Godolphin & Latymer

[esea]

Our daughter received an offer for G&L 2025 entry. We’re looking for some insights to the school as we don’t know anyone from there. We are a working and a very low-key family, trying to give kids best education eg. we would spend money carefully, never go on exotic holidays, etc (not because we don’t want it but financially 😅).

DD is academically bright, quite musical but not a music scholar, not sporty but still would take part. The feedback we received from her current school says she’d be better off in an academic school as it’s not easy to keep her engaged otherwise and likes to be stretched. They also said if not challenged she has a tendency to coast along, which I’d agree.
We haven’t applied to SPGS or any grammar schools as we thought they wouldn’t be the right fit for her.

So my question is, given all of the above, wondering if the school is good academically because of their education or girls highly tutored for GCSE and A levels? Are there working families or is it more like Central London affluent families?

Wow! Thanks for sharing. Over a decade of the issue but given a glowing reference to another school. I think ethically the school idea of covering it up and positive spin is a red flag.

Honestly I don't know how references work in the teachers' world, so it may as well have been a colleague's and not the school's? Maybe someone who wasn't aware of what happened. But again that also doesn't sound right, at least all the school staff should have known about the 'allegations' - so they can make better judgement on whether to help him get a new teaching job.

Wow!!!
What worrying was the school seems to be playing it down. Although he left in the end and could be that there wasnt as much info when it was first discovered by the school. Although, one of the online paper said that its a known thing among the staffs at the time. Wow!!!

Do you have the article?

For those interested we received an email on this from school. No reference was given by the school..

@meuntilmarch2025 added a link to report, very disturbing. The wording of the report is very concise and stated acts etc and timelines.

I was googling it during my commute and there were some online papers published the news and dont have it anymore.
Thanks for sharing the email and reassured that he was not given ref from the school however saying that he covered/lied at the time was not good enough though. It meant that the investigation at the time was not done well.

This presents an interesting little conundrum. From the school's email:

I want to give you assurance that no member of the then senior leadership team wrote or endorsed a reference for him at the time of his leaving, or subsequently.

And yet, repeating @meuntilmarch2025 's quote from the TRA report (pg 27):

The panel noted that Mr Culling was provided with a reference when he left the School which rated him as “excellent” in various facets of his role save that his overall confidence and behaviour management skills were rated as “good”. The reference referred to Mr Culling has been a “hugely reliable and talented colleague” and that “he cares deeply and this, coupled with superb subject knowledge and a huge academic ability mean that he has been able to achieve some outstanding academic results over the years”. The referee also commented on Mr Culling’s “quite excellent” management skills.

If you assume, as I do, that the TRA panel did not make up the details of the reference they claim to have seen, then we're left parsing the school's statement that "no member of then senior leadership team" gave this reference. If you assume, as I do, that the school is not explicitly lying in its email, it seems likely that a colleague who was not a member of the then senior leadership team gave a reference.

The school's use of the rather clumsy phrase "then senior leadership team" in its denial makes me wonder if the referee was either a previous, subsequent, or perhaps even, current member of the school's senior leadership team.

I would take the school’s ‘internal’ announcement with a pinch of salt, and consider TRA’s report as the credible source. G&L can request the TRA to correct if there were any misleading points but they did not choose to do so, instead, circulate a letter to a closed community trying to settle the storm.
From that letter G&L clarified that they only realised now, from the TRA investigation, that there were sexual contacts while the child was in school, and this was in the school premises if you read the report. Oral sex and someone walked into the scene! Shocking that they only found that out after 10+ years from an external investigation, I don’t buy that. Either it wasn’t investigated thoroughly before, or it was intentionally covered up or ignored.

The report also discusses journalists hanging around to ask pupils and families about the incident and sneak into the school to take pictures. Very disturbing for young girls to go through, so I get why the school (or any school for that matter) wouldn’t want that sort of attention. I just hope all schools take it as a serious lesson, and actually learnt from it.

It was 10 years ago so indeed it might not reflect the school current senior leadership team but from the email, the school didnt say anything about its failure in the initial investigation rather than blaming that the Deputy head was lying.

I dont buy it either.

Avoiding media attention isnt a good excuse of covering the story or playing it down and let the person go quietly, continuing the profession in another school. Its all happening under the head’s nose. Has the head changed too.

P/S: G&L has always been such a lovely school, top academic, bring different gene compare to LU and SPG for Hammersmith private school option for girl in our eye.

Or the reference was given by HR

The school conducted a governor-led investigation regarding Culling's relationship with a pupil, informed the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Authority Designated Officer and the police, and Culling left the school following this process.
It's not like they swept it under the carpet

A reference given by a member of HR in their capacity as HR would be considered authorized by the school. Most companies have in place policies that requests for references should be directed to HR and that HR references should be confined to facts such as dates of employment and job titles, as most organizations prefer to avoid the liabilities that might come with controversial references.

However, in the industries I'm familiar with, these policies are honored in the breach more than in the observance. Unofficial, personal references are ubiquitous. But they're almost always communicated verbally and not written down.

The governor-led investigation missed a rather significant point about Culling's relationship with the girl: he was having sex with her while she was still his pupil.

It's not like they swept it under the carpet

"Following the conclusion of the investigation no disciplinary hearing took place." He was allowed to depart under a sky sufficiently cloudless that a colleague was willing to write a glowing reference for him.

I suppose its just that the school didn't say that they didn't give him a reference just that it wasn't given by a member of the then senior leadership team.

But normally all teacher references must be from the headteacher (probably to avoid exactly these types of problem) so perhaps you are right about it being an informal reference by another member of staff.

It could even have been a fake or fraudulent reference. Let's face it there is ample evidence this teacher was dishonest.

I’ve been following this case quite closely - my drama teacher embarked on a full blown relationship with my sister’s best friend at Sixth Form in the nineties.

I’m not sure what more the school could have done other than open an investigation and report him to the police given both Culling and the student were denying anything sexual happened whilst she was at school. To quote from the TRA Prohibition Order ‘The panel noted that during the School’s investigation, when interviewed, Person B stated that their relationship had changed in February 2014, after she had left the School’. Also ‘the School’s investigation involved checking Mr Culling’s personnel file and speaking with staff who had worked with Mr Culling and there had been no indication that his relationship with pupils had been improper’. None of their school email exchanges were considered to be flirtatious on investigation and the school could hardly ask to inspect their private phone messages. The point is yes it was happening but there was no hard evidence or admission and they got rid of him on soft evidence which was absolutely the right thing to do.

No point issuing a contemporaneous statement to your parent body saying ‘we think they’ve had sex or are in an inappropriate relationship’ if you’ve got no proof or confession. Rumour alone in this situation cannot be acted upon. I don’t see it as a cover up, more that it was dealt with appropriately. I’m not sure about the reference element but the school has no record of it. It would be interesting to see where that reference came from and presumably Holland Park Pre-Prep & Nursery would have a copy on his file. Why would Godolphin lie about having no record of the reference given it’s probably obtainable and traceable back to the referee?

What more should the school have done at the time?

Sleazebags like Culling make me sick. His type mean that the good teachers have to walk a very straight and narrow line and constantly not put a single foot wrong just in case their behaviour can ever be misconstrued as inappropriate. Some of the most inspirational and memorable teachers have warmth and passion that is part of their personality and makes them so engaging. We had a HT at primary school that would hug back when the kids flung themselves at her…it was the heart of that school. She’s retired now but I imagine any new Head wouldn’t risk it. The Culling types ruin those mentor relationships for the kids that need or thrive on them

I’m not sure about the reference element but the school has no record of it.

The school does not claim merely that they have no record of the reference. The school states positively that "no member of the then senior leadership team wrote or endorsed a reference for him". Given the circumstances, they would be taking an incredible chance in making that statement without knowing the identity of the referee. If the school does not know the details of the reference, they should have written something along the lines of "we do not recognize the reference in the TRA report", or not mentioned it at all. This is all very lawyerly which is why their use of the phrase "the then senior leadership team" leads me to suspect that the referee was a previous or subsequent member of the senior leadership team.

What more should the school have done at the time?

You seem to believe that the school had suspicions after their investigation and "got rid of him". If that were the case, that would have been a very good time to send around a memo reminding staff of any existing policy, or introducing a policy if necessary, that all requests for references need to go to HR or the head because even nominally personal references may reflect on the organization and if anyone has any questions, please speak with the head. That's happened in my companies before where we subsequently discovered that an "amicable" separation was anything but. It's a common enough code.