An ‘alternative’ private school is facing a £100,000 compensation bill after ignoring a whistle-blowing teacher’s complaint that her daughter had been assaulted.Oh, boy! This’ll be good!
Jo Sawfoot, 42, worked at the fashionable Steiner school – where exams are considered harmful and pupils learn through gardening and playing with wooden blocks.It seems her daughter was less than a little angel, and some teachers only paid lip service to the school’s ‘hands off’ policy.
Her six-year-old daughter was also a pupil at the school.
Miss Sawfoot claimed she was regarded as an ‘irritant’ at the school, giving her no option other than to resign and educate her child elsewhere.And then claim a huge payout..
In May 2009 she complained that Miss Letts had grabbed her daughter by the arm after the child had refused to move. The child was left in pain by the ‘assault’, but the school failed to investigate – even though its policy stated that teachers should use physical restraint only as a last resort.Maybe this was a last resort? Short of giving the little sweetie a shove?
And the next month, when school administrator Sandie Tolhurst reported the incident to social services, she claimed the girl was restrained for biting Miss Letts – whereas Miss Sawfoot claimed her daughter bit the teacher because she was being held.Oh, well, that’s OK then?!
Employment Judge John Warren criticised the school for its ‘failure to investigate her grievance, and misrepresentations to social services’.In other words ‘It’s payday!’
Speaking after the judgment, Miss Sawfoot said: ‘I am still passionately committed to the Steiner movement.Sweetie, your little horror bit an adult in a position of authority.
‘But my grievance was swept under the carpet by the school. Instead, I was subjected to a hostile working environment. They labelled me a bad parent and then a bad teacher.’
Do you really think that makes you a good mother..?
9 comments:
Bit unfair on Steiner schools. German parents fight to get their kids into them and they enjoy a huge academic reputation..being 'steiner' educated, without exams, is regarded highly.
There may be lots of gardening and playing with wooden blocks, hell the whole pedagogic may be whack but when they leave school steiner kids can usually read, write, and add up. Moreover they tend to enjoy learning.
I've known firms who'll employ people just on the basis that they went to a steiner school.
Aw!
SBC,
I went to a special school, but most people don't seem to want to employ me.
It was so special, it was approved.
Here we have a bad mother - where is the father - that lets her brat run riot taking advantage of the 'blame everyone but yourself' culture to gain money for her bad parenting.
"..they enjoy a huge academic reputation..being 'steiner' educated, without exams, is regarded highly."
Really? I'd have thought you couldn't rely on anyone not actually tested under exam conditions.
Still, the Germans are quirky!
"Here we have a bad mother - where is the father - that lets her brat run riot taking advantage of the 'blame everyone but yourself' culture..."
Stands to reason an odd establishment like this one would attract the kooks.
"
Really? I'd have thought you couldn't rely on anyone not actually tested under exam conditions."
I hear what you say but what does passing an exam actually prove....except that you can pass an exam?
Most 'school' exams are fairly artificial constructs, constructs that'll you rarely find in adult life unless you go into some form of further education...and if do then you *learn* to pass whatever exams are required.
And the UK has proved that passing exams (all that 'teaching to pass the test') doesn't actually mean you'll leave school able to read and write.
I deny the allegation in the employment tribunal judgement that I misled Social Services.
The allegation arises over a situation in early summer 2009 where a staff member carried a child out of a room and was bitten by the child as she did so. When this was reported by telephone to social services, a written incident note was also sent, stating the same.
However, when the mother of the child requested from Social Services a transcript of the telephone conversation a month later, a summary note was produced, which stated I had informed them that “the member of staff had had to restrain the child after an incident of biting”.
At an Employment Tribunal 2 years on, the panel decided that this amounted to my misleading social services. I was not questioned in Court about the inconsistency; I had not even myself noticed that the Social Services note incorrectly reflected the conversation. Social Services were not asked to verify if the note were correct, they were not asked if they thought they had been misled and nor were they requested a copy of the original comprehensive notes which the Local Area Designated Officer (LADO) assured me were taken. In fact Social Services were not involved in the Employment Tribunal at all, and yet the panel were able to cast an unchallenged allegation that “social services were misled”.
My understanding is that had this been a criminal court, questions would have had to been asked, such as: “If Social Services were misled, did Sandie Tolhurst intend to mislead them or was it a misunderstanding?” and “Did Social Services produce an accurate summary of the conversation, or is the summary in itself misleading?” and “Why would Sandie Tolhurst say one thing on phone and send a contradictory written note to the same person at Social Services on the same day?”
The exact answers to all the above questions will probably never be known, as the full transcript of the conversation I had with Social Services is not with the case records and the member of staff I spoke with has long since left Social Services. I believe I provided consistent information to Social Services. I did not at any time state that the child was removed from the room because she was biting; I read from the incident report as I spoke to Social Services and the Employment Tribunal accepted as being true the incident report. I do not believe Social Services were misled. I do believe that the telephone conversation was summarised incorrectly; that it was a mistake, a human error.
Employment Tribunals do not need to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that something did or did not happen, as would be the case in a criminal court. They can decide which evidence they ‘prefer’ on the basis of what they have in front of them, even if this is not validated as being correct.
Norwich Steiner School took a business decision not to appeal and instead settled out of court. Those who are interested in this case should therefore be aware that there are a number of unjust and incorrect judgements resulting from this tribunal that remain unchallenged.
Sandie Tolhurst
21st April 2012
"The exact answers to all the above questions will probably never be known, as the full transcript of the conversation I had with Social Services is not with the case records and the member of staff I spoke with has long since left Social Services."
That does seem to be the standard bureaucratic response to tricky situations!
With reference to the above by Sandie Tolhurst the court facts on ‘misrepresentations’ are quoted below and readers can form their own opinions on facts versus fantasy.
NB The unlawful physical restraint happened on 11 May 2009 and Sandie Tolhurst decided to report it to LADO on 17 June 2009.
Quotes from the Judgment :
1. ”When this was reported by telephone to social services, a written incident note was also sent, stating the same.”
Page 35 Paragraph 160 (part)
”On 17 June 2009 Miss Tolhurst rang the Local Authority Designated Officer, (LADO). We were referred to a note of that conversation taken by the person she spoke to, this records Miss Tolhurst informing her that the child had to be restrained after an episode of biting and aggression from the child. This is a misrepresentation of the incident. This is apparent from Miss Letts’ version of events as quoted above; which describes the biting taking place after the restraint by Miss Letts.”
2. The judgment also deals with other misrepresentations made at the same time by Ms Tolhurst to LADO.
Page 48 Paragraph 41 (c)
”Does this amount to detriment as a result of having made a protected disclosure contrary to Section 47b of the Employment Rights Act 1996?”
”Yes: misrepresenting the nature of the incident to an outside authority, seeking to give the impression that the matter had been properly investigated and reported whereas in fact it had not, raising concerns about the professionalism and performance of a teacher without having addressed those issues to the teacher in question are all matters that would be seen by the Claimant as placing her at a disadvantage once she became aware of them, as she did in due course.”
3. In relation to the incident report referred to please note also the Judgment states
Page 18 Paragraph 54
”There were a number of significant date errors in the respondent’s documents that suggested to us that on occasions, people had retrospectively created documents and back dated them to suggest that they were contemporaneous. For example, the date changes and grammar used by Miss Letts in her note in the incident book regarding the events of 11 May and her note of her subsequent telephone conversation with Ms. Sawfoot.”
4. In relation to the court and their view on whether Ms. Tolhurst misleads; further refer to
Page 18 Paragraph 53 (part)
”Mr X, Mrs. X and Miss Tolhurst in one important respect, gave us cause to doubt them. That was the assertion by each of them that they had not known Ms Sawfoot was going to make a complaint about the way her daughter had been treated.”
The documentation is available here:
http://www.steinermentary.com/SM/UK-NISS-Tribunal.html
Post a Comment