Quite shocked this headteacher has been given a route back …

[Tiredallofthetime]

here

Believe me I am not one for tarring and feathering people, but this is one of the worst accounts of bullying I’ve read - absolutely deplorable. Sends an awful message that she can reapply to teach again after two years.

Realistically, I think she will struggle to get another job.

Possibly, but I really don’t think she should even be given that opportunity. This was not a one-off, stupid comment, this was sustained bullying of pregnant members of staff in particular.

Wow!
No, they should not be allowed to work in a school again.

Must have been a very toxic atmosphere there. But what do you expect when in one part of the summary the panel members say they think it is perfectly right and proper for breastfeeding teachers on maternity leave to be asked to come into a school to help to prepare for an OFSTED inspection! If disciplinary panels can display such little concern for the wellbeing of teachers then is it any surprise that headteachers think they have carte blanche to bully and ridicule teachers, to deny them agreed rights to maternity care, to ignore health and safety considerations re reasonable adjustments.

There are huge amounts of pressure put on “successful” heads to maintain “standards”, it takes strong characters to resist the pressure and remain human in their dealings with staff. Many sadly fail. I was not surprised to learn that this was an academy consortium.

I noticed that @viques ! Er no - when you’re on maternity leave, you’re on maternity leave. You aren’t even being paid above SMP for the majority of the time off.

She can apply to have the prohibition removed in 2 years time but that application would go to panel and there is no guarantee it would be accepted. I think it is reasonable that within prohibition orders it is possible to appeal after a certain length of time in case, for example, new evidence came to light. She is banned indefinitely and nowhere does it state that after 2 years it is likely to be removed, only that after that time period she has the right to ask for it to be reviewed. The outcome of any review wouldn’t necessarilly be in her favour and even if it was it doesn’t sound likely she would be employed, but equally people can change and reform and so I think it’s reasonable that cases such as these can be reviewed.

I agree people can change, and for offences at the minor end of the spectrum absolutely.

But calling staff ‘whales’? Referring to staff as ‘gorillas’ eating bananas? Refusing to allow pregnant members of staff to attend antenatal appointments? Telling staff they can’t go off sick?

This isn’t someone at the beginning of her career who made some daft mistakes, this was a woman who bullied staff over the course of a decade, probably more.

The devil is in the details here from about p.22 onwards.
It's not unreasonable she can return to teaching.

The big issue was her management of staff and lack of skills. The Governors should have had a better handle on what was going on. They seem to have got away with it. They are SLT too.

I worked for a head very similar. Perhaps worse. The most cruel person I have ever come across.
She lost her post due to bullying but continues to get headships all over the place. I monitor where she is so that I will never work with her again.

People like that never change. She should never be allowed to work in schools or with children again. Horrible woman!

Go on - I am definitely not trying to have a go at you personally but in my opinion even one of those facts being found proved would be completely unacceptable.

But nowhere in the report does it say she can return to teaching. It says that her case can be reviewed in 2 years. That doesn’t mean the ban will be lifted. If none of the evidence or factors contributing to the ban have changed then it’s likely a review would reach the same outcome as the original report. It is reasonable that there is an opportunity built into these things to review the case, even people who have been convicted of serious crimes such as murder and imprisoned can appeal their sentencing. Nowhere does it say that she will be allowed to return to teaching in 2 years, just that 2 years is the soonest point at which the decision can be reviewed. If the evidence hasn’t changed there is nothing to suggest the outcome of a review would be any different to the outcome of the original report but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to have the right to review built into these things, just as it’s right to have circumstances by which criminals can appeal convictions. The right to review/ appeal is not synonymous with the right to have the original findings overturned or altered though and nowhere does it say that would be the outcome of a review.

@MolkosTeenageAngst she has the opportunity for the ban to be lifted. In serious cases, they don’t do that - it says something like ‘due to the seriousness of this case it is decided that Mrs Person X shall not be permitted to reapply for their right to teach.’

What concerns me is the message it sends out. Two years is the minimum you can be struck off for - it isn’t like nursing. There is ‘no order made’ which is when a case is found proved but due to mitigating circumstances they decide not to issue a ban. That’s often when bullying or coercion played a part, or sometimes when it’s quite a young teacher who is clearly remorseful by their mistake and has learned from it. Then two years, then any length of time the panel deem necessary.

In this case, two years gives the impression that what she did wasn’t really all that bad. I think it was. I think it was absolutely shocking.

I just knew it would be her when I clicked on the thread. I have a friend who worked under her as a fairly NQT. Friend lasted about 2 weeks and simply couldn’t go back after suffering extreme anxiety and panic attacks. Left teaching entirely after that. Such a shame as she’d have been a great teacher. She expected her staff to be available literally 24hrs per day. Absolutely mad.

I’ve just had a look through the linked document. A few things struck me
evidence of bullying over a number of years quite a lot of it hearsay and discrimination against pregnant staff

also evidence of a head teacher who was ambitious and raised standards and was well respected by a number of people including staff, parents , a governor. she won awards for innovation in a deprived community and an anti bullying award.

There was a witch- hunt type sustained campaign with a face book group to bring down this individual. Union leader seeking out parents to be involved “in a very unusual way” and make statements as well as giving staff a model example / template to how to write their grievances and encouragement to submit them.

I don’t think this is completely one sided. It sounds like there was a toxic atmosphere and perhaps this individual has something to contribute to education in the future in some capacity. Perhaps not as a senior management team member though.

I don’t think this is completely one sided. It sounds like there was a toxic atmosphere

The Head sets the tone. As for witch-hunt type campaigns, they had screenshots of abusive text messages from her e.g. calling a colleague a 15 tonne whale.

I am astonished to see the number of respectable teaching types coming out in her defence on twitter.

As for her accolades, you can be very effective at getting a job done and still be an absolutely awful person to work for.

Toxic atmosphere or not, she refused to let pregnant women attend antenatal appointments.

She probably is a good teacher and certainly very dedicated. However she is an appalling head and manager. It’s concerning that she ever got to that position really but it doesn’t surprise me from friends and family’s experience of teaching.

And all this in a CofE school? What were the governors doing? Were there no grievances lodged?

I don’t know if it applies to Academies, but the Burgundy Book which sets out pay and conditions for teachers is very clear on maternity rights including antenatal appointments . I used to keep a stash of the relevant pages for young pregnant teachers because I found quite a few SMT members were “confused” over this, one tried to make colleagues book them in their PPA time. I soon put them right.

I cant make sense of this thread - which headteacher?

The one linked to in the OP.