Obvious Bias

 A contribution from a staff member. Pertinent points. To read, definitely.

BoT: (Body of Teachers) Part 1
A series of anonymous letters have been sent to the BoG over the last 12 months.

“You Board of Governors, have the responsibility to the school community to take note and act in line with the role of governance bestowed on you. We see you as the bastion of governance representing and accountable to the teachers, parents, students and ministry.

Forgive that I wish to submit this anonymously, but I am concerned of repercussions on speaking the truth, of raising concerns, as we have witnessed too many inexplicable, involuntary changes in staff that many of us staff would fear for the security of our positions. Much of what I describe is not my experience alone, I speak for many staff across the themes that I raise.

The most obvious area to start with is the number of staff who did not have their contracts renewed. Many of these teachers were given no satisfactory reason, and reports from those affected is that the staff delivering this news lacked humanity. For an International school that supposedly holds British culture and values so dear, this is a travesty in behaviour of those involved in the decision making and execution.

What is worse was the ineffective investigation and unfair allegations thrown at teachers in an unprofessional manner regarding the blog.  Behaviours by those interviewing staff who received the blog, or forwarded it, can only be described as a disgrace. For a British school, whilst Qatar law might not consider it in the same way, repeated examples that would amount to constructive dismissal in many other countries. Is that what we want our school to be?

Many teachers are aware that the school is losing teachers who have given so much to the school community, not just as outstanding teachers, but as role models, mentors and decent human beings. What is worse, too many are aware that we continue to allow teachers who have not performed to the same level as these. There are teachers who have received numerous complaints from parents and students, who have multiple observations as a result, yet continue to be employed. What exists in the school to allow this? There is a sense of protectionism, mostly by others who are not delivering to a standard or value. Where is the governance that protects the good teachers, ensures those not performing are managed appropriately, and ultimately, the children are receiving the best possible from the school?

It is not just teachers who know this, but parents, too. What message does it send to the parents and children losing so many HoDs and HoYs and other experienced teachers, from a school that previously applauded itself for low attrition. Is the message to the outside world one of cutting costs, replacing those with experience and credibility with the less experienced?

Along the same lines, there are unfair allocations of Management Responsibility Allowances, time allowed for tasks and unfairness in who receives these. The additional salary and time allowed over actual teaching responsibilities is not justifiable. Where is the governance of such appointments and allocations, that the teacher body can see allows for transparency and credibility. Specific examples many teachers would see this apply to are; Director of ECAs, Heads of Faculties (most of work is carried out by the Head of Departments, they are simply vacant figureheads, taking credit), Assistant Heads (most of work is carried out by Heads of Years, work that AHT do, the HoYs are more skilled to do, if not better than the current ones in position) and Deputy Head of Pastoral. Somebody should be assessing the value they bring, not just another layer of leadership that is unnecessary. There are many staff who take on extra responsibility, without time allowances or extra salary.

Specifically following on, we raise concerns about the Deputy Head of Pastoral. Firstly, we have found his response to our communication seriously lacking, repeated examples of not responding to or ignoring emails, neither through email or in person. The professional courtesy is not acceptable. How many parents have faced the same discourtesy? How is an employee allowed to get away with such unprofessional behaviour? As already listed above regarding the MRAs, it is difficult to see what initiatives the Deputy Head of Pastoral has contributed to the school. It seems he allows others to take up the effort but takes credit where possible. To who is he accountable, and is that person or body actually effectively holding him in that role to account? Equally, there is apparent concern over favouritism towards friends and nepotism. Specific concern is highlighted by the fact he was involved in investigating alleged concerns about the previous Btech PE teacher, and now his wife has been appointed to that role. How were all parties protected from the obvious biases, and how does this represent the school?

Next, as a current topic, the revised accommodation allowances. How can there be a justification for the same amounts for single and married teachers? There has already been the immorality and illegality as far as Qatar law is concerned with couples, single by law, cohabiting and benefitting from dual allowances by sharing accommodation, staff double dipping (how is this managed?). Married couples now receive the same, so lose out unless they also decide to share. How many of those receiving the significantly higher allowance tiers (leadership) would accept such? The school can save money by assessing actual housing through reimbursement of confirmed rent, to a reasonable level, and stop those cohabiting couples and others pocketing a profit. This is a governance matter, and parents would be in uproar to see how much could be saved and potentially help maintain sensible fees.

Leadership seem to have delegated responsibility to teachers for the Cultural Well Being committee, when something of such importance and relevance needs to be from the top. Is this another example of some with leadership MRA package not being capable of delivering and relying on others to put in the effort for leadership’s credit?  Well, let’s award the person by stripping them off their DSL title, shall we? The same Talented Mr Conrad continues to cruise, in true style, “better to be a fake somebody than a real nobody”

Related, there is observable groups who treat those of different race or religion as different. Racism is apparent, as is favouritism amongst certain groups.

The teacher body is aware of recent issues with the Centre Assessment Grade, beyond a simple error but compromising the integrity of our school. It’s not enough for a simple apology, when the implications are far-reaching and involve leadership.

I, like my concerned colleagues, trust the BoG will hold themselves to account in their roles to intervene and challenge those controlling the outward appearances that fail to genuinely communicate what is happening.”

Regards,