Summary of arguments on safeguarding

Summary of Arguments Concerning Safeguarding at Wynstones

What follows is a text prepared in May 2020. Shortly before the final dates for court filing of the case, Ofsted sent large reams (over 200 pages) of further material, not allowing time to go into, judge and access. These pages – the notes from Ofsted’s inspection, with the ultimate grounds for their judgements – contained Ofsted’s ‘logic’ and allegations for claiming breach of safeguarding at Wynstones. Many if not most of the allegations and incidents noted were spurious – with the distinct impression they were looking for grounds to trump up a pre-existing judgement which they wished to make.

We did not have time, funds or other resources to counter all these charges, which would have required full cooperation of the school and teachers. (For clarification – naturally ‘school’ IS the teachers, but as far as Ofsted is concerned they are not – they communicate with managers and trustees… Hence the distinction made here.) There was no cooperation from the ‘school’ (aka managers and trustees); three teachers were brave enough to provide evidence for the case submission – brave in that the teachers were told in no unclear term that if this spoke with us or the media they would be considered in breach of contract. This would have threatened their redundancy pay, which all were entitled to on the closing of the school and dismissing of all staff. The threat of dismissal for expressing the wrongs which they felt were being done to Wynstones, from Ofsted to how they were treated by management, is very unsettling for a Waldorf school, where one would expect openness, honesty, transparency and fellowship to hold sway… it is another story in itself: see Teachers Voices for things nevertheless courageously spoken by teachers.

On top of the above, Ofsted’s settlement deal with us included the demand that all of the above material which they sent (the notes from inspection, also heavily redacted) be destroyed and not quoted in any further dealings or publicity… thus removing evidence of spurious allegations and thus forbidding their further investigation by any following management or trustees or may be nudged in their conscience to doubt any aspects of Ofsted judgements.

Nevertheless, from what was seen by the legal team and the parent & son claimant, there was nothing in all the notes to substantially change the statements below. In fact, even more ‘flavour and colour’ could be added (perhaps at some point some further notes will be added of ours concerning these – Ofsted, though they can force the legal judgements to be on their side, cannot prevent people speaking about their unjust allegations, without quoting, from the recollections of the claimant who was officially allowed to look at all these documents. We are not yet in a Stalinist regime, and eventually the truth will out.)

1.  OFSTED CHANGES ITS SAFEGUARDING JUDGEMENT WITHIN WEEKS   

The October 2019 report by Ofsted found that safeguarding standards were met, and noted the following: “The trustees maintain effective oversight of safeguarding practice at the school. Leaders keep policies relating to safeguarding, behaviour and measures to combat bullying up to date and in line with the latest government guidance. These policies are implemented consistently in the school. As a result, pupils are kept safe.” However, within a few academic weeks the January report claims that safeguarding procedures were so inadequate that the school ought to be closed. This is inconsistent – not least, which report should be regarded as more authoritative?

2.  POSITIVE KINDERGARTEN SAFEGUARDING REPORT FROM SEPT 2019 

The local authority inspection of the kindergarten in September 2019 noted the following “The Kindergarten provides children within its care with a rich set of experiences, observations and discussions with adults highlight that there are effective safeguarding practices and that the EYFS Statutory Framework is clearly in place.”

3.   PARENTS’ VIEWS ON EXPERIENCES OF SAFETY – BASED ON OFSTED’S OWN SURVEY 

The parents’ views report produced by OFTSED for the year 2019/20 noted that 91 per cent of parents would recommend the school to another parent, and that 93 per cent said that their child feels safe. Some 95 per cent said that the school supports the children’s wider development.

4.   QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY ON PARENTS’S EXPERIENCE OF SCHOOL SAFETY ETC.  

The Parents Summary report produced by Brinton and House in Feb 2020 contains numerous statements indicating that the children were happy and engaged and safe at the school.

5.   CHILDREN’S OWN EXPERIENCE OF HOW SAFE THE SCHOOL WAS

Statements made by children themselves clearly indicate that they were safe and secure at the school.

6.   OFSTED INSPECTION REPORT CONDEMNATIONS BEAR NO RELATION TO THE REALITY  

The statements about the school made by OFTSED were completely unrecognisable to the staff and parents of the school.

7.   DIFFICULTIES IN USING THE SOFTWARE RECORDING SYSTEM WRONGLY ASSUMED TO INDICATE RISK OF HARM

The software system CPOMS was used by teachers to report incidents, but there were numerous issues with understanding the technology and the training in its use, so that on occasions when there had been effective follow-up on incidents, this did not appear on the CPOMS system. This does not imply safeguarding negligence or malpractice, but simply the need for increased familiarisation with the system; and it certainly does not mean that the children were at risk of harm.

8.  INAPPROPRIATE INSPECTOR BEHAVIOUR AND A POSSIBLE PRIOR AGENDA   

During the inspection, the inspectors appeared to have no interest in speaking to the teachers or in what was going on in the classroom. They appeared to have a prior agenda and to be looking for something to substantiate it. The manner in which that was also felt to be inappropriate, one child reported being upset that the inspector kept them in during a break time and gave them an inquisition about whether they felt safe. This was a wholly inappropriate methodology and was experienced by the children as intimidating and threatening.

9.   LACK OF SUBSTANCE TO WIDELY KNOWN ‘SAFEGUARDING’ ISSUES IN THE SCHOOL   

As the report alludes to – some incidents are to a great extent known within the school community, and the individuals concerned have spoken about them. There seems to be no real substance in any of them: they vary from childish play to fantastic accounts of things happening at home (later proved simply to be made up stories). The idea of the children being at risk of harm, on which Ofsted’s inspection report lays emphasis, cannot be connected with these incidents. As in any school, there are occasionally incidents of bullying: these are often complex matters to address in an appropriate way. Teachers certainly did address these matters and take them very seriously; however, it is understandable that it is not always possible to achieve a complete resolution of such issues in the short term.

10.  TRACK RECORD BY TEACHERS OF REPORTING INCIDENTS

The response by the school to various incidents during 2019 was to involve local authorities. This led to parents becoming upset and complaining to the school that police and social services were being called in over matters that were actually trivial; and this heavy-handed approach was felt to be causing more harm than good.

11.  LACK OF SPECIFICITY AND VAGUENESS IN ‘SAFEGUARDING’ DEFINITIONS 

Professor Lauren Devine confirms that the term ‘safeguarding concern’ is almost entirely undefined and yet it is deployed in a very loaded way. Likewise, the safeguarding standards that Ofsted sets out are vague. If a school is going to be closed because it does not meet safeguarding standards or because there are safeguarding concerns it is essential that these are identified in a more specific and measurable way, but also with an element of common sense.

12.  A DELIBERATE TARGETTING OF STEINER SCHOOLS AND AN ABUSE OF POWER?

The attitude and activity of Ofsted does appear to follow a pattern at least in relation to Steiner schools. This was the view of The High Court Judge, Mr Justice Holman, in granting permission for the Steiner Academy Bristol Board of Governors legal challenge to proceed, made the following statement: “In my view, the Claimants raise an arguable case ….that HMCI [Ofsted] was deliberately targeting the academy because it was a Steiner school. In my view, this is not a frivolous, hopeless or misconceived claim. It is a very serious one from the perspective of the Claimants, and is sufficiently timely and sufficiently arguable. So, I grant permission.”Several expert witnesses (including two former Ofsted inspectors) have given testimony about what has happened in other Steiner schools, and this appears to amount to malpractice by Ofsted; yet there are very inadequate complaints procedures or procedures for holding OFSTED to account, or inspecting Ofsted itself. There also letters exchanged between the Department of Education and Ofsted from January 2019 which indicate an intent to close down Steiner schools if they do not make ‘rapid’ changes as demanded by Ofsted – to quote Amanda Spielman’s own words, Ofsted would be ‘tak[ing] enforcement action to close down all inadequate Steiner schools that fail to improve rapidly’. In the wider educational sector there are also many reports of unsatisfactory behavior by Ofsted, which in collusion with the Department of Education appears to act as judge, jury and executioner. As One ex Ofsted inspector has written to us, ‘…The orchestrated attack on Steiner Waldorf education by the department using Ofsted’s cover is, I believe, an abuse of power.’

13.  POSSIBLE VEXATIOUS COMPLAINANTS TO OFSTED/DfE

It is likely that the complaints made to DfE were made by aggrieved persons seeking a way to strike back at the school. What procedure does Ofsted have for assessing the validity of complaints of this kind which are based on ill-will and a desire for revenge?