'too busy to call an ambulance'

Exactly what good is sacking a staff member 3 years later going to do ?

Better three years later then never although immediately would of course been preferred.

An update.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...yside-11493343

A head teacher due to face a disciplinary panel over the death of a schoolboy from an asthma attack has resigned.
Stockport Council confirmed governors at Offerton High School had accepted Evelyn Leslie's resignation.
Sam Linton, 11, was left in a corridor struggling for breath at Offerton High School in Stockport, in December 2007.
An inquest previously heard how staff failed to call 999. In July, governors called for Ms Leslie's sacking.

[rogerdraig]

running away rather than facing up to it
i would not let a child of mine near a school where any of those involved in this taught

so who's decision would be to sack her ,who would have had the authority? i ask because the governors wanted her sacked back in july according to the above quote

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by martyh

so who's decision would be to sack her ,who would have had the authority? i ask because the governors wanted her sacked back in july according to the above quote

the governers would but i expect they were going through the motions to protect them selves from an unfair dismisal suit as they havnt got the gumption to stand up and be counted and call this what it is which i think most juries would agree with that being it was gross misconduct

as i think neglect that contributed to a pupils death can not be seen by the average person on the clapham omnibus ( some will get that bit ) as any thing other than that

but as usual just like those governors who were willing to curtail normal play yard games because of a few complaints they seem to think more about thier risks than that of those they volunteered to look out for they seem to like the titles but not the load that goes with it

Originally Posted by rogerdraig

the governers would but i expect they were going through the motions to protect them selves from an unfair dismisal suit as they havnt got the gumption to stand up and be counted and call this what it is which i think most juries would agree with that being it was gross misconduct

as i think neglect that contributed to a pupils death can not be seen by the average person on the clapham omnibus ( some will get that bit ) as any thing other than that

but as usual just like those governors who were willing to curtail normal play yard games because of a few complaints they seem to think more about thier risks than that of those they volunteered to look out for they seem to like the titles but not the load that goes with it

Thanks for that roger ,
It would appear then that the governors of the school have deliberately allowed a staff member who is guilty of neglect at best and contributing to the death of a minor at worst(if that is a real legal term) to resign instead of being sacked
I have no doubt that there was absolutely no malice or intent intended by the teacher but in cases were death is caused by neglect then criminal charges should have been brought ,after all it was only a case rearanging priorities as far as the teacher was concerened and nothing was more important than the safety and welbeing of the children in the schools care .A totally avoidable death

[Flyboy]

Usually governors don't have the full powers to sack a headteacher, as typically the headteacher will ultimately be employed by the local authority. They can recommend dismissal and declare a state of no confidence, in which the local authority will have little choice but to accept. I think the lack of action, in terms of her employment, was probably down to both bodies not coming to an agreement as to how they should proceed. But Roger's assessment of governors, as a whole, is not too distant from what really does go in many schools. If there any claims of this nature, they could potentially be personally responsible for any compensation. There was a case recently when a school was shut down by the health and safety executive because some very serious breaches of fire regulations (fire extinguishers not working, fire escapes sealed etc. I think), the governors were fined and had to pay the penalty themselves. I'll see if I can find a link to it somewhere.

[rogerdraig]

I think you will find most governing bodies can dismiss for gross misconduct as they in most cases are the employer in fact if they do not act where a teacher is not capable of doing thier job for what ever reason ( and this case i would say put the head and some others easily with in the catragory of being unfit ) they could find themselves liable


see
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...ulation/3/made

The Education (Teachers) Regulations 1993

* 1993 No. 543
* PART I
* Section 3

saying that i am sure they did leaise with thier local authority for advice but it still falls to them as employers