It is worth remembering that our experience in St Vincents over the last 18 months or so is not unique. The fall off in staff and the disaffection of parents has been explained away as being related to the difficulty some have in coming to terms with necessary change. No doubt that may be partially true in many instances, nonetheless, to lose, say, 25% of your staff may be unfortunate, surely to lose 100% looks like, to borrow a swipe from Lady Bracknell...carelessness? As we saw from T.Ruths Hillingdon timeline posted here back in May, that is what happened there. Could these all have been Old Brigade die hards? Stick-in-the-muds who just couldn't move forward and 'get with the programme'?
There does seem to be a rather creepy echoing of events in Hillingdon here in Acton.
Lets, for the sake of argument, say that change did need to happen, that the ship was not in shape? Would that be the fault of the staff? Would a good leader make them feel as though it was ? Surely a good leader galvanises and motivates staff. An effective, visionary leader rallies troops and encourages and equips them with confidence, vision and purpose. Such a huge exodus of staff as we have seen suggests that this was not happening here. And goodness me, but one didn't have to scratch around for reasons to be cheerful. If the school was in need of change, they were managing to get some pretty fine results in spite of it ( and it was a cheery, welcoming place to boot) And who should we congratulate for that? Well, naturally the teachers. I would like to think that an incoming Head would see that, and congratulate them, and then share with them a vision for the future.
Perhaps that's the way it was. But if it did happen like that, why did we see, very early on, what looked like a dejected, demoralised bunch of staff taking off for other schools? This sad exodus followed up by a letter from Bishop Stack telling us that there had been prior concerns about the quality of education on offer at St V's? There's gratitude.
Funny isn't it, how they could be so concerned about an issue, where we neither find (or are given) any evidence for such concern. But the things that we are really concerned about, seem to bother them not a jot. The lofty attitude of the Diocese to our worries rather undermines their claim to believe that "In a Catholic school, parental concerns are of particular importance."
Here's the Hillindon timeline again ( hat tip to t.ruth)
Mrs Cleugh began as Head teacher of St Mary's in Hillingdon in Jan 2002. By July of 2003 a total of 26 members of staff had left. St Mary's school is a one form entry school, therefore this amounted to a mass exodus. Also during this time there remained only one original member of the governing body. Mrs Cleugh chose to announce staff that had left as going on to promotions or spending time with their families. These were not the reasons most chose to leave.Several became ill with stress. Below is a timeline of the types of letters written to various bodies between Feb 2002 and March 2004.1. Feb 2002 letter to Head teacher regarding concerns for special needs provision in the school.2. March 2002 Letter to chair of Governors regarding special needs provision, cc to union body. 3. May 2002 Letter to union body regarding concerns.4. June 2002 Letters to Hillingdon, Westminster Diocese and Union body regarding concerns.5. Aug 2002 Letter to chair of governors and cc to Hillingdon, the Diocese and Union regarding concerns for the school. 6. Nov 2002 Letter to Director of Education at Hillingdon, cc to secretary of state for education, MP , union bodies, Hillingdon asking for an independent enquiry regarding concerns at the school. 7. Jan 2003 Letter to MP indicating a lack of confidence and response by the Governors, LEA and the Diocese.Jan to July 2003 10 members of staff left. July 2003 Letter to MP regarding serious concerns for special needs. oct 2003 letter to OFSTED requesting inspector to revisit the school.Nov 2003 Letter to MP serious concerns Nov 2003 Letter to MP concerns for staff and pupils. Nov 2003 Letter to MP concerns for staff. Nov 2003 Letter to MP highlighting trauma for staff and colleagues at St Mary's. Nov 2003 Letter to MP regarding concerns at the school.Dec 2003 MP link with Cardinal and referred to Bishop regarding concerns at St Mary's. Meeting held with Bishop Stack, MP and Diocese. Jan2004 Letter from parents to OFSTED requesting urgent help. Other letters of complaint attached. Feb 2004 Letter to Hillingdon education authority outlining areas of concern. March 2004 Letter to Diocese outlining formal complaint. By now all original staff many of which were part of the community had left the school.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
From very concerned members of the Community of St Vincent’s School.
The following are quotes taken from correspondence relating to serious concerns regarding Mrs Cleugh's Headship at St Mary’s in Hillingdon. Serious concerns were raised by staff and parents to the Governing Body, the Diocese and LEA, no one listened or took appropriate action. Mrs Cleugh then moved on to take up the Headship of St Vincent’s in Acton in 2006. Once again serious concerns were raised by staff and parents of St Vincent’s to the Governing Body, the Diocese and LEA and to date no one has listened or taken appropriate action.
‘I have been signed off with nervous exhaustion.’
‘St Mary’s School is now a place where none of the staff want to be. The atmosphere is one of tension and misery.’
‘In my opinion staff are so demoralised but are scared of being found talking to one another as further bullying is likely to occur as a result, so whispering in the corners has become commonplace.’
‘I could not stand working in this atmosphere as the stress became unbearable so I felt I had no choice but to leave the school.’
‘I have never seen so many staff in tears, and the number of staff that have already left to get away from this situation is quite appalling – and very distressing for those of us remaining.’
3 former employees letter to Director of Education Hillingdon
“It is our opinion, however that the reality of the situation at St Mary’s RC School is one that warrants the most serious independent investigation and consideration. Staff, past and present, believe that they have been, or are being subjected to systematic harassment and bullying by the headteacher, Mrs Christina Linda Cleugh.’
Former employee letter to MP
‘I have given up a lovely, local job in a school that meant the world to me. I have had to split my family. I basically have to be at two different schools at the same time. Why would anyone do that without reason. I do feel I am one of the lucky ones. Many members of staff have NEVER got over the way they were treated at St Mary’s.’
Former employee, letter to MP
‘Some complaints went to the Governors and they met with us to find out what was going on. Another meeting was held for staff to voice their concerns to representatives of the Governors and Education authority. Representatives from some of the unions were turned away at the door. We were told that the Governors should not have met with us and that they have to support the head teacher. We were all urged to “give her a chance”. We did and I believe that was a big mistake.’
‘I will give you one example of when Mrs Cleugh behaved unprofessionally towards us. We were told to make the nursery look as unattractive as possible, so that we would stand the best chance of funding for the new unit. After the representative from the Diocese had visited we asked if we could replace all the displays ect. We were told not to, as the nursery was going to be given a coat of paint. Mrs Cleugh then invited -----------, the Early Years Advisor in to visit and to give “support”. The starting point for this support was not how the nursery had originally looked, but how Mrs Cleugh had made us make the nursery look. We thought ---------- was aware of this, but were upset to find this was not the case in her written report.’
Former employee - Teacher
‘As during this time I was a NQT I was told by a person from the LEA that they were aware of the problems at St Mary’s and that if it had not been a faith school the situation would have been addressed earlier but that each time Mrs C Cleugh had been challenged she ‘Played the church card’ and kept the LEA out.’
Please write to Andrew Slaughter MP in confidence with your concerns.
Sorry - one more gasp from this dying website : RIP
The very least we expect of those who choose to lead in our schools is a dream to nurture those in their care, be it pupils staff and parents.
A good leader will have respect for all in the community. Sadly that is not the case at St Vincent's where the head teacher is allowed and given backing to tell untruths about those in her care.
Where connections to the diocese and the local education authority are more important than the truth.
Mrs cleugh has consistently told untruths about st Vincents over the last 18 months and will continue to do so, simply because she can and no one questions her. Quite simply staff left, due to the conditions of employment and the stress placed upon them.
The governors have chosen to turn a blind eye to the distress caused and have preferred to believe the head teacher. I believe the governors need to be made accountable for their actions.
The job of the governors is to act for the whole school community and not to align themselves totally with a head teacher. The evidence at st Mary's Hillingdon is prove enough. Even if one member of staff or one pupil has been treated unfairly that is enough to raise alarm bells for the governors.
In the case of St Vincents it is sadly many more than one member of staff or pupil. A sad situation for education and the community, while the diocese and the local education authority bury their heads in the sand.
Post a Comment