period a staff member was allowed to supervise children without proper checks having been carried out was 2 years.

There have been multiple failures to check some members of staff, but in total the ISI found shortcomings in the checks and records for 18 different members of staff.

CRB checks, List 99 checks, and checking of employment history and references is really basic stuff. This is the first line of defence against abusers getting onto the staff. If somebody has been recorded to be unfit to supervise children, then these checks, properly carried out, will prevent a potential abuser from being employed in the first place.

According to latest calendar there are 54 teaching and 24 non-teaching staff at St. Augustine's, 18 is quite a significant proportion of that total, nearly a quarter of all the staff. Quite enough for the ISI to amply justify its conclusion that this is more than a minor administrative slipup but is instead a persistent weakness in the school's processes, and therefore to state in the report that the school's "procedures for making and recording appointments have not been sufficiently rigorous".

In addition, the seven Trustees of the charitable company which owns the school are legally the proprietors of the school, and should therefore also have been included on the Central Register of Appointments and been subject to CRB checks. They were not.

The register still hadn't been brought fully up to date by the time the ISI made its second visit. And the school complained about the ISI's conclusions, and took court action to suppress the report and keep the extent of the failings from the parents.

Of course, all abusers abuse for the first time somewhere, and CRB checks won't catch somebody who hasn't been found out before, which is why there has to be a second line of defence in the form of good safeguarding procedures and proper reporting mechanisms. But the process designed to keep known abusers away, the first line of defence for the school, basically leaked like a sieve.

If the issue had been that all the proper checks had been made but the dates and other details not fully recorded on the central register of appointments, this might have been regarded as more of an administrative matter. But it seems that 10 staff were permitted to supervise children when neither their CRB nor their List 99 checks had been received, and that situation persisted in one case for 2 years. This is outrageous. It is also illegal, and it persisted for years with nobody among the governors or trustees noticing.

As headteacher and designated teacher for safeguarding, carrying out these checks is the personal responsibility of Mrs Gumley Mason.

Another visit from the police

I had a second visit from the police last Sunday. It appears that there had been a further complaint about harassment from Mrs Gumley Mason.

I discussed a few points with the detective constable who visited:

• I pointed out that I have not been asked by anybody, not the school, not Mrs Gumley Mason, not even the police on their previous visit, to delete any comments that had already been published at the time of the first police visit.
• I asked whether he was requiring me to take down any existing comments, or was indicating that I would be committing an offence if I did not. He made it clear that he was not saying that leaving the old comments up was an offence.
• I pointed out that there had been no attempt by Mrs Gumley Mason, the school, the trustees, governors or their solicitors to contact me to complain about any aspect of the blog. Their first action had been to go to the police.
• I asked if the police had asked Mrs Gumley Mason whether she had made any attempt to contact me to ask me to stop whatever was supposedly concerning her. It appears that the police had not asked that question.
• At least some of the comments specifically mentioned in the prevention of harassment letter are points which have been supported by a finding of the Independent Schools Inspectorate, and as such are entirely justifiable as fair comment on matters of fact.
• Mrs Gumley Mason is a headteacher. The comments about which she was complaining are no worse than one might hear in any playground in the country. For her to feel harassed by them is not credible.
• Before she became a headteacher, she was a senior journalist and broadcaster, two professions notorious behind the scenes for for the use of language far worse than anything she is complaining of. Moreover in her present and previous careers she is a public figure. For her to be alarmed or distressed about the comments on the blog is not credible.
• There is strong evidence that Mrs Gumley Mason has made anonymous comments to the blog. She is hardly in a position to complain of harassment from a blog to which she herself has contributed.
• I have already written a letter to the chairman of Trustees (and he has received it by recorded delivery) in which I have stated that I will not publish any more name-calling comments, and that if Mrs Gumley Mason or the school is concerned about any other comments, they are requested to contact me without delay. I said that I would unhesitatingly remove any new comment that was genuinely abusive.
• In the light of all this, there is reason to think that both the original complaint and its repetition are motivated by Mrs Gumley Mason's private agenda, and that in essence the police are being used by her to try and intimidate me.

I provided a copy of my letter to Mr. Murphy as evidence of my position. By the time the policeman left, he seemed almost apologetic at having called. He said that he had no wish for the police to get involved in a private dispute between Mrs Gumley Mason and me, and he promised that the police would have a further word with her on the subject.

The fact is that the offence of harassment only exists when the alleged perpetrator engages in a course of action which he either knows or should reasonably have known would cause alarm and distress.

Until the police visited the first time, I could not reasonably have known, since there was no reason to think the comments could plausibly have caused alarm and distress, and after the first police visit I wrote to the chairman of trustees stating that no further name-calling comments would be published and inviting Mrs Gumley Mason or the school to contact me if they have any further concerns. Since it is the name-calling specifically which was the subject of the complaint, and not any other aspect of the blog, there is no justification for any further complaint.

I also mentioned in passing that I had made a formal written complaint to the Metropolitan Police about one of the officers who had visited the first time. She had refused to identify herself when I requested her name and number, saying instead that her name was on the Prevention of Harassment letter. However, when I took a detailed look at the letter after she had gone, her name and rank were an illegible scrawl, and her warrant number, home station and contact telephone number were absent, even though the letter clearly indicated that all should be stated. The policeman made no comment.

Letter to the Chairman of Trustees

I have sent a letter to Mr. David Murphy, Chairman of Trustees of St. Augustine's Priory School Limited. It was sent by recorded delivery on Thursday 7th April. The Royal Mail Tracking Service indicates that he signed for receipt of it on Saturday 9th April. The text of the letter is given below, with minor deletions indicated using square brackets. Although I gave both my telephone number and my email address in the letter, I have not yet received any reply.


Dear Mr. Murphy,

Safeguarding at St. Augustine’s Priory School

On 5th April, I received a visit from the police, concerning a complaint of harassment that had been made against me by Mrs Gumley Mason, specifically concerning name-calling in some of the postings by contributors to the blog.

There was no need for such a complaint. If either the school or Mrs Gumley Mason is concerned about such comments on the blog, my contact details are freely available, you need only telephone me or email me. You may be assured that no further name-calling comments will be published. If at any point you are concerned about any new comments published, then I request that you firstly contact me to discuss them. I will be entirely amenable to requests to delete any new comment which is genuinely abusive. I do not expect the situation to arise, but if a comment is published in error or where you feel that I have made an incorrect decision in a marginal case, then I request that you contact me about it without delay.

The police made a clear distinction between name-calling and the overall subject matter of the blog, i.e. concerns about safeguarding at St. Benedict’s and St. Augustine’s Schools. They are not in any way concerned about the safeguarding content, and have made no suggestion that the body of the articles is in any way objectionable. There is of course a strong public interest justification in continuing a public discussion of this, and I intend to do so.

It has come to my attention that Mrs Gumley Mason may not have been quite as upset about the comments on the blog as she suggested to the police. The following anonymous comment was made to the blog at 21.56 the same evening, stating the following.

“I find these comments extremely disturbing, i feel the police should be informed about this anonymous at 4 april 2011 21.02 poster”

The coincidence of there being a comment about calling the police the day the police had been called is a bit too much to accept, especially as there have been no previous comments to that effect. The obvious inference is that the comment was placed by Mrs Gumley Mason herself.

There have been two additional comments, clearly by the same poster,

“i don't understand why my last comment which was CALL THE POLICE! wasn't posted? There are mad men on this blog, I understand Mr West that the police called at your abode today. Please would you cofirm.” (6 April 2011 23:39)

“please could you report tnis to the police this looks like the a mad man” (7 April 2011 00:03)

In addition, there were three comments posted close together on the evening of 5th April. From their timing all three appear to have been made by the same poster, and it is possible that they were deliberately planted in order to provoke me into publishing some or all of them and so justify a further complaint. The comments are as follows.

“[Comment deleted]” (5 April 2011 18:42)

“[Comment deleted]” (5 April 2011 18:44)

“[Comment deleted]” (5 April 2011 18:52)

Of course, none of these comments have been published. If they are not plants, then you might consider the possibility that they reflect genuinely held feelings by people about Mrs Gumley Mason and the school.

In the light of all this, if I receive a further visit from the police, I shall raise with them the possibility that the school and/or Mrs Gumley Mason should be investigated for wasting police time, and for harassment of me. I shall provide this letter indicating my willingness to receive concerns about comments on the blog, and I shall provide independent datestamped copies of all relevant comments, both published and unpublished. Mrs Gumley Mason can hardly claim harassment from a blog to which she is herself contributing. I guess that the police would take an extremely dim view of being used to further somebody’s private agenda in this way.

As I am sure you are aware, it is the trustees in their role as directors of the Charitable Company who are the proprietors of the school and therefore responsible for ensuring that the school meets all its legal obligations. While tasks can be delegated to the headmistress or governors, the legal responsibility remains with you, and so you are obliged to ensure that the delegated tasks have been properly completed. I was therefore particularly concerned that Mr Fitzgerald’s reply of 24th March to my letter of 22nd March stated “I consider that, even if I were able to do so, it would be inappropriate for me to attend the parent’s meeting”. That suggests to me that the Trustees may have become dangerously detached from the running of the school and may have been unaware of legal shortcomings in the manner in which its business has been conducted. If this is the case, then I would urge you to remedy the situation without delay.

St. Augustine’s School only came to my attention through its connection with St. Benedict’s and Ealing Abbey via Father Gregory Chillman. I know that the ISI is in possession of details of misconduct at St. Augustine’s by Father Gregory which is far more serious than the “inappropriate remark” mentioned in the Statement of Grounds. I am also aware that the allegations against [Teacher A] and [Teacher B] are far more substantial than were disclosed in the Statement of Grounds, and that these more substantial allegations formed part of the evidence on which the ISI based its judgements. The fact that only a partial and misleading story has been disclosed by the school is of great concern.

My sole interest in St. Augustine’s School is to ensure that its safeguarding is brought up to standard, both in its written policies and in actual practice. As soon as I am satisfied that documentation and implementation are adequate, then I will willingly say so in public and my interest in the school will end. If you wish to bring forward that event, then I would be happy to meet with you to discuss my concerns in more detail and discuss the remedial actions that may be appropriate. You may wish to note that in my latest article I have made a positive reference to the flowchart in Appendix 5 of the safeguarding policy.

I accept that it is of course impossible for any school to guarantee non occurrence of abuse. However, once a sound policy has been effectively implemented, then it is almost certain that any future incident of abuse will be detected quickly and brought to an immediate end. In such circumstances this is a very positive message to parents, it is an indication that the staff are well trained and alert and that the school’s safeguarding procedures work. The current evasiveness by management about the handling of recent incidents is sending precisely the opposite message to parents.

Yours sincerely
Jonathan West

Mrs Gumley Mason's latest move

The safeguarding meeting at St Augustine's

I've now had a some accounts of the meeting, and can describe it to you. Apparently about 50 parents attended.

The chairman of the Governors, Professor Anne Hemingway, opened the meeting with a 10 minute talk with details of and how they were instituting their new safeguarding policy which is on their website. She apologised for the failings in safeguarding and assured the room that the school would do better. To this end the safeguarding policy had been redrafted and had been checked against the Ealing yellow book, which parents could view online. She said that this policy had been passed by the school's safeguarding committee and copies had gone to all members of staff who had signed to say they had read it. Mrs Gumley Mason spoke about CRBs and the central register of appointments, but a blank proforma showing what details were recorded was not provided to parents, and there was no initial explanation of what the central register of appointments is, why it exists and what it does.

Parents were then given the opportunity to ask questions.

A parent asked about the article in the Gazette and expressed concern about Father Gregory. Mrs Gumley Mason said that his term of office as chair of governors had come to an end and that he had decided to retire because he was 80 and not in good health. She denied that the school had any concerns about his suitability to work with children. She was asked if there was a requirement to report him and she said something to the effect that he was not an employee of the school, but of the diocese and so no.

Another parent asked about CRB checks and was assured by Professor Hemingway that these had all now been completed. Mrs Gumley Mason said that the problem had been that the school had applied Ofsted  requirements but that ISI requirements were more stringent.

There were questions on the subject of the ISI report and concerns about the safeguarding issues and why the school and Mrs Gumley-Mason had not been open with parents about the problems. Several paraents were irritated that it appeared that there appeared to be an attempt to hush up the report, and that the school had taken the ISI to court to prevent publication. Mrs Gumley Mason explained that the school had used the ISI complaints procedure because there had been 'factual inaccuracies' in the report, and they had then decided to take out an injunction so that they would not be forced to publish an inaccurate report. They were not trying to hush up the report but wanted to deal with areas they were not happy with before it was issued. She did not explain what these inaccuracies were.

Another parent commented, to the general agreement of the floor, that they would have liked to have been informed what was going on, and went on to say that they felt that communication was a big concern. Things happened and they were not told. A more general discussion about poor communication ensued and another parent said that she found the letters the head wrote to parents confusing and hard to understand and felt that, in particular the covering letter sent out with the report was lacking in clarity and did not apologise for the failings but in some ways trivialised them. Mrs Gumley Mason listened and nodded, but made no justification

Some parents wanted Teacher A and Teacher B identified – Mrs Gumley Mason said she would enquire with the ISI as to whether she was allowed to do this and come back with a response.


About costs, Mrs Gumley Mason said that the school had legal insurance. it. She did not, however, state how much the total cost had been or whether the legal insurance had covered the full cost.

Another parent then said it was good to hear from a governor and asked if there were any parent governors. Mrs Gumley Mason said there were two: Professor Hemingway and Mrs Grewal, although Mrs Grewal would soon cease to be a parent governor as her daughters would soon leave the school, although she would continue to be a governor. So, Mrs Gumley Mason was looking round for another governor, maybe someone with expertise in law. A parent then said she was concerned about this approach to recruiting a governor and said she felt it should be a more open process, maybe with an election. Another parent added that she agreed with this and had children in three different schools and that she felt elected parent governors were the right way forward. Professor Hemingway wrote this down and Mrs Gumley Mason nodded and added that 'this would be a matter for the governors'.

A parent suggested that regular parent forums would be a good way forward as they had welcomed the chance to ask questions. Professor Hemingway said it was a good suggestion and wrote it down.

A parent then asked about this blog, which most of those in attendance were aware of. She asked if it would do permanent damage to the school. A member of staff said he thought not. Mrs Gumley Mason agreed.

Throughout the meeting Professor Hemingway seems to have been firmly in control and Mrs Gumley Mason appeared flustered and not always coherent. There were other questions about ICT which are not relevant to this blog. There were no other governors present (at least not who identified themselves) and there were no Trustees present.

The above account is a synthesis of various accounts that have been provided to me. I wasn't there, and so I have no means of knowing for certain how accurate all this is. But the various accounts did agree substantially on points of fact, so I'm fairly confident about this.

Assuming that the accounts are accurate, I have concerns I have with some of the answers given, which seem not to be correct.

ISI requirements for CRB checks are more stringent than OFSTED's.
If this is really what Mrs Gumley Mason said, then it is complete balderdash. Both organisations operate according to the same legal framework, and apply the letter of the law in this respect, as supplemented by guidance produced by the DfE. It is entirely possible that OFSTED, in its 2006 inspection, neglected to make a proper review of the Central Register of Appointments, but to suggest that OFSTED and the ISI apply different requirements is completely false.

It isn't known whether the school can disclose the names of Teacher A and Teacher B
Of course they can., They already have. Their names are in the Statement of Grounds and so are now out in the public domain. Any parent who wishes to find out the names need only email me, and I will send you a scanned copy of the Statement of Grounds, complete with the names. I assure you that the fact that you have asked me will remain confidential. Alternatively, you can write to the High Court and ask them to post or fax it to you. They might charge you a modest fee of a few pounds.

Father Gregory doesn't need to be reported to the ISA because he wasn't an employee of the school
Complete rubbish. He was chairman of governors. The rules apply to governors just as much as they do to staff. Moreover, the rules on referrals to the Independent Safeguarding Authority when somebody leaves the establishment are equally applicable to all those working with children in any capacity. If at the time of his resignation either as chaplain or as chair of governors, there were issues concerning his suitability to work with children, then by law the school is obliged to make a referral to the ISA.

I'm still seriously concerned about the state of the school, but in fairness I must report one positive aspect. The parents were provided with a copy of the new version of the safeguarding policy, and three appendices, each in the form of a flowchart which summarises the procedures. They have been forwarded to me. Appendix 5 addresses the procedure to be followed in the event of an allegation of abuse against somebody at the school. I'm pleased to say that it clearly states that the LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer for Child Protection) is always contacted in such cases. That's the good news, and I'm very pleased about it. It is most definitely a step in the right direction. But the main text of the policy does not align with the flow chart, and there is no indication as to whether the text or the flowchart is authoritative in the event of a discrepancy between them. This is not so good. But let us celebrate such positive steps as have been taken. With regard to this aspect of the policy, all that is now needed is for the text to align with the flow chart, without the weasel words currently present.

How bad is too bad?

I'd like to take the opportunity to canvass the views of those connected with St. Augustine's. The problem with the ISI report is that is it is a bit unspecific about what has happened. For instance, it says that on a small number of occasions the delay before obtaining a CRB check for a member of staff was "lengthy" without saying how long they meant by that. "Lengthy" is meaningless unless you have some idea in your mind as to what is the distinction between an understandable delay and an unacceptably "lengthy" one. As individuals we might have an idea about that, but we don't know whether our own ideas match those of the ISI.

We have no evidence that the situation ever became as bad as St. Benedict's is known to have been. At St. Benedict's people have been convicted and imprisoned for abuses committed by staff against pupils of the school, the school has had a civil judgement against it to the tune of £43,000 plus costs with regard to the damage done by an abusive teacher, and there is a further criminal trial due to take place this summer. To the best of our knowledge no comparable criminal convictions have happened in connection with St. Augustine's.

But to say that abuse at St. Augustine's hasn't been as bad as St. Benedict's is a pretty minimal compliment. Things could have been pretty awful at one time or another and we could still say this. So I would be interested to learn (and I hope others would be as well) what is an acceptable level of problem before parents start thinking that they should consider pulling their children out of the school.

For instance, we perhaps don't know the full story about the departure of Teacher A and Teacher B. We have the version the school presented in its Statement of Grounds, but that might not be all that the ISI discovered and used as the basis for its comments in the report about them. So here are a few points to ponder.

If it turned out that the activities of either of both of these teachers had been more harmful than so far disclosed, would this change your view of the school?


If there had been a significant delay between complaints being made and one of the teachers being removed from contact with children, would that increase your concern?


If one of the teachers sacked had started teaching at the school before their CRB check had come through, would this worry you?

If the CRB check of one of the sacked teachers had indicated that the teacher was unsuitable to work with children, would this be an issue?

Note that these are hypothetical questions. Since the ISI report doesn't give details about what has happened, speculation about what did happen is not all that helpful. What I'm trying to establish is where parents and others feel that the limits of acceptability lie.

Then we have the issue of the CRB checks. The ISI doesn't say how many checks were delayed, they don't say precisely what kinds of checks were delayed, they don't say how many staff have been permitted to teach at the school without having been fully checked, or for how long.

Is it acceptable for some staff to have started before their CRB checks had been completed, through some bureaucratic oversight? If so, how many would cause you concern that it wasn't a mere minor mistake but a serious problem? 1, 5, 10, 50? Where is your level of tolerance on this?


What is the maximum delay in a CRB check that you would be willing to write off as being a minor issue? 2 days? A week? A month? A term? A year?

Again, the ISI doesn't say how long or how many. I'm just trying to get an idea as to what would cause parents to think that enough is enough.

Then we have the question of the school's safeguarding policy. The ISI was quite critical about it, particularly in the fact that allegations were investigated within the school rather than being reported to the LADO. Various commenters have said that "no harm has been done", and if we define harm as criminal activity for which somebody has been convicted, then I agree, no harm has been done. But I suspect that most parents would expect that a school could protect their children to a somewhat higher standard than that, and so their threshold for harm is a good bit lower.

What level of harm (physical, mental or emotional) would you regard as the maximum that should be tolerated before a member of staff must be removed from access to children?


What level of harm would cause you to remove your child from the school if it turned out that the authorities had not acted to remove somebody from access to children?

But we need to consider not merely the severity of individual cases, but the number of cases where reports have failed to be made. Good safeguarding is essentially boring work, it requires good reporting and attention to detail, so that dangers can be discerned from patterns that have been built up.

How many cases could the school reasonably be allowed to get away with in terms of accidentally failing to report cases to the LADO which should have been reported?

Please note, in this article I'm not looking for estimates of how many cases or how bad are the cases that may have happened at St. Augustine's. For this article, I'll delete comments which speculate about that, whether the speculation is to the effect that the sky is falling in or that Mrs Gumley Mason is an angel and the school is second only to heaven itself in the care given to the pupils and the happiness they achieve as a result. The truth is undoubtedly somewhere in between, and we might find out in due course more precisely where. This discussion is intended to be about where parents and others think the limits should be. What is a forgiveable one-off error, and what is a systematic failure justifying remedial action?

A quick final thought before the meeting

It occurs to me that a possible approach that may be taken by Mrs Gumley Mason will be to try and pass off the ISI's criticisms as relatively minor, that they have all now been dealt with and there is no more reason to be concerned.

But consider this, The criticisms in the published report are the ones the school got upset about. So upset that they obtained a High Court injunction to prevent publication. High Court injunctions are neither sought nor granted casually. So they managed to persuade a very skeptical and hard-bitten judge that this was a really serious matter and that the school would suffer irreperable harm if the ISI report were to be unfairly published, and that they had a reasonable chance of demonstrating that the ISI's report was so unfair that no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusions.

Well, it has now been published, still containing the same criticisms. From the tone of Mrs Gumley Mason's accompanying letter, it would appear that they were hoping that nobody else would notice how devastating the report actually is.

I suggest you treat the crticisms in it as seriously as the school did when they initiated the High Court action.

Things to ask at the parents' meeting

These are some of the key questions that I hope somebody will ask at the parents' meeting on Friday. They are all questions which the Mrs Gumley Mason, the headmistress, or Mr David Murphy, the chairman of Trustees, should know the answers to.

I already know the answers to some of these questions. But I'm not going to give the answers right now, because I think it is for the school's representatives to give the answers.

• When was the first draft of the ISI report provided to the school?
• Did the school make a complaint against the ISI concerning the report?
• What was the reason for the complaint?
• What was the purpose of the legal action against the ISI?
• How much has been spent on this legal action, in costs, court fees and fees to the school's own solicitors?
• Did the school pay the ISI's costs?
• Who made the decision to proceed with legal action?
• When was the decision made?
• Was the decision formally approved at a meeting of the Governors? If so, when? 
• Can the minutes of the relevant governors' meeting be made available to parents?
• Was the decision formally approved at a meeting of the Trustees? If so, when?
• Can the minutes of the relevant trustees' meeting be made available to parents?
• Is there anything in the published version ISI report which the school thinks is incorrect or unfair?
• Is there anything in the ISI's overall conduct which the school thinks was unfair to the school?
• Who is the new "independent governor" mentioned in the ISI report who has been appointed?
• Was he or she known to the headmistress, any other members of staff or any governors or trustees prior to the search to appoint a new governor being started? If so, what is their connection, and how long have they known each other?
• What information was provided to the ISI that meant that the ISI felt able to describe the new governor as "independent"?
• If there was a previous connection between the new governor and somebody at the school, was this connection disclosed to the ISI?
• How many staff did the ISI find had been permitted to supervise children before their CRB, List 99 and/or other checks were completed?
• What is the longest period that the ISI found that a member of staff had been permitted to supervise children before the CRB and other checks were completed?
• How many CRB and other checks were still outstanding at the time of the ISI's 2nd visit on 4-6 May?
• Concerning the two members of staff whom the ISI stated should have been referred to the ISA on their departure, are the descriptions of events concerning them substantially complete as given in the Statement of Grounds? Or are there further points the ISI took into account?
• Have those two former members of staff now been reported to the ISA, including complete descriptions of the circumstances of their departure? If so, when, and if not, why not?
• Since the previous OFSTED inspection in 2006, has any other member of staff been sacked or resigned because they were considered unsuitable to work with children?
• In each case, did you make a report to the ISA (or prior to 2009 to the Teacher Misconduct Section of the DfE) within a month of their departure?
• Are any referrals to the ISA currently being prepared or expected to be sent in the near future?
• Since the OFSTED inspection in 2006, have there been any incidents or allegations of abuse involving any current members of staff, governors or trustees? If so, how many allegations/incidents, involving how many different people?
• Were all those cases reported to the LADO at the time?
• If not, will you now retrospectively make the necessary reports to the LADO, so that the LADO can decide whether they merit investigation?
• At the school, have there been any incidents or allegations of abuse involving Father Gregory Chillman, beyond the "inappropriate remark" mentioned in the Statement of Grounds? If so, what are they, and what was done in response?
• Did the ISI indicate that it was already aware of any  incidents or allegations of abuse at the school involving Father Gregory Chillman, beyond the "inappropriate remark" mentioned in the Statement of Grounds?
• When did Father Gregory Chillman resign as chaplain and Chairman of Governors?
• Was Father Gregory Chillman's resignation in any way connected with allegations concerning his suitability to supervise children?
• Were all allegations concerning Father Gregory Chillman reported to the LADO at the time? If not, have they been reported since?
• Has a referral to the ISA been made with respect to Father Gregory Chillman?
• Who was the main author of the current (February 2011) version of the Child Protection Policy?
• Who was the main author of the previous (2010) version of the Child Protection Policy?
• When will the wording of the Child Protection Policy be altered to make it clear that immediate reporting of all incidents and allegations of abuse to the LADO must occur? (without weasel words concerning marginal cases)
• When will the wording of the Child Protection Policy be altered to replace the grossly misleading definition of "sexual abuse", and the means by which it can be recognised?
• Will the Child Protection Policy be reviewed by an external expert, and his or her advice be taken regarding improvements to the policy and procedures?

If there have been allegations concerning the conduct of individual teachers, past or present, then it is likely that your daughters will have heard about them on the grapevine. Take the trouble to find out about them from your daughters, make notes, and use them to ask questions at the meeting. Time to clear the air.

If you want to contact me privately to ask about any of these or any other questions, my email address is jonathanwest22@googlemail.com. I will be checking it regularly tonight and tomorrow.

Letter to Trustees and Governors

22nd March 2011

To the Governors and Trustees of St. Augustine’s Priory School

Dear Sir/Madam


ISI Inspection of St. Augustine’s Priory School 

I am writing to you as a concerned member of the public with a former connection to the school. My daughter for a short time attended the Junior School at St. Augustine’s some years ago.

The Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) made an inspection of the school on 23^rd and 24^th March 2010, with a follow-up visit from 4-6 May 2010. A follow-up visit of this nature is highly unusual, as you can see from viewing reports of other schools on the ISI website www.isi.net.

The ISI was extremely critical of the safeguarding and child protection measures at the school, both in terms of written policy and actual practice, and found that the school was in breach of a variety of regulatory requirements. Specific criticisms included the following:

• The school failed to send a notification to the Independent Safeguarding Authority on occasions where a member of staff left the school in circumstances where they were considered unsuitable to work with children. At least two such occasions were identified.
  
• CRB and List 99 checks on staff have not been carried out with sufficient rigour, and new members of staff have been permitted unsupervised contact with children before their CRB checks had been completed. In a small number of cases the delay in obtaining the appropriate CRB check was “lengthy”.
  
• CRB checks with enhanced disclosure have not been obtained for all the governors and proprietors (i.e. the Trustees)
  
• The Central Register of Appointments has not been properly maintained.
  
• The school’s Child Protection Policy does not meet regulatory requirements, placing an inappropriate emphasis on investigation of allegations by the school rather than immediate referral of all incidents and allegations of abuse to the Local Authority Designated Officer for Child Protection (LADO).
  
• The Governors and Trustees were not kept adequately informed by the highest level of management within the school (i.e. the headmistress) and were insufficiently proactive in obtaining the information necessary to fulfil their statutory duties.

The school’s response to these criticisms appears to have been to initiate the complaints process within the ISI, and also to seek Judicial Review of the ISI report in the High Court Administrative Court. Case number CO/11444/2010 (St. Augustine's Priory School Ltd vs Independent Schools Inspectorate) was allocated to the case when the action was brought in early November. A temporary injunction prohibiting publication of the report was obtained on 1^st November 2010. The Secretary of State for Education was added as a party to the case on 6^th December 2010.

Both the complaint and the legal action have either failed or been abandoned. The injunction has been lifted, and the ISI provided the final version of the report to the school on 28th February 2011, and published the report on its own website 2 weeks later. The report still contains all the criticisms the school claimed were unjustified when it brought the action in High Court. Goodness only knows how much money this action has cost the school, since I suspect that with the failure of the action, the school has been required to pay the costs of all parties.  The money has presumably come out of charitable funds.

As required by law, the report was sent to parents, with a covering letter written by the Headmistress. The covering letter made no reference at all to any regulatory failings, and consequently also made no apology for the failures nor any mention of any action the school would be taking to rectify them.

For some years I have run a blog http://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/ which has become a campaigning website concerning child protection issues, particularly in the context of the measures needed to make St. Benedict’s School safe for children.

On my blog, I have published an analysis of the ISI Report on St. Augustine’s, putting it into plain language for parents. I have also published the entire text of the Statement of Grounds of the school’s complaint against the ISI, a document which can be obtained from the court and is in the public domain. I have also reviewed portions of the latest version of the school’s child protection policy, and found that even after the ISI’s criticisms, the sections defining “sexual abuse”, describing signs by which sexual abuse could be recognised, and procedures for reporting incidents and allegations to the LADO all remain woefully inadequate.

These documents have generated considerable interest. The blog has averaged more than 1000 page views per day over the last fortnight, and there have been a considerable number of comments from parents, staff and others. Some of these comments have been highly critical particularly of the Headmistress. Almost all have been made anonymously, some clearly stating that they remain anonymous out of fear that retaliation by the headmistress will be directed toward their daughters at the school. You are welcome to view the articles and the comments on the blog.

Apparently as a result of pressure from parents, the Headmistress has announced that there will be a parents’ meeting on Friday 25^th March in order to discuss the report. I urge you to attend the meeting in order to hear the parents’ concerns at first hand and to answer their questions.

I also urge you to ensure that the school’s Child Protection Policy is further revised and made a model of best practice. In particular I request that the policy is made fully compliant with clause 15.2.1 of the Ealing Safeguarding Children Board guidance, which states the following with regard to allegations of abuse by staff. “The employer must inform the local authority designated officer (LADO) immediately an allegation is made.”

I also request that you arrange for regular external checks to ensure that the revised policy is being diligently and effectively implemented, and that you ensure that any other outstanding regulatory failures are corrected as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely
 Jonathan West

Governors: 
Prof Geoffrey Bennett
Dr Marcella Dowling Brannagan
Mrs Harkreet Grewal
Prof Anne Hemingway
Mrs Audrey Kendall

Trustees: 
Mr. Colin Bennett
Rt Rev Kieran Conry
Mr Alexis Fitzgerald
Miss Claire McIntyre
Mr David Murphy
Mrs Claire Murphy
Miss Denise Neilson