‘I was called curry lover and humiliated by other teachers’: The toxic truth about staffroom bullying
Warning: This story contains references to suicide along with racist and sexist language readers may find distressing.
When Maya* started a new teaching job, she did not expect to be called the n-word as she walked down the corridor.
The bullying from her fellow teachers proved relentless. She was called a “curry lover” and believes she was hidden from meeting parents at one point due to her skin colour.
It was not just racism she faced there but also sexism. Male colleagues told her she would have to “bend over a desk to get a promotion” and had “blowjob lips”. Incidents like these happened “almost every day”, she says.
Eventually forced to leave her job, Maya signed a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) making her unable to speak about the abuse she suffered. As part of the conditions of her exit, she also received a significant payout, which she describes as “money to keep quiet”.
Sky News has spoken to over 320 current and former teachers from state, private and special schools across the UK, who allege having been bullied at work. Among those, 119 say they signed NDAs and received payouts ranging from the low thousands to tens of thousands of pounds in compensation.
Sky News has calculated that the total amount of money paid to these teachers is more than £1.73m.
This is taxpayers’ money meant for school budgets, which is instead being used to pay teachers to leave. We cannot verify when the earliest of these payments was made, but most were completed within the last decade.
The National Education Union, the UK’s largest education union, confirmed that the “vast majority” of financial settlements included NDAs.
NDAs used to ‘cover up’ bullying
The use of these NDAs was “not appropriate,” said Phil Clarke, the NEU National president. He added that the use of them was “covering up” or preventing further investigation into whether “it was appropriate for the individual, and an appropriate use of public money, for them to be paid to exit a school”.
Maya says she felt there was no other option but to accept the payment and NDA to escape the bullying, which left her feeling “worthless, sad and suicidal”.
Over a third of the teachers we spoke to have experienced similar thoughts and made plans to harm themselves to escape the bullying. A handful have gone as far as trying to end their lives.
It’s a familiar story for Tracy*, who says she “drove into school each morning willing myself to have an accident so I didn’t have to go in”.
Suicidal after management bullying
A teacher for 25 years, she loved her job and rose to a senior leadership position. Tracy says that during a move to change the school to an academy, she was “targeted” and bullied by the new management because she “questioned the direction” they were taking.
In her role, Tracy says she was privy to the “tactics” used on other members of staff and so when she was put on a performance plan, she knew it was “code for you don’t fit, we want you out”.
She told Sky News the “impact [of bullying] was such that I was suicidal and fundamentally unable to function at even the simplest level for a period of time”.
Tracy was also paid out and signed an NDA.
Among the teachers we spoke to, the academisation of schools came up repeatedly as a catalyst for bullying.
A school might become an academy by choice or if they are rated ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted. Teachers say they are run as businesses, with CEOs and a board, without the due care for teachers.
‘Power imbalance’ between teachers and heads
Speaking to Sky News, the National Education Union confirmed that the growth of multi-academy trusts has contributed to a “significant” power imbalance between management and teaching staff.
Phil Clarke, the NEU National President said academies are run as a “corporate system”, but “without the safeguards and professional respect that corporate environments would provide”.
Responding to the findings of this investigation, he confirmed that schools are becoming “more authoritarian places to work”.
How this culture of bullying is fixed is a complex question with no easy answer.
Attitudes need to change
Teachers throughout this investigation say that attitudes from senior leaders and managers need to change. The National Education Union says headteachers are under immense pressure from Ofsted, which can lead to this approach towards getting rid of staff.
Ofsted declined to comment on the findings of our investigation. Instead, a spokesperson said they always seek to minimise “undue pressure on those we work with” and that they were “ready to hear feedback, accept criticism and reform”.
Appealing directly to the government, Maya asked for the abolition of NDAs within schools, so teachers could speak out without “legal repercussions”.
Responding to this investigation Education Minister, Catherine McKinnell, said: “All school staff should feel safe and supported at work, and confident in being able to report concerns – and we expect school leaders as employers to take appropriate action to tackle any issues that are raised.
“For our part, we are determined to reset the relationship with education workforces so together we can drive high and rising standards across our schools.
“We have also worked in partnership with the education sector and mental health experts to create the Education Staff Wellbeing Charter – and encourage schools to sign up as a shared commitment to promote staff wellbeing.”
*Names have been changed
If you are a teacher and have had experiences similar to those discussed above and are willing to share them please email us at Sky.Today@sky.uk
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.
Downing Street has indicated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived on British soil following an international arrest warrant being issued for him.
On Thursday, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli defence secretary Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the war in Gaza.
The UK government was reluctant to commit to saying Netanyahu would be arrested if he came to the UK but Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman said the government would “fulfil its legal obligations” in relation to the arrest warrant.
“The UK will always comply with its legal obligations as set out by domestic law, and indeed international law,” he said.
He added the domestic process linked to ICC arrest warrants has never been used to date by the UK because the country has never been visited by anyone wanted by the international court.
Earlier on Friday, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said it “wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment” on the processes involved as the ICC is independent, although the UK is a member.
She told Sky News: “We’ve always respected the importance of international law, but in the majority of the cases that they pursue, they don’t become part of the British legal process.
“What I can say is that obviously, the UK government’s position remains that we believe the focus should be on getting a ceasefire in Gaza.”
However, Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the foreign affairs committee in parliament, told Sky News: “If Netanyahu comes to Britain, our obligation under the Rome Convention would be to arrest him under the warrant from the ICC.
“Not really a question of should, we are required to because we are members of the ICC.”
After winning July’s election the government said it would not oppose the ICC’s right to issue the warrants.
Netanyahu and Gallant (right) have arrest warrants against them. File pic: Reuters
Ireland, France and Italy have signalled they would arrest Netanyahu if he came to their countries.
Asked if police would arrest the Israeli leader in Ireland, Irish Taoiseach Simon Harris said: “Yes, absolutely. We support international courts and we apply their warrants.”
Germany said it would make a decision if Netanyahu came to Germany but said it is one of the “biggest supporters of the ICC”, partly as a result of history.
A German government spokesman said: “At the same time, it is a consequence of German history that we share unique relations and a great responsibility with Israel.”
An ICC arrest warrant was also issued for Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al Masri, the mastermind behind the 7 October attacks in Israel, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Israel claims Al Masri was killed earlier this year but the ICC said that has not been confirmed, so it was issuing the arrest warrant.
Netanyahu’s office said the warrants against him and Gallant were “antisemitic” and said Israel “rejects with disgust the absurd and false actions”.
Neither Israel nor the US are members of the ICC. Israel has rejected the court’s jurisdiction and denies committing war crimes in Gaza.
Read more:
What satellite images tell us about North Gaza
Hamas ready for Gaza ceasefire ‘immediately’
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Why have arrest warrants been issued?
US President Joe Biden described the warrants against Israeli leaders as “outrageous”, adding: “Whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and Hamas.”
Former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett said the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were a “mark of shame” for the ICC.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the ICC’s decision sent a “terrible message”.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Friday he would invite Netanyahu to visit Hungary and he would guarantee the arrest warrant would “not be observed”.
The ICC originally said it was seeking arrest warrants for the three men in May for the alleged crimes and on Thursday announced that it had rejected challenges by Israel and issued warrants of arrest.
In its update, the ICC said it found “reasonable grounds to believe” that Netanyahu and Gallant “bear criminal responsibility” for alleged crimes.
These, the court said, include “the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”.
It is the first time a sitting leader of a major Western ally has been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by a global court of justice.
Hundreds of people affected by the Manchester Arena bombing cannot continue legal action against MI5, judges have ruled.
More than 300 people, including survivors and those bereaved by the 2017 attack at an Ariana Grande concert, brought a case to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), claiming failures to take “appropriate measures” to prevent the incident infringed their human rights.
In a ruling on Friday, Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Farbey said the cases could not proceed as they were brought too late.
Lord Justice Singh said: “We are particularly conscious of the importance of the rights concerned… We are also conscious of the horrendous impact of the atrocity on the claimants and their families.
“Any reasonable person would have sympathy for them.
“The grief and trauma which they have suffered, particularly where young children were killed, is almost unimaginable.
“Nevertheless, we have reached the conclusion that, in all the circumstances, it would not be equitable to permit the claims to proceed.”
File pic: AP
Lord Justice Singh acknowledged that while the tribunal “readily understand” why the legal claims were not filed until after the final report from the inquiry into the attack, “real expedition” was needed at that point.
The judge added: “We bear in mind the other matters that had to be investigated and arrangements which had to be put in place but, in our view, the filing of the proceedings was not given the priority which, assessed objectively, it should have been.”
Had the claims gone ahead, the judge noted the security services would have needed to “divert time and resources to defending these proceedings rather than their core responsibilities” – which includes preventing future attacks.
Salman Abedi killed 22 people and injured hundreds when he detonated a rucksack bomb at the end of an Ariana Grande show at Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.
Manchester Arena bomber Salman Abedi
Hudgell Solicitors, Slater & Gordon and Broudie Jackson Canter, three of the law firms representing complainants affected, said the ruling was “extremely disappointing” for their clients.
In a statement, the firms said: “Ever since the attack in May 2017, our clients have had to endure continued delays but have done so with great patience and understanding in the hope that by allowing all legal processes to be fully explored, transparency and justice would be achieved.
“It took almost six years for the failings of MI5 to be revealed, confirmed when the inquiry chair published his volume three findings in March 2023, in which he said MI5 had missed a ‘significant opportunity’ to prevent the attack.
“This report concluded that within this six-year period, the security service corporate witnesses X and J gave evidence on oath that had presented an inaccurate picture, and the same inaccurate picture had been presented to Lord Anderson when he compiled his report in December 2017.”
Read more from Sky News:
‘Blood on their hands’: Could MI5 have prevented the Manchester attack?
Manchester attack survivors awarded £45k after suing man who claims it was a hoax
Police officers who went for kebab on night of terror attack given final warnings
The law firms said following these findings, their clients believed the IPT would “provide the route to the formal vindication of their human rights”.
The firms added: “We are disappointed that time is one of the reasons now being used against them to prevent their claims progressing. Seven years have now passed since the atrocity in May 2017 – six years of that seven-year delay was caused by MI5.
“This judgment certainly doesn’t exonerate MI5. There were failings by MI5 and multiple other parties leading up to and on the actual evening of 22 May 2017 and collectively we continue to support our clients in their fight for full accountability and justice.”
Police with members of the public after the attack. Pic: PA
The inquiry into the bombing found it might have been prevented if MI5 had acted on key intelligence received in the months before the attack.
The agency’s director-general, Ken McCallum, expressed deep regret that such intelligence was not obtained.
Two pieces of information about Abedi were assessed at the time by the security service to not relate to terrorism.
But inquiry chairman Sir John Saunders said, having heard from MI5 witnesses at the hearings, he considered that did not present an “accurate picture”.
Lawyers for those affected previously said the inquiry found there was a “real possibility” that one of the pieces of intelligence could have obtained information which may have led to actions preventing the attack.
And at the hearing earlier this month, Pete Weatherby KC, for those affected, described the IPT claims as “the next step” in vindication for his clients after the inquiry’s findings.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports8 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway