17 January 2020

Finally, the allegations against Mr Dunne

Richard Dunne
Ashley School's head teacher of 18 years, Richard Dunne, was suspended on 10 September 2019 after a number of allegations were made against him by his employer, the Good Shepherd Trust.

On 18 November 2019 Mr Dunne wrote a letter to staff, parents, carers and children stating that he strongly rejected all the allegations: "but, given the way the Trust has conducted itself so far, I do not believe that I will receive a fair hearing in relation to the concerns they have raised and so I have resigned."

Without being told what Mr Dunne was alleged to have, er, done, it has been difficult for everyone to work out why he was turfed out of the school. I think we have a right to know. I have now spoken to enough people and seen enough documentation to at least be able to give you the exact wording of the allegations against Mr Dunne and the dread crimes they allude to. I have also seen Mr Dunne's response.

But first, some context.

In 2014, one of the biggest fans of the Good Shepherd Trust was Richard Dunne. Ashley School, under Mr Dunne's leadership, had developed an independent and successful ethos, but that ethos was under threat. Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, had a clear idea of what a primary school curriculum should look like. It would mean big changes for Ashley.

With a view to escaping the clutches of local authority control, the school approached the Good Shepherd Trust. They were pushing at an open door.

On 1 Sep 2014, the school became part of the trust and Nigel Stapleton, the Chair of Ashley's board of governors, became a GST trustee. Everyone was happy. The GST had its first outstanding school and access to a highly motivated and experienced senior leadership team. Richard Dunne felt free to continue developing and implementing his educational philosophy at Ashley, based on the principles of natural Harmony and environmental awareness.

For the first three years all seemed to be going well, with the school being left to develop its own unique curriculum. The first signs things were changing came with a significant increase in meetings at the GST offices in Guildford in 2017/8, which required Mr Dunne's attendance. Mr Dunne felt, after a while, that the meetings were not in the best interests of Ashley school. He became increasingly convinced the trust was far too focused on empire-building, and was losing sight of what he understood it to be about.

Allegations of bullying

At the same time, there was also a curious dynamic developing around Ashley's board of governors (now officially known as the Local Governing Committee, or LGC). Governors' meetings became combative affairs, with Nigel Stapleton, and Rev Cathy Blair, (the governors' vice-chair) setting the tone.

One former governor said he saw an: "aggressive and confrontational attitude take hold, driven by Nigel and Cathy which, with hindsight, I wish I had challenged more robustly at the time... Richard [Dunne] was often spoken to in a very confrontational and aggressive way, which was tantamount to bullying. It became so aggressive at one stage that Cathy was told to apologise to Richard which she reluctantly did, but it wouldn't surprise me if she had an issue with him ever since."

The clerk to the governors at the time was Sienna Alcock. She describes Nigel Stapleton as being "aggressive" and treating Mr Dunne in a "demeaning" manner. She also felt that the governors, particularly Mr Stapleton, were "micro managing" the school - over-reaching their strategic remit.

In the summer of 2017, Ms Alcock was invited to become a foundation governor. She accepted, but was still concerned about Mr Stapleton's behaviour. 

During a meeting with three other governors, set up to discuss the toxic environment at the LGC and the behaviour of Nigel Stapleton and Cathy Blair, Ms Alcock offered to become temporary chair of the LGC, to try to relieve some of the tension and give the school a fresh start.

This idea was taken to Nigel Stapleton. He wasted no time in having Ms Alcock removed from the picture. Instead of receiving the paperwork for the next governors meeting, Sienna Alcock received nothing. When she enquired as to what was going on, she was told she was no  longer going to be an Ashley governor on 1 September 2017 as agreed. No letter, no warning. Ms Alcock says "it was clear my attempts to speak up about the situation were met with an attempt to silence me." She later complained. The GST refused to investigate.

In the course of putting this piece together I have discovered that a number serious allegations about the behaviour of Nigel Stapleton towards Richard Dunne and others have been made known to the Good Shepherd Trust.

One of those complaints, by a former member of Ashley staff, alleges that Nigel Stapleton was "rude and aggressive", "intimidating" and "inappropriate and offensive" towards her, concluding that she felt she was "being bullied out of my job." The trust again refused to investigate.

In the last few weeks, Alex Tear, the CEO of the GST has reiterated that "The trust is committed to its duty of care for all staff, including former staff" and Simon Walker, the Chair of the GST has stated: "I take allegations of bullying of any kind very seriously."

Yet the trust appears to have done nothing to investigate complaints about Nigel Stapleton, and don't appear to be taking multiple allegations of bullying very seriously at all. 

The asset-stripping

In September 2018, the GST removed Ashley's deputy head teacher Jackie Stevens from the school for half the week. This was to help run the trust's ailing Farnborough Grange Infant School in Hampshire. Mr Dunne was told he too would have to take time out from Ashley to assist at Farnborough Grange as the School Improvement and Intervention Board Chair, running meetings at the school every other week.

The same month the School's Business Manager, Di Goodhugh, was asked by the trust to attend regular meetings in Guildford to discuss a potential role for her as the trust's Head of Finance. This meant that from the beginning of Autumn Term 2018, Ms Goodhugh was absent from the school approximately half the week. This had a significant impact on the ability of the school office to operate effectively.

In October Di Goodhugh informed Mr Dunne she was leaving to become the GST's Head of Finance with almost immediate effect. Although the trust's business manager Gill Farmer stepped in to help out part-time, the school had been left in the lurch. Both the school's full-time office staff resigned in the following weeks.

At the end of 2018, the trust instructed Jackie Stevens to become full time head teacher at Farnborough Grange for the rest of the academic year. Mr Dunne was told he was going to be made an executive head, initially responsible for Farnborough Grange and Ashley School, something he did not want to do.

In January 2019, Mr Herbert, the school’s Premises Manager, announced he was going to be absent from the school all term to recover from two major knee operations.

Ashley School was now without a premises manager, a full time business manager and a deputy head teacher. The school's leadership was stripped down to Richad Dunne, an Assistant Head, and a two days-a-week business manager - 12 management days a week in total. By comparison Ashley currently has a head, a three day-a-week deputy, two assistant heads and a two day-a-week business manager - 25 management days a week in total.

On top of the day-to-day business of running the school, Mr Dunne knew he had a challenging year 6 cohort coming through, and he says he was being put under pressure by the trust to maintain Ashley's results record. He felt unsupported, and was struggling.

The protected disclosure

On 9 January 2019, Richard Dunne wrote an email to Nigel Stapleton, outlining his concerns about the situation and the trust's actions in what he felt was the asset-stripping of the school. Fatally, and perhaps na├»vely, Mr Dunne questioned whether it was in Ashley's best interests to remain in the Good Shepherd Trust. Mr Dunne later described his email as a confidential "cry for help". In his eyes, he was making a protected disclosure.

Nigel Stapleton replied to the email, copying in the chief executive of the trust, and one of the trust's directors of education, Kate Evans. Mr Stapleton told Mr Dunne: “it appears to me that you are, in your current perception of your role, living in a “Bubble” and taking little recognition of the realities of the educational world." He concluded “what worries me still more is if this reflects accurately your motivation and commitment to GST. If it does, then the future looks bleak!”

Mr Dunne says he was "utterly stunned" by Nigel Stapleton's response in copying in his bosses, and felt that from that moment on, the trust had marked his card. Maybe he was right.

But you can't get rid of a head teacher just like that. You need dirt.

The problem was, Mr Dunne didn't seem to be doing much wrong. Staff were loyal and committed, results were good, parents* were happy and he was developing a national reputation for his work on the Harmony curriculum.

But if you're really determined...

The evidence gathering

Over the early part of 2019 Kate Evans became more visible at Ashley. Rather than spend her time with Mr Dunne, she instead seemed to be having regular conversations with another member of staff. Let's call her "Ms X".

As the trust began going over the school and Mr Dunne's personal record with a fine toothcomb, Ashley school's year 6 Chamonix trips were approaching. Mr Dunne was leading one of them, and any safeguarding problems on the trip would give the trust a field day. Whilst the children were in Chamonix, Ms X was receiving secret texts from another a (now departed) member of staff alleging  safeguarding lapses. The allegations were passed to the GST without Mr Dunne's knowledge.

The trust appointed one of its directors of education, Amanda Johnston, as investigating officer. Donning the gumshoes, Johnston PI began to record video interviews to gather evidence against Mr Dunne. This little exercise hit a bump when Ms Johnston pointed her camera at Jenna Caswell, an Ashley special needs assistant, who was on Mr Dunne's 2019 Chamonix trip.

Jenna Caswell left Ashley School at the end of the last academic year and is now a police officer. She has been to Chamonix a number of times, and is adamant that in 2019, there were no safeguarding issues whatsoever. Jenna described it as an "amazing week", adding that "the children loved it and they were all safe and well."

Whilst on the trip Jenna spoke to her colleague about the constant texts and asked her why she was sending them. Her colleague said she had been asked to send them by Ms X.

After everyone had returned to England, Jenna was approached by Ms X to become a whistleblower against Mr Dunne. She refused.

Amanda Johnston was perhaps unaware of this when she invited Jenna to take part in a filmed interview. 

During the interview Jenna gave her both barrels. She not only made it quite clear she did not witness any safeguarding lapses in Chamonix, she made a counter-complaint against Ms X for her constant attempts to undermine Mr Dunne (which apparently started well before Chamonix) and Ms X's efforts to encourage other members of staff to do the same. Ms Johnston didn't appear to be interested in Jenna's comments about Ms X.

Jenna has not been able to find out what happened to her on-camera complaint against Ms X. It doesn't look like it was investigated.

Because it has been so difficult for any current staff member to speak out (save the letter most of the non-management staff sent to the GST last year), I asked Jenna (as someone who spent many years at the school and who only left last year) what she thought of Richard Dunne.

She said: "He opens the children's eyes. He lets them see what is happening to our world around us. He explains the importance of us looking after our planet. The Chamonix trip is the best trip I've ever been on - to see the change in the children of achieving climbing a mountain, going on a cable car, new experiences and probably the first time they have been away from their parents. My daughter did this trip the week before us, and she came back with a whole new outlook on the world. He inspires the children to make a change."

The co-headship

Whilst the trust was compiling its allegations, it had to deal with a request from Jackie Stevens. Mrs Stevens was not having a good time at Farnborough Grange. The stress of dealing with a difficult school and the considerable amount of travelling time was getting to her. She wanted to return to Ashley.

A solution presented itself. Mr Dunne was keen to continue the Harmony work he had been developing and sought a clear distinction between sharing the curriculum beyond Ashley and his day to day job leading the school. Mr Dunne and Jackie Stevens had been colleagues for more than a decade and trusted each other completely. After much discussion, a new leadership structure with two co-headteachers and two assistant heads was agreed with the trust. Despite the horrors of 2018/9, it looked possible that Richard Dunne would be able to put the year behind him and work with Jackie Stevens to get Ashley motoring again.

But what the trust giveth with one hand, it also taketh away. Before the end of summer term, Richard Dunne was told he was the subject of a "fact-finding" investigation.

The suspension

On 9 September 2019, in the first week of Autumn term, Mr Dunne and Mrs Stevens told parents in their first newsletter of the year, how they were "both very much looking forward to working together in our co-headship role."

A day later, Richard Dunne was summoned to an "informal" meeting at the GST's offices in Guildford. He was met by the trust's interim CEO Alex Tear and  Kate Evans.

Mr Dunne was handed a list of 18 allegations and told he was suspended. His lanyard, keys and laptop were taken away, denying him access to his emails and essential documentation.

The trust and school then misled parents by telling them Mr Dunne was absent from school for "personal" reasons. They were told not to approach him.

Mr Dunne was understandably distraught. He had led the school for 18 years and was at the heart of a community of supportive families who thought highly of him. Mr Dunne's daughter was still at the school. Suddenly he was sitting at home, cut off from the job he loved.

At first Mr Dunne sought his union's help, then he went to a lawyer. He asked the trust to push back his disciplinary hearing to 18 November as he needed to gather the evidence to support his case. He made a subject access request (SAR) to the trust. This request would compel the trust to hand over all the information they held on Mr Dunne, including any communication between trust and school staff.

As the hearing approached, Mr Dunne still had not received all the documents he had requested. He asked for the hearing to be pushed back again. The trust refused.

The hearing

On the 17 November, concerned he didn't have the documentation he needed to prove his case, and by now reasonably sure he wasn't going to get a fair hearing, Richard Dunne sent a letter of resignation to the trust by email.

On receipt of this letter, summoning all five of its values - trust, love, courage, respect and integrity - the GST decided it was not sufficiently clear to have confirmed that Mr Dunne had definitely resigned. With this strange doubt lurking in their minds, the trust decided Mr Dunne's disciplinary hearing could still go ahead.

The disciplinary panel solemnly assembled in Guildford on the morning of 18 November. Richard Dunne was not present. Nor was his lawyer. Those who did attend were:

Yvonne McLeod (GST director, expert in distribution, logistics and change management)
Louise Pollock (GST director, economist and mindfulness teacher)
Amanda Johnston (GST director of education and disciplinary panel's Investigating Officer),
Joanne Cambra (GST HR director and adviser to the Investigating Officer),
Richard Hiron (from Judicium Consulting Limited, as HR adviser to the panel)
Chloe Benson (Notetaker)

The hearing was chaired by Simon Walker, chair of the GST's board of trustees.

Immediately, 11 of the 18 allegations presented to Mr Dunne at the beginning of term were dropped. This was partly thanks to Jenna Caswell, who had provided a statement to Mr Dunne's lawyer, and the patient work of Mr Dunne himself, who had collated some of the evidence he needed.

However, seven allegations remained.

The allegations in full

The panel considered the remaining allegations put to Mr Dunne. They were:

1) boundaries are blurred between parents and staff, with inappropriately casual relationships and attitudes to school, possibly resulting in safeguarding concerns;

2) the school is vulnerable with statutory matters not adhered to;

3) safeguarding is not a priority;

4) you instruct other senior leaders to exclude pupils when only the Head teacher has authority to do so;

5) you may have failed to sign in and sign out on several occasions from September 2018 to date thereby failing to comply with the School's procedures;

6) only registering to attend a DSL [designated safeguarding lead] course in July 2019 despite being instructed to register on 16 November 2018 and again on 14 May 2019;

7) you may have breached the Academies Financial Handbook by commissioning a service (with payment) to a company of which you are a Director and failing to declare this interest, including after intervention from the Trust's Finance Manager.

All the allegations were upheld. Mr Dunne was issued with an "outcomes letter" on 21 November telling him he had been found guilty of gross misconduct in his absence, but as the trust had now managed to convince themselves he had resigned on 17 November, he no longer had any right of appeal.

On a quick read, allegation...

1) appears to allege either Mr Dunne or his staff are too nice,
2) and 3) are a little opaque,
4) is either true or untrue,
5) is quite extraordinary,
6) could do with some context, and
7) is, of course, the infamous catering racket, where Mr Dunne was found guilty of not signing a form he had requested, but not been given.

Each upheld complaint was accompanied by references to evidence which was not present in the documentation I have seen.

On 13 December Mr Dunne sent a letter to the GST in response to their disciplinary panel's findings.

Using the outcomes letter and Mr Dunne's response, I have tried to set out below the main thrust of the disciplinary panel's findings and the main thrust of Mr Dunne's responses as clearly as I am able. It really is quite a read. Here goes:

Allegation 1) boundaries are blurred between parents and staff, with inappropriately casual relationships and attitudes to school, possibly resulting in safeguarding concerns;

The trust said:
"parents and carers were able to access the School premises quite freely and that DBS checks were routinely not undertaken in relation to members of staff and volunteers (including your own wife). These clearly posed a significant risk of harm to pupils."
Mr Dunne said:
"The reasons given by the disciplinary panel for upholding this allegation do not relate to the allegation that there are inappropriately casual relationships with parents. Instead, the evidence relied upon relates to the DBS checks of staff and volunteers and parents being able to access the School’s premises... this is because there was no evidence that I had caused the blurring of boundaries between parents and staff nor that I had created inappropriately casual relationships with parents... For completeness, I also categorically refute the allegations that parents were able to enter the School’s premises freely except for the beginning and end of the school day when they would come in to drop off and collect their children. It is the School’s policy that parents must sign in and out of the School if they are to be on the School’s premises during the school day. All staff are aware of this policy and the signing in / out process is managed on a day-to-day basis by the School office (not myself) when parents come into Reception."
On the specific allegations concerning Mr Dunne's wife, Charlotte, Mr Dunne says:
"My wife has been a volunteer at the School for 18 years and whenever she provided support to the School to help with pupil’s reading, she was always with the Class Teacher and a Teaching Assistant. She was never left alone with the children and instead was always supervised. This means that there was no legal requirement for her to have a DBS check. 
Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that whilst it may be considered best practice, there is in fact no legal requirement for a DBS check to be renewed. However, notwithstanding this, when the School’s Business Manager flagged to my wife that her DBS had “expired”, my wife completed the necessary paperwork and provided it to the School’s Business Manager for processing. My wife was therefore of the understanding that everything had been actioned, but the School’s Business Manager failed to process the form and my wife’s DBS check was therefore not updated."
Allegation 2) the school is vulnerable with statutory matters not adhered to;

The trust said:
"your conduct gave rise to safeguarding concerns, serious neglect of health and safety procedures, serious breach of confidence, serious misuse of position, conduct that brings the Trust's name into disrepute, conduct that risks the viability of the Trust and gross negligence."
Mr Dunne said:
"I do not accept that the School was vulnerable to statutory matters, and the Trust has not provided evidence of this... no details of what I have allegedly done have been provided."
Allegations 3) safeguarding is not a priority;

The trust said:
"your conduct over a period of time demonstrated a clear lack of understanding and a clear lack of interest in the safeguarding processes and procedures that the Trust and its policies have made clear is paramount for the protection of the pupils that come to the Trust for education in a safe and secure environment... you demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of the appropriate procedures to be followed and of the urgency in ensuring that the pupils under your care were protected."
Mr Dunne said:
"This allegation is categorically denied. Firstly, I wish to make it clear that before the Trust’s witch-hunt commenced against me there had been no safeguarding concerns raised against me by staff or parents during my 18 years’ service at the School. Safeguarding was always a priority to me and I believe this is evidenced by the fact that when I joined the School’s Safeguarding Committee in January 2019, I increased the number of meetings so that they were held every other week rather than once a month."
"In relation to the Single Central Record, I accept that a Safeguarding Audit found that it had not been kept up to date. However, this in no way infers that safeguarding was not a priority to me. The day-to-day responsibility for the Single Central Record had been delegated to the School’s Business Manager and the Deputy Headteacher who was the School’s DSL. I believe that they had both failed to keep the Single Central Record up to date because they had been out of the School so much working on Trust matters. However, once I became aware of the issues with the Single Central Record, I took over responsibility for it and ensured that any missing information was rectified as quickly as possible. I liaised closely with the School office and the Trust Business Manager regarding this and can confirm that it was in an immaculate state by early in the Spring Term. Once all the issues had been rectified, I would also regularly check it over to make sure that this remained the case on an on-going basis (which it did)."
Allegation 4) you instruct other senior leaders to exclude pupils when only the Head teacher has authority to do so;

The trust said:
"In your role of Head teacher of the School, you are expected to be aware of the relevant processes and procedures for excluding a child of school age. The Panel reviewed the witness evidence and the documentation available, including your own evidence and found that you had delegated your exclusion responsibilities to other senior leaders."
Mr Dunne said:
"I would like to make it clear that I do not believe that this allegation is factually accurate as it suggests that this is something I did on a regular basis when in fact I believe it relates to one occasion where I spoke to [Ms X] about a potential exclusion that may need to take place at the School before I had to leave to go to a SIIB [School Improvement and Intervention Board] meeting at Farnborough Grange. I therefore categorically deny that this was a common practice within the School. I would also like to make it very clear that I was fully aware that I was the only person who could exclude a pupil at the School and this is evidenced by the fact that, to my knowledge, there has never been an exclusion that has taken place at the School whilst I was Headteacher that was actioned by anybody other than myself."
Allegation 5) you may have failed to sign in and sign out on several occasions from September 2018 to date thereby failing to comply with the School's procedures;

The biggie. The trust said:
"given your seniority in the position of Head teacher, it was your responsibility to ensure that proper standards of behaviour were set and to act as a role model for staff, pupils and, to some extent, parents and carers as well. The Panel also took into account the factual evidence which demonstrated that the system for signing in and out of the School was working at the relevant times."
Mr Dunne said:
"This allegation is categorically refuted. It was well known within the School and the Trust that the new signing in / out system that was introduced at the School in August / September 2018 had teething problems and did not work properly. These problems included an inability to sign-in / sign out as well as some staffs cards not working. My card did not work and I was therefore unable to sign in / out for an extended period of time. However, whilst I was waiting for a replacement card, I would always let the School office know that I was in work so that this could be accurately recorded, and I would always wear a lanyard as I had done for many years. With regards to signing out, it was again well known within School that almost on a daily basis, there would be a block of staff who would not show up as having signed out (even though they did) and this resulted in the default time of 23:59 being allocated. I therefore simply do not accept that when my sign out time is shown as being 23:59 that I failed to sign out and instead assert that it is because the system failed to work properly."
Incidentally, the signing in and out system has since been abandoned and replaced.

Allegation 6) only registering to attend a DSL [designated safeguarding lead] course in July 2019 despite being instructed to register on 16 November 2018 and again on 14 May 2019;

The trust said:
"The Panel found that there had been significant delay between your receiving a legitimate management instruction to attend a course to ensure that you could effectively lead the safeguarding procedures at the School, during which time you were reminded of the need to do so.  
The Panel was also mindful that your own evidence demonstrated a clear lack of appreciation and understanding of the importance that the safety of pupils at the School is paramount before anything else must be considered."
Mr Dunne said:
"This allegation is refuted as it is simply not true. Firstly, I do not accept that I was given a management instruction to attend a DSL course on 16th November 2018. This is because I was not part of the School’s Safeguarding Committee at this point in time and the meeting that took place on 16th November 2018 was in relation to Farnborough Grange and my role as Chair of the SIIB. Both my previous lawyer and I repeatedly asked for the evidence that showed I was asked to attend the training in November 2018 and to date, the Trust has failed to provide this.  
I joined the School’s Safeguarding Committee in January 2019 when Jackie Stevens, who was the School’s DSL, was seconded to work at Farnborough Grange full-time. As soon as it became clear that Jackie would not be returning to the School for the remainder of the Academic Year, I registered to attend a DSL training course. I attended a DSL training course on 12th March 2019 and also went to a Spring Term DSL Network Meeting the following week on 19th March 2019. I believe that these timescales are wholly reasonable in view of the fact I was trying to run the School with a significantly reduced Leadership Team, as outlined above. 
With regard to the follow-up DSL training, when I was questioned by Kate Evans in May 2019 as to why this had not been completed, I explained to her that it was because the training provider in March had told me that the follow-up training would take place during the Autumn Term and to hold off until then. Upon Kate learning this, she directed me to attend the follow-up training with a different provider and I booked the course within 24 hours of her request having been made. The different provider had no availability for May or June and I therefore attended the course in July 2019. 
Finally, I believe it is important to make clear that whilst I was in the process of completing my DSL training, the School still had 3 DSLs - Tiffany Holder, Louise Athersuch and Maggie Rebbeck, as well as two other staff members (Katy Luxford and Joanne Hart) who had DSL training at the School. Therefore, the School was in no way left vulnerable in terms of suitably trained DSLs, especially in view of the fact there is a legal requirement for a school to only have one DSL."
Allegation 7) you may have breached the Academies Financial Handbook by commissioning a service (with payment) to a company of which you are a Director and failing to declare this interest, including after intervention from the Trust's Finance Manager.

Ah, the catering racket. This allegation was signposted in Nigel Stapleton's end of term letter to parents on 18 Dec 2019. Charlotte Dunne's magnificent reply was circulated before Christmas. Read both here.

In the outcomes letter of 21 Nov, this is what the trust said:
"The Panel considered the frequency of the authorisation of the payments and the length of the period over which they were made. It was found that you had authorised payments to a company in which you were both a Director and in which you exercised significant control, without complying with the requirements set out in the Academies Financial Handbook. It was found that this was a serious misuse of your position and demonstrated a severe disregard for both statutory requirements and the rules of the Trust. Moreover, the Panel found that your conduct in this regard held the potential to cause serious reputational damage to the Trust, which in turn could cause severe detriment to its credibility and its funding."
Mr Dunne's response was:
"I understand that this allegation relates to my wife’s company, RJ and CJ Consulting Ltd, of which I am a Director but had no involvement with on a day-to-day basis at the time of the allegation.
It is important to highlight that both the School and the Trust have known about my wife’s company and my link to it for many years. It was never something that was hidden and instead was something that was widely known. This is because since 2009, and at the request of Nigel Stapleton, my wife was asked to do the catering for the Governors’ ‘thank you’ meal for staff at the end of the School’s Academic Year. My wife did not do this every year but did do the catering in 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2017. This was not something that I suggested or was involved in. It was instead something that was commissioned by Nigel Stapleton as the School’s Chair of Governors. It is therefore incredulous that the Trust is now trying to infer that they were not aware of my interest in this company, especially given that Nigel Stapleton is also the Chair of the Trust’s Finance Committee. 
In addition, my wife also did the catering for workshops that were run by an outside organisation called the Prince’s School of Traditional Arts on the School’s Premises. Again, this was all above board - the School Business Manager knew what was happening and the Governors were aware of these events and my wife’s role in doing the catering. Some of the Governors even attended the workshops. My wife’s invoices for these events were not even addressed to the School and instead were addressed to the Prince’s School of Traditional Arts. Furthermore, once concerns regarding this arrangement were raised by Di Goodhugh, my wife stopped providing the catering to Prince’s School of Traditional Arts and the catering was instead provided by a different third party. 
For clarity, this decision to change the catering supplier took place in November 2018, almost 9 months before the allegation was made against me.
Once again, I believe that this has been an attempt by the Trust to manipulate the allegations / evidence in order to make a finding of gross misconduct against me when it is simply unjustified to do so. My involvement in my wife’s company was wholly above board and has been since 2009 when her services were first used by the Governors. 
I accept that a 'declarations of interest’ form was never completed about this, but when this was flagged to me by Di Goodhugh, the Trust’s Head of Finance by this stage, in June 2019, I confirmed that I was happy to complete the form and asked for her to provide me with a copy of it. Email evidence can confirm this. However, she never did. Instead it became an allegation against me."
So there you have it. It's easy to see why Richard Dunne (and some of the more perceptive parents, to use Nigel Stapleton's phrase) believe this has been a total stitch-up. 

That's not to say Mr Dunne may not have made mistakes. If you scrutinise everyone's actions and activities at work, especially if they are under pressure and under-staffed, you'll find occasions where errors are made. Striving for perfection is a lovely idea, achieving it at the best of times is impossible. We are all human.

Dealing with oversights, errors and omissions is about proportionality. It's hard to see the proportionality in finding someone guilty of gross misconduct for not signing in or out of school when they say they simply weren't able to.

Mr Dunne alleges this lack of proportionality and fairness goes deeper. In his letter of 13 Dec, he says:
"the Trust failed to follow fair and reasonable processes.... [including] failing to provide me with any real detail as to what the allegations meant so that I could not properly defend myself... suspending me without justified grounds and providing me with no support or access to my emails during my suspension... inviting me to a disciplinary hearing and capability hearing within the same invite letter even though they are entirely separate processes and should have been dealt with in accordance with their separate corresponding policies; failing to postpone the disciplinary and capability hearings... failing to raise allegations in a timely manner; failing to speak to me on an informal basis about any of the concerns before deciding to deal with them formally many months later; failing to provide any kind of support for me to help address any of the allegations; and failing to consider all the evidence available and instead relying on the evidence that achieved the Trust’s desired outcome..."
Whilst Mr Dunne was suspended the staff at Ashley sent a letter expressing their increasing concerns about Mr Dunne's absence, reminding the trust that:
"Richard’s dedication to the children of Ashley School, its staff and community is inspirational. His passion for providing the best quality experiential teaching and learning is at the core of Ashley School’s ethos."
309 parents also sent a letter to the trust noting:
"We wish to express our strong support for Mr Dunne, who as the Headteacher of 18 years standing is not only integral to and synonymous with Ashley School in a professional capacity, but is also a parent to a young child at the school."
The governors were conspicuous by their failure to offer Mr Dunne any public support whatsoever.

This is about accountability. I am publishing this piece in the public interest. There needs to be an independent investigation into the Good Shepherd Trust so that conversations, communications and decisions which led to the suspension of Mr Dunne can be scrutinised. If there is evidence of a witch-hunt, the relevant staff can be disciplined and Mr Dunne can receive an apology.

Also, given the serious nature of the allegations against Nigel Stapleton (a GST trustee and chair of Ashley's board of governors, let's not forget), they ought to be pursued with the same zeal the trust applied to Mr Dunne's investigation.

One respected former member of staff told me:
"The way the Governing Body and the GST treated Richard is deplorable. I am sad to say whilst working at Ashley, I saw a great man, who dedicated his life to the teaching profession and Ashley School, treated with a complete lack of respect. I have little faith in their stewardship of the school."
If the trust and the LGC have behaved by the book over the last three years, then no one should have anything to worry about.

My concern is that if the GST and LGC are not properly investigated, they will be free to treat staff, parents and possibly even children in the same manner they treated Mr Dunne, and I am not sure I want that.


As you might expect, before I published this piece, I gave the Good Shepherd Trust, Nigel Stapleton and Cathy Blair the opportunity to respond. I received the following on Thu 16 January from Nick Clarke, the trust's PR man:

"I’ve passed your questions to the Good Shepherd Trust. They have asked me to refer you to the previous statement issued to all Ashley School parents on 25th November. The Trust will not be responding to further questions or queries in relation to this matter."

Nigel Stapleton and Rev Cathy Blair have not acknowledged my requests.


Some parents have set up a petition asking for an independent investigation of the GST's actions. You can read what they have to say and sign it here.

Richard Dunne is crowdfunding his legal fees to take on the GST. You can contribute here, but only until the end of Jan, when it closes!

The GST response to the above piece.


You can read the 25 November statement to parents here.

This is an open letter to the GST/LGC demanding a full, independent investigation into what the GST/LGC have been up to.

This is a detailed timeline of events.

And if you're wondering who Richard Dunne is, click here to watch one of his TEDx talks.

* please assume all references to parents includes carers (and on occasion also ex-parents/carers. Once an Ashley parent, always an Ashley parent!)


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.

08 January 2020

Open letter response

On 29 Dec I wrote an open letter to the GST and Ashley's board of governors, copying in Dominic Raab and various educational authorities. You can read it here.

Yesterday, Alex Tear, Interim Chief Executive of the Good Shepherd Trust responded:

"Dear Mr Wallis

Thank you for your email of 29th December 2019.

Any communication between the Trust and the school community will be via statements to all involved, while the school and LGC will continue to communicate through the usual newsletters and the newly formed Ashley Parent Partnership.

The Trust continues to brief and update the Department of Education on the leadership arrangements at the school so they are fully informed of developments.

Kind regards

Mr Alex Tear"

This is interesting for a number of reasons, not least because the Department of Education is clearly taking an interest in what is going on at the school. It might be useful to ask the Trust under the FOI Act exactly how much interest the DoE is taking and the nature of communication between the two organisations thus far.

There is also an inaccuracy in the above - Mr Tear states: "Any communication between the Trust and the school community will be via statements to all involved, while the school and LGC will continue to communicate through the usual newsletters and the newly formed Ashley Parent Partnership." [my italics]

Someone ought to tell him that the Trust and LGC (via their respective chairs and at least one other governor) are busy picking and choosing which parents they communicate with and how, spinning little behind-the-scenes tales of their own.

It's a shame the GST/LGC have little interest in being held publicly accountable for their actions (or lack of them) over the last twelve months, but I'll keep trying.


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.

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."


"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)

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)

Reading, writing and maths
Three year average for achieving expected standards in all three areas: 76% (local authority average: 69%; National average: 63%)
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.

2.8 (above average)
3.5 (well above average)
-0.6 (average)
-1.6 (average)
-0.2 (average)
-2.0 (below average)
0.6 (average)
0.5 (average)
-0.3 (average)
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

109 (106)
112 (107)
106 (106)
107 (105)
108 (105)
107 (106)
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’."


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.


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.