Memorandum submitted by Mark Jeffery
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST
SCHOOL STAFF
INQUIRY
— A school in difficult circumstances with
serious underperformance and vulnerability.
— A trap is set by a teacher who was underperforming.
— Allegations and smear campaign were planned
and well-orchestrated to maximum effect.
— Swift action is taken to discredit myself
and all those who are close to me. A smear campaign.
— Step one—union action to bring
first allegations escalated to highest level.
— Step two—An independent investigation.
Many more accusations.
— Suspension of myself and my wife. Others
resign.
— Police investigation—allegations
unsubstantiated.
— Called to account by the Independent
Safeguarding Authority. Child protection accusations. unsubstantiated.
— Called to account by GTC. No child protection
matters to be accounted for.
— No apology or declaration of innocence.
— I am no longer involved in education
in the UK.
MY PROFILE
I was a head teacher. My career began in 1972 as
an English teacher in Secondary School. In 1980 I left teaching
to do various other jobs, including buying and managing a shop,
writing, television production and charity work. In 1989 I
became a primary teacher. In 1991 I was offered a senior
position in a school in Lambeth, became a deputy head in 1994 and
acting head within two years. In 1997 I became Head of a
Primary School in Surrey which was highly successful. We gained
Investors in People awards twice and received a School Achievement
Award in recognition of our outstanding success in SATS results.
We were one of the most successful primary schools in Surrey.
Our Ofsted inspections were very good as was my leadership and
management substantiated by a 360 degree appraisal with the
NCSL.
In 2005 I left to lead a school in difficult
circumstances. I was 58 when I was accused in 2007. I am
married for 36 years with six grown children.
AN AVALANCHE
OF FALSE
ALLEGATIONS
1. In September 2005 I became Head
teacher of a school which had been without a substantive head
teacher for over three years. It was at the very bottom of the
Surrey league tables. It had many serious issues, including poor
teaching, overstaffing, falling role numbers, lack of resources,
unruly behaviour, and the largest debt of any primary school in
the county. Despite this, the first year was very successful in
moving so many issues forward. Two of the poor teachers were asked
to leave; new staff were appointed, especially good teaching assistants.
Almost everything imaginable in the school needed to be changed,
including the uniform and name of the school. The school was under
an intensive support programme. I was asked to speak to Heads
of other schools about the extraordinary change of fortune for
the school.
2. In the second year I appointed some NQTs
because of financial constraints, and a mature teacher, Mrs C,
who was a late entrant to teaching and recently returned from
some years in the USA. This is the teacher who organised the false
allegations so easily and with devastating effect.
3. Getting good teachers to work in schools
in difficult circumstances is always challenging and I was unfortunate
that the quality of the NQTs was not good. Not only that, but
it became very apparent early on that Mrs C's own ability left
much to be desired. However she was not only a very charismatic
person but also wealthy and influential among the younger staff.
With encouragement from my external consultant (County and Diocese)
I began to challenge some of the poor planning and superficial
teaching in her year 6 class. In contrast she thought she
was a very good teacher. My guess is that she saw the danger of
her being challenged from her first term as she began to make
close links to anyone who was discontented or under pressure in
their performance, including the NQTs.
4. My consultants encouraged me to challenge
her performance more strongly. There were concerns validated by
external experienced consultants about teaching performance and
failure to implement school policies and procedures. She had not
marked her children's books for five months despite warnings.
Her response to my challenge was swift and malicious. She met
with one of my secretaries and made up to 30 serious allegations
about me, including causing the death of a previous Teaching Assistant.
My secretary reported the details to me. The smear campaign that
started was so outrageous that I was not too worried about the
ferocity of the allegations as I assumed wrongly that no one would
take them seriously. The next day she stayed home professing stress,
and said she would never come back. But from her home she organised
a sustained campaign. She persistently telephoned members of staff.
She persuaded six other members of staff (teaching, non-teaching
and admin), mainly part-timers, to bring a complaint of bullying
to her union representative who acted on behalf of all of them
and instigated the County and grievance procedure.
5. This was the first clever part of the
strategy. Even though there was no truth in the allegations they
were raised to the highest level because of the number of allegations
and the number of staff. I was not allowed to talk to any of the
members of staff bringing the allegations. This meant that a formal
meeting should have been called. I had no problem with that because
at least the people bringing the allegations would have to talk
to me. My hope was that there would be a resolution.
6. The chair of governors, who was quite
new to the role—as were most of the governors—decided
to organise an independent investigation through the Diocese of
Guildford. Within the normal grievance procedure I would have
had a chance to be heard and to present my case. But this changed
everything. I was all in favour of transparency. However, the
process was anything but transparent. For the next few weeks until
the investigation there was an intense campaign organised by Mrs
C, who phoned most of the staff to persuade them to join her campaign.
Of the six remaining staff who were part of her group, one took
sick leave and the others started having "secret" meetings
in different parts of the school. They refused to come to the
staffroom and met in secret. The strategy in a nutshell was to
bring so many accusations that it would cause a virtual whirlwind
of panic and confusion.
7. During the investigation interviews an
atmosphere was created whereby the investigators were told that
I had hidden cameras and recorders in the room, and indeed all
over the school. The interviews were of unequal length, questions
were not consistent and procedures were not followed as some were
only interviewed by one person to save time. The danger of these
interviews was that those who were seeking to "give me my
come-uppance" (as it was expressed) were able to make incredible
and extreme allegations without ever having the danger of being
called to account. At least 10 of the allegations were concerning
child-protection issues. These were reported to the governors
and the LA.
8. The next day I was sent on "gardening
leave". Two days later my wife, who worked at the school
was also sent on gardening leave. No reason was given. She was
teaching year 3 children but almost all of the allegations
were regarding year 6 children, Mrs C's class. Two other
Assistants took their leave immediately and other members of staff
followed at the end of the term. The school was in chaos. Within
a short period of time my wife and I were formally suspended as
"a neutral act" which does not feel very neutral. We
were told to hand back our school keys, hand over our computers
and forbidden to talk to any member of the school community. This
made us feel very isolated and defenceless. At this time I had
little idea of the allegations that had been made. It felt as
though the perception of my leadership had turned 180 degrees
and there was a feeling of many people trying to "protect
their backs" especially the LA.
9. There was intense pressure from the LA
for me to resign. A police investigation was mounted and my wife
was in great fear of a knock on the door and my being arrested.
Over the next few months the police found nothing that could be
substantiated. Mrs C refused to come forward and give evidence
to the police. It seemed her work had been done and she was not
wanting to incriminate herself; the same was true of her classroom
assistant who helped her to make the accusations. The psychological
pressure for me to resign never abated, though I hoped to be able
to go back to the school; I had invested so much of my life in
the school for the previous two years that I was keen not to let
the children and the families down.
10. I was supported by my union rep and
an experienced independent consultant who worked in the school.
I became aware that my union appeared more keen to get a resolution
and so encouraged me to take a compromise agreement. At this point
I decided to engage the help of a solicitor. Once it became clear
that I was unable to go back to the school, and that I would always
have these allegations on my record even if found innocent, I
gradually realised I would never teach again. So I reluctantly
accepted the agreement after a haggling over the specific amount.
Following this my wife was asked to take a compromise agreement.
In her case there was no formal accusation against her except
that she was married to me and maybe collaborated with me in anything
I may have done. She wanted to go back to the school; psychological
pressure was placed upon her by the HR department. She was told
that everybody hated her. Even though these things were far from
true she gave way in the end and resigned, refusing to compromise.
She refused to accept any money as she had no wish to benefit
from the situation; she just wanted her job back.
11. Other members of staff who supported
us gradually resigned or were encouraged to leave. The school
faced an Ofsted during this chaos without my presence and in the
middle of the confusion that was prevalent at the school. I asked
to input data and information to help the school but my input
was rejected. Without the data on standards and an account of
what improvements had been made Ofsted came to many conclusions
which were totally inaccurate, and reflected very badly on myself.
12. At no point was I given the opportunity
to meet my accusers. I had no opportunity to sit down with the
governors or the LA and defend my case. I lost my job and my wife
lost her job. We were left to face the credit crunch without being
able to pay our mortgage. So we faced losing our home. Our saving
grace was our faith in God, our love for one another and wonderful
support from friends and the church. Many of those who went through
the experience at the school and know the truth remain our present
friends.
13. The irony is that nobody who has investigated
the allegations made against me has been able to see the source
of these allegations and why they were suddenly raised, when to
myself and those of us in the school, including my consultant
found it all to obvious.
14. I thought that that was the end of it.
One year later I was contacted by the Independent Safeguarding
Authority which was now to investigate the matter all over again
in order for the Secretary of State to make a decision to bar
or restrict me from carrying out work to which section 142 applies.
I was devastated. I had assumed that as nothing had been proven
and I had accepted an agreement to move on that the matter was
finished. For the following three months I gathered all of the
evidence I could lay my hands on, even though much was not available
to me. I gathered testimonies from people who had known and worked
with me all of my life. I presented Ofsted reports and other data
regarding my character and achievements. A few months later I
heard that the evidence had been presented to the Secretary of
State and that in this case no further action would be taken.
But all of my details will be kept on record. I still did not
feel as though I had been proven innocent.
15. A few months later, almost two years
now since the origin of the allegations, I received a letter from
the GTC saying that they wanted to investigate my case. It took
them a further three months to discover that there was no hard
evidence against me regarding any child protection issues. In
addition, all of the original transcripts of interviews by the
investigators and been inadvertently destroyed. I asked whether
I would have the possibility of bringing a complaint against the
original teacher, who is now teaching in another local school,
and her assistant who is still back in the original school. I
was discouraged from taking such an action.
16. And so I and at least two other members
of the staff are left without jobs, the school is slowly recovering
with new leadership, having lost 25% of its pupils, and yet those
who brought the allegations have nothing to answer for. In fact
Mrs C. Has a history of this kind of activity having taken action
against two principals when in America. She boasted about this
in the staffroom when an independent consultant was present.
LESSONS TO
BE LEARNED.
1. Take account of the integrity of the
witnesses. When taking evidence from witnesses, adults or children,
account must be taken of the integrity of the witnesses.
2. It must be recognised that in our modern
society it can no longer be assumed that people will tell the
truth. It will take great discernment to recognise when people
are lying. (Head teachers and teachers are usually very good at
this when dealing with disputes between children. A child who
has a history of lying does not carry so much weight in an argument
against someone who is known for always telling the truth.) Often
an accused person with an excellent track record has to stand
on equal footing against someone who is known to be an unreliable
witness. When a teacher or head teacher has a long and good track
record, this should be taken into consideration in the early stages
as people rarely have a sudden personality change.
3. Governors, consultants and head teachers
need to be trained in damage limitation and to find all ways possible
to resolve issues and not to escalate them. Fear of recrimination
seems to drive some people to protect themselves by raising the
problem to the next level. They need to be prepared and trained
to follow correct procedures.
4. There must be early opportunity to challenge
the accuracy of accusations, especially when in my unusual case
there were so many of them. How can a person withstand over thirty
allegations. People are becoming wise as to which kind of allegations
are most effective in damaging the victim. Child protection, a
most serious allegation, is a case in point.
5. Those who bring serious allegations should
not be promised anonymity if the accusations prove to be false.
Accountability for all is essential.
6. The accused must also be allowed to produce
witnesses. It is not fair that witnesses are only allowed on one
side.
7. Witnesses must also be checked for their
integrity and motives.
8. The practice of keeping false allegations
on the record of teachers must stop. Teachers are entitled to
a clean record like everyone else. Innocent until proven guilty.
9. Establish the motive. One of the most
obvious things about the dozens of allegations that were brought
against me was (a) They all came on or within one month of May
23rd when I had to reprimand the teacher in question. (b) The
allegations were all supposed to have happened at different points
during the previous year. Nobody on the investigation panels seemed
to question why this might have been the case and why nobody bothered
to raise any questions at the time of the supposed incidents.
10. Be aware of people wanting to change
their position in order to "cover their backs". In my
case I received so many positive comments from the LA, the Diocese,
parents, governors and the Church. After I was suspended, however,
many influential people began to distance themselves from me and
thought it prudent not to be closely associated with my past success.
Those new perceptions were then fed into the new management and
following Ofsted reports as if they were the truth. And, of course,
I or those who stood with me, had no opportunity to challenge
any of this.
11. Schools in difficult circumstances are
particularly vulnerable. Governors, head teachers and consultants
should be made aware of this and trained accordingly. Head teachers
taking on these kind of schools would benefit by special training
from head teachers and consultants who have previous experience.
12. If found innocent the accused should
be entitled to an apology and a public statement to that effect.
13. Compensation should be considered.
14. Anonymity for the accused is almost
impossible. In my case the rumours were even worse than the false
allegations. Anonymity for the accuser is the real issue. It is
what makes these incidents more attractive for those who want
to bring them; there is nothing to lose.
April 2009
| 
