| upfront the roedean girl addendumscholarship |
|
It was
on condition of me retaking the scholarship and a personal letter to my parents from the Head Mistress, Mrs Patricia Metham, to nurture and encourage my creative talents, they accepted the place. However, my experience at the school was not to be normal from the start. A "personal” tutor failed to materialize as advertised. Neither could I sign-up in any of the extra-curricular Arts the school provided which I had hitherto been so accomplished in. When my end of term reports came, which were prematurely produced at half-term for the whole term, every report which was associated with the Arts was uncharacteristically poor. In November 2002, the Head informed my mother it was not possible for me to re-sit the Art Scholarship as an internal candidate, and neither was an alternate opportunity to apply for an internal award in Art offered. An examining report for Performance Arts suggests a retry for the following year.
Documents since supplied clearly show there had not been any mechanism in place for an Art or Performance Art Scholarship/Exhibition for my years when I applied, to be awarded. In fact they show I was assessed for a Music Scholarship, for which I had not applied for. Having hold of this information now it is very hard to reconcile how Roedean, knowing this, could try at first to discredit my artistic abilities, impugning me and my family's honesty; and then when I was at the school, not only in reports but in documents which came to light after my expulsion, Roedean would then go on to downplay my abilities, in some cases supplying records which negatively misrepresent me.
At the time of my schooling, my parents, making known to the Head Mistress the distressing wave of the school's discriminatory treatment of me when it became so overbearing by February 2002, were asked by Mrs Patricia Metham to put their concerns in writing in the strictest confidence with her promise to investigate, particularly in the case of witnessed evidence showing improper conduct from the Head of the Faculty of Creative Arts (Art, Design & Technology}, who was teaching me Design Technology. Again, this critical evidence, according to Roedean's solicitors, Lawrence Graham, was eventually admitted to have been destroyed prior to the later Hearing on my expulsion.
In breach of the schools own expressed procedures, an investigation did not take place as promised. I remained without Design Technology classes or course work at the school, while this faculty member, again in breach of the School’s Staff Disciplinary procedures, carried on as normal.
What was taking place unknown to my parents, was that the Head had made use of their confidential letter, and went on to circulate instructions that a legal situation was in the making, and for no staff to engage in writing to my parents'. A further memo revealed that all communications with my parents had to cease and be directed through the Head, including the pastoral care I was supposed to have, despite the Heads long absences from the school. I was to be isolated from both my peers and teachers. And yet my parent's had sought no legal counsel over the school. However it was clear from documents supplied, Roedean had been very busy with solicitors over my family. Why? |
 |
