The “inadequate” scope of a review of the failings that led to the closure of Brighton’s oldest primary school could mean that key lessons are not learnt, a parent has warned.
The parent has written to Brighton and Hove City Council to highlight the shortcomings that she believes will undermine the review announced as the council prepared to close Middle Street Primary School.
Her fear is that the review focuses too much on the process and that some at the council could effectively be allowed to mark their own homework.
She is also concerned that if this were to prevent lessons from being learnt, other schools could end up failing as rapidly as Middle Street.
The school went from being successful to one that imploded in a few short years, with the council failing whistleblowers, she said, and failing to take safeguarding concerns seriously.
And now the promise of an independent review to learn the lessons could be undermined because the review is being commissioned by and reporting to a team that faces key questions.
The parent said in an email seen by Brighton and Hove News: “The scope of the review is inadequate as it appears to look at process only.
“As you must be aware, matters at Middle Street over the several years before the IEB (interim executive board) was installed involved a full suite of equalities violations and safeguarding failures.”
She cited the council and the governors’ “failure to carry out basic due diligence and reference checks” when appointing Rob Cooper as head teacher.
A representative of his former employer said that no reference had been requested.
As with Middle Street, his previous school, in Cheshire, ran up a deficit, with one former colleague highlighting a decision to employ a chef to put the school on a keto diet.
The budget at both schools also had to soak up the costs of settling employment matters, with Middle Street’s budget also strained by agency costs for supply teachers.
The parent was concerned that the council’s review appeared to be omitting whether officials at Brighton and Hove City Council took appropriate action when safeguarding concerns were reported.
She said that “irregular changes” had been made to “safeguarding records following a complaint about specific incidents”, according to a formal finding after an earlier investigation.
The parent wrote: “Multiple people who tried to raise the alarm were ignored, dismissed and made to feel they were a nuisance.
“A review with vague terms of reference, without a formal, trauma-informed process to engage victims, that only sets out to ‘identify strengths, gaps and opportunities for improvement in systems, processes and communications’ and ‘suggest lessons to be learned’ is not sufficient in these circumstances.”
She said that the terms of reference should require the review to determine
- whether the concerns and disclosures raised by parents, carers and staff were well-founded
- how the school, governing body, IEB and council received and responded to them including whether complaints were routed back to the people being complained about and if so, under what process that happened
- whether these were treated as protected disclosures (and) whether the whistleblowing policy was applied and whether anyone who raised concerns suffered detriment or reprisal
- what harm came to children and any other vulnerable people and over what period including harm that continued while concerns went unaddressed
- whether the council and school met their legal duties, in particular, section 11 of the Children Act 2004, section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, Keeping Children Safe in Education (including safer recruitment and the head teacher’s appointment), the Education and Inspections Act 2006 framework for the content of the warning notice and the IEB, and the council’s own complaints and whistleblowing policies
- how children and families with protected characteristics were affected, in particular, on race and on disability and autism, whether there was any real route available to raise racism and other equalities matters involving school leadership and the consequences of the council insisting parents complained directly to the previous board of governors about these matters
- the integrity of safeguarding records including the entry found to have been added after a subject access request
- who knew what and when among the officers and decision-makers and whether decisions were always driven by the best interests of the children at Middle Street or by managing the council’s own exposure
And she added that the review should
- cover the period from the head teacher’s appointment to the present including the closure and its aftermath
- give the reviewers full access to all relevant council and school records and the power to take evidence from any current or former officer, governor, IEB member or staff member
- be genuinely independent, with the reviewers to report to an independent body or the relevant committee, not to the officers involved
- be published without the council editing, withholding or delaying the findings
- require the council to publish the terms, the reviewers’ names and any conflicts at the start
- be carried out by reviewers with demonstrable expertise in safeguarding, race equality and SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) and autism
- result in a report published in full and considered in public, with recommendations that have a named owner, a timescale and a follow-up check, remedy for those harmed and referral of any individual conduct matters to the proper bodies including the Teaching Regulation Agency and the LADO (local authority designated officer)
The LADO is responsible for handling allegations against professionals and volunteers who work with children.
The parent also asked the council to “confirm that the reviewers have been fully briefed and given the complete record, not a selection chosen by the council”.
She added: “We had a legitimate expectation that the IEB was fully briefed and it turned out it was not which left families to do that work. That should not happen again.”
