Introduction
Freedom to publish and other freedoms
Striking facts
'Two buttocks of one bum,' and other people
- t - aa
The capability document Framework Science
Good will
A Web site
NASUWT - the useless union
Stacking shelves and the limits to power
The
'word-sphere'
The people who administer the system of capability proceedings and the people who face capability proceedings are separated by a wide gulf. To the administrators, the 'capability world' is calm, ordered, scrupulously fair, rational. They have the documents to prove it, giving detailed information about each of the stages in the process which leads to the condemnation or exoneration of the 'capability defendant.' This defendant's experience may well be of a world which is anything but calm, ordered, fair and rational, a world which is closer to madness than sanity, perhaps closer to totalitarian unfairness than to the fairness which is expected in liberal democracies (but obviously without the extreme punishments used in totalitarian states), impossible to understand, or to oppose effectively.
These are some observations - or strongly held convictions - based on my own experiences, as a former capability defendant, and the experiences of other people.
Just as liberal democracies need written laws, schools and other organizations need detailed documents concerning capability proceedings. The laws, and the capability documents are an essential safeguard. But to suppose that the existence of the capability document guarantees that the document will be adhered to is naive. In the educational world, as in others, there's often a sharp distinction between what's for public consumption, what enhances image and prestige, and the reality.
Headteachers have enormous power, in their very restricted - parochial - sphere of action, and one of their many powers is to decide who is to be singled out for the capability treatment. If, in a school, one person a year on average is chosen to receive the treatment, then the naive and innocent supposition is that this person is the most incompetent member of the staff, the one about whom there are the most seriousl concerns. There are many, many reasons why this is a grossly simplified and completely unrealistic version of events, very often.
When a headteacher is appointed, acceptance of bureaucratic practices and ways of thinking is far more likely to count in favour than any mature understanding of people. Not all the headteacher's knowledge of the staff can be first-hand experience. The staff of a school don't have equal access to the headteacher, of course. The headteacher generally depends upon the opinions of a very restricted number of other people, who may be biased, ignorant, who may have their own agenda, their own grievances, their petty enmities - but the same is true of the headteacher, whose personal limitations may be extreme.
The choice of the capability defendant may be part of a power struggle, or it may be due to a simple dislike of the kind of colourful, charismatic teacher who doesn't fit in with the bureaucratic, anything but colourful and charismatic world of education now.
A headteacher may have no particular reasons for choosing a particular capability defendant - another one would have served the purpose just as well. The purpose is to show the staff that this is a disciplined staff, that the headteacher is firmly in control. (Without a firmly disciplined staff, then the school is liable to fall in the rankings and more importantly the headteacher will fall in the rankings.) What easier way to ensure that the staff as a whole is industrious, dedicated, (dedicated to ensuring that the school and its headteacher have excellent rankings) than to present to them the consequences of failing the school and failing the headteacher - capability proceedings, monitoring, anxiety, stress, prolonged uncertainty. Capability proceedings may well be carried out not to correct one individual but to give a warning to the many, 'pour encourager les autres,' as Voltaire put it in 'Candide.' To certain headteachers, it hardly matters who is chosen to be the victim.
For a variety of reasons, some individuals in a school are regarded as virtually untouchable, no matter what their degree of incompetence. A person may be a friend of the Headteacher - or, on occasion, more than simply a friend - but there are many other possibilities.
Once a capability defendant has been chosen, the headteacher has almost unlimited powers - despite the reassuring tones of the written capability proceedings - to determine what counts as evidence, how evidence is to be interpreted, to determine the outcome. Once a headteacher has decided, in effect, to press charges, the headteacher is free to act as both prosecutor and judge, unless restrained by someone on the capability 'board,' such as an unusually firm and independent-minded representative of a 'human resources' department rather than one who rubber-stamps whatever the Headteacher's decision or whim. By contrast, the legal system depends upon the separation of powers - the jury, not the judge, decides the innocence or guilt of the defendant.
Capability defendants who can stand up for themselves very effectively in most circumstances are often in no fit state to do that once they have entered, involuntarily, this remarkable alternative reality. This usually leaves a Union Representative, who assumes the mantle of defending counsel, as the defendant's main hope - a hope which will very likely be unfulfilled.
I'm reluctant to give a linkage with worlds as extreme as those of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Anyone who confuses these worlds with the capability world even at its most grotesque needs to learn much more about the history of those times. But there are often valid and illuminating linkages between things otherwise very dissimilar. In the totalitarian courts, the defending counsel were ineffective, hopeless, obviously part of the system which was determined to punish, which had often decided on the verdict even before the trial started. (But the Headteacher may well decide the outcome of capability proceedings before any monitoring and before the first hearing.)
If the capability defendant has a union representative attending the capability hearings who isn't ineffectual, clueless, part of the system, a union representative who is vigorous, determined to present as effectively as possible all the evidence in favour of the defendant, then this defendant is very fortunate. In capability proceedings, as in courts of law, very good advocates can be successful even with unpromising cases. Poor advocates can fail even with cases which are very strong.
Decisions in capability proceedings are generally subjective in the extreme. In courts of law, the legal framework allows decisions to be made in a much less subjective way. Even so, in courts of law, a defendant should ask not just 'How strong or weak is the evidence in my favour? How strong or weak is my case?' but a question which may well be decisive, 'How strong or weak is my advocate?' This second question is just as important in capability proceedings. Is the union official lacklustre, mediocre, lacking independence of mind, the determination to present the evidence in favour as compellingly as possible?
Liberal democracies allow appeals against unjust, very contentious decisions. Capability defendants who have lost their case and who can present evidence in their favour can have little confidence that anything will be done to reverse the verdict. If the bureaucrats who have the power to carrry out further investigations and perhaps reverse the verdict were compelled to give their honest feelings, it might be along these lines: 'I can't be bothered.' Or, 'the headteacher has more power than you, and this is what the headteacher has decided.' Compared with the legal system of appeals, the system for examining possible mistakes in capability proceedings is virtually non-existent.
In all of this, I acknowledge, of course, that power can be exercised in an enlightened way as well as cynically misused, that capability proceedings are essential in the running of enlightened organizations, that capability proceedings can be - or often are - conducted in a scrupulously fair way, and that there are such people as incompetents who have to be identified, warned, helped to improve but if necessary dismissed.
Below, I describe my own experiences of this world. I very much hope that the account will be useful or interesting to those facing capability proceedings themselves, to people who administer proceedings, to people with an interest in the matter, and to people with an interest in human motivation and behaviour.
I hesitated for a long time before including the material here. In this site, I mention my own personal experiences very rarely. It will be obvious that the site isn't intended to be a 'blog' in any way. The home page gives many of the interests and concerns which are the focus of my attention. My own personal life, including its setbacks, is obviously a matter of intense interest and concern to me, but not nearly as much to a wider readership. I include this discussion of capability proceedings for various reasons. It gives practical advice to those people who are facing capability proceedings themselves, and insights into such things as the politics of capability proceedings, including the choice of people selected for capability treatment - who may be the people who most deserve it, or may not be in the least.
When I was selected for the capability treatment, my mind was focussed grimly on the immediate realities. If only I'd had, during those months, useful advice from my union. My examination results - consistently excellent, often outstanding - were relevant to the case, but the union official didn't ask about them, let alone use them as powerful evidence in my favour. Even if my examination results had been lacklustre, a less clueless union official could have energetically got to work. Are your results the worst in the school? Who is the Headteacher selecting for capability proceedings, what seems to be guiding his choice of people selected for capability proceedings, is there basic fairness in the choice?
I'm aware that examination results aren't the only criterion of success in teaching - but bear in mind that when in this country OFSTED decides that a school is failing, when OFSTED takes draconian action and puts a school in 'special measures, the examination results are highly relevant to the decision. If a school's examination results were amongst the best in the local authority, there would be howls of protest if OFSTED decided that the school was failing. If a school has a middling intake and achieves middling, rather lacklustre examination results, then OFSTED needs to be very, very careful before going ahead with drastic action.
I also include this discussion of capability proceedings because I think they have a bearing on matters that go well beyond my own personal experience, ones which I do discuss in this site, amongst many, many other interests and concerns, such as imbalances of power and misuses of power which I think resemble totalitarian misuses of power, even though I recognize (and am grateful) for the vast differences - nobody is going to take me away, put me in a concentration camp or labour camp, torture me or shoot me.
The philosopher John Searle, arguing against Derrida, writes that 'most concepts and distinctions...do not have sharp boundaries,' and gives as one example the distinction between 'democracy and authoritarianism.' The point that John Searle makes is generally familiar to philosophers and has very wide applicability, even if it was overlooked by Derrida.
Here in Sheffield, an individual can be told that a parental complaint has been received, be given no further information for a long period and then given only the name of the parent alleged to have made the complaint - no information about what the alleged complaint is all about - and after asking for further information about the alleged complaint, after asking for evidence that any complaint was made at all, be given no further information. This was one of the matters which, according to the representative of Sheffield Human Resources Department, Debby Clark, was 'in the past.' There's a vast difference between this and the manufacturing and manipulation of evidence recorded unforgettably in Solzhenitsyn's 'The Gulag Archipelago' but there's a linkage too. If I'm mistaken - I don't think I am - and the evidence wasn't manufactured or manipulated in my case, then I'd expect to be given reasons and to receive an explanation of some sort. These have never been provided. Instead, the reliance upon superior power - as, despite the vast differences, in Stalinist Russia.
The standards which should be used as a guide in this country should be the higher, or highest, standards to be found here and in other countries, not the lower or lowest to be found in this country or some other country in the past or present. If standards of nursing care in a hospital have become very poor, the very high standard of care in other hospitals should be the guide. The abysmal standards shouldn't be excused because in present-day Russia (according to a guide to St Petersburg), 'nurses are usually indifferent to their patients unless bribed to care for them properly.' When power is misused or abused in this country, the guide should be the responsible and enlightened exercise of power, not the exercise of power during the Stalinist nightmare. (I've no sympathy with anarchism. I see the necessity of exercising power.) Practicalities have to be taken into account. The probability that a school in a very deprived area will reach the academic standards of a school in the most favourable of circumstances isn't high, but very often there's no barrier at all to attaining very high standards.
Misuses and abuses of power in a democracy are far less drastic in their effects than in a totalitarian country but are far from negligible - careers can be ruined and lives can be ruined.
In what follows, I've had to confine myself to accusations (described as 'concerns') and my defence against the accusations (or 'concerns') which make no reference to confidential information. There are many concerns which do make reference to confidential information and which I can't record here. If I were able to, I'm sure that this information would make my own case even stronger.
Genny Bradley, the Head of 'Organisational Development and Change Management' in Sheffield, wrote to me: 'I do not consider it appropriate for you to make comments about staff of the school or the Local Authority on a website and strongly request that this does not happen.' If she imagines that the internet can be controlled in this way, then she's obviously not the least idea about one of the internet's better uses - for free and open debate, which isn't subject to the power of a bureaucrat with limited understanding.
The criticisms here, including my criticisms of Genny Bradley, have an excellent rating in search engines, she may like to know. The Google rankings for this page for some relevant search terms (NASUWT is the union which proved so useless):
NASUWT 1 / 11 500
This is a higher ranking, of course, than any pages published on any Website
of the union which deal with capability proceedings.
Bowes headteacher 6 / 28 400
Genny Bradley 1 / 247
"David Dennis" Tapton 2 / 37
1 / 37 for another page where I discuss him.
"Debby Clark" Sheffield 1 / 1 620
Two other freedoms - the freedom to write print documents and the freedom to consult a Union Representative. The Head of the school, David Bowes, began Capability Proceedings against me. He had a right, of course, to issue documents critical of me but my right to respond and give evidence on my own behalf was called into question. One of the documents issued to me by the Head as part of the Capability Procedure included these two ridiculous, bizarre - as well as illegal? - sentences on a page headed 'Concerns:'
Targets were given to me for any number of things, but not, strangely, for these two misdemeanours. If they had been:
Targets
I wrote to the Head: 'I would claim - although I am, of course, only a legal layman - that since the governing body of this, a maintained school, is a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 then [the first statement, 'produces extensive documentation...] is in breach of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.' This involves the freedom 'to receive and impart ideas and information without interference by public authority.'
As for the second statement, 'Quickly involves his Union Rep.' I think that this - again, I'm only a legal layman - is illegal as well. It may well contravene Article 11 of the same Act, which includes 'the right to join trade unions for the protection of his interests' and not just that but 'no restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights' [my emphasis] other than ones needed for national security, public safety and some other serious objectives. I don't think that involving my Union Rep., at whatever speed, was a threat to national security or public safety.
Quite apart from their legal status, both statements misrepresented the facts. At the time these allegations were made, I hadn't written any documents at all in connection with the case. The Head of Department was thinking of an occasion about ten years before when I did produce documents in connection with a very minor episode. The Head of Department wearily conceded that I'd made my point. At the time the allegations were made, I'd only consulted my union representative once- and the Head himself had advised me that I could consult my Union Rep! For a very long period of time, I hadn't been a member of any union. I joined a union a few years before these events. After the case began, and after this particular 'concern' had been put on record, I saw my union representative just a few times.
As for my misgivings about the legal basis of the two 'misdemeanours,' he ignored them. I didn't receive any reply at all. 'Debby' Clark from the Human Resources Department was involved in all stages of my capability proceedings. I would have assumed that she'd read the document given to me. If she didn't, something was badly wrong.
Recently, I wrote to Ms Bradley, (who is Debby Clark's superior) giving just a few lines about my reasons for thinking that my Capability Procedure was marked by multiple examples of unfairness and stating that I would be sending her full documentation for her to consider. She didn't want to see the documentation. She wrote back 'From the information you have supplied [just those few lines] I do not consider that you have any grounds for complaint regarding this matter.' The matter was at an end, so far as she was concerned. (So far as I'm concerned, it wasn't.) This was followed by the strong request not to make comments on this Web site.
This is a quotation from the eminent judge Lord Denning:
'Whoever it be, no matter how powerful, the law should provide a remedy for the abuse or misuse of power, else the oppressed will get to the point when they will stand it no longer. They will find their own remedy.'
All that I'm applying from this comment of Lord Denning's is the sentence 'they will find their own remedy.' If documents which present reasoned arguments and give evidence are ignored, if even the writing of documents is treated as a matter of 'concern,' then I'm entitled to 'find my own remedy,' including publication on my own Web site. After observing the etiquette appropriate to submissions to people far more powerful than myself, and finding them completely unreceptive, I see no reason now to avoid parody and sarcasm in some places in what follows. After all, Solzhenitsyn uses sarcasm extensively in 'The Gulag Archipelago.' I can include here only some of the arguments and evidence I presented in the documents. These, of course, made no use at all of parody and sarcasm. David Bowes made no comment on any of the documentation and didn't challenge any of it. As I note above, Genny Bradley was unwilling even to look at it.
1. Whilst capability proceedings were underway, whilst I was portrayed as a deeply unpopular teacher, teaching uninteresting lessons, failing in almost every way, although not accused of failing in my exam results in any way - these were consistently good, very good, excellent or outstanding throughout my time at the school and when I asked David Bowes, 'What about my exam results?' he answered that exam results were not an issue at all - whilst David Bowes and others were directing at me the full force of their righteous indignation, whilst I was being fed to the lions, or rather the hyenas, when my blood pressure had become dangerously high, I decided to cut my losses and retire early. This decision prompted the preparation of a certificate, to be presented to me when I left. So, whilst the capability proceedings were still well under way, the school gave information to the Human Resources Department (which included Debby Clark) and the Human Resources Department prepared the document.
What did the Certificate have to say about me? Something like this? 'A deeply unpopular teacher, teaching uninteresting lessons, failing in almost every way. Although it has to be conceded that his examination results were consistently good, very good, excellent or outstanding, we as a school place no reliance at all on exam results as evidence of success in teaching.' What the certificate actually said was different. Excerpts:
The Capability Proceedings continued with full rigour even after I'd given in my resignation. Not only that, but David Bowes was so relentless that even after the period of intensive monitoring was supposed to have ended, he told the Head of Department to continue monitoring me! Monitoring the teaching of someone about to leave the school and to leave teaching within a short time doesn't seem the epitome of common sense, rationality or enlightened leadership You would have thought that he could have saved the time of a Head of Department and saved me from further stress. (And the stress had been much worse than I would have imagined. The proceedings went on for just over five months.) I think he simply forgot when the monitoring period was due to end. In my experience, his grasp of detail wasn't always perfect.
He insisted that monitoring must continue, giving me a high-minded explanation of the need to monitor my work with a year group which hadn't been monitored before, even though there had been ample time to do that in the monitoring period, if he thought it was very important. In fact, the Head of Department - who seemed, to his credit, mystified by this new development and was completely apologetic - gave me complete freedom to choose the set which was monitored. No attention at all was paid to the need to monitor a particular year group, so I think that David Bowes' explanation was more than questionable.
At the first Capability meeting, attended of course by David Bowes and Debby Clark of the Human Resources Department, I said that I had a means of making public my view that the proceedings were deeply unfair, by publication in this Web site. I'd assumed that I'd be able to call witnesses in my defence, be able to put questions to anyone who had made criticisms, ask for evidence that a parent had made a complaint at all, and if the parent had complained, find out what the complaint was all about, have discussed all the items in the capability document. I saw every one of them as factually incorrect or based on misconceptions or wilfully exaggerated or demonstrably biased. When I found that I wasn't to be allowed to defend myself in any way - according to Ms Clark all this was 'in the past' - then I made it clear that although I was prevented from defending myself at this meeting, I certainly had other means of defending myself.
For the reasons I give in the first section of this page, I delayed publishing my account of the Capability proceedings. Now that I've done so, David Bowes and Debby Clark can have had no reason at all for surprise when I published this page. Everything they did or didn't do after this first meeting was in the full knowledge that publication was likely. I would have expected that for reasons of simple prudence, David Bowes would have avoided such an obvious mistake as asking for a class to be monitored when the monitoring period had ended: this, like other decisions of his, could be cited in this Web site, and he knew that. Whatever his inscrutable motives, here it is, published. If he cares to explain and defend this action and his other actions in writing, he's a free agent. I'm curious as to whether his fluency in the spoken word is matched by an equal facility with the written word.
2. The Head of Department wrote the main capability document used against me. A few months after I left, this Head of Department, one of the main architects of my misfortune, came under the withering gaze of Capability Bowes himself, I'm told! He resigned without another job to go to. In the year after that, other teachers resigned rather than face the wrath of Bowes. And in the year after that, capability proceedings were begun for yet another individual.
of the Human Resources Department, whose superior is Genny Bradley, is one of these two buttocks. (I explain the allusion below.) On one Web site on bullying a tactic is mentioned which is identical to one employed by Debby Clark: The page mentions 'the bully's ruses for abdicating responsibility and evading accountability, eg "that's all in the past, let's focus on the future," "what's in the past is no longer relevant..."
At the first meeting concerned with the Capability Proceedings against me, I was given a 'Plan.' I wrote to Mr Bowes, the Head, that 'this Document was a travesty, containing very many mistakes, distortions and omissions, and it was essential that I should have the chance to defend myself...the Plan was based on the false supposition ...that allegations...had already been proved. The Plan had been written in advance of the meeting and handed to me there, with no allowances made for the fact that it might need to be modified, or discarded entirely, in the light of objections I might raise at the meeting.' Debby Clark said that the Document was 'in the past' and that it was now essential to move on to 'the future.' The classic tactic of the bully, or someone attempting to be a bully. I wrote at the time, 'She made not the least attempt to display the objectivity which would be expected of a representative of the Human Resources Department. (I don't equate 'objectivity' with complete acceptance of my own interpretation of events, but I do expect a fair-mindedness which I found entirely lacking in Ms Clark's role in the meeting.)' So, I wasn't given the chance to discuss the matter of my writing documents and calling on my Union representative and a large number of other matters.
In their refusal to permit any questioning of allegations, in their approach as a whole, Debby Clark and David Bowes were indistinguishable. Debby Clark and David Bowes: 'two buttocks of one bum.' The quotation is attributed to Thomas Sturge Moore, the British poet and illustrator and refers to the friendship between the writers Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton. I apply it to people or organizations which fail to preserve the necessary detachment. David Bowes made so many questionable - demonstrably mistaken and unfair - decisions in these proceedings. Debby Clark acted as a representative of a human rights department whose stance was indistinguishable from that of the Head, who gave every sign of pursuing the 'case' against me just as relentlessly - these, I felt, were abysmal standards. I discuss below another instance of failure to preserve the necessary detachment, in the case of union representation. I quote the words of Tim Field: 'Many people report that their paid trade union official appears indistinguishable from the management...'
I wrote to David Bowes 'I have to stress that I'm completely able to accept criticism. I recognize the overwhelming importance of criticism, provided it comes with proper evidence and that it doesn't deny the importance of dialogue, of legitimate responses to criticism. I'm very receptive to the criticism which comes from people who seem to me to be essentially fair-minded...If fair-minded people criticize my teaching, and the criticism seems to me to be justified, then I'll do all I can to implement the advice. I regard teaching as made up of a large number of different skills, and I would stress the impossibility of succeeding fully in every one of them - for myself or for anyone. I have undoubted weaknesses as well as strengths. What I do deny is that any weaknesses were grave enough to justify the excessive action against me.'
Debby Clark's manner I found off-putting: an uncanny resemblance in her controlled, glacial demeanour to the performance of Corinna Harfouch, who played Magda Goebbels, the wife of the Nazi Dr Goebbels, in the film 'Untergang' or 'Downfall.' I'm comparing her to a performance, not to a Nazi, of course. I loathe the misuse of 'fascist' and 'nazi,' as in 'fashion fascists.'
Genny 'Voltaire Updated' Bradley is the Head of 'Organisational Development and Change Management' in Sheffield. Why 'Voltaire updated?' The reference is to the words attributed to Voltaire (by S. G. Tallentyre): 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' The 'updating' doesn't give 'I disapprove of what you publish on your own Web site, but I will defend to the death your right to publish it.' It refers to 'updating' by trying to restrict a freedom. For George Orwell's comments on 'updating' as a way of restricting freedom of expression, see his essay 'The Prevention of Literature.'
At the time Genny Bradley was writing, she didn't know what I what I would be publishing on my Web site. She decided to disapprove of it all the same. This being so, Genny Bradley's updating of Voltaire would go something like this:
'I disapprove of what you will be saying in the future, whatever it might be, and make a strong request that you shouldn't say it.'
In some countries, insulting the President carries penalties. For the time being, there are no penalties in this country for criticizing a member of the city's Human Resources Department. (Subject to the usual legal qualifications.) Strong requests not to publish have no legal force.
She seems to write as if modern communications can be easily controlled to suit her own interpretations. As it is, all my criticisms of Genny Bradley are easily available throughout the world to anyone who puts "Genny Bradley" into a search engine.
I contacted Genny Bradley and invited her to look at this page. She didn't reply. I assume that either she didn't care to look at it, or that she did but found it irksome or difficult to answer any of the points I make. I've no way of knowing, but my opinion is that far more should be expected of the leader of a public organization. These are surely abysmal standards.
After I'd left the school, I wrote a letter to Ms Clark which included these arguments.
'I have a document, the 'model capability procedure for teachers,' published by Bristol City Council. This seems to me enlightened as well as realistic and the contrast with the procedure in Sheffield, as 'overseen' by yourself, is stark. Teachers in Bristol are assured that 'Any cause for concern about the performance of an employee should have already been the subject of informal discussions.' There were no such informal discussions in my case. I arrived at school one day and was informed that capability proceedings would begin. In Bristol 'an assessment period of a maximum of four working weeks' is part of the procedure' only 'in exceptional circumstances,' and only after consultation and agreement with senior persons. Not only was I subject to an assessment period of four weeks but Mr Bowes extended the period and gave instructions that assessment should continue - for reasons which I think have not the least plausibility. Bristol's capability procedure stresses the importance of finding out at the outset if alleged failings on the part of a teacher are due to sickness or ill-health. In Sheffield, capability proceedings lack this elementary safeguard...
'There were only two 'parental complaints' against me. Is it not scandalous, a denial of elementary justice, that I still to this day have not the least idea what one of these 'complaints' was about? At the time, I gave reasons, in writing, for thinking that this 'complaint' was not a complaint at all and I asked for clarification. I think that the parent in this case might well be very surprised indeed to find that it was considered that she had made a 'complaint' against me. But Mr Bowes gave me no information at all. He made no reply to this or any of the other numerous points which I made meticulously and in detail.'
Debby Clark made no reply to this letter. A copy was sent to Genny Bradley. She failed to reply too.
He plays a central role. He instigated the Capability Proceedings in my case. On a different matter, David Bowes the Christian believer as a moral and spiritual inspiration for his school (David 'Reservoir' Bowes) see reservoir of hope.
Apart from commenting on his gross unfairness in his dealings with me in particular (he made no response) I commented on his wider personnel policies (again he made no response): 'I strongly believe that the personnel policies of the school are very faulty indeed and that Mr Bowes' management style is rigid rather than flexible, sometimes treating professional people in a way which gives rise to deep concern. The concern is not only my own. I have reason for thinking that a significant number of staff are not at all happy with the working environment.'
Ms Royles is certainly efficient. The period when she was joint Head of the School (together with Richard Storer) before the arrival of David Bowes was a notably successful one: fairly low-key but very effective leadership.
For all that, she has faults, although these were not in evidence when she was joint-Head. To me, she has a very high estimate of herself, although her limitations are real. I put on record one clear-cut failure on her part, as I saw it, in a document sent to David Bowes. He didn't challenge my interpretation. More of this below, in the Capability Document.
DS was the Head of Biology and the Head of Science at the time of the Capability Proceedings. I have some respect for him, even though he played a prominent - and disastrous - part in the attack on me and wrote 'C. Doc.' (Here was someone whose exam results weren't as good as mine writing a document critical of me.) He also wrote the document in which it was alleged that 'I produce extensive documentation which is often difficult to challenge' and that I 'quickly involve my Union Rep.' although the document was issued to me by the Head and the Head was responsible for its contents. In the year after I was David Bowes' main target he apparently felt that he'd been placed under great pressure and resigned without another job to go to. He was, I think, flawed but despite his affinity with bureaucrats I found him human, energetic - but not always constructively - overall, well liked by me and many others, if not by David Bowes. It was 'common knowledge' in the school that David Bowes disliked him very much but I have no proof of this dislike, apart from the events after I left which led to his resignation.
He was and is 'Head of the Specialist Science College' and became Head of Science after DS had left.
He was the only person to give a lesson observation during the monitoring period. Although only one lesson was actually observed, I knew that any lesson could be observed and the stress was relentless throughout.
I was pleased about the way the lesson had gone. We'd got through a great deal of work and the pupils had worked hard. His report wasn't favourable. He said that some pupils were not 'on task.' From time to time during the lesson (which was the last lesson of the day) but not at all frequently, a pupil would momentarily lose concentration and then regain it. He was applying, I think, a completely unrealistic notion: that all the pupils could give all their attention to the task in hand throughout all the lesson. He was, I'm sure, flagrantly exaggerating. David Dennis's speciality is exam results, analysis of exam results, as I explain in the page targets. At the time, I felt, 'Take full account of my examination results for this set and all my other sets and compare them with your own and the results of other people.'
One of his objections was very curious. He objected to the fact that I'd used a few words of Italian in the lesson. The context was this. The set was a good one. Teachers are encouraged not to teach the subject in isolation all the time but sometimes to give a link with other subjects. One of my interests is - or used to be - in foreign languages. I took a few moments to talk about science as a language. Biology uses a very large number of technical words - the 'vocabulary' of the language. I was trying to encourage the pupils to go beyond a limited use of these words, not to be satisfied with a limited command of these words, to become 'fluent' in Biology, if you like. In the same way, it's better if someone can speak fluent Italian - I used a few words of fluent Italian - than have a very limited command of the language. Whether anyone thinks that all this was a good analogy or a not-so-good analogy, it took up a couple of minutes of the lesson at most. David Dennis made clear his opinion that it was a fault and evidence of shortcomings as a teacher. He completely ignored the context.
I report - and not at all grudgingly - that someone who was given the capability treatment before me and had his lessons observed by him found him very fair-minded.
Perhaps the unfavourable verdict in my case was his genuine opinion, but a few remarks about the difficulty - not always but sometimes - of obtaining for the teacher in capability proceedings a critique which isn't completely subjective, biased or distorted by certain considerations. I don't apply these remarks to DD..
A Headteacher, of course, has not only the power to instigate capability proceedings but other power over staff, such as the power to promote. Although there will be other people at the interview, the Head's power is often decisive. Now, the Head has power over wages - the word I use instead of 'salary.' Pretence, ambition, other human attributes which are unidealistic or worse, are of course completely common in schools but managerial culture often evades the fact.
The person subject to Capability Procedure doesn't have high priority in a school. To produce a complimentary report on the person would require great strength of character in some circumstances.
Note: this capability document written by me is to be distinguished from the document given to me by David Bowes: 'Targets and support plan responding to concerns about the wider professional performance.' The document given to me is referred to here as 'C. Doc.' 'C. Doc. is ultra-systematic, with columns headed 'Support,' 'Success Criteria' and 'Monitoring.' Educational bureaucrats seem to think that using these categories almost guarantees the accuracy of the statements included in these categories. It's perfectly possible for irrational rubbish to be given the patina of truth by using these categories. I parody the style in the Capability Document below, 'Concerns about David Bowes and others.'
The areas of concern listed here vary in seriousness, but none are unimportant.
Area of concern: failure to take account of examination and test results. Failure on the part of all the people listed above (but David Bowes above all) to take into account the very significant fact that my exam results have been consistently good, very good, excellent or sometimes outstanding. The abundant evidence of GCSE results (I didn't teach teach AS/A2 level, except for one year) as well as the very large number of End of Module Tests (which were examinations, undertaken in exam conditions.) My impression, based on close study of exam results in the Science department that some of my critics have not had this consistent level of success at all. Monitoring: David Dennis, with his expertise in examination results, will be able to give comprehensive information about these facts.
In the documentation submitted to Mr Bowes and not challenged by him: 'A close study of my exam results and other exam results would be a very instructive exercise. Examination results have become an extraordinarily important way of assessing the competence of teachers and of schools. I feel very strongly that if my teaching is as imperfect as the document claims, then this would be overwhelmingly likely to have led to poor or even disastrously bad examination results.'
Capability Bowes did tell me that my success as regards examination results wasn't in question.
Area of concern: objective and subjective evidence. Subjective evidence, such as the 'impressions' of a support teacher may not be the most reliable evidence. Sometimes it can be explained very easily. The particular support teacher who gave some evidence against me was very, very poor and provided virtually no 'support' at any time. Target. The School to take far more account of the objective evidence of examination results - consistent with its policy (along with all other schools) of giving great emphasis - but not exclusive emphasis - to these.
Area of concern: use made of parental complaints. The 'C. Doc. given to PH gave an alarming picture of parental complaints. One of the 'success criteria' of the document: 'Pupils' parental complaints cease.' The impression is given that parents had been complaining in large numbers. I was at the school for 26 years. About 17 years before I left there was a very moderate letter from a parent, more of an observation than a complaint, asserting that my explanation of genetics was insufficiently clear.
Of the two complaints which were cited in the Capability proceedings, one wasn't a complaint at all, in my opinion, and I gave detailed reasons as to why not. No attempt was made to challenge my interpretation. As for the one other complaint, I can give some of the background here but not all, since it includes confidential information. My documentation was very extensive for this important matter, and again wasn't challenged.
A new intake in one particular year included the most disruptive and difficult pupils ever in the school's history. They caused severe problems throughout the school for years afterwards. Assistant Heads and others were given the job of trying to improve the behaviour of these pupils and supporting the teachers who taught them. Half of these disruptive pupils were placed in my science set. I pointed out that proper teaching was impossible with such a concentration of difficult pupils. (I pointed out that 'during that year, I also taught other very difficult classes, and without problems other than the slightest.)
Nothing was done for a term, then, at last, some of them were moved into different sets. The two complaints were about misbehaviour in this set. The two parents were completely within their rights to make these complaints. It's natural that parents should be very concerned about disruption in the classroom. The school authorities have to establish the cause of the disruption. Not all disruption is the fault of the teacher. The fact that there weren't far more complaints is evidence of some success, I think. Despite the difficulties, test results and exam results were excellent for this set and at the end of the year, some of them were promoted to a much higher set. I saw DS to answer the complaints and he accepted completely my explanation, that misbehaviour was due to factors beyond my control. It was only after this meeting with the Head of Department that at long last something was done about the situation.
A year passed. One of these two complaints from the past was unearthed and, for lack of other parental complaints, apart from the alleged 'complaint' which I gave evidence for thinking was no complaint at all (I never did find out what it was all about) used against me. I wrote to David Bowes, 'Teachers should surely not have complaints which have been discussed fully and resolved a long time ago used against them. What is the response? Is it going to be argued that this was a completely fair thing to do? I'm not aware that this practice is prohibited in law, but I would very much hope that any school which values its reputation for fair dealing would avoid it.' Response from David Bowes? None. Again, a reliance on superior power.
Early in the capability period, I was told that 'two parental complaints' had been received. This was all the information I was given for almost five weeks. This is outrageous. The correct procedure is obviously to inform the teacher as soon as possible after a complaint has been received, and the teacher should be asked to provide a defence or an explanation. I was left to wonder what exactly the allegations were about and how serious the allegations were. . I ought to have been persistent in asking for an explanation, but for once I wasn't persistent. I kept waiting and wondering.
At last I was told - one of the complaints had been dealt with a year ago, my explanation of the reasons for the complaint accepted at the time completely. The other was described as a 'complaint' but all I was given was the name of the parent. I wasn't told what I was supposed to have done wrong. I think that the context was very important in this case, and I did have a very great deal of information about the context, information which can't be given here. My assertion that on the evidence I had this wasn't a complaint at all wasn't questioned or disputed. This was part of what Debby Clark dismissed as unimportant, since it was in 'the past.' And Debby Clark saw nothing wrong in a complaint which belonged in the past, since it was resolved a year before she made this fatuous and ignorant comment, being unearthed and used against me - surely, to make the weakest of cases appear stronger.
Now, I'm more eager than ever to find out more about this 'mysterious complaint,' if it was a complaint, and I doubt it. I'm sure I'm entitled to know. One definite complaint from the year before, which was resolved at the time, and an alleged and unexplained complaint' constituted the alleged 'problem' of parental complaints.
Area of concern: Mr Bowes' reliance upon his superior power to evade any answers whatsoever to reasoned evidence. PH produced very extensive documentation at the time of his Capability proceedings, giving reasoned arguments and evidence in connection with every one of the arguments against him. Mr Bowes made no attempt to answer any of these arguments. Target: The need to address concerns point by point, bringing forward whatever evidence is appropriate. As a general point, the powers given to a Headteacher are necessary but may easily become excessive. They are not a substitute for rational argument. Individuals have their own power, for example, the power to publicize issues by means of Web sites and by print publication.
Area of concern: the apparent ignoring of some legal rights.
In the document 'Concerns
about the work of PH,' which preceded 'C. Doc.,' there are these statements:
'2. [PH] produces extensive documentation, which is often difficult to challenge,
justifying his position.
(3) Quickly involves his Union Rep.'
I deal with these issues in the first section of the page, 'Freedoms...'
Area of concern: carelessness in compiling documents given to PH. A failure, seemingly, to proof-read documents. Reading through a document once after writing it would have avoided the ludicrous statement that 'PH was given every support by DS (then Head of Science), AC (a year tutor) and PH' (i.e., myself.) Target: to read through documents given to teachers subject to Capability proceedings at least once, to detect obvious inaccuracies.
Area of concern: MR and the pitfalls of oral testimony. MR is an historian. As such, she should be familiar with these pitfalls. Any alleged 'evidence' has to be carefully compared with other evidence, such as that from the person being criticized. Is the oral testimony representative or unrepresentative, reliable or unreliable? Without a scrupulous concern for these matters, it may be a matter of someone listening to gossip, finding it superficially convincing and acting on the gossip.
My comment in a document I wrote and gave to Mr Bowes (yet another assertion which he didn't challenge): 'She appears to have accepted criticisms made by a pupil at face value, without giving me the chance to defend myself against them. She didn't bring to my attention a note... which I claim should certainly have been brought to my attention. I consider this also to be deeply unfair. If I had been given the chance to defend myself, I had available a variety of evidence and information.' And I mention 'my view that the practice of hearing a pupil's version of events and not only failing to give the teacher an opportunity to present a defence but failing even to inform the teacher that the pupil has made these comments is indefensible.' I sent a letter to MR about these concerns, with these quotations, but she didn't reply.
Target: Headteachers and Assistant Heads at the school to bring to the attention of a teacher any criticism of any substance made by a pupil and give the teacher the right to respond to the criticism.
Area of concern: using insufficient evidence when deciding on the 'popularity' of a teacher. Often, the vast majority of clients, customers, or in this case pupils who are very satisfied will keep quiet. Attention will be concentrated upon a tiny handful who are dissatisfied but vocal. My alleged 'unpopularity' with pupils played a significant part in the capability proceedings. The strong impression was given that my unpopularity was a 'fact,' beyond dispute.
I had the memory, on the other hand, of countless parents' evenings, overwhelmingly encouraging to me, when parents very often said that their son or daughter really appreciated my lessons. I walked into a local shop recently and the girl behind the counter was someone I taught at about the same time as the capability proceedings. One of the first things she said (in Sheffield dialect) was 'You were a reyt good teacher! We all loved you!' A long time before David Bowes arrived at the school, the pupils organized a poll for different categories. I was voted 'favourite male teacher.' And, also, 'second best dressed male teacher!' Although it was a long time ago, I think that the personality which was not in the least off-putting at that time was the same before the capability proceedings and during them, for that matter.
Area of concern: using the misbehaviour of pupils as evidence, allegedly, of a teacher's 'inadequacies' when there's overwhelming evidence that this misbehaviour is general and has presented immense problems in a large number of different subjects. This is an area where my documentation was particularly detailed, but for obvious reasons I can't present it here. Target: to no longer ignore the wider context, which may be all-important. To consult records which may well give evidence of misbehaviour and other patterns of behaviour in other lessons, not only the lessons of the teacher under investigation.
Area of concern: a sincere mistake concerning union action. It was alleged that I'd failed to complete 'data sheets.' The C. Doc. mentioned as one of the 'Success Criteria' for me 'Data sheets available on time.' These data sheets are part of the data collection exercise which has become so prominent in education. At a meeting of my union at the time, the NAS/UWT, it was recommended that these data sheets shouldn't be completed, as part of the action against excessive workloads. At the meeting, it was voted not to complete these sheets. I wasn't informed that the recommendation was overturned later. The school used my failure to complete data sheets as evidence against me but what I still don't know is if the school was entitled to demand that data sheets should be completed. If the school was entitled to demand this, if completing the data sheets was part of the contract of employment, why was the matter put to the vote at a union meeting at the school?
Possible area of concern: the frequency of David Bowes' use of formal measures such as capability proceedings. Quite apart from the justice or injustice of particular cases and the feasibility of alternative methods, simple figures would be useful: figures for the instigation of capability procedures - not necessarily procedures brought to a conclusion, because the tendency is for people who are subjected to them to leave the school. How many times has David Bowes instigated formal measures compared with other secondary Heads in the city? I have a good idea of the figures but definitive information is no doubt available to the Human Resources Department. The figures available would, though, underestimate his desire (on the evidence available to me, at least) to correct, chastise, coerce. He hasn't always been successful in his aims. I'm told that he tried to begin capability proceedings against one teacher but that the Head of Department robustly resisted, and was successful. Monitoring: the Human Resources department to pay close attention to David Bowes' recourse to Capability preceedings in the future.
Success criteria for all the above areas of concern: complaints concerning David Bowes' application of the Capability proceedings which are well-justified should cease.
In the year of the Capability proceedings, the science scheme I had to use for all my classes but one was 'Framework Science.' By this time, I'd already written an extended critique of the scheme. I've included it in the Reviews section of the site, at Framework Science. This critique puts some of the accusations (or 'concerns') in a new light, for example my alleged failures in 'differentiation.' This is how 'C. Doc' puts it:
A target for
me: 'Differentiate work in order to engage and extend the learning of all
students.'
And success criteria for me: 'Differentiation is evident
in planning, work set and classroom activities.'
Certainly clear-cut - but convincing? Where was the evidence that I gave insufficient attention to differentiation, that I was neglecting it, that there was any need to formally monitor my practice to ensure that I'd 'improved?' No evidence was provided. Where was the evidence that I was fully aware of differentiation? There was a great deal of evidence, for example this, from the critique of Framework Science. I'd written:
'First of all, to introduce the world of the authors [of Framework Science] and their complete indifference to the important concept of differentiation in education, a couple of questions (and perhaps you could commit yourself to an answer.)
(1) Define the term 'evaluation.'
(2) Define the term 'laterally inverted.' [in the context of light.]
'Perhaps you've been able to define these terms straight away, without any problem at all. If so, do try and enter into the mind of a 7th year pupil (age: 12 or so) who is expected by Framework Science to be able to define 'evaluation,' (together with 'input variable,' by the way.) And try and enter into the world of the 8th year pupil (age 13 or so) who is expected to give a definition of 'laterally inverted.' These are homework questions in Framework Science, and for the full ability range - for pupils whose reading age may be years below their chronological age, for pupils who find abstract words difficult, all but the simplest words difficult. The first question comes from the sheet 7I.h.6A (A is for 'all,' for the full ability range) and the second from the sheet 8K.c.3A (again, the A is for 'all.') By the way, the authors don't believe in supplying inverted commas, generally - the inverted commas for 'evaluation' are mine - but now and again, as in sheet 8K.c.3A, they do give them.
'The idea of 'differentiation' in education, which involves the notion that questions shouldn't be flung at pupils completely unready or unable to make any sense of them, never seems to enter the heads of the authors, after they've paid obligatory lip service to the theme in their introduction (an inert and deadening piece of prose whose main virtue is that it avoids the forced and completely unconvincing jollity of so much in the main teaching scheme.) It should be obvious to anybody that they have no idea how to enter into the world of a pupil for whom science is a desperately difficult area.'
This isn't the only place where I discussed Framework Science's lack of concern for differentiation. See also, for example, the section Over-complexity of language. I gave David Bowes printed extracts from this critique but it did me no good at all. As with everything else, he made no comment and gave no explanations. The criticism stayed. He was immoveable. So the allegation remained that I had no concern for a matter which I'd already addressed in detail. The idea that I should take account of differentiation in 'planning, work set and classroom activities' and that my 'success' in doing so should be monitored. doesn't take into account the fact that Framework Science, as a very comprehensive and very expensive course, comes complete with work set and classroom activities and is intended to free the teacher from most of the work of planning. For years, I'd been spending time attempting to make up for some of the deficiencies of this teaching scheme. As time went on, more and more people in the department began to criticize the scheme openly. One teacher in the department described the scheme as 'rubbish,' another as 'the triumph of appearance over substance.' Framework Science provides homework questions, allegedly differentiated. These are so poor that the department had a meeting to generate new homework questions. DS, the Head of Department who wrote the main capability document used against me, was responsible for choosing this scheme. Anyone who could overlook its gross failings as regards differentiation, amongst so many other failings, wasn't the best person to accuse me of failing to recognize the importance of differentiation.
Another Target: 'Engage all students in interesting and meaningful learning activities.'
Again, the critique of Framework Science is relevant. For example, I wrote:
'The authors often prefer paper-based activities to experiments. In the whole of section 8E, 'Atoms and elements,' a section which lends itself to a wealth of interesting experiments, there's only one class experiment, 8E.e.3, 'Investigating iron and sulphur,' apart from a dull experiment on heating copper, which takes only a few minutes. Truly, pupils in the fifties (or forties, or thirties...) of the last century were given a more interesting time than pupils who have to study this section of 'Framework Science.' The teacher can make the topic come alive, but with no thanks to 'Framework Science,' and it will need a lot of extra work.'
I did everything I could to make each topic 'come alive' but it was impossible to overcome all the restrictions of Framework Science. This was a scheme which had cost the department 30 000 pounds and which provided all the worksheets and prescribed all the lesson activities, in detail. It was completely impractical for me to provide my own worksheets in every case as a substitute for the worksheets of Framework Science, which are generally lack-lustre, tedious, unimaginative, except, sometimes, in the realm of factual information, when the authors exercise their imaginative gifts by creating imaginary facts. (See the section wrong information, or misleading information)
In this sense, the Capability document C. Doc is much more 'imaginative,' a classic (but deeply disturbing) collection of imaginary facts, such as the 'fact' that I had a deficient grasp of differentiation.
I don't know what I was playing at writing about such a thing to such a person, but I even included mention of the good will I'd shown. Of course, it did me no good at all. Along with everything else, it wasn't acknowledged or mentioned. I wrote that four times, over a period of four years, 'I was asked year after year, as a part-time teacher, to increase the number of hours worked by taking on voluntarily a class which I was warned was difficult and challenging. I had no wish to increase my hours, and the prospect of teaching another difficult class was not one I wanted at all. In every case, I agreed, however, as a matter of goodwill. (I demonstrated good will on another occasion, but not to take on a difficult class, when I agreed to teach AS Psychology for a year, even though I have no background in the subject. Preparation for these lessons took up an extraordinary amount of time, in view of my lack of knowledge of the subject. My results in the two sets of exams were truly excellent, with very high 'value-added ratings.' With apologies for mentioning one of those too familiar unions of education and economics.)
This is 'Bully on line,' the remarkable Web site of Tim Field. See in particular http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/teachers.htm
The insights of the Web site 'Bully on line' were essential in withstanding the stresses. I'm very grateful to Brian Lamb for bringing it to my attention.
The Web site describes as a 'serial bully' someone with 'a string of previous targets who have been dismissed, taken early or ill-health retirement, or who have left under suspicious circumstances.' There's incisive analysis of the different kinds of serial bully, including the 'attention-seeker' and the 'sociopath.' The site makes the comment in connection with 'parental complaints': sometimes 'a comment has been deliberately misconstrued or distorted to form the basis of an allegation.' I think it very likely that this was the case for one of the two parental 'complaints' which were cited during the proceedings. I was given no information at all apart from the name of the parent alleged to have made the complaint, at the time or later. Tim Field's Web site was all the more important to me because my union was so useless.
I was a member of the NASUWT. For me, they're 'The Useless Union,', but I refer only to my own experience. The union representative at the school, (quite an impressive person, who has no responsibility at all for the disastrous handling of my case) called upon the Union's representative for the city, David Haigh. who attended only the first full capability meeting. I quickly realized that David Haigh was completely out of his depth and no match for someone like David Bowes, who exudes confidence and self-belief and is very fluent. (David Bowes has real strengths in presentation, serious weaknesses, I think, in matters of substance.)
The Union Man stared at the main capability document, separate pieces of pseudo-information arranged systematically in columns, using the approved terms, 'success criteria' and the rest, and I think he was dazzled. When it was made clear to me that I'd be given no opportunity at all to contest any of the allegations, or to find out what exactly was the nature of 'complaint number 2,' or to contest the disapproval of my writing documents or involving my union representative, I asked for the meeting to be adjourned so that I could talk to him. I said that it was completely unfair to move on to the next stage - intensive monitoring - whilst there were so many issues at stake. He mumbled something and that was all. When we returned to the meeting, he offered no help at all. David Haigh seemed to see his role as simply attending, perhaps offering psychological comfort by his mere presence. He offered me none. After this, I dispensed with his services. Allegedly, he was off work as a result of stress not long after.
Tim Field's Web site 'bullyonline,' on the other hand, was not just helpful but crucial in withstanding the pressures. Amongst all its other insights, it offers insights into the frequent failure of trade unions to help their members.
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/public.htm
and has this to say:
'Sometimes the local (unpaid) trade union officer is helpful and supportive, but once the case moves up to a paid union official, the member finds their case frustrated. Many people report that their paid trade union official appears indistinguishable from the management and that their trade union, despite the rhetoric, appears to be more interested in maintaining its good relationship with the employer than meeting the legally-binding contractual obligations to its members. Some trade unions encourage personnel officers to join the union in the full knowledge that their members are or will be in conflict with the same personnel officers. The National Union of Teachers (NUT), for instance, openly boasts its "delight that LEA [Personnel] Officers are in membership of the Union". The notion that trade unions exist to support, protect and fight for the rights of their members seems to have fallen by the wayside - especially if bullying and stress are the core issues.
'There are many reasons why trade union representatives fail to support their members, including lack of resources, weak law, disinterest, fear of retaliation by employer, fear of loss of rep's own job and career, lack of training, lack of support within the union, contempt for members, complicity, fraternal obligation and more. All play their part.'
The NASUWT may offer a superb service to teachers who have slipped on a wet floor in a school corridor and broken a bone, but teachers who hope that the union will move heaven and earth to help if they face the might of a power-mad headteacher might well be better off praying, even if they're atheists. Teachers who regard the union as similar to an insurance company - if my house is burned down, the insurance company will see me right, if I'm in danger of being forced out of the school, forced to leave the profession, the NASUWT will see I'm alright, my case is so strong - are much too trusting.
An unrelated matter:
on the page http://www.sheffield.nasuwt.org.uk/
the Sheffield Association of the NASUWT refers to 'Querys.' This spelling
has been there for a long time, without anyone in the NASUWT noticing or caring.
The plural of 'query' is of course 'queries.' At least they haven't used an
apostrophe before the 's.'
Before I resigned, I asked David Bowes how I would stand for a reference in any future employment. I said I had no intention of staying in teaching or applying for another job in teaching but it was possible that I might apply for some other job in the future. I gave as a purely hypothetical example stacking shelves at B & Q. He said that any reference would depend upon the result of the Monitoring Period which was part of the Capability Procedure. B & Q would not be interested in the monitoring period. They would be interested in matters like my punctuality and attendance record, both excellent. (An average of about two days a year of absence during my working life, mostly accounted for by stays in hospital and recovering from surgery.)
Although I shouldn't have been surprised by anything that he said, his answer left me quite stunned. I realized just how extensive was his view of his powers. He was determined, it seems, to prevent someone stacking shelves if he saw fit.
I resigned, without any worries about lack of a reference from David Bowes in any future applications for employment, undeterred by his power games.
Sheffield City Council uses an example of what I call the 'word sphere,' with its slogan:
WHERE EVERYONE MATTERS
What? Does this mean that it's impossible for an employee of the Council, such as a teacher, to be treated unfairly? Surely not. But it certainly sounds better, it gives a better self-image and a better image to the world than more modest and more realistic claims
Tapton School, Sheffield (Headteacher David Bowes) has:
VALUING
EVERYONE,
CARING FOR EACH OTHER
My own experience, it will be clear, was, let's say, very different under the régime of David Bowes (as contrasted with his benevolent and genuinely caring predecessor John Bardsley.)
Of course, the word-sphere is the natural home of imaginative writers. This isn't a perjorative use of the phrase. 'Word-sphere' in the perjorative sense reflects a sense of reality which is surely defective. Often, reality is difficult, intractable, sometimes impossible to deal with. It's far easier to arrange words so that an aspiration is put forward as reality. 'Declaring' a thing to be so is mistakenly thought to be the same as the reality. Sometimes, words become a substitute for action - this is an instance of {substitution}. The word-sphere is the world of facile claims, ringing declarations, hollow confidence-building assertions, wildly optimistic projections for future success. For Michael Chapman (Head of High Storrs school, Sheffield) and the word-sphere see the page Targets.