Bewdley Primary - Retaliation Daniel, Further to your call of yesterday (Friday 17th June), I will put-down a few points that include a summary of your own approach to this matter - if I have no response, I shall assume that there is no contention of the record. 1) I remain in a state of shock over this affair - I don't think I've ever been so badly hurt. 2) It appears that Worcestershire's Local Authority Designated Officer has not only sided with Bewdley's Designated Safeguarding Lead (Assistant Head Jacqui Bennett) but also submitted a report to the Disclosure and Barring Service - we know where that's heading! 3) I understand that Bennett's position is that pupils must not be made 'fearful' of dogs and to do so would represent a 'safeguarding failure' - my own position is that pupils, particularly those aged about 9 (Year 4) in Class 'Morpurgo', should be aware of the potential dangers that dogs themselves represent; 'any dog can turn'. 4) You consider that it is not for Winchmore Tutors or any of its hired staff to perform in a manner that runs contrary to the school's position. 5) The salient point is that I have not contravened any of the school's rules or procedures; the web page that I accessed to confirm that a "two-year-old boy ... suffered injuries after being bitten by [a] dog at an address in Egdon, Worcestershire, on Monday March 28, 2022" was not shown to any pupil and I do not recollect discussing this attack with any pupil - certainly not the Class. 6) It is true that a 'robust exchange' took place between Bennett and myself over this issue, but that was after I'd been dragged-out of the classroom into an adjacent 'ancillary room' - that is, no pupils were present, though the conversation became 'more heated' when doggie Humphrey 'chipped-in' with more 'advice', or hectoring, also making the 'engagement' two-on-one! 7) It may well be the case that the real allegation is that I am guilty of the oldest crime in history, insubordination - but I didn't shout, point or swear; Bennett may simply be indulging a spot of gratuitous bullying, besetting the profession, including the, now defunct, General Teaching Council who alleged a chap had been "threatening" and "abusive" towards another Worcestershire stiff, perhaps another doggie, some years ago, with no evidence presented - there's another vendetta! 8) Perhaps that government minister, Heather Wheeler MP, speaking on 9th June, should have included Bewdley, with Birmingham and Blackpool, as “godawful” places! David Austin mail@dwaustin.net, @da1955 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Continued … . Requested incident report - submitted 7th April 22: Hello Emily, It's a fortunate person who can choose where he works - I was happy to drive to Bewdley as it's fairly accessible from mine, but as with much of Worcestershire, it has its dog-problems, to the extent that shortly after starting my assignment, I had to send a report to the District detailing a 'dog issue' on the pavement close to the school! 1) Wednesday's lessons (6th April) started with the Year 4 (Morpurgo) teacher (M Fallows) showing a video of a collection of puppies (several times!). 2) Later, with an internet-enabled computer close-to-hand, I checked my recollection that a child had been killed by a dog, also in Worcestershire (at Egdon) just last week (28th March); at no time was the screen shown to any child and at no time did I seek to inform the class of the fatal incident - indeed, at no time during my stay, as a tutor, did I choose to speak to any class! 3) I do believe that the class, as with all children of a similar age, should have been informed of the danger, and not just the appeal, that dogs represent - according to the experts, any dog can 'turn'. 4) According to the Department for Education's 'Keeping children safe in education', safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children includes "protecting children from maltreatment". 5) As I explained to Assistant Head Bennett, teaching is "very competitive" and "one-upmanship" can arise; the two Teaching Assistants in the class were 'remarkably keen' to assist, even indulge, my charge, T**** B****, (though that did include much touching, which I feel I must avoid) in order to win his co-operation; a desire to embarrass yours truly cannot be ruled-out! 6) Whilst I accept that it can be beneficial to establish 'loosely social', or emotional, links with a pupil - if I must 'talk dog' as Teaching Assistant Humphrey had earlier suggested, I consider it reasonable to put a 'balanced' case, which might involve mentioning the draw-backs of dog-ownership. 7) T**** B****, it turns-out, has previously owned, he claims, two Dalmatians! 8) As an illustration of the competitive one-upmanship that besets the profession, John Moore, in Staffordshire, once described this earnest pedagogue, in front of his class, as a "doorstop" and in Worcestershire, Headteacher Melanie Warnes, after I had helped a child courteously from her seat by withdrawing the chair as she was rising, and after the child had thrown herself to the floor, showed yours the exit! 9) The Year 4 (Morpurgo) class were due to perform a litter-pick, later in the morning, on the nearby recreation ground, where dogs are also walked - is this a good idea, has a hazard assessment been carried-out and should the youngsters, and parents, be made aware of the dangers? Is there a child within Morpurgo that is dog-averse? Has anybody asked? 10) I'm still not sure as to the status, in terms of dog-ownership, of the main-player in this affair, Assistant Head Bennett; on leaving the premises in Bewdley I asked if Headteacher Woakes was a cynophile, with one member of the Office Staff claiming, amongst some disbelief, that she did not know! PS: As it happens, I sent a message to an academic, on a related topic, just this morning: Prof Monica Lakhanpaul, Professor of Integrated Community Child Health Email m.lakhanpaul@ucl.ac.uk Dear Professor, Interesting to hear your contribution on child health this morning (BBC Health Check 7th April) and in particular the comment, towards the end of the programme, that Guinea Worm Disease, with others, may be contracted from dogs. Only yesterday I was involved in a 'discussion' with an Assistant Head of a Primary School who was suggesting that I had been 'insufficiently positive' regarding the school's indulgence of their charges with puppies; I pointed-out that a child in the same County, Worcestershire, only last week, died after a dog-attack at home (in Egdon) and that dutiful safeguarding should mean pupils be at least 'made aware' of the dangers that dogs represent - any dog can 'turn'. Do you have an opinion on this issue? DAustin Stourbridge, UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Addenda: 1) 13th June 2022: Sue Taylor, of Worcestershire’s Safeguarding Team – after the suggestion that nine-year olds, given the recent attack at Egdon also in Worcestershire, should be made aware that "dogs can turn", Susan’s response was, "Definitely". 2) Governmental website (gov.uk): "Health education is compulsory for all pupils in state-funded primary and secondary schools”. National Curriculum, Year 4 Science: Pupils should be taught to "recognise that environments can change and that this can sometimes pose dangers to living things" and possibly “explore examples of human impact (both positive and negative) on environments …”; does Bewdley Primary counsel that dogs devastate nature? 3) The nation’s children are advised that medicines and household products can be harmful if not used correctly, are often made aware of ‘stranger danger’ and, in many places around the world, are warned of the possibility of snake bites; speaking in just 2016, the Dogs Trust Education Officer, Anna Baatz, said that children "must understand that a dog is not a toy".