Parents of a girl allegedly bullied at an Altrincham school are demanding a public apology from its headteacher over what they claim were attempts to deny the bullying, despite a former deputy high court judge and governor upholding their complaints.

They say the school’s ‘lack of candor’ and ‘failure to put duty of care above its reputation’ have left the family ‘traumatised’ as a result of the years the girl was at St Vincent’s Catholic Primary School.

The allegations included physical and psychological bullying by other pupils and being ‘ridiculed’ by a teaching assistant and ‘left out’ by other children.

The parents, known as Mr and Mrs X, say teachers attempted to deal with the problem by lining the alleged bullies up with their daughter in the same room. The ‘bullies’ would then confront the girl in the playground, they said.

The issue came to light when her parents read a prayer in one of her exercise books which said: “Please can you stop the bullying,” words that had been ticked by a teacher, who they say ‘did nothing’.

The parents say that just before the girl left the school in her final year she wrote in the Year Book: “When people were unkind, I learned to be kind. When I was left out, I learned not to leave people out.” But they say these words were edited out by the school. 

Complaints against St Vincent’s were upheld following an investigation by one of its founding governors, former deputy high court judge Raymond Machell KC.

But documents also seen show that the school instigated a further panel hearing – against Department for Education (DfE) regulations – which attempted to refute Mr Machell’s findings.

The DfE Schools Complaints Unit then said the outcome of the ‘Stage 3’ hearing should be ‘disregarded’ on the grounds that it was held against the wishes of the parents of the girl and included a panel member who had ‘a conflict of interest’.

According to DfE regulations, Stage 3 hearings should only be activated by the complainant, in this case the parents.

A letter to the chair of governors of the school from the DfE, said: “We noted Mr and Mrs X’s email of Tuesday, April 9, 2019, which stated: ‘We do not wish to appeal against the findings [by Mr Machell] that negligence by the school harmed our daughter’.

“Nevertheless, the Stage 3 panel meeting proceeded. In the department’s view this was inappropriate. Escalation to the next stage in a complaints procedure is for the complainant to decide, not the school.

“We understand that some of the issues raised by Mr and Mrs X included actions the school could not take. However, the school could have responded to these points directly, rather than convening a panel meeting and incurring further delay.

“We therefore advise both parties to disregard any contradictory comments made by the panel about the original complaint.”

This letter also said the appointment of one of the panel members – who at the time was a senior education officer for Trafford council and who had previously conversed with the girl’s father on the phone regarding the case – was ‘inappropriate’ and against the DfE’s ‘Best Practice Guidance for School Complaints Procedures 2019’.

The parents’ grievances date back to when the girl was 10 years old. The issues have only surfaced now because the alleged bullying victim had a younger sibling at the school who the parents wanted to protect from ‘any possible recriminations’. The parents want to remain anonymous to protect their two children who are now at a secondary school.

“The bullying got progressively nastier,” said Mr X.

“It all came to a head when she was in Year 4 and we were at a parents’ evening. We went into her classroom to look through her work.

“She had written in her RE book a prayer, saying ‘please can you stop the bullying’. Next to those words was a red tick by the teacher.

“But nothing was being recorded and nothing was being done, other than they would line up the three children who were picking on her and our daughter in the same room, which was the worst thing they could’ve done. Then those children would confront her in the playground. 

“We asked the teacher about this. She said our daughter was ‘fine’ and shut it down. We realised at this point there was no point in engaging with this teacher because she didn’t want to acknowledge anything.”

A long email from the parents to a senior member of staff at the school detailing the problem was referred to by the staff member’s wife in a ‘sarcastic’ text accidentally sent to Mr and Mrs X instead of her husband.  Mr Machell upheld the complaint over this incident.

When Mrs and Mrs X’s daughter finally left the school to go to secondary school, they say she wrote in the Year Book: “When people were unkind, I learned to be kind. When I was left out, I learned not to leave people out.”

Her parents say this was then edited out.

As well as upholding Mr and Mrs X’s complaints, Mr Machell criticised the actions of a senior member of staff who ‘failed adequately to investigate, monitor and record actions taken in respect of instances of actual or potential bullying towards [the girl]’.

Mr Machell said that ‘failure to deal with bullying at an earlier stage has exacerbated [the girl’s] problems’. 

He went on; “From my experience in clinical negligence litigation, such causation issues are often difficult to disentangle, but on the evidence currently available, the school should accept and apologise for these consequences of the failure I have found.”

Mr and Mrs X engaged a law firm, which on May 2, 2019 wrote to the school informing the governors that ‘at no point have they requested this matter to be escalated to a Stage 3 complaint’.

The complaints appeal panel nevertheless went ahead on a day on which Mr and Mrs X say the school knew the couple were unavailable to attend because of a medical appointment. Mr and Mrs X said other dates when they could attend were offered, but were not accepted by the school.

Its report, which was later discredited by the DfE, contradicted Mr Machell’s findings, saying: “The panel was assured by the headteacher, who has significant relevant experience in this area, that no bullying had occurred before or since an incident in July, 2018, and that all other incidents escalated by you [the parents] to the school were appropriately classed as friendship issues, which are common in schools.”

It added: “The panel saw no evidence that the school had admitted negligence or that long-term harm was caused to [the girl]. Neither did the panel agree that this had been concluded or inferred in Mr Machell’s report.

“The panel found that there were discrepancies between Mr Machell’s report, the school’s letter in response to the report, and the stated position of the head and the chair of governors on the panel. The panel concluded that this was not helpful.

“The panel refutes that the school has been negligent or that actions have caused long-term harm to [the girl]. The panel notes the objections of the headteacher to the conclusion in Mr Machell’s report.”

Mr and Mrs X said that there had been ‘reluctance’ throughout the whole period of their daughter’s experience at St Vincent’s to accept ‘the reality’.

“They have put their reputation above their duty of care,” said Mrs X. “There has been a complete absence of candor and a lack of professionalism.

“Don’t get us wrong, We are not asking for money, even though this process has cost thousands, not least in legal fees. 

“All we want is a full, frank and public apology and an assurance that what happened to our daughter cannot happen to another child at that school.”

A spokesperson for St Vincent’s Catholic Primary School said: “The health and wellbeing of all our children is our priority and we take our responsibilities to safeguard children from harm and bullying extremely seriously.

“Whilst we cannot discuss individual cases, any matters brought to our attention are fully investigated in line with our policies and procedures.

“The school has a clear complaints procedure which outlines how concerns are dealt with.  These procedures are fully in line with Department for Education guidance.”