Academy offers no response on whether it will change any staffing practices as result of tribunal judgment

A high-profile academy has failed to say whether it will change any of its policies on the management of its staff, after a damning employment tribunal judgment found that it had subjected a young teacher with multiple sclerosis to disability discrimination and “harassment”.

As I report separately today, Brampton Manor Academy in Newham, East London was found to have discriminated against Yasmin Omar, a newly qualified science teacher, in 10 ways while also subjecting her to “harassment” and “intimidation” during less than six traumatic months at the Ofsted-outstanding school.

But, aside from the damning specifics of Omar’s case, the 73-page judgment also offered insights into policies which, it said, Brampton Manor applies to its staff as a whole.

The report stated:

-The school requires “that all staff must attend all hospital appointments outside of work hours”. Mark Balaam, an assistant head teacher, told the tribunal that this was Brampton Manor’s “preference”. If they needed to attend a hospital appointment during school hours, they would need to complete a form in advance, he said.

-The school’s Absence Management Procedure (AMP) is “triggered” on the second day a teacher is absent, no matter what the reason.

-All staff who are off sick are then set a target of “no further absences”, seemingly throughout the academic year.

-All staff are required to cover break duty.

-The school triggers “Stage II of the AMP” on the third day of sickness absence. The tribunal found it likely that this policy applied to all staff, regardless of their illness, as Stuart Roberts, a vice-principal, said he did not look at sickness certificates or check reasons for absence before sending out invitations to AMP meetings with staff members.

-The school sets a date for a staff member to attend a Stage II AMP meeting, which it will not postpone, even if there is a request for this from the staff member.

-Teachers returning to work after absence must do so with a full timetable, rather than having a “phased return”.

-The school subjects staff to “formal class observations at any time”, Brampton Manor having a policy “that staff would be formally observed teaching, at any time and without notice; especially if they were NQT [newly qualified] teachers”.

-The school puts teachers through formal observations “without considering their state of health”.

-Brampton Manor “having a practice of not referring members of staff who regularly seeing medical specialists for an occupational health referral”.

-The school “placing staff on performance management and/or requiring them to submit lesson plans in advance of all lessons, without considering their current state of health”.

-The school requiring all teachers, when they are off sick, to “provide work to be carried out in their classes (on the first day of absence)”.

-The school “placing staff on Stage II formal absence review without considering the impact of any disability”.

-Brampton Manor “threatening stage III of the AMP and/or disciplinary proceedings to staff during sick leave if they do not return at the end of their certified medical sickness period”. The tribunal found: “It is our judgment that [Brampton Manor] made this threat to all staff, whether disabled or non-disabled, if they did not return to work at the end of their certified period of sickness”.

The tribunal came to the conclusion that, in applying these practices rigidly in Omar’s case – for example by setting her a target, in September, of no further absences for the rest of the academic year without taking into account that she was suffering from MS; or putting her on a full timetable after she returned to work following absence, despite telling her this would not happen – Brampton Manor discriminated against Omar, failing to tailor practice for her disability.

But readers might ask whether the rigidity of such practices, as set out by the tribunal, justified, for any teacher?

Should they be seen as justified, given the high results this school achieves? It has, for example, received much admiring news coverage for its success in helping disadvantaged students into Oxbridge.

This success may also be reflected in in the pay of Dayo Olukoshi, Brampton Manor’s Executive Principal, which, the accounts for this two-school trust reveal, doubled* over eight years: from £125,073 in 2011-12 to £252,136 in 2019-20.

On Thursday last week, I put it to the school that the policies above would look harsh to many outside observers. I asked it if it would be changing any of them as a result of the tribunal’s judgment.

I have yet to receive any response.

Ofsted

Bearing in mind the light that this case has shone on practice at Brampton Manor as detailed above, it is interesting that Ofsted reported on none of this following its most recent visit to the school, which took place only months before Omar’s ordeal would take place.

A hint at the pressure which this judgment implies could be put on teachers as it seeks the best results for their pupils is, arguably, provided in the inspectorate’s report following its visit in February 2018. This found the school “outstanding” for the second time in six years.

There, it stated that Olukoshi, “exemplies strong and determined leadership leadership [with an] unwavering priority that all pupils will achieve their full potential”.

Under “effectiveness of leadership and management,” Ofsted found that “leaders’ relentless ambition and high expectations have ensured that high standards have been sustained since the last inspection”, the inspectorate seemingly of the view that a sense of “relentlessness” was a positive quality in schools.

There was nothing in the report on how staff were treated, however. Some might wonder if inspectors should be highlighting practices, for example as detailed above, of placing staff on performance management without considering their state of health, or not referring members of staff to occupational health.

Instead, the report focused on the care given by staff to pupils. It stated that: “Pupils are confident that staff will deal quickly and effectively with any issues or concerns.”

Anyone reading the tribunal’s judgment on Omar’s treatment by Brampton Manor is likely to find themselves wondering why the school did not manage to apply the same standard of care to this young teacher, as she struggled to begin her career in the face of multiple sclerosis.

Is Ofsted’s view, in seemingly not including sections in its reports on how staff are managed, that the ends justify the means: any treatment of staff is justified so long as the end product - how pupils perform - is good? Could pressurising staff be seen as worth doing, to achieve such a goal? Should care of staff be seen as somehow less of a priority than pupil achievement?

It seems reasonable to think that this is the assumption, given the way the inspectorate’s reports have been structured in recent years.

And yet this tribunal was clear: a chase for good results, which it said were important in part to Brampton Manor for reputational reasons – “a legitimate aim” – did not imply that staff should be treated unfairly.

The tribunal stated: “The legitimate aim of success of pupils and the school is important to [Brampton Manor]…[but] the impact on members of the affected group – disabled teachers – of having this treatment done to them because of their sickness absence, attendance at hospital for blood tests and treatment and fatigue is highly detrimental to their careers and lives.”

Brampton Manor could have had policies which helped it achieve its aim without applying them in ways which discriminated against an individual on the grounds of her disability, it found.

As stated in my main piece, this case would seem to have many implications. I hope to continue to report on them.

*It is true that Olukoshi’s overall package has not increased by quite so much, once pension payments are included, as he received £15,456 in employers’ pension contributions in 2011-12, but nothing in 2019-20. Taking this into account, his total pay and pensions package rose by 79 per cent over the period.