Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Katharine Birbalsingh was not the first at St Michael and All Angels Academy to be harassed, bullied and slandered

This morning, His Grace sent the St Michael and All Angels Academy and the Southwark Diocese Board of Education a final note, stating that unless he heard from them by 3 o’ clock that they were prepared at once to offer an apology to Katharine Birbalsingh with a statement of clarification, a state of enmity would exist between us.

His Grace has to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently His Grace’s blog is in a state of discontent and disappointment with Canon Peter Clark.

Since this school is financed by the public purse, it is undoubtedly in the public interest to disclose the truth of its deficiencies in leadership and insufficiencies in governance, which are far more disturbing than the appalling treatment meted out upon Ms Birbalsingh.

For she is not the first senior teacher at St Michael and All Angels to blow the whistle on management incompetence, a bullying headteacher and an incompetent chair of governors.

And neither is Ms Birbalsingh the first to be subject to arbitrary and discriminatory disciplinary procedures, and thereby deprived of justice.

It beggars belief that this school purports to operate under the aegis of the Church of England.

It gives His Grace no particular pleasure to force-feed a pharisee a mouthful of his own hypocrisy...

Like Ms Birbalsingh, Sairah Shah was an experienced and highly successful teacher who had been graded by Ofsted to be of the highest calibre. Her abilities had also been highly commended by her previous employers. Like Ms Birbalsingh, Sairah Shah was also employed by the Academy as an assistant headteacher in June 2008.

By 5th November that year, she had been signed off by her GP suffering from acute depression and work-related stress.

She never returned to work at the Academy.

In pursuit of justice, with the generous assistance and support of her family, she has forked out £38,000 in legal costs, which are about to be augmented by a further £20,000 in Tribunal proceedings.

She did not qualify for union support, so has pursued this with admirable determination for two long and lonely years, intent on restoring her personal honour and professional integrity.

Is it not a damning indictment of Canon Peter Clark that no way could be found to mediate in this dispute, and that neither the Academy nor the Diocese of Southwark appear to be equipped to deliver justice?

They bring the Church into disrepute and drag the name of Jesus through the mud.

When Sairah Shah joined the Academy, she had praises poured upon her by the then headteacher Mrs Sue Graham. But within weeks, she was being sidelined, undermined and harassed. Despite requests, she was given no job description and no induction, and then she was confronted with a proposal to change her job title to a tier beneath that for which she had been engaged.

Ms Shah attempted to communicate her concerns to Mrs Graham, not least because of the perceived demotion.

As with all bullies, Mrs Graham’s attitude towards Ms Shah was noticeably different from that day on.

Mrs Graham belittled and ridiculed Ms Shah in front of her colleagues. Ms Shah was summoned without notice (and unaccompanied) to quasi-disciplinary meetings, because bullies like to isolate and intimidate.

It is textbook.

Ms Birbalsingh was subjected to the same treatment by the present headteacher, Mrs Irene Bishop.

And like Ms Birbalsingh, Ms Shah was falsely accused of being ‘aggressive’, ‘ambitious’, of unsettling the leadership team and causing general discontent in the school. Just a few months into her employment, Ms Shah was being encouraged by Mrs Graham to begin applying for alternative employment.

It was clear that Mrs Graham wanted her out, which, naturally was a cause of great distress to Ms Shah.

At subsequent meetings, Mrs Graham denied having said what she had said at previous meetings (another classic strategy of bullies), and insisted that Ms Shah had ‘misunderstood’ and ‘taken things out of context’.

Significantly, in September 2008, Ms Shah was informed by Mrs Graham that as a result of a drop in the number of pupils at the Academy, there would be a need for redundancies, including among the Leadership Team. She said that fixed-term contracts would not be renewed. Ms Shah was the only leader so employed.

Thereafter, her name was expunged from all official paperwork, and even from the Staff Handbook.

Mrs Graham refused to speak with Ms Shah, whose health deteriorated significantly:
On 10 September, during the day, Ms Shah became very unwell. She was so unwell, with a pain in her stomach, that she could not walk. Several concerned colleagues commented that she had “gone grey” and said that she looked “dreadful”. Ms Michelle Ferguson, the Director of Communication, escorted the Claimant to the Academy’s medical room and insisted on going to the local pharmacy to buy some medicine for the Claimant. However, on her way out of the Academy, she was stopped by Mrs Graham. Mrs Graham then came to see the Claimant in the medical room, where she said to the Claimant: “You are not allowed to direct people to get your medicine: you are not a child and we don’t do this for adults. You can go home. I can call your husband. You’re not pregnant, are you?”
This was in stark contrast to the very supportive and sympathetic treatment Mrs Graham demonstrated towards her favoured staff.

Ms Shah was made to feel inadequate, incompetent, and simply ‘not up to the job’.

Interestingly, those who were invited to apply for the new positions in Mrs Graham’s restructuring were all white, despite there being two BME people on the Senior Leadership.

By this time, Ms Shah was on beta-blockers and anti-depressants.

There was then an attempt to curtail Ms Shah’s sick pay (contrary to her statutory entitlement), and she was erroneously asked to repay c£2,000 while she was already signed off with work-related stress.

In February 2009, Ms Shah commenced formal grievance proceedings against Mrs Graham, and escalated issues to the Chair of Governors, the Very Rev Dr Michael Ipgrave.

Astonishingly, he did not intervene and called no meeting to consider that grievance.

Unable to secure justice by using the school’s policies, and unable to secure justice with reference to the statutory procedures of the Southwark Diocese, Ms Shah has had no recourse but to pursue the matter through the courts.

Her case (re-)commences this coming Friday in the Croydon Employment Tribunal.

Dr Ipgrave has, of course, since been replaced by Canon Clark, who dismissed Mrs Graham after last May’s damning Ofsted report.

That alone ought to inform us that Mrs Graham’s leadership and conduct were found wanting and falling far short of the standards required in a church school.

And Ms Shah’s testimony is corroborated by the damning letter of the four unions involved with the school, who observed:
The Principal's management style does not inspire or motivate. It is not an inclusive style. The staff here is keen to be involved but everything is imposed without consultation. Where there are policies and procedures these are changed at a whim without staff involvement.

In some important areas there are no policies e.g. the Pay Policy despite being requested. 106 staff members have left since the academy opened began and of these, 44% were from the old school and 56% were recruited by the Principal herself. Many of the staff from the predecessor school had been there for a good many years and seen many changes, including going through, and coming out of, Special Measures (1999 – 2000). It should also be noted that hardly any staff have left because of reasons of promotion. Recruitment and retention is a massive concern with huge knock-on effects for the whole school community. Sometimes people just leave with no notice and it is rare for someone’s leaving to be celebrated by the school community in an assembly or the like. In several cases, staff members have still not officially been informed that colleagues are no longer a part of the staff, years down the line. We have attached a list of staff that have left over the three years since Mrs Graham has been in charge. It is interesting to consider that many staff who have left are of black and ethnic minority origin – those who have left are disproportionately from ethnic groups. There is currently only one BME member of the SMT. the staff as a whole spend too much of their time worried about their prospects and job security and this does not help move the school on.

Unfortunately many people have left under compromise agreements and so are now unable to come forward and bear witness; however there are others who are happy to come forward and give evidence when necessary.
So, Canon Clark, why have you seen fit to treat Ms Birbalsingh in the same shoddy and cavalier fashion?

Does that have to go to Tribunal as well?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Unfortunately many people have left under compromise agreements and so are now unable to come forward and bear witness; however there are others who are happy to come forward and give evidence when necessary."

One can only hope they will be asked by Mrs Shah to do so. Although Canon Clark was not the Head of Governors at the time it seems that he has taken leadership lessons from his predecessor and I very much hope that Miss Birbalsingh not only brings the school to Tribunal but considers a libel action too.

YG, can you tell us if we can expect to see the Daily Mail use the information you have discovered to balance the misinformation from Canon Clark they reported last week?

2 February 2011 at 15:39  
Blogger Tom said...

Your Grace, I am a member of the congregation at Southwark Cathedral, where the Venerable Dr. Michael Ipgrave currently serves (alongside his work as the Archdeacon of Southwark) and am therefore keen and able to discuss this matter with him, and hopefully with the Bishop (as in the Bishop of Southwark, President of the Southwark Diocesan Board of Education). Are you able to provide evidence of the accusations that you present here in a form that could be presented to those concerned?

I have no reason to doubt your claims, but I do know the diocese's (as with any large organisation) wonderful record at ignoring things unless there in front of them!

Knowing Father Michael, he does not seem the sort to endorse this kind of bullying, but I would like to see both sides of the story!


2 February 2011 at 15:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom, that would be wonderful. Perhaps you can let us know what their response is?

2 February 2011 at 15:42  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Dear Mr Tom,

Please be assured that His Grace would not have run with this story if he were not satisfied that a grave injustice has been and is being perpetrated.

They are all in receipt of the paperwork: the hearing commences on Friday, though doubtless Dr Ipgrave is relieved to be 'out of it'. Burying one's head in the sand (as Canon Clark is now doing) only exacerbates the aggravation by delaying justice.

2 February 2011 at 15:44  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

"unless [I] heard from them by 3 o’ clock ... that a state of enmity would exist between us"

Ooooh! Bet that had them quaking in their boots.

Seriously, don't you think you're getting ideas above your station here Cranmer? It has absolutely nothing to do with you and they were right to ignore your petulant demands. Were you a parent or a governor or a locally elected representative then you might have some grounds for making demands. But you're not. So let the tribunals sort out the truth from the falsehood.

2 February 2011 at 15:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Rebel Saint

Did you write the same thing to the Daily Mail journalist who repeated Canon Clark's lies last Sunday? Cranmer is absolutely right to get involved when he sees an injustice being perpetrated.

2 February 2011 at 15:56  
Blogger Tom said...

Your Grace, nonetheless, and I am keen to speak those involved directly regardless, it would be nice to know what they know if you are in position to share sources. If you wish this to via email rather than on here, I can understand that, if so, please advise and I can provide an email address.

@anonymous I will happily report back the views of the Archdeacon, and if I can pin him down (perhaps at his forthcoming enthronement?), the bishop.

@Rebel Saint, am I allowed by your standards to create "a state of emnity" (if I find it necessary) as a member of the electoral roll of the diocese. The Diocesan Board of Education certainly acts in my name, and it's achievements are routinely praised in my church. It seems only fair to consider their failings. As to whether Cranmer can claim that privilege, I don't know - the veil of anonymity you and he hide behind covers that.

2 February 2011 at 16:01  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

I don't read the daily mail. But if some Daily Mail journalist were publicly demanding an apology from a school on behalf of their latest cause celebre then the answer is, Yes I would write the same thing to them.

2 February 2011 at 16:07  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Tom,

Please revert to email - address in top right-hand corner of blog.

2 February 2011 at 16:07  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Rebel Saint,

His Grace thanks you for your further admonishment, but he genuinely believes that lowly, small and insigificant people (such as he) are able to request apologies and demand justice. You, however, appear to appropriate that right only to the great and the good.

2 February 2011 at 16:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A corrupt headteacher bullying an excellent member of staff into leaving...sounds all too familiar unfortunately.

Don't these asses on power-trips realise how serious it is to mess with people's careers, self-esteem, health and lives with their pathetic, nasty, vindictive antics?

2 February 2011 at 16:33  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

All the best with your crusade YG, its good to see real pro-active blogging.

2 February 2011 at 16:38  
Blogger Alan Douglas said...

To the idiot who claims it to be none of HG's business, are you saying he should cease being a Good Samaritan, and pass by on the other side ?

I do not think he knows how to do that.

Alan Douglas

2 February 2011 at 16:49  
Blogger Alcuin said...

I should like to thank His Grace, I hope on behalf of all who read this column, for his efforts in bringing a great injustice to our notice. How many other such dramas are being played out in bureaucracies (Education, Health, Local Government and the BBC) throughout the land. One more (to add to the already sorry list) pernicious aspect of bureaucracies is that they also frequently wield monopoly power in their field of employment.

Ayo Gurkhali!

2 February 2011 at 16:52  
Anonymous Indigo said...

From the FT 21 June 2008,

Academies – the most popular model for religious organisations' current expansion in state education – were opened in 2002 to serve tough working-class neighbourhoods. But some are becoming increasingly popular with middle-class parents. The schools enjoy huge government resources, heavy-hitting governing bodies and famous so-called "super-heads", frequently parachuted in by the government to make the schools a success. ... Susan Graham, executive principal of Camberwell's St Michael and All Angels Church of England Academy – a rare case of an academy that does select largely by faith – said its very visible Christian message fostered "emotional intelligence" in children, which allowed them to achieve their full potential. The school has a church on its site, and begins staff meetings with a prayer.

The disconnect is jaw-dropping.

2 February 2011 at 17:14  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@Alan Douglas

The Good Samaritan didn't stop and demand that the robbers make a public apology by 3 o'clock or else their would be enmity between them. He offered practical support to the victim. I don't know if the Good Samaritan got involved with the administration of justice.

In this case, the facts are going to be established through proper due process. And rightly so.

Cranmer seems somewhat infatuated with Mrs Birbalsingh. She seems more than capable of fighting her own battles. However I think the quote from Mrs Birbalsingh on the right hand side of Cranmer's blog might explain why this particular episode of injustice pre-occupies him more than most.

2 February 2011 at 17:15  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>It beggars belief that this school purports to operate under the aegis of the Church of England.

Purports? Looks like it DOES. Faith schools not all they are cracked up to be then?

2 February 2011 at 17:28  
Anonymous Justice for the Birbalsingh one! said...

OK, this looks like an injustice, but we have heard only one side of the matter and any tribunal will want to look at the facts in a logical,legal and cool manner.

One also gets the feeling that this blog is being turned in the campaign for Birbalsingh/get the b*ggers from Sothwark; can the lady not speak for herself? Why does she require Cranmer as her cyphier?

2 February 2011 at 17:29  
Anonymous Archbishop Laud said...

So, this once intelligent and erudite blog is now being turned into the campaign forum for some bird who left her job after slagging off her own profession and school in the most political of forums??

Is the Cranmer collection plate money being used to fund Birbalsingh's legal team? If so, isn't that a bit like robbing the Church 'poor box'?

2 February 2011 at 17:32  
Anonymous Fallon Gong said...

So does this mean we are going to get nothing more than this story now?

Come on!

Injustice or not, there are many more in this country and around the world which his Grace could focus on.

But why not? Hmmm. Perhaps because they didn't convert to Thatcherism?

Or is this as Rebel Saint (who, despite my disagrements with is spot on here) has said more to do with an infatuation? I mean these posts remind me of a caring husband or wife defending their other half, no matter what.

2 February 2011 at 17:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would have thought that it is perfectly clear to all but the most blinkered that Ms Birbalsingh is taking every attempt to stay in the public eye until her book is published.
Let us not forget that it is through her publisher that she was able to take to the stage at the party conference.
A discussion on the merits of our education system does seem to have been hijacked by a meglamaniac.

2 February 2011 at 17:38  
Anonymous Conrad Russell said...

So, with Dale's Diary gone and with this blog becoming a rather insane one-man crusade against Southwark Diocese, where are we going to get a half decent debate on world affairs and politics (the stuff which people really want to talk about)? Anyone got any suggestions?

2 February 2011 at 17:39  
Anonymous Fallon Gong said...

"Ms Birbalsingh is taking every attempt to stay in the public eye until her book is published."


2 February 2011 at 17:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, despite the decent advance Birbalsingh is going to get for her book, does anyone want to do a whip round for this poor, mistreated gal? I'll put a tuppence in myself!

2 February 2011 at 17:43  
Blogger IanW said...

Sad to say, this kind of treatment is often meeted out to their staff by the management of religious organisations and charities. There's something about the role that attracts the self righteous, who seem to experience difficulty in distinguishing between their own interests and those of the organisation; and with a strong sense of right on their side neither procedure nor fairness will be allowed to get in the way.

2 February 2011 at 17:43  
Blogger Tom said...

@IanW: Unfortubnately too true! If only humans with a religious vocation were less fallen and self-interested than the average!

2 February 2011 at 17:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are undoubtedly many more cases of injustice in this country and around the world which HG could focus on but this is about three years of gross injustice which has only now been allowed to see the light of day. A Public Enquiry is the only thing which will go anywhere to repair the great damage done to dozens of good and dedicated teachers and hundreds of children who have been failed miserably due to this appalling cover-up.

2 February 2011 at 17:51  
Anonymous Count Dooku said...

I agree with Anon at 17.43 & 17.51; would his grace do a collection plate for Ms Birbalsingh, who is just at the nub of a great hive of corruption, lies, decite and dare I say it evil?

PS- I can always give Canon Clark a bolt of Force Lightening... if it helps?

2 February 2011 at 17:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

About time some-one stood up to the leftists of the Southwark diocese, who are the vanguard of the pro-women vicar, pro-gay vicar movement!

2 February 2011 at 18:01  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

The issue is greater than some see.

It is both unusual and rather intimidating for a teacher ( or many other public servants) to break ranks and disclose that all is nor well in the where of liberal shaped have taken us.

If one of the few who dares to speak out is crushed, it will serve as a serious break on proper debate. The Left is all very keen on whisleblowers like Julian Assange- until it is theirvdirty secrets being exposed to the public gaze.

2 February 2011 at 18:08  
Blogger Tom said...

@Anonymous: Well I'm not sure I'm your ideal man... I'm in favour of those two things, but would much prefer the Church returns to old-fashioned things like ad orientem Latin Masses and having opinions on things rather trying to please everyone! Perhaps HG is better able to fulfil your requirements!

2 February 2011 at 18:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bloggers need to be very careful that what they write is accurate -- see article summarising the effects of English libel law on bloggers:

2 February 2011 at 18:15  
Blogger OldSouth said...

OS's experience tells him that the 'Birblasingh' cases are usually not isolated. People act like they act, harm whom they harm, and one fine day find out that the sunlight shines upon one and all.

Perhaps those who have had similar nightmare experiences with this school and diocese might wish to contact you discreetly?

2 February 2011 at 18:54  
Anonymous Voyager said...

This school has funding of £7,773 per pupil which whilst not the highest in Southwark is a lot of public money when 743 pupils are around.

GCSE results are irrelevant, they are fixed with ICT and vocational courses, but what matters is why children cannot be educated properly for £7773/head. This is not far off the median income in some Northern cities where £5000 per pupil is more common as outlay.

That there are headteachers with personality disorders is well-known, that there are teachers who build careers on maternity leave is well known, that competent teachers are bullied out of their jobs and into depression is exceedingly well-known.

The only question is why we spend 11% total government spending on Education for so little return yet have headteachers on luxurious salary packages with assistants galore

2 February 2011 at 19:19  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Anon- I quite agree that bloggers need to be on the right side of libel laws, but I would suggest that his Grace is no fool and knows what he is up to.

In any case, I would also suggest the reality is that if the Canon or whoever were to sue, they would need massive funds (and I for one would NOT want to see Church funds being dedicated to the Canon et al) and secondly any litigation would backfire on these people at this stage- his Grace and Katherine solicitors would have a field day.

As to those who suggest that there is something 'going on' between Katherine and Cranmer, well I would suggest that this is a case of the old English values of justice, fairness and right as personified by His Grace as a latter day Knight Errand. (I would of course have thrashed them myself, but it is not my policy sword fight people of the cloth or those who do not merit such a noble contest).

I also think that the righteous of this blog should consider donating some money to this case- I have guinea ready! I look forward to his Grace putting up another of those thermometers, so we can see how the campaign of justice is progressing.

2 February 2011 at 19:32  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

I went to a comprehensive school. There was none of this shenanigans in my day. :)

2 February 2011 at 19:48  
Anonymous Budgie said...

When you are bullied you find out how lonely it is. Few know, and fewer still understand, and no-one speaks out because their head will be the next on the chopping block.

All power to Cranmer's elbow. I hate the sort of institutional cover-up he is exposing.

2 February 2011 at 22:41  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

As someone who has already been bullied out of a job Your Grace, I know what it feels like to be undermined, belittled and hounded at every turn by a despotic Head. Unfortunately, I was not surrounded by friends but those who pass by on the other side. Neither did I have enough funds to fight back and so to this day remain unvanquished. I wish you every success in your endeavour to bring this injustice out into the light!

2 February 2011 at 22:46  
Anonymous berserker-nkl said...

ALcuin posts quite rightly that--

One more (to add to the already sorry list) pernicious aspect of bureaucracies is that they also frequently wield monopoly power in their field of employment.

The great French writer and philosopher, Simone Weil, summed it all up when she wrote that... Bureaucracies always betray.

Why are people surprised?

Conrad Russell posts...So, with Dale's Diary gone and with this blog becoming a rather insane one-man crusade against Southwark Diocese, where are we going to get a half decent debate on world affairs and politics (the stuff which people really want to talk about)? Anyone got any suggestions?

Do people really want to talk about world affairs? The small and petty, the bullying of bureaucratic self interest, well... I would say that makes the blood boil, not the machinations of Nation States.

2 February 2011 at 23:43  
Anonymous berserker-nkl said...

There seems to be a general tone of posts that... HG is obsessed with La Birbalsingh. Really?

Is it not about Sairah Shah and Mrs Graham?

2 February 2011 at 23:55  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

"Ms Michelle Ferguson, the Director of Communication ...."
Why on earth does a school require a Director of Communication?
The Grammar School that I went to (600 plus boys) had a Headmaster (plain and simple) and a School Secretary. They ran the school, no-one else!
Shows where the money now goes.

3 February 2011 at 00:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's ok, I got the chamberlain reference.

3 February 2011 at 01:11  
Anonymous Caedmon's Cat said...

Is the cultural and moral climate of this country so addled and perverted that certain people commenting in this blog are unable to discern injustice and tyranny when it stares them in the face? It's surely an indictment of contemporary values when some are more interested in questioning Cranmer's motives than the issue he's highlighting..

So - who's going to run to their aid if they're ever victimised by institutionalised bullying? Or are they really defenders of the despots and the system that installed and encouraged them?

3 February 2011 at 11:07  
Anonymous ukFred said...

Only two things surprise me abut this story: the first that Ed Balls' favourite head, Michael Wilkins, is not involved, and that no previous recipient of this sort of tretment has dared to raise their head above the parapet.

@martin sewell, I think this is a matter of pour encourager les autres.

3 February 2011 at 13:42  
Anonymous Petronius said...

I know that I was all "well done, YG" in my last comment, but to be honest, after reading these last few posts, some of the details that have emerged have rather puzzled me, and have left me with the vague impression that there might have been some background connections and perhaps a certain degree of forward planning (concerning ALL the parties involved in this case) that we aren't yet aware of. Is it just me, or does anyone else share my (slight) sense ne sais quoi?

...Or perhaps it's just that I have never worked in the public sector, so I'm making false assumptions about what is 'normal' in it?

I'll give an example of what I'm on about: In HG's post "...The Truth About It's Closure" we read the following:

The decision to close this academy has not recently been taken: that decision preceded Ms Birbalsingh’s employment. This is why Canon Clark appointed only an acting, temporary, part-time Executive Headteacher. And ‘Dr’ Irene Bishop knew of these plans all along.

His Grace seems very certain of his facts here, going on to say "Is that not a fact, Rev Clark", but it's the first that I knew of it; that fact came as a complete revelation to me. I don't recall Ms B mentioning anything (in the press aftermath of the Conference furore) about her knowing in advance that her new job was always going to be temporary. Indeed, on the one hand, why on earth would she have left her previous job to go and work in a place that she knew to be under imminent threat of closure? That would be utterly crazy, especially in the current economic climate. On the other hand, does this mean that her interviewers knew but deliberately did not tell her about the impending termination of the academy (and therefore of her job)? Or WHAT does it mean? Am I missing something here which applies to the public sector only? Either way, I think this point could be important, and I think it needs some further clarification, as I get the feeling I'm missing some background info here.

3 February 2011 at 21:47  
Anonymous non mouse said...

As Budgie and like-minded ones say.
I'm full of appreciation and admiration, Your Grace.

3 February 2011 at 23:46  
Anonymous JayBee said...

I have no inside knowledge of this particular school but I can confirm that the practice of recruiting into posts that are already earmarked for redundancy does occur in the public sector. This is usually 'justified' on the basis that the job still has to be done now.

Sometimes there are warning signs and you can dodge the bullet as I did on one occasion. As they used to say in British Railways "When they start repainting the stations you know the line is scheduled for closure."

4 February 2011 at 09:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So there are more comments in the press.
I can state that the previous headteacher Susan Graham was openly ridiculed by students in assemblies she attempted to give. Students talked over her and openly jeered, particularly in her fisrt term at her rewards assembly.
Objects were thrown, when video footage of teachers was shown students booed and jeered. At the end of the assembly Mrs Graham praised the studenst for their 'excellent behaviour'.
Many staff simply walked out to the staff room where one of the governors heard of the appalling situation.

4 February 2011 at 21:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They are all fools seriously from the Governors to these ridiculous Principal's. What I think they should do is to put Ms. Birbalsingh as the new Principal of the Academy or make the school be connected with another school and make her the Head of School because I think she is better then all these idiotic people.

1 March 2011 at 17:33  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older