Your views on letter from School Governor

[JustinP1]

All that jazz said:

We're not being furnished with the whole story here. In order for the school to say to the wife that they are very unhappy about the comments made about <insert teacher name> then the OP OH must have named them. It's another classic PH case of only being provided with the details to make everyone agree with them.

Why is that?

Why must it be that the OP has misrepresented things? The OP put forward a reasonably balanced post, admitting that his wife was partially at fault.

Can it not just be that the OP is telling the truth, and thus the governor is being a tt?

[All that jazz]

JustinP1 said:

All that jazz said:

We're not being furnished with the whole story here. In order for the school to say to the wife that they are very unhappy about the comments made about <insert teacher name> then the OP OH must have named them. It's another classic PH case of only being provided with the details to make everyone agree with them.

Why is that?

Why must it be that the OP has misrepresented things? The OP put forward a reasonably balanced post, admitting that his wife was partially at fault.

Can it not just be that the OP is telling the truth, and thus the governor is being a tt?

How exactly can the school name the teacher that is being bad-mouthed if the OP OH hasn't said who it is? I don't think you're thinking this through Justin. If the school have just randomly pulled a teacher's name out of a hat then why hasn't the OP mentioned this in any of his posts? It seems perfectly clear to me that the names WERE mentioned by the OP OH but have been blanked out only on here.

[pinchmeimdreamin]

All that jazz said:

How exactly can the school name the teacher that is being bad-mouthed if the OP OH hasn't said who it is? I don't think you're thinking this through Justin. If the school have just randomly pulled a teacher's name out of a hat then why hasn't the OP mentioned this in any of his posts? It seems perfectly clear to me that the names WERE mentioned by the OP OH but have been blanked out only on here.

Or perhaps the OP's OH has a history of complaining to the school about the teacher.

And with the parents having the same surname as Tinkerbell someone has put 2+2 together.

[All that jazz]

pinchmeimdreamin said:

All that jazz said:

How exactly can the school name the teacher that is being bad-mouthed if the OP OH hasn't said who it is? I don't think you're thinking this through Justin. If the school have just randomly pulled a teacher's name out of a hat then why hasn't the OP mentioned this in any of his posts? It seems perfectly clear to me that the names WERE mentioned by the OP OH but have been blanked out only on here.

Or perhaps the OP's OH has a history of complaining to the school about the teacher.

And with the parents having the same surname as Tinkerbell someone has put 2+2 together.

Which once again leads back to we're only being provided with tidbits of the story.

[JustinP1]

All that jazz said:

JustinP1 said:

All that jazz said:

We're not being furnished with the whole story here. In order for the school to say to the wife that they are very unhappy about the comments made about <insert teacher name> then the OP OH must have named them. It's another classic PH case of only being provided with the details to make everyone agree with them.

Why is that?

Why must it be that the OP has misrepresented things? The OP put forward a reasonably balanced post, admitting that his wife was partially at fault.

Can it not just be that the OP is telling the truth, and thus the governor is being a tt?

How exactly can the school name the teacher that is being bad-mouthed if the OP OH hasn't said who it is? I don't think you're thinking this through Justin. If the school have just randomly pulled a teacher's name out of a hat then why hasn't the OP mentioned this in any of his posts? It seems perfectly clear to me that the names WERE mentioned by the OP OH but have been blanked out only on here.

The feeling is mutual.

Let's make it simple. There's two options:

1) The OP has deliberately omitted that Teacher X was referred to by name, and rewrote the Facebook post he admitted was actually posted to accommodate this omission, thus making him asking for advice about a fabricated post, and a bit pointless.

2) The governor has acted even though the teacher was not actually named, and the connection is only implication, and wrote that pseudo-legal letter because he's a tt who rides on a high horse.


I'm sure the OP will fill you in. I'll stand corrected if you're right, but I don't believe you are.

[All that jazz]

JustinP1 said:

The feeling is mutual.

Let's make it simple. There's two options:

1) The OP has deliberately omitted that Teacher X was referred to by name, and rewrote the Facebook post he admitted was actually posted to accommodate this omission, thus making him asking for advice about a fabricated post, and a bit pointless.

2) The governor has acted even though the teacher was not actually named, and the connection is only implication, and wrote that pseudo-legal letter because he's a tt who rides on a high horse.


I'm sure the OP will fill you in. I'll stand corrected if you're right, but I don't believe you are.

So you're suggesting that the Governor wrote "In those comments, among other things, you criticize one of the teachers – xxx. In doing so you undermine her professional reputation. She and her colleagues have been deeply distressed by your comments." exactly as quoted, ie. actually wrote "xxx" rather than the teacher's name? If you're suggesting that he "rewrote the Facebook post [..] was actually posted to accommodate this omission" then surely the "xxx" applies to both parties and not just the OP OH!

Based on the OPs quote, I believe you are wrong but only because I think there's a large element of fabrication in the OPs alleged story.

[eldar]

All that jazz said:

So you're suggesting that the Governor wrote "In those comments, among other things, you criticize one of the teachers – xxx. In doing so you undermine her professional reputation. She and her colleagues have been deeply distressed by your comments." exactly as quoted, ie. actually wrote "xxx" rather than the teacher's name? If you're suggesting that he "rewrote the Facebook post [..] was actually posted to accommodate this omission" then surely the "xxx" applies to both parties and not just the OP OH!

Based on the OPs quote, I believe you are wrong but only because I think there's a large element of fabrication in the OPs alleged story.

For what its worth, I doubt the OP has fabricated anything. We are missing what led to this FB post.

[sim72]

JustinP1 said:

Let's make it simple. There's two options:

1) The OP has deliberately omitted that Teacher X was referred to by name, and rewrote the Facebook post he admitted was actually posted to accommodate this omission, thus making him asking for advice about a fabricated post, and a bit pointless.

2) The governor has acted even though the teacher was not actually named, and the connection is only implication, and wrote that pseudo-legal letter because he's a tt who rides on a high horse.


I'm sure the OP will fill you in. I'll stand corrected if you're right, but I don't believe you are.

Even if the teacher was not actually named in the post, students in primaries generally only have one teacher, and therefore their identity would be obvious to anyone who knows the school and/or the student. So whether they were actually named in the FB post is somewhat irrelevant.

[JustinP1]

Dear oh dear....

All that jazz: I think the OP is telling the truth. From what the OP's stated the offended teacher wasn't actually named. However, they are implicated simply by their position of being Tinkerbell's current or past teacher. That's it. Huge overreaction by the governor.

I'm sure the OP will confirm he facts.

[Vincefox]

Six o' one, half a dozen of the other.

[XCP]

Why on earth would anyone in their right mind post this kind of thing on Facebook in the first place?

[All that jazz]

XCP said:

Why on earth would anyone in their right mind post this kind of thing on Facebook in the first place?

Quite. People never learn. The only response to the OP should have been "" in all honesty.

[C Lee Farquar]

The teacher was not named, the post is recounted verbatim. We had highlighted inconsistencies to the teacher, nothing particularly serious.

I'm not looking for anyone to agree or sanction the OH'd post. I don't use facebook and can't see why anyone would want to put their thoughts on there.

The reason I started the thread is because I would welcome thoughts on the content of the Governor's letter. I felt the tone and content was incompatible with the role of a school Governor and if the school had an issue then the Head should have raised the issue first.

[Impasse]

C Lee Farquar said:

The reason I started the thread is because I would welcome thoughts on the content of the Governor's letter. I felt the tone and content was incompatible with the role of a school Governor and if the school had an issue then the Head should have raised the issue first.

It could be argued that if the parent had an issue with the teacher then perhaps they should have raised the matter with the school first.
That would certainly be a more constructive route to a resolution.

[C Lee Farquar]

I did point out earlier that we had.

[Impasse]

C Lee Farquar said:

I did point out earlier that we had.

So you and your wife felt that the next logical step would be to post it on social media? That strategy seems to have backfired a little and won't endear either of you to the school. Fortunately for you it's unlikely that such antagonistic actions will impact negatively on your child's education as the staff will be too professional for that. But neither you or your wife can possibly think that airing your dirty laundry in public was a good idea - can you?

[JustinP1]

Jeeeeezzz....

The OP has admitted that his other half should not have posted that to Facebook.

Clearly, in letting her friends and family know that her child is progressing better than thought, she did not see the consequence of if through that circle of family/friends that might get back to the unnamed teacher. That's her mistake, and I'm sure she's learnt the error of her ways.

The issue is this:

The Chair of Governors in his official capacity of representing the school, without qualification, or taking legal advice has told a parent that they have committed a criminal offence.

In levels of 'I've fked up here' I'd say that is more important than the original 'offence'. I don't want to step on the OP's toes, but in an effort to get the thread back on track, his issues are these:

1) Has his other half in fact committed said offences?

2) Are the actions of the Chair of Governors right and proper?

Edited by JustinP1 on Sunday 15th November 13:55

[PurpleMoonlight]

Impasse said:

So you and your wife felt that the next logical step would be to post it on social media? That strategy seems to have backfired a little and won't endear either of you to the school. Fortunately for you it's unlikely that such antagonistic actions will impact negatively on your child's education as the staff will be too professional for that. But neither you or your wife can possibly think that airing your dirty laundry in public was a good idea - can you?

God forbid that parents should voice their opinions about a teacher. We can't have their delicate feeing hurt now can we.

[dudleybloke]

So an adult wants the law to protect their feelings again.

Ffs.

[sim72]

PurpleMoonlight said:

God forbid that parents should voice their opinions about a teacher. We can't have their delicate feeing hurt now can we.

I'd suggest that you would feel differently if someone had called your professional competence into question in public. The place for "voicing opinions" about a teacher (or for that matter anyone else) is to their employer. Posting it on social media is typical of the sense of entitlement that many people have these days to criticise others without thinking of the consequences.