Sex education not an issue at this school then ! UNDER-AGE sex between boarders as young as 12 was commonplace at a top grammar school for the deaf, a judge revealed yesterday.
The £35,000-a-year school allowed a “promiscuous culture” and let down its pupils, Judge Richard Parkes QC said. One parent, who asked not to be named, said bed-hopping was rife. She claimed: “A culture exists of pupils hopping in and out of bed with each other, willy nilly. There is freedom of movement at all hours of the day and night, unsupervised.
“This has been going on for a very long time. I have spoken to pupils from 20 years ago who say it was the same back then.” Former pupil Aeron Mazija, 20, was yesterday jailed for three years for having sex with 12 and 13-year-old girls at the Mary Hare Grammar School for the Deaf when he was 18. Judge Parkes told him, via a signer: “All of the victims and yourself were at a school where consensual sexual relationships between underage pupils was commonplace. Sexual relationships were the norm.
“You had no appreciation or awareness of the implications of having underage sex. Relationships between pupils of different ages was not discouraged at the school and there were many examples of underage sex. It is fair to say that pupils were rather promiscuous. Underage sex was not that seriously treated at the school.” The judge was told yesterday that Mazija had once been caught having sex with a 16-year-old girl on the stage in the school hall when he was just 14.
Teachers found them but no action was taken, Reading crown court was told. Mazija, of Woking, Surrey, admitted having sex with a 12-year-old girl and a 13-year-old girl in 2008 and 2009. The school in Newbury, Berks, educates 230 pupils aged from five to 19. Its principal Tony Shaw yesterday denied underage sexual relationships were rife.
He said: “All the pupils who are 16 or below live in single-sex accommodation which is separate and distant from each other. The main thing that was said by the judge was that relationships were commonplace and we were naive if we thought they weren’t sexual. “We reject that. We don’t think we have a greater or lower number of relationships than any other place.”
SOURCE
More Links
It seems that the judge has made this extraordinary statement in court without any evidence whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteThe school was not represented nor were they given any chance to refute the accusation.
There's a petition going for ex Mary Hares to ask for a full investigation of this matter, already it is up to nearly 500 signatures.
Why wasn't the 16 year old girl dealt with accordingly? Double standards.
ReplyDeleteThis is more of an indication how the school was operated and possibly of who are staffing it...pedophiles have a way of spreading their disease throughout a school.
ReplyDeleteThere needs to be a full investigation and removal of staff could be required, among other changes. I hope people don't take this as reason to close all schools, because there are well-run and well-supervised schools doing tremendous good for deaf children.
I tried to post this on the See Hear forum but within minutes it was hidden.
ReplyDeleteThere is certainly no closing of ranks. You cannot know that many old pupils go back year after year to reunions and speech days. They keep in touch with everything the school does. There have also been teachers who were pupils there and others who have worked in a support capacity. None of these people would have tolerated any funny business, something would have been said and done.
There are also at least two old pupils who have sent their own children there, one from my own year. I am pretty sure that they would not have done that if the moral tone of the school was in any way unsatisfactory.
The sexes have always been segregated at Mary Hare and for there to be any "bed-hopping" people would have had to penetrate the boarding house of the other sex, getting past housemasters, teachers and matrons. Because it's a manor house on an estate there are of course plenty of holes and corners where people can go off and not be observed but the moral tone of the school has always been high. While there have been rumours over the years and one or two dismissals for inappropriate behaviour there cannot possible be a culture of sexual abuse.
This judge seems to be spouting off about something without knowing the facts and Mary Hare, unfairly has had no chance to defend itself. That is why we are all angry. All of us. Because apart from anything else WE know who did and who didn't get their leg over at school and trust me there were not very many!
For the benefit of the debate, these are some of the facts:
ReplyDelete1. Neither the police, social services, Ofsted or any other agency have raised any suggestion that Mary Hare was at fault in the handling of Aeron Majiza's case.
2. The incident involving the 16 year old girl was reported immediately to Social Services who supervised and approved the action that was then taken. That action and all the records were examined by the national care inspectorate as part of their annual inspection.
3. For Anonymous's benefit, last January the annual Ofsted Care inspection - conducted in full knowledge of this case - rated the school Good for both care and child safeguarding. Ofsted have confirmed to the school that they would certainly have detected any of the faults alleged in court. No parent or pupil has ever raised a complaint of this sort to the school, or through Ofsted's confidential anonymised annual survey of parents and pupils.
4. Nevertheless, last summer the school committed itself to commissioning an independent expert inquiry after the case was concluded. It should start shortly.
I think the school has completely neglected it's moral responsibility. Has anyone asked how many teenage pregnancies there are amid pupils/ex-pupils? I know of at least two.....
ReplyDeleteMy niece was at that school and she said that after lights out there we no teachers to be seen and the fire escapes were not closed. The sexes were segregated but noone was enforcing them to stay in their beds. Apparently during the day they all walked around holding hands and hugging each other. Noone said anything. All the teachers were hearing teachers and the students felt very isolated from them.
A failure of pastoral care on all sides. Just because the kids are deaf doesn't mean they don't have the same feelings as all other teenagers.
By the way Mr Granatt - you should publish the Ofsted report. Show us the real facts.
1. The teachers never have supervised the dormitories. This is done by matrons who are employed for that purpose.
ReplyDelete2. Fire escapes are never closed. Ever.
3. No one forces anyone to stay in their beds at any school. What did you expect? Handcuffs?
4. Sure they walk around holding hands, but that's a long way from "A culture of under age promiscuity".
5 All the teachers are hearing teachers. This is wrong??
6.Ofsted reports:the social care inspection was carried out on 19/01/2011 and published 26/02/2011
Obviously these accusations come from someone not intelligent enough to go to MHGS.
For anyone interested, the ofsted reports are hardly a ringing endorsement.
ReplyDeleteCompared with which other deaf boarding school?
ReplyDeleteThe last Ofsted report (I think), was here http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_providers/full/(urn)/110180/(type)/65536/(typename)/Special%20schools and was in 2009.
ReplyDeleteAndy, do you really think the problems Mary Hare has experienced can be pinned onto one pupil. The judge (independent) and importantly the prosecution were very,very critical of the pastoral care at MH. It is abundantly clear that the pupils were failed by the school and your defense is worrying for existing and future students. Anyone who knows a pupil past or present will acknowledge that there is indeed a culture of promiscuity there. Face up to the problem instead of denying it.
ReplyDeleteOK. Here are the facts from the Chairman of the Governors.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.maryhare.org.uk/index.php?cID=174&cType=news
I'd rather believe him than some anonymous dickwit on a blog site.
Touching a nerve possibly, a bit too defensive Andy. There must be something to hide.
ReplyDeleteWhy would a crown court judge who has no vested interest in the case be so critical? The prosecution at the trial were so critical of Mary Hare that it was difficult at first to discern who was the defense and who the prosecution.It speaks volumes.
ReplyDeleteAs to whom to believe. The chairman of governors of the school which has been taken apart or the independent crown court judge with no vested interest other than the care of the children. Not too difficult for the impartial one would imagine Andy.
ReplyDeleteYou are totally misusing the word "facts" Andy. I suggest " in my humble, biased opinion"
ReplyDeleteSo long as this aspect is stuck to i.e. the fact a person has been found guilty and sentenced, I am allowing comment to continue. As the person who claimed of widespread promiscuity was neither identified, nor provided proof as we are aware, it must be viewed speculation, until some inquiry or other has found otherwise. I'd not take an head's view as gospel myself, there is obviously vested interest involved. These things have a way of coming out eventually, let us hope it is a one-off.
ReplyDeleteI just read the statement from the chairman of governors. Funny how he didn't mention the level of criticism by the prosecution. One would expect that from the defense, but the prosecution? To think that all of this is simply the problem of one 17 year old pupil and nothing to do with the management of the school is terrifying. The school, from the governors down needs to take a long, hard look at itself.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who knows a pupil at Mary Hare will know that unfortunately this is not a one off. I agree MM, an inquiry is needed.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous seems to be a totally dysfunctional individual who just wants to make mischief.
ReplyDeleteAstonishing how some people are so determined to make trouble for deaf people. It's close to disability hate crime in my view. Naturally nobody is going to believe this nonsense so I'm not going to respond any more.
We'll sort it out and Anonymous will have to eat his/her/its words. Looking forward to that.
This may put the argument in perspective. Ofsted have confirmed to the school that they stand by their care inspection report of 19 January which rated the school good for both care and safeguarding. The inspector had full knowledge of the circumstances of the court case when she conducted the inspection. Ofsted have also told the NDCS today that nothing raised in court leads them to alter the judgement of that report. You can read the report on their website.
ReplyDeletePerhaps now Andy has left the adults to it, we can debate properly how things must change. I work with deaf people and know that this many experiences by ex and current pupils of the schools lack of care must mean there is something to it.
ReplyDeleteOk Andy, I think you are asking me to collect testimony by ex pupils to back up my arguments. I will start tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteI AM an ex pupil you fool!
ReplyDeleteBack on your leash Andy, you are merely one.
ReplyDeleteAnon can we not make it personal ? or I'd have to moderate. I don't do 3 stikes or out either.
ReplyDeleteThis argument seems to be going nowhere. I see a very good school having its reputation damaged by all the press. In the end, the only ones to suffer will be the children if they end back in Mainstream which certainly doesn't cater for their needs properly. The daughter of a friend of mine left last year. She joined in Year 9 after a very traumatic time in a mainstream with a unit and the transformation in her was unbelievable. She became a happy confident young lady and that was down to Mary Hare. Perhaps a bad decision was taken all that time ago and maybe that case should be answered. Everyone hopes that since then procedures have been tightened but nothing is watertight. If teenagers are determined to do something they will find a way. No amount of policing will prevent them from doing so. And what of parents - a boarding school does not negate their responsibility!
ReplyDeleteIt isn't an argument. I am merely correcting errors of fact.
ReplyDeleteYou have chosen to disbelieve everything that is put before you without coming up with the promised evidence of promiscuity at the school.
That's not an argument, it's just being annoying.
The problem with the judge's comments is that they have caused the actual criminal conviction to be conflated with separate, alleged offences for which no convictions have yet been made.
ReplyDeleteDo you think they could do him for perjury? Not quite sure how that would work but his claims of a sexual culture at the school just can't be true.
ReplyDeleteNot the judge... the perp...
ReplyDeleteand Tim, no allegations have been made and if they have then these people who claim them need to come up with the evidence. At the moment it is all hearsay. The Head of the school has stated that Social Services and parents were informed. It would be the duty of the parents to involve the police if they thought a crime had been committed against their son or daughter. The Social Services will also call the police when they consider it to be necessary. Unfortunately our society does encourage promiscuity and some parents will 'groom' their children to appeal to the opposite sex. You often see young girls (as young as 12) walking around inappropriately made up and dressed. Any school can only go so far to stopping that - preventing makeup in the school day/uniform etc. The staff can try to instil different morals and disapprove of behaviour but it would be impossible to control things 24 hours a day - guard a door and a determined teenager will crawl out of a window. From what I've heard, despite what a few are saying, it is an excellent school and in the main it is filled with very happy and secure children and an incredibly hard working and dedicated staff who give much of their life over to the pupils. I have also heard it provides a safe haven for many who dread going home!
ReplyDeleteI meant no substantiated allegations in my last post- simply people jumping on a band wagon and having their say - which is basically what you said too Tim!
ReplyDeletePerhaps a re-think on boarding school options for deaf would be a better option ? at least then they go home every night and some semblance of parental control can be excersized. As stated, you cannot watch these kids 24/7. More access to mainstream so they can be educated locally is a much better option... Would break up the tribalism that seems to permeate these things... I read the MH site and pupil postings, near all were claiming 'inter-action' with the opposite sex was not happening at MH, if you believe that !! (And given the head has stated deaf kids are no different to hearing)... Equality at last lol our deaf kids are as sex mad as hearing kids are... Wherever deaf kids are put away from parents be it the church or boarding school option, abuse of deaf kids seems to happen much more. Te sexuality of all children is the bane of modern life, we disagree probably on how much we should accept it and to what degree.
ReplyDeleteboarding schools for all children maybe!! Mainstream has not been the saviour it was promised to be for anyone with any disability - so what do you suggest - a ghetto for deaf people so that the children can all attend the same school and go home at night?!? I don't think so! Things haven't changed that much - there has always been promiscuity among some children, deaf or hearing. Maybe parents need to be less tolerant so that their children understand the boundaries better. After all, who do we learn morality from?
ReplyDeleteI feel sorry for the school, students and for the staff who work in it. They clearly had a difficult group of children at the time when this was going on. I am sure they did their utmost to control the behaviour of these few but have now been saddled with this label which undermines the majority of the children there who are probably exemplary in their behaviour and moral standards.
ReplyDelete27 Head Boys and Girls have worked together to sign a letter of protest to the Government over the Judge's comments. Thats fast work.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.maryhare.org.uk/index.php?cID=173&cType=news
They spelt defence wrongly, apart from that I can't see 27 people making any impression on the government, which stated a few months ago no petition under 10,000 signatures is even going to be read,and given they ignored an 2 MILLION signature petition by motorists, you can expect a polite "None of our business.." to come at the most, or "The judge is not responsible for how media reports..".
ReplyDeleteThe problem is it is out there now, and you will just have to ride it out, or they will come back with.. they protest too much, what are they hiding ? It may well just give media who are the lowest life forms on the planet, more ammunition...
As (hearing) parent of 2 children currently at Mary Hare - we heard about this from my daughter a while back (about the time of Majiza's initial charging).
ReplyDeleteMy impression is that there is no more or less instances of promiscuity at MH than at any other school.
When she started there at 13 (and we were a bit concerned about the age range) she said it was fine, the older ones generally treated the younger ones like younger family, and the other girls warned her who to be wary of. She also had opinions on the behaviour of the girls involved and though not condoning that behaviour was damning about Majiza's attitude.
I think the boarding experience actually gives them a bit of independence but it is not ideal from a parent point of view. We are lucky in that we live near enough that they come home at weekends -though they choose to stay sometimes if there is a particularly interesting weekend activity going on. On the whole they are fairly self-regulating but being teenagers there are some pretty stupid scrapes they get into.
Having our children fail at mainstream schools was not a pleasant thing, and the system is such that you have to let that happen before you can prove that specialist education is required.
We took the view of 'if this school was in the next road, would it be your choice' and it turned out to be the best solution for both - at different stages in each ones education. We still had to factor in the boarding to the equation - or move house and have a tricky commute.
I agree with the 'protest too much' to an extent, but the school must do what it can in mitigation of this situation, and in time it will fade.
I feel sorry for the school that they are compelled to come back in very measured tones and statements whereas the initial reporting which caused the problem was couched in the most lurid terms.
I also think that the majority of parents will have no hesitation in supporting the school and providing recommendation to parents of prospecive pupils.
I sat through the Prosecution and Defence summings up and the lengthy judgement on the Monday. All the press reporting I have seen, Telegraph, Mirror, local paper is surprisingly accurate.
ReplyDeleteI have some sympathy for the school since it is a good school academically. Its care standards at the time of the offences, over 2 years ago are open to question however. For the facts look up the CSCI and Ofsted reports for 1994 onwards. There is substantial criticism of Boarding House care standards, including low numbers of staff, inadequate training,poor record keeping, governors criticised for an inapropriate appointment as head of care and a letter to all pupils telling them that the school had been told to bring Boarding standards up to the standard of academic work.
The judge had all that information as well as details not revealed in open court, and an enlightening 62 page court report from a professor of deaf studies. Also facts which were volunteered by prosecution as well as defence.
The rebuttal by the Chairman of Governors refers only to the 'good' 2011 Ofsted report.
The Chairman was formerly Director of Communication for the Met Police,Dept.of Environment and the Home Office. He is a recognised UK specialist in 'crisis management'!
MM has a valid point regarding petitions and it is one I agree wiith. The letter only refers to the petition - the main issue is that comments were made without the school having any redress or opportunity to comment.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between a letter from Joe Bloggs and this is that it is the coming together of Head Boys and Girls united in refuting the comments. It is clever because it works on so many levels. It boosts the morale of existing staff, pupils and parents. It reinforces with ex pupils that people care about the school when they leave.
But more so, the Government will reply. The media reports that Mary Hare is a fee-paying school which is not the case - money comes from the Government. The Government will understand that there are many people who disagree with the comments made by the Judge.
If people sit on their hands then people would think that it must be true.
The government pays 35K a year fees, and the country is up in arms at plans for hearing students to pay £9K ?
ReplyDeleteDon't forget its a boarding school and includes the cost of meals laundry etc.
ReplyDeleteDeaf students will also pay the £9k when they go to uni.At least its free for the welsh and scots so us poor english are subsidising you lot.