1. GENESIS OF THE REPORT
I was appointed to conduct the Inquiry which has led to this report by the Governors of the St James Independent Schools on the 1st June 2005. They decided, perhaps uniquely in the history of independent education in this country, voluntarily to institute and fund this wholly independent inquiry into their own schools. I believe that it may lead to a more thorough understanding of the reasons for this Inquiry and of the manner in which it was conducted if I set out here the circumstances in which the Governors reached their decision. The reasons expressed by the Governors for establishing the inquiry were:-
· Concern for the welfare of former pupils.
· The need to establish the facts and undertake a process of truth and reconciliation.
· Informal approaches made by former pupils communicating distress to Governors and the present Headteachers.
· The more general gossip conducted on the internet.
· The fact that allegations were being made against current members of staff.
· The Governors’ wish to act conscientiously in the discharge of their duties as charity trustees and employers and to protect the present Schools from any slur or complaint relating to the past.
1.1 History of the Schools
1.1.1 Their origins
(a) The history of the Schools is intimately bound up with that of the School of Economic Science (“the S.E.S.”), the foundation of which preceded that of the Schools by some 40 years. The S.E.S. was the creation of Andrew MacLaren MP who started it in 1938 as a movement to promote economic justice through fair taxation and distribution of wealth.
(b) Andrew MacLaren had a son, Leonardo da Vinci MacLaren, a barrister, who like his father was for a time a member of the Labour Party. He left the Labour Party, however, in 1945 for the Liberal Party. More important he became Chairman of the S.E.S. in 1947. Leon MacLaren, as he was always known, extended the remit of the S.E.S. to embrace the teaching methods, if not the basic beliefs, of the Russian philosopher P.D.Ouspenski and the Central Asian mystic, Gurdjieff. The S.E.S. became more orientated towards philosophy and less towards economics. In 1961 MacLaren became acquainted with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and through him was introduced to the practice of transcendental meditation. In 1965 he travelled to India and met the Shri Shantananda Saraswati, the Shankaracharya of the North, who was a teacher of the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta. From that time on the teachings of the S.E.S. became principally influenced by this Eastern school of thought as interpreted by Leon MacLaren, who continued to visit and consult the Shankaracharya regularly.
1.1.2 Foundation
(a) In about 1974 a number of members of the S.E.S., being parents of children, approached MacLaren and asked him to set up schools for their children. (In this connection it should be noted that in the late 1960s Sunday Schools had been opened for the children of members by the S.E.S.). It happened that MacLaren independently had been thinking of conducting an experiment along these lines.
(b) It must be remembered that from 1965 onwards selection by 11-Plus was gradually abolished and with it most other forms of competition between pupils. From 1970 LEAs began voluntarily to ban corporal punishment (although such remained lawful in certain circumstances for a further 16 years in State Schools and for 28 years in independent schools). By 1975 the comprehensive system of education was perceived by many to be failing.
(c) In January 1975 St James Boys' School and St James Girls' School opened, each with 3 classes of children aged 5 to 7. It was planned to have all-through schools with juniors from 5 to 10 and seniors from 10 to 18. Pressure was then applied by the parents of rather older children who wished to obtain the same education. Accordingly and not without some reluctance on MacLaren’s part, separate St Vedast schools were established for older children, initially between 9 and 12.
(d) In 1985 the St Vedast Schools were closed and their pupils transferred to the St James Schools. St James Schools now had both junior and senior departments.
1.1.3 Expansion
In the first decade of the Schools’ existence the pupil
roll increased and there was an increase too in the facilities available both
in terms of premises and teaching aids. The staff available also grew
in size.
By about the early 1980s it seemed that the experiment had succeeded. Sister
schools were also established in other parts of the U.K. and in a number of
other countries.
1.1.4 Evolution
(a) When the Schools had first opened almost 100% of the parents of pupils were either members of the S.E.S. or spouses of members. As at today only about 15% of parents are in this position and about 85% have nothing to do with the S.E.S. Unsurprisingly, this, together with changes in the views of society at large on the question of corporal punishment and discipline in general and ultimately as a result of changes in the law, appears to have effected a cultural change in the Schools, noticeable in their discipline policy.
(b) At the beginning the curriculum was more limited than it is today. With the extension of the curriculum to include, for example, the teaching of modern languages and of scientific subjects it has been necessary to increase the size of the staff. The schools now have a total pupil roll of 750 with about 120 staff. Originally the staff was composed almost entirely of members, both men and women, of the S.E.S. I am told that currently 75% of staff in the Senior Schools are members of the S.E.S.
(c) Leon MacLaren died in 1994 aged 83. Everyone who knew him speaks of him as being a brilliant and charismatic figure and a man of strongly held opinions. Many admired him, some with great affection. Others speak of him as a highly intelligent autocrat, with emotional limitations. During his life and up until his declining years in the early 1990s he seems to have maintained a very close interest in the Schools (as well he might as their Founder) and to have had a powerful influence over their running, not only in general matters but in matters of detail too.
(d) When he died he passed on the position of Senior Tutor, (Head) of the S.E.S., to Donald Lambie who has given evidence before me. Others, including members of staff, have given evidence to me about him. Although Donald Lambie is also a barrister and is, no doubt, an educated and intelligent man, I am satisfied that, although I never had the opportunity of meeting Leon MacLaren, the two men are very different from one another. Moreover the evidence supports the view that Lambie is less interventionist in matters involving the Schools than was Leon MacLaren.
(e) Although
there is evidence available to me as to the greater separation between the
Schools and the Senior Tutor of the S.E.S. than existed in MacLaren’s
time, I am nevertheless satisfied that as late as 1995, Lambie was in a position
to exercise direct and real influence over senior appointments.
He is still consulted over the appointment of Heads and Governors but the Heads
report that he does not become involved in the schools' day to day management.
None of this affects the position of the Governors in law: they remain responsible
for the governance of the Schools.
1.1.5 Organisation
(a) St James Senior School for Boys is now at Pope’s Villa, 19 Cross Deep, Twickenham, Middlesex, TW1 4QG. St James Junior School for Boys is now at Earsby Street, near Kensington Olympia, London W14 8SH as are St James Senior School for Girls and St James Junior School for Girls. All four schools have accreditation by the Independent Schools Council.
(b) The Schools are vested in the Independent Educational Association Ltd, a company limited by guarantee with charitable status.
(c) The Board of Governors is headed by Roger Pincham CBE, formerly a prominent member of the Liberal Party. Initially the Governors were chosen by Leon MacLaren. The position under Donald Lambie seems to be that, while he would probably be asked to approve a new Governor, it would be the Governors who would choose him or her. The Governors are also the Trustees of the Trust.
(d) For
the purpose of discussing financial and general management matters and making
recommendations to the Governors there is a Board of Management, consisting
of the three Principals of the Schools, the Bursar and a Chairman, both of
whom
are also Governors.
1.2 Bad
Press
1.2.1 The Newspaper Campaign
(a) On June 8th 1983,
a newspaper carried an “exposé” of the S.E.S. and “its
schools”. This had been written by two investigative journalists,
Hounam and Hogg, who later published their findings in a book (see Appendix
3).
(b) It may well be significant that when this campaign was continued on the next day, the day of the General Election, specific mention was made of the Chairman of the Governors, Roger Pincham, who was standing as a Liberal Candidate for Leominster.
1.2.2 Caning
Corporal punishment was effectively made illegal in maintained schools by the
Education Act 1986. It remained legal in private schools, though public
opinion progressively reduced the number of such schools actively employing
it. As contrasted with such schools there was always a body of schools
whose Heads favoured retaining the cane as a last option before expulsion. In
such schools the cane remained an option for a time though largely an unused
one. The St James Schools resisted abolition almost until the end. Corporal
punishment was finally made unlawful in all schools when the School Standards
and Framework Act 1998 inserted section 548 into the Education Act 1996. All
corporal punishment at St James ceased in the Junior School in 1993 and in
the Senior Boys School in 1996. Nicholas Debenham was regarded by certain
sections of the media as a principal protagonist of the cane. He was
on a number of occasions interviewed by the media and was not reluctant to
express his views. It is interesting to observe that when the question
of the abolition of corporal punishment arose in 1995, the pupils of the
Boys’ Senior School actually voted to retain it. In contrast
to that, the Governors did not seek to join in the litigation resulting in
R (ex parte Williamson) v. Secretary of State for Education and Employment
and Others [2005] UKHL 15 where they might have sought to argue that the
abolition of corporal punishment in schools was an unlawful interference
with their Convention rights. In the event they may have been wisely
advised not to do so.
1.2.3 The Effect
That all this bad publicity damaged the Schools and threatened their precarious income and financial position is amply borne out by a report by Marco Goldschmied, referred to below. In the words of the Report “The early growth was halted but not reversed.”
1.3 The St James Schools Report
(a) This report by Marco Goldschmied, properly called “St James Schools Report”, was produced in October 1996 at the request of Donald Lambie. Its author was a senior member of the S.E.S. and a Governor of the Schools for upwards of a decade. He sent five of his children to the Schools and is prominent in his profession as an architect. He gave evidence before me.
(b) The report set out a number of suggestions for change in the way the Schools were run. The principal purpose of the report was to increase the pupil intake and improve the finances of the project. It called, inter alia, for a more open and transparent organisation, no S.E.S. involvement, and for the Governors to govern more proactively and to be seen so to govern.
(c) It concluded that the “St James set-up is, as yet, far from transparent.”, that it "is really still a school for the “S.E.S. families”, controlled by the S.E.S….” This may have been a little unfair since the Governors inform me that in fact at that stage (1996) only about 50% of parents were members of the S.E.S.
(d) It reported that in May 1995 the new Senior Tutor, Donald Lambie, regarded the position of the Heads of the St James Schools as depending on his (Lambie’s) consent.
(e) Lambie appears to have given this Report a very lukewarm welcome. The Governors were very reluctant to discuss it but finally did so at an unminuted meeting 3 months after its circulation. I only heard of this Report by a sidewind when it was mentioned by a complainant. By no means all of its recommendations appear to have been acted upon.
(f) The question which all this prompts is, “How much change has there been in the last ten years?” This is considered below in paragraph 6.
1.4 The Message Board
As explained in the Terms of Reference (Appendix 1) in about
February 2004 an internet message board was established and a number of former
pupils of the Schools began to exchange reminiscences of their schooldays. A
great many complaints were made about how pupils, individually and collectively,
were mistreated, unreasonably punished and assaulted. Some complainants
gave their names; some complaints were anonymous. Some were made about
identified members of staff, some not.
1.5 Governors’ Decision
Some contact took place between the Heads of the two Senior Schools and
some of the complainants in an attempt at reconciliation. However, little
progress was made. These facts were reported to the Governors. Accordingly
at a Governors’ meeting in October 2004 it was resolved to establish
an independent internal inquiry.
2. TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Terms of Reference of the Inquiry are set out in Appendix
1 to this report. A group of the original complainants were consulted
about the draft Terms and a number of amendments were made at their suggestion
although it is fair to say that the final form was not wholly accepted by this
group. The Terms of Reference were approved by the Governors on the 10 th June
2005. Later during the course of the Inquiry it became clear that parents
of pupils who had attended the Schools wished to make representations and believed
themselves to be excluded from so doing.
Clarification of the position was achieved by a notice entered on the Inquiry
Website and by a suitable amendment to paragraph 1 of the Terms of Reference.
3. MODALITIES
3.1. Evidence
3.1.1. Forms of Evidence
(a) This Inquiry was not bound by any of the rules of evidence. It had no power to administer oaths, though it was made plain to witnesses, either expressly or impliedly, that they were expected to tell the truth. Evidence was received by way of written statement, signed or otherwise identified by the maker. It was open to any maker of a statement to come and give oral evidence as well at the Inquiry. A few witnesses gave oral evidence without putting in a written statement. Hearsay evidence was not excluded but has in all cases been treated with caution and in some cases disregarded.
(b) A few witnesses for various reasons wanted to give their evidence anonymously. They were discouraged from doing this and it was pointed out to them, as is the case, that little if any weight could be attached to their evidence. One witness put in a statement and attended the Inquiry in person under a pseudonym. His evidence has been disregarded for this reason.
(c) Greatest weight has been attached to evidence supported by oral testimony, except in isolated cases where there is a very cogent reason for non-attendance (e.g. distance from London or ill-health) when greater weight has been attached to a written statement than would otherwise have been the case.
(d) The closest focus of this Inquiry has involved events between about the years 1975 to 1985. There is quite naturally a great difficulty when trying to investigate the facts of something which occurred 20 to 30 years ago. Memory is fallible especially where the witness is trying to remember back to his/her youth. Moreover in some cases the event in question may have taken on the mantle of an oral tradition, giving wide range to exaggeration or to unwitting fabrication.
(e) Examples exist where there has been clear misidentification of an alleged perpetrator, where extraneous evidence prevents the acceptance of the detail or substance of an allegation, where a witness is obviously unreliable or frankly lying. All this calls for caution in approaching the credibility of the evidence.
(f) It is clear from some of what has appeared on the internet and from the evidence itself that there has been much opportunity for contamination of evidence as well as actual such contamination. I have had to guard against this. I have not, however, treated anything which has only appeared on the internet as evidence at all, save where it may amount to an admission of wrongdoing. As part of my preparation for the Inquiry I read some of the messages from the Message Board which had been printed out for me as background information. Otherwise so far as possible I have made it my business to ignore the website although I have from time to time instructed the Clerk to post announcements there on procedural matters relating to the Inquiry.
(g) The position is also complicated by the fact that there has been active lobbying by both camps (that is both extensive lobbying by the complainants and some inspired by Debenham) during the run up to and the course of the Inquiry.
(h) Quite apart from the more ordinary sources of evidence, I have been referred to a number of books and other publications as background reading to improve my understanding of the S.E.S. and its philosophy.
(i) Assessing
what weight to attach to any piece of evidence is obviously a task for me,
as is choosing between those witnesses on whom I can rely and those on whom
I would be unsafe so to do. I have, however, attempted to perform this
duty with regard to the various factors listed above.
3.2 Onus of Proof
The burden of proving any assertion against another person
or body must lie on the maker of the assertion. The burden does not shift.
This is the principle which I have followed throughout. Complainants
must prove their cases: it is not for those complained about to disprove them.
3.3 Standard of Proof
In a matter not strictly criminal but involving criminal or quasi-criminal allegations it seems proper to me to employ the test of a balance of probabilities as applied by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in the case of Re H & R [1996] 1 All ER1. In that case he said:
“The balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. When assessing the probabilities the court will have in mind as a factor, to whatever extent is appropriate in the particular case, that the more serious the allegation the less likely it is that the event occurred and, hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability. Fraud is usually less likely than negligence. Deliberate physical injury is usually less likely than accidental physical injury. A stepfather is usually less likely to have repeatedly raped and had consensual oral sex with his under age stepdaughter than on some occasion to have lost his temper and slapped her. Built into the preponderance of probability standard is a generous degree of flexibility in respect of the seriousness of the allegation.
Although the result is much the same, this does not mean that where a serious allegation is in issue the standard of proof required is higher. It means only that the inherent probability or improbability of an event is itself a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. The more improbable the event, the stronger must be the evidence that it did occur before, on the balance of probability, its occurrence will be established.”
It seems to me that there is a great difference between an
allegation against a schoolteacher which would amount to a serious criminal
assault (e.g. an offence under s.47 of the Offences against the Person Act,
1861, “assault occasioning actual bodily harm” or s.1 of the
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 “assaulting [or] ill-treating a child
in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering”) and one of over-zealous
hand slapping. The former would call for a more cogent body of evidence
before the balance of probabilities was satisfied than the latter.
3.4 Attendance and Oral Evidence
Those witnesses, who attended the sittings of the Inquiry
to make oral submissions, gave their evidence at Keating Chambers, Essex Street,
London WC1. A very few witnesses who could not conveniently attend but
who wished to give evidence orally gave their evidence by telephone. Almost
all oral evidence given was recorded electronically and subsequently transcribed.
Hand written notes were taken throughout which provided back up in the very
few cases of mechanical breakdown of the recording equipment.
3.5 Secretariat
The Clerk to the Inquiry was Mrs Christine Betts, a barrister
employed by Veale Wasbrough Lawyers, the schools' solicitors who have been
responsible for making the arrangements for the Inquiry. She was assisted
by Kris Robbetts, a trainee solicitor with Veale Wasbrough Lawyers. Further
office support was provided by Miss Michelle Mildiner. I was enormously
assisted by all these persons and without their help and support my task would
have been well nigh impossible.
3.6 The Chairman
(a) Despite the thanks
expressed above, the Report is my Report. The views expressed in it and
its conclusions are mine. Although I was appointed by the Governors I
have been free to conduct the Inquiry and form my conclusions according to
my own belief as to where the truth lies. I am not subject to instructions
from Veale Wasbrough, the Governors, school executives or any other persons
in my conduct of the Inquiry. I am not aware of any attempt improperly
to influence me in my conclusions.
(b) I am aware that prior
to my appointment the question of the identity of the Chairman was hotly
debated. For the avoidance of doubt I attended both private preparatory
school from the ages of 7 to 13 and public school from then until 17. In
both cases I was a boarding pupil. In both schools corporal punishment
was practised. For the avoidance of doubt I can also state
that I am not and never have been a Governor of any school nor have I had at
any time any connection with the S.E.S..
4. STATISTICS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Attached hereto as Appendix 2 are some statistics relating
to the work done in conducting this Inquiry. A bibliography of the background
and other reading made necessary for a full understanding of the issues is
also attached as Appendix 3.
5. EVIDENCE – GENERAL
5.1 In this part of the Report I shall as envisaged in paragraph 30.1 of Annexe One to the Terms of Reference set out my conclusions generally on the former discipline policy and its application at St Vedast and St James Schools. I shall not name any complainant or teacher, save where necessary to identify the Head of any particular school.
5.2 The Original Plan
5.2.1. As indicated above the original plan was to set up two schools, one for boys and one for girls, from the age of 4 ½ to the age of 18. This was the scheme devised by Leon MacLaren and supported by Nicholas Debenham and Miss Caldwell.
5.2.2. Accordingly St James (Boys) and St James (Girls) were set up in 1975. There were three forms in each school taking children from the age of 4 ½ to 7 approximately. Many of these children had not been to school before and those that had had only been for a short time. It was easier therefore to train these children to a novel school system since they had no or little previous experience.
5.2.3. The plan envisaged that year by year further forms would be added at the bottom of each school until the top form was composed of 10 year olds. This form would then become the lowest form in the Senior Schools. The annual growth would continue until there were 4 Schools (2 Junior and 2 Senior for Boys and for Girls.)
5.2.4. At this stage the 4 schools would contain a full complement of “home-grown” students inured to the methods of the Schools.
5.3 St Vedast
5.3.1 The parents, almost entirely S.E.S. members, of older children felt that their children were in danger of being denied the advantages promised to the younger children entering St James Schools. Accordingly they pressed Leon MacLaren to open Schools for their children. MacLaren was reluctant to do this as was Debenham. They foresaw correctly that older children would have more difficulty in acclimatising to a new and, to them, almost certainly more demanding regime. Nevertheless the St Vedast schools were opened in the Autumn of 1975.
Shortly thereafter as predicted by MacLaren and Debenham the behaviour of the boys at St Vedast began to give rise to concern. At this point for a number of reasons it is convenient to follow the history of the Schools’ discipline policies and practices by separately considering the Boys' Schools and the Girls' Schools.
5.4 Corporal Punishment – The Old Law
The Common Law allowed corporal punishment of pupils as long as it was “reasonable”, not “for gratification or personal rage” nor overly protracted or too severe (see R v Hopley [1860] F & F 202). In Mansell v. Griffin [1908] 1 KB 947 Phillimore J said: ‘It is enough for a teacher to be able to say, “The punishment which I administered was moderate, it was not dictated by bad motives, it was such as is usual in the school, and such as the parent of the child would expect that the child would receive if it did wrong.” It is against this pragmatic standard that the lawfulness or the criminality of a teacher’s acts or omissions are to be judged.
5.5 Boys' Schools - Caning
5.5.1 Up to this point the cane had not been used but it was introduced to St Vedast by Debenham. It was first used in St Vedast and somewhat later in St James. Debenham maintains that St Vedast was never as happy a school as St James because of the essential flaw in its composition and, while there is some truth in this, this is not the whole story.
5.5.2 St Vedast was not a very happy school but nor, (during that period, 1975 to 1985), was St James for some of the boys who were sent there. Many speak of an overarching sense of fear during their school years – fear of harsh punishment, fear of unexpected physical pain inflicted on them as a result of their behaviour, sometimes unjustly. On the other hand many boys speak of their time in the Schools as a happy one. In this they are supported by the May 1984 Report of Inspectors of the Independent Schools Joint Council. This report of the first inspection of St James School stresses the general friendly atmosphere of the School and the calm, caring devotion of the staff to the pupils. This is less of a riddle then might appear to be the case. There will always be in any school children who will resist discipline more than others. These children are likely to receive more punishment than the more submissive. As one witness said, if you kept your head down and maintained a low profile you were more or less safe. Equally temperament will play a part and children will be affected to a greater or lesser extent by receiving punishment of any kind.
5.5.3 When St James had opened there had been no formal discipline policy. It was accepted that teachers could deliver a smack with a hand or a slipper/shoe to a bottom or with a ruler to a hand for minor misbehaviour. Later in both St James and St Vedast this punishment was restricted to the use of a hand only.
5.5.4 Use of the cane was restricted to the Headmaster alone. To begin with the use of the cane was unrecorded and unwitnessed. Later in Autumn 1979 a punishment book was instituted by Debenham and purports to record the boy's name, the offence, the date of the caning and the number of strokes. This was kept for the rest of Debenham’s time as Headmaster. Julian Capper, who became Headmaster of St Vedast in 1980, retiring from that position in 1985, kept a similar record but the book is no longer available. I accept Debenham’s Punishment Book as a careful and accurate record. It has all the appearances of a genuine rather than a dishonestly fabricated record and is clearly more reliable than the victim’s recollection back over 20 to 30 years. One boy said he had been beaten by Debenham on hundreds of occasions. The book gave the lie to this gross exaggeration. He had in fact been beaten on 3 occasions, a total of 8 strokes. It is worth noting that in the 1984 Report of the Inspectors, who would have seen the Punishment Book, caning is referred to as “infrequent”.
5.5.5 The book does not cover the vital period prior to September 1979 when it seems that caning was probably at its height. Moreover even the best record-keeper may, like Homer, nod. I am satisfied, however, that the book is substantially correct in the period which it covers.
5.5.6 Later in time Debenham was advised by a School Inspector to have a witness present at all canings. He said that he had not always adhered to this advice. In fact witnesses are mentioned in the Punishment Book. There are very few such entries.
5.5.7 Debenham refers to 6 strokes as being the maximum and, with one possible exception, this appears to have been the case. He says that in all but one case he caned boys through their trousers. He says that he did not cause bleeding but I do not wholly accept this. I do not, however, think that it was his aim to do so nor do I believe him to have been motivated by sadism or any “bad motive” (see Mansell v Griffin ibid.). None of this punishment was ipso facto unlawful.
5.5.8 He says that beating of boys under 10 was rare. The punishment book shows that it was not as rare as all that.
5.5.9 There was an occasion when 2 whole classes of boys were caned for bad behaviour on the way to a swimming bath. This was a deterrent collective punishment and on reflection Debenham believes that he over-reacted. I agree.
5.5.10 Caning was also used for a short-time to punish failure to pass a re-test (“ a mistake” per Debenham) and as a final totting-up sanction for the receipt of 10 black marks.
5.5.11 In the 1990s caning began to diminish in frequency at the Schools until it was abolished in 1996. Debenham remained until the end an advocate of retaining the option of the cane for boys and was not infrequently interviewed by the media about his views.
5.6 Boys' Schools – Other Punishments
5.6.1 As has been said, only the Headmasters could cane. Other teachers could slap bottoms or hands, order press-ups to be performed or circuit-training runs to be undertaken. They could also give other non-physical punishments including black marks.
5.6.2 Some teachers had their own preferred forms of punishment. One or two would insist on a boy taking his trousers (and sometimes pants) down before being slippered. Others used T-squares to strike boys with.
5.6.3 By the mid-1980s all forms of corporal punishment were restricted to the Headmaster only. It is not clear that the other staff all honoured this change in the regime.
5.6.4 Some staff members would send children to the Headmaster more readily than others. Although the action of sending a child did not necessarily result in a beating, in practice a beating often followed.
5.6.5 Some teachers were far more liberal with giving out black marks than others. Some were not averse to giving multiple black marks on one occasion with the consequently increased likelihood that the cut-off figure of 10 would be achieved.
5.7 Boys' Schools – Rough Handling, Physical and Mental Mistreatment
5.7.1 I am in no doubt that mistreatment of pupils took place in the Boys' Schools, mainly during the period 1975 to 1985. This took a number of forms. In my Confidential Report to the Governors I shall give full details of those events which I find to have occurred together with the identity of the perpetrators. Here I will simply list the various types of mistreatment.
5.7.2 A small number of teachers had no proper control of their tempers. Whether this was as a result of inexperience, lack of training or, more likely, their innate temperament is difficult for me to say. As a result I am satisfied that several boys were subjected to rough handling. They were criminally assaulted by being punched in the face or in the stomach, cuffed violently about the head, had blackboard rubbers thrown at them causing injury in some cases, had cricket balls thrown at them violently when they were not looking at the thrower and were struck with the end of a gym rope. Other students were kicked, struck from behind, slapped about the face, thrown across a classroom. Whatever the provocation nothing could justify this mistreatment. It was clearly unreasonable and criminal.
5.7.3 Several of the teachers guilty of the behaviour set out in 5.6.2. above would shout loudly at boys, verbally berate them and find ways to humiliate them.
5.8 Girls – Punishments
5.8.1 This part of the report relates solely to the Girls' schools prior to the appointment of the present Headmistress, Mrs Laura Hyde in September 1995.
5.8.2 It goes without saying that the cane was never used in the Girls' schools, nor was spanking of girls performed by male teachers.
5.8.3 Miss Caldwell says that she never allowed any corporal punishment in either St James or St Vedast. She also says that she does not remember any complaint about corporal punishment being used. There is, however, clear evidence of a girl being spanked in the classroom for stealing another girl’s clothing. It is said that the allegation against the girl was false. Whatever the truth of that, the matter was reported to the girl’s father who complained. As a result Miss Caldwell spoke to the female teacher responsible and told her that all corporal punishment of girls was to stop. This would have been in about 1982.
5.8.4 Up until 1982, therefore, there was spanking of girls and hand slapping of girls with a ruler by some teachers but not all. The spanking was with the hand or a slipper/shoe on the bottom.
5.8.5 The girls appear to have been rather more law-abiding than the boys and there is evidence to the effect that they, unlike boys, would listen to and act on verbal criticism.
5.9 Girls – Physical and Mental Mistreatment
5.9.1 A number of complaints have been made against some female teachers alleging that they smacked girls on their bare bottoms. I find one complaint (described above in paragraph 5.8.3) proven. However, I have considered other complaints against other teachers and do not accept them as proven.
5.9.2 A number of girls complained that they were subjected to various forms of verbal humiliation in front of their classes. Some were repeatedly shouted at and others told that they were stupid.
5.9.3 A particular practice, not wholly confined to the Girls Schools, was either publicly or privately to interrogate a subject at, if necessary, very great length, in order to obtain a confession. Confessions were usually obtained but I am satisfied were sometimes false and worthless. Sometimes in the course of this type of interrogation the subject would be attacked or criticised in hurtful and distressing ways.
5.9.4 Some girls were mistreated physically and mentally by male teachers but to nothing like the extent that the boys suffered.
5.10 For the avoidance of any possible doubt, I came across no evidence of any form of sexual abuse in any of the Schools.
5.11 The Causes of Mistreatment
5.11.1. Many of the teachers had academic and/or teaching qualifications. Several did not and several were without any or much experience in teaching. Inexperience, insufficient grasp of the subject taught, inability to keep order may all have led to loss of class control, loss of temper and over-reaction. Some of the worst examples of mistreatment involved, however, people who were well-qualified on paper to teach.
5.11.2. In a limited number of cases individuals may have been temperamentally unsuited to teaching. Uncontrollable bad temper is but one example of this. The method of choosing teachers from a relatively small pool of S.E.S. members may also have had something to do with this.
5.11.3. In the early days there does not seem to have been any very effective line management to check on the teachers’ behaviour towards the children. One has the impression of teachers, more or less dedicated (and dedicated head teachers), working on a shoestring so far as resources were concerned and working a long and tiring day.
5.11.4. There
seems to have been little involvement of the Governors in staff appointments
or in complaints by parents. Until the death or, at least, the decline
of Leon MacLaren, this can be put down to the fact that the Governors were
not in any real sense in charge of the Schools. They were MacLaren’s
people, as were the members of the S.E.S., and as the Senior Tutor, his word
was very nearly law to all of them. The views expressed in this paragraph
are the result of the distillation of a large body of evidence coming from
impressive witnesses including ex staff members and ex members of the S.E.S.
6. THE FUTURE
6.1 Has Anything Changed?
6.1.1. Almost all who comment on this aspect are of the view that much has indeed changed. The schools are no longer teaching predominantly the children of S.E.S. parents. The curriculum is much wider than it was in the beginning. The Schools are now mainstream schools which also make provision for children with special educational needs. Pupils come from a wide range of ethnic and social backgrounds. The schools run courses consistent with the National Curriculum for children aged 3 -16 and, in addition, the Senior Schools run Sixth Forms. Corporal punishment is illegal and in any event ceased completely in the Junior School in 1993 and in the Senior School in 1996. Donald Lambie has succeeded Leon MacLaren as leader of the SES.
6.1.2. It is still the case that all the staff in the Junior Schools and two-thirds of the staff in the Senior Schools is composed of members of the S.E.S.
6.1.3. In addition to taking seriously their charitable responsibilities for children with learning difficulties and disabilities, the Schools are at present very successful. In the Sunday Times table of the top 500 independent secondary schools, following the Summer 2005 examinations the Girls’ School was placed 55th. The Boys’ School was placed 352nd.
6.1.4. Has the transparency advocated in the 1996 Report really been created? Even after MacLaren’s death, Lambie appointed Mrs Hyde as Headmistress in September 1995. However, the Governors readily ratified and approved this appointment.
6.1.5. That
there has been a real change in the ethos and conduct of the schools is established
by the evidence of those witnesses, not naturally well-disposed towards the
S.E.S., who speak of them as happy places where there appears to be a relaxed
atmosphere between pupils and teachers. This is a hopeful indication
and one which is also reflected in recent inspection reports. Indeed
the 2004 reports into all the Schools set out the many strengths of the Schools
and speak in particularly glowing terms of the very successful Senior Girls'
School under the leadership of Mrs Hyde.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 Reconciliation and Closure
7.1.1. Some of those who have given evidence and others on the internet have suggested that they simply wish to have an apology for the mistakes which can be accepted by those who made them. A number of staff members have made apologies of greater or lesser width. I hope that for some this Inquiry and my findings may assist in bringing about closure and, perhaps in time, reconciliation.
7.1.2. None but the most negatively inspired will persist in seeking the destruction of the current Schools. Mistakes were made in the past and must be avoided in future, but much good has come out of the Schools too. Many boys and girls have happy memories of their time there. A number of very successful men and women have been sent out into the world from these Schools.
7.1.3. The other side of this is that undoubtedly some pupils were damaged by their experiences in the Schools. I saw some damaged witnesses and heard of others. I cannot say how or by what they were damaged and there is no medical evidence showing that it was the fault of the Schools. Nevertheless I am as sure as I can be that some of them are suffering from their experiences at school. There has to be an acknowledgment of this or talk of reconciliation is a waste of breath.
7.1.4. Let me close this section with a quotation from an apology received from a former member of staff (now long since retired). “I believe that my methods were harsh and now believe probably unnecessary, but I think that at the time they seemed to be so…. I certainly regret my tendency to rely on corporal punishment to reach what I then understood to be the process of discipline and order…. My own inexperience did not help me…. I realize [now] different times demand different approaches….I think now that the system was too rigid and outdated, and that somehow we harked back to a rather less sensitive recent past. Anyway I hope this does help in some degree to explain my hard and insensitive actions at the time, for which I cannot forgive myself, and hope that in some way you may find solace for your hard times at St Vedast.”
7.2 Appreciation
I should like to thank all those witnesses who tried to assist me by writing to the Inquiry and especially those who attended to give evidence.
James Townend QC