Latest news with #PElesson
BBC News
5 days ago
- Sport
- BBC News
Parents back plan for fence at Cleobury Mortimer primary school
Parents in a Shropshire town are backing a primary school that said it wants to fence off its sports field to keep children Blount, who has two children at Cleobury Mortimer Primary School, said pupils had been at risk of aggressive dogs and their mess for too Gateway Educational Trust, which runs the school, said the boundary of the field needed to be made secure in the interest of some residents living in the town claimed they had a legal right to access the land at all times. "I'm sick and tired of my children having to try and pick up dog mess before a PE lesson," said parent Lee Blount."I went to this school as a child and there has always been a problem with people walking their dogs."The 45-year-old claimed "99% of parents" with children at the school wanted a fence. The recreation ground off Love Lane is essentially two fields in one, with no physical boundary separating them. Cleobury Mortimer Town Council owns the larger field to the west, while Shropshire Council leases the smaller plot to the east of the adjoining primary school. Sarita Smith, who has two children at the school, said parents had complained about their children going home from school with dog poo on their shoes and uniform."It's a health and safety issue," she said. "It would be so much more secure with a fence and if we've got that opportunity now then let's do it."A covenant in the deeds, agreed in 1973 by the then-parish and county councils, stated residents should have access to the school field "at all times for the purpose of informal recreational activities," providing they do not "unreasonably interfere with organised school activities in progress". Parent Grainger Jones, who has recently organised several community cricket tournaments, said there was also a covenant permitting a cricket pitch, which would not be possible if a fence divided the two fields."All of a sudden, a big educational trust has come along and used their legal might to try and grab the land from the community," said Mr Jones, whose daughter attends the primary school."If the school wants to put the kids behind fences, then they can walk over to the nearby senior school and access the all the fenced-off playing fields there. It's all part of the same trust."The town council said it wanted to hear from the community before agreeing to, or fighting against, the fence. It has criticised the school trust for not engaging enough with the community and for not undertaking a public town council said: "No compromise has been offered by the school and sadly, Shropshire Council are not concerned about a fence, despite being reminded of the covenants."The school engaged the services of a solicitor who also disputes the covenants and the public use of the land, even at weekends, and this action has set back communications."The council was approached for comment but directed the BBC to the Shropshire Gateway Education Trust. "The Shropshire Gateway Educational Trust is dedicated to doing its best for children and this includes safeguarding," the trust said in a statement."The boundary of the school field needs to be made secure and we have spent, and continue to spend, considerable time liaising with the community over a resolution."A second public meeting organised by the town council will take place on 4 September. Follow BBC Shropshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
The Independent
06-08-2025
- Sport
- The Independent
PE teacher banned after allowing pupil with broken foot to play football
A PE teacher has been struck off after encouraging a student to play football with a broken foot and trying to persuade him to lie about it. Oliver Barker, 28, was teaching football at Percy Hedley School in Tyne and Wear when he allowed the pupil to take part in the sport in 2023. The child was only allowed to play in the net or practice ball skills due to the injury, at the instruction of the school's physiotherapist. During the PE lesson, the pupil shouted at a teaching assistant that he wanted to 'play out of net', who told him he would be sent back to a classroom if he tried to. But minutes later, the schoolchild was on the pitch and was aggressively tackled before limping off and 'rolling on the floor' while shouting in pain, a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) panel heard in July. The pupil then said 'Mr Barker let me play' when challenged, with witnesses telling the TRA the PE teacher had told him he could 'play at his own risk'. The same witness said Mr Barker was aware of the pupil's injury as he had previously sat out of Mr Barker's lesson due to his injured foot. It was understood that the student was supposed to wear a boot on his foot but refused to do so, and should not be allowed to play in the field because he 'tackles aggressively and takes it too far'. Mr Barker then asked the student to tell investigators he was in goal when the injury happened, which had been allowed by the physiotherapist as it was non-contact. He told the pupil: 'It happened when you were in goal', to which he responded: 'Nah, I was playing football and that idiot tackled us.' Mr Barker then said: 'Try that again, it happened when you were in goal, didn't it.' Mr Barker also pulled the teaching assistant out of another class later in the day and asked her: 'So what are we saying [about the accident]?' He told her: 'So he started in goal, came out, got tackled, and I didn't say he could play.' The next day, she saw he had written a report which didn't reflect what had happened, which she said made her feel 'uncomfortable'. Last year, Mr Barker admitted the allegations and that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. TRA decision maker Marc Cavey said: 'The decisions Mr Barker had made following the incident which had the effect of concealing what had happened had serious implications for safeguarding, and undermines the trust that can be placed in him. 'The panel considered that Mr Barker's conduct could potentially damage the public's perception of a teacher. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Barker's actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.' Mr Barker was banned indefinitely from teaching in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children's home in England. He has the right to appeal against the decision within 28 days, and he can apply for the order to be set aside two years after it was made. If he does apply, a panel will meet to consider this.
