[page C1]

CONTENTS

Statement of Submission of the Report

Chapter I - The Statutory System of Education and The Inner London Education Authority

[page C2]

[page C3]

Chapter II - An Introduction to the William Tyndale Junior and Infants Schools

[page C4]

Chapter III - The Autumn Term 1973

[page C5]

Chapter IV - The Spring Term 1974

Chapter V - The Summer Term 1974

[page C6]

[page C7]

[page C8]

Chapter VI - The Autumn Term 1974

[page C9]

[page C10]

Chapter VII - The Spring Term 1975

[page C11]

Chapter VIII - The Summer Term 1975

[page C12] ZZZZ

[page C13]

[page C14]

Chapter IX - The Autumn Term 1975

[page C15]

[page C16]

List of Appendices

[page i]

Statement of Submission of the Report

To Mr Harvey Hinds, The Chairman of the Schools Sub-Committee of the Education Committee of the Inner London Education Authority

Appointment and Terms of Reference of The Inquiry

On 27 October 1975 I was appointed by you, in your capacity as Chairman of the Schools Sub-Committee of the Education Committee of the Inner London Education Authority ('the Authority'), pursuant to your power under Order 49 of the Authority's Standing Orders, to conduct a Public Inquiry into the teaching, organisation and management of the William Tyndale Junior and Infants schools, Islington, London, Nl, and thereafter to report my findings to you.

The said appointment followed and superseded my appointment as Chairman of a Committee of Inquiry instituted as a result of a resolution of the Schools Sub-Committee on 24 July 1975, whereby it was resolved:

(i) to institute a Public Inquiry into the teaching, organisation and management of the William Tyndale Junior and Infants schools, Islington, London, Nl; and, for that purpose

(ii) to appoint a Committee of Inquiry consisting of four Members of the Schools Sub-Committee and an independent legally qualified person to act as Chairman; and

(iii) to carry out prior to the Public Inquiry, by means of the Authority's Inspectorate, a full inspection of both schools, and to put in evidence to the Public Inquiry the reports of such inspections.

Mrs Leila Campbell, Vice-Chairman of the Schools Sub-Committee and the Representative of the Council of the London Borough of Camden on the Authority;

Mr George Carter, an Additional (Teacher) Member of the Education Committee, and the Head Teacher of Isaac Newton Comprehensive school, North Kensington, London, W10;

Mrs Dora Loftus, an Additional Member of the Education Committee and a school Governor;

Mr Reginald Watts, the Representative of the Council of the City of Westminster on the Authority.

[page ii]

In the two weeks preceding the opening of the Inquiry on 27 October 1975 it became apparent that the Inquiry was likely to last very much longer than had originally been expected. Difficulties arose in constituting for the required period the Committee already appointed or any Committee composed of Members of the Schools Sub-Committee. It was in those circumstances that you appointed me as aforesaid to conduct the Inquiry on my own and to prepare and bear sole responsibility for the Report thereon. However, I was fortunate in that you appointed two members of the former Committee of Inquiry, Mrs Dora Loftus and Mr George Carter to sit with me in an advisory capacity. I take this early opportunity to express my gratitude to them both for the valuable assistance that they have given to me throughout and after the conclusion of the Inquiry.

Procedure

Prior to the opening of the Inquiry on 27 October 1975 I prepared and had circulated to all parties who it was believed had a real and direct interest in attending to give evidence at the Inquiry a Note of Procedure (Appendix I to the Report). Save for one or two modifications introduced in the course of the Inquiry in order to save time, the procedure in that Note was followed throughout.

I opened the Inquiry at County Hall on 27 October 1975. In the course of my opening statement (Appendix II to the Report) I outlined its purpose and rehearsed briefly the procedure already notified to interested parties in the above-mentioned Note of Procedure. The Inquiry continued until 10 February 1975 [I presume this should be 1976] during which period I sat to hear evidence for 63 days in all, 62 at County Hall, and one day at the Divisional Office in Islington, and nine additional evening sittings at the Isledon Teachers' Centre in Islington. The sittings were continual, save for an adjournment of seven days shortly after the opening of the Inquiry, to which I agreed at the request of the principal witnesses to the Inquiry. This adjournment was necessary to give the principal witnesses an opportunity to complete full mutual disclosure of documents, and to enable the Secretariat to the Inquiry to compile a single series of exhibits from the voluminous number of documents that resulted from that process of disclosure. I heard evidence from 107 witnesses (for the List of Witnesses, see Appendix III to the Report), and received in evidence over 600 exhibited documents (for the List of Exhibited Documents, see Appendix IV to the Report).

My Advisers and I had a view of the premises of both schools on 24 January 1976, and after the end of the Inquiry they and I had two full day meetings in which I sought their advice on a number of matters.

Legal representation of witnesses at The Inquiry

A number of witnesses who were most directly concerned in the matters being investigated were represented by Counsel throughout the Inquiry. A list of the witnesses represented and their legal representatives is contained in Appendix V to the Report. The Authority met the cost of representation of the following witnesses or groups of witnesses at the Inquiry, namely: the Managers, Mr Terry Ellis, Miss Sheila Green, Mr Brian Haddow, Mrs Dorothy McColgan, Mrs Jackie McWhirter, Miss Stephanie Richards (the last-named withdrew her instructions to her Solicitor and Counsel on 15 December 1975 and did not give evidence to the Inquiry), Mrs Irene Chowles, Miss Brenda Hart, and Mrs Annie Walker. In addition, the Authority

[page iii]

gave Mr Ellis and his colleagues leave of absence with pay for the duration of the Inquiry and until the publication of this Report. (In the meantime the Authority has arranged for the Junior school to be properly staffed by temporary teachers for as long as necessary.)

Press facilities and information to the public

Full facilities were given to the Press to report the proceedings. In addition, copies of witness statements and exhibited documents were made available to the Press at or shortly after the evidence to which they related was given to the Inquiry. An up-to-date bundle of witness statements and exhibits was also compiled and made available for public inspection both at County Hall and at the Divisional Office in Islington as the Inquiry progressed.

Other potential proceedings

At the outset of the Inquiry there were three other potential forms of proceedings that could have inhibited the conduct of, and the evidence given by various witnesses to, the Inquiry. These were:

(i) Disciplinary proceedings under the Disciplinary Section of the Authority's Staff Code, arising from a formal complaint made by the Managers on 29 September 1975 against Mr Ellis and those members of his Staff who withdrew their labour from the Junior school during the period when the Authority's Inspectors first attempted to carry out a full inspection of the Junior school, namely 22 to 29 September 1975. By letter of 10 November 1975 from Douglas-Mann & Co., the Solicitors instructed by the Managers, to the Schools Sub-Committee, the Managers requested the Authority not to proceed with that complaint. On 10 November 1975 Counsel for the Authority indicated to me in open session of the Inquiry that the Schools Sub-Committee would accede to the request made by the Managers' Solicitors not to proceed with that complaint but that the Schools Sub-Committee 'reserved the right to take any action which seems appropriate in the light of the findings of the Inquiry'.

(ii) Criminal proceedings under Section 77(4) of the Education Act, 1944 (ie for obstruction of an inspection) by the Authority against Mr Ellis and those members of his Staff who withdrew their labour from the school from 22 to 29 September 1975, when the Authority's Inspectors first attempted to carry out a full inspection of the Junior school. On 10 November 1975 Counsel for the Authority undertook in open session of the Inquiry that the Schools Sub-Committee would 'take no action against Mr Ellis and his colleagues under Section 77(4) of the 1944 Act at all'.

(iii) Civil proceedings for defamation by Mr Ellis and his colleagues in respect of alleged defamatory allegations made against them prior to the Inquiry in respect of their conduct of the school and/or their political views. Mr Ellis and his colleagues undertook through Counsel in the course of the Inquiry that they would not issue any proceedings for defamation in respect of any such alleged allegations.

[page iv]

The Report

I have interpreted my terms of reference as covering the period between the beginning of the autumn term 1973 and 27 October 1975, the opening day of the Inquiry. In my Report I have set out my findings of fact on the teaching, organisation and management of the schools during that period and, where appropriate and where it is within my competence to do so, my views on those facts. My terms of reference do not include the making of any recommendations in the light of my findings. Accordingly, I have made no recommendations in my Report.

The matters giving rise to the Inquiry and the inspections preceding it were concerned in the main with the teaching, organisation and management of the Junior school. The bulk of the evidence put before the Inquiry related to the affairs of that school. Accordingly, although I have been charged with the task of inquiring into the teaching, organisation and management of the Junior and Infants schools, my Report is concerned in the main with the Junior school.

I understand that the principal purpose of my Report is to assist the Authority in considering what, if any, action should be taken in relation to the two schools. However, I also understand that it is to be published and, therefore, that it may be read by members of the public who are not as familiar as Members of the Authority with educational terminology, the Statutory System of Education and the constitution and organisation of the Authority. Accordingly, I have included in the Report a short glossary and, in Chapter I of the Report, a brief account of the Statutory System of Education and the constitution and organisation of the Authority with particular reference to the William Tyndale schools.

I have now completed my Report and submit it to you herewith for the consideration of the Schools Sub-Committee of the Education Committee of the Authority.

Robin Auld, QC    
10 July 1976

[page v]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This Inquiry has proved to be a much more onerous and lengthy task than anyone envisaged at the time when it was instituted.

I wish to take this opportunity to record my appreciation of the great assistance that the Authority has given to me in many practical ways in the preparation for, and conduct of, the Inquiry, and in the preparation of my Report. I am especially grateful to Mr George Havell, an Assistant Director-General of the Greater London Council, for making available to the Inquiry the services of a number of highly competent and experienced members of the Director-General's Staff.

I was extremely fortunate to have the services of Mr Roger Brown as the Secretary to the Inquiry. I cannot write too highly of the skill and industry with which he undertook the many formidable administrative tasks that the organisation of such a wide-ranging Public Inquiry demands. I share with everybody else who had any concern with the work of the Inquiry a great debt of gratitude to him for the admirable combination of zeal and tact with which he carried out his many responsibilities.

I wish also to record my warm appreciation of Mr Brown's colleagues, Mrs Sioned Vos and Dr Tony Bruce, who, as members of the Secretariat to the Inquiry, shared with him the heavy burden of work involved. Their thoroughness and speed in coping with the wide variety of tasks that the Inquiry imposed upon them was at all times of great reassurance to me. I should mention additionally the valuable assistance that Mrs Vos has given to me in the checking and general presentation of the Report.

Finally, I owe a special tribute to Mrs Joyce Lester who has undertaken the enormous task of typing this Report. She has had to work under considerable pressure and for exceptionally long hours over many weeks. My debt to her is not only for her meticulous work, but also for her cheerfulness and encouragement to me in the course of my task in writing the Report.

[page vi]

GLOSSARY*

*The definitions in this Glossary are all taken from the Inner London Education Authority's publication '... In other words - a layman's guide to educational terms'. As a layman, I acknowledge with gratitude the assistance that this publication has been to me.

[page vii]

[page viii]

[page 2]

('the Secretary of State') (1), and a local administration in the form of local education authorities consisting in general (2) of the Councils for the non-metropolitan counties and metropolitan districts (3). I shall deal with each of these in turn.

The Powers and Duties of The Secretary of State

3. The duty of the Secretary of State is:

'To promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive education service in every area' (4).

4. The Secretary of State has power, and also a duty in certain circumstances, to cause inspections of schools to be carried out by inspectors appointed by the Queen on his recommendation, 'Her Majesty's Inspectors' (8). Such inspections are now rare. He may also cause a local inquiry to be held for the purpose of the exercise of any of his functions under the 1944 Act (9), which, having regard to the broad terms of his

(1) The 1944 Act, S.1(1), as amended by the Secretary of State for Education and Science Order 1964, S.I. 1964, No. 490, Art. 3(1) and Schedule, Part 1.

(2) See the provisions in Part 1 of the Schedule to the 1944 Act, giving the Secretary of State power to constitute a Joint Education Board for two or more Councils.

(3) The 1944 Act, S.6(1), to be read with the Local Government Act 1972, Ss. 1,20(6) and 192(1).

(4)The 1944 Act, S.1 (1).

(5) The 1944 Act, S.99.

(6) The 1944 Act, S.67 and see paragraph 91 below.

(7) The 1944 Act, S.68 (as amended), and see paragraph 92 below.

(8) The 1944 Act, S.77(2).

(9) The 1944 Act, S.93 (as amended), and see paragraph 92 below.

[page 3]

responsibility cited from the 1944 Act, in paragraph 3 above (10), means that he could institute an inquiry under this provision in respect of any matter for which the Act provides, in particular, he could set up a local inquiry into the exercise and performance by a local education authority of its powers and duties generally throughout its area, or into the conduct by a local education authority and/or the managers or the governors and/or the teaching staff of a particular school.

5. There is also provision in the 1944 Act (11) for Central Advisory Councils for England and Wales respectively to advise the Secretary of State on matters of education/theory and practice.

The Powers and Duties of Local Education Authorities

The Three Stages of Education

6. The statutory system of public education is divided into three stages, known as primary education, secondary education, and further education (12).

Primary education consists of full-time education suitable to the requirements of children from the age of two years (13) up to the age of 12 years, defined in the 1944 Act as 'junior pupils' (14). However, provision is made for the transfer to secondary education of children between the ages of 10½ years and 12 years according to their progress and abilities and the dates of their birthdays (15).

Secondary education consists of full-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils over 10½ years who have been considered ready for transfer to secondary education, and pupils of 12 years and over but under 19 years, defined in the 1944 Act as 'senior pupils' (16) save for those senior pupils for whom further education is provided (17).

Further education consists of full-time and part-time education and leisure-time occupation for persons over compulsory school age, namely 16 years (18), provided in accordance with schemes of further education or at County Colleges (19).

(10) i.e. S.1(1).

(11) S.4.

(12) The 1944 Act, S.7.

(13) The 1944 Act, Ss.8(2)(b) and 9(4).

(14) S.114(1).

(15) The 1944 Act, S.8(1)(a), as amended by The Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948, Ss. 3 and 4(1).

(16) S.114(1).

(17) The 1944 Act, S.8(1)(b), as amended by The Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948, Ss. 3 and 4(1).

(18) The 1944 Act, S.35, and the Raising Of The School Leaving Age Order 1972, S.I. 1972, No. 444 made under the proviso to S.35.

(19) The 1944 Act, Ss. 41-43.

[page 4]

The general duty of Local Education Authorities to secure the availability of Education Throughout The Three Stages

7. The general duty of local education authorities in the provision in their areas of the statutory system of public education is defined in Section 7 of the 1944 Act as follows:

'... to contribute towards the spiritual, moral, mental and physical development of the community by securing that efficient education throughout ... [the three stages] shall be available to meet the needs of the population of their area.'

'... the schools available for an area shall not be deemed to be sufficient unless they are sufficient in number, character, and equipment to afford for all pupils opportunities for education offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities, and aptitudes, and of the different periods for which they may be expected to remain at school, including practical instruction and training appropriate to their respective needs.' (My italics)

(i) a county school; that is a school (21) which has been established by a local education authority, or a former authority, and which is maintained by it;

(ii) a voluntary school; that is a school which has not been established by a local education authority or a former authority, but which is maintained by a local education authority; and, at the time material to this Report;

(iii) an assisted school; that is a school not established or maintained by a local education authority, but which, so far as may be authorised by the Secretary of State, is financially assisted by a local education authority.

10. In the case of primary education, a local education authority may provide for its junior pupils through a system of primary schools with each school catering for the whole age range of junior pupils. Such schools are known as Junior Mixed and Infants Schools, and are normally to be found - at any rate in the Inner London Area - where there is only a one form entry, giving a school roll of about 210 pupils. Alternatively, where there is a larger primary school population for an area, a

(20) The 1944 Act, S.9.

(21) Other than a nursery school or special school.

[page 5]

local education authority may provide as part of its primary educational responsibilities separate junior and infants schools each with its own head teacher and separate staff. In such a case the infants school receives children between the ages of 5 years (or 2 years where nursery school or nursery class facilities are available) and 7 or 8 years; and the junior school receives children from the ages of 7 or 8 years to 11 years. In some cases, as in the case of the William Tyndale Junior and Infants School separate junior and infants schools, each with its own head teacher and separate staff, may occupy different parts of the same building. In such cases it is usual for the two schools to have a common Managing body.

The nature of the Education provided

11. The general duty imposed upon local education authorities under Section 7 of the 1944 Act to secure the availability of efficient education for their areas goes beyond the establishment and maintenance of, and assistance to, schools in their area. By Section 23(1) of the 1944 Act it is provided, inter alia, that:

'In every county school ... the secular instruction to be given to the pupils shall, save insofar as may be otherwise provided by the rules of management or articles of government for the school, be under the control of the local education authority.' (My italics)

12. In considering the extent to which Section 23 of the 1944 Act places the secular instruction in county schools under the control of their local education authority, regard must be had to two important qualifications, for one of which the Section itself provides, and the other of which is contained in the important Section 76 of the 1944 Act.

13. First, Section 23(1) provides that the secular instruction is under the control of the local education authority:

'save insofar as may be otherwise provided by the rules of management or articles of government for the school'.

(22) S.23(3).

[page 6]

control of the school in the hands of the head teacher (23). In effect, the Inner London Education Authority, by making such rules of management, has virtually divested itself of its power under Section 23(1) of the 1944 Act to control the secular instruction of its county schools, and has handed such power over to the managers and head teacher of each school.

14. Secondly, the interest and wishes of parents in connection with the education of their children are given powerful recognition in Section 76 of the 1944 Act, which provides that:

'In the exercise and performance of all powers and duties conferred and imposed on them by this Act the Secretary of State and local education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.'

15. However, Section 76 contains a general principle of great importance which a local education authority and the managers or governors and teaching staff of each individual school must keep constantly in their sights. It is an obligation to consult the wishes of particular parents in regard to their own children rather than an obligation to consult generally with parents as a body. One judicial view (24) of the provision is that:

'... education in S.76 must refer to the curriculum and whether it includes any, and if so what, religious instructions and whether co-educational or single-sex, and matters of that sort, and not to the size of the school or the conditions of entry.'

(23) See paragraph 74 below.

(24) Per Goff, J. (as he then was) in Wood v. London Borough of Ealing [1967] Ch. 364 at 384.

[page 7]

II - The Inner London Education Authority

The Creation of the Authority and its area of responsibility

The Authority and the
Minor Authorities

17. The London Government Act, 1963 (the '1963 Act') introduced a new administration for the local government of an area called in the Act 'Greater London', namely an area consisting of the old administrative county of London, almost the whole of the old administrative county of Middlesex, and former parts of Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey. This Greater London consisted for local government purposes of the City of London, the Inner and Middle Temples and 32 London Boroughs, the whole being administered by the Greater London Council and, within their respective areas, by the Common Council of the City of London and the London Borough Councils.

18. Under these new provisions the Greater London Council, generally speaking, has more limited powers than had the old London and Middlesex County Councils, while the powers of the Common Council of the City of London and the London Borough Councils are wider than those formerly enjoyed by the Common Council and the old Metropolitan Borough Councils. 12 of the new 32 London Boroughs were in the old county of London, and they are designated in the 1963 Act as 'inner London boroughs', and the remaining 20 are called 'outer London boroughs'.

19. One principal effect of the 1963 Act was to de-centralise to the London Borough Councils responsibility for large areas of administration previously exercised by the London and Middlesex County Councils respectively. However, in the field of education the Act created an important exception. The London County Council had been responsible for the provision of the statutory system of education throughout the old administrative county of London. The effect of the 1963 Act was that the Greater London Council became the successor to the education responsibilities of the London County Council. Acting by means of a special committee known as the Inner London Education Authority ('the Authority') the Greater London Council became the local education authority for the 12 inner London boroughs and the City of London ('the Inner London Education Area'), and each of the Councils of the 20 outer London boroughs became the local education authority for its own area.

20. The Authority is the largest local education authority in the country. It is responsible for providing primary, secondary and further education for the whole of the Inner London Education Area. The Councils of the 12 inner London boroughs,

[page 8]

the 'minor authorities' (25), each have the right to appoint one of their members as their representative on the Authority. However, the minor authorities as such have no say in the provision by the Authority of the statutory system of public education within their boroughs, save for their statutory right to appoint one-third of the managers for each of the county primary schools within their area (26). However, as rating authorities, they must provide collectively upon precept from the Greater London Council the annual amount of money required by the Authority for the exercise of its functions.

The Education Advisory Committee
of the Council of the London
Borough of Islington

21. Two of the minor authorities, namely the London Borough Councils of Islington and of Kensington have established Borough Education Advisory Committees.

22. The Islington Education Advisory Committee, which was constituted by the Council of the London Borough of Islington on 17 June 1975, was the outcome of a discussion paper submitted in September 1974 by the Council's Chief Executive, Mr H. M. Dewing, to the Council's Policy Committee. The theme of the paper and of the discussions of the Council's Policy Committee and the Council itself was that the Council should make its representation on outside bodies more effective in the interests of the people of Islington. In the field of education the intention was that the Education Advisory Committee should enable the Council:

'To formulate views ... and make a more positive contribution to the existing arrangements for consultation and co-operation with the statutory authorities' (27).

23. The Islington Education Advisory Committee held its first meeting on 1 July 1975 under the Chairmanship of Councillor Mrs Anne Page, an Islington Borough Councillor and the Islington Borough Council representative on the Authority since May 1974. The Committee's terms of reference as recommended at this meeting, and subsequently resolved by the Council on 29 July 1975 are as follows:

'All matters relating to Education and the Education Services.
This Committee being purely advisory has no executive powers but shall undertake all functions relating to the Community Plan and keep the education policies, programmes and services under review, formulate and recommend policies and proposals to the Policy Committee for adoption by the Council and presentation to the appropriate bodies both directly and through the Council's

(27) Mr H. M. Dewing's proof of evidence, P.100, paragraph 2:1.

[page 9]

representatives and generally advise the Council and its Committees on matters relating to education.'

The Constitution and Organisation of The Authority

The Authority

25. There are 48 Members of the Authority, consisting of:

The Education Committee

26. The Authority, which meets once a quarter has, in accordance with its statutory obligation (28), established an Education Committee 'for the efficient discharge of its functions'. The Education Committee is a larger body than the Authority; it consists of the 48 Members of the Authority and 17 additional members normally appointed by the Authority at its annual meeting. Five of the additional members are teachers nominated by the teachers' professional associations, the remainder being nominated by the political parties in proportion to their representation on the Authority. Pursuant to a Standing Order of the Authority (29), the Education Committee exercises all the Authority's statutory powers and duties as a local education authority save for certain matters specifically reserved to the Authority.

27. The Chairmanship of the Authority and of the Education Committee are normally vested in the same person. The Chairman of the Authority is elected annually and is then appointed by the Education Committee as its Chairman for the same period. The majority party on the Authority choose a Leader and a Deputy Leader from among their number on the Authority or the Education Committee, who are known respectively as the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Authority and of the Education Committee. Similarly the largest minority party on the Authority choose a Leader and Deputy Leader, known respectively as the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Apart from a three year period of Conservative control between 1967 and 1970, the Labour Party has held the majority of seats on the

(28) The 1944 Act, S.6, and Schedule 1, Part II, paragraph 1, as amended.

(29) Standing Order 9(b).

[page 10]

Authority since its creation and hence on the Education Committee. Its present Leader, Sir Ashley Bramall, has been Leader of the Authority and of the Education Committee since 1970. The Deputy Leader of the Authority and Education Committee is Mrs Mair Garside.

The Central Standing Sub-Committees

28. The Education Committee, which meets every three weeks throughout the year, apart from recesses, has in its turn established a number of central standing Sub-Committees, namely Schools, Further and Higher Education, Finance, Staff and General, Development, Staff Appeals and Policy Co-ordinating. It is in the meetings of these Sub-Committees, which also take place every three weeks, that the formal policy decisions are made and put to the Education Committee for approval or information (30). I say 'formal' policy decisions, because the effective policy decisions of the Authority are made in the majority party group meetings that take place prior to each Sub-Committee meeting. Of these majority party group meetings, the most important from the point of view of establishing the Authority's general policy, is that of the majority group members of the Policy Co-ordinating Sub-Committee.

The Schools Sub-Committee

29. The Schools Sub-Committee is the Sub-Committee that has had the main concern and responsibility for the affairs of the William Tyndale Junior and Infants Schools. Under the Authority's Orders of Reference the Schools Sub-Committee is responsible for primary and secondary education (including nursery and special education); direction of teaching staff in schools except interviews for the appointment of head teachers; employment of children; safety, health and welfare of pupils; and financial aid to pupils. The Sub-Committee consists of 16 Members of the Education Committee and, ex officio, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Authority. Since May 1970 its Chairman has been Mr Harvey Hinds, a Labour Party Member of the Authority and the Chief Whip of his Party on the Greater London Council. Mr Hinds has served as a Member of the Schools Sub-Committee for over 12 years and was its Vice-Chairman from 1964 to 1967. He has, therefore, had considerable experience of the working of the Authority and of this particular Sub-Committee. He was also a member of the Newsom Committee.

The Administration of the Authority - The Education Officer's Department

30. The Authority shares with the Greater London Council a number of the latter's administrative services. However, the principal and exclusive administrative

(30) In the case of those matters specifically reserved for decision by the Authority, under Standing Order 9(b) (see paragraph 26, note 29 above), the Sub-Committee decisions are passed to the Authority for approval.

[page 11]

arm of the Authority is the Education Officer's Department. As its name indicates, it is headed by the Education Officer, who since 1971 has been Dr Eric Briault. Prior to his appointment as the Authority's Education Officer, he had been its Deputy Education Officer for 15 years. He is responsible to the Education Committee for the operation of the Authority's education service.

31. The Education Officer's staff is divided into two categories, namely administrative officers and inspectors, headed respectively by the Deputy Education Officer and the Chief Inspector. Both categories of staff are employed at County Hall as 'headquarters' staff and also at Divisional Offices throughout the Authority's area as 'field' staff.

County Hall Staff

The Administrative Officers

32. The administrative staff of the Education Officer's Department at County Hall, under the general responsibility of Mr Peter Newsam, the Deputy Education Officer (31), is divided into a number of different Branches each responsible for a particular category of educational establishment or with a particular field of responsibility common to all educational establishments. Each Branch is headed by an Assistant Education Officer.

33. The Assistant Education Officer for the Primary Schools Branch, which is the administrative Branch with which this Report is concerned, is Miss Patricia Burgess. She has held that position since April 1973, having previously been the Deputy Head of a combined Primary and Secondary Schools Branch for 11 years. In all she has worked for the former London County Council and the Authority for 39 years, mostly in the Education Officer's Department. Miss Burgess is responsible to Mr Newsam and Dr Briault for the administration of her Branch, but in the course of her work she liaises closely where necessary with the Chief Inspector and members of the Inspectorate and of Divisional Office staff. She also reports directly to Mr Hinds in his capacity as Chairman of the Schools Sub-Committee on matters which require his attention.

The Inspectorate

34. The Inspectorate is a body of highly qualified and experienced educationalists drawn from those who have shown particular achievement in the teaching profession, and most of whom have previously held appointments at head teacher level. One witness giving evidence at the Inquiry described them as 'the cream of the teaching profession'. The nature of the Inspectorate's work and the role that it has been given by the Authority are considered in some detail in a later section of this chapter (32). In this Section I shall confine myself simply to the way in which the Inspectorate is organised, with particular reference to primary education.

35. The Chief Inspector since 1 January 1973 has been Dr Michael

(31) He was appointed in May 1972.

(32) See paragraphs 42-45 and 49-56 below.

[page 12]

Birchenough, Prior to his appointment, he had had 14 years' teaching experience at secondary, higher and further education levels followed by 13 years as a member of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools at the Department of Education and Science. At the time of his appointment to the Authority he held the position of Chief Inspector of Schools in Her Majesty's Inspectorate. It should be noted that prior to his appointment to the Authority he had very little, if any, experience of primary school education.

36. Dr Birchenough, in his evidence to the Inquiry, said that as Chief Inspector he had two major roles. First he has overall responsibility for the management of the Authority's team of 96 inspectors, in the sense that he is concerned with their appointment, training and deployment. Secondly, he is the person responsible for advising, and conveying the views of the Inspectorate to, the Education Officer and to Members of the Authority about the working and development of the system of education in the Authority's area. This summary of his responsibilities is a very inadequate representation of the heavy and wide responsibilities that he has to carry. His work involves not only the heavy administrative load that such a position imposes but also a variety of tasks connected with it, for example, meetings with teaching staffs of schools and colleges, attending courses and conferences of head teachers and assistant teachers, and a certain amount of involvement in disciplinary matters. The numbers of schools for which he and his team of inspectors have responsibility are approximately as follows:

40 nursery schools
860 primary schools
200 secondary schools
120 special and boarding schools.

37. The Inspectorate working from County Hall is divided into specialist teams according to the various educational subjects and also according to the different stages of education, that is, primary, secondary and further education. Each team, which operates throughout the whole of the Authority's area, is headed by a staff inspector. The primary school team of inspectors, which is the team which figure in this Report, consists of eight full-time and two part-time inspectors and was - during the period to which the Report relates - headed by Mr Vivian Pape, the staff Inspector for Primary Education.

38. Mr Pape had been the staff Inspector for Primary Education since 1969. Previously he had been a District Inspector (33) for Lambeth from 1956 to 1969, and before that he had taught for ten years in primary schools and ten years in secondary schools. He had also held two posts as head teacher. All his teaching experience had been in urban areas. As Staff Inspector for Primary Education he was responsible in all for about 900 primary and nursery schools.

(33) See paragraphs 42-45 below.

[page 13]

The Officers' Co-ordinating Committee

39. In order to bring together and co-ordinate the work of the senior administrative officers and inspectors at County Hall and, where necessary on an ad hoc basis, those working in the Divisional Offices, the Education Officer has set up an Officers' Co-ordinating Committee. This Committee meets every three weeks under the Chairmanship of the Education Officer and consists of the Deputy Education Officer, the two Senior Assistant Education Officers (34), the Assistant Education Officers for the various administrative Branches, the Chief Inspector, the Senior Staff Inspectors, and various other Inspectors and Divisional Officers when appropriate.

Divisional Office Staff

The Divisional Officer

40. As I have already indicated, the Education Officer's Department consists not only of County Hall staff, but also of Divisional Office staff. The Inner London Education Area is divided into ten Divisions corresponding approximately (35) to the inner London borough boundaries. For each Division there is a Divisional Office headed by a Divisional Officer, who is an administrative officer, and has much the same status as an Assistant-Education Officer at County Hall. In describing the many functions of a Divisional Officer I cannot improve upon the following account given by Mr K. C. Culverwell, the Divisional Officer for the Southwark Division in an article written by him in November 1969 (36):

'... The function of the Divisional Officer ... is to complement ... [the] head office organisation in a number of ways. As the direct representative of the Education Officer for most administrative matters in the locality, working in close touch with the professional advisers, the two District Inspectors, he is not attached to any special branch at head office and handles all sides of school administration. Through his day-to-day contact with governors and managers of schools, head teachers, teachers and parents, part of his job is to help to preserve the personal touch which it would not be easy to keep with an entirely centralised administration. He is concerned also to help in re-integrating at the local level the various specialised services which are necessarily divided at head office among the various branches but which affect individual schools as a whole.

Together with his professional colleagues, the District Inspectors, he is, in fact, well placed to look at each school in the round as a community as distinct from a collection of apparently separate problems concerning teaching staff, buildings, equipment and so on, and consider its needs in relation the one to the other.

In detail, the work of the Divisional Office is concerned with communicating and explaining policy and obtaining the co-operation of all concerned in carrying it out - school governors and managers, head teachers, staff and parents. To some

(36) Published in 'A Guide for Southwark Teachers' issued by the Southwark Teachers' Centre Advisory Committee.

[page 14]

extent, it helps to make policy since there is a two-way traffic between head office and local office with advice coming 'down' and suggestions based on intimate knowledge of local conditions going 'up'. A major part of its business consists of trying to provide for the needs of the schools, the basic ones being adequate staffing both teaching and non-teaching and adequate accommodation both for staff and children. It helps with the local coordination of the work of various specialised agencies contributing towards the well-being of schools and children. It is concerned with the maintenance of good relations generally and with seeing that the problems and also the complaints, when necessary, of individual members of the public and others are dealt with sympathetically and quickly ... '

41. The Divisional Officer for Division 3, Islington, the Division in which the William Tyndale Junior and Infants Schools are situated, was, for 12 years until his retirement on 30 June 1975, Mr Hedley Wales. His successor, Mr Roy Price, took up his appointment on 1 July 1975.

The District Inspectorate

42. Each Division is divided into at least two Districts, for each of which a District Inspector is responsible. During the period to which the Inquiry related there were 25 Inspectorate Districts throughout the Authority's area, some Divisions being divided into three Divisions, either because of their size or because one of the District Inspectors within the Division has additional duties, for example as part of one of the specialist teams of subject Inspectors working from County Hall.

43. The District Inspector is primarily responsible for advising and supporting the teaching staffs of the schools within his district. For this purpose he must visit each school regularly so as to keep in touch with the staffs and to inform himself of any particular problem or needs of the school. He should give advice where requested or where he considers it appropriate, assist with staffing problems and the provision by the Authority of necessary resources for the school. Where he considers it would be helpful, he can call in subject or specialist inspectors to assist with any particular subject or specialist problems that the school may have.

44. The District Inspector has also a most important role to play in keeping the Authority informed through its officers and Members of the quality of education being provided in each one of the schools for which he is responsible and also of the state of education being provided by the Authority generally throughout his District. He is the man most directly concerned and familiar with the schools in his District. It is to him that the Authority looks in the first place for information and advice about any particular problem or school. And it is on his judgement that the Authority largely depends before involving any of its more senior Officers or Inspectors or Members in any local difficulty that may call for some attention or action on the part of the Authority.

45. Another important responsibility of the District Inspector is to prepare reports on teachers, usually for the purpose of assisting Governors and Managers and the Authority in assessing them when considering them as candidates for posts.

[page 15]

The District Inspector for The William Tyndale Schools

46. From 1966 to the end of February 1974 the District Inspector responsible for the District in which the William Tyndale Schools are situated was Mr Laurie Buxton. For the last six months of his appointment, covering the autumn term 1973 and the first two months of the Easter term 1974, he held in addition the post of Staff Inspector for Mathematics. This doubling of his responsibilities spanned the period when William Tyndale Junior School was without a head teacher (for the autumn term 1973) and the first two months of Mr Terry Ellis's headship of the school in the new year.

47. On 1 March 1974 Mr Donald Rice was appointed as Mr Buxton's successor as District Inspector for the District in which the William Tyndale Schools are situated. Mr Rice's appointment carried with it a special responsibility for primary education, and, in addition, he was a member of the primary team of inspectors headed by Mr Pape, the staff Inspector for Primary Education (37). Mr Rice was new to the Authority on his appointment to this post. He had previously been a county inspector for primary schools for two-and-a-half years with Essex County Council, and before that, the Chief Inspector of the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames.

48. Although Division 3 was divided into three District Inspectorates on the appointment of Mr Rice, his two fellow inspectors, who also had additional specialist responsibilities, were allocated smaller Districts than they had previously. In the result Mr Rice was allocated a District containing 69 schools for which he was responsible. Having regard to the facts of his newness to the Authority, to the size and difficulties of the District to which he had been allocated, and to his own additional specialist responsibilities this was a very taxing job for him, particularly in the early months of his appointment.

The Role of the Inspectorate

49. The Authority's Inspectorate, in common with the inspectorates of most other local education authorities, does not regard its prime function as being the inspection or checking of the quality of education being provided in the Authority's schools. The Inspectorate sees its main role as being the giving of advice and support to the teachers in the schools. It has become largely a matter for each individual head teacher and his staff to determine for themselves the standard and quality of education that they aim to provide for the children in their care, and also to determine for themselves whether they are achieving their objectives. As Dr Birchenough, the Chief Inspector, put it in evidence to the Inquiry, the role of Inspectors in checking the quality of education provided is only a secondary function; the quality control has largely devolved to the teachers themselves. On this interpretation of their role, the Authority's Inspectors would be more aptly described as 'advisers', and such evidence as was given on this subject at the Inquiry indicated that most other local education authorities now use the latter description.

(37) See paragraphs 37 and 38 above.

[page 16]

50. Thus, if the District Inspector considers that the head teacher and/or members of the staff of a school within his responsibility are adopting teaching methods or aims which he regards as not being in the best interests of the pupils, he can and should advise strongly against the adoption of such methods or aims. However, if the head teacher and/or his staff choose to ignore his advice, there is very little effective action that the Authority can take to stop them and to prevent consequences which may be harmful to the school. This is because the Authority, under its Rules of Management (38), has handed over its statutory power to control the conduct and curriculum of its primary schools to their head teachers subject only to the 'oversight' of their managers. In the absence of conduct on the part of a head teacher or his staff justifying proceedings for inefficiency, misconduct or indiscipline under the disciplinary procedures established under the Disciplinary Section of the staff Code (Teachers' Part) (39), there is very little that the Authority can do save to institute a full inspection (40) of the school by a team of its inspectors or a more informal and less complete inspection known as a visitation. However, even after a full inspection or visitation has taken place the headmaster and his staff can, if they so choose, persist in the methods that they have adopted whether approved of by the Inspectorate in the inspection report or not, subject only to the final sanction of disciplinary proceedings referred to above. However, in most circumstances a head teacher and his staff would not lightly disregard views and recommendations expressed by the Inspectorate in an inspection report or otherwise.

Full inspections of County Primary Schools (41)

The Aims of a Full inspection

51. In keeping with the Authority's view that its Inspectorate's role is predominantly an advisory one, it does not provide for regular full inspections of its schools. The Authority's policy is that full inspections only take place where there is 'some special reason'. One special reason could be where the Authority is seriously concerned about the quality of education being given at a particular school. However, other reasons for ordering a full inspection could be to assess the progress of a new school or of a school which has been fundamentally reorganised or in which new teaching methods have been introduced.

52. Dr Birchenough, the Chief Inspector, in his evidence at the Inquiry, described the aims of a full inspection of a school as follows:

(i) to find out the aims and objectives of the staff of the school;

(ii) to see if the staff have a satisfactory method of determining how far their aims and objectives are being achieved;

(iii) to make an assessment of the work of the school and to report on it, and, in making the assessment to see if the work of the school achieves standards comparable to those of other schools of a similar kind; and

(41) Under Section 77(3) of the 1944 Act the Authority has power to inspect any educational establishment maintained by it.

[page 17]

(iv) to advise the staff, if necessary, of ways of improving the existing situation.

53. A full inspection is normally undertaken on the initiative of the Inspectorate, that is to say, by agreement of the Chief Inspector to a proposal for a full inspection put to him by the District Inspector for the school concerned. A full inspection may also be ordered on the request of the Chairman of the Schools Sub-Committee or of the Education Officer. It is possible too for the Chief Inspector or the Chairman of the Schools Sub-Committee to order a full inspection at the request of the school's managers conveyed to the Authority by means of a formal managers' resolution.

54. The inspection is carried out by a team of Inspectors drawn from the teams of various subject Inspectors, normally under the supervision of the District Inspector as reporting Inspector. The staff of a school to be inspected are given at least three weeks' notice of a full inspection, and the head teacher is asked to produce information for the reporting Inspector, for example, a statement of aims, information on the curriculum and organisation of the school, and records of pupils' achievements. In the case of a primary school a full inspection normally takes about a week. The individual Inspectors observe the teaching of the staff, examine schemes of work completed and in progress, note the accommodation and equipment available, and discuss the teaching methods with the teacher. Each subject or specialist Inspector then writes his own report, but, before doing so, normally discusses with the teacher or teachers concerned what he intends to write. At the end of the inspection the individual reports are given to the reporting Inspector, who collates and summarises their contents into the inspection report, which he then submits to the Chief Inspector for his consideration and signature. The Chief Inspector normally signs the report in the form submitted to him without studying the individual reports from which it has been collated. However, he may call for clarification or make minor amendments to the wording, and, in some cases, he may ask to see the individual reports as well (42).

55. The Chief Inspector then submits the inspection report to the Education Officer and copies of it to the staff and managers or governors of the school. The managers or governors consider it formally at one of their meetings and inform the Education Officer of any comments or recommendations that they wish to make about it. The Education Officer then, acting in the case of primary schools through Miss Burgess, the Assistant Education Officer for the Primary Schools Branch, submits to the Schools Sub-Committee the inspection report and a report of his own dealing with any specific comments and recommendations in the inspection report and with any comments or recommendations received from the managers or governors.

56. The inspection report and the Education Officer's report are considered by the Schools Sub-Committee. The Chairman of the school's managers or governors

(42) He did so in the case of the full inspection carried out on the William Tyndale Schools in the Autumn of 1975; see Chapter IX below.

[page 18]

is invited to attend the Schools Sub-Committee meeting when the reports are discussed. No other member of the public is allowed to attend, since the inspection is regarded as confidential to the Authority, the managers, and the school's staff.

The Management and Conduct of the Authority's County Primary Schools

57. The 1944 Act requires (43) that each local education authority shall make an 'instrument' providing for the constitution of a body of managers for each of its county primary schools and that every such school, and every voluntary school also,

'... shall be conducted in accordance with rules of management made by order of the local education authority' (44).

The Constitution of a Managing Body

58. The Authority has made an instrument of management in common form for all its county primary schools. The form of the instrument where a single managing body is responsible for a county primary school comprising a Junior School and an Infants School as two separate departments each with its own head teacher and staff (46), is set out in full in Appendix VI to this Report. The William Tyndale Schools together are a county primary school within the meaning of the 1944 Act (47) and, as already indicated (46), share the same managing body. Accordingly, the general account that follows of the constitution of a managing body for each of the Authority's county primary schools is applicable to both William Tyndale Junior and Infants Schools.

The Composition of a Managing Body

59. Before considering the provisions of the common form instrument of management it should be recorded that in 1971 the Authority revised its then instrument of management so as to enlarge the membership of a managing body by including on them the school's head teacher, a teacher chosen by the teaching staff, and a parent chosen by parents of pupils at the school. This innovation proved a success and has been continued. However, the consequential enlargement of the managing body prompted the Authority in September 1973 to reduce the Authority's nominations by two and the minor authority's nominations by one (48).

(43) S.17(1) and (2).

(44) S.17(2)(a) - subject to the provisions of any trust deed relating to the school.

(45) S.17(I), (2) and (3)(b).

(46) See paragraph 10 above.

(47) See paragraphs 9 and 10 above.

(48) See paragraph 20 above and paragraph 60 below.

[page 19]

60. A managing body consists of 19 managers, 14 of whom are appointed by the Authority and five of whom are appointed by the minor authority, in the case of the William Tyndale Schools the latter being the Council of the London Borough of Islington. The managing body is made up as follows:

The mode of selection of Managers for appointment

61. The effective machinery for the selection of managers for appointment, other than those referred to in sub-paragraphs (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) in paragraph 60 above, is political. The local party organisations put forward names to their respective party whips on the Authority and to the Council, in the case of the five minor authority's appointments. No particular qualifications (50), academic or otherwise, are requisite for a person to be considered for appointment as a manager. It is usual, but not essential, for the persons whose names are submitted to the party whips on the Authority or Council to be members of the political party putting them forward. The party whips at County Hall then scrutinise the names submitted and pass them to the Education Committee Secretariat which in turn forwards them to Mr Hinds, the Chairman of the Schools Sub-Committee, for his formal approval. The effective selection is thus made by the party whips on the Authority on the nomination of the local party organisations. A similar procedure is followed by the minor authority in respect of its appointees. It follows that the political composition of the Authority and of the appropriate minor authority at any time is largely reflected in the composition of each managing body.

Duration and terms of appointment

62. Managers are appointed for the term of administration of the Authority, namely four years. However, in the case of head teachers, teacher/managers, and parent/managers, they cease to be managers when they cease respectively to be

(49) Namely, assigned members of the teaching staff who have passed their probationary period; see Glossary.

(50) For certain specific disqualifications, see Clause 6 of the Instrument of Management, Appendix VI to the Report.

[page 20]

head teachers, assigned (51) members of the staff or, in the case of parent/managers, at the end of the school year during their term of office if at that time they have no child attending the school (52).

63. Managers are not paid for their work as managers and must not be financially interested in the school of which they are managers (53).

Meetings and proceedings of a Managing body (54)

64. Managers' meetings must be held at least once in every school term. At the first ordinary managers' meeting at the beginning of each autumn term the managing body appoints from among its members (55) a chairman and vice-chairman who hold office for one year. The chairman or any two managers may call a special meeting at any time. The Education Officer is the Clerk to the managing body. He delegates this function to the Divisional Officer, one of whose staff normally undertakes the actual work of clerk. The Divisional Officer, acting through the member of his staff acting as clerk, is responsible, after consultation with the chairman of the managers, for notifying and circulating to each of the managers the agenda for the ordinary termly and other managers' meetings. The clerk also attends the meetings, takes notes of the proceedings, prepares and circulates to the managers the minutes, and, through the Divisional Office, notifies the Education Officer and the appropriate Sub-Committee Chairman of every managerial resolution intended for the attention of County Hall. It is for the clerk to the managers to advise which resolutions should be referred to County Hall and which may be left for local action at the Divisional Office level.

65. An individual manager may raise for discussion at a managers' meeting any matter within the responsibility of the managing body either by requesting the clerk to include it on the agenda for the meeting or by raising it for the first time at the meeting itself under the heading of 'Urgent Business' or 'Any Other Business'.

66. The Authority has expressed (56) its wish to keep to a minimum any restriction on managers' rights to discuss with teachers, parents and others who may be interested, any matters discussed at managers' meetings. Thus, save for certain matters, such as staff appointments and promotions, disciplinary issues involving staff or pupils, or possible reorganisation of the school, where confidentiality is clearly desirable, the proceedings of managers' meetings are not regarded as confidential.

The manner of exercise by Managers of their powers and responsibilities in the Conduct of a School

67. As I have already indicated (57), there is a statutory obligation upon the Auth-

(51) See Glossary.

(52) See Clause 2 of the Instrument of Management, Appendix VI to the Report.

(53) See Clause 5 of the Instrument of Management, Appendix VI to the Report.

(54) See generally, the Instrument of Management, Appendix VI to the Report.

(55) Other than the head teachers or teacher/managers.

(56) See explanatory note 7 to the Instrument of Management, Appendix VI to the Report.

(57) See paragraph 57 above.

[page 21]

ority to make rules of management for the conduct of its county primary schools. The Authority's Rules of Management, which are in common form, are set out in full in Appendix VII to the Report.

68. Before considering the nature of the powers and responsibilities conferred and imposed by these Rules, it is important to note that neither the Instrument of Management nor the Rules of Management give any specific guidance to managers as to how they should exercise those powers and responsibilities. Thus, the Instrument of Management does not expressly provide that managers must act collectively, that is only in accordance with decisions made by them at managers' meetings, in all matters relating to their school. However, it does impliedly recognise their obligation to do so in the following sub-clause:

'4. ... (ii) Between meetings of managers the chairman may take action on their behalf on matters that are of a routine character or will not admit of delay. In the absence of the chairman his place and powers fall to the vice-chairman' (58).

70. There are two principal ways in which managers exercise the various powers and responsibilities that they have in relation to their school. First, they meet together at regular termly and other special meetings at which the school's affairs are discussed, reports about the school are received, and resolutions passed and recommendations made. Secondly, managers visit their schools from time to time. Such visits may be made on a regular basis to see how the school is getting on generally and to have a talk with the head teacher and one or two of the staff if convenient. Alternatively, an individual manager may visit the school to discuss a particular problem or aspect of the school's affairs. The formality or informality of such visits varies enormously from school to school, and depends largely on the relations between the staff and the managers. In some schools managers are encouraged to visit the school whenever they wish and without any prior notification to the head teacher. If the managers are sufficiently well known to the staff they may be accepted 'as part of the family' and welcomed into the classrooms without advance notice while lessons are in progress. In other schools greater formality is

(58) See Appendix V1 to the Report.

[page 22]

observed. The managers may be asked to make appointments to visit the school. On their arrival they may spend most of the time with the head teacher who may show them round the school and may or may not invite them into the classrooms while teaching is taking place. The practice adopted depends in the end upon the traditions that have grown up with each school, the attitude of the head teacher, and the general relations between the managers and the staff. If approached with common-sense on both sides, there is no reason why each school through its staff and its managers should not be left to work out its own practice with regard to managers' visits. However, if relations between the staff and the managers of a particular school are bad, it is obvious that some form of policy must be decided upon collectively at a managers' meeting (at which the head teacher and the teacher/manager are present) in order to reduce to a minimum the possibility of friction resulting from managerial visits.

The guidance given by the Authority to Managers in the exercise of their powers and responsibilities

71. The Authority provides all managers on their appointment with a booklet called 'A Guide for Primary School Managers' ('The Green Book'). It contains the common form instruments and rules of management for primary schools with explanatory notes, and an introduction written by the Education Officer describing in general terms the nature of managers' functions and responsibilities. In addition, the Authority provides new managers with background information in the form of a leaflet entitled 'Primary Schools Information for Managers'. This leaflet gives general guidance on some of the more important aspects of the Authority's policy and practice with which managers may have to concern themselves, for example, those relating to school buildings, resources, teachers' salaries, etc. It also supplements the guidance given in the Green Book about the managers' function in relation to the curriculum and organisation of the school (59).

72. In addition to the above-mentioned introductory material, the Authority gives further guidance and information to managers by the circulation of papers on various topics as they arise from time to time. Once a term it also circulates managers with a special governors' and managers' edition of 'Contact', the weekly magazine produced by the Authority for its teachers. In addition, the chairman of each managing body is provided with a copy of each issue of 'Contact'.

73. There are courses for managers which the Authority encourages them to attend. In addition, the Authority organises annually conferences for managers and governors north and south of the river respectively. There are also conferences and open meetings held from time to time in the Authority's area by the National Association of Governors and Managers. Any additional guidance or information that managers require is always available to them from the Divisional Office and through the District Inspector.

(59) See paragraph 77 below.

[page 23]

The Conduct of a County Primary School

The Rules of Management

74. The Rules of Management made by the Authority (60) set out the powers and responsibilities of managers, and purport to define the respective roles of the Authority, the managers, and the head teacher in relation to the conduct, curriculum and organisation of the school. Under these Rules the Authority has largely divested itself of the exercise of its statutory power to control the conduct and curriculum of its county primary schools (60a) by transferring such power to the head teacher of each school subject to a responsibility of 'oversight' by the managers. In examining the respective spheres of control and responsibility of the Authority, the managers, and the head teacher, Rules 1 and 2 are of paramount importance, and their interpretation is central to many of the issues considered in this Report. They provide as follows:

'Conduct of School

1. The ... county primary school shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Education Act 1944, as amended by any subsequent enactment, with the provisions of any regulations made by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, with any directions of the Authority, and with these Rules. (my italics)

Organisation and Curriculum

2.(a) The Authority shall determine the general educational character of the school (61) and its place in the Authority's educational system.

(b) Subject to the provisions of these Rules, the head teacher shall control the conduct and curriculum, the internal organisation, management and discipline of the school, the choice of equipment, books and other resources, the methods of teaching and the general arrangement of teaching groups and shall exercise supervision over the teaching and non-teaching staff. He shall have the power of suspending pupils from attendance for any cause which he considers adequate, but on suspending any pupil he shall forthwith report the case to the managers; the parent shall be notified that he has the right of appeal to the managers and in all cases the managers shall report the facts to the Authority.

(c) (i) There shall be full consultation at all times between the head teacher and the chairman of the managers.

(ii) All proposals affecting the conduct and curriculum of the school shall be submitted formally to the managers.

(iii) There shall be full consultation and co-operation between the head-

(61) The expression 'general educational character of the school' means the type of school, eg a primary or secondary school. It has nothing to do with the aims or methods of education in use for that type of school.

[page 24]

teacher and the Education Officer of the Authority on matters affecting the welfare of the school.

(iv) 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 representations.' (my italics)

76. This is how Dr Briault, the Education Officer, in his introduction in the Green Book published in September 1973 (62), described the way in which the Rules of Management were intended to work:

'The Rules make it clear that, under the general direction of the Authority, it is on the managers and the head that responsibility rests for the smooth running of the school. The head, in consultation with the staff, controls the day-to-day organisation, conduct and curriculum. But the managers should exercise general oversight and should expect to receive regular reports from the head on the school's progress, needs and future plans. Managers' meetings should be occasions for full consultation and thorough discussion and it is open to any manager to ask for a particular matter affecting the school to be put on the agenda. It is, however, desirable for the chairman to be consulted in advance.

Many managers will be members of the local community which the school exists to serve. They will be able to bring to the managers' meetings a valuable knowledge of the local needs and of how the school appears to those who see it only from the outside. They will also of course be able to inform local people about the school and to enlist the support of the local community of what the school is doing. It is important, therefore, that managers should keep in regular touch with the school, as it will be to the managers that a head will naturally look for support when difficulty arises.'

'Managers should ... get to know the particular methods used in the school.

[page 25]

They will want to know for instance what methods of teaching reading are used, or whether classes are streamed. They may from time to time welcome a talk on new curriculum development or methods of teaching either from the head or from the District Inspector. They should inquire what arrangements exist for home/school contacts and should encourage parental involvement in the work of the school.'

79. The key passage in the Rules of Management quoted is that contained in Rule 2(a) (63):

' ... the managers shall, in consultation with the head teacher, exercise the oversight of the conduct and curriculum of the school.' (my italics)

80. In addition to their general responsibilities for the oversight of the conduct and curriculum of the school and representing the interests of the local community in the running of its affairs, managers have a number of other important powers and responsibilities conferred and imposed upon them by the Rules of Management. In particular, they are concerned with the appointment of the school's head teacher (64), the assistant teachers (65), and non-teaching staff (66); the allocation of teaching and non-teaching staff and other resources of the school (67); minor alterations in the

(63) See paragraph 74 above.

(64) Rule 7(a).

(65) Rule 8(a).

(66) Rule 10.

(67) Rule 3.

[page 26]

repairs to the school's buildings (68), the safety of and accidents to children, action following Inspectors' reports on the school (69), and with complaints and disciplinary proceedings against the staff (70). I will deal with some of these powers and responsibilities in detail at this stage.

The appointment of a Head Teacher (71)

81. The Authority appoints the head teacher. In normal circumstances, whenever a vacancy for a head teacher's post occurs, the Authority advertises it, and, after advertisement, a short list of candidates from among those applying is drawn up by the chairman of the managers and the Authority's officers. The managers then hold a meeting to interview the candidates on the short list. The Education Officer or his representative must be present at the interviews; normally, both the Divisional Officer and the District Inspector attend. If, and only if, there are at least three candidates whom the managers would consider fit for the post, the managers then submit the names of at least three such candidates to the Authority, recommending, if they so wish, the person who, in their opinion, should be appointed. If, after interviewing the short-listed candidates, the managers are of the view that there are not at least three of them of sufficient calibre whose names they can submit to the Authority, then, even though they might be prepared to recommend one of the candidates for the post, the normal course is for the post to be re-advertised. If, after a second advertisement there are still not at least three candidates whom the managers feel would be suitable for the post, the managers are usually asked to make a short list of three because it is very unlikely that a third advertisement would produce a better selection.

82. The three names submitted to the Authority are referred to a Section of the staff and General Sub-Committee of the Education Committee called the Appointment of Head Teachers and Principals Section which makes the appointment. The managers are normally represented by their chairman or vice-chairman or another of their number (72) at the meeting of the Section to consider the appointment.

The appointment of Assistant Teachers (73)

83. All assistant teachers must first be appointed to the service of the Authority, but they are not all assigned to particular schools. Those teachers who are not 'assigned staff' (74) may be part of a pool of teaching staff for a particular Division, 'divisional staff' (74) or temporary salaried teaching staff.

(68) Rule 5.

(69) Rules 15 and 16.

(70) Rules 9 and 7(b) and 8(c), and Staff Code (Teachers' Part) Section X - Discipline, see paragraphs 86-89 below.

(71) The 1944 Act, S.24(1), and Rule 7 of the Rules of Management, Appendix VII to the Report.

(72) Other than the present head teacher or teacher/manager.

(73) Rule 8 of the Rules of Management, Appendix VII to the Report.

(74) See Glossary.

[page 27]

84. The managers normally select and nominate for appointment assistant teachers, though, in the case of an appointment to a post carrying a salary scale above Assistant Teacher Scale 1 (74), the managers must proceed by way of recommendation to the Authority (75). Whenever a vacancy occurs the Authority generally advertises the post, and the managers then consider the applications and, after consultation with the head teacher, and with the Authority's Inspectors as necessary, select one candidate for nomination by them for appointment to the service of the Authority (if such candidate is not already in the Authority's service) and for assignment to the school.

Structural repair and alterations to the school Premises

85. Rule 5 of the Rules of Management (76) provides that, subject to any direction of the Authority, managers may approve minor alterations and repairs to school buildings not involving structural alterations, always subject to the Authority's control as to cost and expenditure. The Authority regards the managers, in the exercise of their powers under this Rule, as having a responsibility to keep a constant watch on the upkeep of the school. In the view of the Authority the managers are the best qualified to carry out this function because of their intimate knowledge of the school and of local public opinion. Their recommendations on major alterations and repairs, which only the Authority may authorise, and matters relating to safety, ventilation, lighting, heating and sanitary conditions are also welcomed by the Authority. In addition, any proposal by the Authority for making structural alterations to school buildings are always brought to the attention of the managers at an early stage.

Disciplinary proceedings against a Head Teacher or Member of the Teaching Staff

86. The termination of a head teacher's and an assistant teacher's engagement is by statute (77) reserved under the Rules of Management (78) to the Authority, though in both cases the Rules provide for the involvement of managers, where appropriate, in the procedures leading to the termination of the engagement. Thus, the Education Officer, on his own initiative or at the request of the managers, may, for misconduct or any other urgent cause, suspend a head teacher or an assistant teacher from his or her office pending the decision of the Authority (79).

87. More importantly, comprehensive provision is made in the Discipline Section of the Teachers' Part of the Authority's Staff Code (80) for the participation

(74) See Glossary.

(75) Rule 8(b) of the Rules of Management.

(76) See Appendix VII to the Report.

(77) The 1944 Act, S.24(1).

(78) Rules 7(b) and 8(c); see Appendix VII to the Report.

(79) And see The staff Code (Teachers' Part) Section X - Discipline, paragraph 7; Appendix VIII to the Report.

(80) Appendix VIII to the Report.

[page 28]

by managers in disciplinary proceedings that may be taken by way of complaint against a head teacher and/or members of his teaching staff. Under these disciplinary procedures a complaint may be made by anybody against a head teacher or assistant teacher of 'inefficiency', 'misconduct', or 'indiscipline'. These complaints may be brought before a Tribunal of Inquiry ('the Tribunal') consisting of: two officers of the Authority, one nominated by the Education Officer and the other, a Staff Inspector, nominated by the Chief Inspector; and two teachers, one of whom must be an assistant teacher and the other a head teacher; and an independent chairman (81).

88. Complaints may be brought before the Tribunal in three ways:

(i) Where a complaint, other than one made by the managers or the Schools Sub-Committee or one appearing to involve criminal liability, is brought to the attention of the Education Officer, he must consult with the Chief Inspector and then inform the managers of the school and the teacher concerned, giving the teacher at least a week to submit any written observations he may care to make (82). If the Education Officer or the chairman of the managers is of the opinion that the matter requires further investigation it must be considered at a special meeting of the managers attended by the Chief Inspector or his representative (83), at which, after hearing the respective cases of the complainant and the teacher, the managers must decide whether a prima facie case has been made out for a disciplinary inquiry (84).

The managers may decide:

(a) that no further inquiry or disciplinary action is warranted (85);
(b) that the matter should be referred to the Tribunal for further inquiry (86) or
(c) that although there is a case for further inquiry the subject matter of the complaint only warrants a lesser punishment than down-grading or dismissal and the teacher should be permitted to elect for an inquiry by the Tribunal or for such reprimand or admonition as the managers may administer (87).

In the case of trivial complaints or matters not serious enough to necessitate an investigation by the managers or an inquiry by the Tribunal, there is provision for the Education Officer to settle the matter himself (88). In addition, the Chief Inspector has power to investigate a complaint himself with a view, inter alia, to achieving a settlement of the complaint between the parties concerned (89).

(89) Ibid, paragraph 5.

[page 29]

(ii) The managers may make a complaint themselves, which together with any observations by the teacher, must first be reported to the Schools Sub-Committee. If the Sub-Committee considers that an Inquiry is necessary it must refer it to the Tribunal (90).

(iii) The Schools Sub-Committee may itself refer a complaint against a teacher direct to the Tribunal for inquiry irrespective of any previous decision by the managers (91).

Misconduct by, and disputes with Managers

90. The Authority has no comparable means of disciplining managers who may be guilty of misconduct in the exercise of their powers and duties. This is largely due to the fact that the relationship between the Authority and school managers is quite different from that between the Authority and its teaching staffs. Because the managers' work is entirely voluntary and unpaid the only real sanction against them if they misbehave is contained in the power of the Authority and of the minor authorities under Section 21(1) of the 1944 Act to remove the managers respectively appointed by them. Although the exercise of such statutory power by the Authority and the minor authorities does not depend upon reference to it being made in the Instrument of Management, it is noteworthy that the only provision for termination of managership contained in the Instrument (97) is in Clause 7, which provides as follows:

'Determination of Managership

7. Any manager who is absent from all meetings of the managers during a period of one year, or who, in the opinion of the appointing body, is incapacitated from acting, or who writes to the managers tendering his resignation, shall thereupon cease to be a manager.'

(97) See Appendix VI to the Report.

[page 30]

91. However, although the Authority has not made any specific provision for dealing with misconduct of managers or with disputes between itself and managing bodies, there is power under Sections 67 and 68, as amended (98), of the 1944 Act for the Secretary of State to intervene on reference of such issues to him. Section 67(1), so far as material, provides:

'... any dispute between a local education authority and the managers or governors of any school with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under this Act, may, notwithstanding any enactment rendering the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty contingent upon the opinion of the Authority or of the managers or governors, be referred to the Secretary of State; and any such disputes so referred shall be determined by him.'

'If the Secretary of State is satisfied, either on complaints by any person or otherwise, that any local education authority or the managers or governors of any county or voluntary school have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under this Act, he may, notwithstanding any enactment rendering the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty contingent upon the opinion of the Authority or the managers or governors, give such directions as to the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty as appear to him to be expedient ... '

The above account is necessarily a very brief description of the statutory system of education, the organisation and working of the Authority, and the management and conduct of its county primary schools. I hope, however, that it provides a framework within which the troubles of the William Tyndale Schools may now be examined.

(98) By the Local Government Act 1972, S.272(1), and Schedule 30.

(99) See paragraph 4 above.

[page 32]

teachers, which occupies space formerly taken up by three classrooms. The remainder of that floor, consisting of three classrooms and a hall, the latter used for physical education and school lunches, is occupied entirely by the junior school. The main part of the junior school is on the second floor where there are six classrooms, an assembly hall, which has been used for a variety of purposes, and a good sized room used initially as a library and television room, then briefly as a parents' room, and latterly as a drum practice room. A small room, formerly a cloakroom, was changed at the beginning of 1975 into a sanctuary for disturbed children who needed special attention. On the same floor are the head teacher's, the staff's and the secretary's rooms.

97. The layout of classrooms, corridor and hall is the same on each of the three floors of the school building. Each floor consists of a long straight and broad corridor with a line of classrooms leading off it on one side, and the hall leading into it in the middle at right angles on the other side.

98. The entire building is surrounded by irregularly shaped and, on three sides, narrow playground areas, and is closely bounded by other buildings. There are two accesses to the schools, one via Sable Street from Canonbury Road, and the other on the opposite side from Upper Street. Both Canonbury Road and Upper Street are very busy roads.

99. To the south of the school there is a broad playground and, beyond it, a fenced-off play area which is called an adventure playground. The adventure playground contains an artificial concrete mound, surmounted by a small wooden stockade-like structure, and swings and climbing structures of a type often found in municipal children's recreation areas. This adventure playground is normally used by the school children only under supervision of a member of the staff.

100. The premises as a whole are soundly built and appear to the lay eye to be in reasonable structural repair and to give satisfactory accommodation to the children attending the schools. However, the premises look a bit 'scruffy' on the outside and, in the case of the junior school part of the building, on the inside as well. By contrast, the inside of the infants school is bright and well decorated and maintained. The division of the building between the two schools, with access to the junior school through the several ground floor entrances to the infants school, and the necessary sharing by both schools of the play areas surrounding the premises cause particular administrative problems and difficulties in supervision of the children.

The character and reputation of the
Schools before the Autumn term 1973

The Junior School

101. The school roll of the junior school was just under 250 at the beginning of

[page 33]

1973, faIling to 230 at the end of the summer term 1973 - a fall which was in line with a general gradual decline in primary school rolls in Islington.

102. The school was divided into eight classes with an average of about 30 children to each class. The classes were made up according to the children's ages, there being two classes for each of the four year groups and no streaming of the children. In the case of the two first year classes the teachers concerned had developed some cooperative teaching (1), but, generally speaking, the teaching organisation of the school was divided into self-contained classes. In addition to the ordinary class teaching, a part-time teacher, Mrs Annie Walker, provided 'remedial' reading tuition for those children in the school who had difficulty in learning to read.

103. From 1968 to the end of the summer term 1973 the head teacher of the junior school was Mr Alan Head. Under his direction the school acquired a good reputation in the area. He was apparently a talented man with an ability to develop the school along flexible, but sound lines, and to project it among the local community as a forward looking school with high standards. He encouraged his staff to use the integrated day method of teaching (1), and to adopt modes of teaching which varied according to the needs and abilities of each individual child in their care (a 'child-centred' approach) rather than a uniform approach to all the children in their class irrespective of their individual interests, needs and abilities (a 'teacher-directed' approach). There is no doubt that under his headship the school enjoyed a good reputation. The staff, although given a good deal of freedom in their individual approaches to teaching, were encouraged by him to seek to achieve high standards with their pupils and to take every opportunity to demonstrate the school's achievements to the local community which it served. Relations between Mr Head and his staff, on the one hand, and the school's Managers and parents of children at the school, on the other hand, were good.

104. In May 1973 Mr Head informed the Authority that he proposed to resign his appointment at the end of the summer term in order to take up another post outside London. This is how Mr Laurie Buxton, the then District Inspector for the William Tyndale Schools, described the junior school in a report that he prepared for the information of candidates for the post of its head teacher:

'... the children come from a wide range of backgrounds. Though these are mostly working classes and some parents are very poor, there has been an increasing choice of this school by middle class and professional families from the Canonbury area. The proportion of immigrants (roughly 16 per cent) is low and there are few language problems ...

The headmaster who left at the end of the Summer Term ... was a man of exceptional ability and established a style of approach that is extremely forward looking, organised and cohesive. He exercised a firm and positive but democratic leadership. In all areas of the curriculum a child-centred approach has been developed and there is much of interest in the work produced.

The new head will need to have wide human and social sympathies to cope

[page 34]

with the unusual range of children and parents and should be well experienced in this type of area. It is a thriving establishment to take over, the staff will respond well, but there is a high standard to maintain.'

106. Although the matters that formed the principal subject of this Inquiry arose after Mr Head's departure at the end of the summer term 1973, it would have been of assistance to hear his evidence of the state of the school when he left it. However, although he submitted a short written statement to the Secretary to the Inquiry, he declined to attend to give evidence to the Inquiry, and consequently, in accordance with the procedure that I adopted (2), his written statement could not be received in evidence.

The Infants School

107. The school roll of the infants school, excluding its nursery classes, was in the region of 150 at the beginning of 1973, falling to 116 at the end of the summer term 1973 - a fall in line with the general trend to which I have already referred.

108. Miss Brenda Hart, the present Head Teacher of the infants school, took up that appointment in September 1967. At that time the school was being run in what has been described as a traditional way, with classes of about 30 to 40 children. The classes were organised on a formal basis with the children sitting in rows each at his or her own table, in drably decorated classrooms.

109. Miss Hart set about changing the whole atmosphere of the school and, in full and constant discussion with her staff, she introduced a much freer and more stimulating environment in which the children could develop and learn. This involved a gradual change of approach in teaching methods, a considerable alteration in the layout, equipment and decoration of the classrooms, and also a greater use of the corridors and other non-classroom areas of the school. These changes, although gradual, were not without their teething troubles, and Miss Hart had to work slowly, making sure that her staff, the managers, and parents of the children at the school understood and sympathised with her aims, and were involved in the changes that were taking place.

(2) See Note of Procedure At The Inquiry; Appendix I to the Report.

[page 35]

110. By the Summer of 1973 Miss Hart (3) and her staff had built up a reputation for the infants school which was among the highest in the Division. The school was a happy and welcoming place for its children and it was beginning to achieve reasonably good educational standards for those children in preparation for their transfer to the junior school at the age of about seven.

111. Relations between Miss Hart and her staff were excellent, as were the relations between the Infants' staff as a whole and the school's Managers and the parents of the children at the school.

112. As to relations between the Junior and Infants Schools, there does not appear to have been any real discord, although there was some inadequacy of liaison between the two staffs. According to Miss Hart, she tried to encourage liaison between the two schools, for example, by joint staff meetings, whilst Mr Head was there, but there was little response from him and his staff.

The children for whom the
Schools provided

113. For a number of years now Islington has been changing from an area that was predominantly 'working class' into an area of a much wider social mix. Young professional married couples with children have moved into what were run-down terraced houses, have renovated them, and have begun to participate in and make their mark upon the social life and amenities of the area. The result has been that the William Tyndale Junior and Infants Schools have had to provide increasingly for children coming from an extremely wide variety of social backgrounds. Mr Buxton referred to this trend in the passage from his report that I have set out in paragraph 104 above.

114. It is fundamental to the task of a teacher, and particularly to that of a head teacher, to provide so far as is practicable, an education that is appropriate and valuable to all the children under his or her responsibility, however varied their backgrounds, abilities and aptitudes may be. It has been suggested in evidence by Mrs McWhirter, who worked at the junior school under Mr Head, that he had turned it into a mainly 'middle class' school. Similarly, Mr Terry Ellis, the Head Teacher of the junior school since January 1974, and some of his colleagues, including Mrs McWhirter, expressed the view that Miss Hart's approach did not cater sufficiently for children from poor backgrounds. Indeed Mr Ellis put it more crudely than that; he said that 'she had sold out to the middle classes' in the changes that she had made in the infants school.

115. It is difficult, on the evidence before me, to attempt any accurate assessment of the educational standards and achievements of the Junior and Infants Schools prior to the autumn term 1973. Both appear to have been reasonably successful in comparison with other inner London schools of a similar type and in similar areas.

(3) Between 1 January 1973 and 6 July 1973 Miss Hart had leave of absence to work in the USA. During that period Miss J. A. White was Acting Head Teacher of the infants school.

[page 36]

However, there were undoubtedly problems that required and continued to require special attention. I shall deal with these in some detail in the succeeding chapters of the Report. However, it may be helpful to mention here, by way of example, the number of children in the junior school at the beginning of the autumn term 1973 who were regarded as having learning difficulties and in need of special reading tuition. There were over 80 of such children, that is over a third of the junior school roll. Fifty of these were distributed fairly evenly among the 2nd, 3rd and 4th year classes. The remaining 30 in the 1st year were the children who had transferred that term from the infants school.

Special assistance provided by the Authority
to the schools

The School Allowance

116. The Authority gives each school a basic allocation of resources which can be divided into two categories. First, there is the allocation of teachers and scale posts (4) based on the school's entitlement according to its Burnham grouping (4). Secondly, there is a school allowance based on the school's roll plus a lump sum. The school allowance is a cash sum for the purchase of materials and equipment, school visits, and amenities. During the period material to this Report the school allowance could be augmented, as was done in the case of the William Tyndale Schools (5), under a special experimental scheme introduced by the Authority in 1972 called the Children With Special Difficulties Scheme.

Increased Points Allowance for Schools of Exceptional Difficulty

117. The rolls of the William Tyndale Junior and Infants Schools in 1973-4 put them respectively in Burnham Groups (6) 4 and 3, entitling the junior school to 4 points and the infants school to 2 points for the purpose of allocation of assistant teachers on scales above scale 1 with posts of special responsibility.

118. However, under the Burnham Report a local education authority can increase the number of Burnham points to allow a greater number of scale posts for schools considered to be of exceptional difficulty. For the purpose of assessment of such schools entitled to this greater points number, the Authority maintains an index, known as the Educational Priority Area Index, on which all its primary schools are ranked in order of deprivation. This index is recalculated on a two yearly basis. The criteria on which the index is based are such factors as: social class, housing stress, large families, poverty, the percentage of handicapped children, pupil turnover, parental interest, adequacy of school buildings, and the number of disturbed children in the school.

(4) See Glossary.

(5) See paragraph 120 below.

(6) See Glossary.

[page 37]

119. Under the Authority's Educational Priority Area Index in 1973 the first 354 of its schools in greatest need on the list were ranked as schools of exceptional difficulty, and therefore qualified for the extra points. The William Tyndale Schools were on this list in 1973 and qualified for the maximum extra points, giving an extra point in each case resulting in a total of posts of special responsibility of five points for the junior school and three points for the infants school. When the Authority's Educational Priority Area Index was revised in 1974 the William Tyndale Schools were no longer in the list qualifying them for such extra points. However, their increased allocation continued until the next Burnham triennial review in 1976.

The Children With Special Difficulties Scheme

120. As already indicated in paragraph 116 above, the Authority introduced in 1972 an experimental scheme to provide ordinary primary and secondary schools with extra help to meet the needs of children with special difficulties. £150,000 a year was set aside between 1972 and 1975 to give speedy support to any worthwhile project that schools chose to put forward. Examples of the sort of project financed under the scheme were sanctuaries or withdrawal units to help disruptive or withdrawn pupils, and nurture groups (7) for younger children with behavioural problems. The provision of funds under this scheme did not involve the maintenance by the Authority of any index or any designation of the school seeking assistance as a school of 'exceptional' or 'special' difficulties. Any school was free to put forward a project for financing under the scheme, and a request was considered by the Authority in the light of the advice given by the school's District Inspector as to its reasonableness. However, in practice, the Authority's Educational Priority Area Index tended to serve as a useful guide to the District Inspector in recommending the allocation of additional resources under the scheme. As will appear (8), the William Tyndale Junior and Infants Schools received assistance under the scheme from the autumn term of 1974 onwards (9).

(7) See Glossary.

(8) See Chapter VI, paragraphs 444 and 482 below.

(9) The Authority has now discontinued the Children With Special Difficulties Scheme, but is continuing to finance on-going protects that have been initiated with its assistance.

[page 39]

reflected in the Report. Accordingly, I deal in much greater detail with the personalities and affairs of the junior school than those of the infants school. However, in those instances where matters concerning the infants school have been closely examined in evidence they are given appropriate treatment in the Report.

School Rolls

124. The roll of the junior school at the beginning of the term was about 230 and by the end of the term it had fallen to about 220. The corresponding figures for the infants school, excluding the nursery classes, were 116 and 136.

The staff of the schools

The staff of the junior school

125. For ease of reference I list immediately below in schedule form the members of the teaching staff of the junior school, and their respective class responsibilities, in the autumn term of 1973.

List of Junior School staff -
Autumn Term 1973

(1) See Glossary.

[page 40]

126. As the above schedule indicates, there was a considerable change in the junior school staff at the beginning of term. If Mrs McWhirter is included (having regard to her year away from the school), there were four new members of staff. The schedule also indicates that the school was organised on a traditional class basis made up according to year groups with each teacher responsible solely for his or her own class. Within their own classes each of the teachers followed his or her own method of teaching. Due to the influx of new staff at the beginning of the term and the unsettling 'interregnum' period of Mrs Chowles's Acting Headship, it was inevitable that the staff tended not to develop during this term any common educational aims and teaching methods for the school.

127. As some of the names listed above are those of people who played a prominent part in the affairs of the junior school over the next two years I must now

(2) A peripatetic teacher appointed for one term. [There is no reference in the text to this footnote but it would appear to refer to Norman Best]

[page 41]

say a little more about them individually before going on to indicate the part that each played.

Mrs Irene Chowles

128. Mrs Chowles is an experienced and dedicated teacher who had had about six years' teaching experience before taking up her appointment in 1968 as Deputy Head Teacher of the junior school. Her appointment apparently carried with it a responsibility for encouraging an integrated day (3) method of teaching throughout the school. At a previous school, and during her period of Deputy Headship at William Tyndale Junior School, she had had experience of a modest form of cooperative or team teaching (4). However, her principal work was as a class teacher; and, although she followed a child-centred approach (5), in conformity with the general trend favoured by Mr Head and the staff, she retained throughout a well structured and largely traditional approach to teaching. She was undoubtedly a successful teacher in whom the managers and parents of the children in her charge had great confidence. However, she was not very receptive to new teaching methods outside her own training and experience.

129. As Deputy Head Teacher to Mr Head for five years she was not given scope to develop the broader administrative skills and responsibility that such a post normally entails. Mr Head kept things very much to himself and sought her assistance in the main only as a channel of communication between himself and the staff with whom, according to Mrs Chowles and Mrs McWhirter, his communication was very bad. This lack of experience in the actual running of the school, allied with her natural lack of assertiveness and of self-confidence, left Mrs Chowles unfitted for the job of Acting Head Teacher that was thrust upon her in the autumn term of 1973 after Mr Head had left and before Mr Ellis took up his appointment. Indeed, Mrs Chowles appears to have recognised her unsuitability for such a position at that time, since she did not apply for the post of Head Teacher when it was first advertised in May 1973. It is true that she did apply for the post on its readvertisement in November 1973, though she did so with some misgivings and with scant encouragement from Mr Buxton, the then District Inspector. In summary, Mrs Chowles, with the experience that she had had up to 1973, was a person who had difficulty in dealing decisively and effectively with the severe strains that were imposed upon the junior school during the interregnum between the headships of Mr Head and of Mr Ellis.

Mr Brian Haddow

130. Mr Brian Haddow was appointed to the junior school on 1 September 1973 and became the class teacher for one of the two 4th year classes. He was then aged 28. Of all the teaching staff referred to in this Report he had the most profound influence upon the organisation and teaching methods and attitudes that were

(3) See Glossary.

(4) See Glossary and paragraph 136 below.

(5) See Chapter II, paragraph 103 above.

[page 42]

adopted at the junior school in 1974 and 1975. Prior to his appointment he had had about five years' teaching experience. He had taught for some two years as an unqualified teacher at a junior school in Brent. Then he undertook a four years' course at Furzedown College, London, SW17, leading to a teaching certificate and the degree of Bachelor of Education. At the end of three years he completed Part I of the degree course and obtained a Teaching Certificate with a Distinction in the Practice of Education. However, he decided not to complete the degree course and he applied for and obtained a teaching post at Walnut Tree Walk Primary School where he remained for two years. During his second year there he was given a Scale 2 post with responsibility for coordination of lower junior children in 'a team-teaching situation' (6). However, due to lack of staff, he was very limited in the system of cooperative or team-teaching that he was able to introduce. Nevertheless, with the aid of two part-time teachers for most of the year and the assistance of his Head Teacher, he appears to have been reasonably successful in the modest form of cooperative teaching that he undertook there.

131. Mr Haddow's head teacher at Walnut Tree Walk Primary School, Miss M. Greenwood, wrote the following in a testimonial for him on 15 March 1973 and confirmed it in evidence given to the Inquiry:

'... Mr Haddow is a gifted teacher, who possesses great intelligence and imagination in his approach to his work. He has a special interest in the needs of children living in deprived areas, and provides for them a stimulating, informal and friendly atmosphere in which they are happy and secure.

While offering the children in his care many outlets for their creative talents in the form of art, modelling and domestic work, he organises carefully for the teaching of basic skills and has had considerable success in developing the reading and literacy of his pupils, who make rapid progress both in skill and in confidence as individuals.

Mr Haddow is a cooperative and friendly colleague with the interests of the whole school at heart, and he gives unstintingly of his time to general preparation and to out-of-school activities ... '

133. Mr Haddow's approach to teaching is quite different from that of Mrs Chowles. He had and has a keen concern about what he regards as the evils of present day society and about the role of the teacher in such a society. For him, the essence of teaching is to encourage his pupils, however young, to take their own decisions about learning and not to confine them, any more than absolutely necessary, to any set teaching programme. He undoubtedly recognises the need for children to learn the basic skills of reading, writing and mathematics, but he feels

(6) See Glossary.

[page 43]

that these are skills that will be acquired by children in their own way and in their own time given appropriate encouragement by those teaching them.

Mrs Jackie McWhirter

134. Mrs McWhirter qualified as a teacher at Avery Hill College, London, SE9 in 1969. She first taught at the William Tyndale Junior School from September 1971 until October 1972 when she left to teach in Germany for some time. She returned to the junior school to teach a third year class in the autumn term of 1973. It is difficult to tell precisely what Mrs McWhirter's teaching philosophy was in the autumn term of 1973. Certainly, as time wore on she became very much influenced by Mr Haddow's ideas, of which he was a persistent and persuasive exponent.

Miss Sheila Green

135. Miss Sheila Green qualified as a teacher at Hereford College of Education in 1971. She first taught at the William Tyndale Junior School as a supply teacher in January 1972. After a short time she joined the school's staff as a temporary teacher and remained there in that capacity for the rest of the school year taking the classes of other members of staff who were away.

136. In September of 1972 Miss Green was assigned as a permanent teacher to the school and formed part of a team of three teachers (the others being Mrs Hercules and Mr Wetz (7)) whom Mr Head had organised to teach about 60 first year children. Mr Wetz was the leader of the team, but according to Miss Green, there was very little team-teaching about it. They occupied two classrooms divided by a sliding partition on the first floor of the building. Miss Green took 25 of the more able children to another classroom in the morning and taught them basic skills, and in the afternoon took the same group in part of the double room for work on particular topics. The three teachers apparently only came together as a team for a short period at the start of the morning and afternoon sessions and at the end of the day for a story. Even this very modest scheme of cooperative or team-teaching caused difficulties. The children took a long time to settle down and, according to Miss Green, some of the parents were sufficiently worried about what was happening to remove their children from the school during the year. Miss Green obviously did not take to the scheme and was not sorry when it came to an end at the end of the summer term 1973. In the autumn term she was given her own class of second year children made up of about half of those who had been taught under the cooperative or team-teaching scheme of the previous year.

137. So far as I can judge, Miss Green did not have any fixed or extreme views about teaching methods. When teaching her own class she sought to teach in a relaxed and flexible manner, reserving the morning for tasks varying according to the individual children's abilities, and the afternoons for various activities such as discussions, writing on particular topics, or visits. However, although her approach to teaching may have been unexceptional, she, like Mrs McWhirter, became very much influenced by Mr Haddow's more extreme views.

(7) See paragraph 125 above, and paragraph 154(ii) below.

[page 44]

Miss Stephanie Richards

138. Miss Stephanie Richards qualified as a teacher at Battersea College of Education in 1973. Her course included 14 weeks' teaching practice at Battersea Adventure Playground. Her first teaching appointment was as a probationary teacher (8) to William Tyndale Junior School in September of 1973. She taught one of the two first year classes. Her class contained many highly disturbed children with whom she found it very difficult to cope.

Mrs Annie Walker

139. Mrs Annie Walker was a teacher of great experience and very firm ideas. She qualified as a teacher at the Froebel Institute in Roehampton, obtaining the Froebel Teaching Diploma. This Institute specialises in training teachers according to Froebel's teaching philosophy, Froebel being the inaugurator and pioneer of a system of teaching which places emphasis on the need to teach each child according to his or her individual needs and abilities. Before joining the staff of William Tyndale Junior School in 1969 Mrs Walker had had about 13 years' teaching experience, first at a primary school in Wandsworth and then for some seven years at a preparatory school in South East London. Her work at William Tyndale Junior School from 1969 had been as a part-time teacher of reading to those children who had reading difficulties ('a remedial teacher'). She worked in the afternoons only.

140. Mrs Walker was a methodical and hard-working teacher who was labelled by some who gave evidence to the Inquiry as being an arch-traditionalist. She certainly has strong views on the need to direct children in their learning and on the need for discipline where necessary. That is not to say, however, that she was rigid in her own teaching methods or that she failed to recognise the need for differing approaches according to the individual needs of the children whom she was teaching. She certainly appears to have had considerable success in her remedial work and to have earned the confidence of the children whom she taught and their parents.

The Staff of the Infants School

141. I have already said something of the work of Miss Hart since her appointment as Head Teacher of the infants school in September of 1967 (9). She qualified as a teacher at Avery Hill College, London, SE9. She then taught at Canonbury Road Infants School for a number of years, becoming the Deputy Head Teacher of the school. Following that she became Deputy Head Teacher of Newington Green Infants School, where she remained until her appointment as Head Teacher of William Tyndale Infants School in September 1967. Miss Hart has had some experience of teaching abroad. During her period as Deputy Head Teacher of Newington Green Infants School she spent a year in the United States of America as an exchange teacher, and from January to July 1973 she had leave of absence from William Tyndale Infants School to work in California as an advisory teacher to a group of nine schools. As already indicated (9), she was a forward looking teacher who

(8) See Glossary.

(9) See Chapter II, paragraphs 108-112 above.

[page 45]

introduced new and successful methods of teaching to the infants school which have become well received and appreciated by most people who have had anything to do with the school.

142. Save for Miss Margaret Ford, who became active in the affairs of the junior school staff in the Summer and Autumn of 1975 (10), none of Miss Hart's staff figured individually in any of the principal matters giving rise to the Inquiry. So far as the infants school was concerned, Miss Hart was the only member of that school's staff to give evidence and she spoke for the whole of her staff. Accordingly, it is not necessary to give any detailed information about the infants school staff in the body of the Report. I have, however, set out their names in Appendix X to the Report, which lists all the members of the teaching staffs of both schools from 1 September 1973 to 27 October 1975.

The Managers of the Schools

The Managing Body appointed on 1st September 1973

143. On 1 September 1973 a new Managing Body for the schools was appointed for the four year period to 31 August 1977. Of the 15 managers, other than the Head Teachers and Teacher Managers, appointed for that period, several were new appointments. However, the new Chairman, Mrs Stella Burnett, and the new Vice-Chairman, Mrs B. Davies, had been members of the previous Managing Body. Mrs Chowles, as Acting Head Teacher of the junior school served on the Managing Body for the autumn term, and Mrs Ranasinghe was the teacher-manager for the junior school until January 1974 when Mr Haddow was nominated by the staff in her stead.

144. On their appointment, all the managers received a copy of the Green Book and the information leaflet for managers referred to in Chapter I of this Report (11), and also a pamphlet giving information on courses for managers. In order to ensure that the parents of children of both schools should get to know the new Managing Body the managers resolved at their first meeting in the autumn term 1973 to circulate parents with their names and addresses and to post a list on the schools' notice boards giving the same information.

145. A list of the members of the new Managing Body, also detailing certain resignations and further appointments during the period up to the Autumn of 1975, is set out in Appendix IX to the Report. Some of the managers listed played a more prominent part than others in the affairs of the schools, though not all at the same time. I shall introduce them in the course of the Report at the stages where their respective activities began to have an impact on the affairs of the

(10) See Chapter VIII, paragraphs 776-778 and Chapter IX, paragraph 794 below.

(11) See paragraph 71 above.

[page 46]

schools. Four of the managers should be introduced straightaway. They are Mrs Stella Burnett, Mrs Valeria Fairweather, Mrs Aelfthryth Gittings and Mrs Denise Dewhurst.

Mrs Stella Burnett

146. As already indicated (12), Mrs Burnett was elected Chairman of the new Managing Body. In undertaking that responsibility she had the dual advantage of being an experienced manager and a qualified and experienced teacher. She had been a member of the previous managing body of the William Tyndale Schools from September of 1971. She had also been a Manager of Prior Weston County Primary School (JM&I), Islington, from September 1971 to September 1972, a school which I understand is well known for the success of the 'progressive' teaching methods introduced there. At the time of giving evidence to the Inquiry Mrs Burnett was also a Governor of Islington Green County Secondary School. As a teacher, Mrs Burnett had five years' experience of teaching at a voluntary grammar school aided by the Authority, though she was not so employed at the time of the events covered by this Report.

147. Mrs Burnett knows the area well. She lives within walking distance of the school and has two children attending a local primary school.

She is a sincere and conscientious person who worked hard as a Manager for the school during her period of Chairmanship, which lasted until her resignation for personal reasons in February of 1975.

Mrs Valeria Fairweather

148. Mrs Fairweather also had experience as a manager prior to her appointment to the new Managing Body in September 1973. She had been a member of the previous Managing Body of the William Tyndale Schools from 1971. She had also been a Manager since 1971 of Laycock Junior Mixed and Infants School, being the Vice-Chairman of that Managing Body from 1971 to 1972 and Chairman from 1972 to 1975. She lived locally and, at the time of the Inquiry, she had one child at William Tyndale Infants School and one child in the nursery there. She has never been a member of any political party; though her husband, Mr Jeffrey Fairweather, is a member of the local Labour Party and is an Alderman of the London Borough of Islington. As will appear, she played a very active role as Manager and, from September 1974, as Vice-Chairman of the managers (13), in the events giving rise to this Inquiry.

Mrs Aelfthryth Gittings

149. Mrs Aelfthryth Gittings had no previous experience as a manager. She had three children, all of whom had attended one or other of the William Tyndale Schools. In the autumn term of 1973 her eldest son was at the junior school and her second son in the infants school. At the time of the Inquiry her youngest son had started in the infants school.

(12) See paragraph 143 above.

(13) Following the resignation by Mrs B. Davies as a Manager on 11 July 1974.

[page 47]

Mrs Gittings holds the Degrees of Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts and also has a Diploma in Social Science. She had been a member of the Labour Party, but was not a member at the time of the Inquiry.

Mrs Gittings took an intense interest in the affairs of the school throughout the period covered by this Report and a very active part in the events giving rise to this Inquiry.

Mrs Denise Dewhurst

150. Mrs Denise Dewhurst was the Parent Manager for the junior school from 1 September 1973 to 31 July 1974. She had no previous experience as a manager, and was not a member of any political party. At the time of her appointment she had a daughter in the junior school and a daughter in the infants school. She resigned as a Manager at the end of July 1974 when she removed her daughter from the junior school. Her other daughter in the infants school remained there until the end of July 1975 when Mrs Dewhurst sent her to another junior school.

151. Mrs Dewhurst took her managerial duties very seriously. In order to learn about the role of managers of primary schools she attended a course for managers and governors at Morley College. In her evidence to the Inquiry she explained her understanding of the role of managers in this way:

'I left this course with a feeling that managers were supposed to be actively involved with the school, should show continuing interest and support, and attempt to participate in the life of the school very much more often than one annual visit for sports day.'

152. There is no doubt that the junior school deteriorated quite rapidly during the autumn term. There were several causes for this.

Staff difficulties

153. In the first place the school lacked the firm guidance and control of a permanent head teacher. It is unfortunate that, although Mr Head had announced in May 1973 that he would be resigning his post at the end of the summer term, it was not possible to replace him until the appointment of Mr Terry Ellis to take effect from the beginning of 1974. As will appear, this delay occurred because there were not enough candidates of the right calibre when the post was first advertised whom the managers felt able to put forward to the Authority for final interview, and the post had to be re-advertised.

154. There were many staff difficulties arising from shortage of staff and staff absences, and in one case from inexperience. These problems were compounded by differences of a personal nature and of educational approach between some members

[page 48]

of the staff, and also by an increased element of Union activity which, though in conformity with official Union policy, led to administrative difficulties in the running of the school. In addition, Mrs Chowles, as Acting Head Teacher, felt that the staff had little confidence in her and that they showed it by a general lack of co-operation and of sympathy with her in the caretaker job that she was trying to do. These are some of the difficulties that she had to face:

(i) Miss Stephanie Richards, the young probationary teacher in her first appointment, had considerable difficulties in trying to cope with the first year class for whom she was class teacher. It contained several highly disturbed children, and she was frequently absent from school.

(ii) Responsibility for the other first year class was shared between the two part-time teachers Mrs Margaret Hercules and Mr Peter Wetz (14). This class suffered, not only in the lack of a single teacher to care for it, but also from a lack of coordination between the two teachers in their handling of the class and the teaching methods that they employed. The problems for the class were aggravated by the complete disappearance of Mrs Hercules from 20 November 1973, when she reported sick and subsequently went to Australia without giving any notice to the school or to the Authority that she had gone. (Mrs Hercules did not reappear before the end of term or at the beginning of the Spring term 1974, and her contract of employment was eventually terminated in the middle of January 1974). Attempts had to be made, at a time when there were acute teacher shortages, to find supply teachers to take Mrs Hercules' place.

These difficulties with the first year classes affected not only the quality of the teaching being given to the children, but also led to a deterioration in discipline as well as to frequent administrative problems with which Mrs Chowles had to try to cope. In addition, the difficulty of finding substitute teachers for the first year children at short notice caused a certain amount of disruption among other classes whose teachers had to look after these children in addition to their own class pupils.

(iii) Mr Haddow, who was new to the school that term, and responsible for one of the fourth year classes, was appointed Acting Deputy Head Teacher by Mr Buxton, the District Inspector, within three weeks of the beginning of term. It very soon became apparent that Mr Haddow's approach to teaching and to the running of the junior school was very different from that of Mrs Chowles. Although he did not challenge her position, he made his own attitudes plain. It appeared to Mrs Chowles that some of the staff, notably Mrs McWhirter, Miss Green and Miss Richards allied themselves more with him than with her in her attempt to run the school in the way she thought it should be run pending the appointment of a new head teacher. To give one example, Mr Haddow, acting apparently on behalf of the rest of the full-time staff, and in the light of the newly adopted policy of the National Union of Teachers, that teachers need not undertake lunch duties if they did not wish to do so, informed Mrs Chowles that the staff would no longer undertake such duties. It is to be noted

[page 49]

that the Union policy was not that its members should not undertake lunch duties, but that they need not do so. Mrs Chowles, as Acting Head Teacher, nevertheless had to remain on the premises and, as the school already had its full quota of lunch supervisors, she had to make up for the lack of staff assistance by spending money from the school's resources in order to employ further supervisors.

(iv) Mr Haddow also began to make his presence felt in an unsettling way on the general running of the school by the introduction, at the outset of his appointment, of weekly class council meetings for his fourth year class. There was nothing wrong with this innovation in itself, though such class councils are more commonly found in secondary schools than in primary schools. Some of the 'resolutions' passed by the children in their class councils were well thought out and constructive, such as those relating to the need for more equipment and staff, and to subsidies for children on school outings who could not otherwise afford them. Other 'resolutions', such as those expressing views about their entitlement to eat sweets in school time and of their dislike of certain school rules and the holding of school assemblies, were not likely to be regarded as 'constructive' by some of the staff. The resolutions of these class councils as relayed by the children to Mrs Chowles in her capacity as Acting Head Teacher were often disturbing, particularly having regard to her temporary overall responsibility for the school. According to her, the children's discussions led to representations principally concerned with their 'rights' within the school. According to Mrs Chowles, these representations were put to her in a very peremptory form. Whether this is so or not - and it appears that Miss Hart received similar representations from Mr Haddow's children without being offended by the manner in which they were put - the timing of the introduction of such class councils by Mr Haddow, and the way in which he permitted the children to convey their views to Mrs Chowles and Miss Hart on aspects of the organisation of the two schools, were ill-judged, in my view.

155. A number of witnesses have spoken about the shortage of equipment in the school both during the time when Mr Head was Head Teacher there and during the autumn term of 1973 up to the time of Mr Ellis's appointment in January 1974. I record the effect of such evidence in this summary way because there is little value in detailing at this stage the categories of equipment which, it was said, the school lacked. In addition, I have no firm evidence enabling me to determine whether the junior school was significantly worse off in this respect than other primary schools in similar areas of inner London at that time.

Insufficient support from the Authority's Inspectorate

156. Not only was there the interregnum in the head teachership of the junior school, but there was also a serious and long break in the attention given by the Authority's Inspectorate to the affairs of the school. Mr Buxton, the District Inspector, had been appointed additionally Staff Inspector for Mathematics on 1 September 1973. He continued to combine the two posts until 1 March 1974 when Mr Donald Rice replaced him as District Inspector.

[page 50]

157. Mr Buxton's additional responsibilities in the Autumn of 1973 and early 1974 left him with very little time for the schools in his District. His own evidence to the Inquiry was that his visits to the junior school were pretty sparse and that it was an unfortunate gap. Indeed, he was not even able to guarantee in evidence that he had visited the school more than once in the Autumn of 1973; and such knowledge as he had of the school came entirely from the information given to him by Mrs Chowles.

158. Thus, at a period when the junior school needed the particular attention and support of the Authority's Inspectorate, it did not receive it. The lack of contact between the Inspectorate and the junior school is well illustrated by the fact that the report prepared by Mr Buxton in May 1973 (15), which spoke so well of the school, was merely reissued in the same terms in November 1973 on the readvertisernent of the post of head teacher for the school (16). By the time the state of this school and the morale of some of the staff had changed considerably for the worse.

The Infants School

159. I refer to the infants school in a section of its own in this chapter only to record that, on the evidence given to the Inquiry, it was functioning well and that the relations among the infants school staff, and between them and the managers and parents of children at the school, were good. However, there does not appear to have been any particular move to greater liaison between the two schools this term. Mrs Ranasinghe, one of the junior school teachers, had been appointed at the beginning of term to a scale three post with special responsibility for liaison between the schools; but that appointment led to no improvement in liaison.

The appointment of Mr Terry Ellis
as Head Teacher of the Junior School

160. The Head Teacher's post was first advertised by the Authority in about May 1973 shortly after Mr Head had announced his intention to resign at the end of the summer term. Mr Terry Ellis, then Deputy Head Teacher of Charles Lamb Junior Mixed School in Islington, applied for the post. In July he and three other applicants (of whom Mrs Chowles was not one (17)) were interviewed by the then Managers of the school. The managers were unable to select three out of the four candidates for final interview by the Appointment of Head Teachers Section of the

(15) Chapter II, paragraph 104 above.

(16) See paragraphs 160-161 below.

(17) See paragraph 129 above.

[page 51]

Staff and General Sub-Committee of the Authority (18), and they recommended therefore that the post should be re-advertised nationally.

161. It was re-advertised after the start of the autumn term 1973. This time there were 19 applicants for the post including Mr Ellis again, and also Mrs Chowles. On 12 November 1973 the newly appointed Managers, with Mrs Burnett in the chair and with Mr Buxton and Mr N. Kalber, the Deputy Divisional Officer, present, interviewed seven of the applicants, including Mrs Chowles and Mr Ellis. Of the seven, the managers recommended Mr Ellis and two of the other candidates, neither of which was Mrs Chowles, for final interview by the Authority's Appointment of Head Teachers Section. It is noteworthy that the managers, in putting forward the names of the three applicants for final interview, indicated to the Authority that they did not wish to make any recommendation for appointment. The Appointment of Head Teachers Section interviewed the three applicants on 20 November 1973, with Mrs Burnett present representing the managers. The Section appointed Mr Ellis to the post, from 1 January 1974, following his resignation of his post of Deputy Head Teacher of Charles Lamb School at the end of the year.

162. Mr Ellis was aged 35 at the time of his appointment as Head Teacher of the junior school. He had some 13 years' teaching experience following a general studies course at King's College, University of London, leading to the award of a BA Degree. For the first two of his 13 years teaching he had taught in France as an English language assistant. After that he had had about six years' teaching experience, principally in primary schools in the London area, until his appointment as Deputy Head Teacher of Charles Lamb School, which appointment he held for three years from September 1968 to August 1971. For a further year he was the Acting Head Teacher of the same school, reverting to Deputy Head Teacher in September 1972 when the school was reorganised as a Junior Mixed and Infants School. According to Mr Buxton's evidence to the Inquiry, he did a good job as Acting Head Teacher of Charles Lamb School.

163. In the first three years of his Deputy Headship of Charles Lamb School Mr Ellis studied on a part-time basis for, and obtained, a Diploma in Primary Education at the Institute of Education of the University of London. He also undertook in the Spring of 1973 a short Primary School Management Course - 'Training for Headship'.

164. Mr Ellis, like Mr Haddow, was very interested in and had some experience of cooperative or team-teaching. As part of his course for his Diploma in Primary Education he had written a thesis on team-teaching based on a scheme of teaching that he had introduced and was responsible for co-ordinating at the Charles Lamb School. This scheme, in which he co-ordinated a team of five teachers responsible for 135 children, appears to have had some success. Mr Buxton's view was that it had worked well, and Mr Philip Clark, the then Headmaster of Charles Lamb

(18) See Chapter 1, paragraphs 81-82 above.

[page 52]

School, spoke very highly in evidence to the Inquiry of Mr Ellis's abilities in introducing and running it.

165. Having regard to what happened at the William Tyndale Junior School after the appointment of Mr Ellis, it is of interest to note how he described, in his application for the post, his concept of the function of a primary school. He put it in this way:

'My whole teaching experience has been concerned with London children and has led me to the belief that the primary school in an urban situation should interest itself in the wider aspects of the life of its pupils, beyond the narrower meanings of the term 'educational'. A school should be made aware of itself as part of a larger community and try to forge links with it, while remaining aware of both the limitations of such activities and a school's function of ensuring that important basic subjects are taught with efficiency.

School activity should have a total meaning, balanced, coherent, and making sense to both those who teach and those who learn, and it would seem that some form of cooperative teaching situation is the most efficient method of carrying this out, and ensuring harmony among teaching staff.'

'Mr Ellis is a likeable enthusiastic teacher, always ready to experiment. He maintains constant interest among his pupils in an apparently somewhat chaotic environment. He came to the school as a fairly young deputy and quickly made his mark. A sincere and forthright character, he has formed excellent relationships with the staff, in a period of acting headship, they were friendly and united under his leadership. Sometimes blunt with parents, he is nevertheless accepted in this difficult social area.

As a head he might lack something in tact and organisation at first, but he has considerable potential and will certainly develop well.'

(19) The Authority's practice is to disclose to candidates for teaching appointments and headships the reports prepared upon them by the Inspectorate. One of the advantages claimed for such disclosures is that it enables the candidate who is not going about his or her job in the right way, as viewed by the Inspectorate, to recognise his or her shortcomings and to do something about them.

[page 53]

'reasonably good in the classroom', and he obviously did not wish to hinder his chances of advancement.

168. This introduction to Mr Ellis would not be complete without some account of the impression that he gave Mr Buxton when interviewed by the managers in November 1973. It appears from Mr Buxton's notes of the interview that Mr Ellis made a good impression and appeared to be a quiet, interesting and balanced individual with some flashes of humour and 'perceptive' on social and educational aspects. He appeared to have a sound knowledge of the area in which the schools were situated, and, although some question was raised about possible difficulties of dealing with the increasing number of 'middle class' parents coming into the area, Mr Ellis does not appear to have indicated that he regarded that as any specific problem.

169. In the course of his interview with the managers Mr Ellis mentioned his experience of and interest in team-teaching, but emphasised that any decisions about methods of teaching to be adopted at the school should be made jointly with the staff. Nevertheless, he made clear that he regarded the position of a head as being 'the last line of responsibility', obviously a variant of the well-known expression 'the buck stops here'. He indicated a wish to involve the parents of children at the school more fully in the school's activities; and when tackled with the reference in Mr Buxton's Report to his lacking 'something in tact', he responded by saying that bluntness could often be the best form of communication.

170. Following the notification of his appointment, Mr Ellis made some visits to the school towards the end of the autumn term in order to meet the staff and to get to know the school generally. However, it was not until he took up his appointment in the new term that he was able to familiarise himself with the teaching organisation of the school and the various problems that it faced.

Comments on the term

171. Whatever may have been the hidden shortcomings of the junior school whilst Mr Head was its Head Teacher (20), it underwent a considerable change for the worse during the autumn term of 1973. For the reasons that I have summarised in this chapter Mr Ellis found a very different school on his arrival in January 1974 from that which had been described in such enthusiastic terms in Mr Buxton's report of May 1973 (21).

(20) See Chapter II, paragraphs 105-106 above.

(21) See Chapter II, paragraph 104.

[page 55]

When Mr Ellis learned by chance in early January where Mrs Hercules had gone he decided (1) that her employment at the school should be terminated. For the remainder of the term that first year class had to be taught by Mr Wetz, who continued to work part-time (2), and a number of supply teachers. This was still very unsettling for the children and required urgent action, particularly since Mr Wetz was due to leave at the end of the term to take up a full-time post at the Isledon Teachers' Centre, Islington.

176. Mrs Walker, who had about 80 pupils with reading difficulties drawn from all classes in the school, continued to attend each afternoon to give remedial reading tuition.

The resources of the Junior School

177. For the school year 1973-1974 the junior school had been allocated a school allowance (3) of £1,400 plus an additional sum of £2,600 recommended by the District Inspector, making £4,000 in all. Of this sum, it had been decided prior to the autumn term 1973 to use £2,400 for the engagement of part-time teaching staff. After the allocation of other sums for non-teaching staff and secretarial assistance, about £1,500 were left, which the Head Teacher, in consultation with the staff, could apply under the Authority's Alternative Use of Resources Scheme ('AUR') (4) to the purchase of whatever resources in the form of equipment or otherwise which it was considered would be most beneficial to the school.

178. During her period as Acting Head Teacher Mrs Chowles had been careful to spend no more than about a third of the AUR money, namely about £500 (over £200 of it was spent on books), thus leaving Mr Ellis with about £1,000, plus a new head teacher's allowance of £200 to which he was entitled, to cover the remaining two terms of the school year.

179. Mrs Chowles's action in not making more immediate use in the autumn term of 1973 of the AUR money to obtain the earliest possible value to the school of available funds was entirely proper in the circumstances. It would have been wrong of her, even after full consultation with the staff, to have committed the school to expenditure of which the incoming head teacher might have disapproved. Neverthe-

(1) Notwithstanding that Section 24(1) of the 1944 Act and Rule 8(c) of the Rules of Management (see Appendix VII to the Report) reserve the question of termination of an assistant teacher's appointment to the Authority.

(2) Mr Wetz had other commitments. Since 1 September 1973 he had been seconded by the Authority to work on a part-time basis as an advisory teacher at the Isledon Teachers' Centre.

(3) See Chapter II, paragraph 116 above.

(4) See Glossary.

[page 56]

less, the effect of her necessary decision was to aggravate the lack of equipment which, it was suggested in evidence at the Inquiry, had been a feature of this school for some time (5).

180. Mr Ellis thus found on his arrival, in addition to the staffing problems, a poorly equipped school; and he had to spend a good deal of time attempting to obtain equipment, some of which was unobtainable, and some of which was very slow in coming.

The junior school staff as a
policy making body

181. Mr Ellis claimed (6) in evidence at the Inquiry that he was firmly of the view that the educational aims and teaching methods of a school should be determined by the teaching staff as a whole, and that, if possible, there should be full agreement among the staff about such matters. From the start he introduced regular staff meetings at which the teachers were encouraged to, and did, discuss the educational direction that the school should take. He made it clear that the staff could speak freely at these meetings, and they did so in a way that had not been possible when Mr Head was there.

182. This new approach was welcomed by all of the staff at the outset, including Mrs Chowles, who had found the previous system of decisions being taken by Mr Head and given to her to retail to the staff most unsatisfactory. Mrs Walker also welcomed these staff discussions and entered into them with enthusiasm.

183. However, apart from the introduction just before half term of what turned out to be an abortive reading group scheme (7), the staff discussions during this term did not lead to a single collective decision of any significance relating to the educational aims or organisation or teaching methods to be adopted in the school. They degenerated early on into a series of heated philosophical debates in which the discussion ranged from the subject of teaching methods to more fundamental questions such as the functions of schools in society and the structure of society itself, its evils and the need for changes.

184. In these debates, the line of which Mr Ellis appears to have encouraged, the main protagonists on each side were Mr Haddow and Mrs Walker. In brief, and at the risk of over-simplification, Mr Haddow was for radical change to a less

(5) See Chapter III, paragraph 155.

(6) I use the word 'claimed' because Mr Ellis, in the course of his evidence, indicated that he was not averse to adopting pre-staff meeting tactics to ensure that his own view prevailed on issues upon which he had very strong views.

(7) See paragraphs 207-216 below.

[page 57]

formal teaching system where the children had a much greater say in their learning and in the way in which the school itself was organised; whereas Mrs Walker maintained that there should be a firm direction of the children's education so as to teach them the basic skills and equip them properly for the next stage of their development and education. Mr Haddow was supported by Mr Ellis and, in the main, by Mrs McWhirter, Miss Green and Miss Richards. Mrs Walker, although not supported in the same sense by the other full-time members of the staff, namely Mrs Chowles, Mrs Ranasinghe and Miss Fox, tended to represent more nearly their views, but she usually did so in a somewhat dogmatic way. Thus, the staff was divided roughly down the middle.

185. In discussion of such fundamental issues, political views inevitably intruded. Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis tended to put their arguments in the context of the needs of 'the working classes' and with the failure, as they saw it, of society and, in particular, of the system of education, to provide adequately for them. According to Mrs Walker and Mrs Chowles, Mr Haddow's theme was that he aimed to change society through the children whom he taught, and to raise the consciousness of 'the working classes' to their rights through that medium. Mr Haddow, however, denied in his evidence to the Inquiry that he had ever expressed that view, and maintained that he had always considered that an educational system is conditioned by the society in which it is set. Mr Ellis, according to his own evidence, had considered at one time that it was possible to change society through the children whom he taught, but said that, over the years, he had gradually come to the conclusion that it was not possible. On all the evidence put before me relating to these discussions, I am satisfied that both Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis were urging in their staff discussions the need to consider the system of teaching adopted by the school as a vehicle for social change. Whether or not this was a correct approach, Mrs Walker and Mrs Chowles were suspicious of, and impatient with, the introduction of such political and philosophical generalisations into staffroom discussions which were supposed to be about the educational aims and methods of the school. For their part, Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis were intolerant of what they regarded as out of date assumptions on the parts of Mrs Walker and Mrs Chowles about the role of a teacher in modern society.

186. Mrs Walker has been cast by some in the role of an arch-traditionalist in teaching methods. She claimed, and sought to demonstrate by reference to her own education, training and experience (8), that she was no stranger to what has been called a progressive approach to teaching. However, it is clear that she is a woman who had developed firm ideas and felt very great concern, long before the arrival of Mr Ellis at the school, about modern trends in teaching aims and methods throughout the country. Mrs Walker was, and is, convinced that the function of a junior school education is to equip children with the basic skills which they can then go on to use in their secondary school education and in their adult life as tools for making their way in society and forming their own judgements about it. Her view is that without the ability to use such skills a child is deprived of the main stimulus

(8) See Chapter III, paragraphs 139 and 140 above.

[page 58]

to learn and to develop his own interests and abilities. Such basic skills, in her view, cannot be taught to children without a well-defined and disciplined system of teaching in which the children are firmly directed by the teacher. Whether Mrs Walker's view is right or not, it had, and has, clearly become something of a hobbyhorse for her.

187. Thus, instead of the newly instituted system of regular staff meetings producing a consensus among the staff, there quickly emerged a sharp division of opinion which the discussions, by their very generality, appear only to have aggravated. Mr Haddow very soon showed himself to be the most dominant of the faction who advocated their responsibility to teach children not to be conditioned by society but to think and judge for themselves. Although his views were shared by Mr Ellis, the pace appears to have been set by Mr Haddow, who, as time wore on, influenced Mr Ellis and those of the staff who sympathised with his views to adopt more extreme positions. Similarly, Mrs Walker, on her side, became more strident and more extreme in the way in which she advocated what sounded to some of the staff like a very formal approach to junior school teaching. Her stridency and growing impatience with the view of Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis proved, within a very short time, to be counter-productive to her case. Those whom she was seeking to persuade would no longer listen to her, and those, like Mrs Chowles, who sympathised in general with her approach, were embarrassed by the way in which she repeatedly tried to force her views upon the staff.

188. The result of all this was that, with the one exception already mentioned, of the reading groups introduced just before the end of term (9), the school's staff did not adopt any common policy on educational aims or methods or discipline. Each teacher continued as before to follow his or her own individual teaching and disciplinary methods.

189. The discord thrown up by the staff discussions had a bad effect upon Mrs Chowles, and it put her in a very difficult position as Deputy Head Teacher. Not only did the staff meetings fail to produce any distinct educational policy as to the school's aims and teaching methods upon which the whole staff could agree, but they soured staff relations and affected the daily running of the school.

190. Mr Ellis, despite his declared belief that matters affecting the school should be decided openly and by the staff as a whole, tended to associate himself more and more with Mr Haddow and those members of the staff who shared Mr Haddow's views. This created a difficult atmosphere especially for Mrs Chowles, who felt that, as Deputy Head Teacher, she should have been involved more than she was by Mr Ellis in the running of the school. She also felt for a time that Mr Haddow was for practical purposes usurping her position as Deputy Head Teacher. These difficulties coupled with two periods of absence that she had to take that term due to sickness, gave Mrs Chowles a sense of isolation. She responded by withdrawing into her own classroom and devoting her full energies to class teaching.

(9) See paragraphs 207-216 below.

[page 59]

191. Mr Ellis does not appear to have been unduly concerned by Mrs Chowles's reaction in concentrating most of her attention to her own class. In his evidence to the Inquiry he made it clear that he saw no significant role for her as Deputy Head Teacher now that he had introduced what purported to be a collective staff responsibility for deciding the policy and running the school.

The Junior School -
The Secondary Transfer Process

192. In the early part of the term Mr Ellis, with Mrs Ranasinghe and Mr Haddow, the fourth year class teachers, had to make arrangements in accordance with the Authority's 'banding' scheme for the transfer of the fourth year pupils to secondary schools in the coming Autumn. This entailed the preparation of a report on each child assessing provisionally, as above average, average or below average, his or her overall attainments in verbal reasoning, English and Mathematics. After such reports had been prepared, the Authority's standard tests in the same subjects were given to the same children. These tests, which the children took anonymously, were not to assess their individual attainments. They were to enable Mr Ellis to check, and alter if he thought fit, his provisional assessments in the secondary transfer reports in the light of common standards applicable to all primary schools in the Inner London Area. These common standards were determined by the Authority on the advice of the National Foundation for Educational Research on the basis of the information of the scores achieved in such tests by primary schools throughout London.

193. The grouping of the fourth year children which this exercise produced in the Spring term 1974 was as set out in the following schedule, the final banding percentages appearing in Column 6:

These figures suggest that, notwithstanding the difficult area in which the school was situated and the recent problems of the autumn term 1973, the education that had been provided to these fourth year children over the previous 3½ years was well

[page 60]

within the average for such a junior school. It would have been more satisfactory no doubt to see a higher proportion than 16.4 per cent in the above average band, and a lower percentage than 29.5 per cent in the below average band, but the percentage of 54.1 per cent for the average band was reasonably satisfactory. Looking at education in inner metropolitan areas it is essential always to have constantly in mind the realities of the various pressures on the education system. On that basis - looking at primary school education in inner London as it is, and not as an ideal of what it should be, these figures are reasonably satisfactory.

The Junior School -
Mr Haddow's Class Options Scheme

194. About the end of February 1974, just after the half term, when the secondary transfer reports had been completed, Mr Haddow decided to make some radical changes in the teaching of his own fourth year class. He decided to introduce a system of class options which gave his pupils - all aged about 10 to 11 - a very wide choice as to how they would spend their day at School. As events turned out, this innovation had serious repercussions throughout the school; and, in my view, was the initial cause of the considerable parental discontent which began to grow towards the end of this term and the beginning of the summer term.

195. Mr Haddow took this course after discussing it with Mr Ellis and obtaining his agreement. However, Mr Haddow did not, prior to its introduction, discuss it or even inform the staff as a whole of his intentions at one of their regular staff meetings. Mrs Chowles, for example, only learned of Mr Haddow's class options scheme when it started. It is surprising that Mr Haddow made, and that Mr Ellis allowed him to make, so radical a change in teaching arrangements without first consulting the staff as a whole. I say that for two principal reasons:

(i) with their respective teaching experience, both Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow must have known that so fundamental an innovation in the teaching of one class was bound to affect directly and indirectly the teaching of other classes in the school; and

(ii) both Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow have always maintained a firm belief in the principle that the teaching policy of a school should be one to which its staff as a whole should work so as to ensure a consistency of approach in the teaching of the children. Having regard to the nature of the regular staff discussions that had taken place, both men must have known that this was an innovation on which there was likely to be hotly opposing views.

[page 61]

to give. It appears that this invitation produced little response from the parents though, no doubt, Mr Haddow had plenty of opportunity to inform some of the parents of what he was doing as and when he saw them in and about the school.

197. Let Mr Haddow describe in his own words (10) what his purpose was in introducing his class options scheme and what it amounted to:

'Terry Ellis and I had many educational discussions and after the half term we decided that the school would need to develop in a different way if it were to meet the demands of all the children. It was agreed that I could develop a wider approach to the curriculum within my fourth year class. With the children I decided on a range of 20 activities to be set up for them. They had the choice to move freely to the one they wished to do. I expanded these activities from the classroom into the hall outside. ... Where necessary I would intervene and give direction to the children's learning .

... Each day we would meet in the classroom, I would say what I was able to provide for that day, talk with them about what they wanted to do, give them a general discussion on how this would affect the rest of the school (eg keeping the noise level low). I had a timetable on the wall of fixtures which I provided every day, eg TV programmes, games, visits. It was a partial opting-in system for the children'. (my italics)

In addition to providing this range of options for the children, Mr Haddow expanded his teaching area, as above indicated in the passage quoted from his evidence, so as to allow some of the activities to take place outside his second floor classroom, in the corridor, and in the second floor hall.

199. Mr Haddow saw the new system as being of particular benefit to the socially deprived and emotionally disturbed children in that, according to him, they were able to develop far greater self-sufficiency in this freer atmosphere than under the more conventional classroom system that he had followed in the previous term. As to the brighter and more academic children, Mr Haddow's evidence was that they continued to work in much the same way as before, being already inclined to choose the academic options, and that they did so. He did recognise, however,

(10) Mr Haddow's proof of evidence to the Inquiry, P.85, paragraphs 4 and 5.

[page 62]

that there was a 'middle group' who did not benefit immediately from the new scheme, and who, because they lacked a wish to learn, tended to drift, choosing the easier options such as watching television films and playing table tennis. Mr Haddow accepted this as a stage through which this group of children would have to go before they became inclined to opt for more worthwhile activities, a development which he said began to take place towards the end of the summer term 1974.

200. Mr Haddow's sanguine and rather casual approach to the changes that he had introduced for his own class was not shared by some of the parents of children in that class, who noticed within a very short time a deterioration in the attitudes and behaviour of their children. These parents found their children becoming rude and unmanageable, failing to understand why their new found freedom at school was not also available to them at home. Some children, far from being stimulated by the freedom of choice that had been given to them, soon became bored and listless; others, who had been keen readers and who had enjoyed going to school lost interest in reading and expressed a dislike of the new system. However, there were also some parents who claimed to have seen a change for the better in their children since Mr Haddow had abandoned the conventional classroom techniques of teaching.

201. As I have already indicated (11), the unsettling effects of Mr Haddow's new system spread beyond the confines of his own class. In the first place, there was a great increase in activity and noise caused by children choosing and changing the options available to them whenever they felt like it in the course of the day. And, because some of the optional activities took place in the corridor and in the hall in addition to the classroom, there was a constant thoroughfare about the second floor which was evident to children in other classes and which disturbed their lessons. The other children saw the new freedom which Mr Haddow's class was being given, and they resented and reacted against the fact that they were not included in these changes. In some cases these children absented themselves from their classes and tried to join in the freer regime offered by Mr Haddow. This happened to such an extent that, in a number of cases the only way to deal with the children was to permit them to leave their own classes and join that of Mr Haddow. Significantly, Mr Haddow, in his proof of evidence to the Inquiry (12), said that, as the year progressed, he attracted children from other classes.

202. There is one particular option that Mr Haddow offered to his class, either in the spring or summer term of 1974, of which a great deal was made at the Inquiry. According to the evidence of Mrs Chowles, Mr Haddow listed as one of his options the following invitation: '"The Tigers of Destruction are stronger than the Horses of Instruction" - Discuss'. According to Mrs Walker, this option was presented to the class in slightly different terms and with a different suggestion. She said that Mr Haddow had included in his list of options: 'Do a drawing to illustrate the slogan: "The tigers of destruction are wiser than the horses of instruc-

(11) See paragraph 195(i) above.

(12) P.85, paragraph 5.

[page 63]

tion"'. On Mr Haddow's evidence to the Inquiry, however, both ladies have a muddled recollection of what they had seen. His account was that he included in a list of suggestions for art work the following quotation from William Blake's work, 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell' (13); 'The tygers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction'.

203. Whatever form this quotation or misquotation from William Blake took, it was canvassed at the Inquiry only because Mrs Walker and Mrs Chowles saw it as a revolutionary slogan and as one of the means by which Mr Haddow was seeking to indoctrinate his pupils with his own left-wing ideas. Mr Haddow, in his evidence, denied that he had any such motive in listing this quotation or misquotation as one of the class options that he was offering to his pupils. He said that he happened to be reading one evening the passage of William Blake in which the line appeared and thought that the words had a life to them which might produce some interesting drawings or paintings from the children.

204. I cannot, on the evidence before me, find that Mr Haddow put this quotation or misquotation or slogan to his class pupils with a view to indoctrinating them with any particular political belief. I doubt very much whether Mr Haddow would have expected children of 10 to 11 years old to have understood the meaning scholars of the works of William Blake would give to it. On the other hand, for that very reason, there was not much sense in Mr Haddow using a passage such as that simply to inspire children of 10 or 11 to draw or paint vivid pictures of tigers and horses.

205. Whatever Mr Haddow's reason for choosing this particular subject for illustration or discussion by his class, it seemed so inappropriate for primary school children to Mrs Walker and Mrs Chowles that they concluded it was part of his declared policy of seeking to change society through the children whom he taught (14). As a result, principally of Mrs Walker's construction of Mr Haddow's motive in using this class option and of her dissemination of her views about it to some Managers and among parents, it became one of the rumours which later began to circulate about Mr Haddow seeking to indoctrinate his pupils with extreme left-wing and/or revolutionary ideas. However, in my view, this matter was blown up out of all proportion by Mrs Walker and those who credited her construction of Mr Haddow's action in this instance. Conversely, although it became the subject matter of rumour, Mr Haddow should not be too quick to cite it as part of the conspiracy or conspiracies to make political allegations against him. Rumour and conspiracy are not the same thing; and by his unusual choice of subject for such young children, coupled with his own openly declared philosophy in the staffroom, he has some responsibility for sparking off the rumours that followed.

206. It took some time for the full significance and impact of Mr Haddow's new class options scheme to become apparent to the parents and to the managers of the

(13) Scholars of Blake describe this work, published in about 1793, as an ironic prophecy and a call to question of established values.

(14) See paragraph 185 above.

[page 64]

school. In the early stages many parents may have been somewhat wary of the change, but at least prepared to give it a try. Those Managers who had regular contact with the junior school at that time, notably Mrs Burnett, the Chairman, Mrs Dewhurst and Mrs Gittings, also do not appear to have been unsympathetic to the new venture. It was not until the end of the term and the beginning of the summer term, when a number of parents began to voice their discontent, that some of the managers began to take a closer look at what was happening and to express their own concern. In the meantime, however, the spring term saw the introduction of another important change in the organisation of the teaching in the junior school - the Reading Groups Scheme.

The Junior School -
The Reading Groups Scheme

207. As I have already mentioned (15), there was undoubtedly a reading problem in the junior school at the time when Mr Ellis took over. Out of a total of 217 on the school roll there were about 80 children who were receiving remedial reading tuition from Mrs Walker working on a part-time basis. Although Mrs Walker's work over the previous years had been successful and much appreciated by the parents whose children had been under her care, the amount of time that she, as a part-time teacher, could devote to the numbers needing her help, was necessarily very limited.

208. Mr Ellis felt that, because of the size of the problem, it was something that would have to be tackled by the staff as a whole. He also felt - and this is a part of his general approach to teaching - that, so far as possible, children with difficulties of any sort should not be segregated from other children, but catered for in the ordinary teaching arrangements made for the whole school.

209. Accordingly, in late January or early February 1974, Mr Ellis introduced to the staff discussions the idea of a reading group scheme under which, for the purpose of teaching reading and language skills, the whole school would be organised for certain set periods into groups according to reading and language ability instead of into class groups according to age. There was nothing very revolutionary in this idea; if properly organised, there was no reason why it should not have worked well. Its two principal advantages were:

(i) Each teacher would be able to concentrate upon children within a narrower range of ability and thus could use his or her teaching time more effectively than in the case of a mixed ability class. This would result in more remedial help for children in need of such help and a greater extending of the brighter children.

(ii) Having regard to the integrated day (16) method of teaching largely in use at the school, it would ensure that each child spent a regular and fixed amount of time learning reading and language skills.

(16) See Glossary.

[page 65]

One of the possible disadvantages of the scheme was that such groups, each of them spanning as they would a wider age range than found in a class grouped by age, might not be entirely successful in the case of some of the older children with learning difficulties. They might resent being grouped with very much younger children of average or above average reading abilities.

210. The junior school staff as a whole (17) welcomed the idea, and, over a period of time and several meetings, discussed how it should be put into effect. In addition, the scheme was canvassed with some of the managers who were in regular contact with the school and with the parents. Mrs Dewhurst, the Parent-Manager for the junior school, produced in February 1974, a newsletter for both schools which informed the parents of the proposed reorganisation and of the intention of the junior school staff to call a parents' meeting after half term at which the scheme would be explained. About the same time Mr Ellis arranged to have prepared and circulated to all the parents some notes of suggestions for the organisation of the scheme pointing out some of its advantages, and inviting the parents to express their views.

211. The organisation of the reading groups scheme required careful planning. Mr Ellis took the opportunity to discuss it with Miss Elisabeth Biek, the Senior Remedial Teacher for Islington, on one of her visits to the school in early February 1974. She advised him that, before such a system was introduced, some form of assessment of each child's reading standards would have to be made. She advised him to use a well known form of reading test called the 'Neale Analysis of Reading Ability', and offered to advise him on grouping and methods of teaching once the results of the test had been obtained. Mr Ellis followed her advice, though not completely, for, although he tested the reading of every child in the school, he did so using another, equally well known, test known as 'The Schonell Reading Test'. It is enough for present purposes that Mr Ellis, having tested each child in the school, was able to compile a list showing, in accordance with the test used, the reading ages of all its children.

212. The next stage was to decide on the number and ability ranges of the groups and on the teaching methods to be adopted. It was particularly important that a common teaching method should be used by the staff in order to ensure a consistency of teaching approach as between the reading groups and the ordinary class groups in which the teaching of reading and language skills would necessarily continue, if not as distinct subjects, as part of the general class teaching activities.

213. Mr Ellis invited Miss Biek to return to the school to discuss with him and the staff how the scheme should be organised. She attended a meeting there with him and the staff at the end of February, just after half term. Miss Biek's account of this meeting gives a useful illustration of the way in which matters of importance in the practical organisation of the school were dealt with in meetings of the staff at that time. Her evidence was that she found it very difficult to get down to 'brass tacks' in the discussion about the way in which the reading groups should be

(17) including Mrs Walker.

[page 66]

organised and as to the methods of teaching to be adopted for them. It appeared to her that the staff had given little thought before the meeting to the practicalities of the scheme and that they were disinclined to consider them at the meeting. Her recollection was that Mr Haddow did most of the talking for the staff, and that he kept steering the discussion into what she regarded as too general a line. While she tried to advise the staff on the practical aspects of the scheme, he appeared to be more interested in discussing such things as the advantages of an 'unstructured' as opposed to a 'structured' system of teaching, and the 'rationale' behind various methods of teaching reading. At the end of the meeting, and at a subsequent chance meeting with Mr Haddow, Miss Biek offered to return and give further help in relation to the scheme, but she was never invited to do so.

214. There is very little precise information on the scheme eventually agreed upon by the staff, certainly nothing in writing indicating the method of organisation or timetable. Such evidence as was given on the subject indicated that the school was divided up into reading groups in an ascending scale of ability and with no restriction of age within any group. Each member of the staff, including Mr Ellis and Mrs Walker, was allocated to a group. Mrs Walker had one of the groups with the lowest reading age, the intention being that she would be able to continue her remedial reading tuition, but in a much more concentrated way with that single group, rather than trying to cope with about 80 children as she had done up till then. The plan was that there should be a group reading session throughout the school at a regular time each day.

215. Towards the end of March 1973, Mr Ellis called a meeting of parents in order that he and his staff could explain the scheme and answer any questions that the parents might have. It was the first general meeting at which the parents had an opportunity to meet the new Head Teacher, and, by all accounts, it was well attended and quite a success. A number of parents queried one or two aspects of the proposals, but all the evidence indicates that the parents attending the meeting appeared to be content that the scheme should be tried and welcomed the explanation that Mr Ellis gave of it.

216. Following the meeting, the junior school staff started the reading groups scheme about one week before the end of term. There was not, and could not have been, any indication in the short time left that term how the scheme was going to work. However, the staff, the managers and parents alike finished the term with the feeling that some progress had been made in giving the school a new sense of direction and that there was a good chance that these reading groups would bring about a significant improvement in the reading in the school.

The Managers' support of the
Junior School Staff

217. In this first term of Mr Ellis's headship he and his staff enjoyed the goodwill of the Managing Body as a whole, and received a great deal of support and

[page 67]

assistance from two of the managers in particular, namely Mrs Bumett (18), the Chairman, and Mrs Dewhurst (19), the junior school Parent-Manager. Mrs Burnett was in regular contact with Mr Ellis, assisting him with many problems, particularly those relating to staffing and lack of equipment with which he had to cope on his arrival. For her part, Mrs Dewhurst set about preparing a 'William Tyndale Newsletter', which was distributed to parents in February 1974. The Newsletter contained many features which should have been of interest to parents of children at the schools and was designed to prompt them to play a greater part in both schools' activities. Mrs Dewhurst also gave a great deal of practical support to the staff in their claim along with other London teachers for a higher London Allowance (20).

218. In the early days of his headship Mr Ellis appeared to welcome the involvement of the managers in the affairs of the school, and relations between him and his staff, on the one hand, and the managers, on the other, were good. However, he exhibited early on a certain insensitivity in his way of dealing with some of them and a distinct prejudice against what he considered to be 'middle class' attitudes. For example, Mrs Gittings (21), a Manager who, like Mrs Dewhurst, was about the schools a great deal because she had a child in each of them, was mildly disturbed by the way in which Mr Ellis spoke of some of the parents. During the term she made a formal managerial visit and on more than one occasion spoke with him about some of the school's problems. The difficulties in the split first year class were still considerable, and Mrs Gittings had heard that some of the parents of those children were considering withdrawing them from the school. She suggested early in the term to Mr Ellis that he should call a parents' meeting in order to allay their fears and recreate confidence in the school. However, Mr Ellis indicated that he did not want an early meeting with the parents as a whole and, according to Mrs Gittings, showed little concern about the withdrawal of children from the first year class, saying that the parents concerned would find that other state schools had the same problems and that he did not feel that it was his function to help them ease their 'middle class consciences'.

The attention given by the District
Inspector to the Junior School

219. Mr Buxton's appointment as District Inspector ended formally at the end of February 1974. Because of the competing demands on his time resulting from his

(18) See Chapter III, paragraphs 146 and 147 above.

(19) See Chapter III, paragraphs 150 and 151 above.

(20) For an account of the work that Mrs Dewhurst did in the spring and summer terms of 1974 as part of the 'London Schools' Campaign' for a higher London Allowance and better conditions for teachers, see Chapter V, paragraph 314 below.

(21) See Chapter III, paragraph 149 above.

[page 68]

appointment in September 1973 as Staff Inspector for Mathematics and his involvement in the running of a six weeks' training course, his work as District Inspector was taken over temporarily by Mr Richard Palmer, a retired member of the Authority's Inspectorate, for two months before Mr Donald Rice took up his appointment as District Inspector on 1 March 1974. This 'stop-gap' arrangement left Mr Ellis, new in his first head teacher's post, with very little assistance or attention from the Authority's Inspectorate. Mr Buxton and Mr Palmer each visited the school briefly on one occasion only. It is true that Mr Ellis was also visited by an advisory head teacher (22), but that visit was in connection only with the position of Miss Richards, the probationary teacher.

220. Mr Rice (23) became the District Inspector and a member of the primary team of inspectors (24) on 1 March 1974. As I have already indicated (23), not only was he new to the Division, but he was also new to the Authority, having previously been employed by other local education authorities. His first visit to the school was on 1 April 1974, that is, about the time that the reading groups scheme started shortly before the end of term. It was a routine visit which, as the new District Inspector, he was making to all the 69 schools for which he was responsible in his District. According to the evidence of Mr Rice to the Inquiry, he had a general discussion with Mr Ellis about the school and about Mr Ellis's policies as a new head teacher. Mr Ellis mentioned that he was having some problems and indicated that half of his staff of eight teachers was progressive in outlook and that the other half was more traditional in approach. Mr Ellis went on to say that he wanted to free the timetable from class-based lessons and to institute vertical grouping (25) of children. Mr Ellis put forward various ideas to Mr Rice which were basically acceptable on educational grounds, but Mr Rice felt and advised Mr Ellis that, as a new head teacher, he should proceed slowly with changes and make sure to keep both Managers and parents fully informed of what he was doing.

221. It was Mr Rice's impression that Mr Ellis needed 'every possible support' in his attempts to introduce new teaching methods, and he resolved to visit the school again as soon as possible at the beginning of the following term.

The Infants School

222. There is again so little which is material to report about the infants school this term that it hardly justifies a heading of its own. However, as this is a Report on both schools, I should record that the infants school under Miss Hart's headship was continuing to function well and, so far as I can judge, to provide a sound basis

(22) See Glossary.

(23) See Chapter I, paragraphs 47-48 above.

(24) See Chapter I, paragraph 37 above.

(25) See Glossary.

[page 69]

of learning for its infant children. Relations continued to be good among the staff and between the staff on the one hand and the managers and parents of children in the school on the other.

223. Although each school now had a teacher (26) with special responsibility for liaison with the other school, new arrangements were made this term between Miss Hart and Mr Ellis to improve liaison between the two staffs. Regular joint staff meetings were planned. It is not clear when these meetings first started; it may be that they only got under way in the summer term of 1974. In addition, it was arranged that the staffs should meet for coffee during school hours so that the children would be aware that the two groups of teachers were working together. The idea was that these meetings would take place once a week in alternate schools during coffee breaks. Again, it is not clear whether these meetings were started during the spring term of 1974 or in the early part of the summer term of 1974.

Comment on the Term

224. Mr Ellis's first term of headship of the junior school was undoubtedly a difficult one for him. He had a number of problems to cope with over and above those normally to be expected by a new head teacher. He and his staff were fortunate in the help and support given to them by Mrs Burnett and some of her fellow Managers. On the other hand it is a great pity that, due to the circumstances of the changeover in the appointment of the District Inspector, Mr Ellis received so little attention and guidance from the Authority's Inspectorate during this crucial period. It was a crucial period because, within the space of the few months of his first term in the school, he radically reorganised the way in which it was administered, and he permitted and introduced respectively two fundamental changes in its organisation and teaching, namely, Mr Haddow's class options scheme and the reading groups scheme. It is a paradox that the open collective decision making by the staff that Mr Ellis introduced achieved the very reverse of that which he had intended. The regular staff discussions produced no common policy; in the main they only sharpened the division of views among the staff. With such a development it required a degree of skill, diplomacy, and leadership from Mr Ellis that he did not possess to salvage something from the collective decision making policy that he had introduced. As I have described, apart from the reading groups scheme, the policy that he adopted was a failure - so much so that Mr Haddow, one of its strongest supporters in principle, turned his back on it in practice, and decided to go his own way with his own class regardless of the views of several of his colleagues and apparently with little or no thought to the effect of his policy on the school as a whole. The troubles that were sown this term were to be reaped very early on in the summer term.

(26) Mrs Ranasinghe was still the junior school staff member responsible for liaison with the infants school.

[page 71]

Mrs McWhirter became class teacher for the first year class who had previously been taught by Mr Wetz on a part-time basis and by a succession of supply teachers. Mrs McWhirter was also given a Scale two post (1) with responsibility for coordination of the first year work in liaison with the infants school.

228. Mrs McColgan had been appointed by the managers at a special meeting held by them for the purpose at the end of the previous term, to a Scale two post with responsibility for mathematics. She is a well qualified and very experienced teacher. As to qualifications, she is a Licentiate of the Royal Academy of Music, a Graduate of the Royal Schools of Music, and holds a Teacher's Certificate acquired in 1954 from Trent Park College. As to experience, Mrs McColgan has been teaching since 1944 and, from her formal qualification as a teacher in 1954 to her appointment at William Tyndale Junior School, she had taught at six schools in the London area, mostly in Inner London. Although she has specialist qualifications in music she has developed her teaching interests and qualifications in other fields. Thus, in 1963 she took a day release course in modern mathematics and a further short course in mathematics in the evenings in 1971. In a curriculum vitae that she provided on the occasion of the inspection of the junior school in October 1975, just before this Inquiry started, Mrs McColgan stated that she was interested in language, in the transition from infants school to junior school, and in parent-teacher relationships.

229. Mr Buxton, who, in his capacity as District Inspector, had known Mrs McColgan at her previous schools, wrote this terse account of her for the purpose of her application for the post at William Tyndale Junior School:

'Mrs McColgan is a teacher of long experience in a number of schools. She has taught juniors but in recent years has been with infant classes. In her last school she had experience of working in a team situation, though not co-ordinating it.'

Other changes in the staff and teaching arrangements

231. Miss Fox, who taught one of the second year classes was away on unpaid study leave from the beginning of term to 21 June 1974, and her class was taken by a series of supply teachers.

232. The only other Staff changes this term were that Mrs Allen, a part-time

(1) See Glossary.

[page 72]

teacher, joined the school to work two days a week with some of the first year children, and that Mrs Opel, a guitarist, was engaged to accompany singing for the children one morning a week. In the event, Mrs Allen was absent a good deal of the time due to illness.

Policy making in the Junior School

Internal organisation of the Junior School

233. The policy of regular and frank staff discussions initiated by Mr Ellis continued, with the differences between Mrs Walker, on the one hand, and Mr Haddow and those members of the staff sharing his views, on the other, becoming more pronounced. Mrs McColgan soon demonstrated that her sympathies lay with Mr Haddow; and with her arrival the scope of the staffroom debates widened so as to include not only the general aims and methods of teaching that should be adopted in the school, but also the relations that the staff should have with each other and with Mr Ellis as the Head Teacher in the policy making and day to day running of the school.

234. Mr Haddow, with the encouragement and in some cases at the prompting of Mrs McColgan, proposed a number of innovations. Foremost among these was that for all practical purposes the position of the Head Teacher should be abolished and that all the decisions in the running of the school should be taken by the whole staff acting as a cooperative body. Other proposals - some put forward more seriously than others - were that the chair at staff meetings should be taken by each member of the staff in rotation, that all members of the staff should be paid the same irrespective of the scale of their appointment, and that the Head Teacher should no longer have his own room. There were also proposals, apparently aimed at bringing about closer relations between the staff and children, and at removing barriers between them which had hitherto been accepted as a normal feature of the different positions in school life between the teaching staff and the children whom they taught. To this end it was suggested that the staffroom should no longer be reserved solely for the staff and that children should be free to use it if they wished and also that the children should be allowed to use the staff lavatories.

235. Although Mr Ellis was prepared to accept, and indeed welcomed, a good deal of democracy in the running of the school, some of these proposals, though aired, did not get very far. By and large, decisions concerning the school were made by the staff in committee fashion with each member of the staff taking the chair in turn and by putting matters to a vote. However, where (as often happened) any individual member strongly disagreed with any majority decision affecting his or her own teaching or conduct, that member was not regarded as bound by the decision. The suggestion of 'equalisation' of salaries never went beyond discussion, nor that concerning the abolition of the Head Teacher's room; Mr Ellis kept his own room.

[page 73]

236. As to the proposals for the use of the staffroom and staff lavatories by children, these were accepted by some of the staff and vigorously opposed by others. In the event, despite the clear objections from some teachers, particularly Mrs Chowles, some children, either uninvited or at the invitation of certain members of staff, used the staffroom during the morning, lunchtime and afternoon break periods, and also used the staff lavatories. As a corollary of this move to break down school 'status' barriers between staff and children, some of the teachers, notably Mr Haddow and Mrs McWhirter, made a point of spending their morning and afternoon break periods with the children, taking their coffee in the hall or anywhere about the school premises where a group of children happened to be.

Educational Aims and Objectives

237. The way in which Mr Haddow had given practical expression to his views with his own class and the effect that it was having upon the teaching and discipline of the school as a whole (2) served only to increase Mrs Walker's and Mrs Chowles's concern as the summer term wore on. But the effect upon them was different. Mrs Walker became more vehement in her arguments and criticisms of what she regarded as a serious deterioration in the educational and disciplinary standards of the school. Any possible meeting point between her and the faction led by Mr Haddow now became totally impossible. As to Mrs Chowles, she felt that Mr Ellis was being unduly influenced by Mr Haddow and that he tended to turn more to him than to her, as Deputy Head Teacher, for advice. Although she made plain her attitude to the various matters discussed in the staff meetings, she did not crusade against the opposite view as Mrs Walker did. She contented herself by concentrating upon her third year class, teaching it in her own way, and preserving her own discipline irrespective of what was happening in the rest of the school.

238. Mrs Ranasinghe also kept very much to her own 'structured' teaching approach with her fourth year class. Miss Fox, the only other teacher who does not appear to have sympathised with the more free approach to teaching and discipline favoured by the majority of the staff, did not figure in the policy making discussions during this crucial period since, as already mentioned, she was absent on study leave for a large part of the term.

239. In the staffroom discussions that took place this term Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow and those members of the staff sympathising with their views were clearly anxious to introduce fundamental changes in the approach to teaching and discipline throughout the whole school and not just to rest on the innovation introduced by Mr Haddow for his own class. Their reason for wanting this change in direction was to give children, particularly those from deprived backgrounds and/or who were of low academic attainments or had disturbed personalities, scope to express and to develop their own personalities in their own way and at their own pace. To attempt to teach such children the basic skills in a direct and conventional way, so it was argued, would fail and would do nothing to meet the more important task of developing the children's personalities and social awareness so that they could

(2) See Chapter IV, paragraphs 194-206 above.

[page 74]

think for themselves and make their own decisions about life and learning. Such a method, it was claimed, would lead naturally to a reduction in disciplinary problems, and would arouse the children's interest and wish to learn the basic skills in their own time and at their own pace. The practical manifestation of such an approach would be the freeing of the school from a classroom structure and the replacement of it with a much more fluid arrangement in which groups of teachers would work as teams, each team being responsible for a large group of children, guiding and encouraging the learning of the children in their group in an informal way. There would be no timetable, the children would be largely free to choose for themselves from a wide range of activities, including the basic skills, what they wanted to do, and the team teachers would move freely among the group giving attention and encouragement to small numbers of children and individual children as the need arose. It would also be the aim that each child should receive some tuition in the basic skills on a fairly regular basis, but the regularity and the method of approach would depend upon the team teachers' assessment of the child's willingness and ability to cope with such learning activity.

240. This approach, if I have summarised it correctly, represents what many teachers describe as a form of 'progressive' teaching. It has the element of cooperative or team teaching; it is 'child-centred' (3). It also involves what has been described in evidence to the Inquiry as a 'non-frontal' teaching approach, by which I understand that the teacher does not try to force a child to learn when the child is unwilling or unenthusiastic to do so, but indirectly and over a period of time arouses the child's interest so that he or she gradually develops an interest and a wish to learn.

241. The success of such an approach must depend upon a number of factors, among the most important of which are: the competence, experience and personalities of the teaching staff, the amount of preparation and 'behind the scenes' work that they put into organising the relaxed and fluid teaching arrangements, the learning capabilities and emotional stability of the children, the balance that is achieved between giving them a measure of freedom in the choice of their learning activities and ensuring that they are taught the basic skills to equip them for their secondary education, and also the balance between a relaxed staff-pupil relationship and maintaining discipline appropriate to children of between the ages of 7 and 11.

242. The principal complaint, by Mrs Walker and Mrs Chowles in the staff discussions, and by many who gave evidence to the Inquiry, was that Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis and those members of the staff sympathising with their approach, had become obsessed with the label 'progressive teaching', and that it had become such a dogma for them that they failed to think out carefully the practical implications of what they wanted to do and how they should set about it. In the staffroom discussions, and outside the staffroom, Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis expressed their attitudes in such a way as to suggest that they had lost all sense of balance in the changes that they wished to make. Moreover, it appeared to many that such changes were proposed principally for the benefit of certain categories of children only,

(3) See Chapter II, paragraph 103.

[page 75]

namely disturbed children and children from poor home backgrounds and those of low academic attainment. This attitude was apparent, on the one hand, in the emphasis that they placed on the children's rights of self-expression and of making their own decisions about learning in order that they could become 'self-motivated' to learn. On the other hand, it found expression in the way that they appeared to play down the importance of children learning to read and to write and to cope with basic mathematics. It was as if Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis regarded the children's learning process as something which a teacher could not or should not attempt to direct by 'teaching'. It was also an attitude which appeared to some, at any rate, to ignore the fact that primary schooling is only one stage in a child's education and that one of its most important tasks is to equip the child for the next, the secondary stage.

243. Mrs Walker, for her part, did not challenge the need for a flexible approach to primary school teaching in the sense of the teacher adapting his or her technique to the individual needs of each child. But she felt strongly, and expressed herself with increasing fervour, that, if a child between the age of 7 and 11 years is to develop to his or her full potential, there is a limit to which his or her own views about learning should be accommodated by the teacher. Put bluntly - no doubt as Mrs Walker did in staffroom discussions - her view is that it was nonsense that children of that age should have a freedom of choice as to whether and what they would learn. She felt that, although it was important to encourage the development of a child's personality and confidence at an early stage as part of the learning process, far too much emphasis was being placed by Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis on encouraging freedom of choice and self-expression on the part of children, at the expense of teaching them to read and to write and to do sums. In short, Mrs Walker's view was that a firm direction and, where necessary, discipline was required. Nor did Mrs Walker accept the argument that a more flexible approach than hers was required for the disturbed children and children from poor home backgrounds and low academic attainments for whom the junior school had to provide. Her view was that children are very often problem children simply because they cannot cope with the basic skills and because they are behind others in their class, and that if they are taught such skills very often their difficult behaviour will disappear.

244. However, just as Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis went too far in their approach, and perhaps expressed views from time to time more extreme than they held, so also did Mrs Walker, especially in the early part of the summer term, both in the way she placed too much emphasis on the need for discipline, and in the way she voiced her criticisms of Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis - in some instances crediting them with extreme educational views that they had not professed.

245. The effect of all these sharp differences of opinion was that the staff, as it was then composed, gave up any attempt to formulate an educational policy for the whole school. There was a continuation of the practice, already started in the previous term, of decisions being taken effectively, not in the regular staff meetings initiated by Mr Ellis, but by a group of the staff, the nucleus of which was usually Mr Ellis, Mr Haddow, Mrs McWhirter and Mrs McColgan.

[page 76]

246. However, despite the differences among the staff, and the increasing problems - to which I refer below (4) - resulting from Mr Haddow's class options scheme and the reading groups scheme, Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow began in May 1974 to consider changes in the organisation of the school for the following school year. In particular, they decided to introduce a cooperative or team teaching system (5) and to obtain, if possible, the assistance of a teacher who would have special responsibility for disturbed children. Consideration of these proposals had reached such a stage by 20 May 1974 that Mr Ellis was able to write to Mr Rice, the District Inspector, on that date asking, inter alia, that the scale 2 post then held by Mr Haddow for boys' games and the school journey should be re-allocated (6) and that Mr Haddow should be given a new post 'for coordination of a teaching team". Mr Ellis also asked in the letter to Mr Rice that the Authority should advertise a new scale 2 post for the school from its existing points (8), 'for pastoral care concerning children who show problems', and concluded by saying:

'The above disposition of existing points has been agreed in fullest consultation with the staff and would be in harmony with the future educational policy of this school.'

'A discussion has already taken place about the organisation of the junior school next year. In broad terms, there will probably be two fourth-year classes, a cooperative teaching situation with second and third year children, and two first year classes which will work closely together.'

The rapid deterioration in organisation and discipline in the Junior School

The causes of the deterioration in organisation and discipline

The continuing disruptive effects of Mr Haddow's Class Options Scheme and the new attitudes to the organisation and discipline in the school

247. Mention has been made in the previous chapter of the disciplinary problems that began to appear in the junior school towards the end of the spring term.

(4) See paragraphs 247 et seq.

(5) See Glossary.

(6) The post, varied so as to include responsibility for games generally as well as school journeys, was re-allocated to Miss Green with effect from the beginning of the autumn term 1974.

(7) Mr Haddow was appointed to this post with effect from the beginning of the autumn term 1974.

(8) See Chapter II, paragraphs 116-119 above.

[page 77]

The continuation and aggravation of these problems in the summer term were due not only to the disruptive effect of Mr Haddow's class options scheme on the working and atmosphere of the school as a whole, but also to the general change in attitude to the teaching and discipline and teacher-pupil relations resulting from the policies of the majority of the staff referred to in the previous section of this chapter. These matters began to have a serious effect upon the behaviour of many of the junior school children during the summer term.

The failure of the Reading Groups Scheme

248. The reading groups scheme, which had been started just a week before the end of the previous term, did not survive very long. It was suggested in evidence by Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow that it had lasted much longer, but the overwhelming weight of evidence is that the reading groups had petered out within a few weeks of the beginning of the summer term. There is support for this conclusion in Mr Ellis's own account of it given in his report to the managers at their meeting on 3 June 1974, that is five weeks into the summer term - when he informed them that:

'The new organisation was experiencing certain "teething" troubles but it was hoped that it would continue in some form in the future.' (my italics)

(i) The scheme was not planned properly. If more than one member of the staff was absent, the entire reading groups for the day were cancelled. No arrangements were made for re-allocation for the day to other reading groups of children from reading groups whose teacher was away. Moreover, the fact that Mr Ellis had undertaken responsibility for one of the groups meant that he was not available as a 'spare' teacher to take a group whenever necessary. On such occasions the children were frequently allowed out into the playground to play for the reading group period. Apart from teacher absences due to illness, this problem was aggravated by strike action that was taken on a number of days in May and June by the staff in support of an increased London Weighting Allowance for teachers.

(ii) Some members of the staff did not always use the reading group sessions to teach reading or language skills, but allowed the children to follow other activities. Mrs McWhirter, for instance, who was responsible for one of the two groups with the lowest reading ages in the school, spent some of the time with her reading group encouraging the children 'to work together socially' in such activities as playing musical instruments and cooking instead of getting down to the purpose for which the reading group was set up. Another teacher, Miss Richards, on at least one occasion, wrote up on the blackboard, 'I hate Reading Groups', and sent her reading group out into the adventure playground to play instead of using the period for language purposes.

(iii) Some members of the staff had little experience or knowledge of how to conduct reading groups, and, as Miss Biek's (9) evidence to the Inquiry suggests,

[page 78]

had not been very methodical in preparing themselves for this new scheme of teaching language skills.

The effects of the deterioration in organisation and discipline

251. Long before Mrs Walker started her campaign among the parents in June and early July 1974 (10), the effects of the changes introduced under the headship of Mr Ellis were becoming apparent to a whole variety of people connected with both schools. A great body of evidence was put before the Inquiry detailing in the most graphic terms the serious deterioration in standards of behaviour and attitudes of large numbers of the junior school children. This evidence came not only from Mrs Chowles and Mrs Walker, but also, most importantly, from a large number of parents of children at both schools, from some of the managers who were in close contact with the schools, from Miss Hart speaking on her own behalf and on behalf of the staff of the infants school, and from ancillary staff of the schools such as the dinner ladies and playground supervisors. Mr Rice, the District Inspector, with his many new responsibilities, did not have the same opportunities to observe the rapid deterioration of the school or the scale of the problem at this early stage. However, he became increasingly aware of the school's problems, particularly towards the end of the summer term.

252. Some parents noticed distinct changes in their children who, instead of becoming 'self-motivated' by the new atmosphere of freedom pervading the junior school became bored and listless. Some children, after the novelty of being able to do largely what they wanted at school had worn off, became discontented with the lack of pattern to their day, and indicated that they wished to be 'taught' again. However, it is fair to record that in the case of a few of the children there were some signs of improvement. But it was in the breakdown of discipline that the main effects of the change were felt. The new relaxed attitude to the children's behaviour at school and the attention given there to their rights to choose for themselves what they would do was often not matched at home. The children became confused in the roles that adults expected them to play. This confusion manifested itself in some cases in the form of a reluctance to accept parental discipline and to respond to it in an aggressive and abusive way.

(10) See paragraphs 259-272 and 361-369 below.

[page 79]

253. At school also the deterioration was obvious for all to see. Children defied their teachers, swore openly at them and at the ancillary staff. Some children absented themselves from class and wandered about the building and the playground during school hours. There also seemed to be an increase in aggressiveness and fighting among the children themselves. This general deterioration in behaviour took place seemingly without any real attempt being made by the majority of the junior school staff to check it. In summary, there was a general slackness in attitude among most of the staff to the serious disciplinary problems that many other people who had anything to do with the school considered were getting quite out of hand. This slackness of attitude among some of the staff also manifested itself in their frequent late arrival to work in the mornings and the afternoons.

254. Indiscipline became a major problem not only in the junior school itself but also in its effects upon the infants school. Miss Hart gave a most disturbing account of the rapid breakdown in the behaviour of the junior school children and its effect on her pupils from the end of the spring term onwards - a breakdown which it appeared to her Mr Ellis and the majority of his staff could not or would not recognise and did very little to prevent. She spoke in evidence of Junior School children constantly wandering about the building, in the playground and in the road outside, unsupervised and in class hours. She gave many instances of bad behaviour by these children which caused serious disruption to the work of the infants school; for example, throwing stones and spitting through the windows of the infants school during class periods, knocking infants' work on window ledges to the floor, throwing articles from upstairs windows into the playground, shouting and rushing about the building during class hours, bullying of infants, laughing and swearing at the teachers, and abusing the dinner ladies and playground supervisors. All this indiscipline and disturbance were on a scale that she and her staff had never hitherto experienced from the junior school. An additional shock to Miss Hart was the marked change for the worse that she observed in the attitudes and behaviour of junior pupils who had formerly been well behaved children under her care in the infants school.

255. Miss Hart's evidence is helpful in this connection because she and her staff had to bear the main brunt of the deterioration in behaviour of the junior school children from the end of the Spring term 1974 on. The sort of incidents and troubles that she catalogued to the Inquiry were also observed - necessarily to a lesser degree - by the parents of children at both schools when they were about the schools at the beginning or the end of the day and by some Managers when they visited the school. As will appear (11), because the problem became so serious and because Mr Ellis and the majority of his staff, despite Miss Hart's repeated attempts to alert him to the problem, were so disinclined to recognise or do anything about it, Miss Hart and her staff were eventually driven to seek the assistance of Mr Rice, the District Inspector, in June 1974.

256. The breakdown in discipline which followed the introduction of Mr

(11) See paragraph 354 below.

[page 80]

Haddow's class options scheme and coincided with the failure of the reading groups scheme, caused many parents considerable concern about the sort of education their children were receiving. A body of parental discontent began to build up, which at the outset largely found its expression in discussions among parents when they were leaving their children at and collecting them from the schools. As some of the managers, such as Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst, were also parents of children at the schools they inevitably shared the parental concern and became involved in these discussions. As Managers they had a duty to try and do something about it. They and others of the managers - particularly Mrs Burnett, the Chairman, who was throughout in that capacity in close contact with the schools - quite properly began to take a closer look at the way the junior school was working. The managers visiting the junior school, either in the course of their daily trips to the schools as parents or when making managerial visits, observed children walking around the halls and corridors and in the playground during class hours apparently unsupervised. Many of the classrooms (not including Mrs Chowles's or Mrs Ranasinghe's rooms) were untidy, and there appeared little evidence, in the form of books or of work on the classroom walls, of the work being done. Individual complaints from parents about their own children's behaviour and development, or lack of it, became more and more common. Mrs Burnett spoke to Mr Ellis about the growing parental concern, but he refused to admit that there was any basis for such complaints and maintained that they had come from an unrepresentative group of parents. Indeed, he seemed to resent the fact that the parents, who were not 'professional teachers', took it upon themselves to criticise in any way the teaching methods that were being adopted at the school. This reaction stemmed no doubt from the attitude, displayed by him in evidence at the Inquiry, that ultimately the teacher must decide how best to teach the children regardless of the views of the parents.

257. This increasing parental discontent, and the apparent unwillingness of Mr Ellis and the majority of his staff to recognise that there might be some justification for it or a need to reassure parents, led to a rapid deterioration in the summer term 1974 in the relations between Mr Ellis and the staff sympathetic to him, on the one hand, and many of the parents and those Managers who at that time were familiar with what was happening at the school, on the other hand. This deterioration had the following consequences:

(i) Some parents became very suspicious of and very hostile to Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow and those members of the staff who appeared to share their views.

(ii) Mrs Walker began to campaign more actively both inside and outside the school against what she regarded as a deterioration in the school's standards symptomatic of a trend of declining standards throughout the country.

(iii) Certain of the managers became very much more active than hitherto in an attempt to determine exactly what was going on in the school and to alert and persuade Mr Ellis and his staff to heed the growing body of parental discontent.

(iv) There was a breakdown in the relations between the infants school staff and the junior school staff due largely to the failure by the latter to recognise and

[page 81]

do something about the problems caused to the infants school by the indiscipline of the junior children.

259. By the latter part of May 1974 Mrs Walker, frustrated by the refusal of Mr Ellis, Mr Haddow and the majority of the junior school staff to heed the views that she had repeatedly and forcefully urged upon them in staff meetings, prepared a paper entitled 'Commentary on William Tyndale School 22 May 1974' (which I shall call in this Report, 'Mrs Walker's Commentary Paper'). The paper, which she intended to be used as a basis for discussion at a staff meeting to be held on 22 May 1974, rehearsed the views that she had already expressed so often, spoke of the damage being caused to the school, and concluded by stating that she intended to call a parents' meeting to discuss the education that the parents wanted for their children.

260. Mrs Walker handed a copy of her Commentary Paper to Mr Ellis shortly before the meeting. Discussion of it was postponed to the next staff meeting on 5 June 1975, after half term because Mrs Ranasinghe and Mr Haddow were away at the time with a party of fourth year children on a school journey in Norfolk. At the end of the meeting on 22 May 1974 Mrs Walker pinned another copy of her Commentary Paper to the staffroom notice board, but Mr Ellis shortly afterwards took it down and kept it. The following extracts from the Paper give a good illustration of Mrs Walker's views and the way in which she expressed them:

'This School is suffering from a malaise. The atmosphere is demoralising for both teachers and children, as well as cleaners, helpers, caretaker staff and visiting parents.

This state of affairs has arisen and grown progressively worse as a result of certain blindly held half-baked theories regarding education and children.

My contention is that Free Activities Methods are being seriously abused in this School. You have substituted a 'free-for-all' atmosphere of total self-indulgence, self-pleasing, do-what-you-want-for-the-moment. Chaos and anarchy are in possession. Discipline is frowned on as 'old-fashioned'. Children are being seduced to behave in ways which are detrimental to them, both in their progress in learning anything and in producing anti-social behaviour. They are growing up ignorant, selfish, rude (to the extent that even those manners they learn at home are being eroded), lazy, effete. In order to get them to do any work or make any effort you have to bribe them, cajole, persuade, threaten and spend endless time because of the unreasonableness and immaturity in which they are locked, so that the drain on adult energy and morale is out of all proportion to what is achieved.

All this is evident to anyone coming into the school (cleaners, helpers, parents)

[page 82]

but apparently the teachers are blind to it. The fault for this state of affairs is constantly placed on the home background - whereas it is almost entirely due to the school atmosphere (too true - Abandon hope all ye who enter here!) Terry Ellis is the biggest buck-passer I have ever met ...

What is most disturbing and reprehensible in all this, is that this 'experiment' in so-called educational methods is being carried out with children who will all need to earn a living for themselves, and so need all the help in acquiring skills that can be given them; who have today unprecedented rewards for achievement waiting for them if encouraged to gain them - University life ... whose parents mostly want them to get on and reap the benefits available, BUT those parents are mainly inarticulate and so you can easily take advantage of them

Brian Haddow talks of Children's Rights. What about the Right to a decent Education? - a start in life as a springboard to better things? ...

I feel these children and their parents are being poorly served by this School. I propose therefore, to call a Parents' meeting to discuss what type of education they want their children to receive. Do they want them to be experimented with in this way? I think not!

A. D. Walker'

261. The above extracts give a fair indication of the way in which Mrs Walker advanced her arguments in the staffroom discussions. She did so in forthright terms and with a lack of tact and a degree of personal abuse, that, even allowing for Mr Ellis's encouragement of free expression, could not have been conducive to any meeting of minds between her and those members of the staff whom she was seeking to persuade to her views. Her expressed intention in her Commentary Paper - which she did not in fact carry out - to call a parents' meeting herself was quite improper and particularly provocative. However serious the situation was, that was not the way that she, as a member of the teaching staff - and a part-time teacher at that - should have tried to remedy it. The paper proved to be completely counter-productive and served only to steel Mr Ellis and the members of the staff who sympathised with him against her views. It is to Mr Ellis's credit that he did not react at that stage in equally intemperate terms. On the other hand, it is unfortunate that he did not recognise the potential dangers of the attitude being adopted by Mrs Walker and the real difficulties of the school that had prompted such an extreme outburst on her part.

262. On the same day, 22 May 1974, that Mrs Walker left a copy of her Commentary Paper on the staffroom notice board she also pinned to the same notice board some newspaper cuttings on the subject of adult illiteracy and low standards in the teaching of English in schools. To these cuttings Mrs Walker attached the following short note:

'What About Combating Child Illiteracy?

This is our job and we're falling down on it at William Tyndale. Some people don't even seem to think it is important. One member of the staff wrote on her blackboard, 'I Hate Reading Groups' and sent the children out to play on the Mound instead. Among these were children who are still well behind their chrono-

[page 83]

logical reading age, and who have achieved their present reading levels through years of some considerable struggle - and hard work by the teacher as well! - in remedial classes .... Can we discuss this, please.'

263. About this time, and prior to the staff meeting on 5 June 1974, Mrs Walker was coming to the conclusion that she was unlikely to succeed in persuading Mr Ellis and the majority of his staff to her views. She decided, therefore, to approach Mr Rice, the District Inspector, and Mrs Burnett, the Chairman of the managers, to alert them to the problems of the school and to seek their assistance. In making these approaches Mrs Walker was influenced not only by her own assessment of the situation, but also by the fact that a number of parents had approached her during the first half of the summer term expressing concern about the school, in particular about the failure of the reading groups scheme and the discontinuance of remedial reading tuition.

264. Mrs Walker arranged to see Mr Rice and told him of the concern expressed by parents to her and of the bad organisation and lack of discipline that she saw at the school. She also complained to him about the teaching philosophy of certain members of the staff, and of Mr Haddow in particular. She even showed him a list that she had copied from the list of options put up by Mr Haddow on the wall of his classroom, drawing Mr Rice's attention, in particular, to the quotation or misquotation from William Blake's 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell', to which I have referred in the preceding chapter (12). In spite of the fact that her visit followed only a few days after Miss Hart had complained to Mr Rice about the disruption of the infants school due to the bad behaviour of the junior school children (13), he gave no encouragement to Mrs Walker other than that she should try to cooperate with Mr Ellis and the rest of the staff. He made plain that he could not discuss matters in the nature of complaints against members of the staff and indicated that the Authority had a special complaints procedure which had been set up for that purpose (14). According to his evidence to the Inquiry, Mrs Walker's complaints did not influence him in his attitude to the junior school staff - if anything the opposite. He was very conscious at the time that Mr Ellis was trying to introduce new teaching ideas to the school, and his reaction was to try to ensure that Mr Ellis should have as much support as possible from all his staff at such a critical time. As a result, Mrs Walker left her meeting with Mr Rice feeling that, despite her

(12) See Chapter IV, paragraphs 202-205.

(13) See paragraph 305 below.

(14) See Chapter I, paragraphs 86-89.

[page 84]

efforts to alert him, he did not appreciate the seriousness of the problem, and that nothing very much could be expected from him.

265. Mrs Walker then turned to Mrs Burnett for assistance. Over the half term (27 to 31 May 1974) she telephoned Mrs Burnett, indicating her worries about the educational methods being adopted at the school and saying that the children were becoming increasingly noisy and disruptive, that their work was suffering, and that a lot of parents had expressed concern about the way in which the school regime was affecting their children's behaviour at home. Mrs Walker also told Mrs Burnett about her Commentary Paper, saying that it had provoked no reaction and that she was therefore appealing to the managers. The only advice that Mrs Burnett gave her was that she should ask for a formal discussion of that document at a staff meeting.

266. The paper was discussed at the next staff meeting, on 5 June 1974, after the half term. It was a long meeting, lasting about three hours, and, like many previous staff meetings, it achieved nothing. Mr Ellis and some members of the staff were clearly upset about the personal attacks that had been made upon them in Mrs Walker's Commentary Paper. Mrs Walker continued to express herself in an extreme manner saying, according to Mr Ellis's evidence to the Inquiry, such things as the staff were seeking to bring about the downfall of civilisation and that Mr Haddow should go and throw bombs. Mrs Walker's proposal to call a parents' meeting set out in the last paragraph of her Commentary Paper also caused much upset. She persisted in saying that it was her intention to do so, if Mr Ellis would not, because the grievances that parents had expressed to her had to be allayed. Mr Ellis refused to call such a meeting, saying that he had received no specific complaints from parents to warrant it. He went on to remind her that she would be overstepping the bounds of professional conduct if she did call a meeting herself. Inevitably the meeting ended badly, with relations between Mrs Walker and most of the staff worse than they had ever been. And Mrs Walker - to use her own words in evidence to the Inquiry - felt that she had 'shot her bolt'.

267. After the meeting was over Mr Ellis made it plain to Mrs Walker that if she did not like the way the school was being run she could always leave and find another job.

268. Although Mrs Walker was very dissatisfied with the outcome of the staff meeting and the reception that her Commentary Paper had received, she did not give up her struggle. As already indicated, she did not carry out her threat to call a parents' meeting. She said in evidence that she had never really intended to do so, and that it was merely a way of trying to prompt a change of heart on the part of Mr Ellis and to stir him into action. When Mrs Burnett telephoned her to enquire about the staff's discussion of the Paper, she told Mrs Burnett that they had failed to reach agreement, but were going to continue the discussion at the next staff meeting. Mrs Walker was by this time, however, considering ways and means of carrying the discussion well beyond the confines of the staffroom.

269. Mrs Walker now began to concentrate her efforts on the parents of the

[page 85]

children at the junior school. She was already in touch with a number of parents who were dissatisfied with what was happening at the school. It may be that these parents, who had known Mrs Walker for a number of years and who were grateful to her for the help that she had given to their children, preferred to approach her with their worries rather than Mr Ellis who - true to Mr Buxton's assessment of him (15) - seems to have been somewhat off-hand with parents who had approached him to express their anxieties. On the other hand, from the nature of Mrs Walker's writings at the time - and there were more to come - and on the evidence given to me, I am satisfied that she took every opportunity to volunteer to receptive, and sometimes unreceptive, parents her views of Mr Ellis and some of his staff, Mr Haddow in particular. And, although I do not doubt the sincerity of her motives, I am of the view that in canvassing and purporting to represent the views of parents in the confrontation that was to come, she found a ready vehicle to continue and develop her crusade against what she regarded as a national decline in educational standards exemplified in the problems of William Tyndale Junior School. Moreover, the methods that she adopted to achieve her purpose, involving as they did canvassing and seeking the parents' support to lend strength to her criticisms of her fellow staff members, were improper and served only to aggravate seriously the already deteriorating conditions and morale of the school.

270. Mrs Walker set about preparing another paper dealing with the affairs of the junior school. In its final form it was entitled 'A Criticism Of The Free Choice Method of Education Based On Total Children's Rights As At William Tyndale Junior School'. The name that was persistently given to it at the Inquiry by Counsel, and by nearly all the principal witnesses, was 'Mrs Walker's Black Paper'. This description was no doubt prompted by what some regarded as its similarity in approach to the four papers known as 'The Black Papers', the first of which was entitled 'The Crisis in Education', edited by C. B. Cox and A. E. Dyson, published by the Critical Quarterly Society in February 1969. For the sake of convenience in identification only, I shall adopt the description used at the Inquiry and refer to it throughout this Report as 'Mrs Walker's Black Paper'.

271. I do not know when Mrs Walker first began to draft what became her Black Paper. It appears to have been the result of a number of drafts and to have been prepared originally with a more general object than that of attacking the system of education being adopted at William Tyndale Junior School. However, it is clear that it existed in some form during or shortly after the summer 1974 half term, and that it underwent a number of changes before it was put to use by Mrs Walker at the end of June and in early July 1974. In its final form it expressed her general views on educational methods, with particular reference to the conditions as she saw them at William Tyndale Junior School. It read as follows:

'A criticism of the "Free Choice" method of education based on total children's rights as at William Tyndale Junior School

Whatever the supposed merits of a total free choice environment for children in

[page 86]

school may be, it is evident that it also has some very serious drawbacks in that:

1. It is divisive in effect

(a) It divides children from parents and from parental control and home discipline.

It is the common experience of parents that their children become more difficult to deal with at home - ruder, defiant and rebellious even over such reasonable matters as bed-time. They begin to behave like 'spoiled' children because they are seeking to extend their new-found 'freedom to do as they like' at school to the out-of-school world and resent any constraints. This creates tensions and unhappiness in the home and adds to parental problems.

(b) It divides parents from teachers because there is no agreement about how the children are handled. This has a disturbing effect on the children who see that parents and teachers are at odds.

(c) It is particularly divisive for the child who is already backward in his learning because the removal of structured teaching interrupts his learning process and unsettles him.

Such a child is often taxed by his parents for not making good progress at school, and because he finds working difficult anyway he will be more inclined to seize the opportunity to 'choose' to play than the able child. So he lags behind as he gets older and the conflict between the world of home (where they want him to 'get on') and the world of school (where he can play and waste time if he wants to) is increased. He feels more and more insecure, and before long he is well on the way to becoming 'maladjusted'.

Classic examples of this can be cited in this school.

2. It fails to provide an environment for steady learning and the development of good learning habits

(a) 'Free choice' inevitably results in a more or less disorganised, haphazard state of affairs in the classroom. Muddle, noise and constant interruption of work are bad habits to acquire if you want to achieve anything.

(b) It particularly increases the level of disturbance and distraction to those children wanting to do quiet activities involving mental concentration. This frustrates their efforts and they tend to give up the unequal struggle and 'choose' to do less demanding tasks.

(c) It creates an environment in which children are enticed away from academic learning occupations to engage in easier and more amusing things, because games of all kinds are always available and go on all the time.

(d) It provides no incentive to learn. Self-motivation is often not enough for such young children, and since the link between teacher and child is looser, the sense of his work being appraised is weakened (i.e. being guided by, and having his efforts marked by the teacher). There are no rewards offered for learning other than self-satisfaction.

(e) The absence of any sense of competition in a do-as-you-please environment means that no demands are present which have to be met with effort. No goals

[page 87]

are set and there is no stimulus to achievement. It is hardly surprising that standards are lowered.

(Competition is accepted in sports of all kinds as a stimulus to effort, but for some strange reason is frowned upon in the field of learning.)

(f) A do-as-you-please set-up often degenerates into sheer boredom, because children are thrown back on to their own resources (which are often very limited) and are unable to find sufficient self-stimulus for worthwhile activities. Bored children become naughty.

(g) The child with a bent for academic learning does not have this satisfied, and it is not unusual for children to approach the teacher and ask 'Why can't we have proper lessons?' It takes a very skilful teacher indeed to provide adequate occupation and really satisfying learning situations for every child by these methods, so that boredom from idleness is a built-in risk of the method.

(h) The less intelligent child, or the less stable child who has emotional problems, or the sensitive child who cannot work in an atmosphere of noise, or the backward child who needs special help - all these are at an even greater disadvantage compared to their tougher better integrated or able schoolmates. Such children will waste even more time in the most impressionable and formative years of their lives when they should be acquiring basic skills, knowledge and a sense of achievement. Many such children do practically no work at all during their school day.

(i) This system certainly benefits the teachers, who are no longer obliged to prepare lessons, mark books, teach subjects, or even supervise the children to the same degree. Everyone has a nice, easy, relaxed time - teachers and children alike - but the teachers (who have already acquired sufficient education to fit them for their chosen profession) benefit at the expense of the pupils whose learning-time is largely wasted - and so is the taxpayers' money!

All the way up the line of further education today - the Secondary schools, the Technical Colleges and Universities - complaints are being voiced about the ever increasing numbers of ill-taught pupils whose lowered standards of literacy, numeracy and general knowledge reflect their 'lost time' and wasted years in school rather than any real inability to learn.

3. It is based on a number of fallacies

(a) The fallacy that children dislike learning under the guidance of a teacher, whereas in fact they are happiest under a good teacher who knows how to teach with imagination within a structured system in which children can gain a sense of achievement and are stimulated to their best efforts through encouragement and interest.

(b) The fallacy that children don't like discipline.

Only a fool believes that anything worthwhile can be achieved without discipline, and most children are not fools and soon perceive this - and they will even despise adults who try to sell them a contrary belief, though they may not admit it openly!

[page 88]

(c) The fallacy that 'Freedom' is something one can have and exercise without responsibility and without first having developed self-discipline, i.e. 'Freedom' is taken to mean licence. What in fact happens in this situation is that the stronger characters and bigger bullies set the trend which the rest of the children follow. They don't really choose what to do or what to learn - they just follow the fashion, and this makes nonsense of the whole theory.

The 'fashion' at present is that everybody plays table tennis instead of working - or if they don't actually play it they just stand around watching others play it!

(d) The fallacy that there is a great educational value in setting up a situation in which children can learn to choose and thereby choose to learn. The theory is that if they are never forced or coerced to learn, they will turn into good little angels who will learn everything they need to know without any effort on the part of the teacher. Here we really are in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

This assumes that children with no, or very limited, experience will learn to choose wisely for their own benefit and advancement.

It assumes that children are blessed with a desire to learn what will be useful to them in later life without having any idea what the later life will demand of them.

It assumes that children have the curiosity to reach for knowledge even when it requires effort to attain it.

It assumes that children will not succumb to the attraction of merely amusing themselves or of being just plain lazy for the rest of their time in school, but will - sooner or later - learn to choose work, effort, knowledge. If they don't choose this wise course, however, no one is to blame except the child itself. In other words, responsibility for the child's learning is entirely removed from the teacher to the pupil.

(e) The fallacy that children are all blissfully happy, or at any rate far happier, under a total free choice, do-as-you-please system in school. Many children are in fact distressed and some are deeply disturbed by it. At William Tyndale children of varying types, from the average to good workers to those who are among the 'bad boys' and backward ones, have remarked that the school 'has gone down the drain' and that they are 'fed up'.

(f) The fallacy that a do-as-you-please policy in school is somehow not the same as just 'spoiling' a child at home.

Since TIME WAS the parent who gives in to everything a child wants and lets it have its own way all the time has been universally recognised as a foolish parent who is 'spoiling' his child. By the same token, teachers who practise this approach must be considered foolish teachers.

This experiment is in any case nothing new in education. It was tried at least forty years ago in this country and has been practised on a large scale in both the USA and USSR and has been discredited. Whereas it has stood the test of time that if we are wise parents and really love our children we don't 'spoil' them.

We parents believe that the road of progress for our children is through education. Parents who never had the chance of a university place themselves can see their

[page 89]

children having that chance today if they work for it, are helped by good teaching to gain it, and are reasonably capable of reaching the required standard. The role of the good teacher was never more important than today when such wide opportunities in all fields - not only university - are open to the young generation. Our children need all the help they can get to reach their potential. We parents recognise this. That is why we are so concerned at the 'trend' in education towards withdrawing the teacher's help and leaving the children to motivate themselves in educational experiments which are no longer valid. These experiments are in any case particularly harmful and unsuitable in a so-called 'deprived' area like Islington.'

Growing managerial concern

273. As a result of the increasing indications of parental discontent, and from what they saw themselves, certain Managers began to involve themselves more actively in the affairs of the junior school in the summer term of 1974.

274. In about mid-May Mrs Burnett and a fellow Manager, Mrs Dibbs, made a managerial visit to the junior school. In the course of this visit Mrs Burnett saw what appeared to her to be signs of a lack of any firm educational structure and discipline, children wandering apparently unsupervised in the halls and in the corridors and out in the playground, and little sign of any classroom work being done or on display.

275. The other two Managers who were principally concerned at this time were Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst who, as parents of children at the schools, were there every day. They were well able to see for themselves how things were going and were in daily contact with other parents whose views they heard.

276. Mrs Dewhurst had particularly close contact with the junior school during the spring and summer terms of 1974 because she was involved in producing the William Tyndale Newsletter, and also because she took a very active part in supporting the teachers' action in support of the London teachers' claim for an increased London Allowance and better working conditions (16). Mrs Dewhurst, therefore, had a good deal of contact with Mr Ellis and the rest of his staff, in particular Mr Haddow, as well as with the parents whom she met daily. Naturally enough, the many parents who were dissatisfied with what was happening at the school spoke to

(16) See paragraphs 313-314 below.

[page 90]

her, as Parent-Manager, about their concern. Many of the matters that were worrying the parents Mrs Dewhurst could see for herself, and on frequent occasions she, quite properly, raised these matters of concern with Mr Ellis. On Mrs Dewhurst's evidence to the Inquiry, which I accept in preference to Mr Ellis's contentions about these discussions, his invariable reaction was disturbing for two reasons.

277. First, Mr Ellis tended to reject or dismiss as unimportant the matters that Mrs Dewhurst put to him, saying, for instance, that there was no more violence at his school than at any other inner London school. He also tended to play down the parents' worries about lack of teaching without really attempting to justify or explain the teaching methods of the school.

278. Secondly, Mr Ellis attempted to pass off many of the parental complaints as symptoms of a particular social class attitude. Thus, in the course of his discussions with Mrs Dewhurst on these matters, he would respond to some of the parental worries that she was relaying to him by saying: that he disliked 'trendy middle class' schools with lots of pretty pictures up round the walls; that he felt that 'middle class parents' should put up with the school as it was or get out; and even that he disliked 'pushy working class parents' who were anxious for their children to learn the three R's. Mrs Dewhurst was not alone in noticing the acute sense of class consciousness which appears to have conditioned much of Mr Ellis's (and Mr Haddow's) approach to the job of teaching. (Mrs Chowles, Mrs Walker and Miss Hart also found it to be a constant theme of Mr Ellis which intruded into many of the discussions that they had with him.)

279. Despite the efforts of Mrs Dewhurst to persuade Mr Ellis that there was general concern about the school among a large number of parents of differing social backgrounds, he appeared to have convinced himself that all the trouble was coming from a small group of middle-class mothers. He showed little or no concern for the worries that Mrs Dewhurst frequently expressed to him and no sign of wanting to accommodate even the small group of 'middle class parents' who he regarded as the sale source of trouble.

280. Eventually, Mrs Dewhurst decided that the situation was becoming so serious that she telephoned Mrs Burnett and spoke to her of the parents' and of her own worries. Shortly after that, on 23 May 1974 (17) she and Mrs Gittings met with Mrs Burnett to discuss the situation. In particular, they discussed the following matters: the failure of the reading groups scheme; violence and bullying in the playground; the lack of work in children's books in certain classes and lack of correction by certain members of the staff of such bookwork as was there; lateness of staff both in the morning and after the lunch break; the apparent lack of stimulus and organisation within many of the classrooms, resulting in children being left to their own devices and becoming bored; and the unhelpfulness and, in some cases, rude attitude of Mr Ellis to parents when they approached him individually with

(17) i.e. the day following the staff meeting at which Mrs Walker pinned her Commentary Paper to the junior school staffroom notice board. See paragraphs 259-262 above.

[page 91]

their worries about their children's progress at school. Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst also mentioned to Mrs Burnett that they had heard that some parents were considering removing their children from the junior school. The outcome of this discussion was that the three Managers decided that Mrs Burnett, as Chairman of the managers, should discuss these various matters and parental worries with Mr Ellis and with Mr Haddow, as Teacher-Manager, shortly after the half-term (27-31 May 1974) and before the managers' Meeting fixed for 3 June 1974. They felt that such a private meeting was likely to be more productive than a more 'public' discussion of the difficulties at the managers' Meeting.

281. After the half-term, during which it will be remembered Mrs Walker had voiced to Mrs Burnett over the telephone her worries about the school (18), Mrs Burnett visited both schools on the morning of 3 June 1974. This was her normal pre-Managers' Meeting visit to the schools. In the course of her visit to the infants school Miss Hart told her of some of the problems that she and her staff were having as a result of the deterioration in behaviour of the junior school children. During her visit to the junior school Mrs Burnett visited Mr Haddow in his classroom and discussed his work with him, and she spoke briefly with Mr Ellis. She told Mr Ellis of the anxieties of Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst. Mr Ellis, according to the evidence of Mrs Burnett to the Inquiry, responded by telling her that he was already aware that parents were 'conspiring' against him and that he felt that Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst were exceeding their roles as Managers by talking to other parents. Mrs Burnett suggested that a meeting should take place between Mrs Gittings, Mrs Dewhurst, herself and Mr Ellis to discuss these problems. Mr Ellis initially agreed to this suggestion. It appears that he then discussed the matter with Mr Haddow, and at the managers' Meeting that evening told Mrs Burnett that he had changed his mind about attending any such meeting. However, as will appear (19), a meeting did eventually take place between the three Managers and Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow on 7 June 1974.

282. At the managers' Meeting in the evening of 3 June 1974 Mr Ellis and Miss Hart presented their respective reports.

283. Mr Ellis gave an account of the staff changes and of the reading groups scheme introduced at the end of the previous term. As I have already mentioned (20), he indicated without saying in so many words that the scheme as introduced was not working and that he hoped 'that it would continue in some form in the future'. He also reported that the staff had already begun to discuss the reorganisation of the junior school in the following school year, and that It was probable that there would be two fourth year classes, 'a cooperative teaching situation with second and third year children', and that the two first year classes would work closely together. He added that it was hoped to increase liaison with the infants school. Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow also reported on the successful school journey to Norfolk and on various activities at the school.

(18) See paragraph 265 above.

(19) See paragraphs 293-294 below.

(20) See paragraph 248 above.

[page 92]

284. Miss Hart presented her report on the infants school and on visits and activities that had taken place, indicating that the school was functioning well.

285. Miss Hart expressed concern at the lack of facilities for problem children, and informed the managers that she was using a part-time teacher to help with such children (cf the request made by Mr Ellis to Mr Rice on 20 May 1974 that the Authority should advertise a post at the junior school for pastoral care for disturbed children (21)). The managers resolved to ask for more help to be made available for problem children.

286. Some discussion took place in the course of presentation of Mr Ellis's report about inadequate playground supervision and some concern was expressed by certain Managers about bullying in the playground. Both head teachers were asked to observe and report about this problem at the next meeting.

287. The minutes of this meeting, of which the above account is a very short summary, do not reflect the growing coolness, evident at the meeting, between some of the managers, on the one hand, and Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow, on the other. For example, there was talk by Mrs Gittings of children being removed from the school because of parental dissatisfaction and, in one case particularly, because of bullying. Mr Ellis denied that children were being removed for such reasons or that bullying in his school was worse than in any other school in the area. He maintained that removals of children were simply due to their parents moving from the area (22).

288. In his report on the school journey Mr Haddow questioned whether it was right that middle class children should go on school journeys at the expense of poorer children who might thereby be excluded, and he also took the opportunity to say that he should be paid more for the long hours that he worked on such school journeys.

289. The meeting concluded without any open acrimony, however, and it was resolved to hold a further special meeting that term on 8 July 1974 to discuss, inter alia, the question of managerial visits to the schools and the support to be given by the managers to any action to be taken by the Teaching Staffs of the schools in furtherance of the London teachers' claim for an increased London Allowance. Some account of the London Schools Campaign for an increased London Allowance for teachers and the support given by the managers to the junior school staff's action in support of that Campaign is given below (23). However, I should mention here that the Pay Board was soon to report on the London teachers' claim and that the National Union of Teachers had at this time decided to defer, or was considering deferring, all further industrial action by the teachers in support of their claim pending the publication of the Pay Board's Report; hence the reason

(21) See paragraph 246 above.

(22) In fact, of the 18 children who were removed from the junior school during the spring and summer terms, 12 were transferred because their parents had moved elsewhere.

(23) See paragraphs 310-314 below.

[page 93]

for postponing consideration of this matter by the managers to the special meeting arranged for 8 July 1974. The managers did, however, take the opportunity to express concern that parents had not always been given adequate notice of industrial action previously taken by the staff, and pressed strongly that adequate notice should be given in the future.

290. Following the managers' Meeting of 3 June 1974, an informal meeting was arranged for 7 June 1974 (24) between Mrs Burnett, Mrs Gittings, Mrs Dewhurst, Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow. Before the day of the meeting Mrs Gittings decided to visit the school on her own to look at some of the classrooms. She went on 5 June 1974, the day of the bitter staff meeting at which Mrs Walker's threat to call a parents' meeting was discussed (25). In her evidence to the Inquiry Mrs Gittings said that she looked first for Mr Ellis, but could not find him, and that she then went to Mrs McColgan's classroom where she asked Mrs McColgan if she could talk to her and see some of the work that her class had done. According to Mrs Gittings, Mrs McColgan raised no objection and spoke to her quite willingly about some of the difficulties in her class. Mrs Gittings said in evidence that she saw no written work and was shown none by Mrs McColgan apart from one picture on display. Mrs Gittings was not reassured by this classroom visit nor by the sight of some bullying by the Sable Street entrance as she left the school about 10.30 am.

291. When Mr Ellis heard about Mrs Gittings's visit he was very disturbed about it for a number of reasons. First, he did not like the idea of her making a managerial visit without first notifying him, as head teacher. Secondly, from the description that Mrs McColgan had given him of Mrs Gittings's visit to her classroom, it sounded as if Mrs Gittings had been conducting a form of inspection. Thirdly, he was disturbed that Mrs Gittings had picked out Mrs McColgan's class for particular attention, and suspected that she had done so because of her knowledge of Mrs McColgan's previous disputes with the Authority (26). Mr Ellis immediately contacted an official of the National Union of Teachers and sought his advice on what had happened. The advice that he was given was that all Managers on visits to the school should make their presence known to the head teacher before visiting classrooms. Mr Ellis made a point of informing his staff of this advice.

292. Mrs Gittings returned to the school on the following day, 6 June 1974, with Mrs Davies, the then Vice-Chairman of the managers, and went into some classrooms without informing Mr Ellis of their presence. His suspicions about Mrs Gittings's behaviour were only reinforced when, on discovering their presence, they asked him if they could look into some other classes and talk to the teachers. Initially he said that they should only go into the classrooms and talk to teachers in his presence, but then agreed that they could go in on their own. Mrs Gittings went into Miss Green's classroom (one of the second year classes). In her evidence

(24) See paragraphs 293-294 below.

(25) See paragraph 266 above.

(26) See paragraph 230 above.

[page 94]

to the Inquiry (27), she gave the following description of what she saw there during a class period:

'There were only about ten children in the classroom at the time, of whom two were playing table tennis, on a table in the classroom, and three others were cheering them on. Miss Green said that the class had done no projects that term, and when I asked if I could see some recent written work, she produced some that had been done in the autumn and spring. The only work on display was some very pretty embroidery.'

294. No doubt, both parties were over-reacting; the three Managers feeling powerless to do anything as Managers to establish whether there was any and, if so, what justification for the parental discontent of which they were aware; and Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow feeling that their professional competence was being challenged by persons not competent to judge it, and, in the light of Mrs Walker's recent activities, suspecting that she had a finger in this somewhere. Indeed, Mr Haddow asked Mrs Burnett specifically if the complaints of which they were talking had come only from parents or whether members of the staff had contacted her.

(27) Mrs Gittings's Proof of Evidence, P.11.

(28) Rule 2(a) of the Rules of Management; see Chapter I, paragraph 74, and Appendix VII to the Report.

[page 95]

Mrs Burnett spoke, after some hesitation, of a telephone conversation that she had had with Mrs Walker, without giving any real details other than that Mrs Walker had expressed worry about matters in the school. Towards the end of the meeting Mrs Burnett also mentioned the second telephone conversation that she had had with Mrs Walker after the staff meeting of 5 June 1974 (29). This information could only have increased the anxieties already felt by Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow. However, the meeting ended with Mr Ellis agreeing to a further informal meeting between Mrs Gittings, Mrs Dewhurst and himself only, at which they could discuss the educational policy of the school. In evidence to the Inquiry he said that he agreed to this further meeting in order to cool matters down.

295. Mrs Gittings now became involved, although only a for short time and in a very peripheral way, with Mrs Walker's plans for her Black Paper (30). It happened in this way. On 11 June 1974 Mrs Walker telephoned Mrs Gittings, whom she did not know other than that she was a Manager, and asked if she could come to see her in confidence. Mrs Gittings agreed, and on the same day, Mrs Walker brought to her a draft of what was to become her Black Paper. The draft, which Mrs Walker indicated that she had written, purported to be a paper prepared by, and expressing the views of, parents; but it was not signed. Its general content was very much in the terms of Mrs Walker's Black Paper as it was ultimately used save that it differed in two important respects, namely:

(i) it contained no reference to William Tyndale Junior School; and

(ii) it concluded with a paragraph containing an assertion of a political nature, a paragraph which, according to Mrs Walker's evidence to the Inquiry, was to the following effect:

'A system of education which produces youthful illiterates who, frustrated of any real achievement, become bored and frustrated and make up a body of malcontents, can become the willing tools of revolutionary - or counter-revolutionary agents.'

297. There was some discussion between Mrs Walker and Mrs Gittings about the

(29) These were the two telephone conversations referred to in paragraphs 265 and 268 above, the first when Mrs Walker sought Mrs Burnett's assistance without success and the second when Mrs Burnett enquired about the reception by the staff of Mrs Walker's Commentary Paper at the staff meeting of 5 June 1974.

(30) See paragraph 271 above.

[page 96]

various points of disagreement that Mrs Gittings had raised, in the course of which Mrs Gittings expressed the view that the final paragraph containing the political reference would be counter-productive. It was subsequently suggested by Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow and some of their colleagues that, in indulging in this discussion and expressing such a view, Mrs Gittings was 'advising' Mrs Walker on the form that her Black Paper should take. I am satisfied on the evidence that such a suggestion is totally unfounded. Mrs Gittings made it very plain to Mrs Walker that she did not wish to be associated in any way with such a paper, and Mrs Walker left the meeting with that clear understanding. It was the only time that the two ladies ever met. Mrs Walker did telephone Mrs Gittings on two occasions some time later to tell her that she had shown her draft to a group of parents (31) who had agreed with it. Mrs Gittings again stressed that she did not agree with it, but said that if the paper was to be used it should at least be signed by Mrs Walker, to show who was responsible for it. Despite this proper advice, Mrs Walker replied that she would not sign it, and put forward to Mrs Gittings as one reason for not doing so, the fact that she had amended it slightly as a result of discussing it with other parents.

298. Having received no encouragement from Mrs Gittings, or from Mrs Burnett on her previous approach to her over half term (32), Mrs Walker did not seek any more support from the managers for her campaign. Nor is there any evidence to indicate that at that stage the managers were collectively or individually concerned in any campaign hostile to Mr Ellis or any of the junior school staff. Those most intimately concerned with the school at that time, namely Mrs Burnett, Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst, did what they could to understand, support and assist Mr Ellis and his staff in what they were doing. As part of their concern for the school and its success under his headship they, in accordance with their managerial duties, tried to find out what was going on in the school both by looking for themselves and by talking with the parents. Their principal responsibilities as Managers were to oversee, in consultation with the head teacher, the conduct and curriculum of the school, and to assist the school to meet the needs of the local community.

299. However, the manner in which Mrs Gittings, in particular, sought to discharge her responsibilities was unwise and lacking in tact. The inspectorial character of her managerial visits on two successive days, without any prior appointment or notification to Mr Ellis, was a mistake. They were also very badly timed having regard to the informal meeting that had been arranged for 7 June 1974 to discuss the managers' concern with Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow.

300. In addition, although Mrs Gittings dissociated herself from the activities of Mrs Walker in relation to her proposed Black Paper, it is my view that Mrs Gittings should have done more than that. She must have appreciated that Mrs Walker's intention in producing that Paper, whatever her motives, was not the way to solve the problems of the junior school, and was bound to damage, perhaps irrevocably, the relations between the staff and many of the parents. Mrs Gittings, as a Manager,

(31) See paragraph 363 below.

(32) See paragraph 265 above.

[page 97]

should have taken urgent action to stop Mrs Walker's activities. She could have done so by indicating to Mrs Walker that, if she persisted in her use of her proposed Black Paper she, Mrs Gittings, would ask the Managing Body as a whole and the Authority to consider her conduct. Alternatively, she could have alerted Mrs Burnett, as Chairman, of Mrs Walker's apparent intention to make some use of the Paper so that the Managing Body (which, of course, included Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow) could deal with the problem directly. In short, it was not enough that Mrs Gittings's reaction to Mrs Walker's request for support was negative, Mrs Gittings should have done something to see that Mrs Walker was stopped from pursuing her campaign by enlisting the support of parents against her colleagues.

301. Even Mrs Burnett, who in my view, did perhaps more in 1974 than any other Manager to support and assist Mr Ellis and his staff, failed in this instance to exercise her normal good judgment in discharging her managerial responsibilities. She knew from the telephone call at half term from Mrs Walker that there was serious discord among the staff. As Chairman of the managers she owed it to Mr Ellis as head teacher and as a fellow Manager to talk to him frankly not only of the general problems of which she was aware, but of Mrs Walker's representations to her. Although she had very properly advised Mrs Walker to canvass her worries with her fellow teachers at the staff meeting following the half term she should not have had any further communication with her about it without speaking also to Mr Ellis. Her hesitation and initial lack of frankness at the informal meeting with Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow on 7 June 1974 about her telephone conversations with Mrs Walker served only to arouse the two teachers' suspicions of some sort of conspiracy between Mrs Walker and the managers - suspicions that the evidence has established beyond doubt were totally without foundation.

302. Mrs Burnett (like Mrs Gittings) had been put in a very difficult position by Mrs Walker. Mrs Burnett's understandable error of judgment in her manner of dealing with it caused more damage than it deserved. However, in the circumstances, it was inevitable that it would contribute to the decline in relations between Managers on the one hand and Mr Ellis and the majority of his staff on the other.

303. As to Mrs Dewhurst's activities up to this time, I am satisfied that she behaved consistently and energetically with the best interests of the junior school at heart and that the support and help that she gave to Mr Ellis and his staff were of great value to the school. It is a pity that Mr Ellis did not heed Mrs Dewhurst's attempts over this period to alert him to the troubles developing at the school.

Disruption of the Infants School

304. As already indicated (33) at the beginning of the summer term Mrs McWhirter took over responsibility for liaison between the Junior and Infants Schools. In about May 1974 the first joint staff meeting took place between the two staffs. At this meeting members of the infants school staff expressed concern about

(33) See paragraph 227 above.

[page 98]

the bad behaviour of some of the junior school children, and about the lack of supervision by the junior school staff, resulting in the serious disruption of teaching in the infants school. However, Mr Ellis and the majority of his staff did not at the time - or when they came to give evidence at the Inquiry - appear to take the infants school staff's concern seriously, and the meeting did not achieve very much.

305. If anything, the behaviour of the junior school children became worse. When Mr Rice, the District Inspector, visited the infants school on 20 May 1974, Miss Hart felt obliged to complain to him about noise from the junior school and the interruption of lessons in the infants school as a result of juniors wandering around unattended and into her part of the school during normal school hours. (It was about this time, it will be remembered, that Mrs Walker would have been preparing her Commentary Paper for the staff meeting on 22 May 1974, complaining, inter alia, about the breakdown of discipline in the junior school.) Mr Rice visited the junior school three days later and talked to Mr Ellis about these complaints. Mr Ellis expressed the view that children should be free and not subject to constant supervision, but did say that he was taking steps to ensure that the children would be more controlled in the future. However, he made the point that he had some disruptive children in the school who were difficult to cater for.

306. Despite this discussion between Mr Rice and Mr Ellis, there was no improvement by the beginning of June 1974, and the infants school staff felt that the behaviour of the junior school children had deteriorated even further. Miss Hart discussed the problem with Mrs Burnett who visited the infants school on her pre-Managers' Meeting visit on the morning of 3 June 1974 (34). As the account already given in this Report (35) indicates, there was also some discussion at the managers' Meeting that evening of bullying by, and lack of supervision of, Junior School children. As will appear (36), after a further abortive joint staff meeting at which Mr Ellis and his colleagues still did not seem to be taking the problems seriously, Miss Hart felt obliged to request a further meeting with Mr Rice which eventually took place on 27 June 1974.

The District Inspector's Role

307. In the early part of the summer term Mr Rice, the District Inspector, had a number of reasons which called for him to give special attention to the junior school. First, there was his discussion with Mr Ellis on his first visit to the school on 1 April 1974 at the end of the previous term, when he had formed the view that the school should be visited again as soon as possible, since Mr Ellis needed all possible support in view of the changes he was making there. Secondly, there was his visit to the infants school on 20 May 1974 when Miss Hart had complained about the conduct of the junior school children, followed by his discussion with Mr Ellis

(34) See paragraph 281 above.

(35) See paragraph 286 above.

(36) See paragraph 354 below.

[page 99]

three days later on his second routine visit to the junior school on 23 May 1974 (37). On this second visit to the junior school Mr Rice took the opportunity to discuss generally with Mr Ellis the organisation of the school and the need for him to keep a check on basic standards of work and behaviour. Thirdly, there was also the discussion that Mr Rice had about that time with Mrs Walker (38), which, whatever his views of her complaints, could have served only to underline his view that the junior school needed support - particularly with a new head teacher trying out new ideas.

308. However, although Mr Rice made two quick routine visits to the junior school on 7 and 10 June 1974 in order, as he said in evidence to the Inquiry, to have a look at general discipline and to observe the teaching of the probationary teacher, Miss Richards (whose teaching he found satisfactory), he does not appear to have noticed anything to cause him particular concern.

309. Thus, the rapid deterioration of the junior school in the early part of the summer term 1974 was apparent and causing great concern to many people closely connected with the school, namely: some of the junior school staff, Mrs Walker and Mrs Chowles in particular, the parents of many of the children at both schools, those Managers in close contact with the schools, and Miss Hart and her staff. Unfortunately, Mr Rice, the new District Inspector, with the many responsibilities of his District with which he had to familiarise himself, does not appear to have appreciated the rapid deterioration that was taking place at William Tyndale Junior School.

The Junior School Parents' Meeting
of 13 June 1974

The London Schools Campaign

310. It is unfortunate that, at a time when the conduct of Mr Ellis and the majority of his staff was beginning to attract so much criticism, he and the staff decided to call a parents' meeting to ask for support in their claim, with teachers throughout London, for better pay and working conditions. The meeting was arranged for 13 June 1974. But before I describe it, I must give an account of the background to the teachers' request for support.

311. In late 1973 and in 1974 the employment position of teachers was very different from that which obtains now. At that time there was a great shortage of teachers, particularly in the inner London area, where the high and increasing cost of living made it difficult for teachers to manage on their salaries and the London Allowance (the extra money paid to them for working in the metropolitan area).

(37) See paragraph 305 above.

(38) See paragraph 264 above.

[page 100]

The shortage of teachers was having seriously damaging effects on many inner London schools. The disruption of children's education, which took the form in some cases of children being sent home due to there being no teachers to teach them or of schools organising part-time teaching for certain classes, was a matter of concern for everyone, the Authority, managers, teachers and, of course, parents. In order to try to stop the drain of teachers from the inner London area, a campaign called 'The London Schools Campaign' was organised by teachers and parents. The principal objects of the Campaign were to obtain an increase in the London Allowance and better and cheaper housing facilities for teachers in inner London so as to make it more attractive for them to work there.

312. The Campaign had the wide support of Members of the Authority, governing and managing bodies, teachers and their professional associations, and parents throughout London. There was one 'official' strike organised by the National Union of Teachers in April 1974. The high point of the Campaign was a massive lobby of all inner London Members of Parliament at the House of Commons on 9 May 1974 following a march of parents and teachers led to the House by Sir Ashley Bramall. The teachers' professional associations also gave it their support by the imposition of sanctions including refusal by teachers to cover for other teachers who were absent for longer than three days, or to cover gaps left by staff positions remaining unfilled.

Managerial support for the teachers' action in support
of the London Schools Campaign

313. The staff of the junior school were active in this campaign, and they had had from the start the support of the managers. At the managers' meeting held early in the spring term of 1974, the managers had expressed concern at the disruption of the children's schooling due to lack of permanent teaching staff, and asked that the Authority should take all possible steps to press strongly for 'a realistic' London allowance for teachers. The managers had also passed a resolution of support at that meeting for the action, in the form of the sanctions described above, taken by the teaching staff of the junior school in pursuance of their claim for an increased London allowance.

314. Moreover, the managers' support had not been limited to bare expressions of support and the passing of resolutions at their meetings. Individual managers, in particular Mrs Dewhurst, had done a great deal, and continued to do so, to advocate the teachers' cause wherever possible. For example, Mrs Dewhurst included in the Newsletter that she had prepared and circulated to parents in February 1974 an article by Mr Haddow explaining the problems giving rise to the Campaign and asking for the parents' support. Mrs Dewhurst was also active in early May 1974 in urging the parents to support the lobby of inner London Members of Parliament to take place on 9 May 1974, and in obtaining over 100 signatures of parents of children at both schools to a petition in support of the teachers. She joined the lobby on 9 May 1974 and handed in to John Grant, the Member of Parliament for Islington Central, the petition and a covering letter from her setting out in some detail the case for the teachers.

[page 101]

'Unofficial' industrial action by the
Junior School staff

315. The lobby that took place on 9 May 1974 was followed by one day strike action taken by some of the teachers in the inner London area on the 23 May, 11 June, 14 June and the afternoon of 11 July 1974. It should be emphasised that it was not the official policy of the National Union of Teachers for strike action to take place after the one official strike in April 1974. None of the infants school staff took part in any of the 'unofficial' strike action. Of the junior school staff, the following took part in the strike actions of May, June and July; Mr Ellis, Mrs Chowles (except for 14 June), Mr Haddow, Mrs McWhirter, Mrs McColgan, Miss Green, Miss Richards, Mrs Walker (on 23 May and 11 June only), Miss Fox (who had been absent on study leave from the beginning of term until 21 June 1974, on 11 July only), and Mrs Ranasinghe (on 11 June and 11 July only).

316. Although many of the parents had supported the Campaign, and also the one day strike actions taken by the staff of the junior school, they were disturbed by the lack of adequate notice of strike action that the staff had given them. This affected particularly those families where there was no one at home in the day who could look after the children, for whom alternative arrangements were difficult to make at short notice. It is unfortunate too that the first two one-day strikes, namely those on 23 May and 11 June 1974, took place:

(i) at a time when a number of the junior school parents were becoming distinctly worried about the schooling that their children were receiving; and

(ii) at about the time when the National Union of Teachers had decided to defer further industrial action until after the Pay Board published its Report on the teachers' claim in June 1974.

317. In all the circumstances, the decision of Mr Ellis and his staff in the middle of June 1974 to step up their industrial action and requests for support from the parents was particularly ill-timed.

318. On Wednesday, 12 June 1974, the junior school staff sent a letter to all parents of children at the junior school giving them very short notice of a special parents' meeting being convened for the following day, 13 June 1974, to discuss the action already being taken by the teachers and 'any further action that may be necessary to ensure that London education is safeguarded in the future'. The letter also gave inconsiderately short notice to the parents that the school would be closed on the day following the meeting, 14 June 1974, because of further strike action proposed by the junior school staff. So much for Mr Ellis's regard for the

(39) See paragraph 289.

[page 102]

emphatic request of the managers at their meeting on 3 June 1974 that adequate notice should be given to parents of any further strike action proposed (40).

319. Quite apart from giving very short notice to the parents of the proposed meeting, it is significant that neither Mr Ellis nor any of his staff made any effort to inform the managers about it. Mrs Burnett heard about it indirectly and had to telephone Mr Ellis on the morning of the day of the meeting, 13 June 1974, and ask him to confirm her information that such a meeting had been called. When he did so, she said that she would like to attend as an observer, and he agreed.

The 'Playground Meeting' of 12 June 1974

320. In the afternoon of 12 June 1974, when Mrs Dewhurst, the junior school Parent-Manager, was collecting her child from school, she was told by one of the school helpers that a group of parents were very worried about their children and the state of the junior school and wanted to speak to her. She and Mrs Gittings joined the group - about eight or nine mothers - in the playground. These mothers raised a number of complaints about indiscipline and lack of teaching in the school. Mrs Dewhurst told them that they should put these matters to Mr Ellis personally, which they agreed to do. Mrs Dewhurst then went straight up to Mr Ellis's office and asked him to come down and talk to them. Mrs Dewhurst felt that this was a useful opportunity to convince him that there was general concern among many parents of children at the school, not just a small middle class element as Mr Ellis had been suggesting. Mr Ellis agreed to go down and talk to them, and, in evidence to the Inquiry, said that he spoke to the group and 'appeared to allay certain natural anxieties about the school'. However, the evidence given to the Inquiry by Mrs Dewhurst and Mrs Gittings of this meeting is quite different. According to their evidence, which I accept, Mr Ellis certainly did not allay their anxieties. In answer to the parents' questions about the children wandering outside the school and climbing on the roofs of neighbouring buildings during school hours, he said that it was impossible to stop that behaviour unless he turned the school into a concentration camp. And, when asked by the parents why the reading groups scheme had stopped and why the children were being allowed to follow such activities as ping pong and monopoly and pop dancing in class hours instead of more educational topics, he apparently gave no adequate explanation. Generally, Mr Ellis was off-hand with the parents, brushing aside their complaints and anxieties, appearing unable to answer them, and at one stage aggravating matters by criticising in strong terms the child of one of the mothers in the presence of the others. Admittedly, the circumstances of the meeting - a playground discussion with a number of anxious and possibly angry mothers - were not easy for Mr Ellis. Nevertheless he appears to have shown little tact in his dealings with them and to have been reluctant to accept that there might have been something in some of their complaints which required some action on his part. He behaved in a similar way on the following day, 13 June 1974, at the meeting that he and his staff had called to enlist parental support for their claim for a higher London Allowance.

(40) See paragraph 289 above.

[page 103]

The Parents' Meeting of 13 June 1974

321. The parents' meeting of 13 June 1974, which was chaired by Mr Ellis, was attended by about 45 parents. All the full-time staff of the junior school were present except Miss Fox who was still away on study leave. It is curious, however, that Mrs Walker, who had known that the meeting was to take place, did not attend it until the very end, when she came and stood at the rear of the hall where the meeting was held. Her evidence to the Inquiry was that she did not attend the meeting because she was not in favour of the proposed 'unofficial' strike action, but that she happened to be taking a walk that evening and decided to look in on the meeting at the end to see how it had gone. Apart from the staff and the parents there were also present Mr Robin Mabey, one of the managers, Mr Chowles and Mr McColgan.

322. Mr Ellis opened the meeting by explaining the circumstances giving rise to the claim for the increased London Allowance and the then difficulties in the staffing of many London schools. He then introduced as a guest speaker, Mrs Annie Spike, a founder member of the Hackney Parents and Teachers Action Group, who was to speak on the action that could be taken by parents in support of the teachers. There is some dispute as to whether Mrs Spike was allowed to give her talk without interruption. According to her and a number of witnesses, as soon as she started to talk, the majority of parents interrupted her by shouting that they did not want to listen to her, but wanted to discuss the education that their children were receiving at the school. According to other witnesses, however, including Mrs Burnett, who was making notes of the meeting at the time, and whose evidence I accept, Mrs Spike was able to address the parents, telling them of the work that her Group was doing and inviting the parents present to form a similar group for the William Tyndale Schools.

323. It was only when Mr Ellis threw the meeting open for discussion that a number of parents there made plain their unwillingness to discuss the support that they would give to the staff until they had had an opportunity to discuss what was actually happening inside the school. From then on there was uproar. It became a very hostile meeting with everybody shouting at once, and some parents simply shouting abuse at and about Mr Ellis and some of his staff. Mr Ellis attempted to bring the meeting back to discussing their proposed industrial action. There was then some shouted argument about the propriety of the unofficial strike action that the staff were taking now that the National Union of Teachers had decided to defer further industrial action until after the publication of the Pay Board's Report. However, the debate soon returned to the quality of the education that the junior school staff were providing.

324. Some parents asked for a full parents' meeting to discuss the educational philosophy of the school. Mr Haddow questioned whether it was within the terms of reference of the meeting to discuss a further parents' meeting for a different purpose. According to Mr Haddow, in his evidence to the Inquiry, he made that point in order 'to cool down' the meeting and get it back to discussion of the subject it had been called for. Not surprisingly, Mr Haddow's intervention was

[page 104]

regarded as a stalling tactic; and, on a motion proposed by one of the parents, a resolution was passed by a large majority:

'That parents have a meeting at an early date to discuss the standard of education in the junior school and discuss the staff's philosophy on education.'

326. The meeting concluded with some discussion about the composition and conduct of the proposed meeting to discuss the philosophy and standards of education at the junior school. The parents asked that it should have a chairman other than Mr Ellis, and it was suggested that the Chairman of the managers should be approached. Mrs Burnett then identified herself to the meeting as being the Chairman and as willing to chair such a meeting. Finally, it was decided that the proposed meeting should be for teachers and parents, and that any Managers who wished to attend could do so as observers. No date was agreed upon for the meeting, save that in accordance with the terms of the resolution, the meeting was to take place at an early date.

327. It should be recorded that, even at the final stage of the meeting, when the discussion was about the arrangements for the further parents' meeting, Mr Haddow made yet another attempt to thwart the proposals of the majority present at the meeting - this time by making the suggestion that the meeting might be out of order because of the presence and voting there of persons other than parents and teachers. Presumably he was referring to the two Managers, Mrs Burnett and Mr Mabey, and to Mr Chowles and Mr McColgan.

328. Another matter worthy of special note is that at the end of the meeting Mrs Walker was seen to walk away with a group of parents who had been among the most vociferous and abusive of Mr Ellis and some of his staff.

329. The meeting was a most unpleasant one for Mr Ellis and his staff, and must have been extremely difficult to chair. The behaviour of some of the parents present, shouting violent and vulgar abuse at and about Mr Ellis and some of the staff, must have been a great shock to them. However, the message of the meeting was loud and

[page 105]

clear, and demonstrated the concern which so many people had previously tried to convey to Mr Ellis in a civilised manner, and which he had chosen to ignore or to brush aside. Even allowing for the shock that he must have felt at the vehemence of the attack upon him and his staff, it is indicative of his lack of judgment and instinctive defensive reaction that he did not respond to the feeling of the meeting by volunteering to hold a further parents' meeting to discuss the educational policies of the school. Mr Haddow's behaviour at the meeting showed an even greater lack of judgment and of sensitivity to the concern being expressed by the parents. Not only did it apparently not occur to him that if the parents wanted to discuss their children's education they should be given the opportunity, but he attempted in a filibustering way to frustrate their arrangements to do so.

330. The combined performance of Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow at the meeting, notwithstanding the provocation they had received, increased the anxieties of many of those who were present and of those who learned about what happened. As to Mrs Walker, she was already discussing, as she left the meeting with a number of discontented parents, ways and means of enlisting the aid of the junior school parents generally to challenge at the forthcoming meeting the way in which Mr Ellis and the staff supporting him, Mr Haddow in particular, were running the school. Mrs Burnett was very disturbed about what had happened at the meeting and about the strength of feeling against Mr Ellis and some of his staff that it had revealed. She made a point of informing the Authority about it by sending a copy of her notes of the meeting to the Divisional Office.

The Junior School Parent/Teachers' Meeting of 9 July 1974

331. The parents' meeting of 13 June 1974 and the resultant arrangements that were made for a parents/teachers' meeting - which took place on 9 July 1974 - involved in different ways all the main parties concerned with the junior school, namely: the staff, the managers, the Authority, Mrs Walker, and, of course, the parents. I list them in that order, not to indicate any priority, but because the order corresponds with what I hope is the most helpful way of describing their respective activities between the two meetings in the account that follows.

The Junior School staff's preparation for the Meeting of 9 July 1974

332. The views strongly expressed by the parents at the meeting on 13 June 1974 did not deter Mr Ellis, Mr Haddow, Mrs McWhirter, Mrs McColgan, Miss Green or Miss Richards from taking part in a further one day strike on the following day. As already indicated (41), Mrs Chowles and Mrs Ranasinghe did not strike that day, both of them having decided to follow the official policy of the National Union of Teachers.

(41) See paragraph 315 above.

[page 106]

333. Quite apart from the question of parental support for their industrial action in support of their claim for a higher London Allowance, Mr Ellis and the majority of his staff still did not pay sufficient attention to the extent and gravity of the concern being expressed by parents and others about the junior school. Having regard to the extreme dissatisfaction that had been expressed at the meeting on 13 June 1974 and by other people over a period of time, Mr Ellis and his staff should have given urgent and serious consideration to whether there were any and, if so, what grounds for such dissatisfaction. They should also have given urgent consideration to the steps to be taken to reassure the parents and others concerned, either by the introduction of some changes in the organisation and teaching methods of the school or by taking the earliest opportunity to explain to the parents the value of the teaching methods recently introduced. At the very least a full staff meeting should have been called shortly after the 13 June 1974 meeting to discuss how best to tackle the problem of restoring confidence in the junior school and its staff.

334. However, instead of measuring up to the junior school's problems in a positive and constructive manner with the interests of the children there as the foremost consideration, Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow and the majority of the staff acted in such a way as to indicate that their prime concern was for their own professional standing as teachers rather than for the welfare of the junior school as a whole. Their main concern and reaction was that they were the victims of a conspiracy between Mrs Walker and some Managers and parents. Whatever their suspicions, their reaction was not one which responsible teachers should have taken in the circumstances. Mr Ellis, in particular, as head teacher should have given a lead to the staff designed to achieve a speedy restoration of parental confidence in the school. Instead, he and those of the staff who allied themselves with him and Mr Haddow adopted a purely defensive attitude.

335. No full staff meeting was held to discuss the position, and Mr Ellis stalled on the date of the meeting that was to take place (for which the parents had requested an early date). When the date was finally fixed for 9 July 1974 he made no real effort, individually or in discussion with his staff, to prepare for the meeting a useful and comprehensive explanation of the school's teaching philosophies and methods, the very matters about which he knew the parents wished to learn. It is true that, for over a week - from 20 to 28 June 1974 - he was absent from school through sickness (41a). Nevertheless, there was ample time and very great urgency for him to prepare, in conjunction with his staff, some useful account of what he was trying to do at the school which would assist and reassure the parents at the forthcoming meeting.

336. The attitude to the forthcoming meeting that Mr Ellis exhibited to Mrs Burnett should be examined in some detail. At the end of the meeting of 13 June 1974, Mrs Burnett had a brief discussion with Mr Ellis about what had happened. According to her evidence, which I accept, he expressed surprise at the parents' reaction and seemed to have ignored or not to have appreciated the various signs of

(41a) Namely, nervous depression and worry.

[page 107]

trouble that had accumulated in the weeks preceding that meeting. Moreover, his lack of appreciation or concern for the parents' anxiety about what was happening at the school does not appear to have been affected by the meeting, since he indicated to Mrs Burnett that he thought he had done well not to commit himself to agreeing a particular date for the proposed parents/teachers' meeting. He added that he need not hold it until well into the following term (ie the autumn term) unless he felt like it. This was a cynical approach to an urgent situation that required the most careful and understanding attention on his part. Mrs Burnett was concerned with the fact that it had been agreed that the meeting would take place 'at an early date', and that the school rolls would fall dramatically unless urgent action was taken. She pressed him to hold the meeting before the end of the summer term. It was left that they would meet on the following Monday, 17 June 1974, to discuss the matter again.

337. Mrs Burnett and Mr Ellis met again as arranged, and on that occasion she gave him a copy of the notes that she had made at the meeting of 13 June 1974. Mrs Burnett again pressed Mr Ellis to call the promised parents/teachers' meeting that term, but Mr Ellis would still not commit himself, saying that he wished to discuss the matter with his staff at their staff meeting on the following day, Tuesday 18 June. It was left that he would tell Mrs Burnett the result of the staff discussion on Wednesday, 19 June 1974.

338. If a staff meeting took place on 18 June it was not a full staff meeting, for Mr Ellis agreed in evidence that no formal staff meeting was convened to discuss the proposed parents/teachers' meeting. In the course of Wednesday, 19 June 1974, Mr Ellis became ill and left the school without being able to talk directly with Mrs Burnett about the proposed meeting. During the following week, while he was absent from the school due to illness, it was eventually agreed that the meeting would take place on 9 July 1974.

339. It will be remembered that a Special Meeting of Managers had previously been arranged for 8 July 1974 in order to consider the managers' support for the teachers' industrial action and also the question of managerial visits to the schools. In view of the supervening arrangements for the parents/teachers' meeting on 9 July 1974, Mrs Burnett very sensibly decided that the Special Meeting of Managers should be postponed in order that the managers could also consider what happened at the parents/teachers' meeting. Accordingly, taking 'Chairman's action', she contacted the Divisional Office and requested that notification should be sent to all Managers of the change of date of their Special Meeting to the following week, 15 July 1974. Her action provoked objections from Mr Haddow in the form of letters to her and to the Divisional Office complaining about the change of date and the 'undemocratic' way in which it had been decided. Mr Haddow's conduct in objecting in such trivial terms to what was obviously an eminently sensible decision on the part of Mrs Burnett, was reminiscent of his filibustering behaviour at the parents' meeting of 13 June 1974. It had every appearance of his seeking to prevent the managers exercising their undoubted right to inform themselves of and discuss the teaching policies and methods of the junior school.

[page 108]

340. Although Mr Ellis and his staff did not prepare as positively and energetically as they should have done to reassure the parents at the forthcoming meeting, they did take some steps towards that end.

341. First, they decided to hold, in advance of the meeting, two parents' evenings at the school for parents to discuss any individual problems with their children's class teachers. This was a good idea, and the two parents' evenings (of which the parents were given good notice) took place on 2 and 3 July 1974 (42). All the staff, except Mrs Walker, were present at the school on these two evenings.

342. Secondly, they prepared for distribution at the parents/teachers' meeting the following short written statement:

'A Short and General Statement of the Aims of William Tyndale Junior School

1. To encourage all children to live together in social harmony.

2. To encourage children to think for themselves and make their own decisions about their learning and their lives.

3. To ensure that each child can read, express himself/herself clearly in thought and language.

4. To ensure that each child is well grounded in basic mathematics.

5. To provide a wide choice of activities and interests for a child to experience and enjoy in a stable environment.

This statement has been kept deliberately short and general in the interests of clarity. It may form the starting point for discussion if parents so wish. They will obviously have many personal queries and opinions which they will want to express. I sincerely hope that this meeting provides a frank and fruitful discussion of the issues involved and that it will be the first of many such gatherings.

T. Ellis,    
Headmaster.'

343. It is difficult to see what use Mr Ellis and his staff could have genuinely thought this statement would be to parents who were coming to the meeting to ascertain the educational philosophy and methods that had been adopted in the junior school. The statement gave no information of any practical value to the parents about the way their children were being taught or about the organisation, curriculum or disciplinary system of the school. It contained propositions of such generality that they could have been interpreted to cover the whole spectrum of teaching methods to be found in schools throughout the country.

(42) In advance of these open evenings Mr Haddow sent a circular letter to the parents of the 35 children in his class asking whether they were satisfied with the 'free activity' method of education that he was giving their children. He produced in evidence to the Inquiry the only six replies that he said he had received. Of these two indicated satisfaction, three indicated dissatisfaction and one was undecided.

[page 109]

344. How different the course of events might have been, if Mr Ellis and his staff had applied themselves to preparing and circulating to parents well before the proposed meeting a detailed paper describing in practical and specific terms their aims and the methods they were adopting to achieve such aims. Such a document could also have usefully contained - if the staff had given any consideration at all to the possibility that some of the criticisms of them were justified - an account of the steps that they were taking to improve the quality of education and discipline in the school.

345. Thirdly, it was decided that there would be four open evenings in the autumn term for parents, and that these open evenings would be announced at the proposed parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974. It was decided that these four open evenings were, respectively, to be for: parents of 2nd and 3rd year children for whom a cooperative or team teaching scheme was planned, parents of 4th year children to explain the secondary transfer system, parents of 1st year children, and a general open evening.

The Managers' concern about their role and responsibilities

346. Having regard to what had happened at the meeting of 13 June 1974, Mrs Burnett was apprehensive about the forthcoming meeting that she had agreed to chair. She knew that the meeting would take the form of criticisms by some parents of the teaching activities at the school, and she expected that Mr Ellis and his colleagues would attempt to answer these criticisms. In agreeing to chair the meeting she was aware that she might have to protect the staff from the sort of intemperate and abusive attacks that had taken place at the earlier meeting. On the other hand, she knew that, if the meeting was to be worthwhile, the parents should be given the opportunity to question the staff and the staff to explain the educational aims and methods of the school.

347. Another problem that Mrs Burnett and her fellow Managers had to consider was the extent to which they, either collectively or individually, were entitled and competent to examine the organisation and teaching at the school if, after the meeting, they considered that there might be something in the parents' complaints. It so happened that, on 26 June 1974, there was a general conference at County Hall for managers and governors of schools in the Inner London Education Authority Area north of the river. Mrs Burnett and Mrs Gittings attended. During a questions session, in which they identified themselves as Managers of the William Tyndale Schools, they asked two questions: first, how managers should exercise their duty of overseeing the conduct and curriculum of a school and in what detail; and secondly, whether it was proper for a manager, who was also a parent of a child at the school of which he or she was a manager, to discuss the school with other parents.

348. The answer to the first question given by Mrs Chaplin, the Chairman of the Staff and General Sub-Committee (43) illustrates well the 'grey areas' left by the

(43) The staff and General Sub-Committee is one of the Central Standing Sub-Committees of the Authority's Education Committee. See Chapter I, paragraph 28.

[page 110]

Rules of Management (44) in the apportionment of the respective powers and duties conferred and imposed by the Rules on the Authority, managers, and the head teacher in relation to the conduct and curriculum of a school. For that reason I set out here what Mrs Chaplin said almost in its entirety:

'The rules of management, of course, do lay down that the managers shall, in consultation with the head teacher, exercise the oversight of the curriculum of the school and that the head teacher shall control the conduct and curriculum, the internal organisation, management and discipline of the school. It is, therefore, quite proper for managers to ask the head for information about the curriculum and ask how the school is run. They can ask for instance, how reading is taught, what the reading ages of pupils are at the end of their school career, but not for the names of the pupils concerned. Managers should not tell the head what reading schemes to use, that is the head's business, or they should not tell the head that there should be streaming or not. On the other hand, they can express a view on this. They can't order the head to do any of those things. They can discuss it with the head and they can ask, if they are particularly interested, that perhaps this might be tried, but they must not order the head about. They can ask how discipline is maintained, what kind of punishments are used, but, again, they must not tell the head what he or she should do. They can discuss this with the head and say that things are done in another place and what about trying them but it is in the end the head's responsibility, in consultation with his staff, to run the school. They can ask also in what way the head does consult the staff ... the managers are perfectly entitled to find out what is being done and to discuss and make suggestions. In fact, it is the duty of the managers to know exactly what is going on in a school. They should make suggestions, but not to [sic] dictate them.

If the managers are unhappy about what is being done in a particular field they can also ask the head to discuss with the staff and they can also invite the District Inspector to come and discuss it with them and the staff. The District Inspector often does come to meetings, particularly when staff are newly appointed and I am quite sure all our District Inspectors will be very pleased indeed to discuss curriculum developments in the school both with the managers and the governors and the heads, and I hope that all managers will make it their business really to find out the sort of things that are happening in their schools; whether there are new developments, whether the old methods are thought to be successful and particularly if they know about things that are going on elsewhere, to find out if the head and the staff might be willing to try out these methods. But I do want to stress that the managers and governors really must not tell the head what to do.'

'If it should occur that there is a serious division of opinion on certain aspects of a curriculum of a school between the governing or managing body and the head, and it looks as though they are not going to solve this difficulty, could you give me some guidelines as to what happens next?'

[page 111]

The Chairman of the conference, perhaps understandably, was only able to give the following rather unhelpful answer:

'I think the answer is no. I always make the rule never to answer hypothetical questions. When you know the actual disagreement, what actually happened, then we will do our best to answer. I will certainly not give an answer when I don't know what the question is.'

351. I have given a fuller account of some of the proceedings at this conference than might at first sight appear to be necessary. I have done so because it demonstrates the uncertainty that Mrs Burnett and Mrs Gittings felt about the manner in which they should discharge their duties generally, and in particular in relation to the problems then facing them at William Tyndale Junior School. It also demonstrates the shortcomings of the Rules of Management in their present form as practical guidelines in dealing with those problems. In short, Mrs Burnett and Mrs Gittings could not have left the conference any wiser about the way to deal with the troubles at William Tyndale Junior School than before the conference started.

The Authority's knowledge of trouble at the Junior School

The request of Mr Hinds for information about the junior school

352. The questions that Mrs Burnett and Mrs Gittings asked at the conference for managers and governors, and the discussion that those questions provoked, indirectly alerted certain Members of the Authority to the trouble brewing at William Tyndale Junior School. Also attending the conference was Mrs Anne Page, an Islington Borough Councillor and the Islington Borough Representative on the Authority. It was apparent to Mrs Page that, although the two Managers had put their questions in general terms, they had William Tyndale Junior School particularly in mind. Shortly after the conference Mrs Page telephoned Mr Hinds, the Chairman of the Schools Sub-Committee, and informed him that some Managers of the William Tyndale Schools appeared to be worried about the junior school. That telephone call, and other information that Mr Hinds had received, prompted him in turn to ask Miss Burgess, the Assistant Education Officer, Primary Branch, of the Authority, to make some enquiries.

353. Thus it was that, on 28 June 1974, Miss Burgess sent the following minute about William Tyndale Junior School to Mr Rice, the District Inspector:

'There have been some rumblings about this school. Rumours that all is not well have reached Mr Hinds. Would you be good enough to let me have any information to pass on to Mr Hinds on what is wrong and if anything can be done to put it right.'

[page 112]

Mr Rice's knowledge of the junior school in June and early July 1974

354. As this Report has already shown (45), Mr Rice had already been put on notice from a number of sources that there were problems at the junior school. More recently he had received from Mrs Burnett her notes of the meeting of 13 June 1974. On 27 June 1974, the day before Miss Burgess wrote her minute to him, Miss Hart and her staff had made, what was by then, a desperate request to him for help concerning the continued bad behaviour of the junior school children. This request followed a further joint staff meeting that had been held in June 1974, at which Mr Ellis and the majority of his staff had still refused to acknowledge that there was any exceptional disciplinary problem or need for greater supervision by them.

355. At about the end of June or early July 1974, when Mr Rice received the minute from Miss Burgess requesting information about the junior school, he learned that the proposed parents/teachers' meeting was to take place on 9 July 1974. Also about that time, he was asked to attend the meeting as an observer, both by Mrs Burnett, who felt that it was likely to be a difficult meeting at which his presence could be of help, and by Dr Birchenough, the Chief Inspector, at the request of the majority of the junior school staff (conveyed through their professional association representative) who were concerned that the meeting would be used for the purpose of making personal attacks on them.

356. In response to Miss Burgess's request for information and the complaints of Miss Hart and her staff, Mr Rice visited the junior school on 4 July 1974. The visit also gave him an opportunity to gauge the attitude of the staff to the forthcoming meeting on 9 July 1974. He had a look over the school and a long discussion with Mr Ellis about the teaching and disciplinary methods and policies adopted and about the overall educational aims that Mr Ellis and his staff had for the school. As to the disciplinary problems, Mr Ellis admitted that there had been some disturbance caused by the junior school children, but said that he felt that the infants school staff were being over protective of the infants. He also said, as he had said to Mr Rice before (46), that he had a number of disturbed children in the school. He did, however, indicate that he would try to do something about the disciplinary problems, particularly that of children throwing articles out of the upper windows.

357. Mr Rice's visit to the junior school on 4 July 1974 was followed by a visit to him on 8 July 1974 by Mrs Chowles, the Deputy Head Teacher. Mrs Chowles did not tell Mr Ellis about this meeting because she was very unhappy at the school and in a considerable dilemma over her position there. She felt, on the one hand, that Mr Ellis, as the Head Teacher, was entitled to run the school in the way that he judged to be best for it. On the other hand, he was running it in a way that she, as Deputy Head Teacher, could not support. She told Mr Rice of her difficulty, and in doing so, inevitably expressed criticism of Mr Ellis and his methods. She then asked

(45) See paragraphs 307-309 above.

(46) See paragraph 305 above.

[page 113]

Mr Rice whether, in the circumstances, the proper course was for her to look for another job. Mr Rice's advice was that, as Deputy Head Teacher, she should try and cooperate with Mr Ellis and the other members of the staff who shared his approach, whilst at the same time putting her own point of view. This advice, it will be recollected, was similar to that which he had given to Mrs Walker when she had visited him in May to express her worries about the school (47).

The preparation by Mr Rice on 8 July 1974 of a confidential report on the junior school

358. It was on the day of Mrs Chowles's visit to him, 8 July 1974, that Mr Rice completed a confidential report on the junior school to be sent to Miss Burgess in response to her request for information to be given to Mr Hinds. It should be emphasised that this report did not have the status of a full inspection report (48) requiring full disclosure to the managers and staff of the school. It was a confidential report provided on an informal basis for the information of Mr Hinds, and, in my view, it was perfectly proper at that stage to treat it as being confidential to the Authority.

359. It is curious that Mr Rice should have written his confidential report on the school on 8 July 1974 when he was due to attend a parents/teachers' meeting at the school the very next day to discuss the educational aims and methods of its teaching staff. He should have waited until after the meeting before writing his report, since it was highly likely that that meeting would produce useful information to add to that which he had already obtained from his previous contacts with the school. As will appear (49), the character of the meeting demonstrated beyond all doubt, what should already have been apparent to Mr Rice, namely that the junior school was in very serious trouble. Yet, although Mr Rice did not send the report that he had prepared on the day before the meeting to Miss Burgess until two days after the meeting, he apparently did not amend it in any way to reflect the highly disturbing picture that the meeting revealed.

360. In order that the readers of this Report may readily compare for themselves the adequacy of the account given by Mr Rice to Miss Burgess with all the information that he had prior to and as a result of the meeting of 9 July 1974, I shall not deal with the contents of his confidential report at this stage, but set it out in full immediately following the description of the meeting of 9 July 1974 (50).

Mrs Walker's campaign and circulation of her Black Paper

The drafting of Mrs Walker's Black Paper

361. It will be remembered that, after the meeting on 13 June 1974 called by the junior school staff to seek the parents' support for their 'unofficial' industrial

(47) See paragraphs 263-264 above.

(48) See Chapter I, paragraphs 53-56 above.

(49) See paragraphs 379-390 below.

(50) See paragraph 395 below.

[page 114]

strike action, Mrs Walker left the meeting with a group of parents who had taken a prominent part in the meeting. Mrs Walker either suggested, or readily responded to the suggestion, that the parents should prepare some guidelines for discussion at the forthcoming parents/teachers' meeting. She then mentioned her Black Paper, which was still in draft form, as being of possible use for that purpose, and offered to show it to the parents for the purpose of providing, so she claimed, 'the necessary framework for a constructive discussion'.

362. According to Mrs Walker's evidence to the Inquiry, it was agreed that, as a first step, she would meet with a group of parents to consider her paper. Also, according to Mrs Walker's evidence, a meeting did take place at the home of a parent where she showed her draft Black Paper to about five married couples who discussed it and agreed on certain amendments. There is no direct evidence to support Mrs Walker's account of this meeting. Of the ten people, consisting of the five married couples, whom she identified in evidence as having been present at this meeting, only one person, Mrs June Gaylor, attended to give evidence at the Inquiry. Although Mrs Gaylor agreed that she had seen a paper similar to Mrs Walker's Black Paper prior to the parents/teachers' meeting on 9 July 1974, she maintained that she could not remember who had shown it to her, or where or in what circumstances. She was, however, adamant that when she first saw it it was not in draft form and that it was not given to her so that she could approve or modify it, but simply for her information.

363. It is very difficult to make a finding of fact on such limited direct evidence. I can only say that, having regard to the undoubted assistance that Mrs Walker received in her arrangements for reproduction and circulation of her Black Paper (51), and to the degree of parental support for her shown at the parents/teachers' meeting on 9 July 1974, it is highly probable that she did discuss her Black Paper on one or more occasions with a number of parents before the meeting. However, I have grave doubts whether any of such parents had any real influence on the final form that it took. It will be remembered that Mrs Walker telephoned Mrs Gittings on two occasions maintaining that she would not sign it herself because it had been modified as a result of discussions with some parents (52). Discussions there may have been, and modifications there may have been, but, having had the opportunity of hearing Mrs Walker give evidence, I am inclined to the view that any modifications of substance that there may have been were made by her. She acknowledged at the parents/teachers' meeting on 9 July 1974 that, although it was unsigned, it was 'largely prepared' by her. Mrs Walker's behaviour in this respect has the appearance of an attempt by her to minimise the extent to which she was actively canvassing the support of the parents in her campaign against her colleagues. There is no doubt that there was a large body of parental discontent to draw upon, but Mrs Walker was, in my view, reluctant to reveal the full extent to which she was responsible for mobilising that discontent.

(51) See paragraph 365 below.

(52) See paragraph 297 above.

[page 115]

The distribution of Mrs Walker's Black Paper

364. Before describing the way in which Mrs Walker circulated her Black Paper to the parents of children at the junior school, I should mention an incident that took place a day or so before which strongly suggests that Mrs Walker gave thought to an even wider circulation. On 28 June 1974 she telephoned Miss Hart in connection with the possible distribution of her Black Paper at the infants school Summer Fair that was to take place the following day, 29 June 1974. Mrs Walker maintained in evidence to the Inquiry, that it was not her purpose in telephoning Miss Hart to ask if the Paper could be distributed at the Fair; she simply wished to know whether Miss Hart had given another parent reason to believe that it would be so distributed, and indicated to Miss Hart that she did not wish the occasion of the infants school Summer Fair to be used for that purpose. Miss Hart's evidence of the conversation, which I accept, was quite different. She said that Mrs Walker telephoned her and asked whether she would permit the distribution of the Paper at the Fair and that when Miss Hart said no, Mrs Walker appeared to accept that.

365. Towards the end of June 1974 Mrs Walker had decided upon the final form of her Black Paper. She then decided to have it typed and duplicated and - without informing Mr Ellis or his staff or the managers - circulated to the parents of certain children at the junior school. There was some issue at the Inquiry as to whether Mrs Walker was solely responsible for circulation of her Black Paper. I am satisfied, on the evidence, that she had the assistance of at least one parent in the duplication and circulation of the Paper. I am also satisfied that she must have had the assistance of another person, whom she refused to identify in evidence, in extracting the names and addresses from the school files of the parents to be circulated.

366. In selecting the parents to be circulated, Mrs Walker appears to have chosen those who, she considered, or had been informed, were anxious about the conditions in the junior school and who were likely to be interested in reading her Paper. Mrs Walker and at least one parent of a child at the junior school circulated the Paper over the end of June and the beginning of July 1974; that is, about the time of the open class evenings arranged for parents by Mr Ellis for 2 and 3 July 1974 (53), and which, significantly, Mrs Walker did not attend.

367. It is impossible to say, on the evidence put before the Inquiry, exactly how many parents received a copy of Mrs Walker's Black Paper. Mrs Walker was the only person who gave any direct evidence about this. Quite apart from the issue at the Inquiry of the help that she received in circulating the Paper, she was unable to be specific herself about the total number delivered or sent to parents. Doing the best I can on the evidence available, it looks as if about 40 parents (54) received a copy before the parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974.

Criticisms and allegations made by Mrs Walker in the course of circulation of her Black Paper

368. According to Mrs Walker, she only left her Black Paper with parents who, on answering the door to her, expressed concern about their children's education

(53) See paragraph 341 above.

(54) One of them was a parent of a child in the infants school.

[page 116]

or who showed interest in learning what the teaching policy of Mr Ellis was. Although many of the parents approached by Mrs Walker may have been sympathetic to her views, there were some who were not, and/or who disapproved of her methods of advancing them. On all the evidence that I have heard of Mrs Walker's approaches with her Black Paper to parents, I am satisfied that she did so in the main with the same proselytising zeal that she had previously used in the staffroom discussions. I am also satisfied that she sought to persuade parents to her point of view, not only by attacking the educational policies and methods adopted at the junior school, but also, in some cases, by making criticisms of a personal and political nature against some of her colleagues.

369. Three parents in particular gave compelling evidence of the way in which Mrs Walker pressed home her criticisms of the school and of the sort of allegations that she made against her colleagues. Their evidence was largely challenged by Mrs Walker, but in each case I am satisfied that their account of the conversations that they had with her is substantially correct. These three parents, one of whom, Mrs Doreen Frankel, was satisfied with the education her daughter was receiving at the school, and the others, Mr and Mrs Brian Jones, who were very critical of various aspects of the school, gave descriptions of the respective visits made to them by Mrs Walker which were similar in many important respects. She voiced specific criticisms to both families about the teaching methods adopted and lack of discipline at the school. She also spoke of the staff in general, and Mr Haddow in particular, having left-wing political views and using them to indoctrinate the children. Her descriptions of Mr Haddow to Mrs Frankel and Mr and Mrs Jones, though differing in meaning, attributed to him extreme and left-wing attitudes which would cause many people alarm. She described him to Mrs Frankel as an 'Anarchist' and a 'Revolutionary', and to Mr and Mrs Jones as a 'Trotskyite'. In each case she mentioned, no doubt by way of illustration of her allegations, her recollection of Mr Haddow's class option suggestion based on the quotation or misquotation from William Blake, which she described as an invitation to 'Do a drawing to illustrate the slogan: "The tigers of destruction are wiser than the horses of instruction"' (55).

The reaction of Mr Ellis and some of his staff to Mrs Walker's activities

370. Mrs Walker's activities did not remain a secret from Mr Ellis and his staff for very long. On 30 June 1974, she left a copy of her Black Paper with Mr and Mrs Jeremy Hamand who had a daughter at the junior school. Mr Hamand was very suspicious both about the manner of Mrs Walker's approach and about the form of the unsigned Paper. On 2 July 1974, he took a copy of it to Mr Ellis. In the next two or three days Mr Ellis and his staff heard more about it from other parents who had received a copy or learned of its existence. Among the parents who spoke to Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow about it were Mrs Frankel and Mrs Jones (56) who told them of the allegations of a political nature that Mrs Walker had made, particularly against Mr Haddow. Mr Ellis also learned from Miss Hart of Mrs Walker's request to

(55) See Chapter IV, paragraphs 202-205, above.

(56) See paragraph 369 above.

[page 117]

have her Paper distributed at the infants school Summer Fair. Coupled with this information about Mrs Walker's activities the staff of the junior school also began to hear rumours from various sources leading them to believe that there was a campaign among a number of people, including some of the managers, to secure their dismissal, and that the forthcoming parents/teachers' meeting would be used as a forum to attack them and to pass a resolution to remove them from the school.

371. Mrs McColgan and Mr Haddow, both of whom had been given reason to believe that they were particular targets for attack, wrote letters of complaint to Mr Ellis for onward transmission to the Divisional Office. Mrs McColgan complained about allegations made against her by certain parents and Mr Haddow complained about the allegations that had been made by Mrs Walker to Mrs Frankel and Mr and Mrs Jones and to another parent about his political views. Mrs McColgan followed up her letter to Mr Ellis by instructing Solicitors to write to the parents of whose allegations she was complaining; and Mr Haddow sent a note to Mrs Walker warning her that he was considering making a formal complaint against her to the Authority and also taking civil proceedings against her for slander.

372. However much Mr Ellis and the majority of his staff may have been to blame for the rapid deterioration of the junior school and loss of parental confidence up to the middle of June 1974, there must be considerable sympathy for the situation in which they now found themselves. Largely as a result of Mrs Walker's campaign, the atmosphere at the school became one in which for a time it must have been extremely difficult for Mr Ellis and his staff to give full attention to their work and to attempt to restore parental confidence. The atmosphere of rumour and counter-rumour became all pervading, and Mr Ellis and most of his staff spent a disproportionate amount of time on the conspiracies that they believed to be springing up around them.

373. However, those developments only made it all the more urgent for the junior school staff to take every step possible, before and at the parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974, to demonstrate the soundness of their teaching aims and methods and the falsity of the attacks being made against them. If the school had had a strong head teacher capable of seeing that priority and of giving a firm lead to his staff in meeting it, there might have been a chance of overcoming the school's problems in the long run. Unfortunately, Mr Ellis had neither the judgment nor the strength to give that lead; and, with a majority of his staff - strongly influenced by Mr Haddow - unable or unwilling to consider that they might have largely contributed to what had happened, the situation was bound to get worse.

374. It was not until 4 July 1974 that Mrs Walker took any steps to inform Mr Ellis of the existence of her Black Paper, and she did so then merely by leaving a copy of the Paper on his desk. She still did not provide Mrs Burnett or any of the managers with a copy, and she gave no indication to Mr Ellis or the managers of the use that she intended to make of the Paper at the forthcoming meeting.

375. Within minutes of seeing the copy of the Paper, Mr Ellis wrote a number of questions to Mrs Walker about its preparation and distribution and purpose. In the written answers that she gave him on 8 July 1974 - four days later - Mrs Walker

[page 118]

acknowledged that she had had a major hand in its 'compilation', but not in its 'processing and duplication', and maintained that it had been 'modified and approved' by parents. She went on to give some distinctly unsatisfactory answers to his questions about the distribution of the Paper before it had been shown to him and about its connection with the forthcoming meeting on 9 July 1974. Finally, she explained her purpose in preparing and distributing the Paper in the following way:

'Parents have expressed their concern that this meeting should not degenerate into a pitched battle in which a lot of emotion was generated to little effect for the benefit of the school. They desired some guidelines concerning the educational theory involved in the present running of the school as they are not conversant with educational theory and are aware that they are inarticulate and are consequently at a great disadvantage. The aim of this document is merely to keep matters cool and enable reasonable and constructive discussion to take place. There is no personal attitude involved or implied in this document or its circulation.'

376. Having regard to the whole series of events from the time of the parents' meeting on 13 June 1974 onwards, Mr Ellis and his staff understandably felt a good deal of apprehension about what might happen at the parents/teachers' meeting. They sought the advice of Mr Horace Perrin, the regional officer of the National Union of Teachers. He advised that Mr Ellis should attend the meeting as spokesman for the staff but suggested that it might be better if the staff did not attend at all. However, the staff decided that they would attend in order to support Mr Ellis but that they would leave the talking to him. In particular they decided that they did not want, and should not be required, to answer any questions personally.

The Parents/Teachers' Meeting of 9 July 1974

The procedural arrangements for the Meeting

377. Mr Ellis and his staff were not the only ones who were apprehensive about the meeting. As already indicated, Mrs Burnett, who was to chair it, was equally anxious. Some of the rumours of Mrs Walker's activities had inevitably reached her, and she was concerned that the meeting might degenerate into an organised attack on the junior school staff. She discussed the procedural arrangements with Mr Ellis, and it was agreed between them that she, as Chairman, should emphasise that the meeting was intended to be an informal but positive discussion about the teaching philosophy and practice of the school. In particular, they agreed to avoid any formal meeting procedures in case resolutions were proposed and carried which purported to bind the staff even though the staff might disagree with them. It was also agreed that Mrs Burnett would do her best as Chairman to protect Mr Ellis and his staff from any personal attacks that might be made.

378. Before the meeting began Mrs Burnett and Mr Ellis placed on every chair in the hall where the meeting was to take place a copy of the short document that

[page 119]

Mr Ellis and his staff had prepared setting out in very general terms the aims of the junior school staff (57). They then returned to Mr Ellis's office to await the start of the meeting. Shortly after that, and before the meeting started, two things happened. First, Mrs Dewhurst, who was still doing her best to support Mr Ellis despite her growing misgivings, told him that she was very worried, and warned him that she had heard that something unpleasant was being prepared by certain people who were to attend the meeting. Secondly, Mrs Walker, without any warning to Mrs Burnett or to Mr Ellis and the rest of his staff, placed a copy of her Black Paper on the same chairs on which the short statement of Mr Ellis and his staff had been placed shortly before.

The Meeting

379. The meeting began at 7.30 pm and lasted about two hours. There were present, in addition to Mrs Burnett in the chair, about 65 parents, all the full-time staff of the junior school (save for Miss Fox), Mrs Walker, and a number of Managers, including Mrs Gittings, Mrs Dewhurst, Mr Mabey, Mr Tennant, Mr Martindale and Mr Bolland. In addition, Mr Rice was there with a clerk from the Divisional Office who took notes of the meeting.

380. The meeting was a noisy one, and despite Mrs Burnett's attempts to control it, frequently deteriorated into a shouting match between various factions. Mrs Burnett opened the meeting explaining how it had come to be convened, and emphasised that its purpose was to be constructive and to discuss aims and methods and to clarify any misunderstandings that may have arisen. She then invited Mr Ellis to speak. He dealt first with the problems of shortage of staff that the school had had whilst he was there, and with the high turnover of its staff over the previous two years. He then turned to the staff's short written statement of aims that had been distributed on the chairs, and dealt very briefly with each of the listed aims. In particular, he emphasised that the staff's aim was to teach children to think for themselves, not to allow them to do what they like, and that the parents should try to understand that distinction.

381. There was then an intervention from the floor of the meeting, significantly by Mrs Gaylor, one of the parents who had left the parents' meeting of 13 June 1974 with Mrs Walker and with whom Mrs Walker claimed that she had discussed her Black Paper before its circulation (58). Mrs Gaylor rose to ask that there should be no reprisals - by which, I suppose, she had in mind defamation proceedings and complaints to the Authority - as a result of anything said at the meeting. Mrs Burnett indicated that she could give no assurances about this and that the meeting was open for general discussion not individual matters, which should be discussed privately with Mr Ellis at another time.

382. The meeting was then thrown open for discussion, and one parent, Mrs Marion Thwaites, voiced her concern about the reading groups which, she said,

(57) See paragraph 342 above.

(58) See paragraph 362 above.

[page 120]

were no longer taking place. Mr Ellis replied, saying that this was largely due to staff absences, and then, somewhat defensively, asked Mrs Thwaites why she had not come to see him about the problem. This response of Mr Ellis provoked some exchanges about his availability to talk to parents and about the way in which he dealt with their complaints when he did talk to them. However, all this was getting away from the main point of the meeting and there was a strong indication from many present that they wanted Mr Ellis to deal adequately with Mrs Thwaites's question about the failure of the reading groups scheme. It was at that point that Mrs Walker intervened.

383. In a speech, in which she dissociated herself from Mr Ellis and his colleagues and claimed to speak for those parents who were too inarticulate to speak for themselves, Mrs Walker launched a characteristically outspoken attack on the way in which the junior school was being run. She spoke very much on the lines of her Black Paper, which she acknowledged had been largely prepared by her. She rehearsed her criticisms of the 'total free choice' method of teaching which, she claimed, had been adopted by most of the staff, and of the loss in reading tuition that had taken place as a result of the introduction of the abortive reading groups scheme and abandonment of remedial reading tuition. It was a long speech, couched in extreme terms, and contained personal criticisms of Mr Ellis and, by implication, of Mr Haddow. Although Mrs Burnett tried to stop Mrs Walker on a number of occasions, Mrs Walker persisted and was encouraged to do so by some of the parents present. Whatever degree of support Mrs Walker may have had, and however sound some of her criticisms may have been, the manner of her intervention and the personal nature of some of her arguments only raised the temperature of the meeting. Her behaviour did not make for the 'constructive' discussion for which Mrs Burnett had asked at the beginning of the meeting.

384. Mr Ellis denied that a 'total free choice' method of teaching was in use at the school. He explained that his was a 'progressive' approach, in which he encouraged children to make their own decisions, and that such an approach had been used with success at other schools. He concluded by saying that any parents who were worried about their children's progress or behaviour should come to see him.

385. The majority of the parents at the meeting were obviously dissatisfied with the inadequacy of Mr Ellis's account of his conduct of the school and with the fact that he appeared to have made very little effort to explain or justify in practical terms what his aims and methods were. There then followed a number of questions from the parents indicating a large measure of support for Mrs Walker's views and couched in terms that were clearly critical of him and some of his staff - questions both about teaching methods and lack of discipline. The general impression that Mr Ellis gave in his answers to these questions was one of evasiveness. Instead of meeting the points of concern and dealing with them directly and informatively, his replies were defensive in tone and expressed in such vague terms as to suggest that either he did not know what answers to give or that he did not wish to deal directly with the questions. In some cases he 'fenced' with the parents by responding to their questions with the suggestion that, if they were so concerned about the subject matter of their question, they should have come to see him about it. His attitude

[page 121]

lost him the support of a number of parents who had come to the meeting with open minds and who, up to that time, had been prepared to accept the possibility that he was doing his best for the school in difficult circumstances.

386. Sensing the mood of the meeting and the disappointment of the parents with Mr Ellis's attitude, Mr Rice took the opportunity to intervene by identifying himself as the District Inspector and assuring them of his intention to give as much support to Mr Ellis as possible and to see that the parents' views were considered.

387. However, the parents continued with their questions. One parent asked whether the 'free choice' system operated by Mr Haddow would continue, and about the staff's plans for the coming school year. Mr Ellis's answer to that was as evasive as his earlier answers had been. He said that the school was not run entirely by him and that the plans for the future were a matter for discussion among the staff. This answer only increased the frustration of the majority of parents present, who had come to the meeting to learn about their children's education. Another parent, Mrs Diana Erwin, took up the question, asking whether Mr Haddow's 'experiment' would be repeated the following term, and made the valid point that, as Mr Haddow had written letters to parents asking for their views about it, she did not see why it could not be openly discussed at the meeting. Mr Ellis denied that Mr Haddow's scheme was an 'experiment'. As he was saying that, Mr Haddow, Mrs McWhirter, Mrs McColgan, Miss Green and Miss Richards all stood up together and, without any explanation, walked out of the meeting. Their 'walk-out' produced complete uproar for a time and sealed the failure of the meeting as an exercise to inform and reassure the parents about their children's education. The reason for this curious behaviour of Mr Haddow and colleagues is considered below (59) at the end of this account of the meeting.

388. After the uproar had subsided, Mrs Erwin put her question about Mr Haddow's free choice scheme again. But still Mr Ellis evaded giving any firm answer, saying that it was a matter for discussion between Mr Haddow and himself and that, in any event, Mr Haddow would not be teaching fourth year children in the following year. Eventually, after some clamour from the hall for him to answer the question, Mr Ellis indicated that he did not think that the scheme was likely to be repeated. There then followed further questions and answers about the plans for the following year, with Mr Ellis still not giving specific answers. Although there had been some discussion among some of the staff about the introduction of cooperative or team teaching the following year, and Mr Ellis had asked Mr Rice to give Mr Haddow a scale post with responsibility for it (60), Mr Ellis told the parents very little of such tentative plans as the staff may have had for it at that time. He gave little indication of their plans altogether, explaining his inability to do so by saying that they were restricted in what they could do by the resources and equipment available, and that it depended largely on the staffing situation. He did, however, indicate that two members of the staff (Miss Fox and Mrs Ranasinghe) were leaving at the end of

(59) See paragraphs 391-393 below.

(60) See paragraph 246 above.

[page 122]

term and that he hoped that any new member of the staff would be in sympathy with the methods used in the school. He concluded by saying that the teaching methods adopted at the school were not wrong, but that they might have been wrongly applied due to shortage of staff and other factors.

389. The meeting was then closed by Mrs Burnett. In doing so, she informed them that a programme of four meetings had been arranged by the staff for the following term at which parents could visit the school and talk to Mr Ellis and the class teachers, three of the meetings relating respectively to cooperative or team teaching, secondary transfer, first year children, and the fourth to be an open evening. Finally, Mrs Burnett urged the parents to approach Mr Ellis if they had any individual problems that they wished to discuss with him, and said that in the meantime the staff and the managers would discuss the matters about which the parents had expressed concern and would take advantage of the assistance offered by Mr Rice.

390. As an exercise in providing information to and reassuring the parents about their children's education, the meeting was a total failure. Even without Mrs Walker's trouble-making prior to, and harmful intervention at, the meeting, It would have been a failure. The apparent inability or unwillingness of Mr Ellis to give the parents any worthwhile information about the teaching methods of the school only caused further resentment and increased the suspicions of the majority of parents present. Mr Ellis's attitude and the behaviour of those of his staff who walked out of the meeting also lost them, irrevocably, the support of some of the managers, particularly Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst, who, up to that time, had in their different ways sought to assist Mr Ellis to overcome what they regarded as a difficult situation.

The 'Walk-out' from the meeting by Mr Haddow and his four colleagues

391. I must deal in a little more detail with the 'walk-out' by Mr Haddow and his colleagues, because it caused serious and permanent damage to the relations between many of the managers and of the parents, on the one hand, and the majority of the junior school staff, on the other.

392. I am satisfied that Mr Haddow and those members of the staff who left the meeting with him had previously planned this as a possible course of action and that the timing of their 'walk-out' was dictated by Mr Haddow. What prompted them to choose that moment to leave? In a written statement which they prepared a day or so later by way of explanation of their conduct, they said that they left because, contrary to assurances given to them prior to the meeting, personal attacks upon them had been permitted at the meeting. An examination of the various accounts of the meeting that have been put in evidence to the Inquiry indicates that the nearest that anyone got to making any personal attacks was Mrs Walker in the early stages of the meeting when she criticised Mr Ellis and, by implication, Mr Haddow. Why is it that Mr Haddow and his colleagues did not leave the meeting at that early stage, but much later on when parents, in accordance with the purpose of the meeting, were trying to obtain information about their

[page 123]

children's education? When giving evidence about this to the Inquiry, Mr Haddow and his colleagues explained their timing by saying that it was the use by Mrs Erwin of the word 'experiment' in her question as to whether Mr Haddow's experiment was to be repeated the following year, that savoured of a personal attack upon him. He resented the suggestion that he was 'experimenting' with children in the teaching methods that he adopted. I do not accept that it was Mrs Erwin's choice of words that prompted Mr Haddow and his colleagues to walk out of the meeting so abruptly. In my view, he left and prompted the others to leave because he resented - and does resent, as his evidence to the Inquiry indicated - parents, who are not qualified teachers, presuming to question or criticise the way in which he teaches their children.

393. This 'walk-out' of Mr Haddow and his four colleagues demonstrated not only an unjustified sensitivity on their part to what they regarded as parental intrusion into the teachers' professional domain; it also showed a total insensitivity to the genuine concern being expressed by many parents about the education of their children. In behaving as they did, they completely misjudged, or did not trouble to consider, the harmful effects that their conduct would have upon the junior school and upon the attitude of many of the managers and parents to them thereafter.

The adequacy of the 'Protection' given by Mrs Burnett and Mr Rice to Mr Ellis and his staff at the Meeting

394. It has been suggested in evidence to the Inquiry that Mrs Burnett, in her capacity as Chairman of the meeting, and that Mr Rice, on behalf of the Authority, did not give adequate 'protection' to Mr Ellis and his colleagues. Having considered carefully all the accounts of the meeting that have been given in evidence, I am satisfied that such a suggestion is totally unfounded. In my view, Mrs Burnett did her best to support them in a very difficult meeting whilst at the same time endeavouring, as Chairman, to preserve a proper balance so that the meeting might achieve the purpose for which it was called. It was not her fault in any way that it proved to be such a failure. I am also satisfied that Mr Rice, in intervening in the way that he did to indicate his support for Mr Ellis, did as much as could have been expected of him, given the circumstances of the meeting and his position there as an observer.

The role of the Authority following the Parents/Teachers' Meeting of 9 July 1974

Mr Rice's Confidential Report of 8 July 1974

395. On 1 I July 1974, Mr Rice sent to Miss Burgess, with a copy to Dr Birchenough, the confidential report that he had prepared on 8 July 1974. As already indicated (61), he made no amendments to it in the light of the events of the

(60) See paragraph 359 above.

(61) [footnote missing]

[page 124]

parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974, not even to indicate the serious loss of parental confidence in the school that the meeting had demonstrated. It read as follows:

'CONFIDENTIAL

William Tyndale Junior School

Mr Ellis, the Headmaster, was appointed to this school on 1 January 1974. He took over a school with eight assistant teachers and some staffing problems. There are a number of rather disturbed children in both the Junior and Infant Schools.

He has tried to introduce a form of cooperative teaching with children being sent to different teachers in small groups. This has caused some disturbance to school routine and some indiscipline amongst the children.

The staff are relatively inexperienced and it might have been wiser initially to make sure of the qualities of the staff before implementing new organisation.

I have visited the school on six occasions since I joined the Authority on 1 March.

The Headmaster is sincerely concerned about these problems and in fact he was recently absent due to nervous depression and worry (62).

Although accepting the role of Head Teacher he has been too much influenced by different points of view among his staff some of whom have actively opposed him and his philosophy of Education.

There is a meeting of the parents on 9 July and a manager's meeting on 15 July, both of which I shall attend.

My Proposals for the school are as follows:

1. Meeting of all the staff early next term to discuss a common policy for the school. New staff will be present and I shall be able to attend.

2. Provision of extra money for more equipment for both Junior and Infant Schools for this is a school with urgent needs. £800 is a suggested figure.

3. The creation of a full-time unit run by a teacher/psychotherapist. At present there is a 0.5 teacher for this. This needs to be supported by a teacher (Scale 4) similar to a tutorial class teacher's post. This unit would be for disturbed children in both Infant and Junior Departments.

At present the unit which is very successful is only used by the Infant Department.

I am concerned that standards of both behaviour and attainment have fallen in the junior school. I feel that every support must be given at this stage to the Headmaster and Staff to boost morale and re-establish good standards and discipline.

D. V. Rice,    
District Inspector, Division 3'

(62) This was his period of absence between 20 and 28 June 1974, referred to in paragraph 338 above.

[page 125]

396. Mr Rice's report gave some indication of the junior school's troubles of which he had learned prior to the parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974. However, in my view, it did not indicate with sufficient urgency the true extent of the problem which, if not appreciated by Mr Rice prior to the meeting, ought to have been only too obvious to him after it. Yet he allowed this report to go to MIss Burgess, and a copy to Dr Birchenough, as originally prepared. There is no indication in any of the evidence that he supplemented the information given to Miss Burgess by any oral account of what happened at the 9 July 1974 meeting. Nor does he appear to have given Dr Birchenough any account of the meeting which impressed Dr Birchenough at the time as being of particularly serious concern. Dr Birchenough, having seen the copy of Mr Rice's report, considered that Mr Rice was dealing adequately with the situation and, apart from discussing with Miss Burgess and Mr Rice the additional resources which the report recommended (63), he took no action upon it.

397. This written report of Mr Rice is a critical document because it conditioned the attitude of the Authority in its treatment of the school for another six months at least. When I refer to the Authority here, I am referring particularly to its Officers and not to its Members. I say that because, although the report was originally requested by Mr Hinds as a result of information that he had received from Mrs Anne Page and others (64), Miss Burgess never showed him the report. The first time that he saw it was shortly after the Inquiry had started. There was nothing sinister in this; it was almost certainly due to the low key in which the report was expressed. It spoke of the problems of the school, but appeared to suggest that these could be solved largely by the provision of more money and other resources. Miss Burgess accordingly treated it in that light and made the necessary administrative arrangements to provide additional finance and resources to the school. It is probable that she told Mr Hinds orally of the report and of what she was doing. However, there was apparently nothing sufficiently disturbing about the school as shown by the report for either Miss Burgess or Mr Hinds to have any specific recollection of such discussion.

398. Arrangements were made for both Miss Hart and Mr Ellis to submit a list of requirements for additional finance and resources. Miss Burgess, after discussing the requests with Dr Birchenough and Mr Rice, authorised by the beginning of the autumn term the provision of the following additional help to the schools under its 'Children With Special Difficulties Scheme' (65).

1. an additional teacher specially trained for working with difficult children, to start in the autumn term 1974 and to be shared equally between the two schools (that is, working a half day each day in each school);

2. £700 to the junior school to provide audio/visual equipment, mathematics equipment and additional books; and

3. £672 to the infants school for visual aids and additional books.

(65) See Chapter II, paragraph 120, above.

[page 126]

399. In addition to the recommendations in Mr Rice's report for the provision of extra money and resources, there was the recommendation that a staff meeting should be held early in the autumn term, attended by Mr Rice, to discuss a common policy for the school. Two members of the staff were leaving at the end of the summer term and were to be replaced by two new teachers at the beginning of the autumn term. Mr Rice appears to have considered that it would be better to defer the meeting to agree upon a common policy until after the new teachers had arrived. Although that would have been a suitable approach to such a situation in normal circumstances, there were highly abnormal circumstances present in the case of William Tyndale Junior School which, in my view, required much more urgent attention.

400. Mr Ellis had failed at the 9 July 1974 meeting to show that the school had any coherent teaching policy. There had been a serious decline in parental confidence - a decline which that meeting could only have aggravated - indicating a high risk of a large number of parents withdrawing their children from the school at the end of the summer term. In my view, Mr Rice should have proposed an immediate meeting with the staff in order to make early and adequate preparation for the new school year and to take urgent steps to attempt to restore the confidence of the parents in the school. Mr Rice should also have considered enlisting the aid of specialist subject inspectors to visit the school before the end of the summer term, if possible, and, in any event, at the beginning of the autumn term. However, it appears that neither of these courses of action was considered by Mr Rice as being necessary before the end of the term.

Letters front parents to the Authority expressing discontent about the junior school

401. Dr Birchenough took his decision - or held to it - to leave Mr Rice to handle the situation despite the receipt of letters by the Authority from certain parents indicating that they were so unhappy about the junior school that, at the end of the term they would not transfer their infant children to it or, as the case may be, would remove their children from it. In all, five such letters were sent in July 1974 to Mr Wales, the Divisional Officer. He apparently considered them to be sufficiently important to pass them for information to the Administrative Office at County Hall responsible for dealing with complaints under the Authority's Disciplinary Procedures (66). In fact no formal complaints were made under these Disciplinary Procedures arising out of the subject matters of the letters. However, Dr Birchenough, who was not simply concerned with individual disciplinary matters, but also with the general well-being of the school, also heard from the Divisional Office and from Mr Rice about these letters, and saw at least one of them. Nevertheless, he still took the view that Mr Rice should be left to handle the situation.

402. In the event, as has already been recorded at the beginning of this chapter, the parental dissatisfaction with which Mr Rice was well familiar by 9 July 1974, and of which Dr Birchenough became aware (albeit to a lesser extent) towards the end of

(66) See Chapter I, paragraphs 86-89, and Appendix VIII to the/Report.

[page 127]

July 1974, was amply borne out by the sharp fall in the junior school roll after the end of the summer term. Seventeen children were withdrawn from the junior school; and 21 children from the infants school, who would normally have transferred to the junior school, were sent instead to neighbouring Junior Schools.

The Authority's response to Mrs Walker's behaviour

403. In addition to the general troubles of the junior school, the Authority also had to deal with the problem of Mrs Walker. From her behaviour at the parents/teachers' meeting on 9 July 1974 it must have been evident to Mr Rice that her continued presence in the school would not be conducive to its smooth running. Whatever her motives and however justified many of her arguments may have been, her behaviour had antagonised permanently most of the staff and some of the parents, and, in the main was a source of embarrassment to the managers.

404. Mrs Walker, however, was quite undeterred by what had happened at the meeting on 9 July 1974. Five days later, on 14 July, she wrote to Mrs Burnett, Mr Rice and Mr Ellis enclosing a draft of suggestions, which she put forward as a basis for future discussions, and urging that the school should put its 'own house in order'. It is noteworthy that in her letter to Mr Ellis she said:

'What has happened here is only symptomatic of a very general situation in education in this country at the present so that thrashing things out here may have much wider implications, and for this reason it is very important and worthwhile.'

'To develop each child to the extent of his/her potential to be able to take advantage of the next phase of their education in a secondary school.'

406. That Mrs Walker could write in this way, so shortly after her unjustifiable behaviour in circulating her Black Paper and speaking as she did at the parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974, indicates a singular lack of appreciation on her part of her own contribution to the deteriorating conditions at the school and the fall in parental confidence.

(67) See paragraph 342 above.

[page 128]

407. About the time that Mrs Walker was despatching these letters and her draft suggestions for discussion, her own conduct was being looked at very critically by a number of people. First, the Divisional Office had sent a copy of her Black Paper to the administrative office at County Hall responsible for dealing with complaints under the Authority's Disciplinary Procedures (68). Secondly, some of the managers, at the Special Meeting of Managers convened on 15 July 1974 (69), indicated that they had strong views about what they regarded as her improper conduct. However, after Mr Norman Kalber, the Deputy Divisional Officer, who was present at the meeting, mentioned that the matter had been referred to County Hall, Mrs Burnett, as Chairman of the managers, ruled that they should not discuss it further until they knew what action was going to be taken by the Authority (70).

408. Following the Special Meeting of the managers on 15 July 1974, Mr Kalber sent a minute to the above-mentioned Administrative office at County Hall. In it, he referred to Mrs Walker's Black Paper, to her acknowledgment at the meeting of 9 July 1974 that it was a paper that she had largely prepared, and to the fact that she had distributed copies of it to parents. Mr Kalber's minute concluded with the following paragraph and postscript:

'The headmaster has understandably taken exception to Mrs Walker's action, and having regard to all the circumstances the district inspector and I would be glad of your advice as to the best method of dealing with what appears to be unprofessional conduct. ...

PS The managers obviously had very strong feelings about this but the Chairman did not allow further discussion after I said that the matter had been referred to the EO.'

(68) See Chapter I, paragraphs 86-89, and Appendix VIII to the Report.

(69) See paragraphs 417-422 below.

(70) Although this may have been a reasonable decision for Mrs Burnett to take once Mr Kalber had informed the managers that the matter had been referred to County Hall, the managers could, if they wished, have considered at the meeting whether they should themselves institute a formal complaint against Mrs Walker under paragraph 5 of the Disciplinary Section of the staff Code. See Chapter I, paragraph 88(ii) above, and Appendix VIII to the Report.

(71) See Chapter VI, paragraph 535 below.

[page 129]

it took place. Moreover, the Divisional Office appear to have presented the problem to Mr Watts in the first place as being essentially an issue between Mr Ellis and the majority of his staff, on the one hand, and Mrs Walker on the other. Nevertheless, for the reasons that I now give, the Authority's administrative machinery failed to deal properly with the problem that Mrs Walker's conduct had created.

410. The tenor of the advice given by Mr Watts was that any action to be taken arising out of Mrs Walker's behaviour should be left to the initiative of Mr Ellis. This is how Mr Watts described the various possibilities:

'Official action should, I suggest, largely depend on how far the Headmaster wishes to press this. He would appear to have three main courses open to him:

(i) To refer it to the Professional Conduct Committee of the NUT if both he and Mrs Walker are members.
(ii) To circulate a document of his own, refuting most if not all of the points of criticism.
(iii) To lay an official written complaint against Mrs Walker, to be heard under the Authority's Disciplinary Procedures.'

'The Chairman of the managers acted very properly in not allowing the managers to discuss this matter officially, since any prior involvement by them in this matter might result in a negation of their ability to play their full part in any official enquiry under the Authority's Disciplinary Procedures. ... '

412. I have said that this advice was inadequate in two principal respects. First, it was inadequate because it dealt with the problem as if it were essentially a private dispute between Mr Ellis and his staff, on the one hand, and Mrs. Walker on the other. As events have shown, the problem was of much wider importance

(72) Viz. the letters from parents notifying the Authority of their intention to remove their children from, or not to transfer them from the infants school to, the junior school; see paragraph 401 above.

[page 130]

than that. The Authority had and has a vital interest in the way that its teaching staff conduct themselves in relation to the affairs of its schools. It was not just a matter of concern for Mr Ellis and his colleagues that Mrs Walker had behaved in the way she did. It should also have been of great concern to the Authority, particularly as it faced the prospect of Mrs Walker remaining on the staff of this troubled school for at least another term. The Schools Sub-Committee had and has power to institute disciplinary proceedings against a teacher (73). Mr Watts should have considered and advised upon that possibility.

Secondly, the advice was inadequate because it failed to consider and advise that the managers themselves could make a formal complaint under the Authority's Disciplinary Procedures (74).

413. It follows that Mr Watts was wrong in advising that, if the managers had discussed the matter officially at their meeting on 15 July 1974, it might have prejudiced their ability to play 'their full part in any official enquiry under the Authority's Disciplinary Procedures'.

414. Finally, the suggestion that Mr Ellis could consider as a possible course of action the circulation of a document of his own refuting Mrs Walker's criticisms was, in my view, wholly inappropriate. Although it would have been of great advantage to everyone if Mr Ellis and his staff had quite independently proposed a full and detailed written account before the parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974 of their teaching aims and methods, I entirely agree with the view expressed by Mr Ellis in evidence to the Inquiry that there was no value in involving himself in a 'pamphlet war' with Mrs Walker.

415. In summary, this advice of Mr Watts gave no indication that the Authority regarded the problem as calling for any action on its part. And, such suggestions that it contained were not only inadequate, inaccurate and inappropriate in the respects that I have mentioned, but the advice did not even purport to give any firm guidance to the managers or the staff of the junior school as to what action should be taken. It is an example - among many that feature in this Report - of the Authority adopting a low profile and leaving people, who had plainly got beyond the stage of being able to sort out their own problems, to get on with it. In my view, the Authority should have adopted a much more positive approach in relation to the anxieties felt both by the managers and the staff about Mrs Walker's behaviour. The Authority should have acted, either by investigating those anxieties by means of a disciplinary proceedings instituted by itself or, on proper advice, by the managers or Junior School staff. As a further alternative, the Authority could have sought to make arrangements to provide Mrs Walker with employment at another school in the autumn term (75). In expressing these views I do not overlook the fact

(73) See Chapter I, paragraph 88(iii), and Appendix VIII to the Report.

(74) See Chapter I, paragraph 88(ii), and Appendix VIII to the Report.

(75) As a part-time teacher Mrs Walker was a 'temporary terminal teacher', which means that the Authority could have terminated her employment at William Tyndale Junior School at the end of the summer term; see Glossary - 'Temporary Terminal Staff'.

[page 131]

that Mr Ellis and his colleagues did not make any formal complaint against Mrs Walker, but, whatever the reason for that, I am of the view that it does not absolve the Authority from its failure to take some positive action of its own and to give firm and accurate advice to all parties concerned at the end of the summer term.

416. In the event, the only action that the Authority took was through Mr Rice, who saw Mrs Walker shortly before the beginning of the autumn term 1974 and told her that he thought her preparation and distribution of her Black Paper and her contribution at the parents/teachers' meeting had been unhelpful and counterproductive. Mrs Walker apologised to Mr Rice, indicating that, although she had acted in what she had regarded as the best interests of the junior school, she realised that she had made an error of judgment and that she had been too outspoken. Mr Rice said to her that he sympathised with her anxieties, but stressed that, in the future, she should cooperate with the staff of the junior school. According to the evidence given by Mr Rice to the Inquiry, Mrs Walker appeared to accept what he said.

The Special Meeting of the Managers on 15 July 1974

417. As already indicated (76), a Special Meeting of Managers had originally been fixed for 8 July 1974, but had then been postponed so as to follow the parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974 and thereby to enable the managers to consider, among the other items on the agenda, the outcome of that meeting. Considering all that had taken place it appears to have been a comparatively uncontentious meeting, with many of the managers avoiding open expression, in the presence of Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow, of their discontent about the way the junior school was being run.

418. Mr Rice gave a resumé of the points raised and discussed at the parents/teachers' meeting, and then Mr Ellis gave further details of the four parents' meetings that were being arranged for the autumn term, one of which, it will be remembered (77), was to be a meeting for parents of second and third year children in connection with the cooperative teaching scheme that was planned for them. This was followed by some general discussion on the ways in which contacts could be made and improved with parents in order to obtain their support.

419. Mr Rice also took this early opportunity to inform the managers of his discussions with Miss Burgess and Dr Birchenough and of their decision to make available to the schools additional help, under the Authority's Children With Special Difficulties Scheme, in the form of extra finance and an additional teacher, who was specially trained to deal with difficult children, to work half-time at each

(76) See paragraph 407 above.

(77) See paragraphs 345 and 389 above.

[page 132]

School (78). He invited both head teachers to submit a list of their requirements for extra finance under this Scheme, which, as I have already indicated (78), were agreed to by the Authority at the beginning of the autumn term by the provision of an extra £700 for the junior school and £672 for the infants school.

420. It is important to note, in the light of comments subsequently made by Mr Ellis to Mrs Burnett (79, that Mr Ellis, after hearing of the Authority's proposals for additional help, asked that a cloakroom on the top floor of the schools building should be cleared so that it could be used as a 'sanctuary' to which difficult children could go when they were under particular stress. (This sanctuary was eventually made and put into use at the beginning of the spring term 1975).

421. There followed some discussion about the future curriculum of both schools. The managers were concerned about the lack of any clear indication given by Mr Ellis at the parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974 of his and his staff's teaching aims and methods. Accordingly, they decided to ask him, and Miss Hart, to prepare a written statement of the proposed curriculum for their respective schools, to be presented to the managers at their next Meeting in the autumn term.

422. Towards the end of the Meeting, the managers returned, somewhat inconclusively, to a discussion of the events of the parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974. As already indicated (80), they did not get very far with their discussion of Mrs Walker's conduct once it had been indicated that that matter had been referred to County Hall for advice. They discussed the 'walk-out' from the meeting and the explanation put forward for their action by Mr Haddow and his colleagues that they had done so because of 'personal attacks' being made against them. However, I have the feeling that although many of the managers present at this Managers' Meeting had taken a very critical view of what Mr Haddow and his colleagues had done, they were not inclined to engage in any open discussion about it in the presence of Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow. Some indication of the way in which the Managing Body approached this particular subject can be seen from the voting figures on the following motion at the Meeting:

'That the managers of William Tyndale Schools wished to put on record with regret the fact that at the parent/teacher meeting held on 9 July 1974 certain incidents took place which might have been interpreted by some as personal attacks on the staff.'

(78) See paragraph 398 above.

(79) See Chapter VII, paragraph 616.

(80) See paragraph 407 above.

[page 133]

The Meeting of certain Managers with Divisional Office staff on 23 July 1974

423. Certain of the managers left the Special Meeting of Managers on 15 July 1974 convinced that, if the junior school was to survive, very much more urgent and positive intervention was required from the Authority than the provision of extra money and resources mentioned by Mr Rice at the meeting. In addition, they were concerned about the consequential effects on the infants school if the junior school continued to deteriorate. They felt that with only four days of the summer term to go and that, with all other attempts to produce a solution having failed or being likely to fail, some exceptional and speedy action was called for. The managers particularly concerned were: Mrs Fairweather (who was to become Vice-Chairman of the managers at the beginning of the following term, in place of Mrs Davies who was resigning as a Manager), Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst.

424. On the day following the Special Meeting of Managers, Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst discussed their anxieties and also spoke about them to Miss Hart. At Mrs Fairweather's suggestion, they decided to try to arrange an informal discussion between them (not including Miss Hart) and Mr Rice as soon as possible in order to press upon him the need for more immediate action by the Authority. It should be noted that they made this decision, and that Mrs Fairweather telephoned Mr Rice to ask for such a meeting, without informing Mrs Burnett, the Chairman of the managers, or, insofar as it was possible, the other members of the Managing Body of what they were doing. Mr Rice was somewhat hesitant about agreeing to such a meeting, no doubt because he felt that it was wrong for him to discuss the school with a clique of Managers, and that he should either see the Chairman of the Managing Body on her own or have discussed their problems at a full Managers' Meeting with Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow present as Managers. However, he did agree to a meeting on condition that Mrs Burnett should be invited to attend as well.

425. The meeting took place on 23 July 1974, four days after the end of term, and was attended by Mrs Burnett, Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst. They had gone to the meeting expecting to see only Mr Rice. However, he had arranged that several members of the Divisional Office Staff should attend, namely: Mr Wales, the Divisional Officer, Mr Kalber, the Deputy Divisional Officer, Mr Buxton, the former District Inspector, and Miss Parks, who was there to take notes of the meeting. Mr Rice had asked Mr Buxton to attend because he expected that the discussion might involve the state of the junior school at the time when Mr Buxton was District Inspector. Mr Rice explained in evidence to the Inquiry that he had been reluctant to see these Managers on this basis because he had felt that there had been a full discussion of the junior school's problems at the Special Meeting of the managers on 15 July 1974. However, the fact that he arranged for his colleagues from the Divisional Office to be present indicates the importance that he attached to the meeting once he had agreed to hold it.

426. The meeting began with the four Managers summarising their various areas of concern. In particular, they referred to Mr Ellis's evasiveness in response

[page 134]

to their and the parents' attempts to find out about the teaching methods in use at the school and about the plans that he and his staff had for the future. They said that they had no confidence in the team teaching plans of which they had heard, and that they did not think that the provision of extra money and additional teaching staff would bring about any real improvement. They stressed that, although they were aware of the difficulties that Mr Ellis had faced when he took over the school, it had deteriorated rapidly under his headship. They underlined their concern by drawing attention to the sharp drop in the junior school roll after the end of term (81) and the effect that this would soon have on the infants school roll, and indicated, as was the case (82), that it was the brighter and more stable children who, in the main, were not being transferred to, or were being removed from the junior school.

427. Mr Rice replied by pointing out that Mr Ellis had been at the school for a comparatively short period of time and during a period when the school had had various difficulties. He acknowledged, even so, that Mr Ellis had not so far shown himself to be a particularly successful head teacher and that, in addition, he appeared to be trying to run before he could walk. However, Mr Rice reminded the managers that Mr Ellis had good qualifications and a good work record and had had experience as an acting head teacher at another school. He continued by repeating the information he had already given to them at the managers' Special Meeting about the additional assistance to be given by the Authority and about the action he would be taking to support the staff. Mr Rice concluded by urging to the managers that Mr Ellis should be given a chance to settle in and establish his own teaching methods.

428. Mrs Fairweather then asked what would happen if no improvement took place, and how long could such a situation be allowed to continue. The reply that Mr Rice gave to that question later assumed considerable significance. According to evidence given to the Inquiry by the managers, Mr Rice emphasised that, as Mr Ellis had not yet been at the school for a full year, it would be unreasonable to be critical of him at that early stage, and that he should be given until Christmas at least, by which time he would have had a full year at the school. According to Mr Rice's evidence to the Inquiry, he put it to the four Managers in a slightly different way. His account was that he explained to them that it was customary for a head teacher to have at least 12 months to work out his ideas and to evolve his pattern of organisation. Mr Rice emphasised in his evidence that he did not suggest to the four Managers that that meant drastic action would be taken by the Authority if the junior school had not settled down by Christmas 1974. Unfortunately, the notes made by Miss Parks of Mr Rice's answer to Mrs Fairweather on this point are incomplete. They read 'Headmaster must be given a chance - ? end of next term'. Mr Rice denied in evidence to the Inquiry that he had been as specific as that note suggests. According to him, his general approach in this discussion was that the situation was retrievable and that the junior school staff were not bad teachers if properly organised and that a 'middle course' should be tried.

(81) See paragraph 402 above.

(82) See paragraphs 225-226 above.

[page 135]

429. At about this point in the meeting Mr Buxton made an intervention which increased the four Managers' conviction that the Authority was unjustifiably reluctant to face up to, and to deal decisively with, the problems of the junior school. Mr Buxton asked Miss Parks to stop taking notes. He then confided to the managers that the Divisional Office was having to deal with an exceptionally difficult group of people in Islington. In particular, he spoke of Mrs McColgan and of her previous disputes with the Authority, and indicated that she and a group of people concerned with her, whom he did not specify, had made life particularly difficult for him. The conclusion that the four Managers drew from this confidence imparted to them by Mr Buxton was that the Divisional Office Staff were trying to avoid becoming involved in the problems of William Tyndale Junior School because they did not want a repetition of the sort of disputes that they had previously had with Mrs McColgan and those supporting her, and because, as Mrs Dewhurst later put it, they wanted to lead a quiet life. The four Managers accordingly continued to press for some firm information about how the Authority would deal with the problem if no improvement took place.

430. Mrs Dewhurst said that she felt it would be irresponsible to allow the situation to continue beyond Christmas because the children would suffer. However, Mr Rice and his colleagues were obviously anxious not to consider or discuss such a possibility at that stage. They turned the conversation to the hope that all would go well as a result of the additional assistance that was going to be given to the school, and that the managers would also give all the support that they could. However, the managers persisted in their enquiries, particularly about what the Authority would do if the school roll continued to fall. Mrs Gittings asked how low the roll would have to fall before the viability of the school came into question. Mr Buxton said that circumstances varied, but that the critical figure might be around 80. This only prompted more questions from the four Managers about what action they could take to restore parental confidence. Mr Wales mentioned the possibility of sending a team of inspectors into the school to study the curriculum if the managers formally requested it, but made clear that the final decision about holding any inspection lay with County Hall and the Chief Inspector, who would not necessarily agree to it. The four Managers then asked about the possibility of an inquiry into the school, and were told in generally discouraging terms about the possibilities and difficulties that an inquiry, if agreed to by County Hall, could entail for the school.

431. The meeting concluded, unsatisfactorily as far as the four Managers were concerned, with everybody understanding that the Authority and the managers would wait and see how the school progressed. It was agreed that Mr Rice would not only discuss the educational problems of the school with Mr Ellis at the beginning of the autumn term, but that he would also explain to him the duties of the managers in relation to the school and the legitimate interest that they had in its conduct and curriculum. Mr Wales also took the opportunity, before the four Managers left, to emphasise the need for tact on the managers' part in their dealings with Mr Ellis and his staff, indicating, by way of example, that they should not interpret their duty of oversight of the conduct and curriculum of the school as if it

[page 136]

gave them the right to dictate to Mr Ellis, and that they should telephone him in advance to arrange managerial visits to the school.

432. There appears to have been no clear understanding among those present at this meeting whether or not it was to be treated as confidential. Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst both thought that it was confidential. Mr Wales, Mr Rice and Mrs Fairweather, as their subsequent separate conversations with Mr Ellis early in the autumn term demonstrated (83), showed that they did not. Mr Wales and Mr Rice gave one account of the meeting to Mr Ellis; Mrs Fairweather gave a differing account to Mr Ellis and some of his staff. As will appear, both versions provoked all sorts of suspicions on the part of Mr Ellis and his staff which aggravated the relations between them, on the one hand, and the managers and the Authority, on the other.

433. At least three of the four Managers, namely Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst, left the meeting totally unconvinced that the Authority's proposals would do any good. Indeed, they felt that the school was almost certain to deteriorate and that if the deterioration was allowed to continue for too long there was a danger of the school being closed down because of continuing parental discontent leading to many more children being removed. Many factors had contributed to that assessment by them, not least of which was Mrs Walker's conduct that term. But it was the behaviour of Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow, and to a lesser extent, of the other members of the staff who had walked out of the parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974, that was the main cause of their lack of confidence. The teachers' behaviour during the summer term, producing the effects in the school that have been described and culminating in the attitudes displayed, particularly by Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow, at the two meetings attended by parents, lost them irretrievably the goodwill and trust of these three Managers and of other Managers and many parents besides.

434. Accordingly, whatever the precise form of wording used by Mr Rice when talking of the time that a new head teacher should be given to settle in, Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst left the meeting with their minds fixed firmly on the end of the year as the deadline, after which Mr Ellis's 'probation' would be up and when, if necessary, some more positive action than had been considered hitherto would be taken by the Authority.

435. Mrs Dewhurst demonstrated her feeling of hopelessness about the junior school by withdrawing her elder daughter from it during the summer holiday of 1974 and thereby disqualifying herself from continuing as Junior School Parent-Manager. She had another daughter in the infants school whom she left there until the time came for her to transfer to junior school in the summer of 1975, when Mrs Dewhurst transferred her to another junior school. Mrs Gittings also had a child at the junior school and a child at the infants school in the 1973-4 school year. Because of the deterioration and troubles of the junior school she and her husband

(83) See Chapter VI, paragraphs 496-498 and paragraphs 521-522 respectively.

[page 137]

wanted to withdraw both children from the schools in the summer of 1974. They did remove their child from the infants school, but, because the child in the junior school wanted to remain there, they allowed him to do so. He returned in the autumn term for half a term only when, at his own request, Mr and Mrs Gittings transferred him to another school (84). Despite the removal of her children from the schools, Mrs Gittings continued as a Manager, as she was entitled to do as a direct appointee of the Authority. Mrs Fairweather had no child in the junior school, but she had a child in the infants school, who remained there.

Comment on the Term

436. So much happened this term that it is difficult to comment usefully on it in a few sentences. It was a term during which the junior school deteriorated rapidly, due principally to bad organisation of teaching and of lack of discipline in the school. The chief responsibility for this deterioration must lie with Mr Ellis as Head Teacher; but he was undoubtedly very much influenced by Mr Haddow, and encouraged by Mrs McWhirter, Mrs McColgan, Miss Green and Miss Richards, The school's rapid deterioration led to an equally rapid loss in parental confidence. Unfortunately, that loss was exaggerated by the activities of Mrs Walker, who sought to continue outside the staffroom the educational debate that had become impossible within it. Mr Ellis and his above-mentioned colleagues took the view that the main source of the school's troubles was Mrs Walker and a few unrepresentative parents. They appeared unwilling to accept that their own conduct of the school might have been lacking, and made little attempt to explain their policies and methods to the parents who were clearly anxious about their children's education. The uninformative and resentful attitude that they adopted lost them irretrievably the goodwill of many parents and some of the managers.

437. The term ended inconclusively. Mr Ellis and his colleagues took no urgent or positive steps to restore parental confidence. Some of the managers had become disenchanted with them and feared that the school would only continue to deteriorate under their control unless the Authority intervened in some definite way. The Authority, although put on notice through its various officers concerned that there was serious trouble at the school, failed to respond to the problems in a sufficiently urgent and robust way to prevent its continued deterioration. The Authority also failed to act firmly in relation to the problems created by Mrs Walker's conduct, thus generating a sense of grievance among Mr Ellis and his colleagues - a sense of grievance that was to be aggravated by her continued presence in the school in the autumn term.

(84) See Chapter VI, paragraphs 570-572.

[page 139]

throughout the school in the spring and summer terms of 1974. Mr Austin and Mr Felton, who replaced them, were both teachers who shared many of the views and interests of Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow, particularly in relation to cooperative or team teaching methods. Both of them also had a considerable interest in the teaching of deprived and disturbed children. Thus, at the beginning of the autumn term, Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow were in a position where all the staff, except Mrs Chowles and Mrs Walker, actively supported their general teaching aims and methods.

442. As to Mrs Chowles, although she was not enthusiastic about what Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow and the rest of the staff were trying to do, she returned at the beginning of the autumn term prepared to work with her colleagues as amicably as possible. However, she still felt somewhat isolated in her position there, and she continued to concern herself in the main with her own class whilst maintaining reasonably friendly relations with Mr Ellis and the rest of the staff. Mrs Chowles did not agree with the new cooperative teaching methods (described below) that were being introduced, and was not willing to allow her class to participate in such a scheme. Mr Ellis and his colleagues, for their part, accepted her decision and correspondingly made little effort to involve her in their discussions about the teaching methods adopted in the school or in their many discussions about their relations with and attitudes to the managers and parents of children at the school.

443. Mrs Walker, who still strongly disapproved of the way in which Mr Ellis was running the school, tried and failed at the beginning of term to discuss a common approach between the staff and her (1), then decided to keep her views to herself. She explained her attitude in a letter that she wrote during that term to Dr Rhodes Boyson MP in the following words:

'My personal view is that given enough rope they will hang themselves, but my own position is a somewhat delicate one in view of the leading part I played in the "parents' revolt" last term, so I am standing on the sidelines and observing for the present.'

444. Now that Mr Ellis had a staff the majority of whom were in general agreement about the teaching aims and methods to be adopted, he felt more secure and

(1) See paragraphs 503-507 below.

[page 140]

better equipped to introduce fundamental changes to the organisation of the school. This large measure of unity among a total staff of eight full-time teachers and one part-time teacher, coupled with the exceptionally favourable staff/pupil ratio resulting from that number of staff and the low school roll of 155 (2), also meant that he started the term in circumstances giving him a good chance to get the school back on its feet if he organised things properly. As against this, however, it must be remembered that the large fall in numbers after the summer term, consisting mainly of the more able and stable children, had left the school unbalanced in that there was a higher proportion than hitherto of less able and disturbed children for whom it had to cater. And, unfortunately, Mrs Katherine Arnold, the additional part-time teacher provided to the school, under the Children With Special Difficulties Scheme (3), to work with difficult children, was only able to take up her work there towards the end of the term.

445. Before giving an account of the aims and curriculum and reorganisation of the school under the newly appointed staff I should say a little about the respective qualifications and experience of Mr Austin and Mr Felton.

Mr David Austin

446. Mr Austin's appointment to the school was to a Scale 2 post with responsibility for children who show problems - an appointment for which, it will be remembered (4), Mr Ellis had made a request to Mr Rice in the summer term of 1974. Mr Austin and Mr Felton and another candidate had been interviewed for the post by the managers at a Special Meeting held at the end of the summer term, and the managers had recommended Mr Austin for the appointment.

447. Mr Austin had qualified as a teacher as a 'mature' student. He obtained his teaching certificate at Bulmershe Training College in Berkshire in 1967 following a two years' course. He had taught in Junior Schools in Southampton and Ealing before joining the Authority's service in 1969, where he taught as a junior school teacher until September 1973. He was then seconded to take a year's course at the Froebel Institute in Roehampton. His first post after completing that course was at William Tyndale Junior School. He is a likeable man, and regarded by nearly everybody who gave evidence about him as being a conscientious and hard-working teacher with a gift for getting on with children and for stimulating their interest to learn in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. Though he aligned himself with the majority of the staff in many of the disputes that they were to have with the Authority and the managers, he is on the whole a moderate man who showed great sensitivity to the views and worries of others, in particular of the parents of the children at the school and of the staff of the infants school.

(2) i.e. about 1 to 18 as compared with the ratio of 1 to 30, the basic standard adopted by the Authority; see paragraph 2(a) of the Report of the Development Sub-Committee of the Education Committee of the Authority, entitled 'Review of Primacy School Provision', presented to the Education Committee on 3 and 4 June 1975.

(3) See Chapter V, paragraph 398 above.

(4) See Chapter V, paragraph 246 above.

[page 141]

Mr Stephen Felton

448. After Mr Felton's unsuccessful application at the end of the summer term for the Scale 2 post to which Mr Austin was appointed, Mr Ellis asked Mr Felton if he would be interested in a Scale 1 position in the junior school, taking a 4th year class. Mr Felton said that he was interested and, following an interview with Mr Rice, he was engaged to start at the school in the autumn term as a member of the Divisional Staff (5).

449. Mr Felton was aged nearly 27 at the time of his engagement to teach at William Tyndale Junior School. He had obtained a BSc degree in mechanical engineering at the University of Surrey, and then, after a short period of employment as a graduate engineering apprentice, he had worked for just over a year as an assistant warden at a rehabilitation hostel in Chester working with young adults. During that period he had gained some experience of working with local social services and of group work with young people. Then, after some informal teaching experience, he took a one year course at the Institute of Education of the University of London, obtaining a Graduate Certificate of Education in the summer of 1973. His course was in the Integrated Science Department of the Institute, and in the course of the year he undertook teaching practice at Aylward Comprehensive School in Edmonton.

450. Mr Felton's tutor at the Institute of Education wrote this assessment of him in January 1973:

' ... He is one of the most promising students in the Department. He is always in control of himself, of the pupils he teaches and of the situation in hand. He is unruffled and has a quiet but happy and encouraging disposition which seems to give pupils confidence. At almost no notice, he has taken over science classes and taught the pupils in the laboratory, doing the work which the regular teacher would have done. I have been delighted with the competent manner in which he carried out this work for which he could not have done special preparation.

He is interested in integrated approaches to learning and is having experience of these in his teaching. He has experience of team teaching, and I know that the school values his contribution to the team and his ability to work happily with other teachers.

As a curriculum option here, he has chosen to study and to get experience of "Alternatives to Schooling" under the direction of one of the English Department's staff. He is looking into various educational possibilities outside the normal school situations, eg free schools, integrated approaches within schools, and facilities outside the school: in fact, active approaches to learning which may not be met in many ordinary schools.'

(5) See Glossary. He was still a member of the Divisional Staff at the commencement of the Inquiry on 27 October 1975.

[page 142]

teaching first and second year secondary school children. Towards the end of the year he decided that he would prefer to teach in a primary school because he wanted to work in a smaller setting with a greater degree of contact with children than he found possible in a large school. He applied for the post at William Tyndale Junior School because he had heard something of the new teaching approaches being introduced there and because it was near his home.

The staff of the Infants School

452. As I have already indicated (6), I do not propose to set out in the body of the Report details of the individual members of staff and of the changes in staff of the infants school. Such details are, however, contained in Appendix X to the Report. However, a short summary here of the staffing position in the infants school may be helpful. Miss Hart remained Head Teacher, and Mrs Angela Jayasinghe, the Deputy Head Teacher. Including Mrs Jayasinghe, the school had six full-time teachers, one nursery class teacher and one assistant who worked respectively in the morning and in the afternoon, and four part-time teachers. Even allowing for the fact that the school had one full-time post vacant and that it was short of a music teacher, with a school roll of 144, including the nursery class, at the beginning of term, it was a favourable staffing ratio.

The Aims and Curricula of the Junior and Infants Schools

453. The managers at their Special Meeting in the summer term had requested Miss Hart and Mr Ellis to prepare written statements of the proposed curricula for their respective schools and to present such statements to the managers at their next meeting in the autumn term (7). For reasons that will become apparent (8) the statements were not considered by the managers until their second, special meeting in the autumn term on 7 October 1974. However, both statements were prepared at or about the beginning of the autumn term, and it is therefore appropriate to examine here how the staffs of the two schools each defined their aims and curriculum at the start of the new school year. I have set out below the salient points of each written statement in order to give the substance and tenor of each and in order that the reader may make a convenient comparison between the two. There are obviously many similarities between them in the general aims and principles that they express. There are also significant differences between them in the balance struck between the social and practical educational aims which they each describe. The two statements are also reproduced in full as Appendices XI (Junior School) and XII (Infants School) to the Report.

(6) See Chapter III, paragraph 142 above.

(7) See Chapter V, paragraph 421 above.

(8) See paragraph 536 below.

[page 143]

The aims and curriculum of the Junior School

454. The written statement by the staff of the junior school of the curriculum for 1974-5 began with a statement of principles and aims expressed in the following terms:

' ... "The curriculum is to be thought of in terms of activity and experience rather than knowledge to be acquired and facts to be stored" - Education Report 1931 reiterated in Plowden (9).

1. Principles inherent in this statement of curriculum (apart from the above which is central and paramount)

1. That in a democratic society a wide range of choices and activities is essential and that this should be reflected in that society's schools.

2. That school should be partly concerned with educating for leisure.

3. That the "practical" has as much value as the "academic".

4. That it is important for a child to develop at his/her own rate and not according to a set of arbitrary and ill-defined "standards".

Aims

2. To encourage all children to live together in social harmony.

To encourage children to think for themselves and make their own decisions about their learning and their lives.

To ensure that each child can read, express himself/herself clearly and thoughtfully in language.

To ensure that each is well grounded in basic mathematics.

To provide a wide choice of activities and interests for a child to experience and enjoy in a stable environment.

All groups in the school work on the basis of an "integrated" day (10), which means that arbitrary "subject" divisions are blurred and there is a continuous flow of activity. ... '

455. The written statement of the staff of the infants school, after giving details of the staff, set out their aims and, in order to describe how they tried to achieve those aims, an account of their teaching philosophy and organisation. I reproduce here a full account of their teaching aims and philosophy and part of their description of their teaching organisation:

'Aims

1. To encourage our children to have questioning minds and not accept everything as it is. To be creative and inventive .

(10) See Glossary.

[page 144]

2. To develop the children's initiative and let them take an active part in their own learning. We feel that if we develop an atmosphere of happiness, security and confidence in adults, each child will build up a healthy self concept which provides a sound basis for learning as well as better adjusted adults.

3. To encourage them to live together in social harmony: to care for people young and old and to be sympathetic and tolerant towards less fortunate people.

4. To ensure that each child has a good understanding of basic mathematics.

5. To help each child to develop language experience and express himself/herself clearly.

6. To give each child a basic pre-reading and reading programme so that they develop reading skills as far as they are able.

7. To open as many doors as possible for the children and so enrich their lives and prepare them to lead full lives as adults. To give them many different experiences by taking them out, involving them in the community and developing their interests in music, drama, art, games, etc.

How we try to achieve our aims

Our philosophy

We think that children need to feel part of a community where people care about each other, and where the rules are few and are only made for the benefit of that community.

We think that children need a calm, secure atmosphere and need to know where they stand. Each teacher tries to strike a balance between free choice and encouragement rather than direction. We believe that children have to depend on adults for their standards and for guidance on what behaviour is tolerable in society. Each individual has obligations to the community as well as rights within it.

We expect our children to question our guidance but we feel that they should be prepared to accept our reasons why certain things are not tolerable.

Each teacher tries to involve parents in school life. We feel that this not only helps the children but can change parents' attitudes to school. We hope also that parents by seeing their child's progress will raise their expectations and think of their child's future in broader terms.

Organisation

Each classroom is set up as a workshop, with different centres of interest.

Teachers put a great deal of thought into what apparatus is put into their room. Everything has a purpose, and certain materials are put out with a specific learning view in mind.

Children are allowed a great deal of choice about which activity they pursue but this does not necessarily mean that they are responsible for what they learn. In the earliest stages the kind of learning that teachers wish to encourage often happens incidentally. But the extent to which concepts and attitudes develop and are understood depends on the teacher's ability to provide materials, suggest problems and ask questions.

[page 145]

We call our method of teaching 'an integrated day' - at most times of any day visitors will see children, in the same class, pursuing different activities which some adults would label work, others play. Sometimes a group or whole class may be involved in a project. ...

Besides project work - in every classroom there is routine work that is always encouraged by the teacher. It is our aim to teach every child to read as soon as possible - ... '

The new teaching organisation of the Junior School

456. As in Chapter III of this Report (11). I will start my account of the teaching organisation at the beginning of the school year by listing in schedule form the members of the junior school teaching Staff and their respective responsibilities.

List of Junior School staff and their responsibilities - Autumn Term 1974

(11) See Chapter III, paragraph 125.

[page 146]

457. As the above Schedule indicates, the reorganisation of the teaching for the junior school at the beginning of this term affected principally the 2nd and 3rd age groups for whom a form of cooperative teaching was introduced. The teaching of the fourth year children was to continue on a separate class basis. In the case of the first year children, although a cooperative teaching arrangement was envisaged for the two class groups, they were taught in the main as separate class units. In order to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of the form of organisation for the school year September 1974 to July 1975 I must now examine the individual teaching arrangements for the various year groups.

The teaching arrangements for the fourth year children

458. The fourth year children were divided into two separate classes and taught as such, Mrs Chowles being the class teacher for one and Mr Felton the class teacher for the other. The class taught by Mrs Chowles was the one that she had taught as a second year class in 1972-3, and, save for the autumn term of 1973 when she was Acting Head Teacher, as a third year class in 1973-4. Thus, that class had had the

[page 147]

particular good fortune in this school of having received three years' almost continuous care and direction from a person who was generally acknowledged at the Inquiry to be a conscientious and very successful teacher. Mr Felton took over the class that had been taught as third year children in the previous year by Mrs McWhirter and Mrs McColgan successively. That class thus had not had the advantage of continuity of teaching that Mrs Chowles's class had had.

459. These two fourth year classes were not included in the cooperative teaching arrangements for the school introduced that term for two reasons: first, because they had been taught in a conventional classroom way for their previous three years at the school it was decided by Mr Ellis and his staff that it would be unsettling for them to be introduced to a new system in their last year at the school; and secondly, because Mrs Chowles wished to continue teaching her own class in her own way.

360. Mrs Chowles's and Mr Felton's class rooms were at one end of the top floor of the schools' building and separated by the upper hall from the cooperative teaching activities that took place on the other side of the top floor and in the upper hall itself. Mrs Chowles's and Mr Felton's rooms were themselves divided by a classroom which they shared for various activities and which was used by Mrs Walker, who continued to teach at the school on a part-time basis every afternoon. Mrs Walker's responsibility for teaching remedial reading for children throughout the school had ceased on the introduction of the abortive reading groups scheme at the end of the spring term 1974. No attempt was made by Mr Ellis to revive that scheme or any modified form of it in the autumn term. Nor was Mrs Walker asked to resume her remedial teaching work in the school as a whole. Accordingly, she used the room between the two classrooms of Mrs Chowles and Mr Felton to work with children from Mrs Chowles's class, giving remedial teaching tuition to those who needed it, and organising various projects and visits for children from that class. In addition, towards the end of the term, just before Mrs Walker left the school, she and Mrs Chowles spent some time organising and producing a Christmas pantomime performed by the fourth year children from Mrs Chowles's class.

The teaching arrangements for the first year children

461. There were only 29 children in the first year age group. They were divided into two classes taught respectively by Mrs McColgan and Mrs McWhirter. These two classes were in adjoining classrooms on the lower floor of the junior school and were connected by sliding partition doors. There was thus a good deal of opportunity for the two teachers to work together in the teaching of the whole first year group, and they did so for certain activities, whilst maintaining for most purposes the separate class structure. Mrs McColgan and Mrs McWhirter also had assistance this term from a part-time teacher, Miss S. Sinclair, who had the use of a third classroom adjoining theirs.

The cooperative teaching system for the second and third year children

A description of the cooperative teaching scheme

462. I have already referred briefly in previous chapters of the Report to systems of teaching under which a number of teachers collectively take responsibility for teaching larger numbers of children than are normally found in one class, instead of

[page 148]

the traditional one teacher one class system (12). Although the terms 'cooperative teaching' and 'team teaching' are sometimes used interchangeably by teachers when talking of such systems, I have noted and found useful the distinction which Mr Pape drew between them when giving evidence to the Inquiry. He described the term 'team teaching' as being appropriate to an arrangement designed to ensure a similar approach to the teaching of the same subject or group of subjects among individual class groups. Under such an arrangement the 'team leader', the teacher who specialises in the particular subject or group of subjects, brings together, from time to time, a number of classes, with their respective teachers present, and gives a lead both to his fellow teachers and their pupils as to the way in which it should be approached. The class teachers then develop the subject individually with their respective classes using the same approach. The term 'cooperative teaching', on the other hand, Mr Pape regarded as a more general term to describe an arrangement under which a number of teachers have constant and overlapping and interchangeable responsibilities for teaching children in groups larger than of normal class size. I hope that neither Mr Pape nor I will be regarded as pedantic in describing the system introduced by Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow and their colleagues as being nearer to a system of cooperative teaching than of team teaching.

463. The cooperative teaching system was organised in the following way. Four teachers, Mr Haddow as 'the coordinator', and Mr Austin, Miss Green and Miss Richards assumed a collective responsibility for teaching all the second and third year pupils - about 80 children. The children were divided into three groups, each group made up of children of the two age groups. These three groups were called 'base groups', and each had its own teacher, Mr Austin, Miss Green and Miss Richards respectively. Each 'base group' also had its own classroom, the three classrooms being grouped together on one side of the upper floor of the school and leading off the same broad corridor. The corridor and upper hall were also used for the various activities of the whole cooperative teaching group.

464. The schooldays were divided into four sessions of about one hour each. These sessions were 'closed' and 'open' sessions alternately - the first half of the morning being a 'closed' session and the second half an 'open' session, and similarly in the afternoon. The scheme was that each 'base group' would spend the 'closed' session in its own classroom with its own teacher concentrating mainly on the basic skills of reading, writing and mathematics. In the 'open' sessions the individual 'base groups' disbanded, and the whole group of about 80 children were presented with a variety of activities which they could individually choose to follow. The choice of activities was wide and could consist, for instance, of various forms of art and handicrafts, drama, sports and games of various sorts, visits and also a continuation of work that had been started in the 'closed' sessions. These activities took place not only in the three 'base groups' classrooms but also in the upper hall and corridor. The whole arrangement was extremely flexible, Mr Haddow and his group of teachers, individually or together, guiding or assisting particular groups of children in their chosen activities, moving from group to group

(12) See Glossary.

[page 149]

as necessary. In some cases the children were left to get on with what they were doing on their own. The children were also free to change their activities as and when they liked in the course of a single 'open' session.

465. As his title 'coordinator' suggests, Mr Haddow's job was not to take individual responsibility for any one of the three 'base groups' or classes. He did, however, assist during the 'closed' sessions, for example, by taking certain children out of their 'base groups' for such work as extra reading or what he has described as 'general discussions to extend the more able children'. In addition, he would from time to time join in and assist the work of one or other of the 'base group' teachers during the 'closed' sessions. The other aspect of his work as 'coordinator' was to take overall responsibility for the organisation of the range of activities that was offered to the children at each of their 'open' sessions. He and his colleagues would start each 'open' session by gathering all 80 children together in the upper hall and explaining to them the activities the teachers were offering to provide for that session. The children would make their respective choices and disperse in groups or individually to the various areas available to them for their chosen activities. Mr Haddow also made use of these gatherings at the beginning of each open session to invite discussion about matters of particular interest to the school as a whole or to the cooperative teaching group in particular, and also to talk about the work that had been done by the children.

466. This particular scheme of cooperative teaching, both in the form which it took and in the way Mr Haddow and his group ran it, was not a success. For convenience, I will set out in one place here its defects in conception and - anticipating some of the events of the autumn term - the defects in its operation by Mr. Haddow and his colleagues.

Defects in conception

467. First, it was not really a cooperative teaching system at all. It was more an uneasy combination of class teaching and of the 'free activity' method of teaching that Mr Haddow had practised in his fourth year class in the previous spring and summer terms. Mr Haddow, as coordinator, appears to have given little thought to a basic principle of cooperative teaching, namely that all members of the teaching group should have a common approach to the teaching methods and discipline to be employed, whether working in the 'closed' or 'open' sessions. His own evidence to the Inquiry was that in the 'closed' sessions each of the three teachers worked 'in his or her chosen way'. It is for this reason that I am reluctant even for the sake of convenience, to call the scheme introduced in the autumn term of 1974 'a team teaching' scheme. Mr Haddow did not act as a team-leader, or indeed as a coordinator, in the sense of giving a lead to the group of teachers working with him as to the way in which their individual approaches to teaching and discipline in the 'closed' sessions should correspond with their collective approach in the 'open' sessions. As it happened, the three teachers' individual teaching methods and attitudes to discipline differed in some respects. As a result, some of the children tended to become confused by the different methods of teaching and attitudes adopted towards them according to whether they were being taught by their own 'base group' teacher in the 'closed' session or by one or more of the other teachers in the 'open' session.

[page 150]

468. Secondly, the system adopted of two 'closed' and two 'open' sessions each day entailed too frequent a change-over for the children and was time-wasting and disruptive for them.

469. Thirdly, there was no adequate planning of the practical working of the scheme. One of the features of cooperative teaching is that it requires a very great deal more planning and preparation if it is to be successful than in the case of conventional classroom teaching. To do the job well, so that the children can derive the maximum educational benefit from such a flexible system, demands a great deal of advance preparation on the part of the teachers responsible for it. If that initial work has not been put in, and the scheme is not properly organised from the beginning, there is a real risk that the children will sense the lack of direction and become aimless, bored and troublesome within a very short time. The lack of planning here was particularly evident in relation to the provision of options for the children in the 'open' sessions. No scheme appears to have been worked out to provide even an approximate programme, say on a weekly basis, under which the teachers could make adequate advance preparation for and inform the children of the range of activities from which they could choose on any particular day. The result was that a great deal of time was wasted - usually about ten minutes to quarter of an hour - at the beginning of each 'open' session while the 80 children assembled together; while they were told the range of activities from which they could choose; while the children discussed and decided what they wanted to do; and while the teachers and the children then set about organising themselves to pursue the various activities selected for that session.

Defects in implementation

470. The defects in the way that Mr Haddow and his colleagues worked their cooperative teaching scheme sprang partly from the short-comings of the scheme itself and partly from their failure to put enough thought and work into the daily organisation of the scheme once it had started. Their lack of attention to the necessary work involved was itself largely due to their preoccupation with the troubles of the past term and with further troubles of their own and other people's making in the first half of this term. These matters are examined in some detail in later sections of this chapter. For the present, it is enough to say that for a good deal of the autumn term Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow and most of the staff spent far too much time looking back, purporting to protect their professional position by feuding with the managers, and by defending themselves against what they conceived to be a conspiracy or conspiracies being organised against them. Their time would have been better spent attending to their teaching and to the particular demands imposed upon them and upon the school as a whole by the new cooperative teaching scheme that they had introduced. The following are the principal respects in which Mr Haddow and his group of teachers failed to work the scheme properly.

471. First, there was a continuing failure on the part of Mr Haddow to coordinate the group of teachers so that they planned together in good time a balanced range of optional activities for each day from which the children could choose what they wanted to do. The result was that very often a large proportion of the children

[page 151]

did not, or were not encouraged, to take part in activities with much of a learning content in them. For example, many children were able to spend a good deal of their 'open' session periods playing table tennis, draughts, or games out in the playground.

472. Secondly, Mr Haddow introduced no system of recording or monitoring the 'open' session activities of the children so as to ensure that:

(i) with such balance of options as was provided, each child was choosing on a reasonably regular basis an activity with some learning content, and not just using each 'open' session for play;

and

(ii) an adequate record was kept of the development and progress of each child.

473. Thirdly, and quite apart from the failure to plan collectively in advance a balanced range of options from which the children could choose, the teachers failed individually to make adequate preparation for the optional activities that they provided to the children each day. The only exception to this criticism of Mr Haddow and his group is Mr Austin. Mr Austin impressed most people who saw him at work as being conscientious and thoughtful in the way in which he prepared and presented his work for the children. Unfortunately, his individual efforts were not matched by those of his colleagues and were hampered considerably by the overall defects of the scheme already described.

474. Fourthly, although the idea of the 'open' sessions was that they should be relaxed and flexible periods in which the children could be encouraged to develop their own interests and learn in their own way, they were allowed too much freedom. Those children who wanted to work or had settled at a particular activity or project often found it difficult to concentrate because of the noise and constant movement of other children about them, some constantly changing what they were doing, others following noisy activities or playing games nearby, and others simply misbehaving.

Some advantages

475. Although the cooperative teaching scheme introduced in the autumn term had many drawbacks, there were some advantages. One of its single successes was to provide a stimulus for, and give confidence to, many of the children in the group who were of below average ability and/or who were disturbed children. For some of these children the new regime did begin to produce a change for the better

[page 152]

both in their attitude to learning and in their general behaviour. It took some time for this to become evident and I shall have more to say about it in subsequent chapters. However, if the scheme had been properly planned and implemented by the teachers concerned this would possibly have been just one of several marks of success.

Other considerations

476. It appears to be generally accepted by teachers that when there is a fundamental change in the organisation of a school, such as from conventional classroom teaching to cooperative or team teaching, there is bound to be a transitional period of disruption for the school. If that is so, it is of the highest importance, particularly to the children who are most directly affected by the change, that such a disruptive transitional period should be as short as possible and that the disruption should be kept to the minimum possible. Mr Ellis who had had some experience of cooperative teaching (13), knew that, and Mr Haddow, who also had some experience of a modest form of cooperative teaching (14) was also aware of it. In addition, both men were only too painfully aware of the troubles that had been caused earlier on in the year with the introduction of Mr Haddow's class options scheme and the abortive reading groups scheme. With that knowledge and with that experience it was, in my view, foolhardy of them to introduce such a radical reorganisation at a time when the school was already in a state of severe disruption after only six months of Mr Ellis's head teachership.

477. Moreover, given that they did introduce this radical change at such an unpropitious time, it is extremely surprising that they did not:

(i) ensure that the cooperative teaching scheme was meticulously planned so as to minimise the extent and duration of the necessary disruption that it would cause;

(ii) inform the managers of, and consult with them on, the precise arrangements that were proposed before the new teaching system was introduced;

(iii) inform and discuss with the parents of the children concerned the precise arrangements that were proposed before the new teaching system was introduced;

(iv) ensure that there were staff of sufficient experience to make a success of the new teaching system before introducing it; and

(v) ensure that the new teaching system once introduced was made to work properly by proper coordination of the work of the teachers concerned and by adequate preparation by them individually and collectively of the work that it entailed.

(13) See Chapter III, paragraph 164 above.

(14) See Chapter III, paragraph 130 above.

[page 153]

since at least May 1974 (15). If they were determined to go through with it, as they clearly were, such plans should have been prepared in sufficient detail to inform the managers and parents of them before the end of the summer term. Mr Ellis was studiously non-committal at the parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974 about what was proposed. And, according to him, he did not discuss the proposal in any detail at any staff meeting after that meeting and prior to the end of term. Even though Mr Austin and Mr Felton were not appointed until the very end of term, there was no reason why Mr Ellis and his staff could not then have prepared for the reorganisation of the autumn term on a contingent basis and given full information to the managers and the parents on that basis. In the event, and notwithstanding the considerable loss of confidence in the school of which he was aware, Mr Ellis made no attempt at the end of the summer term or during the early part of the holiday period to draw up plans with Mr Haddow and the staff so that adequate information in advance could be given to the managers and the parents of what the new term was to bring. The alternative course of postponing the introduction of the scheme was apparently not considered.

479. It was only in the last week of the summer term that Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow and the staff concerned began to make active preparations for the reorganisation of the teaching of the second and third year children of the school. Even those plans, inadequate as they were, were not communicated at that stage to the managers or the parents.

480. Of the members of the new cooperative teaching group, none had much experience of cooperative teaching. Mr Haddow, the coordinator, had only had one year's experience of a very modest form of cooperative teaching at his previous school (16). Mr Austin had had some experience of cooperative teaching work about five years previously when he was a newly qualified teacher. Miss Green had had a nominal, and not very happy, involvement in a so-called team teaching scheme at the junior school in the year 1972-1973 (17), and Miss Richards, who had just completed her probationary year of teaching, had no experience of cooperative teaching at all. Although there are undoubtedly advantages both to the children and to the teachers of having a cooperative teaching group consisting of a mixture of teachers who have and who have not had experience of cooperative teaching, such a group should have at least one or two teachers of sufficient experience to cope with the additional organisational and teaching skills that it involves. In my view, Mr Haddow lacked the experience and application that the post of coordinator of this group required, and his colleagues between them did not have sufficient experience to make up for the lack of effective leadership from him.

481. Mr Ellis, on the other hand, did have considerable experience of running successfully a large cooperative teaching group at his previous school (18). In evidence

(15) See Chapter V, paragraph 246 above.

(16) See Chapter III, paragraph 130 above.

(17) See Chapter III, paragraph 136 above.

(18) See Chapter III, paragraph 164 above.

[page 154]

to the Inquiry he said that he had involved himself to a certain extent in the planning and organisation of the cooperative teaching group at William Tyndale Junior School. He also said that, whenever he could, he joined in and gave a hand in the work of the group. Unfortunately, despite his previous experience he did not, in my view, take the care that he should have done to ensure the successful organisation and running of the scheme, particularly having regard to the circumstances and the time at which it was introduced.

Other matters of reorganisation

The 'Sanctuary'

482. As already indicated (19), Mrs Arnold, the teacher engaged under the Children With Special Difficulties Scheme to care for disturbed children in both the Junior and Infants School, was unable to take up her work there till near the end of the autumn term. Mr Ellis made arrangements in the course of the term for a large cloakroom on the upper floor of the junior school to be turned into a room, called the 'Sanctuary', where Mrs Arnold could work with children who needed her help. However, the Sanctuary was not fully ready until the beginning of the spring term 1975.

The Library

483. During the previous year the school's library had been situated in a separate room, in which there was also a television, leading off the upper hall. Mr Ellis and his staff during the course of this term moved the library out of that room in order that it could be used as a parents' room or community room, that is, a room where parents could meet and talk with each other and members of the staff in an informal and relaxed atmosphere. The library was transferred in the main into a number of bookcases in the upper hall, so as to form a reading area there, and some of the books were also dispersed among various classrooms.

484. The idea of a parents' room was a good one in principle which, if it had been properly arranged by the staff and used by the parents, was just what the school needed at that time. However, little attempt appears to have been made by Mr Ellis and his staff to turn it into a welcoming and comfortable room which parents would want to use. Once the books had been removed, it was left as a drably decorated and sparsely furnished room. In time it became little more than a junk room for storing various pieces of school equipment and unused tables and cupboards and the like. It is not surprising that it was used very little by the parents.

485. As to the library, the change proved to be particularly unfortunate. The siting of the reading area in the upper hall, which was largely used for the various activities of the cooperative teaching group, was a mistake. Although it was handy for any children in that group who wished to use the 'open' session for reading, it also meant that they, and any other children in the school who might want to use it,

(19) See paragraph 444 above.

[page 155]

were subject to frequent noise and disturbance from the various activities going on all around them in the hall.

486. In addition, the books removed to the upper hall were not arranged and displayed in any orderly or attractive manner so as to invite their use by the children. In particular, they were not placed together in any categories according to reading or to subject matter. Apart from the books that Mrs Chowles removed to her classroom, the same was true of the remainder of the library that was dispersed throughout the school. This break-up of the school library was accompanied by a general lack of care by some of the staff, Mrs Chowles and Mrs Walker particularly excepted, and by many of the children for the books in the school. The direct evidence of Mrs Chowles and Mrs Walker, and the overall impression gained by many who had occasion to go into the school - parents, Managers, Miss Hart and various of the ancillary helpers - was that there was a general lack of concern by Mr Ellis and the majority of his staff for the value of books as aids to learning and to enjoyment, and that very little attempt was made to instil into the children the importance of making good use of and caring for them.

487. This general attitude of Mr Ellis and most of his staff had a particularly discouraging effect on Mrs Chowles. Hitherto, she had taken a particular responsibility for the library and the school's books generally. She had also organised the borrowing of books for the school from a lending library provided by the Authority for its schools. When the school's library was dispersed in the way that I have described, she made a point of retrieving all those books borrowed under the Authority's lending scheme and keeping them safely in her classroom. When the time came for their return and exchange for further books she made arrangements for their return, but not for any new books in exchange. In evidence to the Inquiry she said that she discontinued the use of this facility first, because she had become greatly discouraged by the uncaring attitude of most of her colleagues to books in the school and, secondly, because of the way in which the children were being allowed to maltreat them. Mr Ellis took no steps to ensure that she could continue to make use of the scheme. In his evidence to the Inquiry he said that he did not think about it at the time. Having regard to his repeated complaints about the school's shortage of equipment and resources, it is surprising that he lacked the vigilance to ensure for the school the continuance of this valuable facility. It is also unfortunate that Mrs Chowles allowed her discouragement to have the effect that it did.

The purchase of new equipment and resources for the school

488. At the beginning of the term, as a result of the combination of the school's ordinary allowance and the additional £700 provided by the Authority under the Children With Special Difficulties Scheme (20), Mr Ellis had available, after payment for additional teaching and non-teaching staff, a total sum of about £1,700 to be applied by him, in consultation with his staff, in whatever way he felt would be most beneficial to the school. In the course of the term he spent about £1,400 of that figure, made up in the main of purchases of science, art and handicraft materials, and of mathematics equipment.

(20) See Chapter V, paragraph 398 above.

[page 156]

The open conflict between the staff of the Junior School and the Managers

489. I have attempted so far in this chapter to give a broad summary of the respective staffing arrangements and aims and organisation of the Junior and Infants Schools. In doing so I have inevitably concentrated on the way in which the junior school was organised at the beginning of the term and how it was conducted during the term. However, there is a great deal more to tell about the activities this term of those concerned with the teaching, organisation and management of both schools. In particular, the term saw the start of open conflict between the staff of the junior school and the main body of Managers of the schools. That conflict was sparked off by a meeting that Mr Ellis had on 2 September 1974 - the first day of term - with Mr Wales and Mr Rice at the Divisional Office.

The members of the junior school staff involved in the conflict with the managers

490. Before I describe what happened at the meeting on 2 September 1974 between Mr Wales, Mr Rice and Mr Ellis, the effect on Mr Ellis and his staff of the information given to Mr Ellis at that meeting, and the ensuing open conflict that developed between the staff and the managers, I should indicate which members of the staff were involved in the conflict and to what extent.

491. Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow were at the centre of the disputes that developed. Mr Ellis felt that his position as Head Teacher of the school was under threat, and he resented increasingly the intrusion of the managers into matters concerning the school which, in his view, they were not competent to judge and were outside their responsibilities as Managers. Mr Haddow shared Mr Ellis's views, but was, if anything, more sensitive to any interference with his concept of his professional status as a teacher, and was more prone to see enemies all around him. He was also by far the stronger personality of the two in the sense that he was more aggressive. He was able to impress upon Mr Ellis and the others what was often an alarmist view of a situation, and to prompt them to react in a provocative and 'fighting' way that Mr Ellis on his own might not have considered.

492. Mrs McWhirter, Mrs McColgan, Miss Green and Miss Richards also felt that they were under attack from outsiders and thus followed the lead given by Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis. Mrs McWhirter, who had taken over Mrs Ranasinghe's position as school representative on the North London Teachers' Association at the beginning of the term, was active in informing and enlisting the aid of that Association from time to time. Mrs McWhirter also usually typed the various statements that the staff issued in the course of their disputes with the managers. Mrs McColgan, whatever the nature of her previous disputes with the Authority, does not appear to have taken a particularly prominent role in the staff discussions leading to the various actions that they took. However, she was nevertheless a firm supporter of Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis.

493. Mr Austin and Mr Felton, both newcomers to the staff that term, also aligned themselves with Mr Haddow, Mr Ellis and the four above-mentioned

[page 157]

members of the staff. It was inevitable, in the early stages of their employment at the school, that they would rely upon the information and judgement of the head teacher and the majority of the staff. However, as they become familiar with the school and the increasing conflict there, both of them continued to align themselves with the majority. In the case of Mr Felton, this support was wholehearted right up to and throughout the Inquiry. In the case of Mr Austin, I am of the view that he was not always in complete agreement with the tactics that his colleagues employed but nonetheless felt an obligation of loyalty to support them. Eventually, as will appear, he parted company with them, not because he disagreed with their cause and basic aims, but because he disagreed with the methods that they used to further them.

494. The remaining members of the junior school staff, Mrs Chowles, Mrs Walker and Miss Sinclair were not involved in the junior school staff's dispute with the managers.

495. For convenience of description, and unless I indicate to the contrary, I shall use for the remainder of the Report the term 'Junior School staff' to include only those eight members of the staff who were in conflict with the managers, namely Mr Ellis, Mr Haddow, Mrs McWhirter, Mrs McColgan, Miss Green, Miss Richards, Mr Austin and Mr Felton.

The meeting on 2 September 1974 between Mr Wales, Mr Rice and Mr Ellis

496. On 2 September 1974, the first day of term, Mr Ellis attended a meeting at Divisional Office with Mr Wales and Mr Rice. Two matters were discussed, first, the meeting that had taken place on 23 July 1974 at Divisional Office between the four Managers and the Divisional Office Staff (21) and secondly, Mr Rice's interview with Mrs Walker a few days before the start of the autumn term (22).

497. The account that Mr Wales and Mr Rice gave to Mr Ellis of their meetings with the four Managers is important. According to Mr Ellis, in his evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Rice told him that the managers (who Mr Wales and Mr Rice did not identify) had expressed anxieties about the school and had made plain that they would give the school a term to settle down, after which, if they were still unsatisfied, they would press for an Inquiry. Mr Rice, in his evidence to the Inquiry, denied that Mr Wales or he had described to Mr Ellis the attitude of the four Managers in those terms. Mr Rice's evidence was that Mr Wales had conveyed to Mr Ellis the concern felt by the managers but not in such a way as to indicate that they were pressing for action. However, whatever the precise form of words used by Mr Wales and Mr Rice in talking to Mr Ellis about their meeting with the managers, I am satisfied that the sense of what they said was that the managers would bring pressure to bear if they (the managers) did not see what they regarded as an improvement by Christmas. As Mr Ellis said in his evidence to the Inquiry, 'It was a threat by the managers that Mr Rice and Mr Wales were reporting'.

(21) See Chapter V, paragraphs 425-432 above.

(22) See Chapter V, paragraph 416 above.

[page 158]

498. There was also some discussion about the relations between a head teacher and managers and about their respective responsibilities for curriculum development and organisation, Mr Wales emphasising that the managers had a legitimate interest in being kept informed and consulted about the general educational methods being adopted in the school. Mr Rice made clear to Mr Ellis that he, as the head teacher, had the responsibility of satisfying himself about basic standards in reading, English and mathematics, and that the organisation of the school should have regard to the individual needs of all children, not just those who were from poor homes and/or of low attainments. Finally, in this context, Mr Rice told Mr Ellis that he should keep parents fully informed of what he was doing. Mr Ellis appeared to accept the advice given to him. However, he pointed out the great difficulties that he had had because of the behaviour of Mrs Walker and because, as he believed, some of the managers had sided with her or had failed to give him and his staff sufficient support.

499. Mr Rice then turned to the subject of Mrs Walker. He told Mr Ellis that he had interviewed her a few days earlier and had expressed his disapproval of her conduct at the parents/teachers' meeting of 9 July 1974, and that she had indicated her regret for what she had done. According to Mr Ellis's evidence to the Inquiry - and this was not challenged by Mr Rice - Mr Rice did not mention the three possible courses of action against Mrs Walker advised by Mr Watts of the administrative office at County Hall responsible for dealing with complaints under the Authority's Disciplinary Procedures (23). Nor, on the other hand, did Mr Ellis indicate a wish to take any action against her, either by way of disciplinary proceedings or by asking the Authority to remove her from the school (24). When asked at the Inquiry why, if he felt so strongly about her conduct, he did not press Mr Rice for some action to be taken against her, he said that he did not want it to appear that he was victimising her for what had occurred.

500. Thus, both the Authority and Mr Ellis were, on the face of it, anxious to avoid taking any initiative to deal with what was obviously going to be a continuing source of disharmony among the staff of the junior school. The meeting ended, leaving Mr Wales and Mr Rice with the impression that Mr Ellis was content to leave the matter there and that all would be forgiven and forgotten in time in the attempt to pull the school together.

501. However, as events quickly proved, all was not to be forgiven and forgotten. Many of Mr Ellis's colleagues, principally Mr Haddow, were already convinced that there had been a conspiracy organised against them during the previous term - a conspiracy in which Mrs Walker had played a leading part and in which some of the managers, as well as some of the parents, had been involved. The junior school staff's conviction of the existence of such a conspiracy was only increased when they heard from Mr Ellis of the meeting that had taken place on 23 July 1975 between

(23) See Chapter V, paragraph 410 above.

(24) Mrs Walker, as a part-time teacher was a 'temporary terminal teacher' (See Glossary) and could have been removed from the school by the Authority at the end of term.

[page 159]

the (unidentified) Managers and the Divisional Office Staff and of the reported threat by those Managers that the staff would be regarded as on probation until the end of the year.

502. As will appear, the conviction by the junior school staff that there was a conspiracy against them between Mrs Walker, some of the managers, and some of the parents, became an obsession which dominated their thoughts and staffroom discussions for a good deal of the term. Unfortunately, it was an obsession that was fed by a number of factors, namely:

(i) Mrs Walker's understandable reluctance to disclose who had been involved with her in the preparation and distribution of her Black Paper in the previous term;

(ii) another, and more sinister, account of the meeting on 23 July 1974 between the four Managers and the Divisional Office Staff - an account given by Mrs Fairweather, one of the managers concerned;

(iii) an increased level of interest by some Managers, exhibited principally in the form of managerial visits, some unannounced, to the junior school; and

(iv) the failure of the Authority to take any action against Mrs Walker, and, what appeared to the junior school staff to be, a reluctance on the part of the Authority to give them positive support in fighting the supposed conspiracy.

503. The first staff meeting of the autumn term took place on 4 September 1974, two days after the visit of Mr Ellis to the Divisional Office. Mr Ellis opened the meeting by giving an account of his discussion with Mr Wales and Mr Rice and dealing in particular with his understanding of the reported threat by the managers to press for an Inquiry or other action if the school did not improve by the end of the year. This information, which Mr Ellis had no doubt already passed on to some of his colleagues, provoked a good deal of ill-feeling among the junior school staff against the managers. In addition, Mr Ellis spoke of the wishes of the managers to know about the school's curriculum and the reorganisation of the school that term. Although the junior school staff knew from the previous term that the managers had asked both head teachers to provide written statements of their respective curricula, many of them saw a sinister significance in this request in the light of the information that Mr Ellis had just given them of the intentions of the managers as reported to him at Divisional Office. They not only resented the managers' interest - Mr Haddow, for instance, affirming his intention to go on teaching as he had before - but they were suspicious of it as well.

504. Mrs Walker, who, it will be remembered, had prepared at the end of the summer term and sent to Mr Ellis among others a written statement about educational aims and methods for staff discussion (25), then urged them to forget the past

(25) See Chapter V, paragraph 404 above.

[page 160]

and to try and work together for the good of the school. Mr Haddow and some of the others, who suspected that Mrs Walker was in league with some of the managers, were not disposed to accept that invitation from her. Mr Haddow made plain that they could not go on to discuss in a constructive way their plans for the coming year whilst the events of the previous term remained unresolved and whilst there was a threat of an Inquiry hanging over their heads.

505. Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis began to press Mrs Walker for information about the part that she had played, and who had been involved with her, in the preparation and distribution of her Black Paper and the other events leading up to her intervention at the parents/teachers' meeting on 9 July 1974. Mrs Walker was reluctant to give them the information they wanted for a number of reasons. First, she felt that there was nothing to be gained by rehearsing the unpleasant events of the past. Secondly, she had received at the beginning of the summer term a letter from solicitors instructed by Mr Haddow alleging defamation of him by her in her conversation with Mr and Mrs Jones (26); and no doubt she was anxious that he might be trying to use the occasion of the staff meeting to obtain information that he could use against her. Thirdly, and again having regard to the letter that she had received from Mr Haddow's solicitors, she did not want to expose any of the persons who had helped her in the summer term to any action, legal or otherwise, by him. Her reluctance to divulge the names of those involved with her, coupled with the fact that Mr Wales and Mr Rice had not identified to Mr Ellis the managers who had come to see them, only increased the suspicions of Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis and some of the staff that she was shielding one or more of the managers.

506. As a result, the meeting deteriorated into a heated argument with Mr Haddow insisting that the staff would not discuss the school's plans for the term until Mrs Walker gave him the information that he wanted and until the involvement of the managers and their reported threat of an Inquiry had been fully investigated.

507. Save for a staff meeting on 24 September 1974, at which Mr Rice was present, Mrs Walker attended no more staff meetings at the school. She left Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow and the others to run the school as they wished, and she confined herself to her work with Mrs Chowles's class already described (27). Apart from Mrs Chowles, with whom she worked, and Mr Austin who had a friendly way with everybody, her contact with the staff thereafter was reduced to the bare civilities.

508. However, the tenor of the discussions in the staff meetings that continued in her absence was much the same, with Mr Haddow concentrating the staff's

(26) See Chapter V, paragraph 369 above. The latter threatened her with proceedings if she repeated the allegations that she had made to Mr and Mrs Jones and asked for a retraction of the allegations made. Mrs Walker did not acknowledge the letter nor make any retraction or apology because, as she maintained in evidence, she had not defamed Mr Haddow. No further action was taken by Mr Haddow arising out of the matter.

(27) See paragraph 460 above.

[page 161]

attention on the conspiracy against them rather than on the practical day-to-day matters that required attention in this troubled and recently reorganised Junior School. In such an atmosphere it was inevitable that the junior school staff's attitude to the managers as a whole became very hostile and that such hostility soon became evident. Mrs Burnett, the Chairman of the managers, noticed it with some alarm on a routine visit that she made to the junior school on 11 September 1974.

Mrs Burnett's visit to the junior school on 11 September 1974

509. Mrs Burnett's visit to the junior school on 11 September 1974 was not canvassed very much in evidence at the Inquiry. However, Mrs Burnett's own evidence of it, largely supported by notes that she made shortly after her visit, and which I accept as being a substantially correct account of what took place, gives a good indication of the hostility that Mr Ellis was now prepared to show to those Managers and parents who he thought had presumed to criticise the school.

510. Mr Ellis mentioned the meeting of the four Managers with the Divisional Office Staff on 23 July 1974. He told Mrs Burnett that Mr Wales and Mr Rice had told him that he 'had till Christmas to be a good boy or get out'. This account of his discussion with Mr Wales and Mr Rice was a complete distortion of what they had said to him (28), and indicates the alarmist attitude that Mr Ellis, as well as Mr Haddow, was now beginning to adopt.

511. Mr Ellis also told Mrs Burnett that Mr Wales and Mr Rice had told him that Managers had been asking for an inquiry into the school. This was not quite such a distortion of what had been said between Mr Wales and Mr Rice and Mr Ellis (28) or between the four Managers and the Divisional Office Staff (29), and it was certainly the impression that Mr Ellis had gathered at his meeting with Mr Wales and Mr Rice at the beginning of the autumn term. Still, the four Managers had not made an outright request to the Divisional Office Staff for an inquiry, and Mrs Burnett indicated to Mr Ellis that she had been one of the managers at the meeting at the Divisional Office, and attempted to reassure him on this point. However, her attempt at reassurance was not helped by her refusal to tell him the names of the other Managers who had attended the meeting with her, without first obtaining their permission.

512. I do not understand why, when Mrs Burnett knew that Mr Ellis was aware of the meeting between certain Managers and the Divisional Office Staff, she felt it necessary to be so protective of the interests of Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings and Mrs Dewhurst. Even though she offered to telephone the managers concerned and ask them to get in touch with him about it if they wished to, the effect of her refusal to disclose their names inevitably increased Mr Ellis's suspicions about a Managers'

(28) See paragraph 497 above.

(29) See Chapter V, paragraph 430 above.

[page 162]

conspiracy, and also caused him to associate Mrs Burnett with it. This was most unfortunate, because I do not think that there was anything particularly sinister in Mrs Burnett's refusal to disclose the names. It was an error of judgement on her part reminiscent of her initial lack of openness about her previous contact with Mrs Walker at the informal Managers' meeting with Mr Ellis on 7 June 1974 (30).

513. However, the damage was done, and Mr Ellis showed it by the way he behaved during the rest of her visit and by his lack of responsiveness to her genuine attempts to reassure him of her support and to her offers of practical assistance.

514. Mr Ellis said that he did not give a damn about parents, Managers or anybody else, that teachers were 'the pros at the game', and that nobody else had any right to judge them. Mrs Burnett pointed out that, although parents were not 'pros' in the field of education, they could recognise if their children were happy and interested in school, and that teachers could not ride roughshod over parents' feelings. In the course of the discussion that followed Mrs Burnett was horrified to hear Mr Ellis describe parents as either 'working class fascists or middle class trendies out for their own children'.

515. Mrs Burnett and Mr Ellis then discussed the future aims and plans for the school. Mr Ellis indicated that he was concerned most of all with the deprived children and that the middle class children would 'get by' in a team teaching situation. Mrs Burnett commented that the parents would have to be convinced that all types of children were being catered for and suggested the possibility of joint activities with the infants school so as to involve the following year's first year parents in the junior school. Mr Ellis wrote off that suggestion by saying that the infants school would be of no help because they were for ever complaining about the Junior children disrupting their own activities.

516. Mrs Burnett looked round the school with Mr Ellis, and, from what she could see, it appeared to her that a lot of thought had been put into its reorganisation, and she commented on this to him. Despite his previous remarks about Managers and parents, she went out of her way to show him that, whatever reservations she had about his attitude and what had happened in the past, she was anxious to continue to give him all possible support. In their discussions of the cooperative teaching scheme for the second and third year children, Mr Ellis said that he wanted to have as many volunteers as possible to work with small groups of children under the direction of Mr Haddow. Mrs Burnett told him that she was a qualified teacher (31) and offered to come and help one morning a week if that would be of any use. Possibly because of the suspicions that he had formed of Mrs Burnett as well as some of the other Managers, Mr Ellis parried that offer by saying that he would ask his staff at the next staff meeting. That was the last Mrs Burnett heard of it.

517. Mrs Burnett concluded her visit by discussing with Mr Ellis the possibility

(30) See Chapter V, paragraph 294 above.

(31) See Chapter III, paragraph 146 above.

[page 163]

of persuading the Authority to redecorate certain parts of the school which they both felt were particularly shabby. Mrs Burnett did make representations to the Divisional Office, and, as a result, it was arranged that Mr Ellis could apply to the Divisional Office for certain rooms to be repainted. There is no evidence that Mr Ellis took advantage of Mrs Burnett's efforts in this connection.

The first written statement of the junior school staff - 16 September 1974

518. Following Mrs Burnett's visit to the junior school, the junior school staff decided that the only way to deal with the conspiracy which they suspected, and the secrecy surrounding it, was to adopt an offensive rather than defensive position. They did so on 16 September 1974 by issuing a written statement to the managers and to the Authority at County Hall and at the Divisional Office. This statement, which was the first of many of a similar kind that were to follow over the next year, was signed in alphabetical order by Mr Ellis and his seven colleagues. Those of its signatories who gave evidence to the Inquiry said that it and the other statements that followed it were drafted as a result of consultation between them and generally typed by Mrs McWhirter. I have no doubt that in most cases the contents of these statements were discussed between them before they were signed. However, from what I have seen of the undoubted writings of Mr Haddow and those of his colleagues, and from what I have observed of their evidence at the Inquiry, I am inclined to the view that the principal author of most of these written statements was Mr Haddow.

519. As it is the first of such statements purporting to describe the fears and attitudes of the junior school staff, I reproduce it here in full:

'Statement by Teaching Staff of William Tyndale Junior School, London, N.1

16 September, 1974

William Tyndale Junior School is designated as being one of "special difficulties" (32). Housed in a poorly equipped decrepit (33) building, it has a preponderance of children who show a variety of social, emotional and learning difficulties. These problems have been inherited by the present staff, the majority of whom have been employed at the school for one year or less. The headmaster has in fact, been at this appointment for only two terms. Because of an interference from outside sources on a political and educational basis, the work of staff in trying to achieve the amelioration of these problems and the smooth running of the school has been severely disrupted.

This interference has come from certain managers of the school, a part-time member of the teaching staff and others organising parental opposition against the head and other members of staff. This has taken the form of parents being approached with statements condemning the alleged political beliefs of staff and with unsubstantiated accusations of political indoctrination of the children. Documents have been prepared and distributed impugning the professional competence and integrity of the head and the staff. Parents' meetings have been or-

(33) cf Chapter II, paragraph 100.

[page 164]

ganised at which the head and staff have been viciously attacked, despite assurances from the Chief Inspector that such attacks would be quashed. Letters from parents unknown to the school have been sent to the Divisional Officer, criticising the so-called extreme left-wing views of the staff as a basis for not sending children to the school. Parents have reported campaigns to ensure the dismissal and denouncing of certain staff for reasons of political inacceptability [sic].

Working in this situation of political harassment, where parental confidence has been deliberately eroded, where a staff and head have not been given the chance to work freely, we are now informed that certain anonymous members of the managers are pressing for an inquiry into the running of the school.

We therefore feel that this victimisation and constant harassment must be stopped immediately, as the pressure and tension on staff working under constant threat and attack is making an already difficult situation impossible.

The only way misunderstandings between parents and staff can be effectively resolved, is for the problems to be openly discussed at the time of happening, and not through a third agency set up as a counter-authority to the head of the school, thriving on the insecurity of parents, created by political scaremongering.'

Mrs Fairweather's visit to the junior school on 18 September 1974

521. Mrs Fairweather went to the school on 18 September 1974 in order only to make an appointment for a future managerial visit. In the event, she spent almost the entire day there, discussing first with Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow, and then with most of the other members of the junior school staff the circumstances of the meeting that she had attended at the Divisional Office on 23 July 1974. Her motive in giving so much time to this discussion was to reassure the staff. But, if her manner during the Inquiry is anything to go by, it is likely that she went about it in a flippant and thoughtless way. At all events, she left them with an impression of the meeting at the Divisional Office that was very inaccurate in some serious respects. It was a particularly alarming impression for the junior school staff, obsessed as they

(34) See Chapter V, paragraph 435 above, and paragraphs 570-572 below.

[page 165]

were by the idea of a conspiracy against them, because it suggested that some of the Authority's Divisional Office Staff were also involved in the supposed conspiracy.

522. As there was considerable issue at the Inquiry over the account given by Mrs Fairweather to the junior school staff of the four Managers' meeting at the Divisional Office, I had better deal with it in some detail. The discussion started with Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow putting to her that Mr Rice had told Mr Ellis that some Managers were pressing for an inquiry. Mrs Fairweather then gave, and repeated later in the day to most of the rest of the staff, what purported to be a full account of the matters discussed at the meeting. According to Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow, the latter of whom made brief notes of the discussion shortly afterwards, she said that the Divisional Office discussion had ranged, among other things, over the following subjects:

(i) An inquiry after Christmas into the teaching at the junior school.

According to Mr Haddow, Mrs Fairweather also told them that she had heard that there were some teachers and educationists who were willing to give evidence against the staff at a tribunal of inquiry.

According to Mrs Fairweather, she told them that the managers had asked about the possibilities of an inquiry and an inspection in general terms, but not specifically about an inquiry into the junior school after Christmas or at all. She told them that they had asked about these possibilities because they had not known what success there might be in the action being taken to restore public confidence in the school. She said to them that the words 'inquiry' and 'inspection' had only been mentioned at the Divisional Office meeting because Mr Rice and his colleagues had seemed unwilling to make any positive proposals for restoring parental confidence in the school. Mrs Fairweather also took the opportunity to stress to the junior school staff that, whatever had been said or understood at the Divisional Office Meeting, the managers were not pressing for an inquiry into the school.

(ii) The removal of Mr Ellis by offering him another post.

According to Mr Haddow, Mrs Fairweather also mentioned that there had been some talk about the removal of himself and Mrs McColgan from the junior school after Mr Ellis had been found another job.

Mrs Fairweather denied in evidence that there had been any discussion at the Divisional Office about the removal of Mr Ellis or his colleagues or that she had said anything to suggest that to the junior school staff. However, she did accept in evidence that, at the Divisional Office Meeting, Mr Rice had mentioned that there was no termination clause in Mr Ellis's contract of employment, though she claimed not to be able to remember the reason for his raising the point.

(iii) Reorganisation of the schools as a Junior Mixed and Infants School.

Mrs Fairweather denied in evidence to the Inquiry that there had been or that she told the junior school staff that there had been, any discussion at the Divisional Office Meeting about reorganisation of the schools.

(iv) Closure of the junior school if the roll fell below 80.

Mrs Fairweather indicated in her evidence to the Inquiry that she did give

[page 166]

some account to the junior school staff of the inquiries that the managers had made about the school's position if the roll were to fall below 80, but stressed to Mr Ellis that their concern throughout was to keep the school going and fully staffed.

(v) Press leakages to precipitate action.

Mrs Fairweather denied in evidence that she had said anything to the junior school staff about the managers having discussed at the Divisional Office 'press leakages'. However, she said that she told the junior school staff that she had put to Mr Rice at the Divisional Office Meeting that, if the rolls continued to fall, the press might well take an interest and had asked what the Divisional Office would do then.

(vi) The 'placing of a spy' as a Divisional Office Staff appointment (35) in the junior school to report back on the activities of the staff.

Mrs Fairweather denied vehemently in her evidence to the Inquiry, as did Mr Rice and the others present at the Divisional Office Meeting who gave evidence, that there had been any discussion at the Divisional Office Meeting about placing a spy in the school; and I accept that no discussion of that sort took place there. Mrs Fairweather also strongly denied in evidence that she said to the junior school staff anything about such a suggestion or anything like it. However, in her discussion with the junior school staff, she undoubtedly referred to rumours that she had heard of there being a group of teachers in North London intent on smashing the system; and, perhaps with Mr Buxton's 'off the record' comments at the Divisional Office Meeting in mind (36), jokingly queried whether they were that group. In the context of that part of the discussion, I am of the view that Mrs Fairweather may well have made some lighthearted reference to the Divisional Office talking of keeping a close watch on the school's Staff. However lighthearted Mrs Fairweather's reference was, and whatever expression she may have used. it was nevertheless taken very seriously by the junior school staff.

524. The reaction of the junior school staff to Mrs Fairweather's visit and

(35) See Glossary.

(36) See Chapter V, paragraph 429 above.

[page 167]

attempts at reassurance was to issue, on the following day, a second written statement, addressed this time to Mrs Burnett.

The second written statement of the junior school staff - the 'Ultimatum' of 19 September 1974

525. This second written statement of the junior school staff was in much more peremptory tones than the first. Mr Ellis, in his evidence to the Inquiry, described it as a 'staff ultimatum'. It read as follows:

'The teaching staff are fully aware that there is a politically motivated campaign of harassment against the school and against its staff.

In the exceptionally difficult circumstances that exist in this school they cannot operate efficiently whilst this campaign is allowed to continue.

They therefore demand that the Managing Body issues to parents a statement condemning this campaign of gossip and innuendo.

They also demand that the statement contain an unqualified indication of managerial support for the school, its Headmaster and its staff.

In the absence of such a statement the staff will have to assume that the Managing Body does not support them and will have to act accordingly'.

Mr Mabey's visit to the junior school on 20 September 1974

527. As this first formal managerial visit of Mr Robin Mabey to the junior school was also the first time that he began to intervene individually in the affairs of the school, it may be helpful if I give here a brief account of him.

528. Mr Mabey had an interest in the schools as a Manager, as a parent of a child at the infants school, and, since 1971, as a Councillor of the London Borough of Islington for the Ward (St Mary's Ward) in which the schools are situated. He had been a member of the previous Managing Body of the schools (though he had only been appointed to it in May 1973), and had been re-appointed as a member of the new Managing Body in September 1973. He had considerable experience as a school governor, since he had been a Governor of Islington Green School since 1967, and for three years, from 1971 to 1974, was Chairman of the Board of Governors of that School. His position as a local Councillor and as Secretary of the local constituency Labour Party for five years meant that, as well as having a close

[page 168]

involvement in local community and political affairs, he had a wide contact with the managing bodies of local schools (37).

529. The reason for Mr Mabey choosing to make his first official managerial visit to the school on 20 September 1974 was not canvassed in evidence at the Inquiry. It was probably prompted by his receipt of the junior school staff's written statement of 16 September 1974. He may even have heard from Mrs Burnett of their ultimatum of 19 September 1974. His visit was in the afternoon. He said in evidence to the Inquiry that he had been unable to find Mr Ellis when he first went into the school and that he decided therefore to visit a classroom. The classroom that he chose to visit was that of Mrs McColgan, whom he had never met before and who did not know him. Having entered her classroom whilst she was teaching and without introducing himself, he stood at the back and watched her at work. That was an ill-mannered and tactless way to behave. In addition, it was particularly unfortunate that he should have chosen Mrs McColgan's classroom to visit, having regard to her sensitivity, and that of some of her colleagues on her behalf, resulting from her previous disputes with the Authority. However, he did have some conversation with her towards the end of the lesson, and both of them seem to have been quite civil to each other.

530. Mr Ellis learned of Mr Mabey's presence in the school and went to him in Mrs McColgan's classroom. He told Mr Mabey that he should have consulted him before visiting the classroom and asked him to make an appointment before making a managerial visit to the school in the future. Mr Mabey was not prepared to accept that restriction, and he made it quite clear that he was reserving to himself the right to visit the school unannounced because, as he put it to Mr Ellis, there might be 'things going on'. This was blunt talk by Mr Mabey, and it became more blunt. When Mr Ellis pointed out to him that, in asking Managers to make appointments for visits, he was acting on the advice of his Union, Mr Mabey responded by saying 'You won't get far on that one'.

531. There followed a difficult discussion in the staffroom in which Mr Mabey said to the junior school staff, among other things, that he had heard of a militant group of North London Teachers who were engaged in smashing schools. No doubt by way of illustrating the relevance of that remark, he also said that he had heard that the junior school staff at William Tyndale Junior School encouraged the children to play Monopoly in order to smash the capitalist system.

532. If Mr Mabey had evidence to support his suspicions of the sort of things he was saying to the junior school staff, he should have dealt with the matter through the proper machinery provided; first, by discussing it with his fellow

(37) i.e. he was responsible with others in the local Labour Party organisation for putting forward names to the Labour Party Whips at County Hall for ultimate submission to Mr Hinds, as Chairman of the Authority's Schools Sub-Committee for appointment as the Authority's appointees on the managing bodies of local primary schools; see Chapter I, paragraph 61 above.

[page 169]

Managers at a properly constituted Managers' Meeting, and then, if appropriate, by making a complaint or a request for an inspection to the Authority. A visit to the school such as he made was no way to deal with such a problem. Moreover, there was even less justification for his behaviour if he had no real evidence to support his suspicions; because, in that event, such behaviour not only was unjustified, it was certain to be totally counter-productive to the good running of the school. Mr Mabey behaved in fact like the proverbial 'bull in a china shop'.

The Managers' meeting of 23 September 1974

533. After all the activity among the junior school staff and certain of the managers leading up to this Meeting on Monday, 23 September 1974 it might have been expected that it would have served the purpose of bringing matters to a head and having them resolved one way or another. However, it was not to be. Most of the important issues requiring discussion were put back to a Special Meeting of the managers fixed for 7 October 1974.

534. The first business of the Meeting was the election of a Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the managers for the new school year. Mrs Burnett and Mrs Fairweather were proposed and elected respectively for the two posts. However, that preliminary business did not pass without Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow making what, in my view, was a pointless and trivial gesture. They respectively proposed and seconded for each post in opposition to Mrs Burnett and Mrs Fairweather, Mr John Newman, who had only just become a manager following his election as Parent-Manager for the junior school four days before. Although it may very well be that Mr Newman eventually could have filled either post satisfactorily, their action in putting forward a person, who was not only completely new to the Managing Body but also without any managerial experience, was simply a device to demonstrate their hostile attitude to the Managing Body as a whole (38).

535. The managers then moved on to consider what they could and should do about the problem of Mrs Walker's behaviour in the summer term, that problem having been put back at their previous Managers' Meeting on 15 July 1974 in order that advice could be obtained from County Hall (39). Mr Wales or Mr Rice informed the managers of the advice that had been given suggesting the three possibilities of action for Mr Ellis, namely, making a complaint under the Disciplinary Procedures of the National Union of Teachers, or under the Authority's Disciplinary Procedures,or of circulating a statement of his own refuting Mrs Walker's criticisms (40). Mr Haddow mentioned the possibility of a fourth alternative, namely that the teaching Staff of the junior school as a group could make a formal complaint

(38) It should be noted that Mr Ellis was absent from school that day and for the rest of the week due to nervous strain (see paragraph 538 below). His wife visited Mr Rice in the course of the day to express her worry about the nervous stress that he was undergoing at the school. He did however attend the managers' Meeting on this evening and propose the motion referred to in the text.

(39) See Chapter V, paragraph 407 above.

(40) See Chapter V, paragraph 410 above.

[page 170]

under the Authority's Disciplinary Procedures. That was confirmed by Mr Rice. However, neither Mr Wales nor Mr Rice advised, nor did anyone canvass at this meeting, the other two possibilities to which I have already referred (41), namely that the Authority or the managers could independently initiate complaint proceedings under the Authority's Disciplinary Procedures. The matter was left for the time being - much to the dissatisfaction of Mr Haddow - with Mr Rice reporting that Mrs Walker had expressed her regret for what she had done and that he hoped that that could be an end to the matter.

536. It will be remembered that it had been resolved at the previous Special Meeting of the managers on 15 July 1974 that both head teachers would report at this meeting on the curricula of their respective schools (42). However, in the light of the two written statements (43) issued by the junior school staff on 16 and 19 September 1974 respectively, it was decided to convene a Special Meeting of Managers on 7 October 1974 to consider the head teachers' reports and the curricula of the schools, the two written statements of the junior school staff and the question of Managers' visits.

537. Despite the arrangements made for this Special Meeting so that the managers could consider the various matters that were concerning them and the teachers, the junior school staff continued in the meantime to press their case vigorously against the managers to the Authority, both at Divisional Office and at County Hall level. On the day following the managers' Meeting they held a staff meeting attended by Mr Rice, in which they ventilated very fully their complaints against the managers, and on the same day they wrote to Mr Hinds asking him to receive a delegation of staff from the school before the Special Meeting of Managers. I would like to leave my account of those representations to the Authority to that summary, but both matters are of value in assessing the reasonableness of the junior school staff's reaction or over-reaction to the circumstances of the autumn term. A little more detail is therefore required.

The staff meeting of the junior school on 24 September 1974 attended by Mr Rice

538. On 24 September 1974 the junior school staff held a staff meeting attended by Mr Rice, with Mr Haddow acting as head teacher in the absence of Mr Ellis and Mrs Chowles. Mr Ellis was absent due to illness, which kept him away from the school for the whole of that week (23-27 September 1974). Mrs Walker attended for her second and last staff meeting this term - no doubt because she knew that Mr Rice was going to be present.

539. Mr Rice's evidence to the Inquiry, supported by notes of the meeting that he made the following day, shows that Mr Haddow, as Acting Head Teacher, certainly put his stamp on the meeting. He and other members of the junior school

(41) See Chapter V, paragraphs 412 and 415 above.

(42) See Chapter V, paragraph 421 above.

(43) See paragraphs 518-519 and 525 above.

[page 171]

Staff went to great lengths to impress upon Mr Rice that they felt under a lot of pressure from outside groups. Mr Haddow spoke of political insinuations that had been made against some of them, quite obviously referring to Mrs Walker; and Mrs McColgan ventured the opinion that the pressure from outside had started since she had joined the school.

540. The junior school staff also complained about many aspects of the managers' behaviour that had been exercising them since the beginning of term. They mentioned in particular the visit of the four Managers to the Divisional Office in the summer, alleged threats by some Managers that they were on probation until Christmas, talk of an inquiry, and alleged over-frequency of Managers' visits, sometimes without prior notice.

541. Mr Rice made the point that it was not just a question of the junior school staff being under attack, but that some parents had been worried about their children's education. He urged them to look forward and to forget the past, and indicated that any inquiry could only take place on the initiative of the Chief Inspector.

542. However, Mr Haddow and his colleagues persisted in expressing their difficulty in having to work under what they described as immense pressure from certain groups outside the school. Mr Haddow asked if Mr Rice would support the junior school staff in asking for the managers' unqualified support in a letter written to parents. Mr Rice, while assuring Mr Haddow that everyone concerned was trying to help the school, said that it could not be expected in the circumstances that the managers would be able to express unqualified support for the junior school staff. However, he said that he thought that it would be reasonable to ask the managers for their support and their confidence.

543. Mr Rice's very reasonable reaction to the junior school staff's allegations and complaints did not satisfy Mr Haddow. The meeting ended with him saying that the staff had had enough of the pressure and that unless it stopped they would be taking decisive action.

544. As a footnote to the account of this meeting, I should mention that Mrs Walker did not take an active part in the discussion. She listened to what was said, noting particularly the implications made against her by Mr Haddow, and then went away and wrote a long letter to Mr Rice dated 30 September 1974. This letter, which was to form the basis of her proof of evidence to the Inquiry, gave a long and detailed account of her criticisms of Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow and of the teaching policies adopted at the school. In it she also sought to justify in large measure her own actions in the previous term. She concluded it by saying that she intended to take no further part in the whole affair unless obliged to do so. That was indeed the last of her active involvement in the troubles of the school - which she left at the end of the term - until she came to give evidence at the Inquiry.

[page 172]

The junior school's staff's request to Mr Hinds to receive a delegation from the school

545. On the same day that the junior school staff held their meeting attended by Mr Rice they also received a visit from Mrs Jenny Baker, an additional Member of the Education Committee and the Minority Party Leader on the Schools Sub-Committee. Although Mr Ellis was absent from the school due to illness, he went in to meet her and told her of what had happened at the school since he had been there. At her suggestion the junior school staff wrote that very day, 24 September 1974, to Mr Hinds asking him to receive a deputation of the staff from the school, before the Special Meeting of Managers fixed for 7 October 1974, in order that they could put their case in full. They also requested in the letter that, because of their fears that there would be attempts at the forthcoming meeting 'to conceal the interests and activities of those who were attacking the school', a Member of the Schools Sub-Committee should attend it 'to ensure a complete and frank discussion'.

546. Before I pass on to Mr Hinds's reply to these requests, I should set out in their own words what Mr Ellis (who did not attend the staff meeting that day) and his seven colleagues had to say in their letter about Mr Rice's response to their anxieties in the staff meeting that had just taken place:

'We have also met today with Mr Rice, our District Inspector, who whilst giving us assurances that there will be no inquiry into the running of the school, would give us no promise of public support to counter the organised campaign against us and reverse the damage done by the slanderous political allegations.'

547. Mr Hinds considered the junior school staff's request and took the view that it would be inappropriate for him to intervene at that stage in what he called, in evidence to the Inquiry, 'the normal machinery of the managing body'. Accordingly, he declined to receive a deputation from the junior school staff or to ask a Member of the Schools Sub-Committee to attend the forthcoming Special Meeting of Managers. These were the reasons that he gave for his decision, notified in a letter from him to Mr Ellis of 4 October 1974:

'4 October 1974

Dear Mr Ellis,

Your letter of 24 September, which was also signed by a number of your staff, raised the question of attendance at the Special Meeting of the managers on 7 October. I understand that the Divisional Officer and the District Inspector will both be present and they should ensure that the discussion is as full and frank as possible, consistent with its not turning into an unofficial complaint against one or more persons.

I should explain that the Authority has a clearly defined procedure, worked out in consultation with professional associations, for dealing with complaints. It is most important that teachers should follow this procedure if they wish to raise a complaint. Failure to do so, or deviation from it to any extent, could

[page 173]

well be prejudicial to those involved. Because of this it would also not be appropriate for me to see a delegation from the school at this time. as you suggest.

With regard to the feelings of staff, it may be helpful for them to know that no complaints against any member of staff, or criticisms of them have been received here at County Hall or at the Divisional Office. I am told that a small number of parents have written to the Divisional Officer, giving individual reasons why they were transferring children from William Tyndale School. As you will doubtless know from experience at your previous school, this is not unusual and no undue significance has been attached to it.

Yours sincerely,    
Harvey Hinds.'

549. First, Mr Hinds had some previous knowledge of the troubles at the school, and although he had not been shown a copy of Mr Rice's report (44) prepared mainly as a result of his own request in the summer, Miss Burgess had kept him in touch with what was being done for the school. There were available to him, as the last paragraph of his letter indicates, several sources of information about the school's troubles; in particular, Miss Burgess, who had received a copy of the first written statement of the junior school staff dated 16 September 1974, and of course, Dr Birchenough, Mr Wales and Mr Rice, all of whom could have explained the nature of the problem to him. With the knowledge or information in his possession or to which he had ready access, Mr Hinds should have paid particular attention to the fact that the junior school staff were challenging the good faith of the managers and the willingness of the Authority's man on the spot, Mr Rice, to help them.

550. Secondly, whether or not there was any justification for the junior school staff's suggestion in their letter about the bad faith of the managers and the lack of support that they were receiving from Mr Rice, Mr Hinds's answer to them did not meet the anxieties that they were expressing.

Insofar as the managers at their forthcoming meeting might have been concerned to discuss the conduct of Mrs Walker with a view to making a complaint themselves against her under paragraph 5 of the Disciplinary Section of the staff Code (45), they were entitled, and indeed bound, to discuss the matter among themselves first. Yet Mr Hinds referred, in the first paragraph of his letter, to Mr Wales and Mr Rice being able to 'ensure that the discussion is as full and frank as possible, consistent with its not turning into an unofficial complaint against one or more persons'.

(44) See Chapter V, paragraph 395 above.

(45) See Chapter I, paragraph 88(ii), and Appendix VIII to the Report.

[page 174]

That formula gave Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow no guidance whether and to what extent they could invite the managers to consider Mrs Walker's conduct.

Insofar as the junior school staff had expressed disquiet in their letter to Mr Hinds about their fellow Managers, it was of no relevance to refer them, as he did in the second paragraph of his letter, to the importance of teachers adhering to the 'clearly defined' complaint procedures of the Authority. The Authority had and has no machinery for the consideration of complaints against Managers. Accordingly, having regard to the nature of their anxieties about the managers as expressed in their letter to him, Mr Hind's reference to the existence of the Authority's disciplinary procedures as a reason for not receiving a delegation from the school was a complete non-sequitur.

551. It is a matter of pure speculation whether it would have done any good for Mr Hinds to have met the junior school staff at that stage. As will appear (46), his undoubted efforts at a later stage to make them see reason were unsuccessful. Even so, his refusal to meet them, and the reasons that he gave for such refusal, could not have helped matters.

552. There is one other respect of Mr Hinds's letter to which I must refer. In his last paragraph he sought to reassure the junior school staff by indicating that no complaints or criticisms of them had been received at County Hall or at Divisional Office. That was not strictly accurate (47); and Mr Hinds's reference to the letters from parents who had written to Divisional Office 'giving individual reasons' why they were transferring children from the school, glossed over the fact that those were parents who had written in terms highly critical of the school. I have no doubt that Mr Hinds wrote in this way with the best possible motive of seeking to make the junior school staff feel secure in their position vis-a-vis the Authority. The trouble was that the junior school staff seized upon this information and used it on a number of occasions in the future to justify their refusal to accept that their own conduct of the school might warrant any criticism or inspection or inquiry.

The special meeting of the managers of 7 October 1974

553. The special meeting of the managers on 7 October 1974 was chaired by Mrs Burnett, and was attended by Mr Wales and Mr Rice. The Meeting started with Miss Hart and Mr Ellis presenting their respective reports. Miss Hart's report gave a generally favourable account of her school's activities, and indicated several improvements that she hoped to make. Mr Ellis, in his turn, having referred first to the large fall in the school roll in the summer, reported on various sporting and other activities of the school and, in particular, on the good performance of the school's swimming team in the Islington Swimming Gala. He went on to refer to the changes that had been and were being made in the organisation and layout of the school. His mention of the falling roll provoked some discussion among the managers about lack of parental confidence in the school and about the steps that

(46) See Chapter VIII, paragraphs 755 and 756 below.

(47) See Chapter V, paragraph 401 above.

[page 175]

could be taken to regain it. Mr Ellis mentioned in this connection the four parents' evenings that he and his staff had arranged for that term (48).

554. The next matters for discussion were the statements of curriculum that the head teachers had prepared at the managers' request, and which have already been set out in part at the beginning of this chapter (49). Not a great deal of time was spent in the Meeting considering these documents. Some questions were asked, but there was little detailed discussion about them.

555. The main matters for consideration were inevitably the two written statements of the junior school staff dated respectively 16 and 19 September 1974. Mr Rice began the discussion by reporting that he had visited the junior school twice that term and had been made strongly aware that the majority of the staff were very depressed and felt impeded in their work by the large number of managerial visits, some unannounced, in such a short period (50). Mr Rice went on to say that he understood that the junior school staff had been prepared to start afresh after the troubles of the previous term, but that they had been greatly disturbed when they had learned of the meeting in the summer between the four Managers and the Divisional Office Staff.

556. Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis then intervened to indicate their concern that Mrs Walker was still employed at the school and that no action had been taken by the Managing Body (51) or the Divisional Office (51) to remove her. Mr Haddow went on to refer to her behaviour and, as he alleged, the behaviour of others in making accusations of a political nature against members of the junior school staff. This reference immediately provoked a question from one of the managers whether Mr Haddow and Mr Ellis were suggesting that political allegations had been made by any of the managers. Mr Ellis gave one answer and Mr Haddow suggested another. Mr Ellis said that they were not suggesting that any of the managers had made such allegations. Mr Haddow, apparently intending to suggest some sort of managerial involvement in the making of political allegations, said that he under-

(48) See Chapter V, paragraph 345 above.

(49) See paragraphs 454 and 455 above; and, for the complete statements of the Junior and Infants Schools, see respectively Appendices XI and XII to the Report.

(50) In fact, apart from Mrs Burnett, who had in the normal way made a number of visits as Chairman of the Managing Body, the only managerial visits that term had been: Mrs Gittings on 17 September, Mrs Fairweather on 18 September, and Mr Mabey on 20 September. However, although not over-frequent, two of the managerial visits, namely those of Mrs Fairweather (see paragraphs 521-524 above) and Mr Mabey (see paragraphs 527-532 above) had been particularly damaging to Staff-Managers relations.

(51) Note the Managing Body had no power to remove Mrs Walker from the school or to terminate her employment; see Chapter I paragraph 86 above. However, the managers could have made appropriate representations to the Authority or, as already mentioned, made a complaint against her under the Authority's Disciplinary Procedure. It was also open to the managers - and Mr Ellis for that matter - to request the Authority to terminate Mrs Walker's appointment as a temporary terminal teacher (see Glossary) at the end of term.

[page 176]

stood that Mrs Walker's Black Paper had been circulated after political references in it had been deleted by the managers or one of them (52).

557. At about that point, Mr Haddow's suggestion of managerial involvement in the making of political allegations against the junior school staff was dropped for a while, and both he and Mr Ellis returned to the subject of Mrs Walker and her alleged political harassment of the staff. However, the discussion was not allowed to get very far because Mr Wales took it upon himself to 'rule' that such a matter could not be considered at a Managers' Meeting, but could only be dealt with by way of a formal complaint under the Authority's Disciplinary Procedure. Not only was Mr Wales exceeding his advisory function at such a meeting, chaired by the Chairman of the managers, in purporting to 'rule' something out of order, but his 'ruling' was wrong. Like the advice of Mr Watts (53) upon which Mr Wales may have been relying, it ignored the right of the managers to consider whether they wished themselves to make a formal complaint against Mrs Walker. However, it should be recorded that Mrs Burnett asked Mr Ellis whether he wished to make a formal complaint against Mrs Walker, and that all he said was that he did not know. In the result, due to Mr Wales's wrong 'ruling' and Mr Ellis's indecision, the managers never did get around to considering one of the main grievances of the junior school staff that had formed the subject of their two written statements of 16 and 19 September 1974 respectively, and for the discussion of which, inter alia, this Special Meeting of Managers had been convened.

558. The matter of Mrs Walker's behaviour having been left unresolved in that way, the managers went on to resolve, on the following motions put by Mr Mabey and seconded by Mr Bolland (the Manager nominated by the Institute of Education of London University):

'(i) That the managers note that the allegations of political harassment contained in the staff statements of 16 and 19 September 1974 do not refer to the managers.

(ii) That the staff's statements be received.

(iii) That the managers have considered the curriculum for both schools which is being circulated to all parents. They fully support the heads and staffs of the schools in their aim to cater for children of all abilities and needs so that they may develop to the best of their potential, and they express the hope that parents will give full support to the staffs and to the schools.'

(52) For Mrs Gittings's discussions with Mrs Walker about this, See Chapter V, paragraphs 295-297 above.

(53) See Chapter V, paragraphs 409-415 above.

[page 177]

559. However inconclusive much of the discussion at the meeting had been, it ended with the managers making a positive decision to demonstrate their support for Mr Ellis and his staff. They resolved that there should be circulated to all parents, with copies of the respective statements of curriculum, a letter from the managers containing the third resolution set out in paragraph 558 above and expressing the managers' support for the head teachers and staffs of both schools.

560. Mrs Burnett also asked, and Mr Wales advised, that, in view of the anxieties expressed by the junior school staff about managerial visits, the managers should not visit the school too frequently and that when they did so they should make an appointment beforehand or at least give Mr Ellis some notice.

The Managers' Letter of Support of 16 October 1974 for the junior school staff sent to all parents

561. It might have been expected that the letter of support for the junior school staff that the managers had agreed to circulate could do without a separate subheading in this Report. However, even that created, as far as the junior school staff were concerned, a problem of demarcation between them and the managers.

562. The appropriate letter, for Mrs Burnett to sign, containing the resolution of support set out in paragraph 558 above, was prepared at the Divisional Office. A member of the Divisional Office Staff then telephoned Mr Ellis and Miss Hart and read the draft over to them. Miss Hart was perfectly content, but Mr Ellis and his seven colleagues took exception to the word 'considered' in the following passage from the resolution as it was passed at the managers' Meeting:

' ... That the managers have considered the curriculum for both schools which is being circulated to all parents. ... '

563. Mrs Burnett had to be informed of the change because she had to sign the letter before copies of it were circulated. But the managers as a whole, whose resolution it purported to be, were not consulted by Mr Wales before deciding upon the change. Mrs Burnett was not particularly concerned about the distinction upon which the junior school staff placed so much emphasis, and she agreed to the letter going out in that changed form. However, some of the other Managers, particularly Mr Mabey, were disturbed when they found out what happened because, to them, it looked as if the junior school staff were still more concerned with drawing boundaries than with trying to work together with the managers in rebuilding the school.

[page 178]

564. The decision of Mr Wales to change the wording of the copy resolution as notified to the parents was explained to him in a memorandum to Miss Burgess, the Assistant Education Officer for Primary Schools, as being in accordance with the normal procedure of recording that documents are 'received' when presented for discussion. However, as indicated, he did so only because he was prompted by Mr Ellis with the support of his professional association. It was wrong in the circumstances for Mr Wales to make this change and for Mrs Burnett to assent to it, without having first consulted the whole Managing Body whose resolution it was. It was also wrong of Mr Wales to allow himself to be influenced by an unjustified sensitivity on the part of the junior school staff to it being recorded for the benefit of the parents that the managers had 'considered' the school's curriculum. The managers were perfectly entitled, and indeed bound, under Rule 2 of the Rules of Management (54) to consider the school's curriculum. How else could they, in the words of that Rule, 'in consultation with the head teacher, exercise the oversight of the conduct and curriculum of the school'?

565. After all this triviality on the part of the junior school staff, the letter was eventually circulated to all parents of both Schools on 16 October 1974. Although there had been a good deal of ineptitude and insensitivity on the part of certain Managers (55) during the autumn term, the events of the previous term coupled with the more recent aggressive attitude of the junior school staff must have been of continuing deep concern for most of the Managing Body. Accordingly, it was to the credit of the managers that they were prepared to give this public demonstration of support to the junior school staff. They did so with a view to restoring harmony and giving the staff the opportunity to demonstrate that if left to themselves they could do a good job.

566. It might have been expected that, as a result of the managers' action, the junior school staff would have settled down and tried to put the past behind them. However, they were still not satisfied. Their attitude is well summed up by the following statement of Mrs McWhirter in her evidence to the Inquiry:

'I felt, and still feel, that this resolution, although a step in the right direction, didn't go far enough. It said that it supported the staff in their "aims". It didn't say that it supported the staff in putting into practice their aims. It did nothing to counteract rumours - it was just a tongue in teeth gesture.'

(54) See Chapter I, paragraph 74 above.

(55) i.e. Mrs Fairweather and Mr Mabey in particular.

[page 179]

continuing negative and aggressive approach to the managers, they could not reasonably have expected any more. However, if the junior school staff did at that time recognise any shortcomings in their own behaviour and achievements, they certainly gave no indication that they did so. Indeed, they went on to fire another broadside at the managers.

The third written statement of the junior school staff - 6 November 1974

568. Sometime shortly after the Special Meeting of Managers of 7 October 1974 two officers of the North London Teachers' Association, one of whom was Mr Ron Lendon, visited the junior school. The junior school staff gave them an account of what had happened there and of their conflict with the managers. This visit was then discussed at a meeting of the General Purposes Committee of the Association held shortly afterwards. It was agreed at that meeting that its Honorary Secretary, Mr Fred Smith, should write to the junior school staff to assure them that they had the full support of the Committee. Mr Smith did that by letter dated 26 October 1974, that is, just after the half-term.

569. Encouraged by the letter from Mr Smith and prompted by their continued dissatisfaction with the handling of the Mrs Walker matter and with what they still regarded as lack of sufficient support from the managers the junior school staff decided to issue yet another aggressive statement to the managers.

570. Unfortunately, before they wrote the further statement, the junior school staff were provided with some further ammunition. Mrs Gittings, one of the managers who had voted for the motion and circulation to parents of the managers' resolution of support, removed her son from the junior school at half term. When the facts are examined it was undoubtedly a difficult decision for Mr and Mrs Gittings to make, but it enabled the junior school staff to use it as a demonstration of what they regarded as the hollowness of the managers' resolution of support. It happened in this way.

571. At the end of the summer term Mr and Mrs Gittings had been so unhappy about the junior school that they wished to remove their two boys from the William Tyndale Schools (56). The younger, who was in the infants school and was due to transfer to the junior school in the autumn term, they did remove at the end of term, and enrolled him at another junior school. The elder boy, who in the summer was in his second year at the junior school, pressed his parents to let him stay. Mr and Mrs Gittings, therefore, agreed to allow him to return to the junior school, but with considerable misgivings, and had told Mr Ellis of their attitude at the end of the summer term. However, no sooner was the boy back at the junior school in the autumn - he was in the third year, being taught under the cooperative teaching scheme - than he regretted his decision and wanted to leave. According to Mrs Gittings, he was bored, there was little to read up to his level of ability, and apparently little encouragement to read; he could not concentrate on work that he wanted to do because of the constant noise and lack of order around him, and he was also subject

(56) See Chapter V, paragraph 435 above.

[page 180]

to bullying. Mr and Mrs Gittings, nevertheless, told him that he had made his decision and should stick to it, at least until Christmas. However, long before half term, on the boy's repeated requests, they relented and agreed that he could leave at half term (21-25 October 1974) if he wished to. According to Mrs Gittings, she and her husband had spoken about this to Mr Haddow and Mr Austin well before the Special Meeting of Managers on 7 October 1974.

572. Having regard to the dual position of Mrs Gittings as the parent of a child who was very unhappy in the junior school, and as a Manager of the school concerned to give it support to assist it to recover from its troubles, she was in a very difficult position. It is just unfortunate that she and her husband were forced into taking the action of withdrawing their child at that time. Needless to say, the junior school staff made the most of this matter.

573. On 6 November 1974 the junior school staff issued the following written statement to the managers:

'The undersigned teaching staff note the resolutions passed at the managers' meeting of 7 October and the subsequent letter of 16 October from the Chairman to all parents of the school.

Whilst this action has given rise to an alleviation of the outside pressures to which staff have been subjected we wish to make it clear that for the following reasons we regard this as only a partial solution to this unfortunate situation and in no way a redress for the attacks that we have suffered:

1. No action has been taken by the Authority or by Managers against the part-time member of staff who openly attempted to undermine and destroy the work and reputations of her colleagues. Not only by the production of educationally critical documents but also by slanderous statements of a political nature all of which were made to parents. No retraction or denial of these statements has been made whatsoever.

2. No attempt has been made to deny or counter the widespread and vicious campaign of political rumour and innuendo that has been made about the school and is well known to the managers. Parental confidence has been destroyed as much by political scaremongering as by claims of educational incompetence.

3. Immediately following the issue of the Chairman's letter to parents giving full support to the educational aims of the school a manager who voted in favour of the resolution of support removed her child from the school. This action can hardly be viewed as supportive and certainly counteracts the managers' attempts to gain parental support. What credibility has the Chairman's letter to already wary parents if Managers themselves, who claim to support the school, do not entrust their own children to our care. What is agreed as good enough for other parents' children is surely good enough for those of Managers.

4. Ironically as a result of the attacks on the school the roll has fallen to a position where we have a relatively acceptable teacher/pupil ratio (57). We fear

[page 181]

that the present staff's position at the school may in the future, be affected by this precipitatedly fallen roll and that present positions will remain unfilled should staff leave. Furthermore ... we fear that attempts may be made at closure should the roll continue to fall.

We urge the managers to give full support in the case of these eventualities and to reconsider making a positive counter to the false and malicious campaign which the school has been under. In the event of such genuine support we are sure that the relationship between staff and management can return to a healthy state of respect and cooperation rather than one of mistrust and suspicion.'

575. Mrs Burnett consulted with Mr Wales and Mr Rice, who in turn took the advice of Miss Burgess at County Hall, about what action was called for, if any, to this closing shot from the junior school staff. The advice given and acted upon by Mrs Burnett was that she should simply write a letter of acknowledgment of receipt to Mr Ellis.

576. This third statement of the junior school staff marked the end of the open conflict between them and the managers for the autumn term 1974. However, the events of the first two months of the term had inevitably increased the rift between them and antagonised most of the Managing Body. What had been an open conflict continued as an armed truce, and some Managers, particularly Mrs Fairweather and Mrs Gittings, were beginning to consider as the year drew to its end whether, in the light of their discussion with the Divisional Office Staff in the summer (58), the school was still in such a state as now to require some positive intervention by the Authority.

The condition of the junior school at the end of the autumn term 1974

577. Such evidence as was given to the Inquiry about the teaching and discipline in the junior school at the end of the autumn term showed in the main that there had been very little improvement, if any, in the organisation of the school or in the

(58) See Chapter V, paragraphs 423-435 above.

[page 182]

behaviour of the children. Mrs Burnett, Miss Hart, Mrs Chowles and many parents and others spoke of the continuing general atmosphere of disorder and indiscipline, of children spending a great deal of time playing or wandering about in class time, of the drabness of the classrooms and scarcity of children's work on display. The former library room was not being used for the purpose for which the books had been cleared out, namely as a parents' or community room; it appeared to have become mainly a store room for unused furniture and equipment.

578. There was, however, at least one worthwhile innovation this term that should be recognised amidst all the matters for criticism. In about November the junior school staff decided, on the initiative of Mr Austin, to arrange, as a form of therapy for certain disturbed children, for them to have steel band tuition at a local centre, the Keskidee Centre. As will appear, from this small and unusual beginning, a good deal of success was achieved in the following two terms, not only in coping with some of the more difficult children in the school, but also in forming a very successful school steel band. Still, this was only a small start which, however successful, could not assist in solving the basic weaknesses of the organisation, teaching and discipline in the school.

579. The disciplinary problems of the junior school continued to have their effect upon the infants school. However, according to Miss Hart, in her evidence to the Inquiry, the decrease in the number of Junior School pupils at the beginning of the term resulted in a slight decrease in the number of disturbances (59). However, the infants school staff still found the behaviour of the junior school pupils too much to put up with, and Miss Hart asked Mr Ellis for a joint meeting of the two staffs at which they could discuss the problem yet again. Mrs Burnett, in her evidence to the Inquiry, which I accept, gave some indication of the unconstructive and uncooperative frame of mind in which Mr Ellis approached that meeting.

580. Mrs Burnett visited the junior school on 21 November 1974, five days before the proposed joint staff meeting. Among other things that she discussed with Mr Ellis was the desirability of achieving good relations and liaison between the two schools. Mr Ellis informed her of the proposed meeting that had been arranged but indicated that he was going to have 'a real showdown with the infants school staff' and tell them what he thought of them. He made plain to Mrs Burnett that he felt that too much fuss was being made about the behaviour of the junior school children, and that the infants school staff had no right to complain about the behaviour of the junior school children when they were not in class (60).

581. The joint staff meeting duly took place on 26 November 1974, and was as

(59) It should be noted that both head teachers had reported to the managers at their meeting of 23 September 1974 (see paragraphs 533-537 above) that there was no evidence of bullying in the playground.

(60) It is worth noting, although in a different context, that Mrs Burnett, on this visit, offered as part of a campaign to restore parental confidence, to help revive the school Newsletter that Mrs Dewhurst had formerly produced. Mr Ellis merely said that he would consult his staff. In the event, he never replied to her offer.

[page 183]

inconclusive as the previous joint meetings of the two Staffs had been. The majority of the junior school staff made plain that they did not recognise that there was a special disciplinary problem with their children and that they were not inclined to take the complaints of the infants school staff seriously.

582. Following that meeting Miss Hart felt that her only course now was to put her case to Mr Wales, which she did on 5 December 1974. Let her explain her reason for doing so in her own words in evidence to the Inquiry:

'I went to Divisional Office because I felt desperate. The situation had not improved since I had called in Mr Rice in the summer. At the beginning of the autumn term 1974 I said to my staff, 'Let's try and cope with it without discussing it with the junior school staff.' I felt totally helpless, I didn't know whom I could turn to. I just wanted to help my staff in some way; their morale was terribly low.'

584. It was a serious step for Miss Hart to make such a complaint to the Divisional Officer about the junior school staff. The fact that she felt driven to complain to him at all is some indication of the gravity of the disciplinary problem in the junior school, and of the obvious lack of concern being displayed by most of its Staff about it. I say 'most' of its staff because, as already indicated, Mrs Chowles, Mrs Walker and Mr Austin were concerned about the problem and, so far as they were able, tried to exercise some reasonable restraint upon any unruly children with whom they had to deal.

585. There is no evidence of how seriously Mr Wales took Miss Hart's complaints or, apart from notifying Mr Rice of what she had said, what action, if any, he took to deal with the situation. It is clear, however, that the Authority, through Mr Wales, the Divisional Officer, had been put on notice towards the end of the autumn term 1974, that there was still a serious disciplinary problem present in the junior school which was causing disruption in the infants school and considerable concern to the infants school staff. This, coupled with the knowledge that he, Mr Rice, Miss Burgess and, to a lesser extent, Mr Hinds, had of the continuing friction at the

(61) See in particular Chapter V, paragraph 254.

[page 184]

school for a large part of the autumn term, should have prompted the Authority to give anxious consideration at the turn of the year to some more positive intervention by it into the affairs of the school.

586. The trouble was that the Authority's knowledge was dispersed among a number of individuals acting in different capacities and at different levels: at Member level in the case of Mr Hinds; at Assistant Education Officer level in the case of Miss Burgess; at Chief Inspector level in the case of Dr Birchenough; and at Divisional Office level in the case of Mr Wales and Mr Rice. Although a good deal of information about the school was passed between them, not all the relevant information was communicated among them all. As a result, the Authority was not equipped to make the right corporate judgement about the school and the action required to deal with it. There were too many individuals involved, and too many different levels and lines of responsibility, for them to be able to deal efficiently with the problem as a collective body.

Comment on the term

587. In the last section of this chapter I have anticipated a good deal of the general comment to be made on this term. The junior school staff started it by introducing to an already troubled school its third major innovation - a cooperative teaching scheme - after only two terms of Mr Ellis's headship. For the reasons that I have given, that scheme was ill-conceived and badly run by Mr Haddow and his team of teachers. In addition, there was no significant improvement in the overall teaching, organisation and discipline in the junior school in the course of the term.

588. Some of the managers who had been looking for some improvement after the events of the summer term, accordingly, became even more anxious than before about the condition of the school. The indiscreet and insensitive behaviour of some of them, allied with a certain amount of ineptitude on the part of Mr Wales and Mr Rice, caused a good deal of unnecessary apprehension on the part of an already highly sensitive body of teachers. However, the junior school staff responded in an immature and irresponsible way, and appeared in the first two months of the term actively to be seeking a confrontation with the managers. Having regard to the aggressive attitudes displayed by the junior school staff, it is remarkable that the managers were prepared to write to the parents of children at the junior school indicating their full support for them. The continued aggression from the junior school staff after that action of the Managing Body must have hardened the conviction of many Managers that the Authority would soon have to do something about the school.

589. However, the Authority, both at Divisional Office level and at County Hall, failed to respond to the various clear indications which it received that the troubles of the summer term had continued into the autumn term and were now aggravated by open conflict between the junior school staff and its Managing Body.

[page 185]

590. The comparative quiet of the last month of the term did not result from any significant improvement by the junior school staff in the teaching and organisation of the school, nor from any reconciliation between the staff and the managers. It was simply 'a papering over of the cracks on the wall'.

[page 187]

and initiate a number of worthwhile projects. Such improvement as took place, however, was very slow. The school continued to have many problems in its general organisation particularly with the cooperative teaching scheme for the second and third year children, and also in lack of discipline. In the following paragraphs I will deal a little more fully with some of the more important aspects of the teaching and organisation in the school during the term.

General organisation planning and discipline

595. The more settled atmosphere in the staffroom this term began to produce a general, though slight, improvement in the teaching and discipline of the school. The fundamental problems of bad organisation, lack of adequate planning (particularly in the cooperative teaching scheme) and lack of any consistent disciplinary policy for the school, were still, however, matters of considerable concern for Mr Rice, many of the managers and parents, and also certain of the ancillary staff who were in daily contact with the school and its pupils. Mrs Chowles too, although recognising some improvement in the school this term, was still very unhappy about the quality of education being provided there. Her concern led her to approach Mr Rice in February for his assistance in finding her a position at another school, which he agreed to give.

The cooperative teaching scheme

596. The cooperative teaching scheme continued to suffer from the many defects in planning and organisation that I have described in the previous chapter (1). On Mr Haddow's evidence to the Inquiry, it was not until May in the summer term that it was working well educationally. In the spring term the problems of lack of consistency in teaching and disciplinary methods among the teachers in the cooperative teaching group (2) continued to cause a certain amount of friction between them and confusion for the children. Also, it was still possible for many children regularly to avoid doing any work in the daily 'open' sessions. This possibility was increased when Mr Haddow and his group introduced a number of permanent daily options available to the children at each 'open' session, in addition to those that varied from day to day. Among these permanent options were skating, boating, swimming, drama, library visits, games, art, and 'follow-up work' from the 'closed' sessions. However, I should also mention alongside this list that Mr Haddow also introduced this term a remedial reading tuition option to the 'open' session for each day. According to his evidence to the Inquiry, about 12 children a day on average took advantage of this option.

597. There were two other principal defects that continued in the system of options for the open sessions. First, apart from Mr Austin, the teachers usually did not prepare sufficiently in advance the varying options that they offered to the children each day. This frequently resulted in a waste of time during the 'open' sessions while the teachers and the children sorted out the necessary equipment etc,

(1) See Chapter VI, paragraphs 467-474 above.

(2) See Chapter VI, paragraph 467 above.

[page 188]

and it sometimes led to confusion because the teachers had not previously arranged with each other what they were going to do. Secondly, there was still a great waste of time at the beginning of each 'open' session, when all 80 children were gathered together in the hall for a quarter of an hour or so to choose their activities.

598. Mr Rice had considerable reservations about the organisation and working of the cooperative teaching scheme. He felt that it lacked a strong enough group of teachers and that it lacked clearly defined educational objectives. He expressed these views to Mr Ellis in January 1975, urging upon him that such a scheme required considerable organisation and care if it was to work properly in a Junior School. It sounds from the evidence given by both men to the Inquiry as if Mr Rice was inviting Mr Ellis to reconsider the whole idea of cooperative teaching, at least until he was more firmly established and had a more experienced staff who could work well together. Mr Ellis, however, relying upon his own past experience at Charles Lamb School, was not inclined to take Mr Rice's advice, and appears to have regarded him as being over-cautious in the anxieties that he was expressing. At all events, the cooperative teaching scheme continued.

The Sanctuary

599. The Sanctuary in the converted cloakroom on the upper floor of the school was ready for use at the beginning of term. Mrs Arnold, who had joined the staff towards the end of the previous term, began to work there, holding five sessions a week with small groups of disturbed children, numbering about 25 in all.

The Steel Band

600. The former library room, which had been intended for use as a parents' and community room, but which in fact became little more than a storeroom, was given a new use in about February 1975. It became a drum practice room for the school Steel Band sessions. It will be remembered that during the autumn term of 1974 Mr Austin had made arrangements for five boys with special difficulties to receive steel drum tuition three times a week at the Keskidee Centre nearby. The venture had proved a great success, and the staff decided to extend this form of musical tuition and therapy to more of their pupils by obtaining and installing a set of steel drums in the school. About £280 of the additional money provided under the Authority's Children With Special Difficulties Scheme was spent on these drums, and they were installed in the former library room. A drum instructor was engaged on a part-time basis to teach groups of children at the school, and, with his help, the school developed over the term a successful steel band. As a valuable by-product of this musical activity, there began to be a distinct improvement in the behaviour and attitudes of many of the children involved - children who had previously been particularly difficult and troublesome in the school.

The possibility of recovery of the school without intervention from the Authority

601. Whether the junior school staff, if left to themselves, would ever have made a successful school of William Tyndale Junior School will always be a matter for speculation. On the evidence available to the Inquiry, however, it would, at best,

[page 189]

have been a very slow process. Mr Ellis was still showing a disinclination to accept the advice of Mr Rice on matters of organisation and teaching methods in the school; the junior school staff perhaps felt that they had shaken off the managers in their attempts to exercise some oversight of the conduct and curriculum of the school; and relations with the infants school staff were still at a low point. There had already been over a year of disruption in the school; discontinuity of teaching due to shortage of teachers; two short-lived and unsuccessful teaching innovations - Mr Haddow's class options scheme and the reading groups scheme; a major and badly planned and executed reorganisation of half of the school into a cooperative teaching scheme; and much of this against a back-cloth of dispute and acrimony among those responsible in their various capacities for the working of the school.

602. At the beginning of this term many people connected with the school were concerned as to how much more of the period of schooling for the children at the junior school could be left to the chance that the junior school staff, going their own way, might eventually get the school running efficiently and on sound lines. The remainder of this chapter and a large part of the next are concerned with the attempts of some of these people to prompt the Authority into action, their own conduct in default of the Authority acting as promptly and in the way that they wished, and the response of the junior school staff to what appeared to them to be a renewal of the earlier campaign against them. There was, however, no response from the junior school staff to all this activity until the beginning of the summer term because, during the whole of the spring term, they were completely unaware of what was taking place. Indeed, Mr Ellis, in his evidence to the Inquiry, summed up his feelings at the end of the term in the following optimistic vein:

'This was an extremely peaceful and quiet period for the school which seemed to augur well for the future. The staff were beginning to work together as a team and staff relationships were infinitely more cordial than they had been at any other time.'

603. Mrs Anne Page, the Islington Borough Council's representative on the Authority, gave evidence to the Inquiry that, by the end of the autumn term of 1974, she thought that an inspection of the junior school, instituted by the Authority, might serve to restore the parents' and Managers' confidence in the school. Mrs Page never really explained in evidence the information that she had at that time to enable her to form such a view (4). She was a relatively new Member of the Authority (5); she had never visited the junior school; and she had not had a great

(3) For a description of a full inspection, see Chapter I, paragraphs 51-56 above.

(4) It may have been as a result of anxieties expressed to her by Mrs Fairweather; see paragraph 621 below.

(5) Mrs Page was elected to the Islington Borough Council in May 1974, and immediately afterwards appointed as the Borough representative on the Authority.

[page 190]

deal of experience of educational matters at that time. However, Mrs Page explained that she had understood that an inspection was not necessarily regarded as a punitive or disagreeable thing for a school, and had thought that it might elucidate for the benefit of parents and the managers the teaching that was being given there. In short, she had regarded it simply as a means of providing information from an independent source.

604. At the turn of the year Mrs Page talked the matter over with Mr Rice, and a little later he telephoned her and indicated that he thought an inspection might be a good idea and that he was going to put it forward as a suggestion to his colleagues at County Hall.

605. Early in the spring term of 1975, Mr Rice discussed Mrs Page's suggestion with Dr Birchenough, the Chief Inspector, and also with Mr Pape, the staff Inspector for Primary Education. The evidence before the Inquiry does not show exactly how Mr Rice put the suggestion to his two senior colleagues. The tenor of his approach appears to have been to suggest that an inspection might be a good idea, but also to qualify that suggestion with the opinion that, if an inspection were to take place, it could be harmful to the morale of the junior school staff, who already felt under pressure.

606. Dr Birchenough and Mr Pape depended largely upon Mr Rice's assessment of the school and of the likely effect that an inspection would have upon it. In the light of the information that he gave them, and also because Mr Ellis had only been in the post of head teacher for a year, they agreed that Dr Birchenough should not order an inspection. It should be noted that Dr Birchenough indicated in evidence to the Inquiry that, even if Mr Rice had not mentioned the pressures on the staff, he would still have been reluctant to order an inspection when the head teacher was so new in his post. It is strange, however, that, even if he and his colleagues did not feel that a full inspection should be carried out, they did not institute some other form of intervention and additional support from the Inspectorate such as a 'visitation' (6) or a series of visits by individual subject Inspectors. All that happened was that Mr Rice reported back to Mrs Page that his suggestion for an inspection had not found favour; and he continued to shoulder the main direct responsibility for advising the staff and assessing the situation at the school.

The campaign to prompt the Authority to intervene in the affairs of the junior school

Changes in the Managing Body

607. There were two important changes in the Managing Body, in January and February 1975 respectively, that brought to the fore two Managers who were to

(6) i.e. a less formal and less complete form of inspection than a full inspection - usually carried out by a small team of Inspectors visiting individually or in small groups over a period of a few days.

[page 191]

play important parts in the conflict between the managers and the junior school staff and in the pressures exerted by the managers on the Authority to intervene in the affairs of the junior school. First, Mrs Elisabeth Hoodless was appointed in January 1975 to the Managing Body, filling a vacancy caused by a resignation. Secondly, Mr Brian Tennant, who was already a Manager of the schools, replaced Mrs Burnett as Chairman of the Managing Body in February 1975, Mrs Burnett remaining a Manager, but having resigned as Chairman for personal reasons.

Mrs Elisabeth Hoodless

608. At the time of her appointment to the Managing Body in January 1975, Mrs Hoodless had had considerable experience of the responsibility that such an appointment entailed. She had been a manager of other schools for 12 years and a secondary school governor for seven years. She had been chairman of two of the managing bodies on which she had served, and, at the time when she gave evidence to the Inquiry, was Chairman of the Governors of Barnsbury School, and a Manager of St Mary's Junior Mixed and Infants School, a junior school which serves the same neighbourhood as the William Tyndale Schools. She is a qualified social worker and is Executive Director of a body called Community Service Volunteers. Mrs Hoodless and her husband, Mr Donald Hoodless, are both members of the Labour Party. I mention Mr Hoodless because, as Deputy Leader of the Islington Borough Council, an Additional Member of the Greater London Council, and also a Councillor for St Mary's Ward (7) he became involved in a peripheral way in the affairs of the junior school.

609. As will shortly appear, Mrs Hoodless was to play a prominent part in the activities of certain Managers and others, which contributed to the public confrontation between the junior school staff and the managers in the summer of 1975.

Mr Brian Tennant

610. Mr Tennant had been appointed a member of the Managing Body when it was first constituted in September 1973. He had had no experience as a school manager prior to his appointment. He was and is a busy man, being a partner in a consultancy practice specialising in the economics of transport and tourism in various parts of the world. Although his work took him abroad a good deal he had found time to involve himself in local Labour Party and community matters, being the Secretary of the St Peter's Ward of the Islington South and Finsbury Labour Party and also a member of the General Management Committee of the Labour Party for that constituency. Shortly before he gave evidence to the Inquiry he had also been appointed a Governor of Highbury Grove Secondary School.

611. Mr Tennant was elected Chairman of the Managing Body of the William Tyndale Schools at a Meeting of the managers specially convened for that purpose on 24 February 1975. As will appear, in the early months of his Chairmanship he was not able to bring any effective influence to bear on the conduct of the Managing

(7) The William Tyndale Schools are situated in St Mary's Ward, Islington.

[page 192]

Body; first, because some of his fellow Managers most active in the affairs of the junior school did not tell him what they were doing, and secondly, because he was abroad for a considerable period of time. However, later on, in the summer and autumn of 1975, he was to play a very active role in the affairs of the junior school.

The visit of Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings and Mr Tennant to the junior school on 17 January 1975

612. On 17 January 1975, Mrs Gittings, Mrs Fairweather and Mr Tennant visited the junior school. This was Mr Tennant's first managerial visit to the school. Mr Ellis showed them round the classrooms and explained to them the future development of the Sanctuary that Mrs Arnold had been appointed to run. Without going into detail, the three Managers were not very impressed with what they saw. They found very little work on display, and some that was, had been done by children who had been removed from the school; the school's library, which had been transferred into the upper hall, had very few books, badly arranged and in a dilapidated state; and some of the children did not appear to be involved in any recognisable learning activity.

613. Mr Ellis spoke of the steel drums that he had purchased out of the money recently allocated to the school under the Authority's Children With Special Difficulties Scheme, and mentioned his order of a reading book series, and his intention to spend the remainder of the allocation on mathematics equipment. He indicated that there was not a reading scheme as such in the school at that time. He said that the new books he had ordered would be of interest to the children and more important than providing a reading scheme that they might not find stimulating. The three visiting Managers expressed concern that there should be some continuity in the method of teaching reading as between the infants school and the junior school, and asked him what arrangements he was making to see that there was or would be such continuity. Mr Ellis had no answer to give to that question, presumably because there was little liaison between his staff and the infants school staff on this very important matter. The three Managers left the school unimpressed with what they had seen and heard from Mr Ellis.

Mrs Burnett's visit to the junior school on 21 January 1975

614. Four days later, on 21 January 1975, Mrs Burnett made her regular, and last (8), termly pre-Managers' Meeting visit to the school. She spent some time discussing various problems with Mr Ellis and had a brief look round part of the school. She discussed the school's roll with him, as two children had recently been withdrawn, one during the Christmas holiday and another just after the beginning of the spring term because of their parents' dissatisfaction with the school. She also discussed with him the lack of Christmas activities or planned summer activities for parents and children, and the lack of any liaison between the junior school and the parents of infants who would be expected to transfer to the junior school in the coming Autumn. According to Mrs Burnett, whose evidence I accept, Mr Ellis said

(8) See paragraph 607 above.

[page 193]

that his staff were too disillusioned to do any of these things despite his attempts to persuade them. However, it is common ground that he did at least refer to a 'disco' for parents being planned for Easter (9).

615. During Mrs Burnett's visit the steel band gave a concert to the school, which she attended. Seeing the school assembled, Mrs Burnett noticed that it no longer appeared to contain 'the full range of socio-economic groups' and she remarked on this to Mr Ellis. According to Mrs Burnett he replied that he was doing his best for the black and deprived children, but thought that it was not possible to cater for ordinary children as well. This remark disturbed Mrs Burnett, and she made the point that she had made to him before, namely that, although she sympathised with his concern for deprived children, she felt that the state education system should be able to cater for all children.

616. Mrs Burnett then had a quick look round the upper hall, the former library room and the Sanctuary. She had much the same impression on her visit as that of her three fellow Managers who had visited the school four days before (10). She noticed the depressing and inadequate state of the library, now housed in the upper hall. The room from which it had been removed was still undecorated and full of old furniture. Mr Ellis mentioned that the staff wondered if it was worthwhile continuing with the project to use it as a parents' and community room, as parents were unlikely to use it (11). When they looked at the Sanctuary Mrs Burnett noted that it was locked, and she asked Mr Ellis how the room could be used by children as a 'refuge' when they were under stress. He replied that he considered that difficult children should be catered for within the classroom, and that he did not intend to use the Sanctuary as a 'refuge', but that he might use it as a practice room for playing the steel drums (11). He added that he had never wanted a Sanctuary in the first place, but that it had been foisted upon him by Mr Rice (12). However, he might just have been saying this to be provocative to Mrs Burnett, because there is no doubt that, when Mrs Arnold, who worked part-time, was at the school, she did use the Sanctuary as her place for working with disturbed children who required her care.

617. Mrs Burnett returned from her visit to the school as discouraged as her three fellow Managers had been after their visit four days before.

The Managers Meeting of 27 January 1975

618. The Managers' Meeting of 27 January 1975 was an uncontentious meeting at which the two head teachers presented their termly reports and a considerable

(9) This never took place because of lack of parental support. In fairness to the junior school staff I should anticipate events a little here by referring to Mr Austin's initiative in February 1975 to interest parents in a summer 'Caribbean Carnival' and the fact that a very successful Summer Fair was organised jointly by the Junior and Infants Schools Staffs in the summer term; see Chapter VIII, paragraph 665 below.

(10) See paragraphs 612-613 above.

(11) As already mentioned in paragraph 600 above, in February 1975, a short while after Mrs Burnett's visit, this room was turned into a drum practice room for the steel band.

(12) But cf. Chapter V paragraph 420 above.

[page 194]

amount of routine business was dealt with. Although Mrs Burnett, Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings and Mr Tennant were all present at this meeting, none of them appears to have made much, if anything, of the depressing condition of the junior school as they had seen it only a few days before. In the case of Mrs Burnett and Mr Tennant, they may have thought it would have been counter-productive to invite an open debate again in the body of the managers' Meeting, and that all they could do was to let the staff get on with it, and to hope that in the more settled atmosphere the school would improve. As to Mrs Fairweather and Mrs Gittings, however, they were already forming plans with Mrs Hoodless, the new Manager, to try another and more urgent solution to the problem.

The meeting on 27 February 1975 between Mr Harvey Hinds and Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings, Mrs Hoodless and Mrs Dewhurst

The arrangements for the meeting

619. Over Christmas and during January 1975 Mrs Fairweather began to consider what individual action she could take outside the formal channels to prompt the Authority to intervene in the affairs of the junior school. Her reasons for considering that some action was necessary were that she felt that there had not been any restoration of public confidence in the school and that Mr Rice was not receptive to the views of the managers. She decided in concert with Mrs Gittings, Mrs Hoodless and Mrs Dewhurst, upon an informal approach to the Authority. It is not clear why she, as Vice-Chairman of the managers, considered that such an informal approach to the Authority was the best way of handling the problem. She knew that the normal way for the managers to convey their views and requests to the Authority was by way of a resolution passed after consideration by all the managers at a properly constituted Managers' Meeting. If she was of the view that the Authority should take some urgent action in relation to the school, she should have put it to Mrs Burnett or her successor, Mr Tennant, as Chairman, and arranged for the matter to be discussed and voted upon by all the managers.

620. For some reason that was never explained at the Inquiry, Mrs Fairweather and those associated with her did not consider adopting and exhausting the normal channels of approach to the Authority before trying the informal approach that was made. The mischief of this informal approach was that the Managing Body as a whole was not consulted, nor even informed, of the representations that were being made purportedly on its behalf and on behalf of the local community generally. Even Mrs Burnett and her successor as Chairman, Mr Tennant, were not told of what was taking place. It follows also that Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow who, as Managers, were equally entitled to be informed and consulted about any managerial action taken in relation to the school, were also kept in the dark (13).

621. This is how Mrs Fairweather set about lobbying the Authority to intervene in the affairs of the junior school. She had some preliminary discussions with Mrs

(13) cf. this initiative of Mrs Fairweather with her attempt to arrange a meeting with Mr Rice in the summer of 1974 without first informing Mrs Burnett of her intention; see Chapter V, paragraphs 423 and 424 above.

[page 195]

Page over Christmas, but, although Mrs Page expressed the view that the managers should do something, she was unable to advise on a precise course of action. Mrs Fairweather also discussed the problem with Mrs Hoodless; and it was Mrs Hoodless who suggested that the best course to adopt would be to approach the Authority through political channels. Mrs Hoodless was a friend of Mrs Fairweather and, according to Mrs Fairweather, it is quite likely that they discussed the school before Mrs Hoodless's appointment to the Managing Body. Indeed, it is conceivable that Mrs Hoodless was recruited to the Managing Body specifically because she would be of value in the political approaches that she had advised should be made.

622. At all events, Mrs Fairweather attempted to make an appointment to see Mr Hinds during the first fortnight in February, but on each occasion she was given some excuse by Mr Hinds's personal assistant for his lack of availability. Mrs Fairweather reported the results of her efforts to Mrs Hoodless, who told her not to worry as her husband, who, as already mentioned, was an Additional Member of the Greater London Council, would be visiting County Hall shortly and that he would approach Mr Hinds, whom he knew, on the managers' behalf.

623. In the meantime Mrs Hoodless had become active in the affairs of the William Tyndale Junior School herself. She did so, notwithstanding the fact that she had only recently been appointed as a Manager and had little direct knowledge of the school's affairs. However, she had intimate knowledge of the neighbourhood and close connections with many people who had been directly involved with the school over the previous twelve months. In addition, at a Managers' meeting at St Mary's School on 3 February 1975, she had heard the head teacher report that he had received a number of applications for transfer from William Tyndale Schools in the previous week.

624. In the week before half term in February 1975, Mrs Hoodless, through her secretary, tried to arrange a time to visit the junior school. According to her evidence to the Inquiry, her secretary offered four times, two on each of two days, to Mr Ellis, but none was convenient to him, and he asked Mrs Hoodless's secretary to try again after the half term. Mrs Hoodless had not previously experienced such difficulty in arranging a visit to any school of which she was manager or governor and was very disturbed by what she considered Mr Ellis's obstructiveness to her making a visit.

625. A few days later, on 14 February 1975, Mrs Hoodless telephoned Mr Roy Truman, the District Inspector for the Tollington and Archway areas of Islington. Mrs Hoodless had known Mr Truman for about 12 years in connection with her work for the Community Service Volunteers and also in her capacity as chairman of other managing bodies. Mrs Hoodless told Mr Truman that she was worried about the William Tyndale Junior School. She said that the managers of the school were not satisfied with the way it was being run, or with the action taken by the Authority at Divisional Office level to deal with the problem. Mr Truman advised her that, if the managers were not satisfied with the action that they had achieved through the Authority's officers, they should consult their political masters at County

[page 196]

Hall. He went on to advise her to get in touch with Mr Hinds. It should be noted that Mr Truman was not asked by Mrs Hoodless to consider, nor did he advise, action of that sort being taken by some of the Managing Body without the knowledge of its other members.

626. Mrs Hoodless also mentioned to Mr Truman a matter which by then, if not before, was under active consideration by some of the managers. She asked how the managers could achieve the amalgamation of the Junior and Infants School and whether, if such amalgamation took place, one of the two existing head teachers would be appointed as the head teacher for the new amalgamated School. Mr Truman advised her that the question of amalgamation was a decision for the Authority's Schools Sub-Committee (14), subject to the approval of the Department of Education and Science, and that amalgamations normally took place at the time of the resignation or retirement of one of the head teachers of the schools to be amalgamated. He did, however, mention the possibility of the appointment being advertised or made from the two head teachers whilst both were still in post. Mrs Hoodless then volunteered the information that 'the managers' would like Miss Hart as head teacher!

627. I have set out the conversations between Mrs Hoodless and Mr Truman on 14 February 1975 in some detail because it shows the extent to which some of the managers had gone in deciding what they wanted for the school. It also explains, though it does not justify, the action that those Managers subsequently adopted to try to achieve that aim.

628. To return to Mr Hoodless's embassy on behalf of Mrs Fairweather at County Hall; he made contact with Mr Hinds, and, as a result, it was arranged that, if Mrs Fairweather telephoned Mr Hinds's personal assistant again, an appointment to see him would be forthcoming. The arrangement was that Mr Hinds would be prepared to see her and a few others on the basis that the meeting would be strictly confidential. An appointment was duly made for 27 February 1975, that is, only three days after the Special Meeting of Managers at which Mr Tennant was elected Chairman of the Managing Body, on the resignation of that office by Mrs Burnett. However, neither of them was informed of the meeting at County Hall that had been arranged.

629. It was eventually decided that the deputation to see Mr Hinds should consist of Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings, Mrs Hoodless, and, because of her detailed knowledge of the problems at the school in the preceding year, Mrs Dewhurst, the former Parent-Manager for the junior school. Mrs Christina Miles, the Parent-Manager for the infants school in the 1974/1975 school year, was also invited to attend the meeting, but refused to do so. Her reasons for refusal, as given in evidence to the Inquiry, reveal a curious element of trivial dissimulation in the preparation of these ladies for the meeting. According to Mrs Miles, whose evidence

(14) In fact, it is within the Orders of Reference of the Education Committee's Development Sub-Committee.

[page 197]

I accept, Mrs Hoodless spoke of what they would have to wear so that they would not look like 'middle class trendies', and that they were to present themselves as a Labour grouping of Managers! In a more serious vein, Mrs Hoodless prepared, with the help of Mrs Gittings, an aide-memoir for their use at the meeting, detailing their various criticisms of, and anxieties about, the school. (Mr Hinds was subsequently provided with a copy of this aide-memoir at a second meeting that took place on 26 March 1975 (15).)

The meeting of 27 February 1975

630. At the meeting on 27 February 1975 the four ladies put to Mr Hinds, in forceful terms, their concern about the condition of the junior school and the effect that they claimed it was beginning to have upon the infants school. They spoke of poor teaching and lack of discipline in the junior school and the apparent lack of any effort made by its staff to provide a continuity of education for infants coming up from the infants school. The four ladies also referred to the drastic fall in the roll of the junior school over the previous year, without, however,making clear that a very large proportion of that fall had taken place over six months before, following the extraordinary events of the summer term 1974. As to the roll of the infants school, they pointed out that it had risen over the previous autumn term, but was now being affected by the reputation of the junior school and was beginning to fall (16).

631. Having rehearsed their various criticisms and anxieties to Mr Hinds, the four ladies spoke of the previous efforts of the managers to persuade the Divisional Office Staff to take positive steps to prevent the deterioration of the junior school. They told him of the advice given by Mr Rice at the Divisional Office in the previous Summer (17) which, according to them, was that Mr Ellis should be allowed 12 months in his post before any conclusive decisions about his performance should be made. That period, they said, had now passed, and Mr Ellis had shown that he was not capable of running the school properly; it was continuing to deteriorate and was threatening the infants school by affecting its intake. They concluded by urging Mr Hinds to take some action to stop the rot, and suggested in particular that the Authority should give urgent consideration to the reorganisation of the two schools by July 1975 into a Junior Mixed and Infants School under one head teacher.

632. Mr Hinds, having listened to what the ladies had to say, and the suggestions that they had made, said that he would obtain reports from Dr Birchenough, the Chief Inspector, and Mr Rice, and that he would meet with them again to discuss what should be done in the light of those reports.

633. On the following day, 28 February 1975, Mr Hinds arranged a meeting with Dr Birchenough, Mr Wales and Mr Rice. After discussing the school with

(15) See paragraphs 637-645 below.

(16) See paragraph 592 above.

(17) See Chapter V, paragraphs 423-434 above.

[page 198]

them, he asked Mr Rice to visit it and to make a confidential report to him of its standard and attainments. (It should be remembered here that Mr Hinds had still not seen the confidential report that had been prepared by Mr Rice on 8 July 1974 in response to Mr Hinds's previous request to Miss Burgess for information about the school (18).)

Mr Rice's confidential report of 11 March 1975

634. Mr Rice visited the junior school on 4 March 1975, and following his visit prepared a confidential report for Mr Hinds dated 11 March 1975. This report is said by Mr Rice to have been based, not only on his visit to the school on 4 March 1975, but also on the continual observation that he had kept on the school over a period of months and on his discussions during that period with Mr Ellis and members of the staff. As this confidential report contained the principal information upon which Mr Hinds and, through him, the Authority, relied in their approach to the problems of the school during the following months, it is reproduced here in full:

'William Tyndale Junior School

School visited on 4 March 1975 Present roll - approximately 150 children. Staffing - Headmaster and eight full-time teachers. Two part-time 0.5 teachers for Remedial Reading and children with special difficulties.

Reading Standards

The Headmaster has recently tested all the children in the third and fourth years. Tests were set according to the Neale test of Verbal Ability.

Out of 46 fourth year children who will be transferring to Secondary School this year eight had a Reading Age below nine years.

In the third year all but four had made progress commensurate with their chronological age. The standards in the first two years were generally lower, many of the average or above average children in these two years having left the school. The visit was unannounced but at 9.45 am four classes out of eight were engaged in some reading activities.

Mathematics

This subject is taught in all classes but there seems to be little indication of a clear development of skills through the school. Greater coordination and setting of objectives is needed.

Social Education

The school is particularly concerned with the social well-being of the children. Many visits are made to the local parks and centres of interest.

In particular, a group of West Indian boys who have had behavioural problems in the school have been involved in a steel drum band and they receive extra tuition in this. Recently they performed at the Commonwealth Institute.

[page 199]

An annual school visit is taken to the Norfolk Coast involving third and fourth year children. However, there is little evidence that the visits are developed in school to provide an academic framework.

Art and Music

There is little evidence of any coordinated effort in these subjects except for individual enthusiasm on the part of a few teachers.

RE

This subject is related to social behaviour and human relationships but ideas are not developed.

Games and PE

The school is involved in a fair amount of physical activity, particularly competitive games such as netball and football.

No gymnastic activity or apparatus work has been observed in the school.

School Organisation

The two fourth year classes are organised separately with 46 children between two classes. The third and second year juniors numbering some 76 children are organised on a team teaching or cooperative teaching basis. The headmaster admits that this has not proved successful as there has been too little structure involved in the curriculum and the children have been left to their own devices.

General

There has been a general lack of confidence in the school from the parents which has led to the rapid decline in numbers in a local falling roll situation. The headmaster has tried to initiate new patterns of learning without the understanding or cooperation of the parents.

Some lack of organisation and educational objectives have caused behaviour problems which in turn have caused adverse criticism of the school.

With the smaller numbers and the very generous staffing ratio there is now much greater control and a quieter atmosphere throughout the school. It is estimated that a realistic roll for the junior school next year will be 125-130 children.

The Infant School roll could well be not more than 75-85 children with an extra 50 children in the nursery in September 1975.'

[page 200]

subject Inspectors to visit the school to give guidance in those subjects that were below standard. It is a matter for particular regret that Mr Rice did not follow up Mr Pape's suggestion - a suggestion that was undoubtedly a very modest prescription for the ills of the school at that time. As will appear, Mr Rice made no arrangements to draw upon the wealth of professional skill available among his fellow Inspectors to assist him in his task with this troubled School, save for arranging a visit by a music inspector, and that was not made until the end of the summer term.

636. This decision by the Authority, which was basically a decision to carry on as before, had now to be communicated to the ladies who had formed the deputation to see Mr Hinds on 27 February 1975. Accordingly, Mr Hinds arranged a further confidential meeting with them for 26 March 1975, the last day of the spring term.

The meeting on 26 March 1975 between Mr Harvey Hinds and Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings, Mrs Hoodless and Mrs Page

637. The meeting with Mr Hinds on 26 March 1975 was attended by Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings and Mrs Hoodless. Mrs Dewhurst did not come with them on this occasion. Also present, at the invitation of Mr Hinds, was Mrs Page in her capacity as the Islington Borough Council representative on the Authority (19). Mrs Page, who arrived a little late at the meeting, did not take a very active part in the discussion, and, in the main, adopted the role of an observer. As in the case of the earlier meeting with Mr Hinds on 27 February 1975, neither the Managing Body as a whole nor its new Chairman, Mr Tennant, was told about it.

638. Mr Hinds opened the meeting by saying that he had received confidential reports (20) from the Inspectorate which indicated that the position of the school was not wholly satisfactory. He added, however, that the reports were not so critical as to justify instituting a full inspection. He did not show the three Managers or Mrs Page Mr Rice's confidential written report of 11 March 1975, but he quoted extracts from it to them. The extracts that he quoted were not at all reassuring to them and did not, in their view, justify his apparent lack of appreciation of the urgency of the problem.

639. The three Managers indicated their dissatisfaction with Mr Hinds's attitude in no uncertain terms. They became, as Mr Hinds described them in evidence to the Inquiry, 'three very angry ladies'. They urged upon him the need for the Authority to take urgent action, in particular, reorganisation of the schools into a Junior Mixed and Infants School under one head teacher (21). Mr Hinds explained that there had to be a good educational case (21) for such a reorganisation and that the

(19) Mr Hinds's personal assistant, Miss Sandra Horsfall was also present at the meeting in order to take notes.

(20) Note, he had only received one written report, and that was Mr Rice's report of 11 March 1975. In speaking of 'reports' he may have been referring to that report and the discussions that he had had with Dr Birchenough and Mr Rice.

(21) See Chapter I, paragraph 10 above.

[page 201]

reports which he had received from the Inspectorate suggested that the situation was not as bad as the managers felt it to be. He also said to them that pressure on the school from County Hall at that time would be both 'inopportune and premature'.

640. However, the three Managers continued, in most vehement terms, to press upon Mr Hinds their conviction that the time had come for the Authority to take firm action, and canvassed with him what steps they would have to take to convince the Authority of the need for it to do something. In the face of this persistence Mr Hinds suggested that perhaps the best course for them to adopt would be to pass a formal resolution at a Managers' Meeting, expressing their lack of confidence in the educational standard of the school. Such a resolution, Mr Hinds said to them, would be conveyed to him through the Authority's formal procedures and, as he put it to them, he would then be in a position to judge whether a prima facie case existed for considering a full inspection of the school. Having regard to what followed, it should be emphasised that when Mr Hinds spoke to the three Managers about the use of a resolution he was speaking of a resolution by the Managing Body, not by any other body of persons.

641. During the course of the discussion about the possibility of an inspection there was also some talk about the North London Teachers' Association having fallen under the control of an extreme left-wing group. Mrs Page's recollection in her evidence to the Inquiry of the discussion, which was more specific than that of Mr Hinds on this matter, was that Mr Hinds made the point that the North London Teachers' Association might not take very kindly to an inspection. Mrs Page then intervened saying that she thought that Mr Hinds's fear was overstated, but that even if he was correct, the Authority should not be put off a particular course which it thought was right simply because a particular group might be actively interested in the school. (As will appear, Mrs Page referred to this point again in a letter that she wrote to Mr Hinds shortly after the meeting (22).)

642. The three Managers made it clear that they were not content to rely simply upon a Managers' resolution as a means of bringing home to the Authority the local community concern about the school which they said existed. They also discussed with Mr Hinds other courses of action that could be taken among the local community, one of which was the circulation of a petition about the school. Mr Hinds made no attempt to dissuade them from considering the use of a petition; indeed, I am satisfied on all the evidence that I have heard about this meeting that he indicated to them that a petition might help. The only sort of petition that they could have been discussing was one which would be critical of the school. Yet Mr Hinds, while advising the three Managers to use the formal procedure of a Managers' resolution, was also agreeing that such a petition might be another appropriate way of persuading the Authority to intervene more positively in the affairs of the school.

643. The meeting ended with the three Managers saying that they would call a Special Meeting of Managers to discuss a resolution of the sort mentioned by Mr

(22) See paragraph 653 below.

[page 202]

Hinds and also indicating that they would consider, in addition, the circulation of a petition.

644. There are two aspects of this meeting and of the reactions of Mr Hinds to the problem presented to him that are very disturbing.

First, Mr Hinds, as Chairman of the Schools Sub-Committee of the Authority, had available to him through the Authority's Inspectorate all the professional advice necessary to enable him to judge the educational quality of the junior school and whether, and if so, what, intervention was required by the Authority. 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 such expressions could have been to cast doubt upon the professional advice received by the Authority - Mr Hinds was conceding to others that which was essentially the Authority's own responsibility.

Secondly, as Mr Hinds was eventually constrained to admit in evidence at the Inquiry, the circulation of any petition in terms critical of the school and its staff could only be harmful to the school. That would be the case in a petition organised by anybody, but a petition organised by the school's own Managers would be particularly damaging. Moreover, these were Managers, who according to Mr Hinds's evidence to the Inquiry, he did not expect to act with restraint. It was singularly pointless for him, on the one hand, to urge the Inspectorate 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. It follows that, in my view, it was quite wrong of Mr Hinds to allow the three Managers to leave him thinking that one of the methods by which they could express to County Hall local community concern was the circulation of a petition critical of the school. He should have advised emphatically against any petition as soon as mention of it was made. In his position as Chairman of the Schools Sub-Committee, and with his great experience in the Authority's affairs, it can only be regarded as a grave error of judgement on his part. It was an error of judgement that proved to be a major contributory factor to the final breakdown of relations between the managers and staff of the school in the summer of 1975.

645. Before I turn to the activities of Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings and Mrs Hoodless following this second meeting with Mr Hinds, I must give some account of the effect upon the Authority of their lobbying of him.

The Authority's consideration of reorganisation of the two schools into a Junior Mixed and Infants School

646. Although Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings and Mrs Hoodless left Mr Hinds after the meeting of 26 March 1975 feeling that he had played the ball back firmly into their own court, their representations to him had not been entirely

[page 203]

without effect. The vehemence with which they had expressed their views left him with no confidence that they would act with restraint in their future action concerning the school. As a result, he considered that there was unlikely to be a reasonable solution to the problem if things went on as they were. For that reason he made a point of asking Mr Rice to make sure that he was doing everything that he could for the school. In addition, and despite his negative reaction to the three Managers' suggestion about reorganisation of the two Schools into a Junior Mixed and Infants School, he asked the Education Officer to consider and advise upon that very possibility. The Education Officer in turn asked the Officers' Coordinating Committee (23) to consider the matter. The information put before that Committee consisted in the main of Mr Rice's confidential report of 11 March 1975 (24), but also contained the following additional material:

'Parents have shown a general lack of confidence in the junior school and this had led to a rapid decline in numbers in a local falling roll situation ... Although rolls in the catchment area are expected to rise in 1975-6 as a result of the completion of a major housing development ... it is unlikely that this will have a very significant impact on the roll of the school. .. In the long term rolls are expected to decline and it is inevitable that the school will need to be reorganised to one department in the near future ... An amalgamation whilst both headships are occupied would therefore present problems and would create a precedent. However, the lack of confidence in the junior school ... has to be taken into account as well as the falling rolls.'

'... On numbers alone a case could be made for amalgamation, although there is a new housing estate nearing completion in the neighbourhood and this will have a short term effect on the rolls of both William Tyndale and Canonbury Schools. I could not however in any case advise the Development Sub-Committee that now would be an appropriate time to reorganise.

It would create a precedent to consider reorganisation with two heads in post. We may well have to come to this where rolls are falling rapidly but to do it for the first time in a situation such as exists at William Tyndale would I feel be asking for trouble. The staff of both departments would I think be strongly opposed and this would create further dissension between the junior staff and the managers. I would not want to burden the head of the infants with a combined school; it might well break up a good infant school.

There are signs that the junior school is making an effort to pull itself together as is shown by the district inspector's report ...

(24) See paragraph 634 above.

[page 204]

If the infants head gets another post as she might well do then we could consider reorganisation because there would not be so many difficulties as the school would fall to be considered as a matter of declared Authority policy. Further there would not be so much danger of a personality clash between the head and the staff if a head were appointed from outside, although there could still be difficulties if the junior head did not get the headship of the combined schools.

In all I feel we would be wise to wait and not take any hasty action on reorganisation. '

The decision to organise a petition about the junior school

648. Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings and Mrs Hoodless left their meeting with Mr Hinds on 26 March 1975 with the thought of a petition uppermost in their minds. Indeed, before leaving County Hall, Mrs Page invited them to the Members' Bar there for a drink, and the four of them talked in general terms about the organisation of a petition. If a firm decision to circulate a petition was not made in the Members' Bar in the presence of Mrs Page, it must have been made between the three Managers shortly after leaving County Hall, because that very night Mrs Hoodless took the first step towards organising it. She did so, not in her capacity as a Manager of the William Tyndale Schools in or after consultation with the Managing Body, but as a member of the St Mary's Ward Labour Party at a meeting of that Party that evening.

649. In her evidence to the Inquiry Mrs Hoodless described her initiative shortly and simply in the following way:

'By coincidence, my Ward Labour Party met that night so I took the opportunity to move a motion in accordance with Mr Hinds's suggestion.'

'This St Mary's Ward Branch notes the loss of confidence in the quality of education provided in William Tyndale Junior School, demonstrated by the drop in roll from 249 to 150 and calls on the ILEA to instigate urgent action:

(a) to provide a proper education to those pupils who remain at the school, and
(b) to investigate reorganisation as a JM and I school.'

650. Mrs Hoodless is obviously not a lady who wastes time once she has set her mind to a task, because immediately after the Ward Labour Party meeting she set about making arrangements for the preparation and circulation of the petition. She discussed it with Mr Alan Pedrick, a fellow St Mary's Ward member and an Islington Borough Councillor for the Ward, and they agreed to organise it between

[page 205]

them. The arrangement was that Mrs Hoodless would have the petition typed and copied and that Mr Pedrick would circulate it among his fellow Councillors, to certain of the managers, Mrs Fairweather and Mrs Gittings in particular, and to people who lived in the same block of flats as Mr Pedrick. They decided not to circulate the petition among the managers generally or among the parents of children at the school, and it is quite clear that they intended to keep its circulation a secret from the staff of the school for as long as possible.

651. Mrs Fairweather and Mrs Gittings must have learned within a short time of the prompt action taken by Mrs Hoodless to carry out their plans. It appears, however, that Mrs Page was not informed about the organisation of the petition until late May (25). Neither Mr Tennant, who was shortly to go abroad for most of April and May, nor the Managing Body as a whole was informed about the County Hall meeting or what decisions had been taken, ostensibly on their behalves, by those Managers who had attended it.

652. Mrs Fairweather's conduct as Vice-Chairman of the Managing Body is particularly open to criticism in this respect. It was bad enough arranging the two confidential meetings with Mr Hinds without informing the Chairman of the managers and the Managing Body as a whole. But it became even more serious when she went on to decide upon, and eventually to assist in, the circulation of the petition about the junior school without ensuring that all her fellow Managers had an opportunity to consider it first. Moreover, she bears a particularly heavy responsibility, in the absence of Mr Tennant abroad, for not calling an early Special Meeting of Managers to consider what should be done about the school. Mr Hinds had stressed at their second meeting that if the managers wanted action from the Authority their best course of action would be to pass an appropriate resolution to be sent to him. Mrs Fairweather and her two fellow Managers had told him that they would convene a Special Meeting of Managers to discuss such a resolution. Despite the urgency of the situation that they had expressed so vehemently to Mr Hinds at their second meeting, no Special Meeting of Managers was called, and the managers did not meet together until nearly two months later, on 19 May 1975, for their regular termly meeting.

Mrs Anne Page again suggests an inspection of the junior school

653. Whilst Mrs Hoodless and Mr Pedrick were putting in hand the arrangements for the preparation and circulation of the petition, Mrs Page, though unaware of what was going on, was beginning to have misgivings about the way Mr Hinds

(25) When she received a letter from Mrs Hoodless dated 21 May 1975, written with a view to asking her, as the Islington Borough Council representative on the Authority, to present the petition formally to the Authority in due course.

[page 206]

had left it to the managers to prompt the Authority into taking action about the school. During the Easter holiday she expressed her misgivings to him, by letter dated 2 April 1975, in the following terms:

'... Although I hope the managers will now get up their nerve and pursue their anxieties through the managing body, I still think it would have been more appropriate, as well as less contentious, for the Authority to have initiated a formal inspection of the school. You read out sufficient of Mr Rice's report to give some cause for concern, and coupling that with the obvious decline in rolls ("voting with their feet", it used to be called) and the worries expressed by some managers since last summer, there would surely seem to be sufficient reason for Mr Birchenough to send in his troops?

I hope together with him you might think again on this one. I know that the problem won't go away, and that public involvement will soon be invoked. It may well be time for the NLTA (26) nettle to be grasped, but surely it should be the Authority which does it, rather than a body of more or less experienced members of the public?'

654. This attempt by Mrs Page to encourage the Authority to act on its own initiative failed. On 9 April 1975, Mr Hinds, through his personal assistant, replied to Mrs Page's letter in the following terms:

'... On the subject of William Tyndale School Mr Hinds has asked me to tell you that he does take your point. However, he has consulted Ashley Bramall (27) and Mair Garside (28) on the possible lines of attacking this problem and they are agreed on the present line at the moment. Mr Hinds will of course monitor all the developments closely. ... '

Comment on the term

655. This was the term when the Authority began to lose control of the affairs of the junior school. Mr Hinds allowed an unrepresentative group of Managers to believe that, by means of a managerial resolution, a petition and other expressions of community concern, the Authority could be persuaded to reconsider the advice of its professional advisers in the Inspectorate not to intervene actively in the affairs of the school. In giving Mrs Hoodless, Mrs Fairweather and Mrs Gittings their head at the meeting on 26 March 1975, Mr Hinds passed the responsibility to them and

(26) i.e. the North London Teachers' Association; and see paragraph 641 above.

(27) The Leader of the Authority.

(28) The Deputy Leader of the Authority.

[page 207]

left the future of the school to their initiative. As a result of their subsequent improper and harmful activities and the junior school staff's equally improper and harmful response, the troubles of the school escalated rapidly beyond the Authority's control.

[page 209]

of the activities of certain Managers outside the school, described in the previous chapter. The atmosphere among the staff was good. According to Mr Ellis's evidence to the Inquiry, the school was developing with a 'cohesive policy'. By this he meant that the staff were working well together, that they were all developing to good effect their flexible and non-authoritarian methods of teaching, and that they were involving the school more in the life of the community. Mr Ellis's and Mr Haddow's assessment of the cooperative teaching scheme was that many of the transitional problems had now been sorted out, and that by May the scheme was working well. Mrs McWhirter, Mrs McColgan and Miss Green all confirmed, in their evidence to the Inquiry, this general assessment of the school at the beginning of term. It is difficult to judge how accurate this assessment is because, within a short time from the beginning of term, the whole school was thrown into turmoil by the resumption of the conflict between the staff and the managers. The general picture is that by the end of the term, there was no substantial improvement in organisation and teaching, particularly in the case of the basic skills, in the school as a whole. But, in the atmosphere of bitter and public conflict that enveloped the school, it is not surprising that it showed little, if any, improvement.

660. There are, however, certain aspects of the work of the staff this term that deserve particular mention and commendation.

The Sanctuary

661. First, Mrs Arnold continued to provide valuable therapy in the Sanctuary to about 18 children, using it for groups of three or four at a time. She appears to have achieved a fair measure of success in what she was doing and to have received good co-operation from some of the staff. In the course of the term she gave a good deal of thought to developing her work in the new school year.

The Steel Band

662. The school's steel band, which had begun in such a small way in the autumn of 1974 as a therapeutic exercise for a few children, had proved to be a great success both therapeutically and musically. Some 25 children in all were involved in it, the most experienced giving concerts at neighbouring schools. The success of the venture was recognised by the Authority, on Mr Rice's recommendation, in selecting the band to play at a Primary Schools' Exhibition at County Hall on 19 June 1975, called 'In Pursuit of Excellence'. The band's performance there was very well received, and it was also very highly praised shortly afterwards by Mr Hamish Preston, the Music Inspector, who visited the school to hear it play on 8 July 1975. He said the following in a short report to Mr Rice of his visit:

'The standard of the band is high and you will know that their performance at "In Pursuit of Excellence" was outstanding and very well received indeed ... I believe the Head has made entirely sound decisions over music in the school, given the present difficulty of finding music teachers. '

[page 210]

concentration on the steel band for a particular group of children, who had originally been rather disturbed or troublesome, and not enough attention given to the general teaching of music throughout the school (1). Although there may have been some validity in that criticism, Mr Ellis's decision has to be regarded in the light of the dual purpose that this highly successful venture had, and also in the light of the great shortage at that time of music teachers for primary schools.

Links with the community and parents

664. The staff developed this term a policy of 'forging links with the community'. The 'links' forged were of various kinds. Some were simply making use of local sporting facilities; for example, a group of children spent one afternoon a week at the Islington Boat Club and others received ice-skating lessons on a regular basis at the Sobell Sports Centre. There were also visits to various places of local interest. A particularly worthwhile innovation was the introduction, with the assistance of Miss Joan Mills of the Royal Court Theatre, and Mrs Caryl Harter, a dramatist (2), of a twice weekly drama session in which the children were encouraged to improvise and then write and act their own plays. Another interesting venture was an arrangement made for a group of students from Paddington College for Further Education to make a film of the school and the form of teaching that was taking place there (3).

665. I should not leave this subject without mentioning the highly successful Summer Carnival that was organised by the Junior and Infants Schools in early June. The staff of the infants school took the main responsibility for various stalls and the junior school staff arranged for the participation in the Carnival of a large number of groups and associations from the Islington area. It was undoubtedly very successful both as a social event and as a fund-raiser for the schools.

666. Towards the end of the term the junior school staff circulated an informative School Newsletter to parents, telling them not only of the school's activities that term, but also informing them in the following general terms of the teaching arrangements proposed for the new school year:

'... all present staff will be remaining at the school next year ... The basic structures of the school will remain with children working half the day on basic Mathematics and English work whilst being offered at other times a series of options geared towards developing the child's own natural talents and helping them cope productively with the increasing amount of leisure time that they meet later in life ... '

(1) See also Mr Rice's confidential report on the school of 11 March 1975; Chapter VII, paragraph 634 above.

(2) Mrs Harter at that time had a son in the junior school and a son in the infants school.

(3) This film was subsequently shown to the Inquiry as part of the evidence called in support of the junior school staff.

(4) The managers were not invited to this open evening.

[page 211]

the parents. A group of children also entertained the parents with a play that they had largely devised themselves.

The teaching of basic skills

667. I have given the above account of the various activities of the junior school during the summer term to demonstrate that the staff were not completely engulfed by the conflicts of the term that I am about to describe. They had many good ideas, and they put much thought and effort into organising them. I am conscious, however, that, in writing of this term, I have said very little of what many people would regard as the really important parts of primary school education, namely, teaching children to read and to write and to express themselves, and to understand the basics of mathematics. I have not referred to these fundamental areas of primary school learning because very little evidence was put before the Inquiry about the teaching of the basic skills during this term. Those best able to give such evidence, the junior school staff, tended to stress the various activities that I have dealt with above, but to say very little about the practical business of teaching the children the basic skills necessary to equip them for life and, in particular, for the next stage of their education, the secondary school.

The petition

668. I must now resume the story where I left it at the end of the previous term, namely at the point where Mrs Hoodless and Mr Pedrick had made arrangements to prepare and circulate a petition about the junior school (5). The petition upon which Mrs Hoodless and Mr Alan Pedrick determined on the evening of 26 March 1975, after their attendance at the meeting of the St Mary's Ward Labour Party, was drafted by Mrs Hoodless in the following form:

'We, the undersigned, are concerned at the deteriorating quality of education at William Tyndale Junior School and note the rapid decline in the roll at a time when neighbouring schools are full and call upon the ILEA to take urgent steps to re-establish public confidence in this junior school.'

The circulation of the petition

The preparation and arrangements for circulation

669. As arranged with Mr Pedrick, Mrs Hoodless had the petition typed and duplicated and made ready for distribution. At a later stage she discussed it with Mrs

(5) See Chapter VII, paragraph 650 above.

(6) See Chapter VII, paragraph 649 above.

[page 212]

Fairweather and Mrs Gittings and they also agreed to circulate it. The final circulation agreed upon was among Members of the Islington Borough Council, managers and governors of local schools and local residents who they thought would be interested. As already indicated (7), it was decided that it should not be circulated among the Managing Body generally or among parents of children at the junior school, and that, so far as possible, its circulation should be kept a secret from the junior school staff.

670. Although Mrs Hoodless had moved with great speed in deciding upon the use of a petition, it does not appear to have been ready for circulation until nearly the end of April 1975. About that time she passed copies of it to Mr Pedrick, and, much later, in June 1975, she also gave some copies to Mrs Fairweather and Mrs Gittings (7a) for circulation.

Mr Hind's knowledge of the petition

671. About the end of April 1975, and before the petition started circulating, Mr Hinds learned of it. He did not learn very much. In his evidence to the Inquiry, he was unable to remember who had told him about it. It may very well be that Mrs Hoodless's husband, who, as an Additional Member of the Greater London Council, often had occasion to visit County Hall, saw Mr Hinds and mentioned the petition to him. Mrs Hoodless, at any rate, was under the impression at that time that Mr Hinds was aware of what was going on because, on 25 April 1975 (8) she wrote to him in the following terms:

'As you will have gathered, we are well forward with our resolutions, petition and other activities designed to improve the plight of the children remaining in the junior part of the school. However, the purpose of this letter is to mention Mr Ernest Armstrong's (9) suggestion about transferring to the Advisory Service Heads of a certain kind (10). Not a suggestion I support myself, but I am still hoping there may be some way of avoiding the strife and disruption which seems to be the only alternative. Not that I myself have ever feared conflict, but is it really the best way of helping those children?'

(7) See Chapter VII, paragraph 650 above.

(7a) See paragraph 718 below.

(8) ie three days before Mrs Hoodless first solicited signatures for the petition; see paragraph 673 below.

(9) Emest Armstrong was a Junior Minister (parliamentary Under-Secretary) at the Department of Education and Science at that time.

(10) See Glossary - 'Advisory Head Teacher'.

[page 213]

alarmed at the way things appeared to be developing. Nevertheless, he took no steps to dissuade Mrs Hoodless and her associates from circulating the petition which, as I have already indicated (11), he must have known would be harmful to the school. Moreover, he failed to make any enquiries of her as to the nature of the resolutions and 'other activities' referred to, or even as to the wording of the proposed petition. Indeed, the only action that he took on receipt of Mrs Hoodless's letter was to write upon it the following note, 'Action: no comment - typically "brilliant" DES suggestion! So I get lumbered with the proven ineffective!', and to instruct his personal assistant to acknowledge receipt of Mrs Hoodless's letter.

The persons among whom the petition was circulated

673. On 28 April 1975, three days after writing her letter to Mr Hinds, Mrs Hoodless started the petition off at a meeting of the Governors of Barnsbury School by passing it round for her fellow Governors to sign. From then on until early July 1975 the petition was widely circulated among Members of the Islington Borough Council, managers and governors of various local schools, and local residents, including parents of children at William Tyndale Infants School and of former pupils of the junior school. No parent with a child currently at the junior school was asked to sign the petition. When it was presented to the Education Committee of the Authority on 15 July 1975 it contained 198 signatures.

The persons who circulated the petition

674. In all, nine people were involved in the circulation of the petition.

Four of them were Managers, namely Mrs Hoodless, Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings (11a) and Mrs Burnett. It is a little surprising to see Mrs Burnett's name in this list, having regard to her previous consistent efforts to support the staff and to urge moderation on her fellow Managers. However, as will appear, Mrs Burnett only decided to give her support to this petition in the latter half of June 1975, by which time she felt that the staff's behaviour called for extreme counter-measures (12).

675. Of the remaining five people concerned in the circulation of the petition, two were Labour representatives on the Islington Borough Council, one of whom, of course, was Mr Pedrick, a representative for St Mary's Ward, the Ward in which the William Tyndale Schools are situated (13), and the other, Mr David Hyams, a representative for Clerkenwell Ward and a Member of the Islington Education Advisory Committee. The remaining three were friends of Mrs Gittings to whom she handed a copy each for circulation, namely Mrs Jane Howell, wife of an Islington Borough Councillor and Member of the Islington Education Advisory Committee, and a parent of a child in the infants school; Mrs Hercules, the teacher who was dis-

(11) Chapter VII, paragraph 644 above.

(11a) See paragraph 718 below.

(12) See paragraph 741 below.

(13) The other two Labour representatives for St Mary's Ward were Mr Mabey and Mr Hoodless.

[page 214]

charged from the Authority's service in January 1974 after absenting herself from the school and going to Australia without notice (14); and a Mrs V. Linklater.

The effect upon the junior school staff of the petition

676. Despite the attempts at secrecy, news of the petition filtered through to Mr Ellis and his colleagues. Indeed, on the very day, 28 April 1975, that Mrs Hoodless asked her fellow Governors of Barnsbury School to sign the petition, Mr Ellis heard of its existence and of the involvement with it of Mrs Hoodless and Mr Pedrick. He immediately told the junior school staff about it. The effect upon them was predictable; it was as if alarm bells had been set ringing throughout the school; it threw them back into their aggressive attitudes of the previous year.

Mr Haddow's discussion paper urging 'Reforms' for the junior school

677. Typically, Mr Haddow was the first to react, and typically, he over-reacted. Within a day or so of learning of the petition he prepared a document for discussion in the staffroom. Having regard to the threatened position of the staff and the school, it is an astonishing document, reading as it does like a call to the staff for more extreme attitudes in their teaching policies and methods - attitudes which Mr Haddow must have known could only have increased the anxieties of the managers and parents of children still at the school. In his evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Haddow explained that he prepared this document because the general spirits of the staff were very low after hearing of the petition, and because he felt that a lively and provocative staff discussion was needed to revive their demoralised situation and to 'get staff considering their personal educational philosophy'. He said that the document was meant to be a discussion provoking document, and was not put forward in all its aspects as a serious plan of change. This is how it read:

'William Tyndale Junior School has become boring, complacent and reactionary, not only in its educational practice but also in its attitudes towards the social implications of its policy and the problems of teachers in particular. Since the events of 1974, with the exception of Steve's class (15), the educational programme has stultified into a late 60s style of informal progressive repression where children are repressed as much by pointless structures and procedures as by verbal and physical intimidation. In the outside world we have become defensively entrenched - for whatever reasons. No reply has been sent to Briault's threatening letter (16), no message of support was sent to the Hackney Five, etc, etc. Even the fight with the managers has become an attempt at buying reconciliation rather than a continued struggle to rid ourselves of their political intimidation.

(16) On 23 January 1975, all the members of the junior school staff, except Mr Ellis, Mrs Chowles (who was ill), and Mrs Arnold, went on strike in order to join a demonstration, which was not supported by the teachers' unions, against the proposals in the Houghton Report. Dr Briault had written to the members of staff concerned on 27 February 1975 indicating that he regarded their conduct as a breach of their responsibilities as teachers and that if it happened again the matter would be referred to the Managing Body for investigation.

[page 215]

On the educational front we need to restructure our policies as a whole school unit. To have separate systems and to give each teacher the right to teach as they wish is divisive and will only result in a weak and ineffectual liberalism plagued in power struggles.

We must adopt a programme which gives (Irene (17) perhaps a starting point for tomorrow) the children the greatest opportunity to find and experience as much happiness as is possible within the time that they are with us within a democratic structure that is based on egalitarianism for both children and staff.

We must also consider the possibilities of carrying our policies outside of the school to influence other schools within the area and once again become involved in the current issues governing teachers and the local community.

I therefore propose the following "reforms" for next year:

1. School's basic structure should be six mixed ability groups with one teacher responsible for each. One teacher (or rota of teachers) to work permanently as a playground leader. Children to have choice of coming in or staying out. Permanent activity areas and trips to be created outside group rooms agreed by children and teachers responsible for supervision of different quota of activities.

2. Hut to be bought out of AUR (18) for playground.

3. David (19) to be bought 0.5 for continuing links with the community etc.

4. Weekly staff meetings including all staff and children interested. Weekly school council meetings with rights to decide policy.

5. Abolition of playtimes and lunch-hours. Staff working lunch-hours to be recompensed by one hour off at end of day. Rota if very popular.

6. Abolition of head's room - this becomes office for Vi (20) - Vi's room extra children's room.

7. Reinstating for staff committee - decisions by majority vote.

8. Abolish Kathy's (21) room (22) except for voluntary basis - principle established that children not sent for remedial ed. except voluntarily.

9. Stockrooms permanently open - no locks on equipment cupboards.

10. Two swimming periods a week.'

(17) ie Mrs Chowles.

(18) See Glossary - 'Alternative Use of Resources Scheme'.

(19) ie Mr Austin.

(20) ie Mrs Violet Wraight, the school Secretary.

(21) ie Mrs Arnold

(22) ie the Sanctuary.

[page 216]

Rumour and suspicion

679. During the first fortnight of May 1975, while the petition was being circulated and arrangements were being made for the termly Managers' Meeting on 19 May 1975, the junior school staff spent a good deal of time trying to obtain information about the petition. They became increasingly concerned as the information that they pieced together confirmed its existence and something of its effect. The information that they received, however, was often second and third hand; and, with rumour and anxiety feeding one upon the other, the staff rapidly reached a pitch where they regarded themselves as under attack from all around, and for a variety of motives other than that of concern about the quality of education that they were providing.

680. The junior school staff now began to consider as among their enemies, in addition to the managers, the Labour Party Members of the Islington Borough Council and its Education Advisory Committee, including Mrs Anne Page, Members and Officers of the Authority, the local Labour Party organisations, the staff of the infants school, and still, to their mind, the originator of all their troubles, Mrs Walker. Not only did they suspect a multiplicity of conspirators - but also a multiplicity of conspiracies, for example: the Islington Borough Council seeking to use the school's problems as a weapon in a power struggle with the Authority over the control of education in Islington; Mrs Page and the local Labour organisations seeking to exert, through the managers, political control of the way the teachers should do their job; the Authority and its Officers seeking to avoid accepting responsibility for letting the managers and Mrs Walker get away with their harassment and interference of the staff in the previous year; the managers seeking to procure the dismissal of Mr Ellis, Mr Haddow and some of the other members of the junior school staff; the Authority and/or the managers seeking to close down the school or reorganise the two schools into one; Miss Hart and her staff seeking a reorganisation of the two schools with Miss Hart as the new head teacher; and above all, a campaign by all concerned to accuse them of extreme left-wing views and of indoctrinating the children whom they taught with such views. These were suspicions, a few of which, when investigated, had some foundation, and many of which had none. They were suspicions which persisted right up to and throughout the Inquiry.

681. The decision to organise such a petition at all was bad enough. The decision to circulate it secretly among the particular sections of the local community selected caused incalculable damage to the school and to the morale of the junior school staff by the fears, in many cases totally without foundation, that were engendered among them by the inevitable rumour-mongering that occurred.

The managers' meeting and resolution of 19 May 1975

The addition to the agenda

682. On 5 May 1975 the clerk to the managers sent to each Manager a copy of the agenda for the managers' Meeting on 19 May 1975. On 12 May 1975, a few days

[page 217]

after receiving his copy of the agenda, Mr Mabey learned for the first time, in discussion with Mr Pedrick, of the existence of the petition and of the fact that it was being circulated. He approved of the idea, and when he noted its reference to the rapid decline in the roll of the junior school in contrast to the other schools in the area, he considered that it was something the managers should discuss at their forthcoming meeting. He mentioned this to Mrs Hoodless, and they arranged through the clerk to the managers that an additional item (Item 22) headed 'School Rolls' should be placed on the agenda. He also arranged that the Divisional Officer should prepare for the meeting a set of figures comparing the rolls of the William Tyndale Schools with those of neighbouring schools between 1972 and 1975. The additional item was circulated in advance of the meeting to all the managers, including Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow.

683. The information that the Divisional Officer prepared and provided for the meeting set out in schedule form figures described as being given 'in response to a request', of the school rolls of the William Tyndale Schools and four neighbouring schools in May of each year between 1972 and 1975. The figures showed a fall by about 36 per cent for the junior school between May of 1973 and May of 1975, and a fall of about 35 per cent (not including the under-fives and nursery children) for the infants school over the same period. The figures for the other schools showed in the main little change over the same period. The conclusion that Mr Mabey and Mrs Hoodless wished their fellow Managers to draw from these figures was obvious, namely that the junior school had been deteriorating for some time and was dragging the infants school down with it.

684. In the early part of the week beginning 12 May 1975 Mrs Fairweather, who was going to have to chair the forthcoming Managers' Meeting in the absence of Mr Tennant, visited the junior school to discuss the agenda for the meeting with Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow. She told them nothing of the meetings in February and March with Mr Hinds or of the plans made following those meetings for a petition and resolutions about the school. She said nothing of the resolution approved at the meeting of the St Mary's Ward Labour Party on 26 March 1975,23 Indeed, according to Mr Ellis, she made what appears to have been a tongue in cheek remark to them that she hoped the meeting would be a quiet and peaceful one. Mr Haddow gave her some indication of the junior school staff's suspicions that something was afoot by reminding her that about the same time in 1974 there had been increasing activity against the junior school, and he expressed some doubt as to whether the meeting would be peaceful. Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow asked Mrs Fairweather what was the significance of the additional item on the agenda relating to school rolls. She merely told them that it had been added at the request of Mr Mabey, but that she did not know its significance.

685. On 15 May 1975, three days after Mr Mabey had learned of the existence of the petition, and a day or so after Mrs Fairweather's visit to the school, Mr Mabey invited Mrs Fairweather and Mrs Hoodless to his home to talk about the managers'

(23) See Chapter VII, paragraph 649 above.

[page 218]

Meeting fixed for 19 May 1975, the additional item on the agenda with regard to the falling rolls, and the petition. They discussed the form of a resolution to be moved at the meeting, under the additional item of the agenda, calling upon the Authority to take urgent action in relation to the junior school. The form upon which they decided was little more than an up-dated version of the resolution that had been approved at the St Mary's Ward Labour Party meeting on 26 March 1975 (24). The proposed resolution was as follows:

'We the managers of William Tyndale Schools note with concern:

(i) the petition circulating in the neighbourhood about the school;
(ii) the rapidly declining rolls;

and call upon the ILEA to take urgent steps to restore public confidence in the schools including consideration of reorganisation as a JM and I school.' (25)

687. On the following day, 16 May 1975, Mr Mabey went to the school to inform Mr Ellis of the proposed resolution. He had not, however, made an appointment to visit, and, when he arrived, Mr Ellis was teaching. Mr Ellis told Mr Mabey that it was inconvenient to receive a visit from him at that time, and reminded him that he had previously asked him to make an appointment before visiting. Mr Mabey then left without telling Mr Ellis of the proposed resolution or of the petition. Although Mr Ellis may have been off-hand with Mr Mabey, there is no doubt that Mr Mabey could have informed Mr Ellis quickly of these matters before he left. Mr Mabey was wrong not to do so.

The Managers' meeting

688. The meeting was chaired by Mrs Fairweather, in the absence of Mr Tennant who was still abroad. The Divisional Office was represented by Mr Barry Cross, the Deputy Divisional Officer. Mr Rice did not attend. The first main business of the meeting was the presentation of the head teachers' reports. Miss Hart and Mr Ellis each distributed written reports of their respective schools' activities and achievements since the last Managers' Meeting. Both reports led to a few questions from some of the managers. In the case of Mr Ellis's report, there were some questions about the steel band, questions couched not in appreciative terms, but implying concern that playing steel drums was the only form of music taught in the junior school.

(24) See Chapter VII, paragraph 649 above.

(25) It was about this time that the Officers' Coordinating Committee of the Authority advised that there should be no reorganisation of the William Tyndale Schools for the time being; see Chapter VII, paragraphs 646-647 above.

[page 219]

689. Following the discussion of the head teachers' reports, Mr Mabey asked if the additional and last item on the agenda, item 22, relating to the fall in the rolls of the two schools, could be taken next and out of order. Mr Ellis objected, saying that he and his staff were also worried about the falling rolls, and asked that discussion of that item should be postponed to a further special meeting of managers. However, it was decided by a large majority that the falling rolls of the schools should be considered at that point, and Mr Ellis withdrew his request for a special meeting.

690. Mr Mabey opened the discussion by pointing out that the rolls of the William Tyndale Schools had fallen faster than those in the Division as a whole and said that he and many others were concerned about the loss of confidence in the junior school. He went on to refer to the petition that was being circulated and read out its words. For many of the managers, this was the first that they had heard of the petition. In particular, it should be recorded that Mrs Burnett, the former Chairman of the Managing Body, reacted strongly to this information by intervening at about this point and saying that she was appalled to learn of it and that there was still a gulf between the school and the community. Mr Mabey continued by saying that the situation could not be allowed to continue or the Authority would close the school. He expressed the view that the school should continue, making the points that the building was good, the location convenient, and that it served a high density population area in the Borough. He then proposed, and Mrs Hoodless seconded, the resolution to which I have referred in paragraph 685 above, but which I will set out here again for the convenience of the reader:

'We the managers of William Tyndale Schools note with concern:

(i) the petition circulating in the neighbourhood about the school;
(ii) the rapidly declining rolls;

and call upon the ILEA to take urgent steps to restore public confidence in the schools including consideration of reorganisation as a JM and I school.'

691. Mr Ellis asked who was the source of the petition and how many people had signed it. Mr Mabey refused to tell him the source of the petition and said that he did not know how many signatures had been collected. There was then some general discussion in which some of the managers, notably Mr Mabey, Mrs Hoodless and Mrs Gittings, expressed their dissatisfaction with the teaching at the school and the need for urgent action. Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow replied by referring to the events of the previous year and to the activities of certain individuals and groups outside the school, and said that what was needed was an investigation into the reason for the falling rolls.

692. Mr Ellis then proposed, and Mr Haddow seconded, an amendment to the motion so that, after the reference to the rapidly declining rolls, it concluded simply with the words, 'and call upon the ILEA to investigate reasons for these rapidly declining rolls'. The proposed amendment was not carried and the original motion of Mr Mabey was then put and carried by a majority of twelve to one, with three abstentions.

693. The managers then went on to consider a number of other important, but routine, matters and concluded with their agreeing, on the proposal of Mr Ellis, that

[page 220]

in future any member of the teaching or non-teaching staffs of the schools who wished to attend Managers' Meetings could do so as observers, except during discussions of confidential matters.

694. Following the meeting, the Divisional Office immediately informed Miss Burgess, the Assistant Education Officer for Primary Education, of the terms of the managers' resolution and of the petition. Copies were also sent to Mr Hinds, Mr Rice and Mrs Page. At about the same time Mrs Hoodless also informed Mrs Page about the resolution and indicated that as soon as the petition was 'a respectable size' she would be in touch with her again - presumably to ask her to submit it formally to the Authority.

The junior school staff's reaction to the petition and the Managers' resolution

695. Mr Mabey's surprise resolution and confirmation of the existence of the petition at the Managers' meeting, coupled with his refusal to identify the source of the petition and his apparent inability to say how many people had signed it, deepened the suspicions of the junior school staff and galvanised them into action. They made strong written and oral representations to the managers; they sought the protection and assistance of the Authority; and they turned to their professional association, the North London Teachers' Association, for assistance. They also continued, without much success and with no cooperation from those responsible for the petition, to find out more about it. In particular a written request from Mrs McWhirter to Mr Pedrick for information produced a very curt response from him, telling her to find out for herself.

The junior school staff's representations to the managers

696. On 21 May 1975 the junior school staff prepared a written statement intended principally for the managers, but also for the Authority and any other interested parties. In their statement the staff itemised a number of complaints about the petition and reiterated their contention that the falling roll was 'the result of groups and individuals, with interests of a political nature rather than of concern for children, organising themselves subversively against the staff to deliberately erode parental confidence in the school'. They went on to allege that the request for reorganisation of the school was just a further manifestation of a political campaign, started in the previous year, to remove Mr Ellis and certain members of his staff. The statement concluded with the following 'demands':

'(a) That Mr Mabey reveal the source of this so-called petition and the reasons for his concealment from the school of his knowledge of such a petition.

(b) That the Managing Body reconvene immediately to withdraw this resolution and make public its opposition to any petition circulating critical of the school.

[page 221]

Furthermore, we call upon the ILEA to restore parental confidence in the school by publicly denouncing the campaign and petition against the school and by giving parents, children and staff assurances that there are no plans for closure or reorganisation, under different administration, of the school.'

The junior school staff's representations and request for assistance to the Authority

Representations

698. On the day following the managers' Meeting, 20 May 1975, the junior school staff wrote identical letters to Sir Ashley Bramall and Mr Hinds drawing their attention to the events of the managers' Meeting and requesting the Authority to intervene. In their letters they put their case and their request in the following terms:

'The head and staff of the junior school have always maintained and have evidence that the falling rolls were directly due to an outside organised interference. The staff made this clear to the Authority in its statement of 16 September 1974 (27), a further copy of which we enclose for reference. It would appear that this interference is still continuing and parental confidence still being deliberately eroded. We therefore totally condemn this resolution and the way in which it has been thrust upon the school and in the light of the far reaching implications to both children, parents and teachers at the school ask that

(1) You ignore the resolution on the basis of insufficient information.
(2) You investigate the source of this petition.
(3) You meet a delegation from the school to discuss the whole affair.
(4) You send a representative to any future Managers' meeting being called to discuss why the rolls of William Tyndale Junior and Infants Schools are falling.'

(27) See Chapter VI, paragraphs 518-519 above.

[page 222]

The staff also sent a copy of their written statement of 21 May 1975, referred to in paragraph 696 above, to Mr Hinds, which in its last paragraph called upon the Authority to denounce the campaign and petition against the school and to give public assurances that there would be no closure or reorganisation of the school.

699. Unfortunately, Mr Hinds was away on holiday for the second half of May 1975, and the Authority's consideration of the managers' resolution and the representations of the junior school staff apparently had to wait until his return at the end of the month (28). There was also a gap in responsibility at the Divisional Office about this time because Mr Wales was about to retire, and his successor, Mr Roy Price, did not take up his appointment until 1 July 1975.

Request for help

700. In addition to the junior school staff's representations made to Sir Ashley Bramall and Mr Hinds, Mr Ellis sought the professional assistance of the Authority's Inspectorate. On 22 May 1975 he spoke on the telephone to Mr Rice and asked him whether he knew of any plans for closure or reorganisation of the junior school. Mr Rice assured Mr Ellis that the Authority had no such plans (29). On the day following this telephone conversation, 23 May 1975, Mr Ellis wrote a most important letter to Mr Rice asking for help. Having regard to the events that had just taken place prior to and at the managers' Meeting of 19 May 1975, this request for help should be set out in full:

23.5.1975

Dear Mr Rice,

I have communicated to my staff the assurances you gave me that there were to your knowledge, no plans for the closure or reorganisation of William Tyndale Junior School.

Following a conversation I had with Mr Tennant, Chairman of the managers, I am concerned that the efficiency of the school is being called into question by the managing body. The element of carping criticism that was present at the meeting of the 20 [sic] May is further evidence that this is so; especially when criticism was directed at an excellent venture such as the Steel Band selected by the Authority as an example of the excellence attained in our schools, but not apparently to the liking of some of the managers who have presumably achieved standards of wisdom and educational knowledge beyond that of the Music Inspectorate of the Authority itself.

In view of this, I feel that the staff are in need of the guidance and reassurance of a professional educationist and earnestly request that you come to the school

(29) Mr Rice had attended the meeting of the Officers' Co-ordinating Committee in May 1975 when the Committee discussed and advised against such reorganisation; see Chapter VII, paragraphs 646-647 above.

[page 223]

as early as possible after half-term (30) to meet the staff and discuss these important matters with them.

Yours sincerely,    
T. Ellis.'

701. Mr Rice did not reply in writing to this letter, but he did telephone Mr Ellis a few days later. I am satisfied on the evidence that I have heard that, in addition to re-emphasising to Mr Ellis that the junior school was not going to be closed or reorganised, Mr Rice sought to reassure Mr Ellis that he was not unduly worried about the conduct of the school. The earliest date that Mr Rice suggested to Mr Ellis for a visit by him to the school to discuss with the staff the matters raised in Mr Ellis's letter was 2 July 1975, that is over a month later. And, although Mr Rice visited the school in May and June 1975, briefly on each occasion, and spoke to Mr Ellis for a few minutes at the 'In Pursuit of Excellence' Exhibition at County Hall on 19 June 1975, he made no attempt to talk to Mr Ellis about this urgent and important problem. By 2 July 1975, when the arranged meeting with the staff should have taken place, the troubles of the school had escalated far beyond any help that Mr Rice or his colleagues could give them. On that day the staff were attending instead a meeting with the managers at County Hall under the Chairmanship of Mr Hinds (31).

702. In his evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Rice explained that he had been unable to arrange to see Mr Ellis and his staff any earlier than 2 July 1975 because he was very heavily committed throughout June, in particular with a number of training courses and meetings. I accept Mr Rice's evidence that he had a very full diary for June, but, in my view, he was gravely at fault in not making some arrangements to give William Tyndale Junior School the urgent attention that it required. Having regard to all that had gone before and his knowledge, as District Inspector, of its troubles it should have been at or near the top of his list of priorities. He should have sacrificed some other responsibility for the hour or so that it would have taken for him to meet and discuss these important matters with the staff. If that was impossible, because of the importance of his other commitments and/or the tightness of his daily schedule, he should have made immediate arrangements through Dr Birchenough, the Chief Inspector, or Mr Pape, the staff Inspector for Primary Education, or the Divisional Office, for one or more of his colleagues to give all necessary help and advice to the staff. However, Mr Rice took none of these possible steps to deal with the problem. Dr Birchenough and Mr Pape were totally unaware of Mr Ellis's letter.

703. Mr Rice's failure to take appropriate steps to assist the school at this critical time is particularly regrettable having regard to the following matters:

(i) He had been uneasy throughout about the general organisation and teaching methods introduced into the school under the head teachership of Mr Ellis, and had frequently advised Mr Ellis to introduce changes more slowly and to

(31) See paragraphs 745-751 below.

[page 224]

plan and organise the teaching structure of the school with greater care than he was doing. Mr Ellis on the whole had tended to disregard his advice, and Mr Rice knew that - the last such occasion being on his visit to the school on 29 January 1975 (32).

(ii) The general conclusions in Mr Rice's confidential report to Mr Hinds of 11 March 1975 indicated, at the very least, that, in his view, there was a need for a constant and high level of support from the Inspectorate (33).

(iii) Mr Pape had suggested to him on 14 March 1975 that he should arrange visits from his colleagues to give advice in specialist areas which were below par (34). Mr Rice did not do this (35).

(iv) Mr Hinds, after his meeting with the three managers and Mrs Page on 26 March 1975, had given clear instructions to Mr Rice that he was to make sure that he was doing everything that he could for the school (36).

(v) Mr Rice was aware of the renewed conflict surrounding the school resulting from the circulation of the petition and the managers' resolution (37).

(vi) Finally, Mr Rice had now received a request for help directly from Mr Ellis himself.

704. In addition to the representations made to the managers and to the Authority in the days following the managers' Meeting of 19 May 1975, the junior school staff sought the advice and help of their professional association. On 20 May 1975 Mrs McWhirter, the National Union of Teachers' representative on the junior school staff, wrote to Mr Horace Perrin, the Regional Official of the Union, informing him of the petition and of the managers' resolution and requesting his help. However, although he kept in touch with the staff and made enquiries of County Hall, it does not appear that he took any action which had any decisive effect in the developing conflict.

705. The junior school staff also sought the support of the North London Teachers' Association, of which they were members. I say that the staff 'sought the support' of the Association, but it is probably more accurate to say that they 'used' the Association as a means of hitting back at the managers and others who they thought were attacking them. The action that they adopted through the means of the Association was extremely serious, and led to a wave of hostility against them

(32) See Chapter VII, paragraph 598 above.

(33) See Chapter VII, paragraph 634 above.

(34) See Chapter VII, paragraph 635 above.

(35) Save in the case of the Music Inspector, Mr Hamish Preston, who visited the school on 8 July 1975; see paragraph 662 above.

(36) See Chapter VII, paragraph 646 above.

(37) See paragraph 694 above.

[page 225]

which spread far beyond the managers and those who had hitherto been actively involved in the campaign to force the Authority to intervene in the affairs of the school. Many people, managers, parents and others who had either held back or who had just not been involved in the conflict, were now prompted into active opposition to the junior school staff. And, as will appear, it was probably this action of the staff more than any other that eventually determined some of the managers to go to the Press.

706. This is what the junior school staff did. They prepared for members of the Association a written statement of information about the affairs of the junior school and the campaign against its staff. This statement of information was submitted by Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow to a General Meeting of the Association held on 2 June 1975. On the basis of that statement and information given by them at the Meeting, Mr Ellis proposed, and Mr Haddow seconded, and the members of the Association present passed, the following resolution:

'(a) NLTA condemns the vicious campaign over the past 13 months against the staff of the William Tyndale Junior School.

(b) The falling roll resulting from this campaign has serious implications for the staff. We therefore call upon the NLTA members in neighbouring schools to oppose admission to their schools of children from William Tyndale Junior and Infants School.

(c) We call on the NUT Legal Department to take action to defend the teachers under attack.'

'Our colleagues at the William Tyndale Junior School have been working under difficult circumstances of an exceptional nature and the fall in the roll of the school must cause anxiety. Moreover, from natural causes beyond the control of the school, a further decline in numbers is likely to occur in September. It is therefore of the greatest importance that members in other schools should cooperate fully by opposing the admission of William Tyndale Junior School children. The headmaster, however, is continuing to issue transfer certificates in cases where it is considered that the Association policy is not applicable.'

(38) See Chapter I, paragraph 14 above.

[page 226]

The Authority's attempt to mediate

The meeting on 16 June 1975 between Mr Hinds and Mr Tennant

708. On his return from holiday at the end of May 1975 Mr Hinds found on his desk the managers' resolution of 19 May 1975, the text of the petition, and the junior school staff's letter and written statement of 20 and 21 May 1975 respectively. He also received from Mrs Hoodless, within a day or so of his return, a copy of the North London Teachers' Association's resolution of 2 June 1975. He decided to look into the various aspects of the conflict as soon as possible and, as a first step, to discuss the whole matter with Mr Tennant, in his capacity as Chairman of the managers, and with a member of the Divisional Office Staff. He informed Mr Ellis of his intention and made arrangements for a meeting with Mr Tennant on 16 June 1975.

709. Before the meeting, Mrs Page, who had also received copies of the managers' resolution (39) and of the resolution of the North London Teachers' Association, wrote to Mr Hinds asking him about the position and to include her in any further discussions on the subject. Mr Hinds, nevertheless, decided not to invite her to the forthcoming meeting with Mr Tennant, although he instructed his personal assistant to write to tell her that it was going to take place.

710. The meeting between Mr Hinds and Mr Tennant on 16 June 1975 was also attended by Miss Burgess, the Assistant Education Officer for Primary Education, Mr Cross, the Deputy Divisional Officer, Mr Rice and Miss Horsfall, Mr Hinds's personal assistant. Miss Horsfall took brief notes of the discussion. Mr Hinds started by asking Mr Tennant to give his assessment of the situation. Mr Tennant said that Mr Ellis seemed to be unable to create confidence amongst the parents or in the community in general. He said that, in his opinion, some of the teachers at the junior school were 'anarchistic' and were managing to manipulate Mr Ellis. He mentioned, either then or at another point in the meeting, that some of the managers were pressing for the removal of Mr Ellis, and suggested that that course might be the only solution for the school. In saying this he was really underlining his main theme, which was that the matter had now gone beyond the competence of the Managing Body, and that the Authority should itself take some decisive action, whether it be by removal of Mr Ellis, reorganisation of the schools, an inspection or a disciplinary inquiry or any combination of those courses.

711. In reply Mr Hinds said that any potential reorganisation would not necessarily result in the removal of Mr Ellis or the members of staff to whom Mr Tennant had referred. He also indicated, apparently as a matter that was relevant to the Authority's decision about what to do, that the staff had already appealed for help to the North London Teachers' Association with the result that other schools in the Division were refusing to take children onto their rolls. He then went on to discount the value of any disciplinary inquiry as a means of resolving the situation,

(39) See paragraph 694 above.

[page 227]

saying words to the effect that any formal complaint against Mr Ellis and his staff would probably founder because the school's standards or achievements were not significantly lower or higher than those of other schools in the Division. He concluded by emphasising his concern about the dangers of a confrontation between the managers and the staff, which, he said, was unlikely to further anyone's interests.

712. Towards the end of the meeting Mr Rice indicated that he would step up his attention to the educational standards in the school and that he would take steps to encourage, by all possible means the development of the curriculum (40). Mr Hinds, for his part, urged Mr Tennant to press for adequate information on standards to be passed on to the Managing Body - a curious request having regard to the known sensitivity of the staff to any action on the part of the managers that savoured of inspection, and curious too that Mr Hinds, on behalf of the Authority should be placing the onus on the managers rather than on the Authority to obtain information about the educational standards at the school.

713. Mr Hinds indicated that his next step would be to hold a similar informal meeting with Mr Ellis and another member of the junior school staff, and if both sides were willing, he would then arrange a further meeting of representatives of the staff and managers at County Hall 'to see what could be salvaged from this situation'. He also agreed, at Mr Tennant's request, to include Mrs Page and Mr Arthur Wicks, the Member of the Authority for Islington South and Finsbury, in any further discussions about the school.

714. Mr Hinds, in his evidence to the Inquiry, said that it was at this meeting with Mr Tennant on 16 June 1975 that he had first formed the view that he should intervene actively in the affairs of the junior school. As to Mr Tennant, he came away from the meeting deeply disappointed that the Authority had not already determined upon some firm course of action. As he made plain in a letter that he wrote to Mr Hinds two days later, on 18 June 1975, he had no faith in the latter's proposals for conciliation and mediation:

'... I hope I left you in no doubt as to why the present situation at William Tyndale has occurred and what I believe to be the only tenable policy for the future. For my part, I have a very clear view that the steps taken by the managers over the past twelve months have not, as yet, been sufficiently successful to persuade ILEA to act more positively than in the recent past.

Differences apart however, we are all aware that the issues surrounding the school will not disappear overnight. I, therefore, welcome your intention to seek the assistance of Arthur Wicks and Anne Page in future discussions. I do think the involvement of locally elected representatives cannot be underestimated in what is essentially a problem arising out of local conditions.

I think you will be fully aware that I do not expect any significant results from the measures you have proposed. It would nevertheless be both irresponsible and uncooperative to ignore these limited steps:

[page 228]

*the instruction to the Inspectorate to raise their level of educational interest in the school*

the proposal that you should chair a discussion between representative groups of managers and teachers from the school ... '

715. The informal meeting that Mr Hinds proposed to have with Mr Ellis and a member of his staff never took place. Events were now moving much too fast, and the Authority, having failed to take the initiative for so long, now lost control completely. The junior school staff, on the one hand, and certain managers, on the other, were now determined on confrontation.

The refusal by the junior school to receive visits from managers during school hours

Mrs Gittings's visit to the junior school on 20 June 1975

716. Mrs Gittings visited the junior school by appointment on 20 June 1975 (41). She was received courteously by Mr Ellis and, after about half an hour's discussion with him, she asked if she could see round the classrooms. Mr Ellis then indicated that the staff had asked to meet her before she went into the classrooms. She agreed to meet them, and did so in the staffroom at playtime. It turned out to be an unpleasant meeting for Mrs Gittings. The staff, Mr Haddow in particular, used it as an opportunity to interrogate her about the petition, the general activities and attitudes of some of the managers and even about Mrs Walker's conduct in the previous summer.

717. Mr Haddow started by informing Mrs Gittings that they had resolved at a staff meeting not to let managers into their classrooms until they had answered some questions. She was then asked about the petition and whether Mr Pedrick was responsible for it. She told them that to the best of her knowledge it had come from him and that she had heard of the petition before the managers' Meeting on 19 May 1975 and that she had seen it afterwards. She also told them that the General Management Committee of the local constituency Labour Party had discussed the school (42). In response to questions by Mr Haddow, she also acknowledged that she had seen a draft of the paper that Mrs Walker had circulated at the parents/teachers' meeting on 9 July 1974, and that the draft that she had seen was not entirely in the same form as the document that was eventually circulated. Mrs Gittings then made plain to the staff that the managers were tired of discussion with no result, and that they felt that the time had now come to act. She indicated her own concern for the standards of education at the school.

718. Mrs Gittings's answers to the questions put to her did not appear to

(41) On the same day Mr Mabey made an appointment to visit the school in the following week, on 27 June 1975.

(42) See Chapter VII, paragraph 649 above.

[page 229]

satisfy Mr Haddow, and the attitude that he and some of the staff adopted towards her was extremely hostile. At the end of the questioning she asked if she could then see round the classrooms. Mrs Chowles said that she would welcome her in her classroom and Mr Austin indicated that he had no objection. Mr Haddow said, however, that they must first have another staff meeting to discuss the answers that Mrs Gittings had given. In the event, Mrs Gittings visited Mrs Chowles's classroom on that day and agreed to return on 23 June 1975 to see if the rest of the staff would allow her to visit the other classrooms. Mrs Gittings left this meeting feeling that the resolution of the managers at their 19 May 1975 meeting was being ignored by the junior school staff. That feeling, coupled with the treatment that she had received from them on this occasion, caused her to decide to collect signatures for the petition (43).

The advice given by Mr Ron Lendon, Treasurer of The North London Teachers' Association

719. Between 20 and 23 June 1975, the junior school staff discussed the attitude that they should adopt towards the managers in the light of the resolution passed at the managers' Meeting of 19 May 1975, and of the meeting that they had just had with Mrs Gittings. As in 1974, their reaction was to take up the offensive. They decided that they would not receive any managers' visits during working hours for the remainder of the summer term of 1975. It appears that, before making this decision Mr Ellis telephoned Mr Ron Lendon, the Treasurer of the North London Teachers' Association. Mr Ellis informed Mr Lendon that the staff were being harassed by the managers, particularly in the way that the managers behaved when visiting the school. By way of example of such harassment Mr Ellis described to Mr Lendon such conduct as the managers by-passing him when they came into the school, entering the classrooms in groups, examining the children's work and haranguing the teachers in front of the children.

720. According to Mr Ellis, in his evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Lendon then advised him that, if the staff were subjected to the sort of harassment he described, it would be proper for them to exclude the managers from the school during school hours. However, Mr Lendon, in his evidence to the Inquiry, maintained that his advice to Mr Ellis was very much fuller and more equivocal than that. His evidence was that he spoke as a head teacher rather than as an Association official, and that he expressed the view that if the managers behaved in that way in his own school he would advise the staff not to receive the managers nor to talk with them unless they were satisfied that the head teacher was aware of their presence and had agreed to their visiting the classrooms. On Mr Lendon's account to the Inquiry, he went on to advise Mr Ellis to inform the Union of the situation and to consult with the Divisional Officer. He also said in evidence that he had pointed out that to refuse to have the managers on the premises might well put them in difficulty with the Authority, having regard to the managers' statutory obligations to the school and to the Authority, as referred to in the Guide for Primary School Managers (44).

(43) See also paragraphs 670 and 674 above.

(44) See Chapter I, paragraph 71 above.

[page 230]

721. It is difficult to determine the precise terms of the advice that Mr Lendon gave to Mr Ellis over the telephone. I incline to the view that Mr Lendon did indicate, whether in his capacity as a head teacher or as an official of the Association, that the junior school staff should, having regard to the managers' behaviour as described to him, exclude the managers from the school during working hours for the remainder of the summer term 1975. It is clear, however, that neither Mr Ellis nor any other member of his staff attempted to obtain any formal confirmation or expression of this advice from Mr Perrin, the Regional Official of the National Union of Teachers, or from the President or Secretary of the North London Teachers' Association - people whom one would have expected them to contact before making any decision on such an important matter.

The junior school staff's decision to exclude the managers

722. The junior school staff, however, sought no more advice on the matter and decided to refuse to allow the managers access to the school during school hours for the rest of the summer term. In accordance with their now established practice, they issued, on 23 June 1975, a written statement to the managers indicating their decision and the reasons for it. This statement was also signed by Mrs Chowles. It read as follows:

'Statement by Staff of William Tyndale Junior School to Managing Body

23 June 1975.

Following the resolution passed at the managers' meeting of 19 May 1975 and the statements made to staff by a member of the Managing Body visiting the school on 20 June 1975 we wish the full Managing Body to be aware of the following policy with regards the managers' visits for the remainder of the Summer Term 1975.

The staff will not receive any managers during working hours for the remainder of this term. This policy has been adopted for the following reasons, after receiving advice from our Union.

(1) The resolution of 19 May was tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the work of the school. We therefore feel that any ensuing visit can only be in the nature of an inspection in order to justify this belief by attempting to gather evidence against us.

This belief was made obvious to us by the attitudes and statements of Mrs Gittings when she visited the school on 20 June.

(2) It would appear that certain managers have contravened their terms of reference by acting in an unsupportive way towards the school. Since no manager has offered realistic support for the staff we must assume that there is a united attitude amongst the Managing Body.

(3) The end of any summer term involves a great amount of extra work and

[page 231]

outside activities for teachers. The extra stress created by managerial visits can only make a difficult situation impossible.

In conclusion we must state that we are not opposed to discussing the situation with any manager. Should you wish to come into the school after working hours to explain your position and your reasons for passing the resolution of 19 May, the staff would be most pleased to meet you for a full and frank discussion which we hope will prove productive.'

723. As I have already indicated, this written statement of the junior school staff of 23 June 1975 was signed by Mrs Chowles. It is the only one of the staff's written statements figuring in this Inquiry to which she put her signature. Why was she prepared to subscribe to this statement, having regard to her dissociation from her colleagues throughout the whole of their previous disputes and exchanges with the managers and, latterly, with the Authority? It is also particularly odd that she should have signed it so shortly after the welcome to her classroom that she gave Mrs Gittings only three days earlier, on 20 June 1975. In her evidence to the Inquiry, Mrs Chowles explained her signature to the statement by saying that she had subscribed only to part of it, namely that part which referred to the managers purporting to carry out a 'visit ... in the nature of an inspection' of the school. She stressed that she had always recognised the right of the managers to oversee the conduct and curriculum of the school, but that she regarded an 'inspection' as something quite different.

724. If Mrs Chowles's attitude had not been so consistent in other respects, it would have been difficult to accept her explanation for signing a statement, the principal purpose of which was to declare the staff's refusal to receive Managers at the school during working hours. However, I accept her account, and can only conclude that she did not read the statement sufficiently carefully before signing it, and that she allowed her concern about the alleged 'inspection' by Managers to cause her to sign a document which she did not wholly support.

Mrs Gittings's visit to the junior school on 23 June 1975

725. On 23 June 1975, when Mrs Gittings visited the junior school again as arranged, Mr Haddow informed her of the staff's decision, saying that it was on Union advice, and refused to allow her to enter the classrooms. Mr Haddow added that she would be invited to the school if and when there was an open day. On her return home from the school Mrs Gittings wrote a letter of complaint about what had happened to the Divisional Office, and sent a copy of her letter to Dr Briault.

The managers' dilemma

726. Consider now the position of the managers and of the parents of children at the school who were concerned about the education that their children were receiving. First, the junior school staff had sought through the machinery of their professional association to cause head teachers of other primary schools within the area to refuse to accept transfers to their schools of children from the William

[page 232]

Tyndale Schools. Having imposed what, if successful, would have been a 'lock-in' of the children, the junior school staff were now purporting to exclude the managers from entering the school during working hours - in effect depriving them of one important means of exercising their responsibility of oversight of the conduct and curriculum of the school. This was a direct challenge to the managers and exhibited a total disregard for the concern that they and many others had about the conditions in the school.

727. Far from making any attempt to restore confidence in the school by showing the managers and others what was being done there, the junior school staff, by their action in excluding the managers, appeared to be trying to deprive them of this information. At the same time they were endeavouring to prevent parents, who were concerned about what was happening in the school, from removing their children to schools where similar problems did not exist. And these tactics were adopted and persisted in at a time when, to the knowledge of the junior school staff, Mr Hinds was proposing to arrange for a joint meeting at County Hall between representative groups from the managers and the staff to discuss the whole situation. First, Mr Hinds had indicated to them at the beginning of June that he was going to investigate the representations that they had made to him (45). Secondly, Mr Tennant had provided Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow with copies of his letter of 18 June 1975 to Mr Hinds (46) which referred in its last paragraph to Mr Tennant's acquiescence to Mr Hinds's proposal to chair a discussion between representative groups of managers and teachers from the school. There is some uncertainty as to whether Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow received their copies of this letter before the staff decided to exclude the managers. That detail is, however, unimportant because the staff persisted in their new policy despite the efforts of Mr Hinds, of which they soon learned, to find a reasonable solution to the problem for all the parties concerned.

728. The conduct of certain of the managers, notably Mrs Hoodless, Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings, and Mr Mabey, and a number of other people, had undoubtedly caused a lot of trouble for the junior school and anxiety to its staff during the summer term. Nevertheless it is difficult to understand how the junior school staff could have taken and persisted in such irresponsible and damaging actions in relation to the school and its pupils. I am driven to the conclusion that, in adopting the tactics that they did, they were motivated more by concern for their own professional standing than for the wellbeing of the school and the children in it.

The moves towards a public confrontation by certain managers

729. The managers were very alarmed by the turn of events that the inaction of the Authority and the conduct of certain of their own number had provoked. However, even now, with Mr Tennant back in the Chair, the managers failed to

(45) See paragraph 708 above.

(46) See paragraph 714 above.

[page 233]

respond in the way in which they should have done to the defiance of the junior school staff. They did not consider and decide corporately as a Managing Body what action they should take. As before, certain individual Managers and groups of Managers took their own independent action, exercising their 'rights' as Managers according to their own lights. And, as before, this uncontrolled and diverse managerial activity in its turn served only to provoke further confrontation between the managers and the junior school staff.

730. It is regrettable that Mr Tennant, who is obviously capable of expressing himself directly and forcefully when the occasion demands, did not exercise his position as Chairman of the Managing Body to bring it together to decide upon a collective policy for dealing responsibly with the problems that existed. Having regard to his agreement with Mr Hinds at their meeting on 16 June 1975 (47) to hold a joint meeting with the staff under the Chairmanship of Mr Hinds, he should have, but did not, impress upon his colleagues the importance of not taking any unnecessary action which might prejudice the outcome of the proposed meeting.

731. Most prominent among the managers who reacted strongly and independently to the junior school staff's defiant conduct were Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Hoodless, Mrs Gittings, Mrs Burnett, Mr Mabey, and also Mr Tennant himself. The first shot was fired by Mr Mabey who, in company with his fellow Ward Councillors from St Mary's Ward, Mr Hoodless and Mr Pedrick, wrote a letter on 25 June 1975 to the Editor of the Islington Gazette.

The Letter of 25 June 1975 from the St Mary's Ward Councillors to The Editor of the Islington Gazette

732. Mr Mabey spoke on the telephone to the Deputy Divisional Officer, Mr Cross, about the junior school staff's request, through the North London Teachers' Association, to neighbouring schools not to accept transfers of children from the William Tyndale Schools. It appears that Mr Cross was not able to suggest any 'official' counter to the staff's action through their professional association. Mr Mabey regarded this as most unsatisfactory, and, in his capacity as an Islington Borough Councillor for St Mary's Ward, he decided, with his two fellow Councillors for the Ward, Mr Hoodless and Mr Pedrick, to write a letter for publication in the local newspaper, the Islington Gazette. This letter, which was not published as such, but was referred to about three weeks later in a news item of the paper, was in the following terms:

'Dear Sir,

Parents with children at William Tyndale Junior School may have heard that the North London Teachers' Association have recently passed a Resolution requesting teachers of other local schools to oppose transfer of children to their school from William Tyndale School.

As Ward Councillors we believe that the ILEA should take steps to restore public confidence in this school. However, parents of children at the school who

[page 234]

wish to transfer their children should know that under the Education Act they have a right to have their children educated at the school of their choice, provided it is not full. Any parent of the junior school who wishes to move his or her child and finds difficulty in doing so should get in touch with us and we will do our best to help. Yours sincerely,    
Councillors Robin Mabey
Donald Hoodless
Alan Pedrick
St Mary's Ward.'    

733. Mr Mabey next turned his attention to the attempt by the junior school staff to keep him and his fellow Managers out of the school.

Mr Mabey's visit to the junior school on 27 June 1975

734. Shortly after hearing of, or receiving, a copy of the junior school staff's written statement of 23 June 1975, Mr Mabey decided to challenge the staff's right to exclude him from the school during working hours. His evidence to the Inquiry was that he intended the visit to be a confrontation because he regarded the staff's attempt to exclude the managers as a grave matter of principle that should be tested as soon as possible. Accordingly, he informed the Divisional Office that he proposed to exercise his 'rights' as a Manager by visiting the school during working hours, and that he proposed to do so on 27 June 1975 (48). He also asked that a member of the Divisional Office Staff should accompany him. The Divisional Office immediately alerted County Hall, and, on the day before his proposed visit, Mr Hinds telephoned him. It is not clear whether Mr Hinds advised him in terms not to make a managerial visit to the school. According to Mr Mabey, he understood Mr Hinds to be advising him not to cause trouble when he got to the school. The note made by Mr Hinds's personal assistant merely indicates as follows:

'Mr Hinds (1) asked Mr Mabey not to take any action which would further exacerbate an already difficult situation (2) refused to instruct the EO to ask Divisional staff to accompany him to the school (3) asked Mr Mabey to help retain what atmosphere of good sense and reason there remained in this situation.'

735. On Friday, 27 June 1975, Mr Mabey visited the junior school accompanied

(48) Mr Mabey had, on 20 June 1975, already made an appointment to visit the school on 27 June 1975.

[page 235]

by Mrs Fairweather. He saw Mr Ellis and asked whether, as previously arranged (49), he could visit the classrooms. Mr Ellis refused to allow him to go into the classrooms either on his own or accompanied, and indicated that he was adhering to the staff's written statement of 23 June 1975. Mr Mabey then asked him what courses he was preparing to offer the children transferring from the infants school in the following year. Mr Ellis said that he could not discuss such matters with him and referred Mr Mabey again to the staff's written statement of 23 June 1975. Mr Mabey pointed out that the managers had a legal responsibility for the conduct of the school and asked Mr Ellis whether he would be willing to accompany him around the school so that he could satisfy himself that it was being conducted in a proper manner and that the children were being properly cared for. Mr Ellis refused to answer this question without a representative of his Union being present, and at that point a Union representative joined them. Mr Ellis then asked by what criteria did Mr Mabey judge whether things were being carried out in a proper manner, and Mr Mabey replied with words to the effect that he wished to see whether the children were being taught and cared for properly. Despite a further request by Mr Mabey that he should be allowed to see round the classrooms either alone or in the company of Mr Ellis, Mr Ellis refused to allow him to do so, and asked him and Mrs Fairweather to leave, which they did.

736. Immediately following this abortive visit, Mr Mabey wrote to many people in public and official positions who were likely to be concerned, drawing their attention to what he described as Mr Ellis's obstruction of him in the exercise of his rights and duties as a Manager of the school. The only letter to which I need refer specifically is one to Mr Hinds of the same date, 27 June 1975, in which he indicated that he wished to make a formal complaint against Mr Ellis in respect of such behaviour and that he was discussing with the Chairman of the managers the convening of a Special Meeting of Managers to consider the complaint. That letter marks the first occasion throughout this sad story that anybody made a complaint for investigation under the Authority's Disciplinary Procedures (50).

737. Mr Mabey's visit to the school also prompted a complaint against him, written three days later, on 30 June 1975, by Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow to Mr Hinds. The complaint appears to have been that Mr Mabey, on his visit, was trying to inspect the school. The letter also contained a complaint against Mrs Gittings about her conduct in collecting signatures for the petition and for her alleged 'involvement' with Mrs Walker's Black Paper during the previous summer. The letter concluded with a request that 'the appointing body' should investigate the complaints (51).

738. Mr Tennant was one of the first people to be informed by Mr Mabey of

(49) See paragraph 734 above, footnote 48.

(50) See Chapter I, paragraphs 87-88 above.

(51) Presumably Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow had in mind the Authority considering the exercise of its statutory power under Section 21(1) of the 1944 Act to remove Mrs Gittings and Mr Mabey as Managers; see Chapter I, paragraph 90 above.

[page 236]

what had happened on his visit to the school. He immediately telephoned Mr Hinds and indicated that events were moving too fast and that, in his view, a joint meeting of all the junior school and Infants School staffs and all the managers should be convened as soon as possible. Mr Hinds agreed, and this meeting was arranged for Wednesday, 2 July 1975 at County Hall.

The visit of Mrs Hoodless and Mr Tennant to the junior school on 30 June 1975

739. On 30 June 1975 Mrs Hoodless and Mr Tennant visited the junior school in school hours and asked to see round the classrooms. They also were asked to leave, which they did. I do not understand what purpose they had in making this visit, knowing as they did of the reception that Mr Mabey had had three days before, and that a joint meeting had been arranged for 2 July at County Hall for both sides to discuss the whole problem.

The involvement of the national press

740. In addition to alerting the Authority and a large number of people in public positions of the events described above, Mr Mabey, in advance of the County Hall meeting fixed for 2 July 1975, took steps with some of his fellow Managers to obtain the widest possible publicity in the national press for their anxieties about the school. The other Managers involved in this press campaign were: Mr Tennant, Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Hoodless, Mrs Gittings and Mrs Burnett. Their justification, in evidence to the Inquiry, for this course was that they could not rely upon the Authority to take decisive steps to remedy the situation, and that it would have to be shamed into doing something as a result of public opinion expressed through a press campaign.

741. Even Mrs Burnett, who had not been involved in any of the managerial activities leading to the passing of the resolution by the managers at their Meeting on 19 May 1975, felt that the only course left was to go to the press. She said in evidence that it was the action of the junior school staff, through their Union, seeking to 'lock-in' children that prompted her to take this course and also to circulate the petition. She said that she became desperate to do something for the children, and that, as the Divisional Office would not do anything, and the managers were barred from the school, she felt that she had to let the public know why the managers were so concerned. It was also apparently believed by Mrs Burnett and the other Managers concerned that the junior school staff had themselves already made approaches to the press. Whether or not there was any justification for that belief, the managers, not the junior school staff, were the first to make their conflict public through the medium of the press.

742. Each of the managers whom I have mentioned above agreed to contact a particular national or local newspaper and provide it with information in the form of 'background notes' about the poor quality of education and lack of discipline at the school. Mrs Burnett was one of the first to contact the press. She telephoned the Education Correspondent of The Times on 1 July 1975, and provided him with a copy of the notes. Subsequently, he spoke to Mr Tennant and Mr Mabey. This contact on 1 July 1975 was made deliberately with a view to achieving press publicity

[page 237]

the following day, the day of the meeting convened by Mr Hinds at County Hall between the managers and the staffs of both schools. I was told in evidence that the purpose of that timing was 'to bring home to the Authority' at the meeting that it should take action.

743. On 2 July 1975, there duly appeared in The Times an article by its Education Correspondent, Mr Tim Devlin, under the heading, 'Teachers refuse to let Managers into school classrooms for inspection'. The article gave some account of the refusal of the junior school staff to let Managers visit the classrooms, the resolution by the North London Teachers' Association asking its members at other primary schools in the locality not to receive any William Tyndale School children, and quoted statements made by Mr Tennant, Mr Mabey and Mr Frederick Smith, Honorary Secretary of the North London Teachers' Association. It also reported that certain parents claimed that the junior school staff were left-wing teachers who felt that working class children should not be taught in the traditional method. The main burden of the article is perhaps best illustrated by the following quotation in it attributed to Mr Tennant:

'The whole concept of the managerial system is under attack. The Authority must decide the relationship of managers vis-a-vis the school. It is extremely short-sighted of the teachers not to allow managers in on the education of children. You cannot sweep things under the carpet.'

The meeting on 2 July 1975 between the managers and the staffs of the schools under the Chairmanship of Mr Hinds

The meeting and the managers' proposal for an inspection of the schools by Her Majesty's Inspectors

745. Mr Hinds opened the meeting on 2 July 1975 at County Hall between the managers and staffs of the two schools by inviting everybody present to try to find a common solution to their problems that would be in the best interest of the schools. He mentioned his receipt of the letters of complaint from both sides (52), which, he said, could possibly form the subject of disciplinary proceedings, and

(52) See paragraphs 736 and 737 above.

[page 238]

expressed the hope that they could go on to discuss matters freely without anyone fearing that their discussion would prejudice any such possible proceedings. To give everyone present an opportunity to consider that possible difficulty he then adjourned the meeting for a short time.

746. When the meeting resumed, Mr Ellis indicated that the staff of the junior school were prepared to continue the discussion, but that there were a number of specific matters that they did not want to discuss. Mr Tennant, however, very quickly intervened in an attempt to achieve some overall positive result from the meeting. He asked Mr Hinds to invite the staffs to join with the managers in asking for a full inspection of both schools. Mr Tennant went on to say that, if the staffs were agreeable to such an inspection, there would be no point in the meeting continuing, but that if the junior school staff were not agreeable to such an inspection, then the managers wanted clarification about their rights of access to the schools.

747. Mr Hinds said that he could not give any ruling or say anything that would pre-judge the issues relating to managerial access to the junior school. Mr Tennant then repeated his suggestion about a full inspection, and Mr Mabey intervened to say that it was an inspection on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education and Science by Her Majesty's Inspectorate (53) that the managers had in mind, not an inspection by the Authority's Inspectorate. There then followed some discussion about the respective forms of inspections by the Secretary of State and by the Authority, how long they would take, their effect on any disciplinary proceedings that might be contemplated against the junior school staff, and on the right of access of the managers to the junior school during the period before any such inspection took place. In the course of this general discussion Mr Hinds was asked to outline what an inspection by the Authority would entail. In his description he said that it gave:

'... a broad assessment of the school's academic activities, its social activities, its parent/teacher relationships, its relationship with its managing body; all aspects of the school life in a formal report.'

748. Following this discussion about the form that an inspection could take, Miss Hart indicated that the infants school staff would be quite willing for the infants school to be inspected. Mrs Chowles also spoke up, though almost in tears,

(53) ie under Section 77(2) of the Education Act, 1944; see Chapter I, paragraph 4 above.

[page 239]

to say that she had never had any quarrel with the managers and that she was prepared to agree to an inspection of her work. However, Mr Ellis and the remainder of his staff said that they would like to have time to think about the proposal. It was arranged that they should have a week to discuss it and that at the end of that time they should give Mr Hinds their answer. It was also agreed that if their answer was yes, Mr Hinds would take the steps necessary to put the matter before the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The meeting concluded with Mr Ellis reminding Mr Hinds that he had previously met separately with Mr Tennant to discuss the managers' case, but that he had not yet seen the junior school staff on their own to hear their side of the matter. Mr Hinds accordingly agreed, on their request, to visit the junior school on 8 July 1975 so that they could put their case to him before they gave their answer to the managers' proposal.

749. There is no doubt that, in the course of this meeting, Mr Hinds went out of his way to find a formula acceptable to both sides and which could lead to a lasting solution to the problems of the junior school. In the course of the discussion he also made plain that it would not be helpful to the school to involve the press in the disputes that had arisen, and advised everybody present not to talk to the press.

750. However, because the press had already been involved by certain of the managers, with the result that there was bound to be a good deal of press interest about what had happened at the meeting, it was decided that a short press statement should be issued by the Authority indicating what had been agreed.

751. A Special Meeting of Managers was arranged for 9 July 1975 at which the managers could receive and consider the decision taken by the staff.

The reaction of the junior school staff to the managers' proposal for an inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate

752. The junior school staff considered the managers' proposal in the course of the week and also the points that they were going to make to Mr Hinds on his forthcoming visit to the school on 8 July 1975. With the exception of Mr Austin (54), the junior school staff were disinclined from the start to agree to any inspection of the school. They had been told by Mr Hinds in the previous autumn that there had been no complaints about the staff (55); Mr Rice had exhibited no recent urgent concern about the quality of the education that they were providing (56); and they apparently took the view that the whole question of an inspection had simply been raised by the managers as part of their political campaign against them.

753. Moreover, the press campaign engineered by the managers, particularly the article in The Times on 2 July 1975, was entirely counter-productive so far as their attitude was concerned. Whatever success it may have had in bringing pressure to

(54) See paragraph 758 below - and also, not including Mrs Chowles, Mrs Arnold and Mrs Buckton; see Chapter VI, paragraph 495 above.

(55) See Chapter VI, paragraph 547 above.

(56) See paragraph 701 above.

[page 240]

bear on the Authority, its effect upon the staff was to increase their resentment of, and reluctance to cooperate with, the managers.

754. The events of the week preceding Mr Hinds's visit to the school tended to stiffen the opposition of the junior school staff (Mr Austin still excepted (56)) to the proposal that the school should be inspected by anybody. First, they received a report about the continuing circulation of the petition. Secondly, at a General Meeting on 7 July 1975, the North London Teachers' Association, on the basis of information provided by the junior school staff, and on the motion of Mr Haddow, seconded by Mr Felton, passed the following resolution:

'The NLTA affirms that the role of managers does not include inspection of individual teachers and their classwork.

We note that the staff of William Tyndale Junior School have been subjected to undue harassment and interference by managers and therefore we support in these circumstances their action in excluding the managers during school working hours.

We pledge the help of the NLTA to give every assistance to the teachers of William Tyndale Junior School in seeking an investigation into the actions of the managers in the period covering May 1974 to the present date.'

Mr Hinds's visit to the junior school on 8 July 1975

755. Mr Hinds visited the junior school in the early afternoon of 8 July 1975 and spent about two hours listening to the staff's account of the difficulties at the school since Mr Ellis's appointment as head teacher there. They spoke to him of the behaviour of the managers and of Mrs Walker, of political allegations which they believed had been made against them, and of their information indicating a campaign by some of the managers to secure the removal of Mr Ellis. For his part, Mr Hinds indicated that he had only become aware of troubles at the school in October of 1974. He told them of the visits that had been made by some of the managers to him in February and March of 1975 and of his request to Mr Rice to give him a report on the school. He concluded by indicating that, if they would agree to the proposal for an inspection, he would be prepared to request that the inspection should be of the 'total life of the school', including the conduct and involvement of the managers and parents, as well as of the staff. He also indicated

(56a) See paragraph 758 below - and also, not including Mrs Chowles, Mrs Arnold and Mrs Buckton; see Chapter VI, paragraph 495 above.

(57) See paragraph 662 above.

(58) See paragraph 688 above.

[page 241]

that they might like to take into account that their case would be strengthened if they were prepared to agree to an inspection.

756. Finally, Mr Hinds emphasised that the Authority would only consider action of a disciplinary nature against the staff if there were a severely damaging report from the Inspectorate or if the managers were to pass a formal resolution alleging incompetence against the staff. In that event, Mr Hinds said, a disciplinary tribunal would be set up chaired by an independent legally qualified chairman. As in his discussion with Mr Tennant on 16 June 1975 (59), Mr Hinds discounted the likelihood that such a procedure would result in any adverse finding against the junior school staff. According to Mr Ellis's evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Hinds said that, on the information which he had received from Mr Rice (60), 'the school was satisfactory on balance and what one might expect from any Inner London primary school'. Mr Hinds, in his evidence to the Inquiry, was not prepared to accept that he had described Mr Rice's report in such an unqualified way. According to him, he was more likely to have said that, from the report which Mr Rice had given him, the school was 'satisfactory on balance for any Inner London primary school having regard to the particular circumstances of the school'. (my italics). Whichever description Mr Hinds used, and whatever he could have intended to indicate by the qualification that I have underlined, Mr Hinds's remark must have been reassuring to the junior school staff. It was another indication in their eyes that there was no justification for the managers' proposal for an inspection of the school (61).

757. The meeting ended with Mr Ellis and his staff indicating that they would discuss the managers' proposal further and tell him their decision on the following day, 9 July 1974, the day fixed for the Special Meeting of Managers.

The refusal of the junior school staff to agree to the managers' proposal for an inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectors

758. It is highly likely that the junior school staff had made up their minds before Mr Hinds's visit that they would not submit to an inspection of the school. If not, they must have so decided very shortly after he left them. By the following day, 9 July 1975, they had ready for submission to him a letter indicating their refusal to accept the managers' proposal, and counter-proposing that the managers should join with them in a request to the Secretary of State for an official inquiry (62) into the management of the school. Only seven of the usual eight members of the junior school staff signed this letter. Mr Austin had disagreed with his colleagues

(59) See paragraph 711 above.

(60) ie the report dated 11 March 1975 that Mr Rice had prepared at the request of Mr Hinds following the latter's meeting with Mrs Fairweather, Mrs Gittings, Mrs Hoodless and Mrs Dewhurst on 27 February 1975; see Chapter VII, paragraph 634 above.

(61) For the use to which the junior school staff subsequently put this account by Mr Hinds, see paragraph 759-760 and Chapter IX, paragraph 795 below.

(62) Presumably under Section 93 of the Education Act, 1944; see Chapter I, paragraph 4 above.

[page 242]

in the discussion that led up to their decision. His view, which he put to them, was that it would look very bad, and was therefore tactically wrong, for them to refuse to agree to an inspection. Although he agreed with them in their general attitude to the Managing Body, he began to disagree with the methods that they were adopting. Accordingly, Mr Austin did not sign this letter; and from this point on, did not take any active part in the continuing conflict with the managers. Nor did he join with his colleagues in the conflict that was about to take place between them and the Authority - for the remainder of the Report, therefore, any references to the 'Junior School staff' in the context of their disputes with the managers and with the Authority do not include Mr Austin unless he is expressly mentioned.

759. The junior school staff's letter to Mr Hinds of 9 July 1975 was in the following terms:

'... We see no reason for such a general inspection since the Authority's own inspectorate, who are always welcome in the school, have expressed no concern about the educational efficiency of the school (63). You are well aware that we believe that any difficulties which the school may have encountered are the direct consequence of the circulation of a libellous and politically motivated document by a former member of staff of this school. These libels have been spread further and amplified since the summer of 1974, and despite our requests for an investigation by the Authority no action has been taken.

Members of the Managing body have been most hostile and unsupportive during this period. This hostility has been demonstrated in the action of one Manager, acting in concert with certain local Labour Party councillors, who have attempted to subvert the school by means of a vicious and clandestine petition. Any erosion of public confidence can be traced directly to these devious activities. The latest step in the campaign of hostility is the material provided for The Times and published on the 2nd July which attacked our professional reputations by alleging that we determined the school curriculum on political grounds (64).

No teacher on the present staff of the school is a member of, or committed to, any political party. The political nature of the attack upon us has forced us to make this statement which we feel should be unnecessary in an open society. The persons who supplied the information to The Times are, to the best of our knowledge, acting members of the Labour Party.

We are well aware that the terms of reference of an ILEA Tribunal or a general inspection would not provide for any investigation of the political campaign that has been waged against us. We are also aware that if we refuse to agree to a general inspection there is likely to be another unauthorised press release purporting to come officially from the managing body which will allege that we wish 'to sweep matters under the carpet'.

We are therefore inviting the managers to join with us in a request to the

(64) See paragraph 743 above.

[page 243]

Secretary of State for Education and Science for an official inquiry into the management of the school, since we believe that the managing body has acted unreasonably and proposes to continue to act unreasonably (65). If they do not wish to agree we shall exercise our own right to lay the facts of the case before the Secretary of State with a request for an official inquiry.

Furthermore, we feel that at this stage the following points which we set out below will help to resolve the situation and restore any public confidence which may have been lost as a result of the actions already described.

1. The managing body should issue a public statement of support for the staff of the school. Any manager refusing to do so should resign from the managing body.

2. The managing body should withdraw its resolution of May 19th 1975 which is based on the clandestine petition.

3. The ILEA should give the staff and parents written assurances that there are no plans for closure or reorganisation of the school.

4. The ILEA should make a public statement repudiating the political allegations made against the staff.

5. The ILEA should ensure, within their jurisdiction, that no further harassment of the staff and the school takes place.

We should also mention that since material is being circulated to the press which attacks our professional competence and which alleges that we have introduced politics into the education of our children we shall be compelled to counter any further misinformation ... '

761. On or about the same day that the junior school staff wrote the above letter to Mr Hinds, Miss Hart also communicated with him, reiterating that she and her staff were quite agreeable to an inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate.

(65) For the power of the Secretary of State to give directions where he is satisfied that managers 'have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably', see Chapter I, paragraph 92 above.

(66) See paragraph 756 above.

(67) See Chapter VII, paragraph 634 above.

[page 244]

The special meeting of managers on 9 July 1975

762. The special meeting of managers on 9 July 1975 was chaired by Mr Tennant. Mr Ellis communicated the decision of the junior school staff to the managers by circulating copies of their letter of that day to Mr Hinds. He then proposed, and Mr Haddow seconded, a motion calling upon the managers to join with the junior school staff in a request to the Secretary of State for an official inquiry into the management of the school. In the discussion that ensued on that motion, the managers indicated that, if the staff would agree to their proposal for an inspection, they were quite prepared that the terms of reference of the inspection should include an investigation of the conduct of the managers. However, that was still not good enough for Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow. Mr Haddow, in particular, maintained his objection to there being any inspection of the school, relying heavily in his argument upon the theme that the Authority's Inspectorate had already said that there was nothing wrong educationally with the school. After further discussion and consideration of variants of the two proposals being debated, the managers eventually resolved (with only Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow voting against) as follows:

'... that the managers of William Tyndale JM & I Schools request the ILEA to ask the Secretary of State at the Department of Education and Science to carry out a general inspection of the schools at the earliest possible moment. The inspection should include teaching, administration and Management.'

763. The Authority was now faced with complaints from both sides (68), a request from the junior school staff that the Secretary of State should hold an official inquiry into the conduct of the managers, and a formal resolution from the managers calling for a wide-ranging inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectors of both schools, to include their teaching administration and management. The Authority, in the face of these conflicting requests, decided that it would itself conduct both an inspection of, and an inquiry into, the affairs of the schools.

The Authority's decision to inspect the schools and to hold a Public Inquiry

The decision of 10 July 1975 to request the Schools Sub-Committee to institute inspections of both schools and to hold a Public Inquiry

764. On 10 July 1975 a meeting took place at County Hall to consider the managers' proposal, embodied in their resolution, and the junior school staff's counter-proposal contained in their letter to Mr Hinds of 9 July 1975. The meeting

(68) See paragraphs 736 and 737 above.

[page 245]

was chaired by Sir Ashley Bramall and attended by, among others, Mr Hinds, Dr Briault, Dr Birchenough, Miss Burgess and Mr Price, the new Divisional Officer. It was decided to ask the Schools Sub-Committee at its meeting on 24 July 1975 to institute a Public Inquiry into the schools and the relations between the managers and the staffs. As part of the evidence to be submitted to the Inquiry, there should also be produced a report of a general inspection of both schools to be carried out by the Authority and to take place as soon as possible in the autumn term. At this stage, that is, on 10 July 1975, the proposal was that the Inquiry would be conducted by a section of the Schools Sub-Committee, consisting of five of its members, one of whom was to sit as chairman.

765. This decision was communicated immediately to the two head teachers and staffs of the schools, the managers, and the press. Mr Hinds, in his letter to Mr Ellis informing him of the decision, also assured him and his staff that the Authority had 'no plans at present for the closure or reorganisation of the school', but added that the Authority would be reviewing primary school needs throughout London in the next few years because of the generally falling school rolls.

The rejection by the junior school staff of the Authority's proposal, and their attempt to obtain an Inquiry by the Secretary of State into the conduct of the managers

766. Miss Hart again indicated the wish of her staff to cooperate fully with the Authority in this proposal. However, the junior school staff, both before and after they learned of the above proposal by the Authority, continued to press exclusively for an inquiry appointed by the Secretary of State to investigate the managers' conduct and the political campaign that they alleged had been waged against them through the local Labour Party organisations. They wrote to the Secretary of State on 14 July 1975, and on a number of occasions subsequently, asking him to institute such an inquiry, and repeatedly pressed the Authority to support them in their request. The principal reasons that they gave for adopting and persisting in that attitude for what remained of the summer term and in the early part of the autumn term were as follows:

(i) Only a full public inquiry by the Department of Education and Science could have terms of reference wide enough to consider those which the junior school staff contended were the main issues, namely the origin and the conduct of the political campaign against the school.

(ii) Only a full public inquiry by the Department of Education and Science would have jurisdiction to examine the conduct of the managers and Mrs Walker, and the activities in relation to the school of members of the local Labour Party organisation and others not subject to any control by the Authority.

(iii) Because of the widespread circulation by some Managers of allegations against the school to the national and local press, it was being assumed, quite wrongly, by the public that the inspection and inquiry proposed were in the nature of a disciplinary measure against the head teacher and staff of the junior school. Only a full public inquiry could provide the opportunity to counter that impression.

[page 246]

767. Despite these representations, the Authority decided to continue with its proposal to conduct its own inspections and inquiry. After some considerable delay, the Department of Education and Science informed the junior school staff in the autumn term, by letter dated 15 September 1975, that the Secretary of State was not prepared at that stage to consider an inquiry by the Department. In its letter, the Department indicated that it would await the findings of the Authority's proposed Inquiry and consequent decisions of the Authority, and would decide in the light of that information whether an additional inquiry would be necessary.

The Authority's decision on 24 July 1975 to inspect the schools and to hold a Public Inquiry

768. On 24 July 1975, nearly a week after the end of the summer term, the Schools Sub-Committee, having received a report from its Chairman, Mr Hinds, resolved to institute a Public Inquiry into the teaching, organisation and management of both schools, the Inquiry to be preceded by a full inspection of the schools and the reports of those inspections to be made available as part of the evidence to the Inquiry.

769. It was decided that the Inquiry would be conducted by four members of the Schools Sub-Committee (three majority party and one minority party) chaired by an independent chairman who would not be a member of the Authority or of the Education Committee. It was intended that the inspection would be carried out at the beginning of the autumn term and that the Inquiry would commence its work in the week beginning 27 October 1975, to coincide with the half term holiday. It was resolved that the Inquiry's findings would be reported to the Schools Sub-Committee who would, in the light of those findings, consider what action, if any, should be taken.

770. This decision of the Schools Sub-Committee was notified to the managers and to the staffs of both schools by letter from the Clerk to the Authority on 25 July 1975. The Authority also issued a press release setting out the substance of what had been decided.

771. For the reasons which I have already summarised (69), the junior school staff were not at all satisfied with the decision, and were already considering the possibility of refusing to cooperate with the forthcoming inspection and Inquiry. However, the summer holiday intervened, and it was not until the end of August 1975 that the precise arrangements for both these forms of investigation were canvassed between the Authority and all the parties concerned.

772. Before concluding this chapter I should say a little more about the petition, and mention the counter-petition that it provoked. I should also refer to the press campaigns and publicity that became features of the continuing conflict up to the commencement of the Inquiry in the autumn term 1975.

(69) See paragraph 766 above.

[page 247]

The petition and the counter-petition

The petition

773. The petition started by Mrs Hoodless and Mr Pedrick continued to circulate up to about the middle of July 1975. The junior school staff persisted throughout in their attempts to find out all that they could about it. Those responsible for circulating it, equally, did all that they could to prevent the staff from obtaining information about it. One of the principal reasons for such continuing secrecy was no doubt the fact that the staff had indicated an interest in instituting proceedings for defamation against those whom they found to be responsible for organising and circulating the petition.

774. On 11 July 1975 an article appeared in the Islington Gazette indicating that the petition was in the possession of the three Ward Councillors for St. Mary's Ward (Mr Hoodless, Mr Mabey and Mr Pedrick) and was available to be produced to Mrs Page for submission to the Authority. Mrs McWhirter, having seen the article, wrote to Mrs Page asking for a copy. By the time that she received Mrs McWhirter's letter, Mrs Page had received the petition and had, on 15 July 1975, presented it formally to the Education Committee of the Authority. However, she requested the Clerk to the Authority to send copies of the petition to the staff, and she informed Mr Ellis by letter of 17 July 1975 that she had made that request. In the event, the Authority did not release copies of the petition showing its signatories to the staff until the mutual discovery of documents that took place shortly before the Inquiry. The junior school staff were, however, informed at the beginning of August that the names and addresses of the signatories would be put in evidence to the Inquiry. No doubt the Authority took this course because of the strong indications given by the junior school staff that they were considering using the petition and the information gleaned from it as evidence in proceedings for defamation.

775. As already indicated (70), when presented to the Education Committee, the petition contained 198 signatures, of which about 45 were of governors or managers of other schools in the Islington Division.

The counter-petition

776. In the meantime, a counter-petition had been organised by a group of people acting under the name of 'The William Tyndale Junior School Support Campaign'. Among those active in the organisation of this campaign were Miss Margaret Ford, a part-time teacher in the William Tyndale Infants School, and Mr David Harter, a solicitor working at the Islington Community Law Centre and a parent of two children at the William Tyndale Schools (71).

(70) See paragraph 673 above.

(71) One in the junior school and one in the infants school. He is the husband of Mrs Caryl Harter who, with Joan Mills, ran drama sessions at the junior school; see paragraph 664 above.

[page 248]

777. This 'Support Campaign' held a number of meetings attended by various people, including members of the junior school staff. Its object was to support actively the junior school staff and to counter what it regarded as vicious attacks upon the school by its Managers and others, including the press. It supported the junior school staff's request for a full inquiry into the activities of the managers, maintaining that, until this had been carried out and the staff had been allowed to get on with their job without harassment, there could be no accurate assessment of the school or its educational policy.

778. The counter-petition was in the following terms:

'We the undersigned support the present staff of William Tyndale Junior School in the work they have been doing in the school and wish them to continue to teach the children of Islington without harassment or interference from Managers, local Councillors, government Inspectors or the ILEA Authorities.'

The press campaigns

779. The publication of Mr Devlin's article in The Times on 2 July 1975, coupled with other approaches made by certain of the managers to the Press, sparked off and nourished a continuing and growing public interest in the problems of the junior school. From then on the conflict between the managers and the junior school staff was carried out in the full glare of press, television and radio publicity. This open debate engendered an even greater bitterness between the parties to the conflict and caused further damage to the school and the children still there.

780. The managers, some of whom had contacts with the press, fed information to it, some of it selective and slanted in its content, resulting in articles highly critical of the junior school. Thus, on 11 July 1975, the day after the decision had been made to ask the Schools Sub-Committee to set up an Inquiry, an article appeared in the Evening News under the heading 'Is this a school, or is it a scandal'. The junior school staff then began to react by making statements to the local and national press, denying that there were any grounds at all for concern about the educational standards of the school, and alleging that the conduct of the managers and others in relation to the petition, and the request for an inspection, were all part of a campaign attacking the alleged 'left-wing' views of the staff.

781. Some of the articles in the press were less objective than others, and some were obviously slanted according to the source of the information. Quite apart from the press comments that continued up to the opening of the Inquiry on

[page 249]

27 October 1975, even the purely factual reporting of each development in the conflict up to that time inevitably harmed the school and prejudiced what slight chance there remained of a sensible and conciliatory approach by both sides to the solution of the many problems that they faced. In saying that, I do not intend to criticise the authors and publishers of objective and factual accounts of the events leading up to the Inquiry once the junior school's difficulties had become public currency. The responsibility for the harmful effect resulting from the legitimate interest of the press in the school must lie on those - primarily the managers - who made the conflict public and who used the press and the other media as sounding boards to further their respective causes. In doing so, both factions showed a remarkable disregard for the interest and welfare of the subject of their dispute, the junior school and especially its children.

Comment on the term

782. The events set in train by certain of the managers at the end of the previous term inevitably produced a complete breakdown of relations between the managers and the junior school staff. The staff reacted in such a way as to excite further the managers' indignation at their behaviour. The result was a public confrontation between the two parties at the expense of the junior school and its children. Amidst this conflict, in which both sides behaved irresponsibly, the Authority still reacted sluggishly to the impending crisis at the school. The managers' resolution of 19 May 1975 which itself was nearly two months after Mr Hinds had first expected trouble (72), did not produce sufficiently urgent action from the Divisional Office or County Hall. The attempt by Mr Hinds to mediate between the parties, starting with his meeting with Mr Tennant on 16 June 1975 - nearly a month after the managers' resolution of 19 May 1975 - was not conducted with the urgency that the problem demanded. As I have already indicated, both sides were acting so unreasonably that events overtook Mr Hinds's attempts to mediate, and the Authority was eventually obliged to intervene by determining upon an inspection and a Public Inquiry.

(72) See Chapter VII, paragraph 646 above.

[page 251]

new school year. From the start of the term the teaching life of the school was completely overshadowed by the continuation and rapid escalation of the conflicts of the summer into a direct and public confrontation between the junior school staff on the one hand and the Authority and the managers on the other. Whatever teaching methods and organisation were adopted this term, they had little chance of success so long as the life of the school was affected by such conflict. The junior school staff were almost totally preoccupied with what must have been a very time consuming campaign to thwart the Authority's decision to conduct a full inspection of and public inquiry into the affairs of the Junior and Infants Schools.

787. Nevertheless, in order to appreciate the conditions in the junior school when the Authority's Inspectors first attempted their inspection in September and when they resumed it in October 1975, some brief account should be given of the new teaching organisation introduced at the start of the term.

788. There were no changes in the staff, save that Mrs Buckton, the part-time teacher who had replaced Mrs Walker, had left, and Mr Austin became a part-time teacher working half days only. That left the school with eight teachers,' not including Mr Ellis, as head teacher, to 114 children - a teacher/pupil ratio of about 1 to 14.

789. The staff decided to extend to the whole school the cooperative teaching and options scheme that they had introduced for the second and third year groups at the beginning of the previous school year. For this purpose they divided the school into seven class or 'base' groups which worked as individual groups in the mornings, principally on the basic skills. In the afternoons these seven groups disbanded and were formed into three 'team groups', each group working under a section of the staff and having its own series of optional activities. According to Mr Haddow's evidence to the Inquiry, it was planned to introduce eventually 'a team option system to include the whole school', that is, to discontinue the division of the school into team groups for the afternoon sessions and have a single series of options available to all the children in the afternoons.

790. Whatever the long-term potential of this further fundamental reorganisation of the teaching in the school, it was a bold step for the junior school staff to take at the beginning of what they must have known was going to be a difficult period for them and the school, whether they agreed to the proposed inspection and inquiry or not. If, at the beginning of the term, the staff were still considering, even as a mere possibility, that they might cooperate with the proposed inspection, it was surely foolish in the extreme to introduce radical changes in the teaching organisation of the whole school on the eve of such an inspection. If, on the other hand, they had made up their minds by the beginning of the term that, come what may, they were not going to submit to an inspection, thus provoking a confrontation with the Authority, the reorganisation of the school in the way described was

(1) Counting for this purpose Mrs Arnold and Mr Austin, both part-time teachers, as one full-time teacher.

[page 252]

wholly irresponsible. I say that, because the staff should have known, especially with the problems that they had experienced with their previous cooperative teaching scheme, that all their attention and effort would be necessary to ensure the minimum disruption for the children in the transitional phase of this new and much more ambitious reorganisation.

791. The brief account that I now give of the events leading up to the eventual inspection of the junior school in October 1975 is therefore of value in determining, not only the professional judgment of the junior school staff in the educational decisions that they took at the beginning of this term, but also their attitude to the solution of a problem where the interests of the children in the school were paramount.

The refusal of the junior school staff to submit to the Authority's inspection and Public Inquiry

The Authority's arrangements for the inspections of both schools

792. In normal circumstances the reporting Inspector on a full inspection carried out by the Authority's Inspectorate would be the District Inspector for the school concerned (2). However, the junior school staff had indicated very early on as one of their objections to an inspection by the Authority, that it would be unfair to the school in that it would take into account 'retrospective judgments' and 'retrospective criticisms'. By this they meant that Mr Rice, with his contact over the previous 18 months with people who had been critical of the junior school staff, would have difficulty in assessing the school as it was at the time of the inspection without also being influenced by previous criticisms of the staff that he may have heard. Accordingly, in order to allay any fears of the staff on that score, it was decided that Mr Pape, the staff Inspector for Primary Education, should take charge, as the reporting Inspector, of the inspection of the junior school. In the case of the infants school, the reporting Inspector appointed was Miss Nora Goddard, then a Senior Inspector of Infants Schools.

793. A few days before the start of the autumn term Mr Pape wrote to Miss Hart and Mr Ellis notifying them that the proposed inspections of their respective schools would take place from 22 to 30 September 1975. In his letters he asked both head teachers for the information customarily asked for in advance of an inspection (3), namely about the staff teaching organisation and methods, record keeping, educational aims and objectives and of the children's achievements.

The principal issues between the junior school staff and the Authority

794. Miss Hart and her staff set about complying with Mr Pape's request and preparing for the inspection of their school. The junior school staff, however,

(2) See Chapter I, paragraph 54 above.

(3) See Chapter I, paragraph 54 above.

[page 253]

made no preparation for the inspection. They and the members of the William Tyndale Junior School Support Campaign (4) continued to challenge the Authority's decision and to press for an inquiry to be instituted by the Secretary of State into the conduct of the managers and of others who, they claimed, had been conducting a campaign against them over the previous 18 months. There was voluminous correspondence between the various members of the junior school staff, on the one hand, and the Authority, the Secretary of State, the managers and many other people, on the other hand, in which the junior school staff campaigned for a reversal by the Authority of its decision. The junior school staff continued to rely strongly on the three arguments summarised in paragraph 752 of Chapter VIII of the Report, and, as the autumn term wore on, put forward additional reasons for their objection to the Authority's proposed inspection and Public Inquiry.

795. It may be helpful if I summarise in tabulated form the principal points, including the three already mentioned, relied upon by the junior school staff. They were as follows:

(i) Only an inquiry instituted by the Secretary of State could have terms of reference wide enough to investigate those which the junior school staff considered to be the real issues, namely the origin and conduct of the political campaign against the school.

(ii) Only an inquiry instituted by the Secretary of State would have jurisdiction to investigate the conduct of the managers, Mrs Walker and others who were not subject to any control by the Authority.

(iii) The inspection by the Authority would lend support to the belief, wrongly held by many members of the public as a result of the managers' press campaign, that the proposed inspection and Inquiry were in the nature of disciplinary measures against the head teacher and the staff of the school. Only a full public inquiry instituted by the Secretary of State could counter that false impression. Such an inquiry should be held before any decision was made whether to inspect the school.

(iv) The Authority had indicated to the junior school staff that it had received no complaints against them, and that Mr Rice's report on the school in March 1975 (5) had been a 'favourable report' and one which indicated 'no cause for concern'; and, therefore, there was no justification for the inspection of the junior school.

(v) The inspection by the Authority's Inspectorate could not include any investigation of the managers' conduct and of the alleged political campaign that had been conducted against the junior school staff; and consequently the inspection of the junior school would be one-sided.

(vi) The Authority's decision to hold the Inspection and Public Inquiry was based only upon a 'fraudulent' petition organised by people having no real con-

(5) See Chapter VII, paragraph 634 above.

[page 254]

nection with the school; and the Authority had refused to disclose to the junior school staff copies of the petition in advance of the Public Inquiry.

(vii) The Authority could not be impartial in the conduct of the Public Inquiry that it proposed, since the work of the Inquiry would include an investigation by a Labour Party controlled body, the Authority, into the conduct of the local Islington Labour Party in its campaign against the school; moreover, the likelihood of such Inquiry being partial was demonstrated by the fact that the Authority had done nothing to counter this campaign to date.

(viii) The inspection by the Authority's Inspectorate preceding the Public Inquiry would prejudice the Inquiry and certain legal proceedings (presumably for defamation) which the junior school staff said that they had instructed their solicitors to institute. In particular, the managers might pass any criticisms of the staff contained in the inspection report to the press before the Inquiry began (6).

(ix) The timing of the proposed inspection was wrong in that the work of the school might well have suffered as the result of the stress upon the staff during the previous term and in the weeks leading up to the inspection and the Public Inquiry.

(i) It was true that the Inspectors would not investigate or report on the management of the schools (7) or the conduct by outsiders in connection with the junior school. However, the Public Inquiry that was to follow the inspections would investigate all those matters fully; its terms of reference were to inquire into the teaching, organisation and management of the schools.

(ii) The Chairman of the Public Inquiry would be an independent legally qualified Chairman who would be free, if he so chose, to interpret his terms of reference widely.

(iii) Although Mr Rice, the District Inspector, had reported confidentially and informally on the junior school, the information that he had provided was inevitably not as full and precise as that which the full inspection could produce.

(7) cf the description of a full inspection conducted by the Authority's Inspectorate given by Mr Hinds to the staffs and the managers of the schools at his meeting with them at County Hall on 2 July 1975; see Chapter VIII, paragraph 747 above.

[page 255]

(iv) The full inspection by an impartial body of professional Inspectors, who had had no previous direct contact with the junior school, could, if the teaching methods and organisation of the school were satisfactory, be the best way of refuting the widespread criticism of the junior school staff as a result of the campaign of which they complained. Such inspection would produce an objective professional report which it was in everybody's interests to have as soon as possible.

(v) The Authority's Inspectors would examine the work of the school at the time of the inspection, and would be interested primarily in what they found at that time. Although they would take into account views expressed by other Inspectors who had previously been concerned with the school, the Inspectors would not discuss the work of the school with its managers or parents of its pupils.

(vi) As to the question of the proposed inspection prejudicing the Public Inquiry to follow it, the inspection reports would only be part of the evidence to be put before the Inquiry, and Dr Birchenough, Mr Pape and, if required, the individual Inspectors would be made available to give evidence and be cross-examined at the Inquiry.

797. The junior school staff decided to seek the aid and advice of their professional associations, the National Union of Teachers and the North London Teachers' Association, in their dispute with the Authority.

798. The first positive result of the junior school staff's moves to obtain union support occurred on 8 September 1975, at a General Meeting of the North London Teachers' Association. At this meeting Mr Ellis moved, Mr Haddow seconded, and the meeting approved the following resolution:

'The North London Teachers' Association is gravely concerned at the political witch hunt which has been mounted in the press against the head teacher and staff of the William Tyndale Junior School.

The Association notes that the teachers concerned are already in contact with the NUT Legal Department and calls upon the ILEA and the Union to take the most energetic steps to defend these teachers and the Association from the unfounded political attacks which are being made. These steps to include the following:

(a) the ILTA (8) to demand immediately from the ILEA that the primary purpose of any inquiry which might take place shall be a full investigation of the origin and purpose of the political attacks made on the William Tyndale Junior School.

(b) The ILTA to demand that on any inquiry that may be set up that teacher representatives shall sit on the inquiry in the same proportion as Authority representatives.

[page 256]

(c) That the ILTA demand that no inspection of the William Tyndale Junior School should precede the necessary investigation into the political allegations which have been made. (my italics)

(d) That at any inquiry that may be held this Association be permitted representation since the Association has been publicly attacked for improper action in connection with its decision on the William Tyndale School at its July meeting (9),

(e) That the NUT ensure that all possible legal steps to defend the members concerned and the Association be taken.

(f) That Association delegates to the Islington Trades Council press for support.'

799. As will appear (10), neither the National Union of Teachers, nor the Inner London Teachers' Association, nor the North London Teachers' Association, gave any support to the action that the junior school staff took when the Authority's Inspectorate attempted to begin the inspection of the junior school on 22 September 1975.

The strike and the inspections

800. On 10 September 1975 Mr Pape met the junior school staff at the school and attempted to impress upon them the importance to the school and to themselves of cooperating with the Authority in the proposed inspection. However, his efforts were in vain. On the following day, 11 September 1975, the staff wrote to Mr Hinds giving a clear indication that they proposed to take some positive action to frustrate the Authority's intention to inspect the school. Their letter concluded with the following two paragraphs:

'We are now of the opinion that this unprecedented attack on a school and its staff has gone beyond our extreme toleration and that we will not submit ourselves any further to this politically motivated witch-hunt.

Therefore should the Sub-Committee not indicate a change in its proposals by 4 pm on Wednesday, 17 September we will be forced to take our own action against this decision.'

(9) This is a reference to the General Meeting of the Association on 7 July 1975 at which it approved a resolution of support to the staff of William Tyndale Junior School in excluding the managers from the school during School hours; see Chapter VIII, paragraph 722 above.

(10) See paragraph 801(iii) below.

[page 257]

the support of the parents of the children at the school by inviting them to a meeting on Tuesday, 16 September 1975, the eve of the ultimatum date that they had given to Mr Hinds in their letter to him of 11 September 1975. On the day of the parents' meeting (which was very poorly attended) the junior school staff received a letter from Mr Hinds indicating that the Authority would not submit to the ultimatum it had been given. The staff - with five days to go before the inspection was due to commence - were now faced with the decision whether to back down or implement their threat. They decided on the latter course, that is, to go on strike on Monday, 22 September 1975 when the Inspectors came into the school. They decided upon and adhered to, that decision despite:

(i) an offer by Mr Pape to visit the school again to discuss with them the proposed inspection and an undertaking from him that the Inspectors would have no regard to any previous opinions formed by the Inspectorate on the work of the school - an offer and an undertaking that the staff did not accept;

(ii) an offer by Dr Briault, the Education Officer, to meet them on Friday, 19 September 1975, to discuss the position - an offer that they did not accept;

(iii) advice given to Mrs McWhirter in the late afternoon of Friday, 19 September 1975, by the Action Officer of the National Union of Teachers that they should not withdraw their services and should cooperate with the Authority in the inspection - advice that was subsequently confirmed by Mr Fred Jarvis, the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers and reflected in resolutions of the Inner London Teachers' Association and the North London Teachers' Association notified to the staff.

'Dear Mr Price,

I regret to inform you that due to a withdrawal of labour by seven members of the Junior Staff I shall be closing the school from Monday, 22 September onwards. Parents have been given due notice ... '

'Regrettably, therefore, we are forced to withdraw our labour temporarily until the full and impartial enquiry we have demanded is secured. The school will be closed from Monday onwards. We ask you to join with us in our demand that the present staff can carry on educating your children without being harassed by outside political activity.'

[page 258]

completing it by the end of the week. The junior school, however, was closed. There were no junior children on the premises; and, of the staff, only Mrs Chowles and Mrs Arnold had reported in at the school for work. Mr Austin, who had never associated himself with the rest of the staff in the manner of their opposition to the Authority's decision, reported to the Divisional Office that morning, and later on that week resigned from the Authority's service.

804. Although Mr Ellis and the rest of his staff did not go to the school to work that morning, they were outside the premises with a number of supporters forming a picket line. They had also prepared a press release and held a press conference for the several members of the press who were present to record this unusual event. Their strike action continued until 16 October 1975, during which period daily pickets were organised outside the school, and Mr Ellis and his colleagues, with the assistance of the William Tyndale Junior School Support Campaign, took every opportunity to publicise their cause through the press, on television and on the radio.

805. The junior school remained closed on Monday and Tuesday, 22 and 23 September 1975. On the Monday Dr Briault wrote to the junior school staff drawing their attention to Section 77(4) of the Education Act 1944 (which provides that it is a criminal offence punishable on conviction in a Magistrates' Court to obstruct any person authorised by that provision to make an inspection of a school (11)) and instructed them to return to work on Wednesday, 24 September 1975. Dr Briault also telephoned Mr Ellis and invited him and his staff to discuss the matter with him at County Hall on the following day, Tuesday 23 September.

806. The junior school staff met with Dr Briault on Tuesday, 23 September but nothing came of it. Dr Briault asked them to return to work, but they refused to do so unless the Authority called off its inspection and proposed Public Inquiry, and, in place of them, requested the Secretary of State to institute an inquiry under Section 93 of the Education Act 1944 (12). Dr Briault indicated that the Authority would not consider such a course. The meeting ended with the junior school staff saying that they intended to continue with their strike action, and they immediately issued a statement to the press confirming their intention.

807. On Wednesday, 24 September 1975, the school re-opened with Mrs Chowles and Mrs Arnold and the team of Inspectors temporarily taking responsibility for the 70 or so children who returned to the school. That arrangement continued for the remainder of the week, and on the following Monday, 29 September 1975, the Inspectors were replaced by a temporary staff headed by two advisory head teachers. During the three days, from 24 to 27 September 1975, that the Inspectors were in the school teaching the children, they attempted to make some assessment of the school. Their individual assessments were collated by Mr Pape and eventually appeared in the form of a report signed by Dr Birchenough on

(11) See Chapter I, paragraph 51, footnote 41.

(12) See Chapter I, paragraph 4 above.

[page 259]

8 October 1975. That report, a copy of which is set out in Appendix XIII to the Report, was not, and did not purport to be a full inspection report (13). In the highly unusual circumstances in which the Inspectors were in the school, acting themselves as substitutes for the children's normal teachers following three very turbulent weeks at the beginning of the school year, it was necessarily a report which was subject to many qualifications. As will appear when I deal with that Report (14), Mr Pape could not have made it plainer than he did in compiling it that it was unavoidably a very incomplete document and one from which no final conclusions should be drawn.

808. During the remainder of the first week of their strike, and while the Inspectors were still teaching in the junior school, the junior school staff took steps to find premises where they could open an 'alternative school' for the duration of their dispute with the Authority. They managed to obtain the use of an old chapel known as Gaskin Street Chapel, which is situated at the corner of Gaskin Street and Upper Street in Islington, not far from the William Tyndale Schools. On the following Monday, 29 September 1975, they opened the 'Gaskin Street Chapel School' with some 24 of their pupils from the junior school attending. The junior school staff continued to attend there daily with about the same number of pupils attending for just over two weeks until and including Tuesday, 14 October 1975, when they discontinued the use of the Chapel. On Thursday, 16 October 1975, the junior school staff returned to teach at the junior school. They did so on the basis that they would cooperate with the Inspectors in the inspection of the school, which was resumed that day, and that they would attend and submit evidence to the Public Inquiry instituted by the Authority due to commence on Monday 27 October 1975. The Inspectors completed their inspection by Thursday, 23 October 1975, and the inspection report, duly signed by Dr Birchenough, was available for production in evidence at or shortly after the opening of the Public Inquiry. It is included as Appendix XV to this Report.

809. I have recorded in outline only the events following the junior school staff's decision to go on strike on 22 September 1975 up to the commencement of the Public Inquiry on 27 October 1975. I have taken that course because I consider that a detailed consideration of those events, to which a great deal of publicity has been given, would be of little value in this Report. My Inquiry is into the teaching, organisation and management of the schools, and is concerned only peripherally with the attitudes and behaviour of the junior school staff once they had decided to go on strike and, for a time, to continue to oppose the inspection and Public Inquiry instituted by the Authority.

810. However, there are a number of matters that arose during the period between 22 September 1975 and 27 October 1975 that should be recorded before I consider - in Chapter X of the Report - the reports of the inspections of both schools. These matters are concerned principally with the conduct of the managers.

(13) See Chapter I, paragraphs 54 and 55 above.

(14) See paragraph 815 below.

[page 260]

The managers' conduct following the start of the strike by the junior school staff

811. On Monday, 29 September 1975, Mr Tennant convened and chaired a Special Meeting of Managers - a meeting which Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow attended. This was the day on which the temporary teaching staff began to work at the junior school and on which the junior school staff opened the 'Gaskin Street Chapel School'. There was a good deal of discussion and debate about the turn of events and a number of resolutions proposed and passed. One of the resolutions consisted of a formal complaint by the Managing Body to the Authority in respect of the strike action from 22 to 29 September 1975 of Mr Ellis and his six colleagues. This resolution of complaint was formally communicated to the Authority for action to be taken under its Disciplinary Procedures (15). Information about the complaint was also immediately passed by Mr Tennant to a reporter of the 'Guardian' newspaper, and that newspaper published details of that complaint the following day. Such an action was in clear breach of the spirit of the Instrument of Management governing the proceedings of the managers (16), under which disciplinary cases involving members of the staff of a school should be treated as confidential. Mr Tennant claimed at the General Meeting of Managers for the autumn term 1975 held the following week that he had been unaware that he had contravened any provision of the Instrument of Management in this respect. Whether or not he was aware of the precise terms of the Instrument and its accompanying Explanatory Notes - and he should have been so aware, since he had been Chairman of the Managing Body since February 1975 - he must have known that disciplinary matters should be regarded as confidential. As to the resolution of complaint, the Authority decided that no action should be taken under its Disciplinary Procedures until after the completion of the Public Inquiry and the submission of this Report (17).

812. The second matter occurring during the period 22 September 1975 to 27 October 1975 that should be recorded in the Report arose at the General Meeting of Managers held exactly one week later on Monday, 6 October 1975. At this meeting - also attended by Mr Ellis and Mr Haddow - Mr Tennant and Mrs Fairweather were elected respectively Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Managing Body for the ensuing school year. By now the strike of the junior school staff was entering its third week and the temporary teaching staff at the junior school had reorganised the teaching arrangements for the 70 or so children attending the school. Many of the managers did not wish Mr Ellis and his colleagues to return to the school. They regarded such a possibility as contrary to the interests of the children still there, and they wanted to guard against any further disruption or

(15) See Chapter I, paragraphs 86-89, and Appendix VIII to the Report.

(16) See Chapter I, paragraph 66, and Clause 13(v) of, and Explanatory Note 7, to the Instrument of Management set out in Appendix VI to the Report.

(17) As appears from my Statement of Submission of the Report to Mr Hinds, the Chairman of the Schools Sub-Committee (see pages (i)-(viii) above), the managers, shortly after the commencement of the Public Inquiry, formally requested the Authority not to proceed with that complaint.

[page 261]

break in continuity of their education. With those objects in mind, the Managing Body passed, albeit with a large number of abstentions, the following resolution:

'Resolved the managers seek assurance from the ILEA that the teachers at present at William Tyndale Junior School should continue until the Inquiry had reported, and the Authority be asked not to accept any return to work to William Tyndale Junior School by the striking teachers until that time.'

814. By Wednesday, 8 October 1975, that is two days after the Managers' General Meeting, Dr Birchenough, the Chief Inspector, had seen and signed the two Reports prepared respectively by Miss Goddard and Mr Pape following the visits of the two teams of Inspectors to the schools during the week beginning 22 September 1975. The Report on the infants school (18) was a complete report following the full inspection of the school. The Report on the junior school (19) was not, and could not have been, a complete Report following a full inspection of the school. For the reasons already described, there had been no full inspection of the junior school. The Report on the junior school was therefore simply headed 'Report Based On Visits By The Authority's Inspectors To William Tyndale Junior School During The Week Beginning 22 September 1975'.

(18) See Appendix XIV to the Report where it is set out in full.

(19) See Appendix XIII to the Report where it is set out in full.

[page 262]

815. I shall refer to the contents of the Inspectors' Reports on both Schools in Chapter X of this Report. However, for the purpose of putting in context the action of certain managers in relation to them, I should indicate that the Report on the infants school was good, and that the Report on the junior school, if read as a complete and unqualified Report, was bad. But the Report on the junior school made quite plain that it should not be read as a final Report; indeed, it spelt out in the plainest terms that it was an incomplete Report and that any conclusions in it should be treated with great caution. I set out below certain extracts from that Report to demonstrate the care that Mr Pape took to warn its readers of its necessary shortcomings:

...

What follows is a report of the inspecting team upon the school. It is not the report of a full inspection of the school. A full inspection of the school could not be conducted in the circumstances. It contains factual information about the school and such a description of the school as it is possible to make within the restricting and abnormal circumstances of the inspectors' visit. The headmaster had prepared no information for the inspecting team. The inspector-in-charge did not feel that he should depart from the normal courtesies so far as to open the files of the headmaster or examine the contents of the teachers' or children's desks ...

Even in normal staffing circumstances, any assessment of the school at this point would have to make allowance for a number of factors such as the pressures bearing upon the staff preceding it and also its early incidence in the new school year. Normally a meeting with the staff is held at the conclusion of an inspection to go over certain points, and details are checked with the headmaster. That has not been possible on this occasion and it has not been thought proper to ask the deputy to act for the staff and headmaster in that regard. It must be reiterated that an inspection of the school has not been completed. This is a report on the school on information available about it and an experience of it in very unusual circumstances. ...

It is extremely difficult in the exceptional circumstances of the visit to assess standards of behaviour. The closure of the school and the absence of their own teacher were bound to prove unsettling. ... How the situation encountered by the inspectors compares with the normal tenor of the children's ways cannot be gauged by the inspectors. ...

Conclusion

The condition of the school as presented to the inspectors during their visit to it is such as to warrant a full inspection of it at the earliest opportunity ... ' (20)

(20) The passages italicised were underlined in the original Report.

[page 263]

appropriate officers of the Authority and the then Members of the then Committee of Inquiry (21). He did not authorise their distribution to the press; nor would it have been normal for him to do so in ordinary circumstances. In these circumstances, with an incomplete and highly qualified report on the junior school and a Public Inquiry into the schools about to take place, it should have been obvious to all concerned that it was in nobody's interests, least of all those of the junior school children, that the report on the junior school should be given publicity at that stage. However, Mr Tennant, the Chairman of the managers, very soon took a different view.

817 Mr Tennant received his copies of the two reports on Saturday, 11 October 1975. Notwithstanding the reservations in the report on the junior school that I have set out above in paragraph 815, he was so disturbed by the criticisms of the school which the report contained that he made urgent arrangements for a meeting on Wednesday, 15 October 1975 with Sir Ashley Bramall. The meeting was fixed to take place at 4 pm that day. In the meantime, Mr Tennant learned that the junior school staff intended to return to their work at the junior school on Thursday, 16 October 1975 (22) and that the Authority intended to resume the inspection of the junior school as soon as they returned in order to prepare a further report for the forthcoming Inquiry. In the light of what he had read in the incomplete report Mr Tennant felt that it was against the interests of the children still at the school that the junior school staff should be allowed back into the school. He could not see what further knowledge could be gained, or was needed, by a completion of the inspection since, as far as he was concerned, the incomplete report 'was a damaging document and the coffin did not need its last nail banged in'. Moreover, in addition to the judgement on the junior school staff that he had formed from the incomplete report, he was concerned about the double disruption to the children still at the school that a return of the staff would involve - a changeover from the temporary teaching staff to the junior school staff for a few days, then a change back again when the junior school staff had to be absent from the school in order to attend the forthcoming Public Inquiry. Mr Tennant's views were apparently shared by a number of people: many of his fellow managers, the infants school staff, the temporary teaching staff, and a number of parents of children still at the school who threatened to withdraw their children if the junior school staff were allowed back.

818. The various matters of concern that I have mentioned in the preceding paragraph were all matters that Mr Tennant was proposing to discuss with Sir Ashley Bramall at the meeting fixed for Wednesday, 15 October 1975 at 4 pm. However, he felt that Sir Ashley Bramall and Mr Hinds and the various officers of the Authority concerned would not appreciate the weight of his arguments unless they were backed up by press publicity. He also appears to have felt that press publicity adverse to the junior school staff might dissuade them from returning to the school on Thursday, 16 October 1975. Accordingly, at mid-day on Wednesday,

(21) See the Statement of Submission of the Report, pages (i}-(viii).

(22) See paragraph 808 above.

[page 264]

15 October 1975 - four hours before his meeting with Sir Ashley Bramall - Mr Tennant, with the assistance of Mrs Hoodless, released copies of the incomplete report on the junior school to the London evening newspapers, in time for publication that afternoon, and to the national and local press. At about the same time Mr Mabey was exerting his own form of pressure on the Authority by telephoning Dr Birchenough and threatening to issue proceedings in the High Court to obtain an injunction against the Authority to prevent it from allowing the junior school staff to return to the school (23).

819. As a result of the midday activities of Mr Tennant and Mrs Hoodless on Wednesday, 15 October 1975, the meeting with Sir Ashley Bramall at 4 pm that day coincided with the publication of editions of the Evening Standard and Evening News each carrying prominent headlines about the junior school, and referring to the incomplete Report on the school that had been released to them. The tenor of each newspaper report is well illustrated by its headline. The headline in the 'Evening Standard' read '"Children can't read or do sums" REBEL SCHOOL IS SLAMMED'. The 'Evening News' carried an even more dramatic headline, 'SCHOOL OF SHAME "Pupils can't use rulers or spell easy words"'. The tactic was a repeat of that which Mr Tennant and his fellow managers had employed for their meeting on 2 July 1975 with Mr Hinds, which produced the article by Mr Devlin in the Times on that day (24). However genuine and well founded the apprehensions of Mr Tennant and Mrs Hoodless may have been, it was, in my view, thoroughly irresponsible of them to seek to use the press as a lever in support of their arguments at a meeting convened between them and Sir Ashley Bramall to try to find a solution to a very difficult situation. Their action was irresponsible first, because they knew that the report was an incomplete one, secondly because the publicity that it would generate would be harmful to the school and its children, and thirdly because it was potentially prejudicial to the interests of the junior school staff at the Public Inquiry which was due to start in just under a fortnight. Finally, and at a totally different level, it was gross bad manners to ask for such a meeting with Sir Ashley Bramall and then to present him, whilst the meeting was in progress, with outside pressure of this sort through the medium of press publicity.

820. The pressure tactics adopted by Mr Tennant and Mrs Hoodless produced nothing except harmful notoriety for the school and close attention from the press for the remaining weeks leading up to the Public Inquiry. As to the meeting with Sir Ashley Bramall on the afternoon of Wednesday, 15 October 1975 (25), Sir Ashley Bramall indicated that it was the Authority's intention to allow the junior school

(23) There is no evidence that Mr Mabey ever sought to implement this threat, or on what legal basis he considered that such proceedings could be justified.

(24) See Chapter VIII, paragraph 743 above.

(25) A number of people attended the meeting in addition to Sir Ashley Bramall and Mr Tennant. Among them were: Miss Hart and Mrs Jayasinghe (the Deputy Head Teacher of the infants school), Mr Bolland (the manager nominated by the University of London, Institute of Education), Mr Hinds, Dr Briault, Dr Birchenough, Miss Burgess, and Mr Price (the new Divisional Officer).

[page 265]

staff to return to the school the following day and that, simultaneously, the Inspectors would resume their inspection of the junior school. As to the junior school staff, they did return to work at the school on the following day, and the inspection was resumed - under the renewed glare of publicity generated by the action of Mr Tennant and Mrs Hoodless. No inspection of a school could have started (or resumed) in worse circumstances. Most of the national morning papers on Thursday, 16 October 1975 gave prominent coverage, in similar vein to that in Wednesday's evening papers, to the incomplete report on the school that had been released to them.

The resumption of the inspection of the junior school

821. The inspection of the junior school resumed on Thursday, 16 October 1975, and lasted until the following Thursday, 23 October 1975. Mr Ellis and all the junior school staff were present, except Mrs Chowles, who was away on a course, and Mr Austin, who had resigned from the Authority's service (26). Fifty-seven children only were present; a number were not sent to the school by their parents on hearing of the return of the junior school staff, but the absence of these children was balanced by the return of the children who had been attending the 'Gaskin Street Chapel School'. Throughout the period of the inspection the average number of children attending the school was about 55. Mrs Chowles returned from her course on the second day of the resumed inspection, Friday, 17 October 1975, and was present for the remainder of the inspection. On the day of Mrs Chowles's return, Mr Ellis was absent due to sickness, but apart from that day, he too was present throughout the inspection. In due course a report of the resumed inspection was prepared by Mr Pape and signed by Dr Birchenough (27). This time the report was marked 'Confidential'.

822. Although the resumption of the inspection of the junior school with the cooperation of the junior school staff enabled the Inspectors to obtain a good deal more information than on the occasion of the previous visit of the Inspectors, it was still an inspection of a school in highly abnormal circumstances. Accordingly, that report too could not and did not purport to be a final judgement on the school. The report itself explained and expressed the qualifications subject to which it should be read in the following terms:

'... The sample of children present had changed from the earlier occasion, as it now included those who had been absent with the teachers and excluded some of those who had been present then ...

During the absence of permanent staff, changes had been made in the use of

(27) See Appendix XV to the Report, where it is set out in full.

[page 266]

teaching spaces, children had been re-grouped and the temporary teachers had mounted their own display ...

The advantage of the second occasion was in having the staff present to talk about their work. The circumstances of the second visit were, however, if anything more abnormal and more complex than the first. There were some different children now present and another change in head and staff; children who remained throughout might have been affected by a different approach under the different regime. There were the environmental changes which have been mentioned. Children had been upset yet again, although they were all now with their familiar teachers; the teachers themselves were passing through a trying time. Classes were, however, very small. The visitation was later in the term but the work already done by the children with their own teachers harked back to the first three weeks of term.

There was also the presence in the classrooms of inspectors. A carpenter was also present for one day in one classroom. It must be stressed again that, as on the first occasion, this further examination of the work of the school occurred in circumstances quite inappropriate for a full inspection. All that can be said is that the inspectors have gained some further information about the school and have had a further and different experience of it. In respect of conversation with the staff, the position seemed to be that they would answer questions but not volunteer information. A final meeting of the staff with the inspector-in-charge (28), at which they were invited to inform him of anything of which he may be unaware, found them silent on the work of the school. It must be said of them, however, that in their relations with the inspecting team they behaved professionally. ...

Conclusions

The staff understandably refer to the mounting pressure upon them. They have not been able to concentrate on their work; they may have left things undone which they ought to have done. ... It is difficult to gauge how closely the state of affairs experienced during the two periods when the inspectors were present reflects the usual condition of the school. The school as it normally is has not been inspected. It is not known what the school would have been found to be like or what could with confidence be said about it had it been possible, as with the infants school, to inspect it fully at this time.

... 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. The question remains how much are they in the right and how much in error and what is the true level of their achievements and their failures and what might they be prepared to do about it. The inspectors have submitted their findings as the outcome of a most difficult assessment exercise and with all the qualifications inherent in the exceptional circumstances. They are not in a position to offer a final judgment.'

[page 267]

823. I have deliberately detailed in this chapter the reservations in, and avoided the substance of, the two reports of the Inspectors on the junior school. I have adopted that approach in order to reserve for the next and final chapter of this Report my consideration of the Inspectors' reports as part of the totality of evidence put before the Inquiry upon which my conclusions are drawn. Insofar as the tentative conclusions of the Inspectors in relation to the junior school are borne out by other compelling evidence upon which I can draw conclusions, then the professional views expressed in those reports are of reassurance to me. Insofar as there is an absence of other compelling evidence on a particular matter of importance with which the Inspectors' reports deal, then it may be that I, like the Inspectors, may be compelled to say that I am 'not in a position to offer a final judgement'. For reasons that must be apparent to the reader by now the favourable inspection report on the infants school need not be treated with the same caution.

824. I have now completed my account of the affairs of the William Tyndale Schools from the beginning of the autumn term 1973 to the eve of the Public Inquiry commencing on 27 October 1975. The extraordinary events of the first half of the autumn term immediately preceding the Public Inquiry speak for themselves and do not call for an end of chapter 'Comment', which I hope has been of help in the case of previous terms. I will accordingly pass directly to my Summary and Conclusions in Chapter X.

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

(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).

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.

(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

[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.

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).

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.

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.

(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):

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 ....

(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. ... '

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)

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).

(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.

(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

(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).

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.

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

(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.

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

(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

(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.'

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

[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

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

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

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 persons proposing to give evidence have been received. The Secretary to the Committee of Inquiry will then notify you of the order proposed to be adopted.

5. At the conclusion of all the evidence all persons who have given evidence at the Inquiry or their Representatives may address the Committee in the following order:

(a) Any person other than the Managers, Teachers, Parents or Education Officer;
(b) Parents of children at the schools;
(c) The Schools' Managers;

[page 315] (I 3)

(d) The Schools' Teachers;
(e) The Education Officer.

6. After all the closing addresses have been heard the Committee will adjourn to consider its findings and will report them to the schools' Sub-Committee at a date and at a time that will be notified to all interested parties.

[page 316] (II 1)

Appendix II

Chairman's Opening Statement

I shall open this Public Inquiry by explaining the difficulties that have arisen this morning. A Committee of Inquiry was appointed following a resolution passed on 24 July 1975 by the Inner London Education Authority's Schools Sub-Committee to set up a special inquiry into the teaching, organisation and management of the William Tyndale Schools. It is now clear that this Inquiry is likely to last longer than was at first thought, and difficulties have arisen at a late stage in constituting the Committee of five first agreed.

Accordingly, I have been asked by the Chairman of the Schools Sub-Committee to hold this Inquiry alone, with the assistance of two members of the former Committee of Inquiry who will sit in a purely advisory capacity. I shall conduct the Inquiry, and I shall prepare and bear sole responsibility for the Report. I am a practising barrister and totally independent of the Authority and any of its Committees.

My advisers are:

Mrs Dora Loftus, an additional Member of the Education Committee and a Member of the Schools Sub-Committee, and a School Governor of considerable experience; and

Mr George Carter, an additional Member of the Education Committee, and a Member of the Schools Sub-Committee, an experienced head teacher.

I should emphasise that I am not a Court or Tribunal. At the end of my hearings it is not my job to decide what if any, action should be taken in respect of the schools or even to make recommendations as to what should happen. I am entrusted with the task of investigating and finding, on the evidence submitted to the Inquiry, the facts relating to the teaching, organisation and management of the schools giving rise to, and up to the time of, this Inquiry.

When I have heard all the evidence and formulated my findings I shall report them to the Schools Sub-Committee, and my work is finished. My Report will be presented to a meeting of the Schools Sub-Committee and will be published at the same time.

Although I am not a Tribunal, I am totally independent in the way in which I shall go about my work and reach my conclusions.

I mean to see that every person who has a real and direct interest in, or contribution to make to the the Inquiry, shall be given an opportunity to present his or her case and to challenge the case of any other person with which he or she disagrees. In saying this, I take the opportunity to emphasise that the Authority, which is submitting evidence to the Inquiry, will be treated in exactly the same way as any other party appearing before me.

In reaching my conclusions and making my findings, I shall rely only upon the evidence submitted to me at the Inquiry. I cannot and will not take into account any press reports that I may have read or that I may see while the Inquiry continues.

[page 317] (II 2)

In this connection, I note with regret, that since the commencement of the Inquiry, there has been certain press comment on the conduct of persons who are likely to give evidence to me. Such comment, as distinct from purely factual accounts of events taking place prior to the beginning of the Inquiry, were unfortunate. I sincerely hope that, in the interest of the proper conduct of the Inquiry, all parties will, until after I have completed my work and presented my Report, avoid public comment on the merits of the issues canvassed before me or on the conduct of the persons concerned.

I recognise, of course, and welcome the fact that the press has an interest and a duty to fulfil in reporting the proceedings of this Public Inquiry, but I hope that it will in turn recognise the importance of restricting its coverage to purely factual accounts of the proceedings. Also I earnestly request the press to adopt the practice - obligatory in Court proceedings - of not identifying, directly or indirectly, children whose names may feature in the evidence presented to me. Similarly, I hope that the parties to the Inquiry will avoid mentioning the names of children whenever possible unless such identification is absolutely vital to the evidence being presented.

Most people will know from reading the newspapers over the last week or so that the Authority's Inspectors have carried out inspections of the schools and made reports of their inspections. I wish to emphasise that those reports which have not, and could not have been, reproduced in their entirety in the Press, are in no way conclusive upon any of the matters that I have to investigate. They will be part of the evidence that I have to consider and will be treated in exactly the same way as the evidence of all the parties appearing before me. The Inspectors who made such reports may or may not be challenged in cross-examination as to the special circumstances obtaining at the time when the inspections were carried out or as to the conclusions reached by the Inspectors. Only after I have heard the evidence of the Inspectors tested in cross-examination and all the other relevant evidence upon the matter can I or anyone else form a valid judgement on the value and accuracy of such reports. Precisely the same considerations apply to the further report of the Authority's Inspectors which, I understand, is to be submitted following a further inspection that took place last week.

Before I turn to matters of procedure, it is important that I should remind you of the paramount interests that bring all of us here today and which will engage us for some time. Those interests are the welfare of the schools and their pupils and the need for me to complete my work as usefully and quickly as possible so that they may resume their proper function out of the glare of publicity and no longer the subject of acrimonious public debate.

I earnestly hope that every party will present his or her submission to me with those interests in mind, and put aside irrelevant hurtful matters, perhaps engendered by the rancour of conflicts of personalities and ideals, which may not in themselves assist me in my task.

A note of the procedure to be adopted at the Inquiry has been sent to every person who, it was believed, would have a real and direct interest in the Inquiry. In addition, there have been Press announcements notifying persons who wished to give evidence to contact the Authority. If there is anyone present who wishes to give evidence and who has not received such a note of procedure, copies are available from the Secretariat for distribution. Similarly, if anyone present knows of some person who is not here who has not been so notified and has a real and direct interest in the Inquiry, he should notify Mr Brown.

Briefly, the procedure has been devised to achieve so far as possible at the beginning of the Inquiry a written indication of the evidence that each party is likely to give. Where that proposed evidence may affect other parties' interests or evidence, copies of it have been circulated to them so that they have an opportunity to learn what is going to be said and to prepare themselves to deal with it.

As appears from the Note of Procedure, the proceedings will start with an opening address by the representative of the Authority. At the end of his opening address, and before he calls any evidence, I propose to give an opportunity to the legal representatives of the other parties concerned an opportunity to make, if he or she wishes, a short address of

[page 318] (II 3)

not more than five minutes on behalf of those whom he or she represents. In a public inquiry such as this some time may elapse before a party who is vitally involved has an opportunity to present his or her case. In such circumstances I think it right that he or she should be given the chance at an early stage to state in outline what his or her case will be. Of course, when the time comes at a later stage in the Inquiry, that party will be entitled to open and present his or her case in full in the same way as the Authority's representative has done.

After the opening statements the Authority's representative will call a witness or witnesses to produce and read the Education Officer's Report and Appendices to it, the inspection reports and any other evidence that he wishes to call. Each witness may be questioned by or on behalf of any persons or bodies who proposed to give evidence and who have a valid interest in the Inquiry. Such questioning will be taken in the order indicated in the Note of Procedure. I hope to avoid as much as possible the formality of a Court of statutory Tribunal, but with so many parties concerned we need to have these procedural guidelines. One of them is to maintain a clear distinction between asking questions and making statements. Questioning or cross-examination is not the opportunity to make a statement; everyone will have an opportunity to do that when the time comes for him or her to present his or her submissions. The purpose of asking questions is to bring out additional points, to emphasise those already made, or to challenge or test the evidence being given.

After the witness has been questioned by everyone entitled, and who wishes, to question him or her, I may wish to ask some questions. Finally, the Authority's representative will have the opportunity to re-examine the Authority's witness, if he so wishes, for example to deal with any points that have arisen in cross-examination, by asking the witness to explain or amplify answers already given.

The same procedure will be adopted in respect of all the other parties in the order indicated in the Note of Procedure, that is, the managers, the teachers, the parents and all other persons with a valid interest in the Inquiry. The precise order in the case of the parents and other persons will be drawn up as soon as possible and notified to the persons concerned. Wherever possible I shall do my best to meet the convenience of persons wishing to give evidence. To enable this to be done it is vital that close liaison is maintained with Miss Alban-Jones so that she knows the availability of witnesses. You should either speak to her here, telephone her at the number given in paragraph 3 of the Note of Accommodation and other Arrangements ... and in any event leave a telephone number where she can contact you quickly if necessary.

As indicated in the fourth paragraph of the Note of Procedure circulated, I will sit, if necessary, for a period in Islington to accommodate those persons wishing to give evidence who have real difficulty in attending the Inquiry at County Hall. I will also hold one or more evening sittings either at County Hall or in Islington to enable persons, whose work or other commitments would otherwise prevent them from attending the Inquiry, to give evidence in the evening. Everyone who needs to take advantage of such local or evening sittings should contact Mr. Brown or Miss Alban-Jones without delay.

In most cases persons wishing to give evidence have sent in advance written submissions of what they want to say. However, those who have not yet sent their submissions may still do so. The fact that a written submission has been made does not mean that the person making it cannot enlarge upon it when actually giving his or her evidence. However, if he or she introduces some entirely new and important matter which materially effects another party, it may be necessary to ask the witness to return at a later stage in order that the party affected may have an opportunity to prepare any questions or call new evidence arising from the additional evidence. Thus, it is in everybody's interest, including the person giving the evidence, that he or she includes everything of importance in his or her advanced written submission to the Inquiry.

Any person who has any worries or doubts as to how he or she should go about preparing his or her evidence should contact Mr Roger Brown or Miss Alban-Jones as soon as possible

[page 319] (II 4)

either here or by telephone. Mr Brown and Miss Alban-Jones will be pleased to give all the assistance that they can.

In general I shall not accept evidence in the form of a written submission unless the maker of the submission attends to give evidence before me and submits himself to questions. However, in cases where the evidence to be given is not central to the issues before me, or where it is not in dispute, or where there are some special personal reasons making it difficult or undesirable for the witness to attend the Inquiry, I may be prepared to relax the general rule and accept the written submission in evidence.

Similarly, in general I will receive direct evidence rather than hearsay, that is, evidence by people who have personal knowledge of what they are talking about rather than information that they have been given by somebody else. However, I recognise that in an Inquiry of this sort some hearsay evidence is unavoidable, and where that is so I shall accept it. Nevertheless the best evidence is direct evidence, where it is available, and I shall take much more notice of it or, as lawyers say, give it more weight.

Any written submissions or documents to be produced for the first time at the Inquiry, should be handed first to Miss Alban-Jones so that sufficient copies may be made for everyone concerned before the evidence is actually presented. A running index will be kept of the written submissions and documents attached to them as they are put in evidence ... A complete set of all submissions made to the Inquiry will be maintained by Mr Roger Brown, with each statement marked to show the persons or category of persons to whom it has been circulated. That master bundle will be available for inspection by any of the persons who have given or proposed to give evidence and who have a valid interest in the Inquiry ...

[page 320] (III 1)

Appendix III

William Tyndale Schools Inquiry

List of Witnesses (in alphabetical order)

[page 321] (III 2)

[page 322] (III 3)

[page 323] (III 4)

[page 324] (III 5)

[page 325] (IV 1)

Appendix IV

List of Exhibited Documents

1 Movement of Teachers since 1970 at the junior school.
1a Burnham report 1973 - primary schools (Appendix: points allocations for posts of special responsibility).
1b Cooperative teaching in the junior department. Occasional papers in primary education - March 1971.
1c Degrees of structure in the learning situation. Occasional papers in primary education - January 1969.
1d William Tyndale school- maintenance and improvement, 1973-9975.
1e Accident reports - Junior School.
1f Application for teaching post - Mr S. J. Felton.
1g Movement of teachers since 1970 at the junior school.
1h Accident reports on individual children at the Junior and Infants Schools.
1i Disposition of Junior Classes September 1973 - July 1974.
1j 4th year class list - Mr Haddow.
2 Summary of rolls from January 1973 - October 1974 at the junior school.
2a Rolls for 17 January 1974 at William Tyndale Junior School.
2b Addendum to document 2 - William Tyndale Junior School roll figures (graph).
3 Minutes - managers' meeting 15 January 1973.
4 Mr B. J. F. Haddow - reference letter 15 March 1973.
4a Summary of allocation of resources - William Tyndale School.
5 Minutes - managers' meeting 7 May 1973.
5a Letter - A. Head to Mrs J. McWhirter 15 June 1973.
6 Minutes - managers' meeting 3 July 1973.
6a Schedule of expenditure - September 1973 - July 1975 at the junior school.
7 Minutes - managers' meeting 24 September 1973.
8 Letter to DO3 from B. Haddow and Mrs J. McWhirter 15 November 1973.
9 'The McColgan case - the Facts' (undated).
9a Appointment of head teacher at William Tyndale Junior School - Notes for candidates.
10 Minutes - managers' meeting 12 November 1973.
11 Minutes - Appointment of Head Teachers and Principals Section of the staff and General Sub-Committee 20 November 1973.
12 Report (13.11.73) by the Education Officer, 'William Tyndale JM School ... Appointment of Headmaster/Headmistress'
13 Reports on candidates (Appointment of head teacher at the junior school).
13a Reports by L. Buxton on Mr Ellis.
14 Application for appointment to the headship of a county primary school.
14a Equipment invoice 3 December 1973.
15 Circular letter to Junior School parents from T. Ellis.
15a Teachers' absences at the junior school - January 1974 to July 1975.
15b Remedial reading list 1973-4 - Junior School.
16 Letter - T. Ellis to E. Hercules 14 January 1974.

[page 326] (IV 2)

17 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 14 January 1974.
18 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 15 January 1974.
19 Letter - T. Ellis to Mr Wales 16 January 1974.
20 Minutes - managers' meeting 21 January 1974.
21 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 24 January 1974.
22 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 28 January 1974.
23 Minutes - managers' meeting 28 January 1974.
23a Some suggestions for organisation of reading groups.
24 Activities in B. Haddow's class February-July 1974.
25 Letter - B. Haddow to parents February 1974.
26 Secondary transfers - 1974, and graph of reading age distribution.
27 William Tyndale Schools - Newsletter February 1974.
27a Reading ages - February 1974.
28 Letter - T Ellis to parent 4 February 1974.
29 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 7 February 1972.
30 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 11 February 1974.
31 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 11 February 1974.
32 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 5 March 1974.
32a Report of ILEA working party on internal government of schools.
33 Report of damage 6 March 1974.
34 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 15 March 1974.
35 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 2 April 1974.
36 Minutes - managers' meeting 8 April 1974.
36a Confidential report on Mrs McColgan by L. G. Buxton.
36b Aims of education - Infants.
36c Aims of Infant education (MS).
37 Letter - William Tyndale Junior School staff and D. Dewhurst to parents 1 May 1974.
37a Petition form - May 1974 - re: teacher shortage.
38 London schools campaign.
39 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 1 May 1974.
40 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 1 May 1974.
41 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 1 May 1974.
42 Rolls in DO3 - May 1974 and 1975.
43 Letter - Mrs D. Dewhurst to J. Grant, MP 9 May 1974.
44 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 10 May 1974.
45 Letter - J. Grant, MP to Mrs D. Dewhurst 11 May 1974.
46 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 13 May 1974.
47 Letter - T. Ellis to Mr Rice 20 May 1974.
48 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 20 May 1974.
49 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 21 May 1974.
49a Notes on illiteracy for staff meeting - Mrs Walker.
49b 'To William Tyndale Teaching Staff' by Mrs Walker.
49c Notes for staff meeting.
50 Commentary on William Tyndale School 22 May 1974.
50a Commentary of William Tyndale School 22 May 1974 (with MS Notes).
50b List of parents.
51 Press cuttings put on notice board, 22 May 1974.
51a - I A criticism of the' free choice' method of education based on total children's rights as at William Tyndale Junior School.
51a - II Manuscript notes for staff meetings.
51b A criticism of the' free choice' method of education based on total children's rights as at William Tyndale Junior School.

[page 327] (IV 3)

52 Letter - parent to T. Ellis 24 May 1974.
53 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 28 May 1974.
54 Minutes - managers' meeting 3 June 1974.
55 Head's report on William Tyndale Junior School 3 June 1974.
56 William Tyndale Infants School 3 June 1974 - headmistress's report.
57 Letter - Junior School staff to parents 7 June 1974.
58 Letter - Junior School staff to parents 12 June 1974.
58a Notes of the parent-teacher meeting of 13 June 1974.
59 'Calling all parents' (Hackney Parents and Teacher Action Group).
60 Letter - T. Ellis to Mr Davies 19 June 1974.
61 William Tyndale School - June 1974 - list of incidents.
61a William Tyndale School - June 1974 - with MS Note by Miss Burgess.
62 Letter - T. Ellis to parents 24 June 1974.
63 Letter - H. W. Wales to managers 27 June 1974.
64 Letter - B. Haddow to Mrs S. Burnett 27 June 1974.
65 Letter to Mrs Haddow 28 June 1974.
66 Minute - Miss P. Burgess to Mr D. Rice 28 June 1974.
67 Letter - Mrs S. Burnett to Miss Parkes 28 June 1974.
68 Letter - B. Haddow to H. W. Wales 30 June 1974.
69 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 1 July 1974.
69a Letter from Mrs B. J. Goward 1 July 1974.
70 Letter - parent to T. Ellis 1 July 1974.
71 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 1 July 1974.
72 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 2 July 1974.
73 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 2 July 1974.
74 Letter - parent to H. W. Wales 2 July 1974.
74a List of parents.
74b List of parents.
74c List of parents.
74d List of parents.
74e List of parents.
75 Letter - H. W. Wales to B. Haddow 3 July 1974.
76 'A criticism of the "free choice" method of education based on total children's rights as at William Tyndale Junior School'.
76a 'A criticism of the "free choice" method of education based on total children's rights as at William Tyndale Junior School' (dated 4 July 1974).
76b 'A criticism of the "free choice" method of education based on total children's rights as at William Tyndale Junior School' (annotation by Mr Ellis).
76c 'A criticism of the "free choice" method of education based on total children's rights as at William Tyndale Junior School' (original typed version).
77 Letter - T. Ellis to Mrs Walker 4 July 1974.
77a Letter - Mrs D. McColgan to T. Ellis 4 July 1974.
77b Question to B. Haddow, and answering letter, B. Haddow to Mrs A. D. Walker, 4 July 1974.
78 Letters - B. Haddow to parents and replies (undated).
79 Letter - B. Haddow to T. Ellis 5 July 1974.
79a Draft letter to Mr Haddow.
80 Letter - D. V. Rice to Miss P. Burgess 8 July 1974.
81 Letter - T. Ellis to parent 8 July 1974.
81a Letter to Mrs Walker 8 July 1974.
82 Letter - T. Ellis to Mrs Walker 9 July 1974.
82a Letter - T. Ellis to Mrs Walker 9 July - with MS Notes.
83 Notes of meeting 9 July 1974.

[page 328] (IV 4)

84 Notes of meeting 9 July 1974.
85 Notes of meeting 9 July 1974 by managers.
85a Notes of meeting 9 July 1974 by B. McColgan.
85b Notes of meeting 9 July 1974 by I. McWhirter.
86 A short and general statement of the aims of William Tyndale Junior School.
86a A short and general statement of the aims of William Tyndale Junior School, with notes for discussion by Mrs Walker.
86b Questions (for staff meeting).
87 Letter from five Junior School teachers.
88 Letter from five Junior School teachers (transcript).
89 Memo from Miss Burgess 10 July 1974.
89a Letter - Dr R. Boyson to Mrs A. D. Walker 10 July 1974.
90 Letter - Deputy Divisional Officer to Mrs S. Burnett 12 July 1974.
91 Letter - T. Ellis to Miss Parkes 12 July 1974.
92 Letter - Mrs D. Erwin to the Divisional Officer 12 July 1974.
93 Letter - Mrs A. D. Walker to D. Rice 14 July 1974.
94 Letter - Mrs A. D. Walker to T. Ellis 14 July 1974.
94a Suggested basis for future discussions 14 July 1974 (encl. to 94).
95 Letter - Mrs A. D. Walker to Mrs S. Burnett 14 July 1974.
96 'William Tyndale (JM) School 15 July 1974 ' Note from the Divisional Office to TS13.
96a Letter - parent to H. W. Wales 15 July 1974.
97 Minutes - managers' meeting 15 July 1974.
98 Letter - Miss B. Hart to D. V. Rice (after 15 July 1974).
99 Letter - Deputy Divisional Officer to Mrs Goward 16 July 1974.
100 Letter - Deputy Divisional Officer to parent 16 July 1974.
101 Letter - T. Ellis to D. V. Rice 17 July 1974.
102 Letter - Deputy Divisional Officer to parent 17 July 1974.
103 Letter - Deputy Divisional Officer to Dr Erwin 17 July 1974.
104 Letter - Mrs M. V. Norburn to H. W. Wales and D. V. Rice 18 July 1974.
105 Note to Chief Inspector 18 July 1974.
106 Minutes - managers' meeting 18 July 1974.
106a Letter - Education Officer to Dr D. Erwin 22 July 1974.
106b Note - Miss Burgess to Mr Wadmore 18 July 1974.
106c Minute - Mr Wadmore to Chief Inspector, Mr Braide, Miss Burgess.
106d Letter - Dr Erwin to Divisional Officer 12 July 1974.
106e Letter - Dr Erwin to 'Chief Education Officer' 12 July 1974.
107 Notes of informal meeting held at Divisional Office - 23 July 1974.
108 Note to Mr Wadmore 24 July 1974.
109 Letter - Divisional Officer to Mrs Norburn 24 July 1974.
110 Letter - Mr Pierce to Mrs A. D. Walker 2 August 1974.
111 Minute - Mr Watts to Mr Kalber 6 August 1974.
111a Minute to EO/TS, Mr Collins, re: children with special difficulties 19 August 1974.
112 Letter - D. V. Rice to Miss Burgess 29 August 1975.
113 Notes on transfers from Infant to Junior School 1974 and 1975.
113a Statistical summaries of reading scores for transfer arrangements.
113b Summary of evidence derived from 113a.
114 2nd/3rd year team teaching system at the junior school.
115 Arrangements of teaching groups at the junior school.
115a Suggestions for improvement of the activities/curriculum of the school.
116 Minute - Divisional Officer to EO/TS13, 3 September 1974.
116a Minute - Divisional Officer to EO/TS13, 3 September 1974 (copy).
116b Education Officer (EO/P4) to Mr Ellis 13 September 1974.
116c Education Officer (EO/P4) to Miss Hart 13 September 1974.