02 January 2020

Ashley School results stats

There appears to have been some disquiet about Ashley School's stats, and the way they are being presented to parents. The trust has issued the school with a Notice to Improve, and Simon Walker, the chair of the Good Shepherd Trust, said on 15 Dec: "the performance at Ashley has slipped considerably (since 2016) so as to be a long way below that of our higher performing schools."

You could put that another way and say: "since we took over in 2014, things have gone downhill", but before we start discussing whether or not the Good Shepherd Trust wish to acknowledge this, we should perhaps ask if it it true.

Is Ashley slipping? And if so, who is to blame?

Richard Dunne has already responded to Nigel Stapleton's circular of 18 Dec, stating:

"if the school’s leadership is undermined as it was last year, it makes performing well more of a challenge."

adding:

"Last January the school had a Headteacher, an Assistant Head and a part-time Trust Business Manager. This January there will be a Headteacher, a part-time Deputy Head three days a week, two Assistant Heads, an Office Manager and a part-time Trust Business Manager. That is more than double the leadership resources. If the school had not been stripped of its senior resources last year, the results are likely to have been even stronger." [read the letter in full here]

This is useful evidence and it's good to see a fuller picture emerging.

I hope the following contributes to that. It is a report very kindly written br Dr Roger Hutchins who has a grandchild at Ashley School. Dr Hutchins has scraped quite a bit of the publicly available data about Ashley School and analysed it. He makes a further comment about the Richard Dunne response at the bottom of his report. I hope you find it useful:

"Has Ashley’s performance slipped considerably since 2016?
by Dr Roger Hutchins B.A. (Hons), PGCE, MAEd, EdD
1. A personal introduction
Roger Hutchins
My name is Roger Hutchins. Although now retired, most of my working life was spent within education. After teaching in a junior school in Twickenham, I moved to Portsmouth where I worked for 22 years as a Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator (SENCO)/ Inclusion Manager in three primary schools. For much of that time I was a member of the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) in each of these schools. I served as a governor for nine years in one of them. For five years I was an Associate Lecturer at the University of Chichester, training SENCOs from across the south of England as part of the National SENCO Accreditation programme. In 2013 I completed an educational doctorate with the University of London, researching into aspects of assessment and testing in the primary school sector. I have co-authored five books for Teaching Assistants.
One of my grandchildren attends Ashley whom I regularly drop off and pick up from school. That is my only involvement with the school. I do not know or have ever met any staff member (past or present) or governor (past or present) and have no connection with the Good Shepherd Trust. The only parents I know are the members of my family and their immediate friends.
2. The school context
The following is taken from the latest inspection report by the Diocese of Guildford: Statutory Inspection of Anglican and Methodist Schools (SIAMS) 17 October 2017 (NB This is an inspection distinct from and different to OFSTED)
Current SIAMS inspection grade: Outstanding
Ashley CE School is a large primary with 510 pupils on roll. The majority of children are from a White British background. The proportion of pupils receiving SEN support, and those with English as second language is below the national average. Relatively few pupils come from disadvantaged backgrounds. 
The school, through its distinctive Christian character, is good at meeting the needs of all learners.
The effectiveness of the religious education is outstanding.
The effectiveness of the leadership and management of the school as a church school is good.
3. Be aware
In this paper there are no headlines, sound bites or twitter feeds. The world of school assessment is too complex and too important to yield itself to such simplistic modes of communication. All the data in this paper are in the public domain. References are linked and clicking on them will take you to the source. The school will have more detailed information regarding individual pupils and specific groups of pupils, but such information is obviously confidential. Nothing that is open to public scrutiny should aid in the identification of any one individual or group of individuals.
The following four sections do not necessarily make for easy reading, but they are essential to be grasped if an accurate understanding and interpretation of school statistics is to be had.
4. A word about averages and percentages
4.1 In the world of school assessment the word ‘average’ is used a lot. We need to be clear what is meant by that term. Two types of averages are used in school statistics. The most common is the mean average when test scores are totalled and then divided by the number of pupils sitting the test. The ‘mean’ can be skewed disproportionately by a few items, for instance, I was once part of a small group where the majority were younger than 40; however, the mean average age was over 60 because one member was in her 90’s. A more accurate average for that group would have been a median average. If each age was placed in order from youngest to oldest, the age in the middle would be the median. 
4.2 By definition, in any measurement of averages 50% of schools (or pupils) must be ‘below average’ and 50% ‘above average’. This does not mean that 50% are ‘failing’, for instance, in a test where full marks are 100 and the pass mark is 50, if all entering the test score 60 or above, all have passed, but 50% will still be ‘below average’.
4.3 With regard the use of percentages, in cohorts of relatively small numbers of pupils each pupil could equate to two or more percentage points. This means that a few pupils who do not perform as well as the others could reduce the overall average percentage quite significantly. Alternatively, a few pupils who perform exceptionally well could raise the overall average percentage significantly.
5. A note about national assessment in schools
5.1 Full-time education in English schools is compulsory from the age of 5 to 16. It begins with the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) – Reception class – and is followed by four ‘Key Stages’: Key Stage 1 –Years 1 and 2; Key Stage 2 – Years 3-6; Key Stage 3 – Years 7-9 (Senior) and Key Stage 4 – Years 10-11 (Senior, GCSE years). The National Curriculum starts at year 1 and that is when national assessments also begin. In Year 1 there is a nationally administered test of phonics. At the end of Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 are ‘Statutory Attainment Tests’ (SATs). Progress and attainment at EYFS and the end of Key Stage 1 are measured by teachers according to national criteria. 
5.2 There are four items to the Key Stage 2 SATs – Reading, Writing, Maths and English Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling (EGPS). All apart from writing are administered via paper tests where the answers are largely right or wrong. These papers are sent away to be marked. Writing is assessed over the course of year 6 by teachers following national guidelines and criteria and here there is more emphasis on value judgement. This is why, in the data to be considered later in this paper, progress ‘scores’ for writing do not exist.
5.3 All the above assessments measure pupils’ attainment, i.e. what they have achieved in relation to national standards set by the government within the National Curriculum. The scores given by these assessments are used to measure the progress of pupils, dealt with in the next section.
6. Measuring progress
In December 2019, the Department for Education published the guidance Primary school accountability in 2019: A technical guide for primary maintained schools, academies and free schools (Crown Publications Reference DfE-00172-2019). It is actually more accessible than it sounds and the following paragraphs are taken from it to provide a platform for the discussion of Ashley’s data. 
Page 7: The progress measures aim to capture the progress that pupils make from the end of Key Stage 1 to the end of primary school. They are a type of value-added measure, which means that pupils’ results are compared to the actual achievements of other pupils nationally with similar prior attainment. 
Page 12: To calculate progress scores, pupils are allocated into prior attainment groupings with all other pupils nationally with similar Key Stage 1 attainment. In 2019, pupils’ prior attainment was based on their teacher assessments at the end of Key Stage 1. These assessments took place in 2015 and were reported in national curriculum levels. Individual Key Stage 1 subject teacher assessments were converted into points… A pupil’s Key Stage 1 point scores for English reading, English writing and mathematics is then combined to give them a Key Stage 1 average point score (APS). 
Page 15: The process described above created 24 prior attainment groups to which pupils have been allocated depending on their Key Stage 1 results… A pupil’s progress score is the difference between their own Key Stage 2 result and the national average Key Stage 2 result for their prior attainment group. 
Page 17: For English reading and mathematics, Key Stage 2 test results have been reported as scaled scores, with 100 as the ‘expected standard’. The scaled score for each subject is used as the pupil’s Key Stage 2 outcome in the progress score calculation. 
7. Interpreting a school’s progress scores 
Page 20: Individual pupil-level progress scores are calculated in comparison to other pupils nationally. For all mainstream pupils nationally, the average progress score will be zero. 
A school’s progress scores for English reading, English writing and mathematics are calculated as its pupils’ average progress scores. This means that school-level progress scores is presented as positive and negative numbers either side of zero. 
• A score of zero means pupils in this school, on average, do about as well at Key Stage 2 as those with similar prior attainment nationally. 
• A positive score means pupils in this school, on average, do better at Key Stage 2 than those with similar prior attainment nationally. 
• A negative score means pupils in this school, on average, do not make as much progress by the end of Key Stage 2 as those with similar prior attainment nationally. A negative score does not mean that pupils did not make any progress between Key Stages 1 and 2. A negative score means that they made less progress than other pupils nationally with similar prior attainment. 
Page 21: Schools should not share individual pupil progress scores with pupils or parents. 
8. To summarise
Key factors in interpreting the data from Year 6 SATS include:
  • Taking note of the progress made by pupils and not just their attainment
  • Trends over three years or more – one year’s results taken by themselves are insufficient to bring a judgement about a school’s overall performance
  • Taking note of ‘value added’ – how much progress pupils made over and above what would be expected, all other things being equal
9. Data for 2019: How does Ashley compare with other schools in the Good Shepherd Trust (GST)?
The following statistics were published in October 2019 and relate to the academic year 2018-19. [Source: The Good Shepherd Trust website]
9.1 EYFS: 84% of Ashley pupils achieved expected standards (known as ‘Good Level of Development’ (GLD)). This ranked Ashley 2nd out of 14 GST schools. The national average was 72%.
9.2 Year 1 Phonics: 91% of Ashley pupils passed, ranking the school as joint 1st out of 14 GST schools. The national average was 82%.
9.3 Pupils achieving expected standards at the end of Key Stage 1:
In reading, 90% of Ashley pupils achieved expected standards; in writing, 84%; and in maths, 87%. In all three the school ranked 1st out of 14 GST schools. All areas were well above the national average.
9.4 Pupils exceeding expected standards at the end of Key Stage 1:
In reading, 49% of Ashley pupils exceeded expected standards; in writing, 23% and in maths, 41%, ranking Ashley as 1st out of 14 GST schools in reading and maths and joint 3rd in writing.
9.5 Progress at the end of Key Stage 2:
In reading, the average scaled progress score for Ashley pupils was -0.6, placing Ashley 9th out of 12 GST schools (range of progress scores: +6.4 to -3.2). 
In writing, the average scaled progress score for Ashley pupils was -2.0, placing Ashley 8th out of 12 GST schools (range of progress scores: +3.7 to -4.3). 
In maths, the average scaled progress score for Ashley pupils was -0.3, placing Ashley 9th out of 12 GST schools (range of progress scores: +5.6 to -2.3). 
9.6 Pupils reaching expected standards in Reading, Writing and Maths combined:
68% of Ashley pupils reached expected standards in all three subjects, placing the school 7th out of 12 GST schools (range of percentages was 83 to 56). The national average was 65%.
10. Data over time
Summary of data aggregated from the websites of Ashley School (including the school online prospectus), The Good Shepherd Trust and the government's Find and compare schools in England:
10.1 Key Stage 1
Percentage of pupils working at or exceeding expected standards (i.e. measures of attainment)

2016
2017
2018
2019
Reading
90
90
83
90
Writing
92
90
82
84
Maths
85
93
88
87
Commentary:
With the exception of writing, the data show a consistency of high standards over the four-year period. Each of these subjects in each of these years is significantly higher than national averages and (where the data is available) local authority averages.
The drop in reading between 2017 and 2018 is mirrored by a similar drop in writing; however, the drop in reading is redressed the following year. This is not the case in writing and it would be important to ascertain the reason for this drop in writing. One very possible reason is that teachers became more accurate in their assessment of children’s writing during the year 2017-2018.
10.2 Key Stage 2
Percentage of pupils working at or exceeding expected standards (i.e. measures of attainment)

2016
2017
2018
2019
Reading
88
84
98
80
Writing
87
72
93
76
Maths
80
83
93
86
Reading, writing and maths
N/A
68
90
68
Three year average for achieving expected standards in all three areas: 76% (local authority average: 69%; National average: 63%)
Commentary:
With three exceptions, each of these areas in each of these years is higher than national averages and (where the data is available) local authority averages. In 2018 all three subjects were almost 20 percentage points higher than the national average.
Two of exceptions relate to writing: in 2017, the school’s score was slightly below the local authority average and the national average, and in 2019, the school’s score was almost exactly the same as the national average of 78%. The third exception was 2019, when the school fell two percentage points below the local authority average for achieving expected standards in all three subjects; nevertheless, it continued to be above the national average.
There is no obvious indication here of consistently falling standards. Indeed, in maths the scores for 2018 and 2019 are higher than for the previous two years. The pupil cohort of 2018 scored exceptionally well and, therefore, a decline from that high point would not be unexpected.
10.3 Summary of SATs data taken from the government website 
Measures of progress (progress scores). The progress description given in brackets relates to a comparison between the school’s scores and the national average.

2017
2018
2019
Reading
2.8 (above average)
3.5 (well above average)
-0.6 (average)
Writing
-1.6 (average)
-0.2 (average)
-2.0 (below average)
Maths
0.6 (average)
0.5 (average)
-0.3 (average)
Commentary:
When compared to national averages, over the past three years pupils have maintained a steady position in maths (average progress). For two years, reading was above or well above average, but dipped to being average in 2019. Writing has also dipped in 2019 and was then below average for the first time.
10.4 Average SATs scores compared with those for the local authority (given in brackets)
NB There is no score for writing as this is measured via teacher assessment

2017
2018
2019
Reading
109 (106)
112 (107)
106 (106)
Maths
107 (105)
108 (105)
107 (106)
Commentary:
Achievement in reading and maths in each of the three years has been higher than the average for the local authority, except for 2019, when reading was the same as the local authority.

11 Results by pupil characteristics
Schools need to report on the attainment and progress of pupils not only as overall year groups, but also by specific background factors termed ‘Pupil Characteristics’):
  • girls and boys
  • pupils who are disadvantaged (defined as those who are either currently in receipt of free school meals or have been in any of the previous six years or those who are being looked after by the local authority)
  • those who have been identified as having special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) and are in receipt of SEN Support or who are in possession of an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP)
  • those for whom English is an additional language (EAL).
Individual pupils may well appear in more than two categories, for instance a pupil for whom English is an additional language who is also identified as having SEND and is in receipt of free school meals will be measured and summated in each one of the categories of ‘Pupil Characteristics’. This, however, will not be distinguished in the publicly available data.
Schools will be monitoring the progress of pupils in each of these groups and will be putting in support mechanisms where appropriate. The effectiveness of any such support will also be being monitored. Any findings from SATs results will be used to inform the monitoring of younger year groups.
To keep the data as simple and clear as possible, I have deliberately not made reference to the characteristics of pupils which may nor may not affect the average results of any one cohort. However, as there is a concern over writing progress in Key Stage 2 it is important to point out the following (sourced from Ashley’s website):
In Year 6 (2018-19) there were 59 pupils, of which 24 were girls and 35 were boys. The balance of boys to girls in this cohort was thus higher than in the school as a whole, which has affected the overall results. Progress in reading and writing for girls was significantly higher than that of boys, whereas boys’ progress in maths was higher than that of girls. 83% of girls met the expected standard in reading, writing and maths. 57% of boys met those same standards. The most significant difference came in writing. There is, therefore, need to examine boys’ writing.
In that cohort, 10% were pupils with EAL. Overall the progress of this group in reading and writing was well below the cohort average, but in maths it was in line with expectations and above the cohort average. There is, therefore, a need to examine the support given to pupils in all aspects of literacy for whom English is not their first language.
It is in this context that the difference between ‘mean average’ and ‘median average’ becomes significant. All the figures in the data relate to ‘mean’ averages. The results may have been quite different if they were calculated using the ‘median’ average. However, as all schools use the mean average, comparison with other schools remain valid.
NB The Good Shepherd Trust website only provides performance data for 2019. It has not therefore been possible to compare Ashley’s data over time with that of other schools in the trust.
12. Has Ashley’s performance slipped considerably since 2016?
The short answer is that the statistics do not indicate this to be the case. This is especially so for EYFS and Key Stage 1 where results have been consistently high over the previous four years. It is, however, clearly the case that SATs results for 2019 were disappointing, and that writing (particularly EAL and boys’ writing) needs to be improved. However, the year before was particularly strong. There is therefore no trend indicating a drop in the overall performance of the school.
Improvements can always be made. No school is perfect. Whilst trends over three years or more give a clearer indication of a school’s performance than any one year group’s results, where a particular cohort falls down an investigation needs to be mounted to find out why this was the case so that issues can be identified and responded to. 
It could also be argued that, given the many advantages enjoyed by the school, Ashley should be consistently ‘above average’ in every area when compared with national data and possibly local authority data as well. The data could indicate that writing generally in Key Stage 2 does not make the progress that would be expected, given the strength of writing at the end of Key Stage 1. This is an issue nationally. Statistically, it is very hard for a school to make more than expected progress in years 3-6 when the starting point is so high. 
Whilst no overall conclusion can be drawn about the performance of the school over time, the sustained high standards of Key Stage 1 need to be acknowledged and celebrated, and questions need to be asked about why the 2019 cohort did not make the same progress as those in previous years.
13 An addendum
The day after completing the above paper I received a copy of Richard Dunne’s statement in response to the Local Governing Committee’s message regarding falling standards at Ashley. Alongside the fact that the data discussed above agrees absolutely with Mr Dunne’s comments, I wish to emphasise three points:
  1. The school was clearly very aware of the needs within the year 6 of 2018-2019 and were putting support mechanisms in place. My final comment regarding questions needing to be asked has therefore been answered.
  2. The information Mr Dunne cites regarding teacher predictions of expected results and the results actually achieved is crucial in understanding the 2019 SATs results. However, the predictions of teachers are not in the public domain and therefore did not form part of my analysis. 
  3. Also not in the public domain was the level of SEND in that cohort of pupils nor the disruption brought to the school by the redeployment of senior leaders. Neither of these factors were therefore included in my paper, but they are similarly crucial in coming to an appreciation of the school’s performance. 
Finally, I repeat what is written above, and which Mr Dunne very importantly refers to as well: ‘Statistically, it is very hard for a school to make more than expected progress in years 3-6 when the starting point is so high’."

ENDS

My profound thanks to Dr Hutchins for the work he has done in putting his report together. If anyone wishes to add to or correct anything they read above, please send me a message on the secure contact form which you can find over here on the right hand nav bar: --------------------->
on the desktop version of this website. 


Receive every new post directly to your email inbox - sign up here - unsubscribe at any time:


You will received a confirmation request pop-up then an email from feedburner, which operates this service. Please confirm the pop-up and the email to ensure you receive regular updates.

Richard Dunne: "The Trust has a lot to answer for"


At the end of the Autumn term 2019, the chair of the board of Ashley's governors, Nigel Stapleton, sent round a circular. In it, he said:

"The 2019 Key Stage 2 results for the school, as predicted by the SLT and LGC were disappointing and outcomes for the pupils from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2 were not as expected. In response to this, in October, the GST Board served the school with a ‘Notice to Improve’."

[the SLT is the school's Senior Leadership Team, the LGC is the Local Governance Committee, aka the governors and the GST is the Good Shepherd Trust]

On 15 Dec, the GST's chair stated: "the performance at Ashley has slipped considerably (since 2016) so as to be a long way below that of our higher performing schools (the relevant data for 2019 is on our website)." [read the data here]

On 1 January 2020, Richard Dunne asked the A4T group to pass on his response to Mr Stapleton's circular. It was sent out in an email to those who subscribe to the A4T email. I have copied and pasted it (with permission) below in full:

"Dear Parents and Carers,

Below is a response to the data provided by the GST at the end of last term, including their criticisms of Ashley School’s data, which does not take into account a number of factors such as the range of learning and behavioural needs in each cohort of children.

Starting at the beginning, the school’s Early Years GLD (Good Level of Development) data for last summer placed the school 2nd in the Trust with 84% achieving GLD. As everyone knows, some children will not achieve GLD for a number of reasons, so it is important to be cautious about putting too much of an emphasis on this data, particularly as the children are still only 4 and 5 years old.

The Year 1 phonics data put the school 1st in the Trust with 91% passing this screening test. The teachers did a great job working so well with the children to achieve such high levels of success. Once again, if a child does not achieve the pass mark, there will be particular reasons for this, and they will continue to get good support in Year 2 to ensure they achieve the pass mark at the end of Year 2.

The Year 2 SATs results last summer placed the school 1st in Reading, 1st in Writing and 1st in Maths at expected levels of attainment. The greater depth attainment was also very strong with the school coming 1st in Reading and Maths. The results in Writing put the school 3rd.

This is great news, but it does create a challenge for the school because it means that even if the children do incredibly well in Year 6, their progress will not be as strong as those schools performing at a lower level in Year 2 as they cannot make so much progress. In simple terms, if the top mark in Year 6 is 10 and they score 6 in Year 2, they will not make as much progress as those who score 3 or 4 or 5 in Year 2. Ashley School has had this challenge for years. Even in 2018, when the Year 6 children’s results were in the top 10% nationally and the best in the GST across the board, the progress data was only just above average.

The school knew that last year’s Year 6 cohort had a higher than usual level of need, both from a learning perspective and in terms of behaviour. This happens sometimes. Not only was the number of SEND children higher than usual, but it was an extremely unusual cohort in terms of child carers, i.e. children who have to support a parent or sibling with needs, as the percentage was particularly high. This can have a significant impact on their learning in school. There were also several children who arrived in the school post Year 2 (around 15%) and a good number had high levels of learning needs, i.e. they came to the school at a very low level of attainment and this put a lot of pressure on the school to push them to achieve at the expected level.

The school set very realistic targets for these children and shared these targets with both the Governors and the Trust. The school wanted everyone to be clear that the results would not be as strong as the previous year, but that was understandable, bearing in mind the needs outlined above. Here are the predictions and the actual results. As you can see, the school actually surpassed their predictions in Writing and Maths, but the results were a little down in Reading, possibly because the Year 6 teachers understandably had put slightly more of an emphasis on Writing and Maths. Reading is usually the school’s strongest subject.

Year 6 Key Stage 2 Predictions and Results for 2019

Expected Level of Attainment

Reading Prediction 86%                    Reading Result 80%
Writing Prediction 71%                      Writing Result 76%
Maths Prediction 83%                        Maths Result 88%

Greater Depth Higher Level Attainment

Reading Prediction 40%                    Reading Result 33%
Writing Prediction 25%                      Writing Result 27%
Maths Prediction 27%                        Maths Result 32%

For information, the Year 6’s Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling score of 90% was the 2nd best in the Trust. The school’s view is that this cohort did very well, bearing in mind its starting points and the very low levels of attainment of a good number of children, who came to the school late and whose data had a very negative impact on the progress data.

The Trust was very aware of this high level of need in Year 6 and it was pointed out to the Governors in every one of their termly meetings. Last September, however, the Trust still went ahead and took out Mrs Stevens, who was the Teaching and Learning Lead at Ashley School. As parents and carers know, she was taken out for 50% of the time in the Autumn Term and 100% of the time in the Spring and Summer Terms. I was also asked to support another GST school throughout the year. This was extremely unhelpful, bearing in mind the needs of the cohort.

I hope this information gives a more balanced view of the school’s data. Importantly, if the school’s leadership is undermined as it was last year, it makes performing well more of a challenge. Having said that, the data overall for 2018-19 was strong across the school. It is not all about data anyway as Ofsted is making very clear in its new inspection framework. Schools are being judged much more now on the richness of their curriculum, something that is a real strength of the school.

It is the greatest irony that the school is being given much more support this year.  This was something I highlighted repeatedly last year, but no action was taken to address this concern.

It is interesting to compare the difference between the leadership team this January and last. Last January the school had a Headteacher, an Assistant Head and a part-time Trust Business Manager. This January there will be a Headteacher, a part-time Deputy Head three days a week, two Assistant Heads, an Office Manager and a part-time Trust Business Manager. That is more than double the leadership resources. If the school had not been stripped of its senior resources last year, the results are likely to have been even stronger. In my honest opinion, the Trust has a lot to answer for.

Yours,

Richard Dunne"

Receive every new post directly to your email inbox - sign up here - unsubscribe at any time:


You will received a confirmation request pop-up then an email from feedburner, which operates this service.

30 December 2019

An open letter to the GST and Ashley's governors

Ashley school gates. And some bins.
This letter was sent yesterday as an email to the Good Shepherd Trust and Ashley School's Local Governing Committee (the LGC aka the governors). I will obviously publish any response.

"Hi all

I hope you are well and enjoying the Christmas period.

I am writing this as an open letter, and I would be grateful for a timely response for publication.

I am an Ashley parent and journalist. I have put together a website detailing what has been happening at Ashley School over the last few months. Please do have a look: https://www.educationaccountability.org/p/start-here.html 

One of the most frustrating things about this whole process has been not knowing the allegations the GST made against Richard Dunne.

Obviously I have asked Mr Dunne to share this information, but so far he hasn’t. I suspect this is on the advice of his lawyers - who I presume are preparing some sort of legal action against the GST. 

I suggest that if you want to win over the parents who seem to have lost confidence in the GST/LGC, you publish what you had on Richard Dunne and the findings of any investigation that was carried out. I think in the past you have implied this can’t be done out of a duty of confidentiality to Mr Dunne. Why not ask him if he minds? He’s already said he rejects the allegations and has nothing to hide. 

Publishing hard information is a more effective way of winning people over than the rather insidious nudge-nudge campaign that appears to be going on at the moment.

If the best the GST have is that unsigned declaration of interest form which Mr Stapleton kindly pointed us towards in his end of term circular, I can understand why you might prefer to keep the rest confidential. 

If the other charges are stronger than the alleged catering racket, it would be really helpful if the parents could see them. Then we can all move on to the next stage.

Trusting the GST/LGC

Aside from the facts of the allegations themselves, a key concern is that in his resignation letter to parents, staff and children, Richard Dunne said he had resigned partly because he thought he would not get a fair hearing. This is worrying as it suggests he had lost faith in the GST as an employer, which in turn suggests his relationship with the GST/LGC had deteriorated considerably before he was presented with this mystery list of allegations and sent home.

I personally don’t feel inclined to trust the GST/LGC, partly because you have to question the competence of an organisation which manages to lose a much-loved head teacher, but also because whichever way you look at it, the initial statement that Mr Dunne was absent from school for reasons personal to him was misleading, at best.

The campaign you appear to be running at the moment - sending emails alleging the school has gone downhill over the last three years and alluding to the idea that Mr Dunne couldn’t really cope with the expansion to three form entry - seems to suggest you are quite glad to see the back of him.

It begs the question - have you been wanting him out for some time? Did you, perhaps, cook up a bunch of allegations with a view to getting rid of Mr Dunne?

I hope not.

Your perceived lack of respect for concerned parents

I would be grateful for some kind of rationale for the contempt you appear to hold for parents who have concerns about the LGC and GST.

On the evening of the 25 November, 340 parents, ex-parents and members of Ashley School staff attended a meeting at Esher RFC. A further 100 or so hands went up when I asked who had a partner who would also have attended were it not for childcare or work commitments.

At the end of that meeting we took one vote, and the vote was to approach the GST/LGC to discuss the possibility of setting up a parent council.

Two days later Ashley parent Andy Stocks sent a respectful email to the LGC asking how this might be explored. The eventual reply was dismissive: "We started work on the Parent partnership well before the parent meeting to which you refer in your e mail. Ours is an initiative being led by the senior leadership - as should be the case - with strong encouragement from the LGB. So it does, therefore, supersede what was discussed at the Esher Rugby Club meeting.”

This follows a pattern of governors belittling Ashley parents who have what they feel are legitimate concerns about the departure of Mr Dunne and the handling thereof by the LGC and the GST.

For example, take a look at the Chairman’s opening remarks in the LGC meeting on 21 Nov:

"The staff and the LGC observed that the social media activity and unhelpful behaviour and language was clearly restricted to a minority of current parents, who had been joined by some parents who no longer had children at the school.”

These comment attempts to paint the large number of parents with legitimate concerns as a few wingnuts bolstered by ex-parents who have no business getting involved.

The next sentence in the minutes I have already raised with Mr Stapleton because it is just weird:

"They [the staff and LGC] were pleased to have received so many supportive messages from other parents many of whom appear to have perceived, far better than some others, the reasons that are behind Mr Dunne’s resignation and which, for legal reasons, the GST are unable to disclose even to members of the LGC.”

This suggests that clever, perceptive parents have already worked out (somehow?) why Mr Dunne was absent and, having managed to perceive those reasons (which they presumably could not possibly know), had wholeheartedly swung behind the GST/LGC.

You can belittle and patronise as much as you like. You can try to pretend this is all on Mr Dunne for “choosing to resign". But it’s not a very good strategy, and I would advise a change of tack.

Independent inquiry

I would suggest commissioning someone authoritative and independent to look at how you managed to lose Mr Dunne, beginning with asking who was tasked to gather up the allegations against him, by whom and why. Allow that independent person to take statements from everyone at the trust, everyone on the LGC, every member of staff who wishes to contribute, Richard Dunne (and his family) and the Ashley parents and ex-parents and ex-pupils who wish to contribute. And then publish the investigation and its conclusions. Given what we heard from some speakers on 25 November about the attitude towards and treatment of Mr Dunne by certain LGC members, this needs to be properly and independently examined from all angles. 

We know the GST/LGC has all the power in the parent/school dynamic. We know you do not have to acknowledge our concerns, explain your actions or take us into account in anything you do. However I would suggest if you want to deal with this properly:

- don’t send oblique emails or circulars smearing or belittling Mr Dunne and his abilities.
- don’t try to dismiss the 309 people who signed the letter to the GST or the 340 people who turned up on a cold Monday night to Esher Rugby club to give a broken man two standing ovations.
- get Mr Dunne’s agreement to publish the allegations against him. He has lawyers now - get yours to talk to them and get an agreed statement out.
- ask someone independent to investigate and report on the GST/LGC's handling of the situation going back to whenever the first evidence-gathering exercise against Mr Dunne was discussed and commissioned.

I look forward to receiving your response, for publication, and I look forward to finding out more about the Ashley Parent Partnership next term.

Kind regards and the very best for 2020.

Nick Wallis"


Receive every new post directly to your email inbox - sign up here - unsubscribe at any time:


You will received a confirmation request pop-up then an email from feedburner, which operates this service.

27 December 2019

Richard Dunne's fighting fund passes £20,000


Over Christmas Richard Dunne's fighting fund appeal reached and passed the £20,000 mark. It has been running exactly a month, raising an average of £672 a day. Whichever way you look at it, that is a phenomenal achievement.

To mark this, I thought it would be nice to re-publish a selection of the comments left by donors:

"Mr Dunne helped provide me with the best start in life, so I want to give back to him to help clear his professional reputation. Thank you, Mr Dunne." - Ian Volkov, 25 Dec

"Keep fighting Richard. You are hands down the very best headteacher I ever worked with." - Rachel Turner, 30 Nov 

"I was a newly qualified teacher when I first joined Ashley and I learnt so much from working there for 9 years under Richard’s warm leadership. Whilst at the school, I grew in so many ways and it has shaped me as a teacher. I still teach by the same core Ashley values. It deeply saddens me that it has come to this. Your last day at Ashley should have been a really happy occasion with lots of pupils, parents and staff (past and present) showing their appreciation for everything you have done for the school. Not like this... Sending you and your lovely family support from Tokyo. Kaori x" - Kaori Ota 25 Dec

"Ashley school has been a huge part of my life that has given me so many great memories as a pupil and more recently as a member of staff and that is all thanks to Richard Dunne." - Dylan Crawford, 30 Nov

"You are an incredible man and this is so wrong." Damian and Ali, 24 Dec

"Richard, through your inspiration, vision and the nurturing environment of Ashley school you provided a place for my daughters to flourish. Instilling in them a set of values and principles that will last a lifetime. Good luck to you and your family and thank you from mine, Lee, Zeala, Cicely & Lydia." - Lee Day, 24 Dec

"Thanks for everything you've done for Ashley... you created a truly special place." Steve and Jo Riding, 17 Dec

"I feel so fortunate to have taught under your leadership and have learnt so much from you. I feel very sad that my daughter won’t get to hear a Mr Dunne assembly should she possibly go to Ashley when she starts school :-( But your passion for the harmony project, sustainability and your utter belief that little people can change the world has had such an impact on so many children, staff and parents and I’ve no doubt that will continue in whatever is next for you! Lots of love to you, Charlotte and family. Love Katharine, James and Amelie x" - Katharine Scott, 14 Dec

"I’m absolutely appalled at the treatment of such a successful, inspirational and caring Head teacher. I have 4 grandchildren, past and present, at Ashley who are all thriving thanks to the great leadership of Mr Dunne. Good luck for the future." - Linda Meek, 7 Dec

"Richard, you have built such an amazing and special school and have been such an inspiration to so many children, staff and parents. We are so saddened by the way in which you and your family have been treated by an organisation that seems to have forgotten the core principle on which it is supposed to be based and we are fully behind you. We and the rest of the Ashley community will keep on doing all that we can to help you achieve what is just and right. With love, Marcus, Issy and Aiden" - Marcus Kelly, 7 Dec

"It's shocking that you are in this position Richard, after you have given your all to Ashley. Please be assured of our support and gratitude for being such an inspirational head teacher. Good luck in fighting this injustice! Sarah & Cara Anthony xx" - Sarah Anthony, 5 Dec

"I have been a Supply teacher occasionally at your school. You were an excellent Head Teacher who inspired others. I'm very sad to hear what has happened. Inexcusable." - Judith Snell, 4 Dec

"Hi Richard, my nephew goes to your school and I know even from afar what a wonderful job you have done there! As a barrister, I know how strenuous proceedings can be for people, but also how worthwhile. Don't stop fighting the good fight!" - Gemma Kelly, 3 Dec

"Richard, we are heart broken that you and your family are being put through this. You gave our kids the very best start in life and for that we will always be most grateful. You will always have our love, respect and support xx" - Sarah Adam, 3 Dec

"So sorry it’s all come to this! We miss you at school and are so grateful for the wonderful impact you’ve already had on Ben and Ed school lives." Libby & Andy Wybrow, 2 Dec

"Thanks for all you've done for Ashley School. You have our unwavering respect and support." - Melissa Christopher, 30 Nov

"Our whole family is standing by you Mr Dunne. You are the most exceptional leader and we feel so blessed to have had you in our lives bringing up our children during these important, informative primary years. Richard Dunne has unique strengths, the ability to reach, inspire and motivate our whole community - children, parents and staff alike. He brings meaning to everything the children learn and experience. We are in admiration that he leads by example with a curriculum involving Harmony. He has quite an extraordinary impact, encouraging the very best for our children - for them to become independent thinkers and for that we are truly grateful. This situation should never have come to this and we will do all that we can to help." Clare, Jeremy, George & Jamie Long, 30 Nov

If you want to read all the comments they are on the crowdfunding website here.

***************
Why not get every new post by email? You can sign up on the desktop version of this website by putting your email in the box at the bottom of this post or in the box on the right hand nav bar. If you are viewing this post on a mobile, scroll down to where it says "View web version", click on that and you will be taken through to the desktop version. Many thanks!

24 December 2019

Richard Dunne's alleged catering racket

At the time of writing this post I am still none the wiser as to why the Good Shepherd Trust removed Richard Dunne from Ashley School at the beginning of Autumn Term 2019.

In his resignation letter, Mr Dunne made it clear he was facing allegations "about my performance regarding procedures and practices."

Mr Dunne has not yet revealed what these allegations are. Neither has the trust, but it looks like we might have got a fix on one of them.

On 18 December 2019, Nigel Stapleton, Chair of the Local Governing Committee (the LGC - Ashley's governors), issued a letter to parents and carers drawing attention to the Good Shepherd Trust's annual accounts.

In those accounts was an extraordinary statement from Alex Tear the CEO of the GST, alleging of impropriety by a senior member of staff at Ashley School and his "spouse".

Could this be the smoking gun?

This is what Alex Tear says in the accounts:
"I confirm that the following instance of material irregularity, impropriety or funding non-compliance discovered to date have been notified to the Board of Trustees and ESFA. Propriety and regularity issue: 
In relation to the procurement by a senior member of staff at Ashley CofE Primary School of catering services from a business operated by that senior member of staff's spouse. Payment for those catering services was authorised by that senior member of staff and made to a company in which the senior member of staff and their spouse were the only Directors (and 50/50 shareholders).  
This was a relevant business and pecuniary interest, but which had not in fact been included on the senior member of staff's Declaration of Interests, or otherwise disclosed by that senior member of staff as a conflict of interest, at any time since the school joined the Trust in the year ended 31 August 2015.  
Payments for those catering services procured through a series of undisclosed related party transactions totalled £6,900 (comprising £3,600 in the year ended 31 August 2015, £2,900 for the year ended 31 August 2016 and £400 during the year ended 31 August 2019)."
There we have it. Richard Dunne has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Over years he has been materially enriching himself and his family and keeping it all on the QT so no one at the school or the GST knew he was funnelling thousands of pounds from the school into a business he ran!

No wonder they got rid of him. Looks like he's bang to rights. Good riddance to bad rubbish etc etc.

Hold up. Not so fast. On 23 December Charlotte Dunne circulated her take on the whole clandestine affair:
"I wish to respond to a statement made by the Trust in its Annual Report which was signposted to the Ashley School community on the last day of the Autumn Term 2019. 
The statement in the report says there has been material irregularity, impropriety and non-compliance in breach of the funding agreement between the Academy Trust and the Secretary of State. It then goes on to describe a procurement of catering services by “a senior member of staff” to his spouse. 
Although the report has not named the individuals, I am aware that parents have identified them as being Richard and me. The Trust did not allow us to respond to this allegation before making this statement and what has been stated in the report is misleading and I want to address this. 
Firstly, the Trust were well aware of my catering company. Indeed, it was Nigel Stapleton, Chair of Governors and the Trust’s Chair of Finance, who first requested my catering services for a Governors Thank-You meal in July 2012, and again in 2015 and 2018. 
The catering arrangements referred to in the Annual Report are in respect of workshops which were run by the Prince’s School of Traditional Arts, not Ashley School, and they were for teachers from a range of schools. Although Ashley School collected in the monies on behalf of the Prince’s School, it was the Prince’s School that requested my catering services for their workshops. 
For the avoidance of doubt, any payments to my catering company by Ashley School were authorised by Di Goodhugh, the Finance Officer at the time and the current Head of Finance at the Trust, and signed off by the Deputy Headteacher, Jackie Stevens.
The payment total that has been referenced of £6,900 was for 17 workshops and 34 days of work. 
Over half of this cost was for food and equipment. I charged £100 per day and each workshop needed one day of food preparation and one day to run the catering for the workshop. I earned £1,600 in the academic year 2014-15 and £1,600 in the academic year 2015-16. The final £200 was for the workshop in November 2018. 
The Chair of Governors, Nigel Stapleton, was delighted to welcome HRH the Prince of Wales when he visited the school and saw the Prince’s School’s workshop in the Harmony Centre in February 2016 that I catered for. He was fully involved in this Royal Visit. He did not raise any concerns with regard to my catering role or any conflict of interest. 
On Monday, 10th June of this year, the Trust’s Head of Finance, Di Goodhugh, emailed my husband to complete a form for the last workshop catering that I did on Wednesday, 14th November 2018 (a new caterer was appointed in November 2018 some ten months before this allegation even surfaced). 
However, when my husband requested the form for signing, the Trust’s Head of Finance did not send it. This failure to set it out on a declaration of interests is an administrative oversight and it is incredulous to suggest that the Trust were not aware of it. 
As set out above, neither Richard nor I were able to give the above evidence to the Trust before they made their decision. However, Richard wrote to the Trust on 13th December 2019 to refute this and other allegations, but the Trust has refused to consider his evidence. I consider that this allegation has only been raised now and made so public as a means of further discrediting Richard and his reputation. 
This ongoing treatment of Richard by the Trust in its desire to not only get rid of him, but also to damage him and his reputation as much as possible is in stark contrast to the values of trust, love, courage, respect and integrity that the Trust claims to live by.
Richard and I want to thank you all for your ongoing support. It is very much appreciated 
We wish you all a Happy Christmas and we look forward to a happier 2020."
If this was the strongest allegation made against Richard Dunne by the GST, you have to wonder what the rest are.

I note in the above rebuttal Charlotte Dunne states Mr Dunne wrote to the trust on 13 Dec refuting all the allegations against him.

There are parents who, understandably won't be convinced until everything is out in the open, but it's good to see at least one of these terrible crimes getting exposure, so people can start to make up their own minds.

Receive every new post directly to your email inbox - sign up here - unsubscribe at any time:


You will received a confirmation request pop-up then an email from feedburner, which operates this service.

23 December 2019

Charlotte Dunne's statement on her catering activities in full

This message was circulated by Charlotte Dunne on Mon 23 December 2019:

"I wish to respond to a statement made by the Trust in its Annual Report which was signposted to the Ashley School community on the last day of the Autumn Term 2019.

The statement in the report says there has been material irregularity, impropriety and non-compliance in breach of the funding agreement between the Academy Trust and the Secretary of State. It then goes on to describe a procurement of catering services by “a senior member of staff” to his spouse.
Although the report has not named the individuals, I am aware that parents have identified them as being Richard and me.

The Trust did not allow us to respond to this allegation before making this statement and what has been stated in the report is misleading and I want to address this.

Firstly, the Trust were well aware of my catering company. Indeed, it was Nigel Stapleton, Chair of Governors and the Trust’s Chair of Finance, who first requested my catering services for a Governors Thank-You meal in July 2012, and again in 2015 and 2018.

The catering arrangements referred to in the Annual Report are in respect of workshops which were run by the Prince’s School of Traditional Arts, not Ashley School, and they were for teachers from a range of schools. Although Ashley School collected in the monies on behalf of the Prince’s School, it was the Prince’s School that requested my catering services for their workshops.

For the avoidance of doubt, any payments to my catering company by Ashley School were authorised by Di Goodhugh, the Finance Officer at the time and the current Head of Finance at the Trust, and signed off by the Deputy Headteacher, Jackie Stevens.

The payment total that has been referenced of £6,900 was for 17 workshops and 34 days of work. Over half of this cost was for food and equipment. I charged £100 per day and each workshop needed one day of food preparation and one day to run the catering for the workshop. I earned £1,600 in the academic year 2014-15 and £1,600 in the academic year 2015-16. The final £200 was for the workshop in November 2018.

The Chair of Governors, Nigel Stapleton, was delighted to welcome HRH the Prince of Wales when he visited the school and saw the Prince’s School’s workshop in the Harmony Centre in February 2016 that I catered for. He was fully involved in this Royal Visit. He did not raise any concerns with regard to my catering role or any conflict of interest.

On Monday, 10th June of this year, the Trust’s Head of Finance, Di Goodhugh, emailed my husband to complete a form for the last workshop catering that I did on Wednesday, 14th November 2018 (a new caterer was appointed in November 2018 some ten months before this allegation even surfaced). However, when my husband requested the form for signing, the Trust’s Head of Finance did not send it. This failure to set it out on a declaration of interests is an administrative oversight and it is incredulous to suggest that the Trust were not aware of it.

As set out above, neither Richard nor I were able to give the above evidence to the Trust before they made their decision. However, Richard wrote to the Trust on 13th December 2019 to refute this and other allegations, but the Trust has refused to consider his evidence. I consider that this allegation has only been raised now and made so public as a means of further discrediting Richard and his reputation.

This ongoing treatment of Richard by the Trust in its desire to not only get rid of him, but also to damage him and his reputation as much as possible is in stark contrast to the values of trust, love, courage, respect and integrity that the Trust claims to live by.

Richard and I want to thank you all for your ongoing support. It is very much appreciated.

We wish you all a Happy Christmas and we look forward to a happier 2020

Charlotte Dunne."

Receive every new post directly to your email inbox - sign up here - unsubscribe at any time:


You will received a confirmation request pop-up then an email from feedburner, which operates this service.

22 December 2019

Parents/GST meeting redacted paragraph on SEND

On 18 November 2019, less than an hour after Mr Dunne's resignation letter had been circulated, five parents attended a long-awaited meeting with the Good Shepherd Trust.

Parents had been calling for an open meeting with the trust for a number of weeks, but the GST refused and instead proposed a meeting with a small number of parents. The full attendance list is as follows:

Julia Jones JJ (Parent); Andrew Stocks AS (Parent); Laura Sutton LS (Parent), Ian Birdsey IB (Parent); Alex Tear AT (Interim Chief Executive, The Good Shepherd Trust); Revd Cathy Blair CB (Vice Chair, Local Governing Committee Ashley School); Martyn McCarthy MM (Member, Local Governing Committee Ashley School); Lou Digweed LG (Parent and note- taker); Sally Condie SC (Governance Officer The Good Shepherd Trust and note-taker)

The full agreed minutes of the meeting can be read here. There was one section of the minutes, concerning the school's SEND provision, which the GST refused to agree, but accepted that parents would be free to publish it as they saw fit. It has been passed to me to publish on this website.

The text in bold highlights the redacted paragraphs with a couple of lines either side for context and to allow you to find them in the full minutes:

"IB therefore moved to raise Special Education Needs and Disability (SEND) as the next concern (5), stating that the school needs to do more in terms of SEND provision.

He believes parents welcomed the new SEND lead joining the school in Autumn 2019, an appointment MM confirmed that was made by the LGC.

When asked a question on the criteria for the new SEND lead’s selection, AT responded that SEND provision is a statutory responsibility and any one appointed must have the relevant qualification or be on the way to achieving it. MM advised that appointments are a sensitive issue and whilst AT offered to provide more information in this area that was appropriate for distribution, he respectfully pointed out that as the questions centred on the recruitment process, and were therefore not for parents (as stakeholders rather than customers - as parents are not customers of Ashley School) to receive.

It was noted by IB, LS, JJ, LS and LD that AT, CB and MM were not able to confirm whether the new SEND lead was already qualified or working towards the required SEND qualifications and that no information regarding the new SEND lead’s training and experience was shared at the meeting.

IB affirmed the parental support for the SEND council instigated last year, and their willingness to work with the SEND lead and give her time."

Receive every new post directly to your email inbox - sign up here - unsubscribe at any time:


You will received a confirmation request pop-up then an email from feedburner, which operates this service.

19 December 2019

Mr Dunne posts a crowdfunding update

Richard Dunne is crowdfunding to raise the funds to take legal action against his former employer. Visit his crowdfunding page here.

This update was circulated on 19 Dec 2019:

"Dear Friends,

I’d like to say a personal thank you to all of you for the amazing support you have provided me through the Crowdfunding page. It has given me and my family a real sense of hope in an otherwise very difficult time. Your messages of support have been overwhelming.

As I wrote in the fund introduction, it has been the greatest honour of my life to have led Ashley School. And it is such a comfort to know that so many of you are determined to protect the school, its wonderful staff and community, and to support me as I fight to clear my name.

I still strongly refute all the allegations made against me. I have been working closely with employment lawyers and I have now sent a letter to the Trust to present my case. I have been told by the lawyers that they have completed their core investigations, so the bulk of their work is done. I appreciate it is now close to Christmas, but if you are able to share this message with people you know from the school and local community, who you think would be willing to give support, that would be a great help.  I am extending the Crowdfunding page to mid-January.

At the conclusion of any legal action, I will donate any excess funds raised to the Friends of Ashley (FOA), so that it can be spent on the children and their learning.

It was wonderful to see many of you at the Ashley School Christmas Bazaar. I was only sorry I couldn’t speak to more of you. Thank you once again for all your gifts and messages of support. They are such a blessing to me and my family.

Happy Christmas!

Very best wishes,

Richard Dunne

http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/richard-dunne-fighting-fund"

29 November 2019

Nigel Stapleton sends letter to parents/carers recognising "unsettling situation"

This was sent on 29 November 2019:

"Dear Parents/Carers,

The LGC fully recognises the unsettling situation that the whole Ashley School community are experiencing following the resignation of Mr Dunne. Some people have responded with strong emotions, which is to be understood given all that Mr Dunne has contributed to the school over the past 18 years.

We would like to assure parents that despite all that has been taking place, the staff have been continuing to deliver the best education possible for the Ashley children. They are finding the situation very stressful and it is requiring them to work much longer hours. For this, the LGC members are extremely grateful. We have played a significant part in supporting the leadership team in trying to maintain a “business as usual” approach.

We are seeking to achieve an outcome where all parents, staff and LGC members are working collaboratively towards a common objective: to do our very best for all the Ashley children. We would like to ask all parents, at all times, to be respectful to staff and LGC members. In doing so they will be modelling the value the children have been learning this term of being “respectful”.

Over the past few weeks several parents have asked to see the LGC minutes. To this end, the LGC at its meeting last Thursday week decided that:

- Part 1 of the termly LGC’s for the remainder of this academic year should be “open”
meetings. At all schools, the LGC meetings are always in two parts: Part 2 deals with confidential matters and is restricted just to LGC members.

- the LGC will accelerate one of the recommendations from a discussion paper on parent engagement that had been prepared over the summer. We will quickly set up an Ashley Parent Partnership (APP). We will shortly issue, for you to give us feedback, the proposed terms of reference and membership structure of the APP. Its key objective will be to provide a forum through which the views of a representative group of parents can be regularly and clearly heard by the senior leadership team and considered more effectively at our LGC meetings. Please note that the APP is to be complementary to the FOA and will not assume authority over the activities organised by the FOA to the benefit of the school.

- as a one-off exercise, reflecting the concerns of the whole parent community at this difficult time, we are attaching to this letter a complete set of minutes for Part 1 of the LGC meeting held last Thursday evening. The only redactions that have been made are when the discussions were about particular staff members or groups of staff, whose privacy we must respect.

- for future LGC meetings we will make sure that within ten working days of the meeting all parents receive a summary of the key issues discussed and of the decisions made by the LGC during Part 1 of their meetings. The full set of Part 1 minutes will be available (in redacted form) to any parent on request, after they have been approved by the LGC.

You will find some of the terminology adopted at the Part 1 meeting to be unfamiliar. So does any new LGC member for their first two or three meetings! Please bear with us: as soon as possible we will prepare a glossary to help you in interpreting the minutes.

Because of other pressures on their time neither the staff nor LGC members will be able to answer any questions you might have from reading these Part 1 minutes. However, we would be pleased to receive any feedback by e mail to governors@ashley.surrey.sch.uk.

You will be hearing more from the senior leadership team over the coming weeks as they begin to roll out the initiatives that they are discussing with the LGC members. We all hope that these difficulties that we have been encountering over recent weeks can be addressed as quickly as possible.
We owe it to our children that the entire Ashley community should pull together and respond to the steps being taken by Jackie Stevens and her fantastic staff to get all these differences behind us as soon as possible. Please be assured that this will be the LGC’s absolute focus between now and the end of this term.

Yours faithfully

Nigel Stapleton

Chair
On behalf of the members of the Ashley School Local Governing Committee"

***************
Why not get every new post by email? You can sign up on the desktop version of this website by putting your email in the box at the bottom of this post or in the box on the right hand nav bar. If you are viewing this post on a mobile, scroll down to where it says "View web version", click on that and you will be taken through to the desktop version. Many thanks!

27 November 2019

Andy Stocks email to LGC after Esher RFC meeting

This email was sent on 27 November 2019 to Nigel Stapleton (LGC Chair) and Cathy Blair (LGC vice-chair):

"Dear Nigel and Cathy,

You will hopefully be aware that a large portion of the parent body met last night to discuss the situation at Ashley School, pay tribute to Mr Dunne and show our unwavering support for the school staff and what they are doing for our children.

One of the key messages that came from the meeting was that parental engagement and working in collaboration with the school has always been, and will always be, in everybody’s best interests.

To this end a vote was held and it was agreed to propose to the LGC that a Parent Council is created.

We have no preconceived ideas of how this might work but we do believe that a sharing of views from a wider parent perspective would be beneficial to give insight into how messages would land and even where the areas of concern lie.

We would like to meet with one or two of your body to discuss this in more detail and to highlight some of the areas which will be seen as very positive steps from a parent perspective, as well as looking at examples of where and how this has worked well in other schools.

Once an engagement structure has been agreed we would then propose circulating to the wider parent group to ensure everyone is equally and fairly represented.

I personally feel that this could be very powerful in bridging the gap that is apparent and I believe it will be beneficial not just in the short term as we overcome recent challenges, but as an ongoing mutually beneficial relationship.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Kind regards,
Andy"

***************
Why not get every new post by email? You can sign up on the desktop version of this website by putting your email in the box at the bottom of this post or in the box on the right hand nav bar. If you are viewing this post on a mobile, scroll down to where it says "View web version", click on that and you will be taken through to the desktop version. Many thanks!

26 November 2019

A4T letter sent to parents after the meeting at Esher RFC

Emailed on 26 November 2019:

"Hi All,

A huge thank you for coming along last night to share your opinions, and show your support for Richard Dunne, our incredible staff, and amazing school. Let’s build on the momentum, and ensure we harness the amazing passion and energy of our special community!
There is much ground to be covered. When emailing, please use the relevant subject headers below so we can keep on top of the admin.

Next steps:

•    FUNDING. Top priority is setting up a crowdfunding vehicle for Richard. This is being explored as a matter of urgency and details will be shared asap. If you have any experience in this field please email this address using the subject: FUNDING

•    OBJECTIVES. We are working on a mechanic to allow everyone to input on priorities so we determine where best to focus our energy and resources going forwards. More on this asap.

•    TARGETED WORKING GROUPS. We need helpers! If you’re able to assist in any capacity – from general admin to specific skillsets, do let us know. Suggested areas include general admin, HR, legal, PR/comms, accounting, IT, SEND, charities, governance, research, eco, harmony, lobbying, event management or anything else you feel relevant. Please tell us how you can help, using the email subject: WORKING GROUPS

•    PARENTS COUNCIL. It was agreed by the vast majority of attendees at the meeting last night that we look to establish a formal parents council to work collaboratively with the GST, LGC and school. We will take this forward immediately. Details to follow. If you wish to contribute to this please email this address using the subject: PARENTS COUNCIL

•    DECK INFO. If you would like to receive the deck shown at the meeting, we are happy to distribute. Please email us accordingly using the subject header: INFO DECK.

More to follow on the above.

As always let’s proceed in the spirit of harmony and collaboration, and above continue to show respect to all concerned, especially those with different views. The upcoming Christmas Bazaar will be a fantastic way to show our love for the school.
Thank you again.

Ashley 4 Transparency parents group"

***************
Why not get every new post by email? You can sign up on the desktop version of this website by putting your email in the box at the bottom of this post or in the box on the right hand nav bar. If you are viewing this post on a mobile, scroll down to where it says "View web version", click on that and you will be taken through to the desktop version. Many thanks!

25 November 2019

Minutes of GST meeting with parents

(These minutes were published at 2.35pm on Monday 25 November 2019)

NOTES OF MEETING with Parent representatives – Ashley CofE Primary School held at St John’s Church, Walton-on-Thames at 6pm on Monday 18th November 2019.

In attendance: 

Julia Jones JJ (Parent); Andrew Stocks AS (Parent); Laura Sutton LS (Parent), Ian Birdsey IB (Parent); Alex Tear AT (Interim Chief Executive, The Good Shepherd Trust); Revd Cathy Blair CB (Vice Chair, Local Governing Committee Ashley School); Martyn McCarthy MM (Member, Local Governing Committee Ashley School); Lou Digweed LG (Parent and note-taker); Sally Condie SC (Governance Officer The Good Shepherd Trust and note-taker)

1. Welcome

AT opened the meeting at 18.00, indicated his pleasure to attend the meeting and set the administrative arrangements for the meeting. He requested that the notes from the meeting, made by each note-taker, be combined and agreed to produce one final version. He also confirmed that he did not wish or expect the meeting to be recorded and requested all to turn off any mobile devices or other recording devices. All in attendance complied with this request. IB said the Parent group would try and agree the minutes, however, it was not a condition for continuing the meeting or subsequently sharing the minutes with others.

2. Opening Prayer 

CB said a prayer to start the meeting.

3. Listening to parents’ concerns

AT advised that the meeting would need to close at 7.15pm, as AT needed to take a call from the Chair of The Good Shepherd Trust (GST) at that time, due to an emerging issue. He suggested that the key point of the meeting was for him to listen to parents’ concerns and suggested that the first 20 mins be dedicated to this.

This was not agreed by the Parents who expressed a view that a much longer period of time was more appropriate to address the various concerns. He also circulated to every member of the meeting a presentation summary, which corresponded and aimed to answer some of the agenda points. IB on behalf of the parents agreed that parents could usefully read through GST’s summary after the meeting to address any agenda points not specifically discussed due to time constraints.

IB, on behalf of the parents, informed the group that the key concerns from parents had been grouped together and, in the interests of time and to allow for a transparent response to parents, a series of statements had been prepared to be put to AT, CB and MM for comment. AT pointed out that he would not give a yes/no answer at the meeting. His aim was to listen.

CB, as Vice Chair of the Local Governing Committee (LGC), interjected to ask all present to introduce themselves. All duly did.

Please note in the meeting that any references made at the meeting to Governing Body or Governors are referred to herein as Local Governing Committee (LGC) and LGC members. Equally any reference in these notes to The Good Shepherd Trust (GST) and the Trust are inter-changeable.

LS expressed her wish that the meeting would be held in a convivial spirit but had reservations that there would be insufficient time at this meeting. AT responded that, he wanted to give parents the opportunity to raise their concerns, that IB raise the questions he had with no further delay.

IB’s first question (1) was over the Co-Headteacher’s position.

He had received a communication that day to indicate that he had resigned and read out an excerpt from that communication. IB explained that parents had concerns about the leadership position at the school plus the (lack of) support in place for the Co-Headteacher and his family prior to his resignation, adding that the staff are doing a great job in difficult circumstances. He continued to explain that parents have real concerns about how this situation came to be.

IB asked AT, CB and MM whether they personally considered Mr Dunne to be a talented and inspirational Head. AT, CB and MM stated that they were not able to endorse comments made as statements by IB. IB then asked what plans were there now to support him and the staff team at Ashley.

He asked for clarity that the Co-Headteacher’s  absence and subsequent resignation has been dealt with by GST’s central team, rather than the LGC. MM confirmed that the LGC had not been involved in the process. When asked by IB what processes and provisions had been made by the LGC in view of the absence and now resignation, CB asked AT to respond.

AT advised the meeting he had not seen the Co-Headteacher's communication today and was not able to comment on this or the current position as it was a confidential matter. He confirmed that the matter of the Co-Headteacher’s absence was being dealt with at Trust level, not by the LGC.

In response to a question from LS as to what arrangements had been put in place by the LGC since September, from the date of the Headteacher’s absence, MM confirmed that LGC meetings had taken place, meetings with GST also undertaken, and arrangements made to cut short the other Co-Head, , time at another GST school to return her full-time to Ashley. She is backed by 2 Assistant Heads, making a senior leadership team that is larger than before. IB stated what is your personal view of the Co-Headteacher as head? Do you think he is an inspirational head? MM replied that’s difficult to comment on. CB added we’re here to represent Governors.

MM advised that the LGC could understandably not comment on such (HR) issues. LS said what we’re getting at is – what happened outside this room is one thing we can’t discuss – in terms of his teaching, staffing, rolling out his successful formula –  we want to know if you were on board with his philosophy in that respect? CB replied to say that’s not relevant – we got in this situation and we can’t comment on anything else, it’s between him and his employer.

LS acknowledged that these issues could not be discussed but sought confirmation that the curriculum formula led by the Co-Headteacher would remain. This was reinforced by JD & LD and that this was a key concern (see concern 3 later).

Reservations were expressed by CB at the relevance of this question and JJ commented that the parent group wanted to take away from the meeting that everyone (i.e. Trust / LGC / SLT) was behind what the Co-Headteacher  had built and that we are all pointing in the same direction. AT clarified to the meeting that the LGC and the Trust retained strategic responsibility for the school. In answer to the question from parents as to who takes the lead on curriculum, he responded that the LGC take responsibility for that with the Headteacher. He expanded to say that everyone was aware of the Co-Headteacher approach and the success of the Harmony curriculum.

CB said that the governors had no idea why Mr Dunne hasn’t been here since the beginning of term. Parents have speculated. Governors have not met and discussed curriculum this term. All attention has been on staff and how to support them. CB was disappointed that the action of some parents made this more difficult (a point supported by AT). LS indicated that the parent representatives present could not be held responsible for any other parents’ actions e.g. on WhatsApp and that the vacuum created by the Co-Headteacher’s absence inevitably led to speculation. CB said that sometimes people had to accept somethings are above their heads and leave those in charge to make decisions. IB said we want to reassure people the Governors are doing everything they can and asked AT to issue a statement to address this. AT responded that the Trust would not comment or give any statement.

IB asked the LGC members present to confirm they had made the appropriate challenge to GST over any vacuum created and MM confirmed they had. IB raised Dominic Raab’s letter and referred to the need for transparency by the Trust. AT stated that he did not agree with Dominic Raab’s letter and suggested that Mr Raab knew that the Trust would not be able to comment on Mr Dunne’s absence due to employment law. AT stated that he had been in touch Mr Raab’s office and had told the office this was the case.

LS explained that it was important that the Trust should seek to quell the false rumours making the rounds. She gave the example of one of the Parent Governors who told someone that the Co-Headteacher’s absence was due to mental health issues and that he was having a breakdown. When asked if GST would consider an anodyne statement on the Co-Headteacher’s position to help reassure people and protect the Co-Headteacher, AT reinforced that the Trust was not in a position so to do but, when it is, it will.

It was also noted by all attendees that whilst speculation was inevitable, it was unhelpful. AT confirmed that the Co-Headteacher has been offered pastoral care on 2 occasions by the Trust. LS asked for specific details, questioning whether the pastoral care was independent. AT said he would not go into detail. MM confirmed that one of the first things the LGC had done was to ask the GST to provide pastoral care.

IB then raised the issue of the retention of staff as the second question (2), reiterating what wonderful staff and leadership in the other Co-Headteacher the school had. The body of parents they represent were concerned at any consequent loss of staff and asked for the Trust/LGC’s retention plan. CB agreed that the retention of staff was important and confirmed that the LGC was totally committed at this time to ensure the continued success of the school and to support the Senior Leadership Team to improve the school this term for the good of the children, noting they have been in limbo like everyone else.

She explained that she was praying for the good of the school, but the Governors could not plan for anything as they did not know what would happen. IB expressed his surprise and concern that the Trust had not planned for the Co-Headteacher potential departure given all the circumstances.

He added that this was serious: a plan was needed to retain staff as this was not a “business as usual” situation where it might be appropriate to be more reactive in nature. CB continued to say that the LGC are committed to  support the Senior Leadership Team, which has been ongoing since the start of the Co-Headteacher absence and any change to this as a result of the communication of resignation received will be decided on when they receive that communication.

JJ confirmed that there was big parental support for the Co-Head, as well. MM did respond to indicate that he had been made aware of a number of instances when she has been very upset by pressure from parents/terms used in communications. CB and AT added their disappointment that there has been so much parent input which has negatively affected the situation.

AT added that any healthy organisation should have no difficulties in retaining staff and that Ashley School, alongside all the schools in the Trust has a robust succession plan involving the development at every level of its staff – from NQT to Senior Leadership Team.

He confirmed that extra support has been given from the Trust to Ashley’s Senior Leadership Team this term and that he took the comments in the spirit in which they were offered and would confirm any further plans when the Trust was ready to do so. MM confirmed that until IB read out the letter, all the LGC knew was that the Co-Headteacher was absent.

LS re-raised the Harmony curriculum as a separate concern (3), asking whether there was a real commitment for Harmony to stay in the curriculum in its current form rather than a different (more religious version) which is being followed in another Trust school.

Parents were concerned that the original version of Harmony followed at the school may not be quite so embodied as in the past and that, following the example of another GST school which has recently adopted it, that it was not in the same format and it would be more tied into more religious foci. AT expressed surprise at the latter concern in view of the fact that Ashley is a Church of England school with a strong Christian ethos, a point endorsed by CB.

AT elaborated on why the other GST school in the Trust, St John’s Dorking, had adapted the Harmony curriculum to more properly fit the children and community the school serves which was in a very different part of Surrey. CB confirmed curriculum is largely the Head Teacher’s responsibility.

Governors are there to support and challenge the leadership team. It was agreed last year that Bible verses would be incorporated into Harmony in tandem with values, after last SIAMS report MM added there is a new Ofsted framework. We’ve been discussing harmony for last year or so – Ofsted are now looking differently at education. Harmony fits really well with that framework.

IB asked CB to reassure parents that Harmony would not change at the school. CB responded to say she could not say that. AT added that would be misleading. If circumstances change, it would be misleading to give that reassurance as Governing body can’t give that reassurance.

AT clarified that the GST Board fully recognises the need for parent consultation and where any change is proposed, e.g. the new statutory Relationship and Sex Education changes, all parents will be consulted, and Ashley’s parents would be consulted are no exception.

IB and JJ thanked him and reinforced the fact that parents positively made Ashley a school of choice for their children in view of its Christian distinctiveness and the Harmony curriculum, and given the leadership issues, did not want a further change. Hence the reason for the reassurances that are being sought.

LS added that parents were concerned that the emphasis on Ashley being an Eco school – and the activities of the children in relation to that – might also change. She personally had noticed a diminution in and absence of certain key Eco activities in the Co-Headteacher’s absence, e.g. measuring and reporting at the end of each week on waste and energy measuring where the children are rewarded with extra play time if they beat set targets.

AT responded that he was saddened to hear this as he knows the children are highly engaged in this area and suggested that maybe it is not as firmly embedded in the school as first thought. LS countered this was unlikely to be the case as it has been in place for at least 9 years and fully part of the school system, a point which AT accepted.

He added that Eco was one important area of school life but there were many other elements of school life that the school must be engaged in. IB explained that people come to Ashley as it is a CofE school and because they like the Harmony and Eco focus, which makes Ashley distinctive and special, distinguishing it from other schools. LS added that this culminates in the Chamonix trip, which is utterly inspirational giving a personal example of her child.

IB raised a specific question on the importance of the Chamonix trip to the children and whether it would be continued. AT indicated that the next Chamonix trip in 2019-20 must have already been planned but, alongside the aspects already discussed, they are not currently in a position to give a positive or negative answer to this specific question.

When further pushed to do by IB, CB objected to the challenging tone raised, which surprised IB, JJ, LS, AS and LD.

LS added that parents need feedback from those in charge of the school, asking: is the school committed to continuing with Harmony, Eco and Chamonix? After further input from LS explaining why feedback from the Trust to these detailed questions would be helpful to the parent body, AT recognised the concern but added that the Trust’s objective was to run really good schools but was not in a position currently to provide detailed information.

AT’s position was that he agreed to meet, in order to listen to parents’ concerns, but not to respond by endorsing or rejecting statements which could be relayed to parents to allay their concerns.

IB explained that the parents wanted to help the Trust and LGC to understand and respond to the concerns raised by parents, suggesting that a statement or newsletter could be issued reaffirming the Trust’s / LGC’s / SLT’s support for Harmony, Eco, Chamonix, etc.

LS observed that no-one can give us assurances on any of the issues and parents were not getting the comfort they were looking for. AT noted that this the parents’ objective of the meeting: the Trust’s focus is on running really good schools and he could not comment further. CB and MM re-iterated that they both want the best for the school and its endeavours, and they knew of no plans at the moment to make any changes to this school trip.

AS raised the next concern (4) from parents – communications. 

Parents are concerned at the timeliness of the school’s responses to parents and in particular the change to the use of a generic email, rather than direct email communication to/from class teachers. LS commented that the system was not working and was not appropriate for sensitive communications which raise data protection (GDPR) issues.

AS added that, not having a link to staff, appeared a step back and a needless separation where a close relationship is essential. AT responded by saying he understood that this was brought in the summer term 2019, before the Co-Headteacher’s absence, and was a matter for the School’s Senior Leadership Team to decide, not the Trust.

He suggested that parents use the annual survey to indicate their concerns. LS explained that more regular feedback (and resulting action) was required as it was not appropriate to wait until next summer for a survey. On further specific questions from LS, CB suggested respectfully the meeting move on to those topics that were more appropriate to raise with AT, in view of the restricted time.

IB therefore moved to raise Special Education Needs and Disability (SEND) as the next concern (5), stating that the school needs to do more in terms of SEND provision.

Out of an abundance of caution, the next part of the minute has been omitted at the request of the Trust. The group of parent attendees (IB, LS, AS, JJ and LD) have agreed to this purely for the purposes of (i) agreeing this document and (ii) this document being shared with all staff and parents/carers by the School by midday on Monday, 25 November 2019. It is agreed that, as the meeting was held on an open basis, the parent attendees are free separately to share a version of the minutes with this omitted part included, if they so wish.]

IB affirmed the parental support for the SEND council instigated last year, and their willingness to work with SEND lead and give her time. LS added that it was agreed with the school’s leadership team last year that a SEND council would be set up, however, at the first SEND meeting this academic year the SEND lead announced that this would no longer be happening. IB expressed the disappointment of the SEND parents who did not understand the reasons why.

IB expressed parents’ concern over the changes to the composition of SEND staff support and that Teaching Assistant time has been lost, with more SEND staff time associated with EHCPs. CB, as Chair of the LGC Resources Committee, explained that most schools have restructured due to funding restrictions, and these decisions have been made in the least interruptive way.
At this point, with more points to consider, AT confirmed his willingness to extend the finish time to 7.20pm.

IB raised the next concern (6) on Funds and asked AT to confirm that 100% of the DofE funding available to Ashley school arrives at the school – and is not diverted to the Trust and/or other Trust schools.

AT referred the meeting to the Finance section of his presentation summary on p7 and confirmed that all pupil funding based on pupil numbers, minus a % Trust share, arrives at Ashley without any deductions. IB asked AT to confirm the top-slicing % deduction taken by the Trust.

AT said he thought it was 5% and IB noted that the document shared by the Trust ahead of the meeting stated that a typical range was 3% to 6%. AT gave a high-level overview of GAG and other funding which is based on the number of children and their specific needs. He went onto confirm that all revenue funding received in connection with Ashley CofE School (whether from central bodies or parents in the form of the Governor’s Fund) is ringfenced, used for Ashley children and is not transferred or otherwise allocated to any other Trust schools.

He referred the meeting to the DofE website for further information. On being asked about the Governor Fund, a voluntary contribution fund, MM confirmed that this was used solely for designated CAPEX projects at Ashley School. MM confirmed furthermore that any cost of the secondment of Mrs Stevens to Farnborough Grange was met by the school to which she was seconded.

The last area of concern was on Governance (7) and whether there was a plan to refresh LGC members and Trustees. MM gave a summary of the composition of the LGC set out on the academisation of Ashley and confirmed that skillset audits/training/succession planning is undertaken.

Two new members have been recruited recently with an Education and Community background. AT and SC on behalf of the Trust confirmed that the standard term of office for a general or Foundation member is 4 years and it is not exceptional for LGC members remain for 10 years or longer. He reminded the meeting that all decisions are taken by all members as one body.

LS asked AT why the Part 1 Minutes for LGC meetings are not as easily accessible as before. MM was not aware as to why this was the case and re-affirmed his commitment to openness. MM stated that we’ve voted on open meetings for last 3 years yet just one person has come, and we had two parents at one meeting.

AT confirmed that two requests have been received for copies, one at the school and one at the Trust and the Trust has responded. He confirmed that the Trust would respond within the prescribed statutory (FOIA) timescales.

CB observed the breakdown in trust which has occurred. The LGC are doing the best they can for the children. There’s a vacuum of information and we need to pull together, stand by stand by each other and pull together. She expressed her hope that we can begin to find blocks of trust to build on and that people should think about their own lack of trust.

AT confirmed that communication was very important to achieve this. AT concluded the meeting at this point (7.23pm), advising the meeting that he is committed to communicating further when he is able to.

MEETING ENDS

***********************

These minutes record the key points discussed by attendees at an open meeting on 18 November 2019. They have been reviewed and agreed by all attendees, with one section omitted (as explained above). 

On behalf of all attendees, the Trust/LGC has agreed to circulate these agreed minutes by midday on Monday, 25 November 2019 to all staff as well as to all parents and carers of children at Ashely CofE School.

As stated in the redacted version of the minutes issued by the Trust/LGC on 25 November 2019, it was agreed that, as the meeting was held on an open basis, the parent attendees were free to share a version of the minutes with the omitted part included, if they so wished. 

***********************

To read the redacted paragraphs on SEND, click here.

***************
Why not get every new post by email? You can sign up on the desktop version of this website by putting your email in the box at the bottom of this post or in the box on the right hand nav bar. If you are viewing this post on a mobile, scroll down to where it says "View web version", click on that and you will be taken through to the desktop version. Many thanks!


GST Chair releases a statement: "our systems are fair and impartial"

Circulated on 25 November 2019 at 2.20pm:

"Ashley Church of England Primary School - Resignation of Mr Richard Dunne

The Trust recognises the recent concern within the Ashley school community. It has been very frustrating for all involved not to be able to discuss the situation more openly. This has been especially difficult as we fully understand that Richard Dunne has been a highly regarded member of the school community for a very long time and that his resignation is a challenge for all of us to overcome, together.

We would like to take this opportunity to reassure all members of the school community of our commitment to ensuring that every decision of the Trust is taken in the interests of the children in its care. We take very seriously our responsibility to act within our vision, values, policies and legal responsibilities.

We understand that the school community is looking for information and answers. We ask you to understand that it is not appropriate for the Trust to discuss all elements of this matter openly.
The Trust is committed to its duty of care to Richard as a former member of staff, which includes confidentiality. It is also critical as part of ensuring that our systems are fair and impartial. We can assure you that all of the Trust’s policies and procedures have been strictly adhered to which includes providing an opportunity for full participation by those involved.

We also have a duty of care for all our staff at Ashley. We must stress that all members of staff have a right to be treated with respect and courtesy in every aspect of their professional life. We would ask you, as a member of the school community, to do all you can to ensure they are supported in this endeavour. To the very small minority of parents who have behaved poorly towards some members of staff, we would ask you to remember that all the staff are working in your child’s best interests.
The Trust aims to work in partnership with members of our school communities, including parents, to ensure that all our children flourish. We are continuing to actively support the Senior Leadership Team, the staff and the Local Governing Committee during this challenging time for all involved with the school.

We understand that Ashley has an individual character which the whole school community cherishes. We would like to reassure you that Ashley remains a highly valued school within our Trust.
Children remain at the heart of everything we do. Our hope is that everyone in the school community will be able to work together to achieve the best possible outcomes for all the children in our care.

Simon Walker
Chair, The Good Shepherd Trust"

Rev Cathy Blair and Rev Jonny Blair's letter: "We would have responded positively..."

On 25 November 2019, the Revs Cathy and Jonny Blair, joint vicars at St Mary's and St James's churches in Walton issued the following letter to their parishioners.

Richard Dunne lives in Cathy and Jonny's parish and Cathy Blair is vice-chair of the LGC (governors) at Ashley school.

The penultimate paragraph in this letter contrasts with a request I made on 16 Oct to discuss what pastoral care was being offered to Mr Dunne. On 17 October I received a reply via an intermediary stating "Cathy tells me RD pastoral care must come from the trust."

Letter follows:

"Dear [parishioner]

Several parents have asked for clarification on some issues concerning the situation at Ashley school and the church. There is so much speculation and conjecture going around, that we felt it would be helpful.

Firstly, the church involvement.

The first thing to say is that the church of St Mary and St John’s has had nothing at all to do with the absence of Mr Dunne during September, October and half of November. Neither does the church have any say in any strategic decisions taken at the school. The leadership of the church have a strong desire to have a good relationship with the schools in the town of Walton on Thames, and especially with the Church of England primary school, because it is the best for the local community.

We are very sorry to see an influential, well-liked co-Head teacher of 18 years depart a school in this way.

Secondly, Governance and curriculum.

Role as Governor. Cathy takes on the role which is required of the incumbent of the parish in which a Church of England school resides to be a Governor. She is deputy chair of Governors. She has had this role since summer 2016.

The role of the Local Governing Committees (LGC) in Academy schools is to be a support and challenge to the Head teacher and Senior leadership team (SLT) on all local issues pertaining to the running of the school, under the Ofsted categories and in accordance with the SIAMS (Statutory Inspection of Anglican and Methodist Schools) requirements.

The LGC role (which includes Cathy) is to oversee aspects of budgeting and finance, building projects and site maintenance, health and safety, safeguarding, staffing etc. The Academy Trust (GST) do such things as provide higher level budgeting, services for training, mentoring, employment of staff, legal and HR expertise and run 16 schools concurrently with benefits to all schools, which the County Council previously provided.

Just to say, that leading up to the resignation of Mr Dunne, the LGC had no more information that the GST put out to parents and staff. The focus of the LGC is on support of the Staff to provide the best possible education for the children.

Curriculum and Harmony. As an Academy, the school has had the freedom to develop a broader curriculum including the eco and environmental package that Ashley school offers. This curriculum will stand the school in a good place under the new Ofsted framework, because there is now a requirement to show that learning is broad and embedded, rather than simply good academic achievement.

Specifically, because I know this has come up, such things as the enriched curriculum including Harmony for which the school is well- known, are the choice of the Senior leadership team agreed with the Governors, not the Governors’ choice. This would come under educational decisions which the Trust and LGC support the SLT in making.

Thirdly, pastoral care.

People have asked whether the church has offered pastoral care. We would have responded positively to any request for pastoral support from Mr Dunne and his family as to any request from parishioners.

We are sorry that this whole situation has caused such anxiety. As your church leaders we would like to assure you that we are praying for you and your children at this unsettling time.  We would hope that you would feel able to approach us and ask any questions if you have any further concerns. We hope this helps.

Yours,

Cathy and Jonny"

21 November 2019

Letter to Parents from Nigel Stapleton: "The LGC will consider a further meeting with parent representatives..."

Circulated on 21 Nov 2019:

"Dear Parents & Carers

Following the statement from The Good Shepherd Trust (GST) on Tuesday morning regarding the resignation of Richard Dunne, the Local Governing Committee (LGC) wish to assure you that our number one priority is the support of the staff of Ashley School, whose focus must be directed to the welfare of the children and the excellence of learning that they continue to provide.

The LGC understand that this is a very unsettling time for everyone connected with the school and believe that it is paramount that all who have an interest in the School should pull together for to secure the best future for the children.

Members of the LGC and GST met with a small representative group of concerned parents on Monday evening (in response to a request from parents received before half-term) and responded to a range of questions about the school and the leadership going forward. Some agreed notes from this meeting will be issued to all parents as soon as possible. The LGC will consider a further meeting with parent representatives, once the notes from this meeting have been circulated.

In the meantime, we will be focusing our attention on ensuring that the quality of education that the children receive is maintained.

Our priority remains securing the best outcomes and learning for Ashley children at this challenging time. Please be assured that we are giving immediate consideration to how we can communicate with all the parent community in a positive way into the future.

We will write to parents again shortly to let you know how we intend to engage with parent concerns.

Yours faithfully

Nigel Stapleton

On behalf of the Local Governing Committee Ashley CE Primary School


CC: all members of Ashley Staff"

***************

Why not get every new post by email? You can sign up on the desktop version of this website by putting your email in the box at the bottom of this post or in the box on the right hand nav bar. If you are viewing this post on a mobile, scroll down to where it says "View web version", click on that and you will be taken through to the desktop version. Many thanks!

19 November 2019

The parental response to Richard Dunne's resignation

First published in an A4T newsletter dated: Tuesday 19 Nov 2019:

"We were all devastated to see Mr Dunne’s letter of resignation, and the issues it brought to light.

We are acutely aware of the sorrow and anger expressed so eloquently by so many people over the course of the last 24 hours.

As you know, we had our meeting with the Trust yesterday evening and, following his resignation, we also spoke to Mr Dunne.

Just to be clear on the timing of what happened over the past 48 hours: Mr Dunne sent a resignation letter to the Trust on Sunday evening. He sent it to the school at lunchtime yesterday. Mr Dunne’s resignation was accepted by the Trust.

We understand that Mr Dunne wanted the news to be shared with staff in their post-school staff meeting yesterday, but this did not happen.  We are not sure why, but we can only assume the Trust blocked the resignation letter from being shared.

The resignation letter (which was also addressed to parents and children) was posted on the Ashley Parents’ Facebook group late yesterday afternoon.

Why has Mr Dunne been forced to resign?

The information we have received about what has been happening over the last few months has led us to the conclusion that Mr Dunne has acted in the best interests of the children and Ashley school. Certainly, we have yet to see any evidence to the contrary (and we absolutely do not expect anything to materialise).

From our understanding, the allegations about Mr Dunne’s “performance, regarding procedures and practices” should have been resolvable without his removal from the school.

We have not seen the specific details, but from what we understand any suggestion the allegations are serious does not stand up to scrutiny.

As you know from his letter, Mr Dunne strongly rejects all the allegations against him.

When we spoke to Mr Dunne, he told us he is extremely grateful for all the support he and his family have received. He also very much wants the parents to remain actively involved in challenging the GST and the Governors going forward and in the best interests of the school.

We hope and expect he will continue to be a significant part of our community as things develop."

GST statement on Mr Dunne's departure

At 10.15am on Tuesday 19 November, the GST issued the following statement:

"The Good Shepherd Trust can confirm that Mr Richard Dunne has resigned from his post as Co-Headteacher at Ashley Church of England Primary School. He left the employment of the Trust on 17th November 2019.

We would like to thank Richard for his contribution over the last 18 years and wish him well for the future.

The Trust would like to thank pupils, parents and carers for their continuing support for Ashley Church of England Primary School and its staff team.

We will write to all parents and carers again in due course to provide an update on plans for the school going forward."