CUCKOO HALL: Suspended, Reinstated, Resigned: An enquiry into Phil Sowter.

David Barry's picture
 62
If you are new to the Cuckoo Hall story - new readers every day it seems - and want to see previous posts by Janet Downs and myself on Cuckoo Hall have a look here.

Or if you just want to remind yourself of the most recent post see here.

I hope this is of particular use to my TWO SPECIAL READERS

BACKGROUND

In writing this I have made use of the report of the Education Funding Agency Enquiry, and public statements made by the Trust. I have made some inferences which I reckon are perfectly reasonable. However in the nature of the thing I cannot in all cases be sure to be absolutely correct.. (Though I mostly am sure). However should an error of interpretation have crept in the remedy is simple. By his own account Mr Sowter is known to be reading LSN with close attention. If he sees I have fallen into error, I would be grateful if he would get in touch with all speed. He can use the LSN email address, or if he prefers, comment directly on this post.

INTRODUCTION

Followers of the Cuckoo Hall tale will have noticed a pause since my last posting. The thing is, I am faced with a bit of a predicament. What my daughter refers to as "TMI." Too Much Information. Alerted to the Cuckoo Hall Academies Trust scandal by Janet Downs, I started doing my own posts complementing hers. In one of these I invited people with further information about CHAT to get in touch. And they have. A lot of information to try and organise into a clear narrative. Much of it, I have to say, bordering on the surreal.

They have seen, they tell me, a systematic pursuit of members of staff who co operated with the EFA investigation. People have been called at short notice to meetings, and discover a lawyer present. Various threats of legal action, and of police investigations are mentioned. Of immediate interest to readers of this site is that staff have been specially warned by the Cuckoo Hall Academies Trust Senior Management Team not to have anything to do with the Local Schools Network. They have been told not to read it, or discuss it with other staff or parents. They are particularly forbidden to post comments on LSN. It has been suggested to them (quite falsely) that the SMT at Cuckoo Hall have ways of identifying who comments on LSN. They have been warned that LSN is being "monitored" by none other than Phil Sowter and Martin Hesketh. ( Who are of course, very welcome, and are the two special readers referred to above).

Many of those contacting me ask for a delay in using the information. This is because of the personal consequences they fear if any of the material be traced back to them while they are still employed at Cuckoo Hall..

Consequently I now have information I cannot use. Yet.

However once those individuals who have given me information embargoed while they remain at Cuckoo Hall Academies Trust leave the Trust...Which they are making best efforts to do - the story will be different. They cease to be the 'enemy within" and graduate to the status of 'disgruntled former employees' thereby joining the ranks of those who in 2013 were in Mrs Patricia Sowter's words:

“a small number of staff members…opposed to the ethos and direction of the Cuckoo Hall Academies Trust Board who left the school at a critical time.”

As quoted in "The Guardian" here.

Except this time, the number may not be so "small."

Until then I work with what I have. So on to considering Mr Sowter.

THE SUSPENSION OF PHIL SOWTER FROM THE BOARD OF CHAT

To start with Mr Sowter had been in the interesting position of being a Trustee of Cuckoo Hall Academies Trust, and also Chair of Governors at two of the schools run by the Trust. As the EFA found, he was a busy man. His dedication, demonstrated by his daily visits to school sites, considerable. No doubt having his wife as the Executive Head and both his sons on the staff did give him a certain degree of insight into the affairs of the Trust. Of course being part of the Board, one of whose functions is to hold your wife to account, and another of which is to set her salary, might raise perceived issues regarding a conflict of interest.

Together with his wife and Sharon Ahmet he was suspended by the then Chair of CHAT , Andry Efthamiou, after she had been made aware of certain allegations against the three. Suspension was, of course a "neutral act", with the three suspended until the outcome of inquiries into the allegations against them. The EFA having been called in by Andry Efthiamou investigated the allegations and, in due course, reported.

(Andry Efthiamou subsequent to calling in the EFA, but before it reported, either - her version of events - chose to resign due to a perceived possible conflict of interest declared by her, or - the CHAT version of events - was "unanimously" removed by the Board. Nothing simple, nothing straightforward, at Cuckoo Hall.)

THE EFA REPORTS

The EFA reported its conclusions first to the Board in private and there was then a bit of a delay before the report was published. It eventually was, but only after Andry Efthiamou, now ex chair, made a public call for it to be published and urged parents to join her in lobbying for its publication. This call was made at a meeting of parents called by Ms Efthiamou in a personal capacity, publicised by the local press and at which the press was present. According to press reports all parents received a letter from the SMT at CHAT telling them that they were not to attend the meeting and that they could leave themselves open to legal action by doing so. Whether parental lobbying had any influence on the EFA's publication time table is unclear. ( Nothing simple, nothing straightforward...).

The published report is, as it stands, and as Janet Downs wrote earlier, a stinker.

See here.

Mr Phil Sowter was picked out by the EFA for special mention. For now I shall concentrate on the parts that apply to him.

THE EFA ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The EFA investigated allegations of conflicts of interest and found:

35. "...the process set out in the Articles (of Association) related to conflicts of interest was not followed. The investigation has seen evidence of at least 3 failures to follow the proper procedures in managing conflict of interest in appointments.

36. An example of non-compliance was a family member of the executive head and the suspended Trustee [ ... Phil Sowter ..] being appointed to a senior leadership post within CHAT.. "

Not exactly a clean bill of health then..

What about pay and promotions?

"37. There is also evidence that there has been a failure to follow process in pay rises and promotions. These failures are particularly in relation to the consideration and agreement by the Board of Trustees of pay rises and promotions where there is a potential conflict of interest."

What about Trustees profiting personally from being a Trustee?

"38. The concept that trustees or their relatives do not gain financially from their position as trustees is central to the status of the Trust as a charity, to obtaining value for money, and to the exercise of regularity, probity and propriety the use of public funds. .....The investigation obtained no evidence that the process on managing conflicts of interests ... had been carried out in the recruitment of family members, "

Oh dear.

But apart from his formal, legal responsibility as a trustee, could it be that he was not really that involved? So what did the EFA find on that?

" The executive head and her husband described his role as ‘operational’ and being about managing the demands of a growing Multi-Academy Trust (MAT). ..."

So no dispute there, and indeed this picture was familiar to other staff:

" Some members of staff said that the suspended member of the Board of Trustees took an active management role; he and the executive head were described as ‘job share’ partners. The investigation team have seen one instance of an email from the executive head’s email address from her husband. "

Definitely "hands on" then. In at least one instance "hands on keyboard"

PHIL SOWTER REINSTATED

As I have commented on here:

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2015/02/cuckoo-hall-vindicated-or-...

the response of the Board to the EFA report was to reinstate the three suspended people. To the outside observer, whose knowledge is limited to the contents of the EFA report this does appear a bit of a surprise outcome. However I am assured by those within the CHAT organisation and experiencing its "ethos" on a daily basis that this kind of outcome does not surprise at all. But note an important detail. Mr Sowter was reinstated first, BEFORE his wife and Sharon Ahmet. Consequently it is not clear that the Board had actually seen the EFA report when they chose to reinstate him. Sharon Ahmet and Patricial Sowter were re instated at a LATER meeting, at which time Mr Sowter was back to being an active member of the Board, and they did have a copy of the EFA report. Further on the basis of statements made by the Board we could reasonably infer that he took a full role immediately on his re instatement. . In which case he would have been carrying out his duty as a trustee by concluding, after careful consideration of the evidence, that his wife was blameless, and voting for her immediate reinstatement. To the outsider, such behaviour would manifest a truly staggering conflict of interest, and in any other context would be difficult to credit, yet it is what the Trust's statements imply. Could I now ask Mr Sowter when he reads this to let us know if the Trust, in stressing the full Boards "unanimous support" for his wife has inadvertently led us to believe that he took part, but that he actually didn't? but then the reinstatement would not have been unanimous. (Nothing straightforward, nothing simple....) The clarification would be welcome.

PHIL SOWTER RESIGNS

However Mr Sowter's renewed membership of the the Board was not to last. The EFA made its report available to the CHAT Board a significant period of time before it was published. An advance copy. And we have seen that whether or not the Board had access to the report when they reinstated Mr Sowter is not clear. In fact there are a number of points unclear to me regarding this process. (For example is it up to the Board to reinstate? Surely it is a matter for the MEMBERS of the Trust, who under the articles of association elect the Board. But then, who are the members of the Trust? Nothing simple, nothing straightforward) Be that as it may, when the report was made public Mr Sowter "chose" to resign.

As was reported in the press on the 13th February 2015:

"A spokesman from the school told the Advertiser that despite the fact that Phil Sowter, Patricia’s husband has made “no financial gain” from his role as a director of the board of trustees, he has stood down from his position on the board."

That a report had just been published, which found that Phil Sowter HAD been profiting from his role as a director puts a rather different complexion on the matter compared to this press comment. Heigho. So his resignation was required by his misconduct as established by the EFA - he was held in breach of Charities law.

But as the websites for the several Cuckoo Hall Academies Trust (CHAT) schools show, and as the current staff know, Phil Sowter remains Chair of two Governing Bodies. Heron Hall and Enfeld Heights. So problems remain, including the one identified by the EFA when they wrote all those weeks ago :

" Some members of staff also said that having the executive head and local chair of governors as a husband and wife team left them without support or a clear line of appeal if they had concerns. "

He continues to be a frequent visitor to the various schools, where he appears to be indulging in what can only be described, in his circumstances , as unwise conduct. Thus new instances of unusual behaviour are reported of a kind that lead to renewed allegations of bullying of staff.

Let one example stand for many.

THE NQT'S TALE

This part of the post has been removed at the request of a person, alleged by lawyers acting for Cuckoo Hall Academies Trust, to have supplied information used in this part of the post, and who, on that basis has been threatened with a suit for defamation, relating to this part of the post.

Without conceding that that person was the source of the information we have agreed to remove it. Nor do we by removing it concede that the text in question was defamatory.

HOW TO ATTRACT SUSPICION

Moreover by being on site so often in an environment where the EFA found instances of falsification of records, for which as a Board member he must bear some formal responsibility, leaves him open to the gravest imputation. I would stress that although it has been established by the EFA that falsification of records took place, who did this, who ordered this, and who knew about this have yet to be established. Or if it has been established we have not been told. But that it happened on Mr Sowter's watch, ( among others of course) has been established. Which is why having continuing access to what may turn out to be important evidence is likely to raise suspicion, should any further tampering be found, or important records go missing. There is also the point that SATS week is almost upon us and that the allegation of organised cheating by CHAT in last year's SATS is still under consideration by the STA. Obviously a bad idea for Mr Sowter to have, it would seem, universal access while SATS are on, lest a finger be pointed at him in the future. Especially as he has no more of an official role at most CHAT schools than I have. And where he is a Chair of Governors, and so does have a role, it is a role he clearly ought not to have.

In any case it is difficult not to conclude that Mr Sowter's "resignation" forced upon him because the EFA believes him in breach of the law, amounts to a sham. And that the behaviours complained of by the EFA continue.

ADDENDUM

This part of the post has been removed at the request of a person, alleged by lawyers acting for Cuckoo Hall Academies Trust, to have supplied information used in this part of the post, and who, on that basis has been threatened with a suit for defamation, relating to this part of the post.
Without conceding that that person was the source of the information we have agreed to remove it. Nor do we by removing it concede that the text in question was defamatory.

NOTE ONE

Any suggestion that the identities of people posting on LSN can be established by a third party like CHAT is a fantasy. LSN do not disclose what little information they have. However it is true that if you do wish to post on LSN and keep your identity secret there are some precautions you should take. NEVER use a computer or device belonging to the school. If you post here using a mobile device do not take it into school. Always post from a private network, (like the one you have at home) or a cyber cafe. Never post from within the school network. These precautions are worth taking lest you leave evidence of your "nefarious" conduct on a machine that Cuckoo Hall can find a way of laying its hands on. And of course LSN allows you to use a pseudonym. Obviously do take care about disclosing any personal details that might lead to you being identified. But you know that.

I would also ask for commentators to take another kind of care. Some of the recent comments about Cuckoo Hall Academies trust, on this site, driven, I appreciate by very real (and justified) anger were tipping over into what could be regarded as mere personal abuse. Particularly if quoted in isolation. This has the disadvantage that the more reasoned and evidence based contributions, get drowned out, and their impact diminished by association. LSN has enemies anyway, who would be happy to discredit the site by selective quotation.

I do appreciate it is very difficult to keep personalities, and personal matters out of the argument. Easy for me to be preachy on this, as I have no personal contact with the players, However just saying that "X" is a horrible person, while this may be well known in your circle is just an assertion and not an argument. I very much hope the CHAT insiders will continue to participate on LSN but this is a gentle reminder of the limits that do need to be observed in a public, written medium. And where quotes could be taken out of context. There is a discussion of this here.

 
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

Barry Wise's picture
Fri, 15/05/2015 - 13:15

Janet

Cuckoo Hall had emerged from special measures in 1999, three years before Sowter arrived in 2002.

Odd that...... in the Autumn 2011 edition of Academy Magazine (FASNA) which you link to and/or quote from on another thread, Mrs Sowter says:

I joined Cuckoo Hall Primary School in Edmonton, North London in 2001. The school had been in special measures and was struggling.

So was it 2001 she arrived or 2002? Is this another of her 'senior moments', or one of yours? It happens to all of us I suppose, but really no grounds for a public enquiry either way. Yes it seems she did say 'ten years ago......' when she should have said 'twelve years ago.........' and yes, the school website did say "14 years ago........." which was spot on on the day it was posted but obviously out of date 2 years later! I'm really not sure any of this matters.

My original point was intended to be about there not being 'live' allegations of bullying in November 2014 before the suspensions - or at least, none I could find on Google. Acuckoo above points to a Guardian story in 2013 saying some teachers were being let go/encouraged to leave..... but that was all presumably old hat by November of the following year?

Was there actually a live, contemporary bullying allegation in November 2014 that would stand up to scrutiny. If so, where is it?

Barry Wise's picture
Fri, 15/05/2015 - 13:19

Janet

these directors are the ones who are supposed to investigate allegations of bullying.

I thought the investigation was undertaken by a law firm (a different one from the Trust's regular solicitors).

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 15/05/2015 - 14:10

Barry - Cuckoo Hall's website says she joined Cuckoo Hall in 2002.

The '14 years ago' was placed on the school's website after the first ASA complaint about the school being in special measures in 2002 when Sowter arrived. If the '14 years ago' was not changed every year then the time would come when this date corresponded with Sowter's arrival. The ASA agreed and all mention of 'special measures' was removed.

You say it doesn't matter. But it does matter when the person concerned is given national publicity (one of the 'Magnificent Seven', a 'Crusader for Social Justice), when the person concerned is set up as a example for other schools to follow, when the person has the ear of the Education Secretary and his shadow, when the person influences policy by sitting on advisory groups and giving evidence to the Education Bill Committee, and when the person is given a CBE.

It also matters for the reputation of Mr R Allen, the head before Sowter. It was he and his team who brought Cuckoo Hall out of special measures - see Chief HMI report for 1998/99 which lists all schools which had made 'very substantial improvement' and been 'REMOVED FROM SPECIAL MEASURES' (the capitals are Chris Woodhead's - he was Chief HMI at the time) yet Mr Allen's contribution has been airbrushed out of history. It was Mr R Allen who was head when Ofsted said in January 2001:

'This is a very effective school. Pupils enter the school with standards well below expectations and by the end of Year 6, their standards have risen to be at least in line with those in similar schools'.

Sowter took a 'very effective school' and it became Outstanding. That is achievement enough, surely, without having to rewrite history. Cuckoo Hall was judged Good at its last full inspection.

(Note: the 2001 Ofsted report is no longer on Ofsted's website but I have a copy)


Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 15/05/2015 - 14:13

Barry - It doesn't really matter when the allegations of bullying were made. The important point is that they have been. Much bullying and abuse is not reported at the time it happened but later - sometimes years after the event. That does not mean it should not be investigated. And it should be investigated by an independent, impartial body.


Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 15/05/2015 - 14:18

Barry - if that is so, then the lawyers' report could be made public.


Barry Wise's picture
Fri, 15/05/2015 - 15:05

Janet

Please could you supply a link to the ASA ruling that you have several times said 'censured' Cuckoo Hall in 2012? I have searched the rulings/adjudications for the period 2010 to today, but no results come up for rulings at all in 2012. In fact all I can find are 2 informally resolved issues from this year, March and May 2015. Thanks.

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 15/05/2015 - 15:55

Barry - As the person who complained to ASA about the claim that Cuckoo Hall was in Special Measures when Sowter arrived, I have a letter dated 9 October 2012 from ASA which says:

'Ref:Al 2-2090701KH
Dear Mrs Downs

Your complaint about Guckoo Hall Academies Trust advertising

Thank you for your recent complaint.

We have discussed your complaint with the Trust and explained to them that their claims are now considered to be marketing for the purposes of the Code. We have their agreement that the claim will be amended and on that basis, we now consider the complaint closed.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.

Yours sincerely

Karen Harms
Investigations Executive
020 7492 2262
karenih@asa.org.uk'

I don't know why ASA didn't put it in their list. But the reference is given if you want to ask them why.

Staff's picture
Sun, 17/05/2015 - 12:30

I find it very disturbing that the allegations of bullying are described here as 'old hat. It appears to be a way of dismissing what many individuals have experienced working at chat. The feelings of being bullied stay with you long after the event. I am shocked that bullying seems to have been described here in such an apathetic way.


Cuckoointhenest's picture
Mon, 18/05/2015 - 17:46

Staff, I understand how you feel but most people won't have experienced, either first or second hand, bullying and rarer still bullying in the workplace. For those who haven't, let me explain the pattern that the victims have highlighted.

You begin to be isolated and positive feedback stops. You are ignored and may be blamed for something you didn't do (e.g. complaining). At first you think that you're imagining things and being paranoid, usually until the bullying is confirmed by a comment from a 3rd party (somebody asking if you're ok, for instance).

Then you question yourself: you think there must be a reason for the bullying and you try to find out what you have done wrong by asking the bullies. By this stage you are feeling pretty worthless but you are assured that 'nothing's wrong'. You know that this is not true but cannot confront them.

Next, you are sick to the stomach at coming to work, scared to attend meetings and frightened when the door opens in case it's one of the bullies in for the next round. (This perhaps explains how you'd feel when the husband of the executive head strolls into your classroom). You consider making a complaint/taking out a grievance and then remember what happened to others that have spoken out in the past - what happened to them? Off sick? Suspended? Sacked? Redundant? Resigned? You realise that it achieved nothing - their grievance may not have even been read or investigated. What happened? Did anyone listen and take it seriously?

You look around and see two camps: those who are enjoying the spectacle and joining in, and those who are frightened that they will be next. You hope that you will be protected by the workplace policies but inside you know that these will not be followed.

You leave. While you can and before they have destroyed both you and your professional reputation.

Please do not dismiss lightly experiences of bullying and do not, as a deputy head I once knew, make a joke out of it.

Bill's picture
Mon, 18/05/2015 - 19:21

Bullying: to treat in a tyrannical manner; to tease, oppress or terrorise. Said by CHAT lawyers to be a word that's 'too emotive'
- Try living through it Caroline is all I can say to you.
When you try to look objectively at a bully you can see many things but most often sadly is the fact that they themselves have been bullied. It's clear to see with Sharon Ahmet. Interestingly she was bullied and disparaged by Patricia Sowter when she was the Cuckoo Hall SENCo and she now apparently carries on the tradition with her own staff. So why does Patricia do it? Maybe she too was bullied. I don't think we would need to look too far for the culprit.......maybe he's in school every day job sharing as he was before the EFA report came out.
The really sad thing is that if you have been bullied there is always a choice. Carry on and be a bully yourself or break the cycle and do something different. Such a shame that the senior staff in CHAT haven't got the acumen to make the right choices. Why are they allowed to run schools?

Cuckoointhenest's picture
Mon, 18/05/2015 - 22:33

What about Caroline? Is she just in it for the money?

It takes courage, strength and integrity to break the cycle and there used to be a few who had these qualities in CHAT. Sadly now most of these people have either left (pushed perhaps) or are leaving but the lawyers are still there. Are they trying to establish the truth? The trouble is that once a lie has been told, so many others have to follow to cover up the first.

To quote Alfred Nobel, 'Lawyers have to make a living, and can only do so by inducing people to believe that a straight line is crooked'.

rachel's picture
Tue, 19/05/2015 - 12:25

Somebody seems to have been very keen to clear the board of everyone who asked questions and to only have Marino Charalambous (who, we must remember, resigned prior to the suspensions), Donald Graham and Anthony O'Hear left. Whose decision was it to tell other trustees to resign and for what reason? What was so special about these three that they should remain? It certainly wasn't attendance at meetings prior to Nov 2014!

Also, when did Caroline Prosser of Hill Dickenson get involved? I've been told that she sent an email to Patricia Sowter which discussed how to get rid of certain trustees, way back in October. If this is true then surely that was enough to suspend them? (And if it is true, they succeeded)

Is this kind of email classed as 'privileged information'? Why should this be so if the lawyers are acting on behalf of a trust (including the trustees) and not an individual? Their involvement with the trust needs to be looked at - perhaps the new trustees could ask to see all correspondence? If the email is 'missing' maybe one of the contributors here could provide a copy.

I'd like to see all reports, emails and minutes of meetings published. No cover up? No lying? No lack of integrity? - No problem!

Pages

Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.