Newsweek - WordupNews, Newsbeat, Analysis, Business, Politics, Technology, Entertainment, Fashion, Sports

A headteacher of a primary school made inappropriate and abusive comments about pupils and staff, including calling one child a ‘fat slug’.

Nicola Brogan, who was head of Woodland Community Primary School in Heywood, Lancashire, was not banned from teaching after a panel ruling last week.

She made derogatory remarks about staff, pupils and a parent which was “highly likely to create an uncomfortable and negative working environment”, a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) panel found.

Mrs Brogan – who led the school between September 2011 and December 2019 – described one child as a “fat slug” and another as “f***** ugly”.

She referred to one pupil as a “wimp” and another as having “no personality” in a group chat with the senior leadership team, the panel heard.

The former headteacher used the term “Captain Camp” about a male member of staff in reference to his sexuality.

The panel said the conduct of Mrs Brogan – which concerned “abusive and inappropriate” comments about staff, pupils and a parent – was “very serious”.

There was a significant weight of evidence that this behaviour had a “seriously negative impact upon the working environment of the school”, it found.

The report pointed to 26 different comments, including:

The panel heard evidence that a staff member had cut her finger and that she applied a plaster. The panel heard evidence that Mrs Brogan described the plaster as looking like a ‘condom’ and described the staff member as pathetic, thus showing a lack of empathy.
“French maid”: The panel heard differing accounts in oral evidence as to how this comment came to be made, and by whom. Witness B gave evidence in which she stated that the comment was made by Mrs Brogan in a meeting when referring to Person H ([REDACTED]) whom Mrs Brogan is said to have described as looking like a ‘French Maid’ and a ‘prostitute’. Witness B stated that this was said in an informal meeting but not in the presence of Person H and also added that this reflected the general nature of the comments and language used in such gatherings. Mrs Brogan initially said she did not refer to the term “French Maid” but then accepted in questions that she was or at least could have been party to a conversation in which the term ‘French Maid’ was used, and that she herself may have used this term. Mrs Brogan gave her account of the context but states that she was referring to Witness B and clothes which she could wear as ‘fancy dress’ reflective of an old television programme known as ‘Upstairs Downstairs’. Mrs Brogan denied describing any staff member in such terms. The panel was satisfied that Mrs Brogan used the term ‘French Maid’ in a conversation with staff and that its use was inappropriate even on her own account. The panel is not satisfied that this comment was used about Person H specifically. However, the panel found this allegation proved on the basis set out above.
“Fat cow”: The panel heard clear and credible evidence from Witness C in relation to this particular. Witness C stated that Mrs Brogan would refer to a teaching assistant in this manner and she found this embarrassing. Witness C’s account was detailed and specific. Mrs Brogan denied this allegation, but on the balance of probabilities the panel were persuaded that Mrs Brogan did use this comment about another staff member. The panel found this allegation proved.

The TRA report said: “The working culture at the school at the material time was at times negative and hostile.

“Some pupils and some staff members were clearly not always treated with respect by Mrs Brogan.”

The panel concluded Mrs Brogan’s actions amounted to unacceptable professional conduct, but it said that not recommending a prohibition order was a “proportionate and appropriate response”.

Ruling on behalf of the Education Secretary, Sarah Buxcey said the panel was led to believe that Mrs Brogan had worked for many years at the school without complaints prior to the allegations which came to light in November 2019.

She said Mrs Brogan deserved “considerable credit” for leading the school out of special measures.

Ms Buxcey wrote: “I have also placed considerable weight on the finding of the panel that ‘the panel also considered that, given her experience and prior good service, there was every prospect that Mrs Brogan would be able to make a contribution to the education profession in the future’.

“I have given weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mrs Brogan has made to the profession.

“For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest.”

Source link