“Death of a Nightingale” is a tragedy. It enacts the slow destruction of a very good special school and, in the final scene, it is with the aid of a bulldozer.
In my first draft, in relation to Brighouse School, I called this “an act of civic vandalism.” In deference to those who prefer the English understatement I later changed it to “a real error of judgment.”
The bulldozer however is all too real. 100 special schools have been closed in the last decade. Some maybe had to go, but what about retaining choice for those children for whom mainstream education is not appropriate for any one of a number of reasons?
The bulldozer is also symbolic. It represents the power of the State to roll forward its policies, whether they are right or wrong. It also represents the slow stolidity of a System that is beyond the State, that is more inclined to preserve what is, than to secure what might be or should be.
So when the only constant today is the need for change, in the UK a dire need of a change of an underlying culture, in this Post I ask what on earth you do with those who stand in the way of it. This issue is even more important than the narrower issue of Inclusion and Special Educational Needs, and that will remain the case whatever political party is in power.
I must be personal to make my point.
Before I do so I must invite you to do some homework.
First read the review by Len Parkyn that I quote on the opening page of this website. He would not have written this if he thought “Death of a Nightingale” was bilge. And read my credentials in this website. (Revisit Post 10 Lessons from Living.)
One of my past involvements is relevant here. A number of years ago I was a Director of the British Shops and Stores Association. So I know something about national organisations and what their members have the right to expect from their top executives to look after their interests.
Next , if you have still to read “Death of a Nightingale”, I invite you to revisit Posts 1 and 31 that explain my concern for the pressures that people are subjected to generally to get them to do what they don’t want to do, or not do what they should.
The extracts from the play that I quote illustrate this in one specific instance.
In Act One, Scene 2 James Harrington, the Mandarin from DFES, and David Harding, the Director of Education in Westborough, meet to evolve a strategy to secure the closure of Brighouse School. Previous efforts have been thwarted by a campaign by the parents to keep the school open.
David Harding resolves to press Margaret Williamson, the head teacher of Brighouse School, to side with the LEA in their efforts to persuade parents to go along with the closure of the school.
In Act One, Scene 5 the screw is turned on Margaret.
In Act One, Scene 6 Margaret describes to her friend Joan Errington, the English teacher, the pressure she has been subjected to, the pressure that later leads her to try to take her own life. “Don’t you understand,” she laments, “ I just can’t do it any longer. I can’t look kids in the face. I can’t look my staff in the face, or the governors. And, what’s more, I can’t look myself in the face either.”
So much for fiction. But it is fiction dreamed up out of fact.
I personally witnessed three attempts, all ultimately unsuccessful, by a Local Education Authority to blackball a deputy head teacher’s application for a Headship for political reasons. This is now ancient history, and you must take my word for it. But at the time it made me realise just how vulnerable teachers were to political pressure. This cannot be good or wholesome.
You might think that a teachers’ union would be interested in this even if it did not go along with other things I was saying.
To that end I tried to meet Dr. John Dunford, General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders amongst other things to raise this issue with that Association.
15 June 2009
Dear Dr. Dunford
Death of a Nightingale and its Blog
You will see from the enclosed that I have been trying to contact you personally since April, ideally meeting you.
This is partly because I think that what I am writing about may be of interest to your members, especially given the wording of the review in the NUT magazine The Teacher.
Another reason is that I want to ask you quite specifically how I progress the suggestion that I make in the first Post in my Blog. I witnessed at first hand, and on more than one occasion, the way in which a local authority abused its control over the interviewing process for head teachers, and to that extent restricted independent thought and action. To involve the chair of governors in the writing of a head teacher’s reference might provide some check on this.
How can I put this formally to your organisation so that it is properly discussed?
Yours sincerely,
Alan Share
Enc.
______________________________________________________________
From: “Janet Jones”
Date: Mon, June 22, 2009 4:06 pm
Dear Mr Share
John has asked me to email again after receiving your letter dated 15 June. I’m afraid John is unable to meet with you as he has no space in his diary before he goes on annual leave at the end of July
I am sorry that we are unable to help with your request.
Regards
Janet Jones
Janet Jones
PA to Dr John Dunford
______________________________________________________________________________
23 June 2009
Dear Dr. Dunford
Death of a Nightingale and its Blog
I am appalled by Janet Jones’ email reply of 22 June to my letter to you of 15 June.
I do not know whether or not a professional and intellectual curiosity has led you to read Death of a Nightingale. It may be too much for me to invite you to read Posts 1 to 31 of the Blog www.deathofanightingale.com/blog.html which explains the thinking behind it; but I do urge you to read Posts 1 and 31 to appreciate the importance that I attach to the contents of my letter.
Your PA’s response, as it stands, provokes me to dedicate my next Post to it.
I hope that you personally will reconsider whether you should be quite so negative here.
Yours sincerely,
Alan Share
Now admittedly I carelessly miss-spelled his name, which I have corrected here, but since 24 June silence, a silence that speaks louder than words, and which I leave to speak for itself.
I return to my theme. A Government, any Government, will want to drive home its policies. This started in a big way with Margaret Thatcher, and continued with both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. There is an urgent need, however, to restore checks and balances within the system, and to create some new ones. They define where control stops and participation begins.
You ignore participation at your peril. It is the seedbed of initiative, enterprise and a vibrant society.
As Sir Humphrey Plumbton, my alter ego, once said of the workings of power ”In the civil service manual ‘Audi alteram partem’ is loosely translated to mean ‘You can drive your car on the wrong side of the road.’” Therein lies the problem.
(Revisit Posts 22 and 23 to read more of Sir Humphrey’s writings, and read “from Alice in Blunderland”in Post 15)
You too can exercise “the little grey cells.” Think up for yourself some more small things that could actually make a big difference. I, for my part, will look more closely at budgeting in my next Post.
As I said in my first Post, the system badly needs a detox, all of it.
<
<
<
<
<