Although the panel concluded the allegations about the situation at Sidlaw View were exaggerated, they said they’d focused attention on an issue which was important to pupils, parents and staff in all schools.

The panel was headed by retired Angus Council chief executive and former Tayside Regional Council education director Sandy Watson (today named as new chairman of NHS Tayside — see report on page 11), Independent city councillor Ian Borthwick and Dundee Presbytery clerk the Rev. James L. Wilson.

Claims of problems at the school were brought to public attention by the husband of the depute head Linda Ross, who has been suspended from her post.

In an email to Angus MSP Andrew Welsh and copied to the local Press, Mr Vic Ross said he was becoming increasingly concerned for his wife’s safety.

He claimed school staff were being verbally and physically attacked on a daily basis by pupils, and also verbally and physically threatened by parents, who were able to wander the school at will.

Specifically, Mr Ross said the police had been called to the school on August 23 to an incident involving two families who had caused a riot by throwing chairs at each other in front of Primary 1 pupils and other parents and toddlers waiting to have their photographs taken.

Although on-the-spot fines were issued, Mr Ross said the families involved had been allowed to return to the school shortly afterwards to have their photos taken.

Further claims regarding inadequate security at the school, a classroom assistant without specialised training being left alone with several violent pupils, drug users being found on the premises without authority and a lack of action on violence report forms, were also made by Mr Ross.

The inquiry panel conducted a series of interviews with Mr and Mrs Ross, all the staff at Sidlaw View including the head teacher, education director Anne Wilson, and several members of the directorate.

There was also consultation with parents and the police.

A report from Tayside Police detailed a list of 28 calls, of varying degrees of severity, to the school in just over a year to September past.

In the context of the Kirkton area, where the school lies, the police did not assess the profile of calls as excessive.

There were no reports of staff being regularly exposed to violence and, while it was accepted drug users might enter the school, this was in the form of parents with drug problems.

A number of recommendations on security at the school, to be implemented quickly, were made by the police and aimed at restricting access and ensuring staff were aware of who was being admitted to the premises.

Equipment controlling entry to the school should be replaced and an external video camera repositioned to make it more effective.

In the longer term, callers should not be given access to the main area of the school unless accompanied by a staff member, and a secure waiting and public counter area should be created.

The panel said they supported the police recommendations on security, which was an issue that “must be addressed as a matter of urgency”.

Referring to the allegations made by Mr Ross, the panel said there was no evidence of staff — teaching or non-teaching — having been attacked on a daily basis, although poor behaviour by a small number of pupils appeared to be a regular occurrence.

“It is accepted there are some difficult children, but there is a general view across those interviewed that this allegation is exaggerated, particularly in respect of physical violence,” the panel said.

“All of the staff said attacks had happened, but not on a daily, or even a weekly, basis.”

Parents’ views were mixed, with some believing violent incidents took place frequently, while others took the view verbal abuse was more common, but no worse than in other schools.

The panel said no one had accepted the claim that staff were being verbally and physically threatened with violence by parents who wandered the school at will.

As far as the alleged riot on August 23 was concerned, the panel said everyone, without exception, confirmed that what had been claimed to have happened was accurate, except the parents who returned to the school were sent away by the head teacher.

“Parents who witnessed the incident — and particularly those who had Primary 1 children with them — spoke of their distress at such a thing happening in a school,” the panel said. The classroom assistant said to have been left with six violent pupils had received training, and also had experience of dealing with such incidents from previous work elsewhere in Dundee.

Staff did not accept Mr Ross’s contention about the frequency of violent incident report forms being submitted.

However, one staff member, who had been involved in a number of incidents, said she’d never been approached by education department staff to ask about any support she might need, and felt that complaints disappeared into a “black hole” at Tayside House.

Another staff member, who had experience of action being taken following a number of incidents, said she was not sure what additional support could be given, and was unaware of any gaps.

Mrs Ross claimed to be concerned for her own safety, but had never submitted any violent incident forms on her own behalf.

The panel’s view was that the education department had a system for monitoring violent incidents, but there was a question about how effective that system was in triggering action, and whether it was appropriately resourced to do so.

On the question of whether Mr and Mrs Ross had acted in good faith, the panel said, “We are convinced there was a genuine fear on the part of Mr and Mrs Ross that the position at Sidlaw View Primary School put the safety of staff and pupils at risk. However, the panel found them less convincing in other respects.

“We have found no evidence Mrs Ross raised her concerns formally either with the head teacher or the Director of Education before her husband decided to pursue the matter via Andrew Welsh and the Press.

“In interview, Mr Ross said that in his list of allegations he had been quoting from various discussions with staff and parents and from what he had heard from his wife in the evening.

“Staff, who were interviewed on the clear understanding nothing anyone said would be attributable, denied any such discussion and, indeed, some had never met him. None of the parents interviewed indicated they had discussed allegations with him.

“There was a strong feeling amongst many of those interviewed that Mrs Ross had antagonised some parents and had acted unprofessionally with regard to her superior.

“Everyone, including Mrs Ross herself, acknowledged a difference in philosophy and a tension between Mrs Ross and her superior in the school.”

Despite having been impressed by many elements of the school, the panel said there were issues of delegation, communication and the deployment of resources which needed to be addressed through a school review and an adjustment of the head teacher’s continuing professional development programme.

“The panel’s conclusion is that Mr Ross’s allegations were exaggerated and were a completely inappropriate means of trying to resolve the situation.”

The panel said they found it “an odd coincidence” that Mr Ross’s email had gone to Mr Welsh and the Press on a day when complaints from parents about Mrs Ross were due for discussion.