Maria Tomaszewska Resigns As Head Teacher

[Ushtey]

Well it will now that the previous head has resigned and so vacated the post. Strangely it can't happen before that.

 

So that's two positions for School head being filled at the moment CRHS and SNHS, as well as a number of Deputy heads retiring/leaving their post. Given the recent comments about funding for the DoE, I wonder if the management structure of the Island's schools will be revised to reduce the overheads of highly paid management positions.

 

Or will they reduce the number of people actually teaching instead.

[sarahc]

I think we all know the answer to that Steve.

[angelo]

The point is that the career of this Headteacher (of the most successful secondary school in the IOM) has been ruined by personal vendetta and she has been prevented from entering her school since last September and subject to an intensive investigation which found .... precisely nothing. She can never work again in her profession owing to the dreadful rumours flying around and the fact that she has been suspended. She is now subject to a gagging order. The DOE does not deny that the formal reason for the suspension was her overspend (on the school) of £50,000 under the wrong budget headings. For the real reasons, however, you need to look into the personal animus of our so-called Minister for Education, and that of the so-called Chairman of the Governors, aided by one or two ex-teachers who had received short shrift from the Head's tongue. The secret 8-months DOE enquiry with no findings is a denial of justice, and a stinking reminder of what a secret state we now live in on the IOM. Let the MHKs get off their knees, and let the journalists keep digging.

[KERED]

Thanks for all that info, Angelo.

I hadn’t realised that the reason for Mrs T’s suspension was a 50k overspend!

If the DoE had told US that, then my imagination as to the reason, wouldn’t have been running riot!

 

Also – since the 8 month enquiry found “precisely nothing”, then surley it would be in the interests of EVERYONE, especially CRHS staff, students and parents for the DoE to announce that the enquiry didn’t uncover anything! If they have noting to hide, then why not tell everyone?

 

Yes , I agree – the MHKs SHOULD get off their knees (and start asking more questions!).

But it is comforting to know that the Journos are digging. I look forward to seeing the fruits of their spadework!

[joebean]

This is a sorry state of affairs and does no credit at all to the DOE. No investigation can be so complex in this environment to take over 8 months to report nothing. What role has our incredibly patronising Minister of Education had in this? Why didn't she insist that the investigation was concluded? What has been the role of the Chief Executive for the DOE who is highly paid and remarkably low profile in all this? If something was wrong at the school, particularly with the finances, an investigation could have found this out quite quickly. The Head could have been disciplined and everybody could have moved on. The fact that nothing happened suggests that there was no evidence against the Headteacher, but the affair

was allowed to drag on and put her, apparently, in such an untenable position that she felt she had to resign. At least she saw the need to conclude matters, perhaps.

 

This has been incredibly seceretive. Why? We need someone to dig and get to the truth. I suspect that the digging would expose some real failings, not in the Headteacher but in the dithering, ineffectual DOE.

[Bigeppy]

Perhaps she was offered the "honourable" way out ? Better than disciplinary procedures and the repercussions for both the individual and the department

 

It may have taken time whilst all parties agreed on the terms ?

 

Perhaps there were failings on both sides and a settlement may have been reached to ensure that no further action was necessary ?

 

It could be that there is an agreement for none of the findings to be made public, after all I don’t think it was a public enquiry ?

 

The school had been subject to a Special Inspection Report previously, which had highlighted poor communication and lack of consultation between senior leaders and staff. An action plan had been prepared.

 

As with any large organisation, if there are questions in relation to the management structure, poor communication, rumoured financial irregularities, rumours of high staff turnover, high sickness levels and early retirements, added to which external investigation, the person at the top often “falls on their sword” for the “good” of the organisation. Admittedly, rumours don’t necessarily have to have any fact associated with them, but the school no longer seems to have the positive position it once had in the community.

[Terse]

I suspect that the digging would expose some real failings... the dithering, ineffectual DOE.

Nothing more than a scratch of the surface required for that.

[QLD-Bloke]

The point is that the career of this Headteacher (of the most successful secondary school in the IOM) has been ruined by personal vendetta and she has been prevented from entering her school since last September and subject to an intensive investigation which found .... precisely nothing. She can never work again in her profession owing to the dreadful rumours flying around and the fact that she has been suspended. She is now subject to a gagging order. The DOE does not deny that the formal reason for the suspension was her overspend (on the school) of £50,000 under the wrong budget headings. For the real reasons, however, you need to look into the personal animus of our so-called Minister for Education, and that of the so-called Chairman of the Governors, aided by one or two ex-teachers who had received short shrift from the Head's tongue. The secret 8-months DOE enquiry with no findings is a denial of justice, and a stinking reminder of what a secret state we now live in on the IOM. Let the MHKs get off their knees, and let the journalists keep digging.

 

Just the Chairman of the Governors, Angelo? It's been reported that she survived a vote to sack her outright only because of the vote of the parent Governor - you know, the one who got in unopposed because the Head allowed only 5 days between the notice of election and closure of applications. How many other parents didn't get the notice that relied on teenagers for delivery? Nothing on the school website, nothing by e-mail - it's almost as though she wanted no-one else to apply.

[angelo]

The point is that the career of this Headteacher (of the most successful secondary school in the IOM) has been ruined by personal vendetta and she has been prevented from entering her school since last September and subject to an intensive investigation which found .... precisely nothing. She can never work again in her profession owing to the dreadful rumours flying around and the fact that she has been suspended. She is now subject to a gagging order. The DOE does not deny that the formal reason for the suspension was her overspend (on the school) of £50,000 under the wrong budget headings. For the real reasons, however, you need to look into the personal animus of our so-called Minister for Education, and that of the so-called Chairman of the Governors, aided by one or two ex-teachers who had received short shrift from the Head's tongue. The secret 8-months DOE enquiry with no findings is a denial of justice, and a stinking reminder of what a secret state we now live in on the IOM. Let the MHKs get off their knees, and let the journalists keep digging.

 

Just the Chairman of the Governors, Angelo? It's been reported that she survived a vote to sack her outright only because of the vote of the parent Governor - you know, the one who got in unopposed because the Head allowed only 5 days between the notice of election and closure of applications. How many other parents didn't get the notice that relied on teenagers for delivery? Nothing on the school website, nothing by e-mail - it's almost as though she wanted no-one else to apply.

 

 

Where was this Governors' meeting reported ? Have you seen the minutes ? All sorts of rumours of course. That's the problem.

[QLD-Bloke]

The point is that the career of this Headteacher (of the most successful secondary school in the IOM) has been ruined by personal vendetta and she has been prevented from entering her school since last September and subject to an intensive investigation which found .... precisely nothing. She can never work again in her profession owing to the dreadful rumours flying around and the fact that she has been suspended. She is now subject to a gagging order. The DOE does not deny that the formal reason for the suspension was her overspend (on the school) of £50,000 under the wrong budget headings. For the real reasons, however, you need to look into the personal animus of our so-called Minister for Education, and that of the so-called Chairman of the Governors, aided by one or two ex-teachers who had received short shrift from the Head's tongue. The secret 8-months DOE enquiry with no findings is a denial of justice, and a stinking reminder of what a secret state we now live in on the IOM. Let the MHKs get off their knees, and let the journalists keep digging.

 

Just the Chairman of the Governors, Angelo? It's been reported that she survived a vote to sack her outright only because of the vote of the parent Governor - you know, the one who got in unopposed because the Head allowed only 5 days between the notice of election and closure of applications. How many other parents didn't get the notice that relied on teenagers for delivery? Nothing on the school website, nothing by e-mail - it's almost as though she wanted no-one else to apply.

 

 

Where was this Governors' meeting reported ? Have you seen the minutes ? All sorts of rumours of course. That's the problem.

 

Acknowledged. But your comments are equally "interesting but unsupported" <g> Reporting was from a DoE source

 

My comments about the election are accurate though and the DoE acknowledged my complaint but - just like Mikey Proffitt - Mrs T didn't break any written rules while driving a coach and horses through their intent. The DoE didn't expect that anyone would leave the notice so late - especially when it was known the previous year that a new Parent governor would be required.

 

Overall we could have done without the secrecy from both sides but note that the teaching unions pretty much always support confidentiality clauses in retirement-type settlement packages so I don't think that it was only government who wanted it kept out of the public eye!

[angelo]

The point is that the career of this Headteacher (of the most successful secondary school in the IOM) has been ruined by personal vendetta and she has been prevented from entering her school since last September and subject to an intensive investigation which found .... precisely nothing. She can never work again in her profession owing to the dreadful rumours flying around and the fact that she has been suspended. She is now subject to a gagging order. The DOE does not deny that the formal reason for the suspension was her overspend (on the school) of £50,000 under the wrong budget headings. For the real reasons, however, you need to look into the personal animus of our so-called Minister for Education, and that of the so-called Chairman of the Governors, aided by one or two ex-teachers who had received short shrift from the Head's tongue. The secret 8-months DOE enquiry with no findings is a denial of justice, and a stinking reminder of what a secret state we now live in on the IOM. Let the MHKs get off their knees, and let the journalists keep digging.

 

Just the Chairman of the Governors, Angelo? It's been reported that she survived a vote to sack her outright only because of the vote of the parent Governor - you know, the one who got in unopposed because the Head allowed only 5 days between the notice of election and closure of applications. How many other parents didn't get the notice that relied on teenagers for delivery? Nothing on the school website, nothing by e-mail - it's almost as though she wanted no-one else to apply.

 

 

Where was this Governors' meeting reported ? Have you seen the minutes ? All sorts of rumours of course. That's the problem.

 

Acknowledged. But your comments are equally "interesting but unsupported" <g> Reporting was from a DoE source

 

My comments about the election are accurate though and the DoE acknowledged my complaint but - just like Mikey Proffitt - Mrs T didn't break any written rules while driving a coach and horses through their intent. The DoE didn't expect that anyone would leave the notice so late - especially when it was known the previous year that a new Parent governor would be required.

 

Overall we could have done without the secrecy from both sides but note that the teaching unions pretty much always support confidentiality clauses in retirement-type settlement packages so I don't think that it was only government who wanted it kept out of the public eye!

 

This is hardly a "retirement settlement" issue. It's a hounding out of office issue. And the IOM has very weak employment law compared to the UK. Of course the settlement should be kept confidential, but the nature of the allegations against her, and the results of the expensive 8-months enquiry are a matter of public interest; it's a State school, a State appointment, State students and their parents, undisclosed offences committed by unknown persons, and an expensive enquiry funded by taxpayers. The Governors approved the school accounts each month or each quarter, and yet they are still in place ! So if the audit/investigation turned up no evidence of wrong doing, the public / taxpayers can only suspect that the stories locally of personal vendetta are true. The 'revenge of the non-performing and the inadequate' is what I heard from a high level source. The Manx legislators must get rid of this plague of government secrecy. I see that IOM Newspapers have closed their coverage of the affair. Editor rapped over the knuckles no doubt.

[QLD-Bloke]

This is hardly a "retirement settlement" issue. It's a hounding out of office issue. And the IOM has very weak employment law compared to the UK. Of course the settlement should be kept confidential, but the nature of the allegations against her, and the results of the expensive 8-months enquiry are a matter of public interest; it's a State school, a State appointment, State students and their parents, undisclosed offences committed by unknown persons, and an expensive enquiry funded by taxpayers. The Governors approved the school accounts each month or each quarter, and yet they are still in place ! So if the audit/investigation turned up no evidence of wrong doing, the public / taxpayers can only suspect that the stories locally of personal vendetta are true. The 'revenge of the non-performing and the inadequate' is what I heard from a high level source. The Manx legislators must get rid of this plague of government secrecy. I see that IOM Newspapers have closed their coverage of the affair. Editor rapped over the knuckles no doubt.

 

 

Angelo,

 

again with the "hounding" allegation - I have to say that you are the only person I've heard this from. That doesn't automatically mean you're wrong of course, but I'd like more that bald assertion before being able to give any weight to your opinion on this point.

 

The whole "wrongdoing or vendetta" thing you've got going there looks much like a false dichotomy to me - even if there aren't issues with the budget then it doesn't follow that there must have been a vendetta.

 

For example - what if the investigation found - as you propose - that there was no real harm in the budget error but that someone imposed or ordered it covered up or instructed staff to lie. Then you would be correct in asserting that there was no budgetary error deserving of termination but the revealed cover-up would be gross misconduct. Consider further that in this type of dispute neither side would be eager to test it in a public tribunal - the school as it might fail to prove the case, the teacher as if proven these kind of allegations would destroy their credibility in any professional job.

 

If I was a teacher who would have to go into a different profession - then I'd make damn sure that I wasn't publically tarred with an allegation like that and if I was an administrator offered a 'retirement deal' through the unions then I'd be likely to take it on the basis that the risk is removed. Note that non-lawyer prosecutors hate feeling like they've destroyed someone's life/career and tend towards accepting agreements that allow them to sleep at night - even if they had all the cards.

 

I'm not saying that the above is true - I'm simply providing a plausible alternative (based on other cases) of the kind of thing that happens in broad investigations of this type.

 

No vendetta required.

[angelo]

This is hardly a "retirement settlement" issue. It's a hounding out of office issue. And the IOM has very weak employment law compared to the UK. Of course the settlement should be kept confidential, but the nature of the allegations against her, and the results of the expensive 8-months enquiry are a matter of public interest; it's a State school, a State appointment, State students and their parents, undisclosed offences committed by unknown persons, and an expensive enquiry funded by taxpayers. The Governors approved the school accounts each month or each quarter, and yet they are still in place ! So if the audit/investigation turned up no evidence of wrong doing, the public / taxpayers can only suspect that the stories locally of personal vendetta are true. The 'revenge of the non-performing and the inadequate' is what I heard from a high level source. The Manx legislators must get rid of this plague of government secrecy. I see that IOM Newspapers have closed their coverage of the affair. Editor rapped over the knuckles no doubt.

 

 

Angelo,

 

again with the "hounding" allegation - I have to say that you are the only person I've heard this from. That doesn't automatically mean you're wrong of course, but I'd like more that bald assertion before being able to give any weight to your opinion on this point.

 

The whole "wrongdoing or vendetta" thing you've got going there looks much like a false dichotomy to me - even if there aren't issues with the budget then it doesn't follow that there must have been a vendetta.

 

For example - what if the investigation found - as you propose - that there was no real harm in the budget error but that someone imposed or ordered it covered up or instructed staff to lie. Then you would be correct in asserting that there was no budgetary error deserving of termination but the revealed cover-up would be gross misconduct. Consider further that in this type of dispute neither side would be eager to test it in a public tribunal - the school as it might fail to prove the case, the teacher as if proven these kind of allegations would destroy their credibility in any professional job.

 

If I was a teacher who would have to go into a different profession - then I'd make damn sure that I wasn't publically tarred with an allegation like that and if I was an administrator offered a 'retirement deal' through the unions then I'd be likely to take it on the basis that the risk is removed. Note that non-lawyer prosecutors hate feeling like they've destroyed someone's life/career and tend towards accepting agreements that allow them to sleep at night - even if they had all the cards.

 

I'm not saying that the above is true - I'm simply providing a plausible alternative (based on other cases) of the kind of thing that happens in broad investigations of this type.

 

No vendetta required.

 

Yes, of course it depends who you listen to and who you believe. Of course I don't know for sure. That's why the press (and our brave MHKs) should be putting searching questions to the Governors, the DOE, and the Minister, and getting hold of the Minutes of Meetings (otherwise what are they for ?). Of course it suits the DOE that they can pay someone off and buy silence (it's not their money after all, it's ours). But a career has been ruined, a career which resulted in a IOM comprehensive school achieving the third best set of academic results in England/Wales/IOM. However, if you are content to have this kind of secret government, and the appointment from now on of "yes sir, no sir" Headteachers who make themselves agreeable at all times to the Minister and the DOE bureaucrats then so be it. The IOM sometimes prides itself on its Scandinavian heritage: a little Scandinavian transparency and good governance is sorely needed.

[Tugger]

The trouble is that none of us know who is telling us the right story. That's why there should be greater transparency. Politicians and civil servants need to be accountable when they throw taxpayers' money around.

 

It pisses me right off when members of the political caste like Craine declare matters "closed", as though that is that and her word is all.

[angelo]

The trouble is that none of us know who is telling us the right story. That's why there should be greater transparency. Politicians and civil servants need to be accountable when they throw taxpayers' money around.

 

It pisses me right off when members of the political caste like Craine declare matters "closed", as though that is that and her word is all.

 

Craine has now abolished the Board of Education, which was the only public representation in the education service. She can do what she likes now. Pathetic MHKs letting this go through !!