[page 268]
Chapter X
Summary and Conclusions
825. The scheme of this chapter is as follows:
(i) to review briefly, with particular reference to the Authority's county primary schools, the policy and system that the Authority has adopted in order to discharge its statutory responsibilities as a local education authority;
(ii) to consider, within the context of that policy and system, the respective roles and conduct in the teaching, organisation, and management of the William Tyndale Schools of:
(a) the teaching staffs of the schools;
(b) the Authority;
(c) the managers of the schools; and
(d) other persons and bodies concerned.
The Authority's policy and system in the provision of primary education through its county primary schools
The role of the Authority
826. The Authority has three fundamental statutory obligations in relation to the provision of the statutory system of education within its area. They are:
(i) to secure the availability of 'efficient education' to meet the needs of the population within its area (1); and
(ii) to secure the availability in its area of sufficient schools to provide full-time education 'suitable to the requirements' of junior and senior pupils respectively (2); and
(iii) so far as is compatible with the above obligations and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, to exercise its powers and duties with
(1) The 1944 Act, S.7.
(2) The 1944 Act, S.8(1).
[page 269]
regard to the general principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents (3).
The Authority does not and could not meet these fundamental obligations simply by providing or financing school premises and resources and employing teachers to man the schools. There is also a responsibility to control the conduct and curriculum of each school (4).
827. Subject to the above-mentioned fundamental obligations, the 1944 Act gives the Authority a choice, in the case of a county primary school, whether to control the conduct and curriculum of the school itself or to transfer such control in whole or in part to other persons (4) under rules of management that it is obliged to make for the school (5). As I have already indicated in Chapter I of the Report (6), the Authority has made Rules of Management in common form by virtue of which it has exercised its statutory power to divest itself of the exercise of the control of the conduct and curriculum of each of its county primary schools. The effect of Rule 2 of such Rules is to vest the control in the head teacher subject to the 'oversight' (7) in consultation with him, of the managers (8). The Authority, however, has not divested itself of its power of control. I say that for two principal reasons:
(i) the Rules themselves, by Rule 1, expressly reserve to the Authority the power to intervene by giving directions (9); and
(ii) the Authority has power to amend its Rules of Management generally or in the case of any particular school so as to re-vest in itself wholly or partly the exercise of the control of the conduct and curriculum of a county primary school.
828. If one of the Authority's county primary schools is not providing 'efficient education' or education 'suitable to the requirements of' its pupils, or is failing to have appropriate regard for the wishes of its pupils' parents (10), then, regardless of the person or persons in whom the exercise of the control of the conduct and curriculum
(3) The 1944 Act, S.76.
(4) The 1944 Act, S.23(1).
(5) The 1944 Act, S.17(3)(a).
(6) See paragraphs 74-80 and Appendix VII to the Report.
(7) ie the first meaning of the word in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, namely, 'supervision, superintendence; charge, care, management'.
(8) See Chapter I, paragraph 74 above, and Appendix VII to the Report.
(9) I have set out Rules 1 and 2 of the Rules of Management in Chapter I, paragraph 74 above (see also Appendix VII to the Report), but, for the convenience of the reader and to demonstrate the point made here, I reproduce in this footnote the material parts of Rule 1 of the Rules of Management.
'The County Primary School shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Education Act 1944, as amended ... , with the provisions of any regulations made by the Secretary of State ... , with any directions of the Authority, and with these rules.' (My italics).
(10) The 1944 Act, S.23(1).
[page 270]
of the school is vested for the time being, the Authority must intervene to ensure that it fulfils its fundamental obligations. If advice and persuasion by the Authority's Inspectorate fail to produce the desired effect, the Authority must take some effective action in relation to the school to remedy the situation. There are a number of ways by which it can do this, two of which I have already indicated in the preceding paragraph. Thus, it can give directions to the head teacher under Rule 1 of the Rules of Management; it can amend the Rules of Management so as to re-vest in itself in whole or in part the exercise of the control of the conduct and curriculum of the school; it can apply sanctions to the head teacher and staff of the school through its disciplinary procedures, possibly leading to termination of their employment with the Authority; it can close the school and provide its pupils with efficient and suitable education at another school; or it can reorganise the school so as to achieve the same result. The solution that the Authority chooses for such a problem in relation to any particular school would necessarily depend upon a number of practical considerations - not least of which is the regard that the Authority quite properly has for the views of the teachers' professional associations in such matters. Nevertheless, however unpalatable and whatever the practical, policy or political difficulties in choosing a solution, if inefficient or unsuitable education is being provided at the school or insufficient regard is being paid to the wishes of parents of pupils at the school, the Authority must do something about it.
829. The problem is not just one of choosing the right method of treatment, it is in the first place a problem of diagnosis and prevention. The Authority must first judge whether it is fulfilling through the school in question its fundamental statutory obligations, and when, if necessary, and in what manner it should intervene. For such diagnosis and consequential intervention the Authority must rely principally upon its Inspectorate. However, as I have indicated in Chapter I of the Report (11), the Inspectorate has no formal power to determine the way in which the teaching in a school should be conducted. Although supremely well qualified to 'oversee' the conduct and curriculum of a school, the Inspectorate does not have that power because the Authority has chosen not to exercise it. The Inspectorate's role is essentially to advise and to support the teaching staffs employed by the Authority, and, acting in conjunction with the Divisional Office structure, to act as an early warning system to the Authority of any potential troubles or difficulties in its schools.
830. The combined effect of the Rules of Management made by the Authority and its interpretation of its role as expressed by its witnesses at the Inquiry may impose upon the Inspectorate a formidable task in certain instances. That is because the Authority has no policy:
(i) as to the standards of attainment at which its primary schools should aim; or
(ii) as to the aims and objectives of the primary education being provided in its schools, save the very general aim of providing the best possible opportunities to be given to the children to acquire the basic skills and social attainments
(11) See paragraphs 49-50.
[page 271]
so that at the age of 11 they can transfer to secondary schools equipped to do so; or
(iii) as to the methods of teaching to be adopted in its schools.
My purpose in recording this lack of policy is not to criticise the Authority - whose approach, I understand, is typical of most local education authorities in the country - but to demonstrate the difficulties for its Inspectorate in the diagnostic and advisory function that it has. Thus if a head teacher is convinced that a particular educational policy or method is right for his school, and the District Inspector is equally convinced that he is wrong, by what yardstick does the Inspector judge, and seek to advise the head teacher, that he is wrong? If the head teacher persists in ignoring the Inspector's strong advice, upon what basis can and should the Authority intervene in one of the ways that I have mentioned in paragraph 828 above? Is the head teacher to be left to go his own way until the Authority is satisfied that it is not fulfilling in the case of that school its fundamental statutory obligations and/or until there is sufficient evidence to justify disciplinary proceedings for inefficiency or misconduct? By that time the school may have deteriorated beyond recall.
831. The difficulties for the Inspectorate that I have described in the preceding paragraph may not arise very often in practice. In most cases, no doubt, the Inspectorate and the teaching staffs of the Authority's schools enjoy good relations, and a head teacher would not readily disregard advice expressed firmly to him by his District Inspector. Nevertheless, where there is an issue between a head teacher and the Inspector, the latter has no formal power to ensure that his professional advice is heeded.
The role of the managers
832. Rule 2 of the Rules of Management appears to give to managers - the majority of whom are political appointees with no professional teaching knowledge or experience - a responsibility that the Inspectorate does not have, namely, the exercise of the 'oversight' of the conduct and curriculum of the school in consultation with the head teacher. It is difficult to know in practice what this responsibility of 'oversight' by the unqualified over the qualified can amount to. As interested members of the local community, managers can undoubtedly make an important contribution to the life of a school. With their varied backgrounds and experience there may also be great value in managers discussing with the head teacher and his colleagues their teaching policies and methods. In such discussions, managers may make suggestions about the teaching and work of the school which are accepted and adopted by the teachers. This function of consultation is, however, different from that of 'oversight', which purports to give managers, albeit 'in consultation with the head teacher', a responsibility to supervise the conduct and curriculum of a school.
833. In most cases, I imagine that there is little difficulty for managers arising
[page 272]
out of the wording of Rule 2 of the Rules of Management. Both the managers and the head teacher apply it principally as if it referred to 'consultation' only and not to 'oversight'. The head teacher keeps the managers informed about what is going on in the school, and the interested managers keep themselves informed by visits to the school and discussion with the head teacher and staff and parents of children at the school. However, where managers are concerned about the quality of the teaching being provided, then - qualified or not - the Rule imposes upon them a responsibility to do something about it. The way in which this responsibility is exercised will depend largely upon the relations between the head teacher and his fellow managers and the extent to which the head teacher is inclined to take notice of their views. If the managers are justified in their anxieties, and relations between them and the head teacher are good, a word from the chairman of the managing body to the head teacher may suffice.
834. However, if the managers and the head teacher disagree about the managers' anxiety, or relations between them generally are bad, then a number of considerations have to be taken into account. They are as follows:
(i) The managers should act corporately. This is particularly important now that the head teacher and one of his staff are members of the managing body. Whatever the managers decide to do, they should decide together, and by vote if necessary, at a properly constituted managers' meeting. There should be no decision taken by factions of the managing body. Nor should there be meetings between members of the managing body with the Authority's representatives to discuss the problem in the absence and without the knowledge of the chairman of the managers, or of the head teacher or the teacher-manager.
(ii) Managerial oversight can only be exercised under Rule 2 of the Rules of Management in consultation with the head teacher. If he disagrees with the managers on a point of importance relating to the conduct and curriculum of the school, it would be wrong, and totally counter-productive, for the managers, to force their 'oversight' upon the school in the form of managerial visits which are really lay 'inspections'. Such visits would be wrong whether decided upon collectively and by vote at a managers' meeting or individually by certain managers. Pending the action to which I refer in the next sub-paragraph, managers should be sparing in the managerial visits that they make. They should also be scrupulous to visit only by appointment and to avoid, so far as possible, any behaviour of an 'inspectorial' nature. I use the words, 'so far as possible', because I appreciate that the dividing line between a managerial visit and an 'inspectorial' visit by a critical manager may not always be easy to draw.
(iii) If the head teacher is adamant in his refusal to accept that there is any justification for the managers' concern, the managers should draw the matter to the attention of the Authority by means of a resolution voted upon at a properly constituted managers' meeting. Such a resolution could call upon the Authority to institute a full inspection, or it could simply express in general terms the managers' concern about the school. As a result of such a resolution the Authority would almost certainly take some action. At the
[page 273]
very least, it would ask the District Inspector to visit the school in order to determine if he can whether there is any justification for the managers' anxiety.
(iv) Following the intervention by the Authority in the form of the District Inspector's visit to the school, there are a number of possibilities that the managers may have to consider. First, the District Inspector and/or other representatives of the Authority may form the view that the managers' concern is justified, and may take steps which result in the head teacher remedying the position. Alternatively, the District Inspector and/or other representatives of the Authority may take the view that the managers are not justified in the concern that they have expressed, or, whilst accepting the justification for that concern, do insufficient to require the head teacher to remedy the position. In either of the latter two cases the managers have only two courses of action properly open to them if they feel strongly about the matter. They are:
(a) to make a complaint against the head teacher and/or members of his staff for inefficiency, misconduct or indiscipline under the Authority's Disciplinary Procedures (12); or
(b) to invite the intervention of the Secretary of State, by requesting him to direct a local inquiry under Section 93 of the 1944 Act and/or to refer the matter to the Secretary of State under Section 67 of the 1944 Act for determination by him (13).
835. If managers are justified in their concern, and it is a matter of importance, the Authority would be gravely lacking in its duty if the managers were obliged to give expression to their responsibilities as managers by the institution of disciplinary proceedings or by referring the matter to the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, those are the steps which responsible managers should take in the interests of the school and the children in it if they feel strongly enough that some action should be taken.
The role of the head teacher
836. The system adopted by the Authority depends largely for its success upon the ability and good judgement of the head teacher whom it appoints. Subject to such powers and responsibilities as are conferred and imposed by Statute and the Rules of Management upon the Authority and the managers respectively, the head teacher is in effective control of the school, its aims, policies, and methods of teaching. A system that reposes such trust and control in one man also demands that he should act with great care and responsibility in the exercise of his functions. Although the Authority encourages the head teacher to consult with his staff in the formulation
(12) See Chapter I, paragraphs 86-89 above, and Appendix VIII to the Report.
(13) See Chapter I, paragraphs 4 and 91-92 above.
[page 274]
of the school's teaching policies and methods, it is the head teacher who, under the present system, is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the school and hence its success or failure.
837. Whatever system of consultation or collective decision-making among the staff a head teacher introduces to his school, it is his responsibility to see that it works to the advantage of the school. This may require a great deal of skill and diplomacy on his part. He also needs that skill and diplomacy in his relations with managers, with whom he has an ill-defined shared responsibility for the conduct and curriculum of the school, and with the parents of the children for whose education he is responsible.
The teaching, organisation and management of the junior school
The teachers
Teaching policies and methods
838. In the Summer of 1973 William Tyndale Junior School had every appearance of a thriving and forward-looking school. It may be that the appearance was better than the reality in some respects. Nevertheless, the school was in general serving the community well. By the end of the autumn term of 1973 it had deteriorated considerably, during the interval between the departure of Mr Head and the arrival of Mr Ellis. It had deteriorated principally due to staffing difficulties - difficulties that many inner London schools were facing at that time - and the lack of direction of a head teacher for a term. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the school in January 1974, nothing that firm and careful direction by a new head teacher could not have overcome within a reasonable time. Yet, by the time Mr Ellis had completed his first two terms there, the school was in complete turmoil, the following serious changes for the worse having taken place:
(i) the teaching organisation of the school was in great disorder;
(ii) the content and quality of the teaching by several of the staff was causing serious alarm to managers, many parents, and some of the school's own teaching staff;
(iii) discipline throughout much of the school had broken down almost completely - to such an extent that it was causing serious and increasing disruption of the teaching in the infants school below;
(iv) the school's teaching staff were divided to such a degree that the collective decision-making policy that Mr Ellis had introduced had broken down;
(v) Mr Ellis and some of his staff had lost, irretrievably, the confidence of certain of the school's managers - managers who had initially welcomed Mr Ellis and supported him and his staff;
(vi) many parents of children at the school had lost confidence in it, and relations
[page 275]
between Mr Ellis and some of his staff on the one hand and many parents on the other were bad; and
(vii) relations between Mr Ellis and some of his staff, on the one hand, and Miss Hart and the infants school staff, on the other, were very strained.
839. The rapid and serious deterioration in the junior school in the first half of 1974 was due in the first instance to Mr Ellis's failure to measure up to his responsibilities as head teacher, and to the introduction by him, or with his approval, of policies and methods that were badly planned and organised and, in some respects, totally impractical for a junior school. In the policies that he adopted he was very much influenced by Mr Haddow, whose views he largely shared, and supported by Mrs McWhirter, Miss Green, Miss Richards, and in the summer term, by Mrs McColgan.
840. Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow both had pronounced views on the role of an inner London junior school in an area like Islington in the 1970s. In the first place, they were convinced that its principal purpose was to provide for children from poor home backgrounds. On the evidence of some of those who had known the school for some years, this was the first time that any element of class consciousness was introduced to the school. In the second place, Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow were convinced that children, especially those from poor backgrounds, should be given a wide measure of choice, not only as to what they should learn, but also as to whether and when they should learn. Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow believed that children who were given that freedom would eventually find their own way to learning with the aid and encouragement of the teacher. As part of their belief that children of junior school age should make their own decisions about learning, they also considered that there should be a relaxation in the extent to which the staff should direct children in their behaviour in school. Staff and children were to mix more as equals than as teachers and pupils. By these means, they believed, the children would find their own way to behaving responsibly and with proper consideration for others, just as they would find their own way to learning.
841. There is obviously a balance to be struck between too much direction by a teacher, where a child's interest in learning is stifled, and too much freedom allowed to a child, in which his or her interest in learning is never stimulated. In the case of children of junior school age, the extent to which their interest in learning can be stimulated, and the degree to which they can choose for themselves what they should learn, depends largely upon how well equipped they are to receive the stimulus and to choose what is available. In short, children of that age must be equipped with the essential tools - the abilities to read, to write, to express themselves, and to understand basic mathematics - if they are to be able to derive full benefit from the philosophy of teaching or learning propounded by Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow. On the evidence that I have heard, Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow, and those members of the staff sympathising with their approach, failed in general to strike the right balance between direction by the teacher and freedom of choice by the child. Too much freedom was given to children too young and too ill-equipped to take the
[page 276]
proper advantage of it. As I have described in Chapter IV of the Report (14), this trend had its beginning in the class options scheme introduced by Mr Haddow in February 1974, but within a short time began to affect the whole school, bringing with it the disorder and indiscipline that I have described. As the composition of the staff changed during the year so that all, with the main exceptions of Mrs Chowles and Mrs Walker, shared the approach of Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow, the trend spread throughout much of the school.
842. The difficulties flowing from the excess of freedom given to the children under Mr Ellis's headship were aggravated by the following factors:
(i) The policy of collective decision-making by the staff in staff meetings proved to be a complete failure because the staff were deeply divided about the new approach of Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow. To achieve uniformity throughout the school in teaching policies and methods, Mr Ellis had either to apply himself to bringing the staff to some basis for a common approach, or, failing that, to put his own mark as head teacher on the overall teaching policies and methods of the school. He did neither. The staff were left to follow their individual teaching and disciplinary methods;
(ii) Mr Ellis introduced, or permitted the introduction of, changes to the school too quickly after his appointment, when, because of the staffing difficulties of the time, the school was not able properly to cope with such changes;
(iii) The changes that were made were inadequately planned;
(iv) Little thought was given by Mr Ellis to the importance of explaining his policies and methods of teaching, and plans for the future, to the parents of the children at the school or to the managers. Indeed, he and Mr Haddow appear to have resented the interest of parents and the managers in the teaching policies and methods employed in the school;
(v) Last, but not least, many members of the staff, chief among whom were Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow, spent too much time on the consideration of generalities of educational, social and political philosophy, and not enough time on the practical day-to-day planning and organisation of running the school and teaching.
843. For the above reasons, I am of the view that, even if Mrs Walker had not been a member of the staff of the junior school, the teaching and organisation of the school would have caused sufficient anxiety among parents and managers for them to express concern about it by the middle or end of the summer term 1974. The harm that Mrs Walker did by her improper conduct (15) was to arouse in Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow and those of the staff who sympathised with them an obsession that a number of people were conspiring against them. Their suspicions, which were directed, not only against Mrs Walker and some parents, but also against certain managers, had the effect of stiffening their attitude against any criticism of
(14) See paragraphs 194-206, above.
(15) See Chapter V, paragraphs 259-272, 361-390 above, and paragraphs 870-874 below.
[page 277]
their teaching policies and methods. The Authority's mishandling of the problems caused by Mrs Walker's conduct (16) only aggravated the teachers' feelings of grievance, and made them even less receptive to advice or criticism from any quarter.
844. Despite the provocation that Mrs Walker had given in the summer term, Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow and their colleagues failed to respond responsibly and in the interests of the children to the problems facing the school. Mrs Walker had not been the only one to express disagreement with the new direction or lack of direction of the school under Mr Ellis's headship. Mr Rice had indicated unease about the innovations that Mr Ellis was introducing and planning to introduce so soon after his appointment (17). Some of the managers, notably Mrs Burnett, Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst had indicated their concern (18). Miss Hart and her staff had expressed their dissatisfaction about the breakdown in discipline of the junior school children (19). Mrs Chowles, the deputy head teacher, had made her views plain, albeit in a less forceful way than Mrs Walker. And many parents, collectively at the two meetings in the summer term of 1974, and individually when they spoke to Mr Ellis, had demonstrated their anxiety about the education that their children were receiving (20). Despite all these warning signs, Mr Ellis made no real effort to reassure or inform the parents at the meeting on 9 July 1974 (20) or subsequently that term (21) about the teaching in being or proposed for their children at the school. Indeed, his evasiveness at the meeting of 9 July 1974, and the conduct of Mr Haddow, Mrs McWhirter, Mrs McColgan, Miss Green and Miss Richards in walking out of that meeting, showed great lack of judgement and insensitivity on their part to the interests of the parents.
845. Having regard to the disruption of the school in the first half of 1974 by two unsuccessful and generally unpopular innovations - Mr Haddow's class options scheme (22) and the reading groups scheme (23) - and the resultant troubles of the school, Mr Ellis should have been very cautious before introducing a further major change in the organisation of teaching in the school. However, he and Mr Haddow were wedded to the idea of cooperative teaching as the framework for the system of education that they favoured of giving children a wide freedom of choice in their learning. The decision of Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow and the now
(16) See Chapter V, paragraphs 403-416, Chapter VI, paragraphs 535, and 556-558 above, and paragraph 882 below.
(17) See Chapter IV, paragraphs 220-221 and Chapter V, paragraph 307 above.
(18) See Chapter V, paragraphs 273-294 above.
(19) See Chapter V, paragraphs 304-306 and 354 above.
(20) For the parents' meeting of 13 June 1974, see Chapter V, paragraphs 321-330 above; and for the parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974, see Chapter V, paragraphs 379-390 above.
(21) See Chapter V, paragraph 437 above.
(22) See Chapter IV, paragraphs 194-206 above.
(23) See Chapter IV, paragraphs 207-216, and Chapter V, paragraphs 248-258 above.
[page 278]
more united staff to introduce such a cooperative teaching system at the beginning of the autumn term 1974 was, in my view, a serious mistake (24). It was a mistake, first, because it provided a third and major disruption to the working of the school and the learning habits of half its children in the space of one year; secondly, because it was introduced at a time when many people were genuinely concerned about the teaching in the school, and when no real attempt had been made by Mr Ellis and his colleagues to allay that concern; and thirdly, because it was introduced at a time when Mr Ellis and his colleagues were very preoccupied with their suspicions of conspiracies against them and in no state of mind to attend to the careful planning and organisation that such a cooperative teaching system demanded. Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow in particular should have had these considerations in mind and heeded them. Their decision nevertheless to go ahead with this badly planned and badly co-ordinated scheme, and without giving any detailed advance information about it to the parents of the children concerned or to the managers, proved to be yet another unsuccessful innovation for the children concerned. I have referred to the inadequacies of the system in its conception and implementation in Chapter VI of the Report (24), some of which were recognised by Mr Haddow in his evidence to the Inquiry. In his view, it was only by May of 1975 that the system was working successfully (25). It is not surprising in the circumstances that the concern felt by many for the education that the children were receiving continued throughout the autumn term 1974 and into 1975.
846. The extent to which Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow were prepared to allow themselves to be influenced by their strongly held beliefs at the expense of important practical considerations, and inevitably of the welfare of their pupils, is most alarmingly illustrated by their introduction of a second and differently organised system of cooperative teaching, this time for the whole school, at the beginning of the autumn term 1975 (26). The introduction of such a system, at a time when either the school was about to be inspected or they were about to enter into serious conflict with the Authority, says very little for the professional judgement of Mr Ellis and the majority of his staff or their regard for the welfare of their pupils.
The quality of education
847. In the preceding paragraphs of this chapter I have summarised a number of criticisms of the teaching policies and methods of Mr Ellis and most of his colleagues. The formidable weight of evidence given at the Inquiry upon which those criticisms are based suggests strongly that the quality of education that the children were receiving was bad. However, not all the evidence given by witnesses other than Mr Ellis and his colleagues pointed that way. There was evidence, particularly in the case of Mr Ellis, Mr Haddow, Mrs McColgan, Mr Austin and Mr Felton, that they were well qualified and successful teachers. Indeed, there is nothing to suggest that any of them was individually incompetent. Although many parents gave evidence at
(24) For an account of the cooperative teaching system introduced in the autumn term 1974, see generally Chapter VI, paragraphs 462-481 above.
(25) See Chapter VII, paragraph 596 above.
(26) See Chapter IX, paragraphs 789-790 above.
[page 279]
the Inquiry expressing dissatisfaction with the education that their children had received at the junior school, there was equally a large number of parents who gave evidence warmly commending Mr Ellis and his colleagues. The interesting feature about such division of evidence is that both groups of parents were drawn from the wide 'social mix' which is a feature of Islington today. Accordingly, before drawing any final conclusions, it would be of value to consider any objective and documented evidence that there may be of the educational achievements of pupils at the junior school during Mr Ellis's headship.
848. Those who should have been best able to produce evidence of educational standards and attainments were Mr Ellis and his colleagues. Yet their evidence on this aspect of the Inquiry was distinctly sparse and, on the whole, more concerned with the generalities of their philosophy and methods of education than with the practical results of those policies and methods. Apart from records of reading ages and secondary transfer figures for 1974 and 1975, no attempt was made to procure and place before the Inquiry any evidence from the school of the children's standard of work and progress during the period of Mr Ellis's headship. As Mr Ellis's evidence to the Inquiry suggested, such records as there may be, are not likely to be of great value, since he and most of his colleagues did not keep more than the bare minimum in records. In particular, no attempt was made to record the children's achievements and progress in the cooperative teaching system instituted in the autumn term of 1974 (save to store the children's exercise books when they were full). The only records maintained by the cooperative teaching group were 'in their heads' and not transmitted in any useful evidential form to the Inquiry.
849. I have been invited by Counsel on behalf of Mr Ellis and his colleagues to have regard to the reading ages of the junior school children as measured by tests applied to the same children in 1974 and 1975. Unfortunately, the evidence provided by the results of those tests is inconclusive, principally for the reason that different tests, known to give varying results for the same reading ability, were used on each occasion. In 1974 the test used was the Schonell Test, and in 1975, the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability. Therefore, a comparison of the results produced by these tests provides no conclusive evidence of the progress in reading of the children concerned during the period which is the subject of the Inquiry.
850. I have also been invited to consider evidence provided by certain secondary schools indicating that there was no significant difference in the reading abilities of children entering those schools from William Tyndale Junior School and those of children coming from other 'feeder' primary schools in the area. One conclusion that could be drawn from such evidence is that the teaching of language skills at William Tyndale Junior School was no worse and no better under Mr Ellis's headship than that in other primary schools in the area. However, the figures relied upon do not represent the result of only the 18 months of teaching that took place at William Tyndale Junior School whilst Mr Ellis was there. In the absence of any conclusive evidence of the reading progress of the children during that 18 months period, no firm conclusions can be drawn from this evidence.
[page 280]
851. Another possible source of objective documented evidence, which I mention only to indicate that I have not overlooked it, is a comparison between the secondary transfer figures for 1974 and 1975. The final banding figures for 1974 and 1975 were as follows (27):
| January
1974
% | January
1975
% |
| Above average | 16.4 | 2.1 |
| Average | 54.1 | 76.6 |
| Below average | 29.5 | 21.3 |
These figures indicate a considerable drop from 1974 to 1975 in the percentage of children in the top band. There was also a significant increase in the middle band, principally as a result of the large drop in the proportion of children in the top band, but also, in part, due to an improvement among the lower ability range, demonstrated by the modest fall in the bottom band. However, it would be wrong to seek to draw any firm conclusions from these figures about the quality of the teaching provided to the third and fourth forms during Mr Ellis's headship. That is because:
(i) the secondary transfer tests are not designed to provide any fixed or absolute yardstick against which the children's abilities, collectively or individually, can be measured; and
(ii) the composition of the pupils in the junior school in 1975 was significantly different from that in January 1974. As a result of the events of the summer term 1974, described in Chapter V of the Report, leading to the drastic fall in the junior school roll at the end of that term, the school had a much higher proportion of less able children in the school year 1974-5 than before (28).
852. Finally, I was invited to consider the evidence of teachers from two secondary schools, to which children from William Tyndale Junior School transferred, that the behaviour of the Tyndale pupils was comparable to that of children entering those schools from other 'feeder' primary schools. However, such evidence of the behaviour of the children, in a totally different school environment, was of a very limited nature. When measured against the mass of evidence produced to the Inquiry about the children's behaviour at William Tyndale Junior School, I cannot regard it as of great assistance.
853. In the absence of any conclusive independent evidence about the quality of education being provided in the junior school, it would be reassuring to be able to turn to the Authority's Inspectorate for an objective professional view. Unfortunately, for reasons that are already apparent, such evidence is not available. There are the two confidential reports of Mr Rice dated 8 July 1974 (29) and 11 March
(27) For an account of the secondary transfer process and more detailed information about the secondary transfer figures in January 1974, see Chapter IV, paragraphs 192-193 above.
(28) See Chapter V, paragraphs 225-226 above.
(29) See Chapter V, paragraphs 395-400 above.
[page 281]
1975 (30) respectively, but they are, by their very nature, necessarily limited in their content. There are also the two reports of Dr Birchenough, the Chief Inspector, following the visits to the junior school in September and October 1975 respectively of the teams of Inspectors (31). However, for the reasons that I have detailed in Chapter IX (32) of this Report, both those reports were made following visits by the Inspectors to the school in very abnormal circumstances. They are therefore written, and must be read, subject to many qualifications. Nevertheless, it is interesting to read the second of the two reports (33), completed just before the Inquiry commenced, and to compare that which the Inspectors saw and recorded on their few days' visit with the wealth of evidence put before the Inquiry which I have summarised in the preceding chapters of this Report. There is a striking correspondence in many aspects between that which the Inspectors observed, in what was admittedly a highly abnormal situation for the school, and the picture of the school as described by many witnesses at the Inquiry who were closely involved in its affairs during the preceding 18 months. In making any such comparison, it is important to read Dr Birchenough's report as a whole. However, there are some passages that appear to me to be particularly telling in their correspondence with evidence that was put before the Inquiry on the same subject matter. They are as follows:
' ... Likewise an examination of the book stock showed the range of books in the school as limited. There are a few story books for the different reading levels; there is not the usual range of information books on the variety of subjects covered in the junior curriculum or of interest to junior school children. Many books are out-of-date and in poor condition. ...
Curriculum and standards
There were no written schemes of work available until the teacher responsible for mathematics produced a newly prepared scheme on the second day of the visit. It is said that a small, intimate and stable staff can maintain close liaison on programmes of work. The preparation of forecasts of work to be done with the children is felt by the class teachers to produce inflexibility; diaries of work are not kept for the classes. A consequence of this might be the lack of progression in a child's bookwork perceived in some cases. The books supplied by the Authority to record children's progress are unused. The cumulative record for each child is, however, completed annually; a very few pieces of children's work are to be found in them ....
(30) See Chapter VII, paragraphs 634-636 above.
(31) See Appendices XIII and XV to the Report respectively.
(32) See paragraphs 815 and 822.
(33) See Appendix XV to the Report.
[page 282]
English
In the sample of children present during the second visit of the inspectors there were some able children with a fluent command of language both in speech and writing and with well developed reading and reasoning skills. These are almost wholly in two classes of fourth/third year children. Demands are also made on the less able and disturbed children in these classes. Elsewhere the learning situation is less reassuring and what is perhaps the most disturbing feature of the school is the effect of unstructured work on a number of children who have not the will to apply themselves to routine tasks and are therefore not acquiring the skills they need. It appears that some children in these classes have avoided the chores of learning, have done very little writing, and have grown accustomed to doing very little indeed and of giving up what they have chosen to do as soon as it becomes irksome. The systematic use of normal resources, detailed preparation and records are seen as a threat to the individual learning the teachers claim as their objective. In general, among these children there is a reluctance to write very much and spelling ability is particularly low. The wide variation in facility with language is borne out in the diagnostic testing which was done during the visit. Some, especially those within the two classes mentioned, coped well with the stages in reading development; others were at an elementary level. ...
The headmaster's own view of language development is interesting. He favours an indirect approach where children gain confidence in perhaps a quite different field - 'the way into reading is not necessarily by reading'. ...
The headmaster aims to 'diminish the role distance between the teacher and child'. There is little point in a 'show of authority without the means to carry it out', although 'there are limits to a teacher's patience'. In general, 'a more human relationship' is sought. The inspectors in the admittedly abnormal conditions of the earlier visit were nevertheless profoundly conscious of the adverse reaction of many children to a friendly but firm approach; the children did not appear to have learnt to live together in social harmony, or to be at all capable of adjusting to changed teacher/pupil relationships. The headmaster referred to their own experience of behavioural upsets similar to those encountered by the temporary staffs and there were indeed such instances during the second visit even with the very small class groupings. A particular problem appears to be over the children who wander, even sometimes disappearing altogether (the infants school appears to be particularly vulnerable to such perambulations). To the head misbehaviour in school is primarily a reaction to outside influences. If a child comes late, it is not necessarily he who is to blame. If obscenities are used in the home we may expect obscene language from the child. It was, however a matter of deep concern to the inspectors that so many of the children had such bad manners in school and they felt the staff could not absolve themselves of all responsibility for this.
At the same time, the burden bearing on the school in respect of children with difficulties is recognised. Some of the children have long case histories with the welfare services, some have recently arrived in this country. The teachers undoubtedly care for their children and are aware of the background to their prob-
[page 283]
lems. With some children they will have succeeded as well as anyone but it is evident that their strategies with the children and, indeed, their requirements of them are inadequate for others and that more normal expectations, demands and insistences are needed in respect of them. ...
On what they have experienced of the school, the inspectors are doubtful about the practical effects of the way in which the philosophy of the staff is translated into action; about its external relationships; about the use of space within the school; about its care of equipment and the balance of its expenditure; about the development of the curriculum; about the methodology of the teaching; about the lack of planning and recording; about standards of achievement over the whole range; about the teachers' requirements of the children and their response to them. When all account is taken of the quite abnormal circumstances of the inspection, they found cause for concern in it which demanded fuller examination and explanation. It was remarked that head and assistant teachers did not speak of each other's qualities to the inspectors. There is perhaps no clear lead in the school - the head may not want to lead. The fervour of some staff may have led inexperienced teachers out of their pedagogical depth. For some there is such a conviction in their beliefs and practices that they are perhaps not open to persuasion upon them. ... '
854. With the double disadvantage of being a layman in the field of education and of having no evidence in the form of records of the educational standards of achievement during the period of Mr Ellis's headship upon which firm conclusions can be drawn, I do not claim to be able to offer a 'final judgement' (34) on the quality of education provided at the junior school. However, as a layman, I have been charged with the task of inquiring into, inter alia, the teaching and organisation of the junior school. I have had one advantage that the Inspectors did not have, that is of hearing a wealth of evidence from a wide variety of professional and lay people closely connected with the junior school from September 1973 to October 1975. On the basis of that evidence, and giving a layman's view, I am not satisfied that the education being provided by Mr Ellis and the majority of his staff was overall 'efficient' (35) or 'suitable to the requirements' (36) of the school's pupils as a whole.
The conduct of Mr Ellis and the junior school staff towards the managers and the Authority
855. I do not propose to refer in this chapter, save in the barest outline, to the individual issues between Mr Ellis and the junior school staff, on the one hand, and the managers on the other. Those issues are detailed fully in the preceding chapters and are also summarised for each term in the final section of each chapter. There was undoubtedly a good deal of provocation on both sides in the conflict that developed between the junior school staff and the managing body. However,
(34) cf the concluding passage of Dr Birchenough's report following the second visit of the Inspectors to the junior school, in October 1975; see Chapter IX, paragraph 822 above.
(35) The 1944 Act, S.7; and see paragraph 826 above.
(36) The 1944 Act, S.8(1); and see paragraph 826 above.
[page 284]
Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow, in particular, were largely responsible for the beginning of the rift between them. From very early on in 1974 both men clearly resented the interest shown by certain managers, notably Mrs Burnett, Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst, in the teaching policies and methods employed in the school. Mr Ellis was disinclined to accept that the word 'oversight' in Rule 2(a) of the Rules of Management (37) gave the managers any supervisory role over him or, with him, over his staff, in the conduct and curriculum of the school. For reasons that I have given in paragraphs 832 and 833 of this chapter, that may have been an understandable attitude to adopt. However, Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow, by the end of the summer term 1974, were showing a disinclination even to treat the Rules as giving the managers the right to consult with, or to be kept informed by, the head teacher on matters concerning the conduct and curriculum of the school. There was no justification for this attitude since, quite apart from the provision in Rule 2(a) relating to the managers' responsibility of 'oversight', Rule 2(c) (37) of the Rules of Management provides in quite unambiguous terms that there must be full consultation at all times between the head teacher and the chairman of the managers, and that all proposals affecting the conduct and curriculum of the school must be submitted formally to the managers.
856. Having regard to the parental and managerial concern about the teaching and general conduct of the school by the end of the summer term 1974, I am of the view that it was wrong of Mr Ellis to introduce the cooperative teaching system to the school at the beginning of the autumn term 1974, having previously given only a general indication to the managers of what was proposed. Mr Ellis had been evasive with the parents about his proposals for the autumn term at the 9 July 1974 parents/teachers' meeting (38). He should at least have given Mrs Burnett, the then chairman of the managers some detailed account of what was proposed before the cooperative teaching system was introduced at the beginning of the autumn term.
857. For reasons that I have already canvassed in some detail and summarised in Chapter VI of the Report (39), the behaviour of some of the managers in the summer and early part of the autumn term 1974 caused a considerable amount of unnecessary apprehension on the part of the junior school staff. Nevertheless, the staff, having refused to recognise that their own conduct might have contributed to some of the troubles of the summer term 1974, adopted an aggressive attitude to the managing body as a whole which was wholly indefensible and, in the long term, counter-productive to their own cause. They set out to provoke a confrontation, demanding from the managers a declaration of support, whilst at the same time challenging the managers' competence to 'consider' what it was they were being asked to support (40). Their third written statement of the term (41), after the managers
(37) See Chapter I, paragraph 74 above.
(38) See Chapter V, paragraphs 379-390, above.
(39) See paragraphs 509-517, 521-524, 527-532, and 588, above.
(40) See generally, Chapter VI, paragraphs 538-544, 553-560, and 561-567, above.
(41) See Chapter VI, paragraphs 568-576, above.
[page 285]
had circulated to parents their declaration of support, demonstrated how much more concerned the junior school staff were in winning a fight (42) with the managers than in working jointly with them in the interests of the children for whose education both groups had a responsibility.
858. The conduct of the junior school staff in the summer and autumn terms 1974 inevitably lost them permanently the goodwill of many of the managers. It is unfortunate that some of the managers did not themselves behave in a responsible manner when they subsequently tried to prompt the Authority to intervene in the affairs of the school. When the junior school staff learned in the following summer term of the secret campaign that had been organised against them, they reacted all too readily to the challenge; and, in the manner of their reaction, showed a concern more for their own professional status than for the interests of their pupils. By making use of their professional association to seek to 'lock-in' the children (43), and by refusing the managers access to the school in school hours (44), they not only acted quite wrongly but totally misjudged the impact upon the managers that their actions would have. I believe that the junior school staff felt that a repetition of the confrontation tactics of the previous autumn term would be successful and that they would again be able to 'see the managers off'. However, it was not to be, and provocation and counter-provocation continued between these two groups of adults responsible for a school, until eventually the Authority was convinced of the need to intervene. The junior school staff then turned their confrontation tactics upon the Authority.
859. Despite the many arguments advanced by the junior school staff in support of the stand that they took against the Authority, I can see no justification for or sense in the way that they behaved. The fact that Mr Hinds may have given them the wrong impression that their conduct had not been the subject of complaint and that there was nothing educationally wrong with the junior school (45), was no justification for them to challenge the Authority's statutory right (46) to inspect the school. They adopted an arrogant attitude in challenging the Authority in this respect, whilst at the same time demanding an inquiry into the conduct of the managers and others. In persisting with their defiance of the Authority to the extent of going on strike rather than be inspected, the junior school staff demonstrated how much importance they attached to the inviolability of their 'professional status' and how little thought they had for the children for whose education they were responsible. As a result of their action great harm was caused to the school, and its
(42) cf the passage in Mr Haddow's Staff Discussion Paper prepared at the end of April 1975 (see Chapter VIII, paragraph 677 above), ' ... Even the fight with the managers has become an attempt at buying reconciliation rather than a continued struggle to free ourselves of their political intimidation ... '
(43) See Chapter VIII, paragraphs 704-707, above.
(44) See Chapter VIII, paragraphs 716-725, above.
(45) See Chapter VI, paragraphs 545-552, and Chapter VIII, paragraphs 755-757 and 760 above; and see paragraphs below .
(46) See Chapter I, paragraph 51, footnote 41, above.
[page 286]
pupils' education was disrupted quite unnecessarily and in a most damaging manner.
The junior school staff
860. Before leaving the subject of the role and conduct of the teaching staff of the junior school, I should refer individually to some of them.
Mr Ellis
861. It may be remembered that Mr Ellis, in his interview by the managers for the post of head teacher of the junior school, made the point that he regarded the position of a head teacher as 'the last line of responsibility' (47). As the head teacher, he must take the main responsibility for the failure of the school and for the damaging role played by his staff in the series of disputes leading to the inspection and public inquiry.
862. Mr Ellis is an experienced and competent teacher. A number of witnesses have spoken of his genuine interest in, and involvement with, children when he was teaching, and of the care and attention that he gave to individual pupils. However, his ability as a head teacher is open to question. Despite his previous experience as a deputy and acting head teacher (48), his showing at William Tyndale Junior School suggests that he lacked the judgement, the strength of character, and the ability to organise that the position of head teacher of a school of that character required. He appears to have been unable or unwilling to give a firm lead when necessary, and he was too readily influenced by the much more doctrinaire and aggressive Mr Haddow. It may very well be that, but for Mr Haddow's presence on the staff the events at the junior school would have taken a different turn, and Mr Ellis's shortcomings as a head teacher would not have become so apparent. In particular, there is evidence that, on a number of occasions in the whole series of events leading to the final breakdown in relations in the summer of 1975, he showed a disposition to adopt a reasonable approach, but was dissuaded from it by Mr Haddow.
863. In his relations with parents Mr Ellis provoked a mixed reaction. Most parents found him easy to talk to in the sense that he rarely reacted angrily to any criticisms levelled at him. However, those who ventured to express anxieties to him about their children's education were often treated by him in an abrupt and dismissive way. On the other hand, he could be understanding and helpful with other parents who approached him with their individual problems. The reason for his tendency to arouse resentment among many parents and his ability to gain the confidence of others may have been that he was impatient only with those parents who appeared to concern themselves unduly with the way in which their children were taught. From remarks that he made to certain managers, some of which have been referred to in the Report, and from his attitude when giving evidence at the inquiry, he does not appear to regard the views or wishes of parents as of any great importance when deciding how their children should be taught.
(47) See Chapter III, paragraph 169.
(48) See Chapter III, paragraphs 162-167, above.
[page 287]
Mr Haddow
864. There is ample evidence that Mr Haddow is capable of very good work as a teacher and, when he wants to, of maintaining good discipline. However, in my view, he has adopted a doctrinaire approach to teaching and his conception of his role as a teacher which has prevented him from making the best use of his talents. His conduct at William Tyndale Junior School suggests that he had become so mesmerised by the labels of 'progressive teaching' generally, and 'cooperative teaching' and 'options systems' in particular, that he pursued such methods with little regard to circumstance and with little thought to the practicalities of planning and organisation that such methods of teaching required.
865. He is, as I have already indicated, a man with a highly developed sense of his professional status, and is quick to see any questioning of his teaching methods as an affront to that status. His instinct is to respond with aggression. Unfortunately, he had the ability at William Tyndale Junior School to instil in Mr Ellis and many of his fellow teachers his own alarmist and aggressive reactions. In my view, he was the main architect of the beginning of the troubles at the junior school, and was the driving force which caused Mr Ellis and the junior school staff to adopt the confrontation tactics leading to the final breakdown in relations in the summer and autumn of 1975. It is clear from Mr Haddow's attitude and behaviour that there did not figure very highly in his concept of professionalism a sense of responsibility for the school's pupils.
Mrs McWhirter, Mrs McColgan, Miss Green, Miss Richards and Mr Felton
866. I do not consider it necessary to refer here to the individual parts played in the affairs of the junior school by Mrs McWhirter, Mrs McColgan, Miss Green, Miss Richards and Mr Felton. They were all members of the group who supported Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow, and, as such, made a significant contribution to the damage caused to the junior school. Mrs McWhirter, Mrs McColgan, Miss Green and Miss Richards behaved with a lack of judgement and complete disregard of parental interest and anxieties when they walked out of the parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974 (49). In taking that action, albeit, in my view following Mr Haddow's lead, they did lasting damage to the relations between the staff, on the one hand, and the managers and parents on the other. Their subsequent behaviour, to which Mr Felton subscribed, served only to widen the rift.
867. The individual contribution of each of these teachers to the educational failure of the school is difficult to determine. Such contribution as each made was in the main not due to any lack of competence on his or her part, but to the general teaching system in which they worked. As decisions about the conduct of the school were purportedly made by the staff as a whole in staff meetings, they must bear some responsibility for the general failure of the school. However, it is my view that they were largely influenced by the views and zeal of Mr Haddow in the general policies and methods that were adopted. Under a different head teacher and in a
(48) See Chapter V, paragraphs 387 and 391-393, above.
[page 288]
soundly run school, there is no evidence before me to suggest that any of them would not do a good job.
Mr Austin
868. Mr Austin is a mild and likeable man, with a gift for teaching and for getting on well with everybody. At first sight, it is surprising that he gave his support to the confrontation tactics adopted by his colleagues in the autumn term 1974 and in the early part of the summer term 1975. It should be remembered, however, that he - like Mr Felton - came new to the school in the autumn term 1974. It was inevitable, in the early stages at least, that he and Mr Felton would be influenced by the account given to them and the suspicions voiced by the head teacher and the majority of his staff. Mr Austin, though sympathising with his colleagues in their position as they described it to him, did not from the outset wholly support the methods that they adopted to deal with it. It was not in his nature, however, to take a firm stand against Mr Ellis and six of his colleagues, and, quite wrongly, he supported them in their conduct towards the managers. Towards the end of the summer term 1975, when the junior school staff first intimated to the Authority their opposition to an inspection of the school, Mr Austin, whilst continuing to sympathise with their grievances, could no longer support their method of dealing with them (50). He refused to take part in the strike in the autumn term of 1975, and it is a misfortune that he felt obliged to resign from the Authority's service when it took place.
Mrs Chowles
869. Mrs Chowles is a dedicated, hard-working and successful teacher. She has justly deserved the confidence of the parents of the children whom she taught and of the managers. As described in Chapter III of the Report (51), she took responsibility for the school during the very difficult period of the autumn term 1973 after Mr Head had left and before Mr Ellis was appointed. The deterioration of the school during that period was not of her making. Although she had applied unsuccessfully for the post of head teacher of the junior school, I am satisfied that on Mr Ellis's appointment she set out to give him her full support. However, Mrs Chowles - like Mrs Walker - saw, very early on, the dangers of the new policies that were introduced to the school under Mr Ellis's headship. Although she made her views plain, she was disregarded. Mr Ellis appeared to see no particular role for her as deputy head teacher, and within a very short time she became very isolated in the school. Her behaviour in the very trying period of Mr Ellis's headship is to be strongly commended. She believed firmly that he, as head teacher, was entitled to run the school in the way that he wished. At the same time all her teaching and professional instinct told her that he was making a very big mistake. In this dilemma, and being virtually disregarded as deputy head teacher, she concentrated mainly on her own class teaching. As the 18 months of Mr Ellis's headship wore on, and the composition of the staff changed so that she became the
(50) See Chapter VIII, paragraph 758, above.
(51) See paragraphs 152-158.
[page 289]
only full-time teacher not involved in the growing conflict, her isolation increased. It was undoubtedly an extremely trying and unhappy period for her. It is remarkable that she was able to continue to work in the school in the way that she did and under such circumstances. Needless to say, she took no part in the conflicts with the managers or the Authority.
Mrs Walker
870. Mrs Walker is a teacher of considerable ability and experience. The evidence before me indicates that she was a successful teacher at William Tyndale Junior School and well-liked by the parents of the many children to whom she had given remedial reading tuition over the years. Her own teaching capabilities and methods have not been seriously questioned. It is her criticism of the teaching policies and methods of Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow and those teachers who sympathised with them which is in issue and which has caused so much trouble.
871. In my view, much of the criticism that Mrs Walker made of the teaching policies and methods introduced to the junior school under Mr Ellis's headship was justified. However, the manner in which Mrs Walker advanced her criticism in and outside the staffroom in early 1974 (52) caused great harm to the school and to the future relations between the junior school staff, on the one hand, and the parents and managers, on the other. By the extreme and dogmatic manner in which she engaged Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis in the staffroom discussions, she contributed largely to the breakdown of such discussions as a means for the staff to make collective decisions about teaching policies and methods for the school. When she realised that her views were not going to be heeded in the school, she began to campaign against Mr Ellis and her colleagues outside the school. Her conduct in preparing and circulating a document among parents critical of the school and 'springing' it upon Mr Ellis and her colleagues shortly before the parents/teachers' meeting on 9 July 1974 was, in my view, disgraceful. In addition, in the course of her campaign among the parents - some already anxious about their children's education at the junior school and some not - she made allegations of a political nature, particularly against Mr Haddow, suggesting that he was indoctrinating the children whom he taught. These allegations were largely the source of the unfounded rumours that began to circulate in Islington, to which Mr Haddow and his colleagues justifiably took exception.
872. Mrs Walker's thoroughly unprofessional conduct had effects far beyond the immediate troubles and ill-feeling of the summer term 1974 to which it contributed. It aroused among the junior school staff, Mr Haddow in particular, an abiding conviction that there was a conspiracy against them, a conspiracy, not only between Mrs Walker and some of the parents who had criticised them at the two meetings in the summer of 1974, but also involving some managers and other people as well. Due to the ineptitude with which the Authority handled the problem
(52) See Chapter IV, paragraphs 184-187; Chapter V, paragraphs 244, 259-271, and 361-390, above.
[page 290]
created by Mrs Walker (53) and the subsequent behaviour of some of the managers, the junior school staff were still worrying about Mrs Walker and her conspiracy months after she had left the school. Although Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow and their colleagues were over-ready to look for conspiracies against them, and to ignore the root cause of the school's problems - the shortcomings in the teaching policies and methods introduced by them - Mrs Walker's behaviour contributed to the troubles of the junior school both when she was there and after she had left.
873. Feeling as strongly as she did, Mrs Walker's proper course would have been to make a formal representation to the managers under Rule 2(c)(iv) of the Rules of Management. That Rule provides as follows:
'Members of the teaching staff shall be entitled, either personally or by their representatives, under suitable arrangements made by the managers, to make representations to the managers on matters affecting the school, provided that the head teacher be given due notice of such representation'. (my italics)
If Mrs Walker had adopted the machinery provided by that Rule, her concern for the school could have been considered openly by the whole managing body in the presence of Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow (the latter, as teacher-manager). If the managers had then decided to take no action (54), it would still have been open to Mrs Walker to make a complaint against her colleagues for inefficiency or misconduct under the Authority's Disciplinary Procedures (55).
874. For someone feeling as concerned as Mrs Walker did about the conduct of her colleagues, the Authority provided the machinery to investigate that concern in an open and professional manner. However strongly she may have believed that it was in the interests of the school that some urgent action should be taken, and however justified her belief may have been, the action that she took was totally wrong and caused lasting damage to the school.
The Authority
The role of the District Inspector and the Divisional Officer in 1974
875. For reasons that I have explained in Chapters III (56) and IV (57) of the Report the Authority's Inspectorate did not give the junior school the support and attention in the autumn of 1973 and early part of 1974 that it needed. The lack of a
(53) See Chapter V, paragraphs 403-416, 422 and 437; Chapter VI, paragraphs 553 and 556-558 above; and paragraph 882 below.
(54) cf paragraph 834(iii) and (iv) above.
(55) See Chapter I, paragraphs 86-89 above, and Appendix VIII, to the Report.
(56) Paragraphs 156-158 above.
(57) Paragraphs 219-221 above.
[page 291]
head teacher for a term coupled with the staff difficulties that I have described (58) led to a significant deterioration in the school during that period. The Authority was clearly unaware of the extent of this deterioration at the time that it appointed Mr Ellis head teacher, and compounded this failure by giving him little or no attention and support during his first three months in his new appointment (59). Some firm guidance and advice during that difficult period from an experienced District Inspector could possibly have 'nipped in the bud' some of the causes of the rapid loss of parental confidence in the school (60).
876. When Mr Rice, the new District Inspector appointed at the beginning of March 1974, made his first visit to the school at the beginning of April 1974 (61), the damage had already started. Mr Haddow's class options scheme (60) had been introduced and the abortive reading groups scheme (62) was about to start. Unfortunately, although Mr Rice was uneasy about the school following his visit, he was not then or subsequently able to exercise any decisive influence upon Mr Ellis's conduct of it. There are a number of reasons for this:
(i) Mr Rice was new to the Authority's service. Thus, not only was he unfamiliar with the school and the Islington area, but he was also inexperienced in the way in which the Authority's Inspectorate worked.
(ii) He is not a strong personality; certainly not the sort of man who would risk hurting someone's feelings by expressing himself firmly, even if he felt that strong advice should be given. He is a man who believes in taking 'a middle course' wherever possible.
(iii) The amount of time that Mr Rice had to give to William Tyndale Junior School was limited. He had a large District, with 69 schools for which he was responsible, and a very difficult District, particularly for an Inspector new to the Authority's service.
(iv) Mr Rice lacked the support and advice that he should have received, particularly from Mr Wales who, on his retirement in June 1975, had been the Divisional Officer for Islington for 12 years (62a).
877. Within a few months of Mr Rice's appointment he was put on notice of the rapidly deteriorating situation at the school. In May and June 1974 Miss Hart gave him an alarming account of the serious and increasing disruption of the infants school caused by the bad behaviour of the junior school children (63). Mrs
(58) Chapter III, paragraphs 153-154, above.
(59) Chapter IV, paragraphs 220-221, above.
(60) Chapter IV, paragraphs 194-206, above.
(61) Chapter IV, paragraph 220, above.
(62) Chapter IV, paragraphs 207-216, above.
(62a) It is a matter for regret that the Inquiry did not have the benefit of evidence from Mr Wales. He declined to give evidence, although requested to do so by the Authority and notwithstanding a letter written to him, on my request, by the Secretary to the Inquiry requesting him to reconsider his decision.
(63) See Chapter V, paragraphs 307 and 354, above.
[page 292]
Walker visited him and voiced her concern about the school (64). Mrs Burnett sent to the Divisional Office her notes of the disastrous parents' meeting of 13 June 1974 (65). By the end of June 1974 Mr Hinds had heard from Mrs Page and others about some trouble at the school (66), and, as a result, Mr Rice was asked by Miss Burgess to inform her what was wrong and whether anything could be done to put it right (67). On his visit to the school in early July, in response to Miss Burgess's request, Mr Rice formed the view that 'standards of both behaviour and attainment had fallen' (68). On the day that he was writing a short report to Miss Burgess expressing that view he received another visitor, this time Mrs Chowles, expressing her worries about the school and her own dilemma as deputy head teacher there (69). Finally, on the following day, 9 July 1974, and before he submitted his report to Miss Burgess, Mr Rice attended the worrying parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974. If Mr Rice had had any reservations up to that time of the serious problems of the school, the events of that meeting should have dispelled them. Particularly serious were the degree of parental concern displayed at the meeting, Mr Ellis's evasiveness and unsatisfactory response to that concern, the 'walk-out' by Mr Haddow and four of his colleagues, and the serious rift among the staff displayed by Mrs Walker's behaviour (70).
878. Mr Rice's conduct following the meeting was, I regret to say, lacking in three important respects (71):
(i) he failed to alert the Authority to the seriousness of the problems at the school or the need for any action, other than the provision of extra resources and the arrangement of a meeting between him and the staff at the beginning of the autumn term;
(ii) he failed to advise Mr Ellis that, if the school was not to suffer a large fall in the roll at the end of term, action had to be taken immediately by the staff to attempt to restore parental confidence; and
(iii) he failed to enlist the aid of any of his colleagues in the Inspectorate, the specialist subject Inspectors, to visit the school as soon as possible.
However new and inexperienced he was in the ways of the Authority's Inspectorate, and however heavy his workload, Mr Rice, as the man on the spot, failed to respond as he should have done to ensure that the Authority took urgent steps to prevent further deterioration of the school. The report that he prepared for Miss Burgess before the parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974, and sent to her, unamended, following that meeting, was pitched in so low a key that she regarded it principally
(64) See Chapter V, paragraph 264, above.
(65) See Chapter V, paragraphs 321-330, above.
(66) See Chapter V, paragraph 352, above.
(67) See Chapter V, paragraph 353, above.
(68) See Chapter V, paragraphs 356 and 395, above.
(69) See Chapter V, paragraph 357; and paragraph 869, above.
(70) See Chapter V, paragraphs 377-393, above.
(71) See Chapter V, paragraph 400, above.
[page 293]
as a request for extra resources, calling for administrative action only, and did not consider it necessary to send a copy to Mr Hinds.
879. The end of the summer term did not bring with it an end to the signs of the serious damage caused to the school during the first half of the year. There were letters to the Divisional Office from parents complaining about the school (72). There was also a meeting a few days after the end of term between a group of managers (consisting of Mrs Burnett, Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst) and the Divisional Office staff (which included Mr Wales, Mr Rice and Mr Buxton, the former District Inspector) (73). At the meeting the managers expressed great concern about the likely further deterioration of the school if the Authority did not take some urgent action to stop it. The circumstances of this meeting are disturbing for a number of reasons. First, such an important meeting concerning the future of the school should not have been held without the knowledge and involvement of the whole managing body, including Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow; and Mr Wales should not have agreed to it unless it had been held on that basis. One of the serious results of the meeting taking place as it did was that Mr Ellis subsequently heard differing and alarming reports of it. From Mr Wales and Mr Rice he had an account indicating that certain of the managers were bringing pressure to bear for an Inquiry if the school did not improve by Christmas (74). From Mrs Fairweather, he heard an account suggesting that it was the Divisional Office staff who had taken the initiative in suggesting various forms of action against him and his staff if the position was not better by Christmas (75). All this is bad enough, but the meeting with the Divisional Office staff had another and much more serious aspect in the context of the Authority's awareness of the need and readiness to intervene in the school's affairs.
880. The visit of the four managers to the Divisional Office for this meeting was itself the culmination of a series of unmistakable warnings to the Authority, principally through Mr Rice and Mr Wales, that the junior school urgently needed help and firm guidance from the Authority's Inspectorate. It may be that up to this point the lack of any appropriate action by the Authority can be put down to the failure of Mr Rice and Mr Wales to alert their superiors to the serious problems of the school. It is apparent, however, from the attitude of the Divisional Office staff at this meeting that, whatever the position up to then, they had reasons which they found compelling for not intervening in the affairs of the school. The two principal reasons appear to have been:
(i) that, although Mr Ellis had not so far shown himself to be a particularly successful head teacher, it was customary to give new head teachers at least a year to work out their ideas and to evolve their pattern of organisation (76); and
(72) See Chapter V, paragraph 401, above.
(73) See Chapter V, paragraphs 423-35, above.
(74) See Chapter VI, paragraphs 496 and 497, above.
(75) See Chapter VI, paragraphs 521-524, above.
(76) See Chapter V, paragraph 428.
[page 294]
(ii) that the Divisional Office staff at that time was having, or had just had, trouble with a difficult group of teachers in the Division, and, by implication, they did not wish to invite further problems of a similar nature by intervening at William Tyndale Junior School (77).
881. Both of the concerns mentioned in the preceding paragraph figured subsequently in the Authority's consideration of whether or not to intervene by ordering a full inspection of the school. In my view, they are considerations of expediency which the Authority should not allow to override its duty to intervene strongly in the case of a school which is in serious trouble. In the summer of 1974 William Tyndale Junior School was in serious trouble. In such a situation, the Authority's first concern should be for the education of the children, not a general policy of allowing a new head teacher a year to find his feet. As the Inquiry has demonstrated, a school can go to pieces in well under a year. Secondly, if the Authority has real cause for concern about a school, it is quite wrong for it to allow its apprehension of possible reaction from pressure groups to deter it from taking a course which it considers is necessary for a school. I know that such a principle is easy for me to write but may be difficult for those who have to apply it at County Hall or at Divisional Office level. Nevertheless, the Authority's first duty is to act in the best interests of the children for whose education it is responsible, however inconvenient and troublesome that action may be.
882. Apart from providing additional resources to the school (78) and Mr Rice attending a staff meeting in the autumn term (79), no special attention was given by Mr Rice to the junior school. No subject inspectors were asked to visit the school. The unsatisfactory cooperative teaching system which Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow introduced (80) was apparently devised without any assistance being sought from or offered by the Inspectorate. Indeed, far from assisting the junior school at the beginning of the term, Mr Rice and Mr Wales unnecessarily aroused the anxieties of Mr Ellis and his staff by telling him of the representations made by the four managers in the summer (81). In addition, the Authority's inept handling, both at County Hall and by Mr Wales, of the problem created by Mrs Walker's conduct was a further irritant to the junior school staff, and therefore an impediment to the smooth running of the school (82). The Authority took no apparent interest in investigating her conduct itself; the effect of the advice given by the administrative officer at County Hall and by Mr Wales was to prevent the managers from considering it; and neither Mr Wales nor anybody else appears to have considered that it would not be conducive to the smooth running of the school in the autumn
(77) See Chapter V, paragraph 429.
(78) See Chapter V, paragraph 398, above.
(79) See Chapter VI, paragraphs 538-544, above.
(80) See Chapter VI, paragraphs 462-481, above.
(81) See Chapter VI, paragraphs 496-502, above.
(82) See Chapter V, paragraphs 403-416; and Chapter VI, paragraphs 535, 539, and 556-558, above.
[page 295]
term for Mrs Walker (who was a temporary terminal teacher (83)) to continue working there.
883. Despite the confrontation tactics adopted by the junior school staff towards the managers in the early part of the autumn term (84), neither Mr Wales nor Mr Rice appear to have considered that they should review their 'wait and see' policy adopted in the summer. Miss Hart's visit to Mr Wales at the end of the term, when she tried to impress upon him the desperation that she and her staff felt about the continued disruption of their work by the junior school children, was similarly without effect (85)
884. In summary, neither Mr Wales nor Mr Rice, in their respective capacities as Divisional Officer and District Inspector, paid the attention that they should have done to the many signs of continuing serious trouble at William Tyndale Junior School throughout 1974. Not only did they take insufficient action themselves to assist the school, but they failed the Authority by not alerting it sufficiently to the problems that were there. One of the functions of the Authority's Divisional Office organisation is to act as an 'early warning system' for County Hall. During 1974 the system failed badly in respect of William Tyndale Junior School.
The role of Mr Hinds in the autumn term 1974
885. Mr Hinds had heard from Mrs Page and others in the summer of 1974 of troubles at the junior school. Because of the inadequacy of the information conveyed to County Hall from the Divisional Office, Mr Hinds had little knowledge of the extent of the troubles or that they were continuing until the junior school (86) staff wrote to him in late September 1974. In my view, that letter to Mr Hinds was one of the most important indications to the Authority in 1974 that the school was in serious trouble. It indicated in the clearest possible terms that the junior school staff were in conflict with the managers and were questioning the willingness to help them of their District Inspector. Knowing as he did that there had been difficulties at the school in June 1974, this direct indication of their continuance, in my view, should have prompted him to ask for detailed information about what was happening and what had been happening at the school. He obviously made some enquiries because he learned of the letters of complaint sent by parents to the Divisional Office in the summer. But there was a wealth of information which could have been collected just from Miss Burgess, Dr Birchenough and the Divisional Office. In my view, such information, when considered in the light of the very bad relations between the junior school staff and the managers, would have constituted compelling evidence of the need for an urgent full inspection of the school. However, all that Mr Hinds did was to decline to intervene in the workings of the local machinery about which the junior school staff had written to complain.
(83) See Glossary.
(84) See generally, Chapter VI, paragraphs 489-576, above.
(85) See Chapter VI, paragraphs 579-585, above.
(86) See generally, Chapter VI, paragraphs 545-552, above.
[page 296]
The role of Mr Hinds and the Inspectorate in 1975
886. The first time that the Authority appears to have given serious consideration to a full inspection at the junior school was in the early part of the spring term of 1975 (87), and then it only did so as a result of a suggestion to that effect made by Mrs Page to Mr Rice. Although Mr Rice appears to have agreed with Mrs Page that a full inspection might be a good idea, he was still concerned about the effect it might have upon the morale of the junior school staff. He expressed that reservation when he put the suggestion to Dr Birchenough, the Chief Inspector. Dr Birchenough, after discussing the matter with Mr Pape, the then Staff Inspector for Primary Education, decided against a full inspection for two main reasons:
(i) that, having regard to the 'pressures' upon the junior school staff, of which Mr Rice told him, the effect of ordering an inspection could be harmful to the morale of the staff; and in any event
(ii) that it would be undesirable to order a full inspection of the school only a year after Mr Ellis's appointment as head teacher.
887. The approach of Dr Birchenough, Mr Pape and Mr Rice to the question of an inspection is reminiscent of the reaction in July 1974 of the Divisional Office Staff to the suggestion that the Authority should intervene in some way (88). The only reason the three men could have had for considering the need for an inspection was that there was serious concern about the way in which the school had been conducted since Mr Ellis had become its head teacher. That being so, I cannot understand why such great weight was given to the sensitivities of the teachers, or of the head teacher during whose year of headship the school had had so many troubles. To defer to their sensitivities was to put at risk the education of the pupils, whose interests, in my view, should have been regarded as paramount in making a decision of this sort.
888. By early 1975 the Authority's reluctance to take any decisive action prompted certain of the managers - namely, Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Hoodless and Mrs Gittings - to try to take matters into their own hands and to force the Authority to do something. As a result of his dealings with these ladies in February and March of 1975 Mr Hinds effectively passed the initiative to them as to how best the Authority should attend to the problem of the school (89). In passing the initiative to them he purported to pass the responsibility too. In so doing, he contributed largely to the aggravation of the school's problems.
889. The report that Mr Hinds obtained from Mr Rice (90) as a result of the first approach of these ladies (91), was a critical one. However, the view that he took, after consulting with Dr Birchenough and Mr Pape, was that it called for no drastic
(87) See generally, Chapter VII, paragraphs 603-606, above.
(88) See Chapter V, paragraph 429; and paragraph 880, above.
(89) See generally, Chapter VII, paragraphs 619-633 and 637-645, above.
(90) See Chapter VII, paragraph 634, above.
(91) See generally, Chapter VII, paragraphs 619-633, above.
[page 297]
action from the Authority. Dr Birchenough and Mr Pape again took the view that a full inspection of the school was not warranted and that the best course was to leave it to Mr Rice, with the aid of individual subject inspectors, to give the school as much attention as he could. Armed with that professional advice, and having formed the view that he had, Mr Hinds met with the three managers, with Mrs Page present, on 26 March 1975, and told them of his view (92). This further indication of inaction on the part of the Authority provoked the three managers to demonstrate to Mr Hinds their resolve to do something to cause him to change its mind. Their attitude was such that he considered they would not act with restraint in the affairs of the school, and that, the way things were going, there was unlikely to be a reasonable solution to the problem (93). Having formed that view, he should never have allowed them to leave his room thinking that one of the ways by which the Authority might be prompted into taking more positive action was the organisation of a petition about the school.
890. As Mr Hinds accepted in his evidence to the Inquiry, the circulation of any petition in terms critical of the school and its staff could only be harmful to the school, and especially so in the case of a petition organised by its own managers. As I have already commented (94), it was singularly pointless for him, on the one hand, to urge the Inspectorate, as he did, to give all possible support to the school and, on the other hand, to give countenance to a petition which, whatever its precise terms were to be, could only be critical of, and therefore damaging to, the school. In his position as Chairman of the Schools Sub-Committee, and with his great experience in the Authority's affairs, it was, in my view, a grave error of judgement on his part that he did not advise in the most emphatic terms against the circulation of a petition as soon as mention of it was made. It was, as I have already said (94), an error of judgement that proved to be a major contributory factor to the final breakdown of relations that followed between the managers and staff.
891. Quite apart from the above-mentioned serious error of judgement on the part of Mr Hinds, there was a fundamental illogicality about his approach to the problem. The Authority spends a great deal of money employing a large staff of highly qualified inspectors to provide it with the best possible professional advice. Mr Hinds had taken advice on this problem from Dr Birchenough, the Chief Inspector, and Mr Pape, a very experienced Staff Inspector for Primary Education. Their advice - right or wrong - had been against a full inspection of the junior school. As I have already commented (95), Mr Hinds, in conceding that he might consider a different approach in the light of expressions of community concern in the form of managers' resolutions or petitions or otherwise - the only purpose of which could have been to cast doubt upon the professional advice that he had taken - was conceding to others that which was essentially the Authority's own responsibility.
(92) See generally, Chapter VII, paragraphs 637-645, above.
(93) See Chapter VII, paragraph 646, above.
(94) See Chapter VII, paragraph 644, above.
(95) See Chapter VII, paragraph 644, above.
[page 298]
892. The general impression that I have, from all the available evidence about Mr Hinds's meeting with the three managers on 26 March 1975, is that he was reluctant for the Authority to be seen to be taking the initiative in intervening in the affairs of the junior school, but that he was prepared to consider some more positive action if the managers would give a lead. The reason for that attitude may have been that Mr Hinds was apprehensive - as the Divisional Office Staff had been in the summer of 1974 (96) - about the reaction of teachers in the Islington area if the Authority was seen to intervene of its own accord in the affairs of the school. It will be remembered that, in the course of the meeting on 26 March 1975, Mr Hinds referred to the fact that the North London Teachers' Association might not take very kindly to an inspection (97).
893. Mr Hinds had the opportunity subsequently, and before the damaging petition was circulated, to reflect on the course of action or inaction that he had adopted. Mrs Page wrote to him very shortly after his meeting on 26 March 1975 with the three managers, urging the Authority to take the initiative rather than to leave it to the managers (98); and towards the end of April 1975, Mrs Hoodless wrote to him, indicating that 'resolutions, petitions and other activities' were in hand, and referring to the 'strife and disruption' that was likely to result from such activities (99). To disregard the warning given by Mrs Page was a great mistake, but to take no action following Mrs Hoodless's letter was, in my view, an extremely serious omission on the part of Mr Hinds. At the very least, he should have enquired about the form of the resolutions and the petition to which she referred, and he should have asked what the 'other activities' were.
894. Shortly after Mrs Hoodless wrote to Mr Hinds in the above-mentioned terms, she and Mr Pedrick began to circulate the petition. It was then too late for the Authority, through Mr Hinds or anyone else, to stop the 'strife and disruption' to which Mrs Hoodless had referred.
895. In addition to Mr Hinds's failure at County Hall to take the proper steps to avert the continuing troubles at the junior school, the Authority was also failing the school at Divisional Office level. Mr Rice had a number of compelling reasons (which I have listed in paragraph 703 of Chapter VIII of the Report) in the spring and early summer of 1975 to require him to give close attention and support to the school. He failed to do so. His failure either to take the appropriate action himself or, if he was too heavily committed, to seek the assistance of his colleagues, was a serious omission (100), and a repetition of the neglect of the school by the Divisional Office of the previous year.
896. After the renewal of the conflict between the junior school staff and the managers, following the circulation of the petition in the summer term, Mr Hinds
(96) See Chapter V, paragraph 429; and paragraphs 880-881, above.
(97) See Chapter VII, paragraph 641, above.
(98) See Chapter VII, paragraphs 653-654, above.
(99) See Chapter VIII, paragraphs 671-672, above.
(100) See generally, Chapter VIII, paragraphs 700-703, above.
[page 299]
made commendable efforts to mediate and to urge upon both groups the need to behave with restraint (101). But his efforts were too late, and the only course left was for the Authority eventually to institute the public inquiry preceded by a full inspection of both schools.
897. In my view, the Authority should have intervened much earlier than it did in the affairs of William Tyndale Junior School. On the information available to it at County Hall and at the Divisional Office in the autumn of 1974 there was a compelling case for ordering a full inspection before the end of that year. In not doing so, and in the other respects to which I have referred, the Authority failed William Tyndale Junior School badly.
The managers
The role of the managers in the spring and summer terms of 1974
898. Mr Ellis enjoyed the goodwill and a very great deal of support from the managing body in the early months of his headship of the junior school (102). He was particularly fortunate in having the ready assistance of Mrs Burnett as chairman of the managing body and the interest and support of Mrs Dewhurst and Mrs Gittings. Mrs Dewhurst in particular gave much encouragement to the junior school staff, and did a great deal of work for the school in the early months of the year (103). Indeed, having regard to the rapid deterioration in the school during the spring and summer terms and the attitude which Mr Ellis began to display in response to some of the concerns expressed to him by the three ladies mentioned, it is surprising that they all tried to continue to help him for as long as they did. By the end of the summer term Mrs Dewhurst and Mrs Gittings had become thoroughly discouraged, especially after the parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974 (104). Mrs Burnett too was very unhappy about the way the school was developing. Unfortunately, although she was a very conscientious chairman, she was not a sufficiently dominant personality to give a lead to the managing body as a whole to adopt an open policy to the troubles that were beginning to loom ahead at the school. It is particularly unfortunate in this respect that the special meeting of managers which took place at the end of the summer term 1974 ended so inconclusively (105). As a result of the unvoiced dissatisfaction of a number of managers at that meeting, there occurred the first of a series of activities by unrepresentative groups of the managing body which caused so much alarm to Mr Ellis and his colleagues.
(101) See generally, Chapter VIII, paragraphs 708-715 and 745-761, above.
(102) See generally, Chapter IV, paragraphs 217-218, above.
(103) See Chapter IV, paragraphs 217-218; and Chapter V, paragraphs 313-314, above.
(104) See generally, Chapter V, paragraphs 379-390, above.
(105) See generally, Chapter V, paragraphs 417-422, above.
[page 300]
899. Mrs Fairweather, without at first consulting Mrs Burnett, took the initiative in arranging the meeting which took place at the Divisional Office just after the end of the summer term between a number of the managers and the Divisional Office staff. I have described this meeting in some detail (106), and have referred to it briefly in this chapter (107). The impact of the meeting, when Mr Ellis and the junior school staff learned of it subsequently, contributed significantly to the breakdown of relations between the managers and the junior school staff, and was one of the grievances which provoked them into the confrontation tactics that they adopted in the autumn term of 1974. It was quite wrong of the four managers concerned, namely Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Burnett, Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst, and the Divisional Office staff concerned to take part in such an important meeting about the future of the school without all the managers being involved or at least informed of it in advance. In particular, Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow should have been given the opportunity to attend the meeting.
The role of the managers in the autumn term 1974
900. The autumn term of 1974 was a testing time for many of the managers. The Authority had shown, through its Divisional Office staff, a reluctance to intervene actively in the affairs of the junior school The dramatic fall in the roll of the school after the end of the summer term (108) gave cause for alarm that a continuing decline in parental confidence might produce a further large fall by the end of the year. In these circumstances, many of the managers were uncertain about how they should fulfil their responsibility towards the school. Their uncertainty was understandable having regard to the imprecise definition of their function in Rule 2 of the Rules of Management (109) and to the prickly attitude adopted towards them by Mr Ellis and the junior school staff. In such circumstances I find it very surprising that the managers did not take the elementary step of attempting to decide collectively how they should exercise their responsibility of 'oversight' (110). Mrs Burnett as chairman, gave no lead about this, although in every other respect, she went out of her way to give and to offer support and reassurance to Mr Ellis (111). Mrs Fairweather, now vice-chairman of the managers, had already demonstrated a proclivity for acting outside the constitutional framework of the managing body (112), and was to do so again with devastating effect for the junior school during 1975 (113). Mr Mabey, who had considerable experience as a school governor (114) and as a local
(106) See Chapter V, paragraphs 423-435, above.
(107) See paragraphs 879-881 above.
(108) See Chapter V, paragraph 225, above.
(109) See paragraphs 832-833 above.
(110) See paragraph 834(i) above.
(111) See eg Chapter VI, paragraph 515-517, above.
(112) ie in arranging the meeting at the Divisional Office in the Summer of 1974; see Chapter V, paragraphs 423-435; and paragraph 899, above.
(113) ie the action leading to the organisation of the petition; see Chapter VII, paragraphs 619-633 and 637-645, above; and paragraphs 902-908 below.
(114) See Chapter VI, paragraph 528, above.
[page 301]
politician, might have been expected to give some useful practical advice to his managerial colleagues as to how best they should approach the problem of fulfilling their responsibilities in a corporate way. However, as his evidence to the Inquiry demonstrated, he never gave much thought to the importance of the managers taking corporate decisions on the policy to be adopted when relations between the managers and the staff were strained. He regarded Rule 2 of the Rules of Management (115) as conferring upon him an individual 'right' rather than imposing upon him a 'responsibility' to be shared with his fellow managers and exercised in consultation with Mr Ellis. Mr Mabey not only purported to exercise his 'right' in the autumn term of 1974 by visiting the junior school unannounced but behaved in a most ill-mannered and tactless way whilst there (116). Mrs Gittings tended to regard her responsibility of 'oversight' as requiring her to make 'quasi-inspectorial' visits, which, though conducted in a much more diffident manner than that of Mr Mabey, were not well received by the junior school staff. This disparate and uncoordinated activity by some of the managers - although prompted by their natural anxiety about the school - inevitably provoked the suspicions of an already over-sensitive Staff.
901. Nevertheless, the managers' behaviour, individually and collectively, did not justify the intemperate attacks that were made upon them by the junior school staff in the first half of the term (117), or Mr Ellis's churlish behaviour to Mrs Burnett when she sought to reassure him and to offer him help (118). In the circumstances, and having regard to their continuing concern about the quality of the education being provided at the junior school, it is remarkable that the managers were prepared to circulate their declaration of support for the junior school as well as the infants school in the middle of October 1975 (119).
The campaign by certain managers against the junior school staff in 1975
902. Mr Ellis and his colleagues have alleged that certain of the managers and others conducted a political campaign against them. There may have been some element of concern about the supposed 'left-wing' attitudes of some of the staff as a result of the rumours circulated by Mrs Walker and others in the summer of 1974. However, the campaign mounted against them by Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Hoodless and Mrs Gittings in 1975 was essentially concerned with the junior school staff's teaching policies and methods, not their politics. Nevertheless, the campaign was political in the sense that use was made of the machinery of the local Labour Party organisation rather than of the constitutional framework of the managing body.
903. At the turn of the year Mrs Fairweather, who had initiated the meeting between a faction of the managers and the Divisional Office staff in the previous
(115) See Chapter I, paragraph 74 above, and Appendix VII to the Report.
(116) See Chapter VI, paragraphs 527-532, above.
(117) See generally, Chapter VI, paragraphs 518-520, 525-526, and 568-576, above.
(118) See eg Chapter VI, paragraphs 509-517, above.
(119) See Chapter VI, paragraphs 561-567, above.
[page 302]
July, again took the initiative. This time, with the assistance of Mrs Hoodless, she arranged an approach to Mr Hinds, an approach which led to the clandestine circulation of a petition critical of the junior school. Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Hoodless and Mrs Gittings, the three managers concerned, were no doubt frustrated by the continued inaction of the Authority. However, Mrs Fairweather, although now vice-chairman of the managers, appears to have given no thought to working through the managing body as a first step to resolving the junior school's problems (for example, by asking the managing body to consider a resolution calling for an inspection). She did not even regard it as necessary to tell Mrs Burnett, as Chairman of the managers, or Mr Tennant when he became Chairman, of the action that she and her two fellow Managers were taking.
904. Both Mrs Fairweather and Mrs Hoodless appear to have regarded the local political machinery as that most appropriate for finding a solution to the junior school's problems, and the managing body as a mere adjunct to that machinery. In my view, Mrs Fairweather, in adopting such an approach failed to have regard to her responsibilities as vice-chairman of the managers and to the common interest in, and concern of, all the managers in the affairs of the school. Equally, Mrs Hoodless appears to have regarded her membership of the managing body as a mere label which need not inhibit her from approaching the junior school's problems in the way that she thought best, namely by applying pressure through political channels. It is a matter for regret that Mrs Gittings also supported this approach.
905. Although Mr Hinds did not make any attempt to dissuade Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Hoodless and Mrs Gittings from the use of a petition as one means of persuading the Authority to take some action, he did stress that, as a first step, the managers should pass a formal resolution calling upon the Authority to take action. Having regard to the urgency of the problem which had prompted the three managers to approach Mr Hinds in the first place, it is astonishing that no special meeting of managers was called to pass such a resolution shortly after the meeting on 26 March 1975 with Mr Hinds. No meeting of the managers took place for nearly two months after the meeting with Mr Hinds, that is, not until the termly managers' meeting of 19 May 1975. If the three managers really did regard the problem as urgent as their vehemence to Mr Hinds suggested, it was quite inexcusable (from their point of view) to allow such delay to take place. In addition, it is very odd that even at the managers' meeting of 19 May 1975 the managers were not asked to consider a resolution calling for an inspection of the junior school. For such delay Mrs Fairweather, who was acting chairman of the managing body in the absence of Mr Tennant for much of April and May 1975, must bear the principal responsibility.
906. It is highly probable that the delay of nearly two months before the managers were asked to consider any resolution at all about the junior school was not an error of omission. It was left to Mrs Hoodless, on the very evening of the day of the meeting with Mr Hinds, to move a resolution at the St Mary's Ward Labour Party meeting which was to form the basis of the clandestine petition that
[page 303]
she and one of the councillors for that Ward, Mr Pedrick, immediately agreed to prepare.
907. The action taken by Mrs Hoodless and Mr Pedrick, with the evident approval of Mrs Fairweather and Mrs Gittings, and subsequently of Mr Mabey and others, was thoroughly irresponsible and an act of folly. There can be no justification for the petition at all, even less for a clandestine petition, of which the managing body as a whole was not informed, and the circulation of which was primarily among members of the Islington Borough Council and of neighbouring managing and governing bodies. By her letter to Mr Hinds of 25 April 1975 (120) Mrs Hoodless made clear that she contemplated that the petition would cause 'strife and disruption'. She and those associated with her appear to have disregarded the fact that this particular exercise in pressure tactics was concerned with a junior school and not some political project.
908. After the petition had begun to circulate and the managers' meeting of 19 May 1975 had passed, there is not a lot to choose between the conduct of certain of the managers and of the junior school staff. Undoubtedly the behaviour of the junior school staff in seeking to 'lock-in' the children and to 'lock-out' the managers was totally wrong. But the reaction of certain of the managers served only to aggravate the situation and to work further to the disadvantage of the children. These managers decided that the best way to meet the confrontation tactics of the junior school staff was to adopt an attitude of confrontation themselves. I have set out in Chapter VIII (121) of the Report a detailed account of the behaviour of the managers concerned and I do not intend to rehearse that detail here. I should, however, draw attention to the following matters:
(i) Mr Tennant had returned from abroad just after the managers' meeting of 19 May 1975, and learned for the first time of what had been going on in his absence over the previous two months. At his meeting with Mr Hinds on 16 June 1975 (122) he agreed that Mr Hinds should convene a meeting between the staff and the managers, and such a meeting was fixed for 2 July 1975. Notwithstanding the arrangements made for that meeting, Mr Tennant appears to have made no attempt to urge his fellow managers to adopt a common and responsible approach to the serious problems facing the school. Under his chairmanship, various members of the managing body continued to respond individually - and harmfully - to the problems created by the junior school staff. In particular, Mr Mabey set out, as a 'matter of principle', to test the staff's attempt to keep him out of the school (123).
(ii) Under Mr Tennant's chairmanship, he and a number of the managers introduced to the dispute a new and highly damaging element so far as the
(120) See Chapter VIII, paragraph 671, above.
(121) See paragraphs 729-744, above.
(122) See Chapter VIII, paragraphs 708-715, above.
(123) See Chapter VIII, paragraph 734, above.
[page 304]
school and its children were concerned. They decided to apply pressure on the junior school staff and on the Authority by drawing the attention of the press to the plight of the school (124). Thereafter the continuing conflict between the two sides was conducted in the full glare of press publicity.
909. I have considered in some detail in Chapters VIII and IX, and summarily in this chapter (125), of the Report the totally unjustified action of the junior school staff in opposing the Authority's inspection of their school. I feel bound nevertheless to record here my strong disapproval of the use which Mr Tennant and those managers associated with him continued to make of the press as a means of bringing pressure to bear upon the Authority and the junior school staff. I refer, in particular, to the information passed to The Guardian newspaper of the formal complaint made by the managers against the junior school staff at the managers' meeting on 29 September 1975 (126), and to the release by Mr Tennant and Mrs Hoodless to the national and London evening press on 15 October 1975 of the first and incomplete report of the inspectors' visit to the junior school (127). This proclivity of Mr Tennant to use press publicity as a weapon, although he knew it would generate harmful publicity for the school and its children, was, in my view, highly irresponsible as well as being counter-productive.
910. The managers were justified in their concern about the teaching policies and methods introduced to William Tyndale Junior School following Mr Ellis's appointment as its head teacher. However, by their failure to act corporately and to make use of the procedures available to them as members of the managing body (128), and by the harmful campaign and use of the press by certain of their number in 1975, they were largely responsible for the crisis to which the junior school was brought in the summer of 1975. Those managers who bear a particularly heavy responsibility for such a crisis in the school's affairs are: Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Hoodless, Mrs Gittings, Mr Tennant and Mr Mabey.
The Council of The London Borough of Islington
911. At an early stage of the Inquiry it appeared to be part of the case for Mr Ellis and his colleagues that the Council of the London Borough of Islington, acting through its Education Advisory Committee, was making use of the problems of William Tyndale Junior School to justify a challenge to the Authority in the exercise of its responsibilities in Islington. However, such a suggestion was not persisted with, and no attempt was made on behalf of Mr Ellis and his colleagues
(124) See Chapter VIII, paragraphs 740-744, above.
(125) See paragraph 859 above.
(126) See Chapter IX, paragraph 811, above.
(127) See Chapter IX, paragraphs 817-820, above.
(128) See paragraphs 834-835, above.
[page 305]
to substantiate it. The evidence put before the Inquiry on behalf of the Council of the London Borough of Islington (129) was to the effect that the Council had not challenged and did not seek to challenge the Authority in the exercise of its statutory responsibilities for education in Islington. Nobody called that evidence in question. Accordingly, I find on the evidence put before me that the Council of the London Borough of Islington, acting as such, did not take any action in relation to William Tyndale Junior School which would have constituted an interference with the Authority's statutory responsibilities in relation to William Tyndale Junior School.
Mrs Anne Page
912. I am satisfied that Mrs Anne Page, the Islington Borough Council Representative on the Authority, has acted throughout in a responsible way in relation to the problems of William Tyndale Junior School. She was present, mainly in the capacity of an observer, at the meeting on 26 March 1975 between the three managers and Mr Hinds when, among other matters, the organisation of a petition was discussed (130). Immediately after that meeting she also discussed in general terms with the three managers what action they would take through the managing body to organise a petition and to pass the managerial resolution which Mr Hinds had suggested (131). It is unfortunate that she did not advise them against the use of a petition. However, I am satisfied that she was not party to any agreement to organise or circulate the petition and that her only role in the matter subsequently was to act as the formal means of presenting it in July 1975 to the Education Committee of the Authority (132). Indeed, it is clear from the letter that Mrs Page wrote to Mr Hinds (133) shortly after the meeting between him and the three managers on 26 March 1975, that she had considerable misgivings about Mr Hinds's decision to leave the initiative to the managers.
913. Mrs Page twice suggested to the Authority that it should conduct a full inspection of the junior school, first at about the beginning of 1975 (134), and secondly in her above-mentioned letter to Mr Hinds following the meeting on 26 March 1975 (133), It is a great pity that neither of her suggestions was adopted by the Authority.
914. It is no part of my function to comment generally on the extent to which a borough council representative on the Authority should be given any special consideration when matters of importance concerning affairs in his or her borough
(129) See Chapter I, paragraphs 21-24, above.
(130) See generally, Chapter VII, paragraphs 637-645, above.
(131) See Chapter VII, paragraph 648, above.
(132) See Chapter VIII, paragraphs 694 and 774, above.
(133) See Chapter VIII, paragraphs 653-654, above.
(134) See generally, Chapter VII, paragraphs 603-606, above.
[page 306]
are being decided by those responsible at County Hall. However, I consider that it is unfortunate in the circumstances of this case that Mrs Page was not kept better informed than she was of the Authority's handling of the affairs of William Tyndale Junior School.
Conspiracies
915. Mr Ellis and his colleagues have made various allegations of conspiracies against them since the summer of 1974. In the main, they have alleged that the conspiracies were of a political nature in the sense that a number of people were campaigning against them because of their supposed political views. In my view, there are two series of events which could be described as 'conspiracies' against the junior school staff, but in neither case is there evidence to support the suggestion that there was a conspiracy or an agreement among a combination of people to accuse them of particular political views or indoctrination of their pupils.
916. The two 'conspiracies' were as follows:
(i) In late June and early July 1974 Mrs Walker, with the assistance of at least two persons (135), agreed to circulate her Black Paper, which was sharply critical of the teaching policies and methods of Mr Ellis and some of his colleagues (136). There is no evidence to suggest that any of the managers was party to this agreement or that any of the managers assisted Mrs Walker in her campaign. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that Mrs Walker agreed with whoever was assisting in the circulation of her Black Paper to make political allegations against Mr Ellis and his colleagues. On the evidence available to the Inquiry, Mrs Walker herself made serious and damaging political allegations in the course of her campaign (137), and there was a certain amount of loose talk and rumour flying about, but no conspiracy of the sort alleged by Mr Ellis and his colleagues.
(ii) The second matter which could justify the description of a conspiracy was the highly damaging campaign to organise and circulate the clandestine petition critical of the junior school (138). This campaign was political in the sense that it was conducted principally through the machinery of the local Labour Party organisation. There is, however, no evidence upon which I can find that it was conducted for any other reason than one of concern for the education being provided to the children at the junior school. Nevertheless, given the existence of an already improper and damaging petition, it was
(135) See Chapter V, paragraph 365, above.
(136) See generally, Chapter V, paragraphs 259-272, 295-298, and 361-376, above.
(137) See Chapter V, paragraphs 368 and 369, above.
(138) See generally, Chapter VII, paragraphs 648-652; and Chapter VIII, paragraphs 668-675, above.
[page 307]
totally wrong to use the local political machinery as the principal means for its circulation. The conduct of Mr Pedrick in particular calls for censure, and also Mr Hyams, both of whom are Labour Party members of the Islington Borough Council (139). I also find it very disturbing that its principal circulation was among members of the Islington Borough Council and managers and governors of various local schools (140).
The teaching, organisation and management of the infants school
917. In my Statement of Submission (141) and Chapter III (142) of the Report I have indicated that the affairs of the infants school, although within my terms of reference, do not figure prominently in the Report because they did not form part of the main issues canvassed at the Inquiry. The reason for that is that the infants school, under the headship of Miss Hart (143), had become a very successful school by the summer of 1973 (144), and continued to be so despite the great difficulties created for it by the deterioration of the junior school under the Headship of Mr Ellis (145).
918. It says a great deal for Miss Hart and her staff that, despite all the turmoil in the junior school upstairs in the latter part of the summer term and during the autumn term of 1975, the infants school continued to provide a secure and happy learning atmosphere for its children. Similarly, during the inspection in September 1975, it continued to function normally, with little evidence of any stress on the part of its pupils, despite the considerable activity around the school premises due to the strike action of the junior school staff.
919. For a full assessment of the infants school I can do no better than refer the reader to the inspection report of it, which is Appendix XIV to this Report. It gives a glowing account of a school that had introduced an efficient 'progressive' approach to the teaching of its pupils. The whole inspection Report should be read, but I would like to quote just two short passages from it here:
' ... The staff
Outstanding features of the staff are the quality of the leadership, the high professional standards of the teachers and the concern of all adults who work
(139) See Chapter VIII, paragraphs 674-675, above.
(140) See Chapter VIII, paragraph 673, above.
(141) See page (vii).
(142) See paragraph 123, above.
(143) See Chapter III, paragraph 141, above.
(144) See generally, Chapter II, paragraphs 107-111, above.
(145) See generally, Chapter V, paragraphs 304-306 and 354; and Chapter VI, paragraphs 579-585, above.
[page 308]
in the school for the education and well-being of the children. All are involved in making decisions and forming policy. Everyone gives time in and outside school hours to serious and continuing discussion about how the many aspects of the school's work can be improved.
This is a school that is full of vigour. The headmistress and the staff constantly re-examine their practices and the philosophy that underlies them. They do not follow each wind of fashion without thorough consideration of the implications for the children in their school. It is a school where there are growing points and some practices that need further thought and development. But primarily it is a school where the main concern is for the fullest possible development of each child's potential.'
920. Before I conclude this brief reference to the infants school, and the Report, there are two further matters that I should mention. Both of them concern the infants school, but the second has a general importance going to the root of many of the issues that I have had to consider in the course of writing the Report.
921. One of the suspicions of Mr Ellis and his colleagues appears to have been that Miss Hart might be working with others against them with a view to being offered the post of head teacher if and when the two schools were reorganised into a junior mixed and infants school. There is no evidence to justify that suspicion. Indeed, I am quite satisfied, on all the evidence that I have heard of Miss Hart's conduct, that she did not act against Mr Ellis and his colleagues in any way with such an objective in mind. Her sole concern at all times in any differences that there were between the junior school staff and the infants school staff was for the welfare of her infant pupils.
922. I should record that, throughout the period examined by the Inquiry, the relations between the infants school staff and the managers were consistently good. Although the same managers were responsible for the two schools there were no difficulties in the case of the infants school of the sort that occurred in the relations between the junior school staff and the same managers. Miss Hart and her colleagues adopted a relaxed and friendly approach to all the managers and welcomed them on their visits to the school and into its classrooms. Miss Hart did not require them to make appointments before visiting and there was never any sense of apprehension on her part, or that of her colleagues, about 'inspectorial' attitudes on the part of the managers. This difference in relationships in the case of these two schools demonstrates the point that I have made at the beginning of the Report (146) and in paragraph 833 of this chapter. If personal relations between the teaching staff and the managers of a school are good and both groups of people behave reasonably, the Rules of Management may not need to be consulted very often. If relations between the two groups are bad, then the Rules of Management should provide assistance. They will only do so, however, if they spell out in clear terms the respective areas of responsibility of the various parties concerned in the conduct
(146) See Chapter I, paragraph 70, above.
[page 309]
of the school, and if all the parties concerned take the trouble to inform themselves of and apply such Rules.
On that note, I conclude my Report.
Robin Auld, QC
10 July 1976
[page 311]
List of Appendices
| I | Note of Procedure at the Inquiry |
| II | Chairman's Opening Statement |
| III | List of Witnesses |
| IV | List of Exhibited Documents |
| V | Representation of Parties at the Inquiry |
| VI | Instrument of Management of an Inner London County Primary School comprising a Junior School and an Infants School, and Explanatory Notes. |
| VII | Rules of Management of an Inner London County Primary School and Explanatory Notes |
| VIII | Staff Code (Teachers' Part), Section X - Discipline. |
| IX | List of Members of the Managing Body of The William Tyndale Schools from 1 September 1973 to 27 October 1975 |
| X | List of the Teaching Staffs of The William Tyndale Schools from 1 September 1973 to 27 October 1975 |
| Xl | Curriculum of The William Tyndale Junior School for the school Year 1974-5. |
| XII | Curriculum of The William Tyndale Infants School for the school Year 1974-5 |
| XIII | Report based on visits by the Authority's Inspectors to William Tyndale Junior School during the week beginning 22 September 1975 |
| XIV | Report on a full inspection of William Tyndale Infants School carried out between 22 and 26 September 1975 |
| XV | Supplementary Report based on visits by the Authority's Inspectors to William Tyndale Junior School between 16 and 23 October 1975. |
[page 313] (I 1)
Appendix I
The William Tyndale Junior and Infants School Inquiry
Note of Procedure at the Inquiry
The Committee of Inquiry into the teaching, organisation and management of the William Tyndale Junior and Infants Schools will commence its hearings in Room 143 at County Hall on 27 October 1975 at 10 am.
If you propose to attend and place evidence before the Committee a written statement of your proposed evidence, and that of any witnesses whom you propose to call, should be sent to the Secretary of the Committee of Inquiry at Room 221, The County Hall, SE1 7PB so as to reach him not later than Friday 17 October. Any statements submitted should be confined to matters that relate to the teaching, organisation and management of the William Tyndale Schools to date and should deal with such matters in date order so far as possible. Pages and paragraphs of each statement should be numbered and a copy of every document referred to should be enclosed. The Secretary to the Committee of Inquiry will then send to you or your representative by Tuesday 21 October copies of any written statements that may concern you submitted by other persons proposing to give evidence at the Inquiry. You will also receive in advance a copy of the Education Officer's Report on the events leading up to the Inquiry, the appendices to which are available for inspection at Room 221, County Hall.
If for any reason you are unable to submit a written statement to the Secretary to the Committee of Inquiry you should telephone him as soon as possible at 633 6798.
Subject to any representations made by any of the persons attending to give evidence at the Inquiry, the Committee will sit to hear evidence from 10 am to 1 pm and 2 pm to 5 pm in Room 143 at County Hall on each weekday following 27 October 1975 until all the evidence has been heard. If necessary, the Committee will sit for a period in Islington to accommodate those persons wishing to give evidence who would have real difficulty in attending the Inquiry at County Hall. The Committee may also hold one or more evening sittings to enable persons, whose work or other commitments would otherwise prevent them from attending the Inquiry, to attend and give evidence in the evening.
You may be represented at the Inquiry by a Solicitor or Solicitor and Counsel or a friend.
It is not possible to inform you now of the date when your evidence may be heard by the Committee, but as soon as the Secretary to the Committee of Inquiry has received all the written statements from persons proposing to give evidence he will prepare an approximate timetable and inform you of the date and time when it is expected that your evidence may be heard. It is, of course, open to you to attend the whole of the Inquiry, and, if you know or anticipate that you are concerned or likely to be concerned with evidence to be given by other witnesses, it is in your interest that you should be present when they are giving evidence.
The order of the procedure at the Inquiry will be as follows:
[page 314] (I 2)
1. The Education Officer's Representative will outline the issues and the evidence to be considered and will call officers of the Authority to produce and to read the Education Officer's Report and the inspection Reports. These officers may then be questioned in the following order by the following persons or their representatives:
(a) The Schools' Managers
(b) The Schools' Teachers
(c) Parents of children at the schools
(d) Any other persons or bodies who propose to give evidence and who have a valid interest in the Inquiry
(e) Members of the Committee of Inquiry
The Education Officer's Representative may, if he so wishes, then ask the witnesses any questions in re-examination which arise from questions put to them by the persons listed above.
2. The Managers' Representative may then address the Committee if he so wishes and call witnesses to give evidence in accordance with their written statements previously submitted to the Secretary to the Committee of Inquiry. These witnesses may then be questioned in the following order by the following persons or their representatives:
(a) The Schools' Teachers
(b) Parents of children at the schools
(c) Any other persons or bodies who propose to give evidence and who have a valid interest in the Inquiry
(d) The Education Officer's Representative
(e) Members of the Committee of Inquiry
The managers' Representative may, if he so wishes, then ask his witnesses any questions in re-examination which may arise from questions put to them by the persons listed above.
3. Each Teacher's Representative may then address the Committee if he so wishes and call witnesses to give evidence in accordance with their written statements previously submitted to the Secretary to the Committee of Inquiry. These witnesses may then be questioned in the following order by the following persons or their representatives:
(a) The Schools' Managers
(b) The other teachers
(c) Parents of children at the schools
(d) Any other persons or bodies who propose to give evidence and who have a valid interest in the Inquiry
(e) The Education Officer's Representative
(f) Members of the Committee of Inquiry
Each Teacher's Representative may, if he so wishes, then ask his witnesses any questions in re-examination which may arise from questions put to them by the persons listed above.
4. The same order of procedure as that indicated above will be followed in relation to the evidence given at the Inquiry by all other persons. The precise order in which their evidence shall be given will be determined when all the written statements of
