Investors in People

Alan Veale · Investors in People

If there is one thing that I can admire Ruth Coupe for, it is her publicly stated aims to “the further raising of standards at Marton Primary so that all the children, irrespective of their ability or background achieve as well as they can and are prepared to meet the challenges of our rapidly changing technological world.” (Introduction to Post-OfSTED Plan, October 2005)

This document was presented to parents and governors as the Master Plan for re-building the school after the “under-achieving” OfSTED report. Mrs Coupe had the clear backing of both the CSA and her newly appointed Chair of Governors, Mr Mike Turner. Here indeed was the salvation that promised to turn the school around. So one would expect that, regardless of any rumours that she had “inherited a school with problems”, Ruth Coupe would now be able to get on with her job. What was needed was “improvement based on the headteacher’s evaluation” (OfSTED).

How odd then that, at the very time she needed to use every facility to help her to implement her plans, Mrs Coupe deliberately ignored the most significant tool available!

Let me take you back a few years:

In November 2001 Marton Primary School became an “Investor in People”. This is a nationally recognised standard that is only awarded to organisations who meet rigorously assessed criteria for being an “effective organisation”. Basically, for an organisation to meet this standard they must show that people are their greatest asset, and provide a proper structure of communication and management that enables everyone in that organisation to work well together. Check out their website on www.investorsinpeople.co.uk.

On that site you will find a wealth of information about the standard, and the particular benefits for schools:- “The scope of Investors in People looks beyond the classroom to take account of all the ‘people factors’ which contribute to the life of the institution. It is concerned with a logical and consistent approach to good leadership and management, clear communications, effective investment in training and development and regular evaluation of everyone who is part of the school or college community.”

This then was the perfect vehicle to assist Mrs Coupe to deliver the results she promised, would you not think? Especially as the standard has to be re-assessed every three years – so October 2004 was perfectly placed for her to set her mark within a month of her arrival. Not so! According to the Centre for Assessment and Recognition (NW), they never received a reply to their letter to the school in September 2004 inviting re-assessment. Nor did they receive any response to their reminder on 9 September 2005, giving a ‘last chance’. A further “derecognition” letter was sent to the school on 27 October 2005 (immediately after the presentation of the Post-OfSTED plan), instructing them on the removal of all IIP logos from display. Again, this was ignored – you will still find the distinctive laurel leaf logo at the bottom of all letters issued by the school since last November.

There is a period of grace allowed for the removal of logos from stationery – and the school still has until the end of April to comply, or face legal action. What troubles the Compliance Unit at IIP though, is that their plaque has remained on display in the school reception area all this time. (No doubt this is now removed, since the Unit wrote to the school in strong terms a week ago.)

But none of this is as perplexing as Mrs Coupe’s reasons for ignoring IIP in the first place!

Another quote from IIP literature:- “The Investors in People Standard is designed to help organisations to meet its goals and improve performance. In the case of schools and colleges this means implementing an improvement plan to raise the achievements of pupils and students. Being an Investor in People will provide, over time, an impact on the quality of the education you provide. The achievements of pupils and students in SATS and public examinations should benefit together with the outcomes of Ofsted inspections.”

Does that not exactly fit the requirements of the Post-OfSTED plan? Perhaps Mrs Coupe felt that the IIP standard was not good enough? Okay – but then why continue to advertise yourself as meeting their standard? And finally, look at the posting on this forum from Helen on her friend’s daughters’ experiences in Year 6. If Mrs Coupe had been genuinely working to a structured plan, aimed at “raising achievements”, why are this year’s class of 6A so markedly disadvantaged from previous years?

More questions! Do you think she will answer them?

Alan Veale

WAYNE HEYS

Like in any walk of life the investors in people standard will mean more to some than others, maybe some of the staff at Marton have been in fact invested in, which would give some credibity to the arguement that so long as my pay packet increases then "I'me all right jack" I am sure that finances will take priority over how the school is run, but some of the staff at Marton need to look at themselves and ask if Mrs Alderson had the support of ALL the staff in the recent past, then what has changed,has staff been made promises that would in fact keep them close to the Head's apron strings,has threats to the staff really changed the balance of power from a school full of wonderful teachers to a school where no one dares raising the obvious question to clarify the direction that the school is going in.
In Mr Turner the school has a chairman of Governors who simply has no idea how to man manage,I do have sympathy for the staff who do not no where to turn to because the have no faith in the headmistress,the C.S.A or Mr Lund, but Mrs Alderson did represent the staff at school many times,and look where it has got her,so investors in people,maybe,but surley this means investors in ALL the staff and not just a chosen few !!!
All the Action Group can do is continue to ask the question's that Mrs Coupe ,Mr Turner or the LEA dont want asking, we will not go away until this terrible mess has been cleared up.