Pressure on school to explain head's departure (From Sutton Guardian)

We still do not know why the Head has been suspended. Parents have only just been informed of the Headteachers absence although no reason has been forthcoming. Parents should not find out that the Head has been suspended via an internet newspaper site.

Docs 22 if you are a parent I suggest you approach one of the 7 parent governors who represent you and ask what the heck has happened.

Giles C wrote:
Docs 22 if you are a parent I suggest you approach one of the 7 parent governors who represent you and ask what the heck has happened.

I'm a parent of a Nonsuch pupil and have written to the Board of Governors asking for an explanation but haven't received a reply as yet. I too found out about the Head's sudden departure via this internet article.

You might like to be nosy and know all the ins and outs, but we don’t have the right to know, and rightly so. Employment matters are usually confidential, and for good reason. From the little the school is saying the reason and circumstances for the Head leaving is surely a confidential matter and all parties should respect that confidentiality and so should we. And for the same reason parent governors will not want to divulge any more information than the school is providing. Digging away to satisfy your curiosity is shameful. Speculating that the Head has been suspended or that this has anything to do with the school’s academy status is simply that – speculation, or political opportunism, or poor journalism. None of which has a proper place in our community. Move on.

expo52 wrote:
You might like to be nosy and know all the ins and outs, but we don’t have the right to know, and rightly so. Employment matters are usually confidential, and for good reason. From the little the school is saying the reason and circumstances for the Head leaving is surely a confidential matter and all parties should respect that confidentiality and so should we. And for the same reason parent governors will not want to divulge any more information than the school is providing. Digging away to satisfy your curiosity is shameful. Speculating that the Head has been suspended or that this has anything to do with the school’s academy status is simply that – speculation, or political opportunism, or poor journalism. None of which has a proper place in our community. Move on.

Expo 52 what a load of codswallop if you dont mind me saying.
If this were an industrial company or a bank then you may well be correct in your assertion but this is a school with a large reputation and the damage to that reputation far outweighs the rights of the headteacher. If it is on health grounds then the governing body should come out and say so but to say nothing is gross irresponsibility from the governing body.

Glies C - my point is that a school these days by necessity should be run as efficiently and as correctly as a company, with all it's fiscal and legal obligations. So long as a school is performing well and being run well (ofsted will determine that) then this kind of speculation (understandable from a human perspective) could actually be damaging - without intent. Where does gross irresponsibility suddenly come into the story? Surely it would be irresponsible to break any possible confidences - for the sake of satisfying the curious.

If this was just being "nosy" then I’d probably support what expo52 says - but it's not that simple. The School gets over £5 million from the public purse. There are 1200 children whose learning, welfare and futures are potentially tied up in this - it is not something parents or the community can simply ignore. If parents of Nonsuch pupils want to debate these matters in a constructive manner then I have set up a Facebook Group - Nonsuch Parents Information Group (http://www.facebook
.com/groups/npigmail
/) for that purpose. The public interest test (in the legal sense) has to be applied. The issue of personal or health issues is a total red herring: "Mr X" is retiring on health grounds - end of story and no breach of confidentiality. No-one would complain about the lack of medical details. If, and I emphasise "if", there were employment issues and/or disciplinary action then the details of such should rightly be confidential. However, that would not preclude the Governing Body under such exceptional circumstances - and they would be exceptional - making a statement about the matter in a broad sense. Giving parents the cold shoulder is not the best approach. You have to remember it is the Governing Body of a school which appoints the Head Teacher and thus a sudden unexplained departure would do little to increase confidence in a Governing Body. Quite the opposite. Schools are at the very core of our community and thus are rightly subject to intense public scrutiny. How they operate can change the life chances of their pupils - our children - forever: as much as the influence of parents. Unfortunately, the reality is that academy status does have an effect on how they operate and to whom they are accountable - this is not political opportunism but a fact. Academies play by different rules and this is not necessarily a bad thing - it depends who runs them and how. But they are still publicly funded. I'm not against Academies but we do need to ensure that we have a level playing field. Expo52 says "So long as a school is performing well and being run well (Ofsted will determine that)..." Whether performance and league tables has much to do with the concept of education is another issue but just measuring school "output" in A*s reduces our children to "product". Ofsted applies the criteria which Ministers consider important: the Ofsted inspection framework has been constantly changed to satisfy government policy objectives. This has little to do with pedagogy and lots to do with political ideology on both sides of the fence. Can Ofsted judge whether a school is run well? Sometimes. There may well be legal or confidential issues involved and, yes, speculation can be damaging, but then we are faced with an apparent absence of any meaningful communication or damage limitation strategy (beyond say nothing, tough it out) by the School. In my opinion, that's a recipe for long-term damage of reputation and trust.

Giles C, the parent governors have no authority to say anything beyond what has been said. They do not sit on the Governing Body as representatives of the actual parents but they do represent (the concept of) parents as an element of the population which has a stake in the school - there is a distinct difference which is often misunderstood. The Governing Body is a corporate entity and all governors are bound by collective decisions (as in the Cabinet). It would be utterly wrong for one governor to speak out - despite our desire to know - this has to be a corporate decision to provide further information. Parents can only lobby and hopefully the Governing Body will respond in a more positive fashion.