The Shoesmith Decision

Sharon Shoesmith lost her unfair dismissal case yesterday. Despite the “lost” reports and the seventeen amendments to the final Ofsted Report, it was deemed that the judge could not make a ruling in favour of the woman. The decision to sack her was not something that the courts could overturn.

Am I surprised? Not in the slightest.
As soon as they announced the fact that the decision was going to be announced prior to the election, it seemed to me that there was only going to be one outcome. Whilst those of us who work in the public sector are banned from breathing during a time of election, in case it influences a single person’s vote, I hardly felt that a positive decision for Ms. Shoesmith was going to take place this side of May 6th.
Think about the potential impact of such criticism on New Labour, Ballsup, Ofsted and their whole approach to education and social care inspections. Surely, a positive decision for Ms. Shoesmith would have brought all of this deeply into question at a time when partisan declarations in public is not allowed?
One could argue that a negative result for Ms. Shoesmith has done exactly the same – i.e. no criticism against the government condones their alleged actions and we can all move on and continue in the same manner.

Obviously, I am not suggesting that Judge Foskett was influenced in his decision. That would be unthinkable and make a mockery of the neutrality of the governors of the land.
But before Ballsup gets that smirk-like, vindicated look all over his Cheshire Cat face, let us remind ourselves that the judge had some serious reservations about what happened.

Whilst he upheld the decision to sack Shoesmith, he did so with some reservations.
Here is a quote from the Guardian today.
Was Shoesmith made a scapegoat for the Baby Peter tragedy? Some might think so, some may not, was the gist of Foskett's commentary. Was the Ofsted report "beefed up", as Shoesmith's lawyers alleged? Foskett declared it to be outside his remit.
Foskett did feel compelled to comment on aspects of this extraordinary story. He was appalled by some parts of the media's reporting of the case. He was dismayed by Balls's behaviour at the infamous press conference where he put pressure on Haringey to sack its director of children's services without compensation, and troubled by evidence that Ofsted head Christine Gilbert briefed nastily against Shoesmith just hours before Balls dismissed her. "I cannot think that any party will truly look back at how matters were handled in this case with complete satisfaction," the judge concluded.

I’m not sure whether he used the word “appalled” in relation to the media but it would have been a good one to use. Trial by media is a very, very dangerous thing. Shoesmith had to go because someone had to pay a price for this tragic child’s death and she was at the top of the firing line. However, the fact that the media lambasted this woman without knowing anything about her record or even her responsibility reiterates the concern that media bods essentially influence outcomes without there being consideration and time for the full facts to be taken into weighty consideration.
In saying this, I have to say that I am a fully signed up member of the right to the freedom of speech. I am just a little concerned about how the media can have such influence. Had she been in a criminal court, there would have been rules to prevent such commentary before a decision had been made.

Judge Foskett was “dismayed” by Balls’s behaviour.
I’ve been dismayed by Balls’s behaviour for quite a long time thank you very much.
He was reactionary in the extreme during the quoted press conference. As Minister for the Department of Children, Schools and Families, he may have the power to remove any Director of Children’s Services or certainly put pressure on those in charge but there are ways and means of doing this. Ballsup took the decision to make such a suggestion in a very public arena. He was responding to the media, to the Daily Mail and Sun readers. He wanted to show that he was the great man of action rather than doing the dignified and politic thing of going to Haringey to have meetings with the Chief Executive to discuss such issues without the glare of publicity that he so clearly craves.

The fact that he can put such pressure on individual authorities is in itself a concern.
He can pressurise people to sack a Director of Children’s Services (DCS). A DCS can put pressure on governing bodies to sack a head teacher. A head teacher can put pressure on individuals to lose their jobs etcetera, etcetera. This is all well and good where there are stringent and fair capability procedures but less positive when it is a whim, when it is reactive, when it set against unrealistic or inappropriate measures, when it is personal, when it is for ulterior motives.
That is when it becomes dangerous, immoral and open to the most unruly abuse.

If I were Ballsup today, I would be in apoplexy. Maybe that is because I still manage to have some sort of conscience. From what I have read and heard about the judge’s comments, I certainly wouldn’t be smug about the decision. Anyone with half a brain can see that, despite the decision, Mr. Ballsup does not come out of this with much grace or exoneration. He has been criticised, severely. I somehow doubt that he will see it in that light, and there are probably a multitude of spin doctors on the case as I write.

And what of Ofsted? Where does this decision leave that organisation?
The good judge was concerned about the changes to the report and the fact that so many emails went walkabout.
Is he really that naive? Foskett said he was “troubled” by the evidence that Christine Gilbert had had her bout of influence. How did the good judge think this had come about? Did he think that Ms. Gilbert had done this on a whim in response to the media? Did she have a quiet word with Mr. Balls? Did she have a conversation over dinner with her husband who just happened to mention NuLabour’s thinking on what should be done? Was she acting in this way because she knew that the system of which she was head was massively flawed in that they had recently given Haringey a clean bill of health, albeit without spectacular endorsement, and she was essentially covering her own back? Did she think that perhaps the inspection regime was not really getting to the nitty gritty of local authority happenings and there might be the possibility that local authorities could somehow veil the truth of their real practice?

It could be one, many or all of these reasons. To comment specifically on Ofsted, according to Judge Foskett, out of his domain, but he felt a need to comment nonetheless. That, in itself, is quite telling. Those who are prepared to read between the lines should look at his statements very carefully.
“You might very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment” is a phrase, or near as damn it, that was used most successfully in Michael Dobb’s “House of Cards”. It was a phrase of irony, chosen for a reason.
Perhaps the judge, through this non-comment is trying to direct people to have a serious look at whether a)Ofsted really is independent (ha ha) and b) whether the inspection regime is actually doing the job it allegedly sets out to do.

I am a little dismayed that Foskett felt that the decision on whether the report was “beefed up” was “out of his domain”. Surely, if there were changes to that report, this had a serious impact on the accountability as to whether Shoesmith retained her job or not.
I am not suggesting that she should have retained her job. As I have said previously, someone had to be held accountable but if she lost her job because of the report, if the report was the only form of accountability then of course it must have an influence and be in the judges domain, or am I being naive?
Let us be very clear about this. The report was changed. There was no mention of the ability of the leader in the initial report. By the time the final version came out, there was a statement at the very top of the recommendations. What more evidence is required?

The judge went on to say that "the prospect of summary dismissal with no compensation and a good deal of public opprobrium is hardly likely to be an inducement for someone thinking of taking the job or, perhaps, in some circumstances, continuing in it."
Well, quite frankly, who in their right minds would take such a job in the first instance?
The current structure of Children’s Services is like a double whammy. If you’re not kicked for your attainment in schools, then you might be kicked for the social care offered (or not) to the young people in your charge. There are so many ways that you are culpable, according to this decision; an accountability that was always there, and Shoesmith, like her counterparts knew this.

There are some DCSs who are probably paid more than the Prime Minister and certainly more than his ministers and MPs to do this job. With such high public sector pay there has to be that ultimate accountability. But really, is it appropriate to put an educationalist in charge of social care and visa versa? Ensure that there is some joined up thinking and collaboration. Ensure that those who are actually in contact with children, i.e. in schools and other settings, don’t have to contact 73 different people, organisations and departments to get the much needed support for these poor kids and their families but complete joined up departments may not be the answer.
I haven’t seen a single comment about this in the election. Let us see what the reports of the Shoesmith outcome brings.

On that note, I return to the Guardian for my closing statement, taken from the gloriously amusing Malcolm Tucker commentary; not about this case of course, but it could apply.

I have a quotation to help you, from my soon to be released Little Book of Getting Your Shit Back Together After You've Broken Some Skinny Fuck's Nose for Bringing You News You Didn't Need to Hear Right Now: "It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope."


It’s not the despair that will leave us bereft, it is the hope. I’m pretty sure Sharon Shoesmith’s hope has vanished today. Not only that, it shows once more that the system is far greater than the individual.
Are there really no other cases of unfair dismissal or provocation to leaving a job than Shoesmith’s? Of course there are other cases but when you have given your life to education or social care, when you have committed yourself to the good of others sometimes at the expense of yourself and those nearest to you, there’s probably a sad dose of reality that the system is too damn big to take on.
It doesn’t mean that there is not injustice out there. It doesn’t mean that these people have lost the fight but perhaps they are realistic enough to know that the hope of vindication might be a hope too far and maybe the outcome of this case has reiterated that.

As for me, I’m a slow learner. I still hope and I still have the fight of others at the forefront of my hope. And one day, one day that hope will materialise into some sort of vindication when this whole flawed inspection system is looked at properly – for the good of people who have suffered from it, for the good of true and honest accountability, for the good of all children – you know the phrase – Every Child Matters??

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/23/sharon-shoesmith-crisis-child-protection