LSS
LSS
 
 

The Head Teacher is Dr Peter Kent.

Peter Kent`s role in the unlawful withdrawal of the school place of an Asian child - a conduit.

Download the two critical letters that Peter Kent was sent by Warwickshire County Council stating there was no evidence of a fraudulent or intentionally misleading application. Despite this, Dr Kent had asked for a place of this child to be withdrawn on the basis the application was fraudulent or intentionally misleading. This is a man, who is an Ofsted inspector and claimed in court, that his own school's admissions policy was difficult to understand. Of course, under the Admissions code this would mean the policy was unlawful. The Office for the School Adjudicator had ruled the policy was clear.

 Letter 1
14 June 13
Redacted

 

 Letter 2
5 July 13
Redacted


Dr Kent failed to provide any documentary evidence that he had send a copy of these documets to any governors or legal advisors.

The Local Government Ombudsman found severe fault in the school.
An independent appeals panel found no evidence of a fraudulent or misleading application.
The child moved before the first day of term.

Would you sent your son to this type of school, knowing the ethos of Peter Kent. Should a headteacher stand up to unlawful conduct or be the conduit of unlawful behaviour?

In 2018 the child in question, a model student, took his GCSE exams, at another school. and scored 8 level 9s and 2 level 8s (100% A* in the old system) placing him well within the top 1% of students in the country. Dr Kent wrote letters to refuse entry to this child, yet was willing to wait until the first day of term for a Caucasian child to see if he moved. Equity in treatment? You decide.

Of interest, his PA, Lorraine Batchelor lied to the parent when he asked why his son was not provided a year 7 induction pack. She claimed the Council had not provided a label. Yet, the Council confirmed they did no supply the school labels and had not for many years. Why did she lie?

Dr Kent, to this day, has failed to apologise or the school pay compensation for its disgraceful and unlawful action. Shame on him.

Why does Dr Kent refuse to abide by his own ethical policy?


The Framework for Ethical Leadership in Education

Selflessness: School and college leaders should act solely in the interest of children and young people.

Integrity: School and college leaders must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. Before acting and taking decisions, they must declare and resolve openly any perceived conflict of interest and relationships.

Objectivity: School and college leaders must act and take decisions impartially and fairly, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias. Leaders should be dispassionate, exercising judgement and analysis for the good of children and young people.

Accountability: School and college leaders are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

Openness: School and college leaders should expect to act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from scrutiny unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

Honesty: School and college leaders should be truthful.

Leadership: School and college leaders should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles, and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs. Leaders include both those who are paid to lead schools and colleges and those who volunteer to govern them.


 

The school failed to adhere to its bullying policy and Dr refused to write a simple letter and instead incurred legal costs to avoid writing it. What a waste of school funds, by this Ofsetd inspector.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YYYYY
YYYYY
Lawrence Sheriff School
Clifton Road
Rugby
Warwickshire
CV21 3AG                                                

Ref: 2013/005313

Date: 12 September 2013

Dear Mr YYY

Further to our previous correspondence, to acknowledge the evidence you provided concerning the complaint raised by Mr XXXXX against Lawrence Sheriff School.  I have now considered the evidence presented from Mr XXXXXX  and from Lawrence Sheriff school.

It might help if I begin by explaining the legal context of the Secretary of State’s role in considering complaints against school governing bodies. He can intervene in the actions taken by governing bodies but the circumstances in which he can do so are limited. Under section 496 of the Education Act 1996, where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a governing body of local authority have acted unreasonably, with respect to any power or duty conferred on them in education law, he may issue such directions to them in relation to the exercise of the power or performance of the duty concerned as appear to be expedient.

I should clarify that “unreasonably” in this context has been interpreted by the courts as meaning in a way in which no sensible local authority or governing body acting with due appreciation of its responsibilities would have acted. This is a narrow and testing definition. It does not, for example, allow the Secretary of State to substitute his own judgement for that of a governing body and to issue a direction because he would have acted differently.

Section 497 of the 1996 Act deals with the circumstances where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a governing body has failed to discharge a statutory duty imposed on them under education law. The Secretary of State has the power to make an order declaring that the governing body to be in default of the relevant duty and giving such directions to enforce the performance of that duty as appear to him to be expedient.

After careful consideration the department has considered the complaint on behalf of the Secretary of State.
 

COMPLAINT UPHELD- BUT RECOMMENDATIONS REQUIRED

Based upon the evidence provided I recommend the following:

That the board of governors complete stage two of the appeal process as this was bypassed due to the nature and seriousness of the complaint and the advice that you received. However this has resulted in a breach of your policy. When completing this stage of the process it would be necessary to include a caveat that confirms that you will not be revisiting the third stage of the process as this has been completed as per the policy. The information that I have reviewed confirmed that you have offered Mr XXXXX a number of dates to attend the hearing that have been unacceptable for him to attend. If a suitable date for all concerned cannot be agreed then the hearing can take place without Mr XXXXX in attendance.  This would need to be confirmed in writing

I enclose a copy of our letter to Mr XXXXX which details our findings and decision for your records.

The department has looked at all the information that has been gathered to consider the complaint, and the decision that has been made is based on that information.

If you think we have not considered some information, please let us know within 10 working days of receiving this letter, providing the information you think has not been considered.

A review of all the information, including that which you provide, will be made to ensure that we have considered all information available regarding the complaint. This may not, however, result in a different decision being made.

Yours sincerely

 

Diane Wilkinson

Ministerial and Public Communications Division

 

 

Lawrence Sheriff School LSS unofficial website: www.lawrencesheriff.co.uk © 2019. All Rights Reserved