I suppose my ideal meeting would run somethng like this:
- Welcome from the Governors
- Explanation of the Governing Body - who is on it, who they represent, how it works, what they are supposed to do
- Normal communication that will flow from the Governors to parents
- How we raise issues with the Governing Body and how they will handle them
- What has unfolded at the school over the last few years to cause the noise that is rumbling now, including explanations of 'special measures', the survey etc.
- How the body that they are setting up to handle parents concerns relating to all of this will work
- General school action plan they are implementing
- Time for questions on the overall plan
- Proposed date of the next open meeting
- Any other business
I suppose we will have to wait and see...
63 comments:
Sorry for the repetion, but there are only so many ways to phrase this question and still not get an answer. The governors seem to have busied themselves remaining in the shadows,or posing as 'shocked of Acton' .
Come on governors, get over it. Answer a real question:
"Can I echo the question that at least one other poster has posed that seems to have been overlooked.
I would also like to know on what basis the governors have decided that the school was in trouble prior to the current heads arrival?
The bishops letter says clearly that other than the number of heads ( a debatable point since it would never have been an issue had Mr Murphy not left so quickly) There was a clear concern about "Quality of education".
Why? How? On what basis?
This just doesn't add up and I smell a very large rat and I want to pursue it.
Other than the SATs, which were excellent, what other objective standard have you got governors? All your calls for "evidence, evidence" ring a little hollow when you can't provide any evidence of your own on this very crucial claim."
I'm not holding my breath for an answer.
I think you make a mistake in thinking that the only ones asking for 'evidence' are the govenors. A lot of reception parents would like to be able to have both sides presented so they can make a judgement.
Since someone recently told me about this site, I have read through the different postings and comments and was pleased to see that between the personal opinions and moaning, there were some positive criticisms that the governors could look at and possible take into account.
However, I'm disappointed to see that this week the comments have become very biting, so much so that not much that is constructive can come out of it.
I currently have children in the school, but my concerns about the school are longer reaching and not just due to the current head.
I'm afraid this is the last you will hear of me as I'm not interested in being involved in this anymore.
One last comment though, with regards to comments concerning the PFA, I am pleased to see that members are working so hard to get the summer fair organised. This may be a way of bringing more positive feeling toward the school in general. There was a group of parents who felt it shouldn't go ahead this year.
Goodbye.
I agree that this is not the place for back biting and nastiness. It is clear that some people are frustrated and angry about how events have tumbled and how people have been treated, however acting in an aggressive manner is exactly what is being complained about.
I would like this site to return to proper, constructive debate.
It is my opinion that an independent enquiry should be established to look at all sides of the arguments and to check the history of what has happened so far, since Mrs Cleugh arrived. They should also enquire into the 'concerns of quality education' at St Vincent's prior to Mrs Cleugh's employment at the school.
It seems that there is too great a lack of trust and confidence in the current governing body so this enquiry must be carried out by an independent body who can be trusted by all sides. If this is not possible perhaps a vote of no confidence in the governing body should be arranged. That would demonstrate the true support for and against the current governors.
I would also like to point out that in previous blogs some people have inferred that only parents should be making statements here. As the PFA stands for Parents and Friends Assc, and St Vincents has a history of being supported by many people, both present and past parents, pupils and staff, as well as parishioners, I would expect that all people with an interest in the future of the school should be able to have their say here.
Yes, lets try not to be distracted by some of the more hyperbolic comments here and focus on some very real issues.
I have a sense that the blog has been hijacked somewhat by people who are angry that it exists at all. Those people are trying to create an impression of mud slinging and general nastiness. Lets not take the bait, and stick to the points we really want to see addressed.
I didn't post this originally. But with the meeting tomorrow, it might help to focus minds to re consider some of the following questions:
"Re: Ofsted – Questions for Mrs Cleugh - How would she respond?
Why have you referred to St Vincent’s as a failing school?
How can a school that has constantly produced good results and is always over subscribed show up so poorly in the recent Ofsted inspection?
Why weren’t the staff supported and treated equally by you during the inspection?
Why were some members of staff setup so as to appear in a bad light in front of the inspectors?
Why did you say to an inspector, in front of a class teacher that that class was a failing class?
Do the staff feel that the conclusions in the report were a fair representation of the school?
Why did some parents and members of staff feel unable to make any comments to the inspectors, was it because of the lack of confidentiality in the school or the fear of repercussions ?
Is it true that you are an RE Ofsted Inspector yourself?
Re: Survey – Questions for Governors – How would they respond?
Why did so many parents have to sign a petition asking for a meeting with the governors in order to discuss the Ofsted report?
Why did the governors promise a meeting and then replaced it with a survey?
Who compiled the questions and why was so little time given to complete them?
Were any parents other than parent governors involved in this process?
Was the survey fair, it had two positive but only one negative box to tick?
Would this not produce an inaccurate overall picture of the true concerns of parents?
Why were there no questions concerning the Head Teachers management skills?
Who analysed the completed surveys, was it an independent body?
Is it the case that completed surveys were left where they could be seen by members of staff?
Do you think that parents are confident in the way that you as governors have dealt with concerns raised in the survey?
Do the governors think they have listened and acted appropriately to these concerns?
Do the governors think that they have acted in the best interests of the school?
The following extracts have been taken from the Diocese of Westminster’s website complaints procedure page. www.rcdow.org.uk/education
‘No-one likes criticism but an open organisation will always be willing to listen to concerns and anxieties and be ready to learn from them if appropriate.
‘In a Catholic school, parental concerns are of particular importance. As the first educators of their children, parents have a duty to take an active interest in their school.’
‘To this end, “there must be the closest co-operation between parents and the teachers to whom they entrust their children to be educated. In fulfilling their task, teachers are to collaborate closely with the parents and willingly listen to them.”
‘In a Catholic School, therefore, dealing with parental concerns will be an intrinsic part of the school’s ethos and mission. In addition, terms of reference for governing bodies now include the legal obligation to “be open about the decisions they make and the actions they take and in particular…….to explain their decisions and actions to interested parties”.
‘Thus a climate of openness and partnership is essential.’
What has happened to the climate of openness and partnership at St Vincent’s? I look forward to your comments.
April 20, 2007 9:08 PM "
I was alerted to you blog by a colleague. I have read through the comments and cannot believe that parents of a school could set up such a hate site.
Do your children know what you are publishing?
Do you understand what bullying is? Yes, of course you do. One of the posters went to great lengths to explain.
Do you realise that you are bullies. Your responses to people who do not agree with you are nasty, sarcastic and forceful.
I am pleased that , at last, some parents, who are happy with the school are now expressing their views to you.
Well done, to you.
As one parent put it, meet face to face and discuss the issues.
I was not happy at your responses and sarcasism to an ex student of the school.
I was also apalled at your inclusion of the nam of a governor and some personal details on her family. Glad o see that those comments have nbeen removed.
I hope you will have a packed hall tomorrow night and that you all have the guts to air your views face to face.
To ex-psrent
Well done for your comments. Please lern to spell.
Please can we focus on the issues and not make silly remarks against people who are simply voicing their opinions, and may not be taking plenty of time to check their typing before publishing their comments. What this blogspot is here for is important- to improve St Vincents, for the staff, children, families, everyoe in the comunity. Making silly comments simply reduces the impact that this debate could have if it just remained at an adult level.
Thank you, in advance.
I am another ex-st vincent's mum (moved away) who probably can't spell. either. The point is that a point has been made...by your self in the answer to the previous entry regarding the hate campaign. This blog is disgraceful, utterly and totally. Under the pretext that you wish to see things improve at St Vincent's you have sistematically tried to demolish the reputation and the respectability of some very good people who are doing their best at a very difficult and complex job. Unpaid - as volonteers. The sad thing is, some of you I know and respect and I believe you to be grossly misguided concerning many issues and it saddens me enormously to see you involved in this disgrace. I can only imagine who is hiding behind the various anonymous bloggers. I would like to invite any other visitors to this blog to stay away from such a biased and evil set-up (I do not use this word lightly) and not to get involved. If you have questions go to the person concerned and ask them. That is the only way the truth will out.
The truth.
To anonymous ex Thank you for your wise comments. I do hope they will be listened to. I hope that all of you out there realise that Friends of the school have always been very supportive of the school. We may not clamber up to the gates but we all support your functions in one way or another. It has never been known that parents of the school held a vendetta against a head, governors or any teacher.
We always. politly, shared our concerns with the individual(s) concerned. We did not need anonymonity.
Please take the advice of the previous poster.
Can I make a plea to not respond to these hysterical posters?
Tempting though it is, they seek to draw us down rabbit trails to deflect attention away from the questions which we have been asking. There are some people who are really really stirred up by this blog. That was inevitable. Please note that none of these posters has been able to offer any positive reasons for their support of what has been happening. Their accusations are a diversion from the purpose of this blog. In addition their accusatory "shouting" is an attempt to lend this blog an air of the gutter. Treat them like someone shouting at you in the supermarket because you got infront of them in the queue. Contemptuous silence please.Their accusations are baseless and any objective reader can assess that for themselves.
Please, please rise above it and stay focused.
TG, I have no wish to see any debate stifled, but please bear in mind that this is hijacking proper debate. Those posts which are of the 'attack and accuse' variety are an attempt to run this onto the hard shoulder. Please consider the bloggers option to validate posts before they appear.
Have been following this ite since the weekend. It stinks of hate, jealousy and anger. Are your children aware of what you are doing? If they are, how do you think they feel when they enter a school where you do not like the head?
I am sure if you were courteous, reasonable and willing to speak, your headteacher would co-operate. If I were in her shoes, I would be very wary of people who victimise me omn the web.
If there have been differences why do you need to make public your feelings? You phone up make an appointment and sort things out. There are many problems in life, however , we do not go about them in this manner.
I am pleased to see that X parents have now joined this blog. Maybe you could take their advice.
Please remember that when your childrn go to secondary school you will not have the power that you think you have now. Also take note of the poster from happy parents at the school. They also have a right to their say.
So other than asking for an independent enquiry or asking direct questions of the head teacher and the governors (which may or may not be answered) does anyone have any other suggestions for a way forward?
Same ex-st vincent's mum (moved away).
Well, I think I have proved a point and touched a sore spot. Hysterical shouting? Honestly, even I could have done better than that. Freedom of speech is a right all of us have, but libel and slander must be considered when writing half truths and downright fabrications.Have all of you anonymous posters actually thought about that when getting on your high horses and citing OFSTED reports and guidelines etc out of context?
Sorry..not good enough, whoever you are.
As I said,back to the point...
'other than asking for an independent enquiry or asking direct questions of the head teacher and the governors (which may or may not be answered) does anyone have any other suggestions for a way forward?'
I believe real pressure needs to be brought to bear on the diocese with the regards to the way in which they have sought to suppress or ignore concerns. Previous parents went to the diocese about this head and were persuaded not to take their greivance further on the assurance that, should any similar concerns arise again, they would be vigorously investigated. That has not happened.
I have no idea why. I can only speculate. But Paul Barber, Mike Pittendreigh and Bishop Stack himself really need to be held accountable for the way in which they have handled this sorry business.
Why is the \\\\\\\\\\\acton mother afraid of opposing views?
Please try not to get wound up by such people and do not stoop to a level thats not becoming of you. Remember we are here for a proper adult debate and must focus on the matter at hand and not be sidetracked by people who wish to make us seem to be nasty, bullying, vengeful people. Everyone is allowed there say here so let them speak. If you disagree then respond in a useful way which would expand the debate, or simply ignore.
Thanks.
Is the meeting still on tomorrow? What is the agenda?
Yes, I believe it is still on. No agenda as far as I'm aware though ( nothing like the element of surprise!).
Although it is likely to have its tense moments, lets hope that the meeting is fruitful and that some of our questions actually do get meaningful answers.
I think it would be interesting to find out what the governors gleaned from the exit interviews they held for the members of staff who have left. Also, it would be interesting to know how many of the posts advertised for St Vincents are for replacing more lost staff, and why more teachers are leaving. The teachers are a vitral part of the life blood of the school and many have stayed throughout many changes of leadership. It is important to know why they have left and why they are planning to leave. Perhaps this cold be raised at tomorrows meeting.
I'm new to this so hope my message comes out! Reading this blog, it's very apparent that even though they have different viewpoints, presumably based on their own experiences, there are a lot of people who care deeply about our school and it's future. This can only be a positive thing, although a minority do seem to be using the strength of feeling in a negative way.I'm new to the school and so don't have much to compare the current situation with, but I am alarmed by the very high staff turnover and the general atmosphere of tension although the staff new and old do seem to be doing a great job in difficult circumstances. I found the honesty and candour of the ex-teachers extremely moving but also disturbing; I can't understand how their experiences have not been investigated at a high level.
That said, we do have the opportunity to discuss our concerns with our Governors tomorrow. Surely whatever our personal feelings, we must try and find a way to move forwards constructively together as a community, as well as ensuring that the past issues are properly examined and appropriate action taken. If the meeting becomes dominated by petty bickering and mud-slinging we could well miss our one opportunity to be taken seriously as parents.
By way of concentrating minds prior to tonights meeting, this may be worth re posting:
" The conduct of the head is only one of the issues at the heart of this. Hard questions need to be asked regarding the governors mismanagement of the school. This includes the issue of headteacher appointments, lack of support for members of staff who have asked them for help, poor communication and lack of clarity with the community of St Vincents, failure to pass on letters of concern or complaint to the whole governing body, failure to respond, or respond adequately, to letters of concern or complaint. Colluding with the head in hiding information, refusing to answer questions and fobbing off concerns.
One of the most shocking and greivous faults is the lack of support for staff who, despite all the changes, have put/kept the school in extremely good standing. They have allowed, by implication of "failing school" "special measures" "concerns over quality of education" suspicion to fall on teachers, rather than themselves, which, if it belongs anywhere, is where the responsibility lies. They have, in short, allowed teachers to be the fall guy, carrying the can for their own shortcomings.
This craven blame shifting is cowardly and ignoble. They need to step up to the plate and acknowledge both their responsibility, and, belatedly, the debt they owe to teachers whose reputations have been unfairly maligned.
May 4, 2007 5:34 PM "
I agree. The governors need to be reminded that they are the employers of the staff at the school, not the head. As such they havea responsibility to listen to staffs concerns. There was a case last year, in the south west of England, where a deputy head had been bullied severly by the head teacher. The deputy asked her governors and LEA for support but none was forthcoming. All seemed to support the head. In the end the case was heard by tribunal and the governing body had to pay a considerable amount of compensation to the DH, who by this point was unable to return to any school. This is a very extreme example but serves as a good exemplar of what can happen to governing bodies who forget or neglect their responsibilities.
I should add that although the head was reprimanded and may have lost her job (I forget the full article) she did not have to pay compensation to the DH, as she was not the employer of the DH, even though she was the one who had made the DHs life a misery!
If the governors have not followed proper procedures when concerns have been raised, and that includes such simple details as NOT responding to letters, and indeed, NOT sharing letters of complaint with the whole governing body, then they are accountable and therefore liable.
It is a matter of record that many concerns have been brought to the governors that have been either disregarded or inadequately dealt with.
That, in large part, is why this blog became an unfortunate neccesity. Complaints from some that this is an unfair or improper ( or more colourful words to that effect) forum are failing to take that into account.
We do need a proper, fair and INDEPENDENT investigation into all these matters if confidence in the management of the school is to be restored.
Either that or a vote of 'no confidence' in the current governing body. But if that goes ahead there must be new people ready to take on that big responsibility and role.
To Happy Parents, Staff and Governors……..
I do find it interesting that not one person feels comfortable enough to put their name to their comment. Could you be specific and explain any positive changes that have happened to the school since Mrs Cleugh’s arrival?
I believe this is what has happened so far …….
1. A Poor OFSTED Report. I believe if OFSTED had inspected the school when Mr Murphy was the Head Teacher there would have been a very different outcome - The same staff but under different leadership.
2. A large exodus of Senior Teachers. A large proportion of staff have left many were senior teachers and more are leaving this summer (see jobs advertised). I believe that many parents and governors are still not aware of the real reasons why so many of the staff have left. The experienced staff have been mainly replaced by newly qualified teachers (NQT’s).
3. Children are being withdrawn from the school. A number of children have been withdrawn from the school because of concerns/actions relating to the Head Teacher. They include the children of a newly appointed Governor.
4. A petition requesting an open meeting to discuss the OFSTED Report. This was signed by a large number of parents. Initially the Governors agreed to a meeting but later changed their minds and instead sent out a questionnaire/survey.
5. A Survey was carried out. The format and questions were compiled by the Governors. There were no questions concerning the Head Teacher or her management skills. The questions had two positive boxes but only one negative which would have an effect on the results. Even so I believe the survey showed that about 20% of parents have serious concerns. This is a large proportion of parents.
6. A letter from Bishop Stack to all parents. I believe this is highly unusual and signifies the seriousness of the situation.
7. A Blog was set up. I believe that this has been the only course of action for many people who have previously informed the Governors, LEA and the Diocese of their concerns to absolutely no effect. This is actually the second time that this has happened (St. Mary’s in Hillingdon). I believe the authorities are well aware that there is a problem but have chosen to do nothing about it.
8. Open Meeting tonight 10th May. An open meeting which may give the Governors a chance to answer some questions but only if people are allowed to ask their own questions not those formulated by the Governors. This meeting will not resolve the underlying problems.
I believe that in any other school any one of these factors alone would warrant an Independent Investigation. This is all the unhappy people who care about St Vincent’s want. Surely this is not asking too much?
I still care very much about the school and the welfare of the children and staff, even though I have left.
Nicola Loftus – Ex-employee and parent
No longer having children at the school, or being an ex employee, does in no way diminish the relevance of these peoples contributions. If anything it amplifies the importance of them. Please listen carefully to them. They are more able to tell their story now precisely because they are no longer at the school.
There are other stories like theirs that haven't been told here yet.
I am grateful to them for coming on this blog and telling their story, they could have just walked away.
Thank you.
Well, well, well. I have just been removed from the ‘open meeting’ at the school by the chair of Governors Mrs Blyth. She said that the meeting was for parents only, although I notice the Governors had invited outside guests of their own, including Mr Pittenreigh. She said that there would be other opportunities for me to hear about what was happening and for me to express my concerns. I attempted to explain that until recently my children had been in the school and that my wife was one of the 19 staff who had to leave since this whole sorry episode began and that we like many other people no longer at the school, have been affected by the events. When can our concerns be raised and listened-to? What on earth have the Governors got to hide from someone who is still an active participant on the PFA, helping to raise money for the school? Why did they feel it necessary to exclude from the meeting? What didn’t they want me to hear, or what were they afraid I might say?
In the whole time since Mrs Cleugh arrived and the downward spiral started, we have endeavoured to get our views in front of the Governors, but alas to no avail. I was devastated to see so many excellent staff leave and to see no action from the Governors the LEA or the Diocese. It came as no surprise, a little later, to see so many children withdrawn from the school, but again why were no questions asked by the powers that be?
I would be grateful if any bloggers who were at the meeting can enlighten me as to what ensued, especially the contributions from the ‘invited guests’.
Interestingly this is an extract from the Complaints Procedures for Schools in the Diocese of Westminster:
“No-one likes criticism but an open organisation will always be willing to listen to concerns and anxieties and be ready to learn from them if appropriate. In a school, most concerns are likely to be expressed by parents of its pupils, though some may come from pupils themselves, parishioners, or from other interested parties such as neighbours or users of the premises”.
Tony,
I'm sorry you experienced what you did this evening. Are you suprised though? I left the school last year after many years of service and when I attended the school, whilst still an employee, for a meeting with Mrs C, she referred to me as 'that woman'! I would love to visit the school for the summer fete; to say hello to all the old faces, families, staff and children alike, but feel that I would be asked to leave the premises!
As an aside, I find it interesting that the Diocese encourage schools to listen to concerns from so many groups of people but do not even mention listening to concerns raised by staff. I wonder, as Nicky was a staff member as well as a parent and parishioner, what your take on this is?
I notice you have all gone very quiet. I hope this is the end to this blog.
I don't know how many people have picked-up on this blog which was posted to one of the earlier comments. It was signed off by "happy to be out"
Mrs c bullied me to or should i say she did her best. I no longer work at the school and am glad to have got away from her. One day when i had lost some one close to my family i was refused time away to go to there funeral. It was only when i had spoken to my union that she agreed.(well she didnt have much choice) She even told me that if this would happened again iwould have to leave st vincents for good. She even has a filing cab for reports on every teacher, helper etc at st vincents. In this is everything a member of staff has said or done good or bad. Im glad my kids have grown up and havent had to experience what a rubbish head she is. I how ever miss the staff who made me feel welcome during my years there.
May 10, 2007 7:16 PM
This is yet another ex member of staff who was unfairly treated at the school. How can anyone seriously believe that this is the end of the blog.
"I hope this is the end to this blog."
There's ALOT more to come. Stay tuned . Or don't.
From someone who couldn't be at the meeting last night... how did it go and what happened? I'm eager to know what the agenda was and what, if any, questions were asked. Was the turn out good and what was the general strength of opinion?
I attended the Meeting last night, came home and read all through this blog, and I now realise that personal feelings/opinions I had about the school over the last eighteen months are shared by many others, but exactly how many it is difficult to judge.
What really freaked me out was the letter from Bishop Stack - I am not sure it was a good move without him saying more specifically what was being done to remedy the situation
If this blog is going to achieve anything positive then we have to be more constructive than the tirade of abuse and hysteria I read last night. I suggest the following:
1. contributors identify themselves, anonymity only feeds the more abusive comments
2. A mediator is found who can collect the grievances of parents and ex-staff, and sort accordingly - eg can the NUT advise the teachers who feel they have been badly treated? I would suggest one of the Parish Priests in the first instance, or maybe they can recommend another.
3. Beyond this I would think that it is within the remit/duty of the Governorship to take Mrs Cleugh aside and at the very least suggest that her man management skills, communication skills etc are lacking, as I cannot believe that this is an average reaction to a new Head Teacher.
Above is another account of someones experience of Mrs Cleughs people management style when she first arrived at the school.
From this persons account, I believe I know who she is. From memory, I think she had been at St Vincents for something like 16 years. Certainly, she was a very committed long term member of staff who deserved much better treatment than she recieved. Many of these similar cases just shuffled off, seemingly unlamented. Well not by us. We bitterly grieve what has been done to our community, and I personally grieve that more haven't stuck their necks out to stand by them. There are colleagues and others who have been more concerned with ensuring that they don't become targets themselves.
This "me first' attitude is entirely incongruent for anyone who claims the name of Christian.
And it IS a 'me first' attitude, it says apathetic things like "I'll make it work for me" or "I haven't been personally affected yet so I can't say anything" or even " Lets forget all that now and move on".
It is not honorable to march on leaving our wounded friends lying behind us.
If my brother or sister is wounded then I am hurt too.
Sadly, almost all of the long term, local and committed members of staff have left now. Eventually the school will "settle down" to a sort of quietude. New people won't know what has been destroyed and lost. Teachers will come and go. But you can't make a clean bed on a lousy mattress.
We need to show our friends and colleagues that we care about them, that we are willing to stick our heads above the parapet when they are mistreated, that all our fine talk about values and principles and courage and standing up for the truth and being "a community that cares" actually has meaning.
I expect that this will be scoffed at.
I have seen what passions this issue rouses on both sides.
I don't ( for the record) regard myself as a perfect exemplar of virtue. I hope none of us does.
But I do believe in living with integrity.
I agree with your 2nd and 3rd point Teresa but some people are too afraid to put their names on their posts. Mrs Cleugh has apparently far reaching influence in the diocese and in the LEA. Teachers and other staff members who have left or are planing to leave may want to pursue employment in either Ealing schools or at other schools within the Diocese of Westminster. They, for obvious reasons, do not want a false reputation to procede them. However, they do feel that either due to an interest in St Vincent's future or a need for closure on the events that have befallen them, they want to contribute in some way to this debate. I think anonymity is a must for many people here, although I do agree in the principle underlying your point.
Having just posted this I saw Teresas comment.
I endorse her suggestion that we identify ourselves. I realise that not everyone will feel able to do that, and I accept that there will be some who would only be willing to express themselves here anonymously. I am glad that they have a space here where they can do that.
But one of the benefits of the blogosphere is that it is a bit like the market square. A place where we can share our veiws and be heard. I think our views are more credible when we name ourselves.
Certainly, it has been my impression from a reading of the comments left here that the more hysterical reactions tended to be from those who are opposed to the existence of this blog. I think those commentators would also gain credibility if they identified themselves.
Unfortuently i do not believe most ( like myself ) will put their names on their blogs.This is partly due to the fact that a lot of what has been written on this site is basic slander, and I do not see how posting "blogs" will really be constructive. Furthermore, those whome do have valid points of discusion, positive or negative, are afraid of bullying. Not from Mrs. Cleugh, because she is not a bully, but from other parents.
I know from own experience that St. Vincents was in a dire situation before Mrs. Cleugh arrived. Mr. Murfey, despite having brilliant communication and people skills did not see the basic changes that needed to be made within the school, and when he did realise he left. I believe he is now teaching in a school in Islington. With each change of head there will be difficulties that can only be overcome if the head is given a chance and is given the full support of the parents.
This blog may have been set up for people to voice concerns, but it has very hurtful to many.I understand that some may feel maltreated in some way. But people who have had an issue should forgive, and if they have left the school, they should forget.
There some parents who despite having had a problem in some way with the school before are doing their best to work constructively to make the school better, as there are always further improvements to be made.
We should work together, positively, and support the head, the teachers and govenors, becuase all we should be concerned about is the welfare and education of the children.
OK anonymity for people who believe that they may have come-back, excellent point - I would think a Mediator told of this kind of situation would promise anonymity?
And I am puzzled re dire situation of St Vincents - I have had 4 kids at St V, the oldest is just 15 now, the youngest almost 7 - and over those years I believed the educational standards were pretty good - not perfect but pretty good. There was an incident of bullying within one of my kids' classes which was badly handled in Mr Murphy's year - and I understand that procedures have been tightened up now. But back to the basic point - if Mrs Cleugh is supposed to be sorting out, the first thing you do it get the backing of both teaching staff and parents, which is evidently not the case do far.
I can't see how the school can move forward together unless there is a very public clearing of the air, which a mediator may be able to achieve.
I agree that we should be constructive and move on but there are some points you made which are incorrect and I would like to take some time to correct them.
You said 'St. Vincents was in a dire situation before Mrs. Cleugh arrived. Mr. Murfey, despite having brilliant communication and people skills did not see the basic changes that needed to be made within the school, and when he did realise he left. I believe he is now teaching in a school in Islington.'
Firstly St Vincent's was not in a dire situation before Mrs Cleugh arrived. Mr Murphy was aware that some things needed changing and went about making the changes that were necc. He was a breath of fresh air that St Vincent's needed at the time but the main difference between him and Mrs C is that he made the whole school community aware of what changes were needed and how the changes were going to happen. He made some decisions that were unpopular at the time but because he made them with a full explanation and without any subterfuge people accepted the changes and eventually there was peace. Mr M's management style was totally the reverse of Mrs C's. He made people want to do things his way through use of cameraderie and teamwork. As a member of staff you would want to take on new responsibilities because Mr Murphy had asked you. Mrs C encourages people to take on responsibilities through use of fear. This has never been proven to be the better management style athough I agree it is effective!
Also Mr Murphy did not leave the school because he felt he was failing and I feel quite cross that you should make such an assumption. Mr M left because his family were moving overseas and he had to move with them. He is currently working at a school in Isleworth and travelling back to his family overseas, at weekends. I felt it was a terrible shame that he left the school and wished that history could have been different!
You also say;
'With each change of head there will be difficulties'
Over the past few years there have been an unsual amount of heads; more than most schools could boast in such a short time. With each heads arrival there have been changes which have created some difficulties. However none so much as in Mrs C's case! I wonder how you would explain such a outcry, when before, with each new head, there had been none or very little.
Finally you state that Mrs C is not a bully. Well, if you hadn't experienced it first or second hand you wouldn't necc know. Bullies are very good, in fact expert, at hiding their true bullying nature from those whom they don't want to show. Bullying by its very nature is kept behind closed doors. However, if you listened to the witness statements here on this site and understood that the people making the accusations were normal, unabrasive people who in their previous careers had no problems with authority figures, you would perhaps start to believe them!
Why would the blog go quiet? Has there been a result? Have the Governors resigned? Has the Head put her listening head on? Has there been an apology to lost staff? Is it an attractive place to work and therefore keep teachers?
No, but we have a prayer shack - thats alright then. Lets all get in it and pray that the above happens.
I agree Teresa. I feel that the only way forward via a mediator. This is the only way that the air can be cleared to allow the school to move forward and for those who have left the school, parent, pupil or staff member to finally have closure and move on with their own life.
(I know it has been said that those no longer directly involved in the school should not be heard but I feel that it would be more Christian to ensure that past friends, colleagues, classmates etc are able to move on without a feeling of regret or disillusionment.)
It is not in the educational standards that Mr. Murphy realised there were problems, but rather in the lack of control over his staff, and many others who got used to the feeling of power. Now, those who feel that they have lost power feel the need to strike back at the people who are doing their best.
why would the school have needed a breath of fresh air after Mrs Govern?
And why are people calling for the resignation of the governors? Yes, i have read the blog, but still i do not understand.
I think perhaps teresa, a new site blog should be set up with a moderator since this one has caused a lot of bad feeling. Perhaps this blog needs to constructively start afresh.
Do you really think that Mr M lost control of his staff? How?
Mr Murphy had full control of his staff but he did give them an opportunity to air their views. Whats wrong with that? It is the usual practice of good ehad teachers after all.
Mrs Govan was a good head but after a few years a shake up is always needed; in much the same way that people like to redecorate their house every few years. Mr M created the shake up in a way which allowed people to feel a part of the change. That is all meant by a 'breath of fresh air'!
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
I went to the meeting last night. I have a child in reception and so a limited view on the matter. Given what I have read on the blog, I fully expected a few people to stand up and air some of the issues discussed here but not a word from anyone. I understand people are nervous but why did no one speak out? If not last night, then when? The fact that no one spoke out seemed to confirm the opinion that the views of this blog are just those of a vociferous few.The arguments now seem to be going round in circles and getting no where....
So what was said and asked? Unfortunately I was unable to attend.
Ex pupil, I'm afraid that as an ex pupil your statements:
"Not from Mrs. Cleugh, because she is not a bully, but from other parents."
and
"Mr. Murfey, despite having brilliant communication and people skills did not see the basic changes that needed to be made within the school, and when he did realise he left."
Hold no value because you are not, as an ex pupil, in any position to know these things. Certainly not to assert them with confidence as you just have.
Furthermore, your claim that:
"I know from own experience that St. Vincents was in a dire situation before Mrs. Cleugh arrived"
Is directly at odds with my own experience, and those of many others who are confused and suspicious at this frequently recurring, but nonetheless false, claim. It is also directly at odds with the SATs results for St. Vincents ( which has already been covered very well in another post) You may dismiss SATs, but as things stand, they are the only means of objective measurment we have. Anything else is no more than a hunch, or " a feeling in your water" And thus a baseless, or at the very least, an indefensible claim
Your post here indicates quite a strong loyalty and support for the current head. My sense is that your choice to remain anonymous is in part because you are not simply A.N Other ex-pupil, but someone with already quite strongly partisan sympathies. Thats absolutely fine by me. But I think its disingenuous at the least to present yourself simply as an ex pupil without any pre existent loyalties to the current head.
Incidentally, just FYI, Mr.Murphy has taken up a headship in Isleworth.
Has there been a result? Have the Governors resigned? Has the Head put her listening head on? Has there been an apology to lost staff? Is it an attractive place to work and therefore keep teachers?
- Why would any of the above have happened when no one challenged the head or govenors last night??
Time to move on, don't you think?
Please feel free to move on yourself.We are at liberty to continue discussing these issues as long as we feel they need to be aired. Don't feel under any obligation to join us and don't imagine that your telling us to 'move on' will hasten the day when we do.
So sorry for any offence - you really do have to be careful what you say on this site otherwise you'll be attacked for spelling, for saying something, probably for just not agreeing. I'm just interested in the fact that the parents' meeting on Thursday night seems to have been the focus of so much discussion on this blog, but nobody seems to have referred to it. Is it that nobody at the meeting identified with any of the views expressed on this site, or is it that there was so much overwhelming support for the headteacher, the hardworking staff and the Governors. However viewed, the meeting must have been a great disappointment to the majority of bloggers on this site - it is for that reason that I suggested 'moving on'. Hard hat on now for the cyber-bullies to move in 'big time'
Don't feel under any obligation to join us and don't imagine that your telling us to 'move on' will hasten the day when we do.-
What is your plan then?How are your going to progress matters?
I thought the meeting was disappointing in that "the elephant in the living room" was largely not acknowledged. I don't think that would have happened a year or so ago and I think it's an indication of how much the levels of distrust have grown. People no longer feel safe to explicitly spell out the crucial issues in public. Remember that a PFA member was publicly excoriated by a governor when she asked the chair for an assurance that a decision would be made on the sunshades ( after months of hedging and heel dragging)
it is my observation that the people most preturbed here, also happen to be rather quiet and dignified people and have no desire to be made spectacles of.
Sadly the governors mistake this silence as a kind of aquiescence.
whatever way you put it...you are in the right, Right? If nothing is said - it's because you are too polite..and if you say what you want to say (anonymously) and people don't not agree - you're being bullied...mmm...funny one that, haven't quite worked it out.
say what you have to say, get it over with, or as a previous poster said "hold your peace".
ops: don't not?
just don't ..
'it is my observation that the people most preturbed here, also happen to be rather quiet and dignified people and have no desire to be made spectacles of'
- Have to say this makes me laugh. Rather quiet and dignified!! Not in terms of the written word - certainly able to let it all out on the computer keyboard. I still think it is a shame no one stood up and spoke out - of course the govenors et al will see this as acquiescence, why wouldn't they? They certainly looked ready for combat but none of the people who are so passionate on this site were prepared to stand up. If they really feel so passionately, I would have thought they might have taken the risk on the basis that they were doing it 'for the children'...
Still no one has said what exactly WAS said at the meeting. What was the agenda, who spoke on which issues and if anyone did ask questions what was asked?
I'm eager to know as I was unable to attend.
Thanks in advance.
Claire, i would reveal my identity, but i feel it could cause problems for my family, many of whome are still heavily involved in the school and attend the school.
I assure you I am an ex-pupil, and that I did not leave St. Vincents that long ago. My concerns are still VERY valid.
I'm sorry to inform you, but SAT's are not always the best way to judge how a school or indeed a child is doing. It does not mean that that child is happy or has learnt the necessary skills to help them on their way through high school- for many this transition is very difficult. And even so, SAT's are not the best indication of an all round grounding. I was taught how to sit my SAT's and to do well in them, and I did. But that didnt mean I was indeed well grounded in these subjects.
Nevertheless, my support for Mrs. Cleugh remains.
Hello again. I wasn't questioning your representation of yourself as an ex-pupil. I am also an ex pupil. The point that I was making was that I didn't accept your representation of yourself as simply "A.N. Other" ex-pupil, who had just stumbled across this blog and and formed her opinions based on the experiences and views expressed herein.
Your opinions were clearly very strongly loyal to Mrs Cleugh and strongly antipathetic to this blog, and that indicated to me a deeper attachment. I don't believe that you would have arrived at your conclusions based simply on an unbiased reading of the posts and comments here.
Your admission here that your family...
"many of whome are still heavily involved in the school "
Resonates with me and makes alot of sense. There are indeed a small core of staff members for whom it seems Mrs Cleugh can't do enough and amongst whom she has cultivated a very strong allegiance . My hunch is that that is where your attachments lie. That is absolutely fine ex pupil, I have no business dictating your personal loyalties, nor would I . I am simply pointing out, that as an unconnected ex pupil, reading through this blog which is highlighting so much hurt, it is simply not credible to me that without preexisting loyalties and interests, you would have asserted, with such confidence that Mrs. Cleugh is "not a bully" but the posters here are.
Just one other thing, the claim of cyber bullying is something of a stretch. In the first place, I see nothing of that nature other than plain disagreement, which cannot be regarded as bullying. Secondly, having chosen to remain anonymous means that you cannot reasonably claim to be bullied here. The term cyber bullying refers always to named victims. It has been identified as a problem on sites such as bebo and myspace where people will post unpleasant things about named others, or even assume their identity in order to damage them. It doesn't refer to "anons".
Regarding your point about SATs. I have made it very plain that I don't regard them as the definitive guide to excellence. My question, which you, or indeed anyone else, have been unable to answer, is: What other yardstick is there? How do you reasonably assess that a school which, by the normal yardstick is doing very well, is IN ACTUAL FACT failing. As I said, other than " a feeling in your water" it is a claim that you are unable to justify or explain. It's only value has been in undermining the school the better to undergird Mrs. Cleughs 'strong' methods. Without the CRUCIAL claim of 'failing school', there would be no need for the 'strong' methods in the first place.
Post a Comment