Copland School Six must pay back 'swindled' money to Brent Council

 

Hank Roberts, the union representative whose courageous whistle blowing eventually led to today's outcome

 A former head teacher, who arranged to pay himself a whopping £400,000 in one year, and former colleagues face paying back thousands of pounds they received unlawfully as part of a school bonuses scandal.

Alan Davies, the former Head teacher of Copland Community School in Wembley, alongside former Deputy Head, Dr Richard Evans, former HR Manager Michele McKenzie and former School Bursar Columbus Udokoro were found to have benefitted from the “vast sums” they received in illicit bonuses over several years before Mr Davies was suspended in May 2009.

Davies, who had previously been knighted for services to education, took home more than £400,000 in one year, three times the going rate for the job, and was convicted of false accounting in 2013. He was stripped of his knighthood in 2014 following his conviction. The High Court today (17 August) found that his justifications for the excessive payments were “patently untrue” and “false”.

The purported bonuses to Davies and the others were sanctioned by former Chair of Governors Dr Indravadan Patel and former Vice Chair of Governors, Martin Day, both of whom were criticised by the Judge for “dishonest breach of fiduciary duty”, “wholesale failures” and “reckless indifference”.

Mr Davies, Dr Patel and Mr Day were today found by the High Court to have breached their fiduciary duties to the Council, leading to losses of more than £1million. Dr Evans, Mr Udokoro and Ms McKenzie were found to have been in knowing receipt of payments arising from those breaches of duties. 

The exact sums that each of the six must now pay back will be decided at a further Court Hearing in October.

Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader of Brent Council, said:

We are delighted with the verdict as it means the money, which had been swindled, will be returned and can now be used for the benefit of local people.

Davies and his chums were arrogantly paying themselves ridiculously high and unjustified bonuses, including Davies pocketing a whopping £400,000 in one year – which is around three times the going rate for the job.

It has taken years of stamina and determination to win this victory but justice has finally been done.

The verdict comes five years after a criminal conviction was secured against Mr Davies at Southwark Crown Court, who pleaded guilty to false accounting at the school. Copland Community School closed on 31 August 2014. A new school, the Ark Elvin Academy, opened on the same site on 1 September 2014.

Hank Roberts, the original whistle-blower on the case and a member of the National Education Union  Joint Executive Council said:

Brent Council was totally justified and I praise its commendable action in bringing a High Court case against Alan Davies et al. Davies had already been given a 12-month sentence, suspended for two years for pleading guilty to six charges of false accounting. He was subsequently stripped of his knighthood. However, none of the large sums misappropriated were ever paid back. Davies received over £400,000 in a single year alone.

Justice Zacaroli’s judgement found against a conspiracy charge; but found that all six defendants had received and or authorised receipt of large sums from the school funds that were totally unjustified. Those in receipt will now have to pay back their ill-gotten gains.

I, and the other school Reps, Shane Johnschwager, NASUWT and John Kubenk, NUT were suspended by Davies and faced dismissal charges after I blew the whistle. Later Davies was suspended and we were reinstated. I, the Unions and the Council have been totally vindicated.

It was tough at the time, but I would encourage all who discover anything similar to whistleblow.

This is occurring far too often especially in academies that have totally inadequate system of financial oversight and control.

To lessen this corruption, all academies should be brought back under local authority control.

Teacher unions' joint statement on supporting children after Grenfell

-->

Grenfell: Joint statement by ATL, AEP, NAHT and NUT about need for housing for the children who survived and for support for their schools & classmates.

  "In the aftermath of the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower,  teachers, school leaders and psychologists offer their deepest sympathy to the thousands of people whose lives have been affected by it. We give our sincere respect, once more, to our valiant emergency services. 

We call on the government and on the local authority to support the magnificent work of local schools and  take immediate measures to provide for the security, shelter and well-being of North Kensington’s children.

All families who have been affected by the fire should be housed as quickly as possible in high-quality accommodation in the immediate area, if that is what they wish.

School is one area of children’s lives which can provide them with care and stability.  It is essential that children continue to attend their own school, with teachers and other staff who know them and can support them, and their families.  We know that those who work in education are rising to this challenge. They will need the full support of those around them. 

All schools which have on their roll children from Grenfell Tower, and the area around it, must be provided with counsellors and other necessary resources.  

The government and the local authority must ensure that provision is in place throughout the summer months, and in the years ahead.

The residents of Grenfell Tower feel that they have been failed by a system that should have protected them. We now have a chance to show them a different face of government - one that takes responsibility for their care and support when they are most vulnerable. 

Mary Bousted, Association of Teachers & Lecturers

Kate Fallon, Association of Educational Psychotherapists

Russell Hobby, National Association of Head Teachers

Kevin Courtney, National Union of Teachers

Merged teacher amalgamation will be 'a mighty force for progress'

Later today the ATL and NUT will officially announce the results of their unity ballots to amalgamate the two unions and to create of the National Education Union (NEU).

UNIFY, a cross union body, is confident that the majority of teachers and support staff recognise the need for, and support, greater unity and that the results will be a decisive YES.

Hank Roberts, Organising Secretary of UNIFY said:

We have been campaigning for a massive advance like this for 20 years. It will change the face of education in our country. It will not be panacea, but it will make us seriously stronger and better able to challenge the Government’s planned continuation of the privatisation of our state education system and the huge funding cutbacks currently proposed.

Our next step has to be to move to take this burgeoning unity further. The NEU union will be over 400,000 strong. A union of all education workers would be one million strong. A mighty force for progress.

Our congratulations to all the members, Officers and Officials of both unions who made it happen. And also to our own activists and supporters for all their efforts over the years. Time to move forward. A new dawn awaits.

NUT-ATL amalgamation will strengthen fight against government regression

I welcome the news that the NUT and ATL decided yesterday at separate conferences to ballot their members on  the two bodies amalagamating to form the National Education Union.  This is absolutely essential at a time when government polcies on funding, grammar schools and academisation need strong opposition.  There is some background HERE

Particular congratulations must go to local teacher trade unionists Jean and Hank Roberts who have been campaigning for this outcome for many years.

This is the NUT's statement after yesterday's decisions:


The NUT and ATL held special conferences on Saturday 5 November at which delegates welcomed the progress made in negotiations on the amalgamation of the two unions to form a new union. The conferences endorsed the rules of the new union, to be called the National Education Union. This decision will now be put to the members of both unions for approval in ballots to be held in the spring term.

In welcoming the decisions of the two conferences General Secretary, Kevin Courtney, said: “This is an historic day for teacher trade unionism. We have advocated professional unity for many years, and this is a big step towards realising our goal of a strong unified profession and a powerful union which would be a significant force for teachers, education and the trade union movement.”

This document answers frequently asked questions about the moves towards professional unity on the part of the ATL and NUT.

The National Union of Teachers has been pursuing the policy of trade union unity for all teachers for many years. We believe that all teachers in all schools in England and Wales should be united in one organisation. It makes sense for a number of reasons.

The new union would have almost half a million members and would be a powerful force in education and the trade union movement. The government and employers would need to take such an organisation seriously and would not be able to deploy the policy of divide and rule. The new organisation would be more economical to run and would target members' subscriptions on matters important to teachers and education rather than on competitive recruitment between the unions.

For these reasons we have an open invitation to all other teachers' unions to come and talk about setting up a new union for all teachers for a more effective and efficient means of representing the profession.

Challenge issued to NASUWT as NUT and ATL set to ballot on education union merger

Hank Roberts, a long-time exponent of the need for one education union and Organising Secretary of  UNIFY has issued the following statement ahead the special conferences of the ATL and NUT to be held on Saturday. The conferences will decide whether to ballot members on proposals to merge the two unions.

Special conferences of the ATL and NUT will be held in London on November 5th. It will be an historic day for the education unions. Prediction is fraught with dangers but may I be so bold as to predict that both unions will have an overwhelming majority for going forward to a ballot of their respective memberships. Further I have no doubt that the respective memberships will return a yes vote in their ballots. Opinion polls over the years have repeatedly shown a majority in favour of uniting the unions. And why wouldn’t they? Our experience shows we have suffered because of our division in the face of ruthless government attacks on education. 

The question is why has it taken this long to break the logjam? I and others in 1996 set up a cross union body campaigning for professional unity. We called it Professional Unity 2000 in the somewhat optimistic belief that it was such a self-evidently good idea we would be able to achieve it by the year 2000.

In the event it has taken us 20 years and we detailed some of the history and events surrounding this in our 20th anniversary issue of our magazine UNIFY which was handed out at this year’s annual education union conferences.

Our immediate task is to win the ballots by the biggest majority possible and, immediately the ink is dry on our agreement, for the new union to take our great cause to the rest of our colleagues in the other education unions. The new union, the National Education Union, will have 500,000 members and be the fourth largest union in the TUC. But a union of all of us working in education would be over 1 million. A mighty force to be reckoned with. It would not be a magic solution to all our problems, but it would make a major difference to getting the Government to take our voice seriously. 

The other education unions need to reflect on the results of this and why it happened, in particular the NASUWT. My challenge to Chris Keates, NASUWT General Secretary is; you say the majority of your NASUWT members don’t believe in and don’t want a single united education union. In that case prove it. Commission an independent opinion poll of your members.

If they back your stance you can legitimately continue with NASUWT as a separate union with you as its head. If they don’t, start informal talks towards building unity further. The education barbarians are not just at the gates, they are in the stockades. We need to unite to have any chance of saving state education, and to build a future education system worthy of our children.

Unions hail 'new era of stability' for Sudbury Primary Academy

In a joint statement today the ATL, GMB and NUT in Brent announced that the suspended headteacher of Sudbury Primary Academy has resigned.

The unions had threatened joint strike action if headteacher Uma Pandya returned to the school. LINK

Hank Roberts, an ATL Executive member and Branch secretary, said that a 'punitive Ofsted system' and lack of local authority oversight of academies was leading to an increase in allegations of headteacher bullying.

He said that the abandonment of the government's academisation programme and a more supportive inspection system would greatly improve matters.

The statement said:

All the unions congratulate the staff for standing up for themselves and the pupils. We also thank the new Chair of governors, Ian Phillips, for his professional approach throughout this difficult period and helping to get the school back on track. We look forward to a new era of stability for the school where everyone will be working together to deliver the very best for the children.

SOS: SAVE OUR SCHOOLS Westminster Cathedral 5.30pm tonight - we can defeat these plans

I hear teachers will be joined by some head teachers and governors, as well as hundreds concerned that their schools are being stolen, at this evening's protest against government plans to force all schools to become academies. Unfortunately a Brent Council briefing meeting for head teachers and chairs of governors is being held at the same time so I won't be able to go.  I hope thousands turn out to show the government that their plans will be met with resistance - not only to defend democratic oversight of education but also to prevent privatisation of our schools.

It is important to stress that the plans are only at White Paper stage, they are not legislation, so heads and governors should not be panicked into premature action. The proposals are being opposed by the Local Government Association, Tory shire counties, the NAHT and parent groups, and (see below) the Financial Times and even David Cameron's own Tory local lead on schools. It is a battle that can be won.

A petition calling for a public inquiry and referendum on the plans has already gained 130,000 signatures and organisers hope for even more. 100,000 earns the possibility of a House of Commons debate on the issue. Please sign LINK

Meanwhile the Financial Times has raised doubts about the plans:

Even the Tory lead for schools in David Cameron's home country has denounced the plans as 'Big Brother Gone Mad':

The last word goes to cartoonist Ros Asquith:

Unions call for removal of uncertainty at Sudbury Primary School and look forward to positive working relationship

Officers of the Brent Association of Teachers and Lecturers and National Union of Teachers met with Ian Phillips the new Chair of Governors of Sudbury Primary Academy School yesterday. They said that they looked forward to a positive  working relationship with him and the new governing body.

Staff at the school have voted for strike action if the suspended headteacher returns. The unions anticipate that the imminent Ofsted report will criticise the management of the school but give it a 'Good' grade in other areas.

The unions said:

The governing body will have up to two months to resolve the situation before any action would have to be taken. The Headteacher been suspended since  early November. We are confident that staff and unions working together with the Governing body will mean that the school will thrive and continue to give the children the excellent teaching that Ofsted recognises in their report. In the interests of the staff and pupils, the matter needs to be resolved as speedily as possible to remove this uncertainty about the future. 

Staff and the unions wish to make it clear to parents, the public and Ofsted that strike action will only happen if absolutely necessary to protect staff and children. Further, neither staff nor their unions have any complaint or concerns about any other members of the senior leadership team (SLT). They have done and are continuing to do an excellent job.  SLT are now able to work well with all the staff and there is a new purpose and direction, ably led by Kamini Mistry the acting headteacher.

Councillor pledges to arrange talks on community concerns over 'counter-productive' Prevent Strategy

Cllr Harbi Farah pledged to arrange talks between community organisations concerned about the Prevent Strategy and Cllr James Denselow (lead member for Stronger Communities) or Cllr Muhammed Butt (leader of Brent Council).

The pledge was made at a public meeting where strong objections to the Strategy; which makes it a statutory duty for the Council, schools, colleges, health and social services to report anyone thought to be in danger of becoming an 'extremist' to the authorities; were voiced.

Cllr Michael Pavey, who was attending another event sent a message to the meeting:

I think Prevent is completely flawed. At best it is patronising to our Muslim communities and at worst it is utterly alienating and therefore completely counter-productive.

Cllr Margaret McLennan had also indicated her opposition 'for obvious reasons' while Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent North, told the meeting on Syria a few weeks ago that the Labour Party was critical of the government's Prevent programme. It was a top-down model rather than the bottom0up approach that could harness forces at a community level.

However, Humera Khan of the An-Nisa Society, which has run a Muslim Sunday School at Park Lane Primary School for 30 years, told the meeting that they had repeatedly asked the council to arrange a meeting with headteachers to establish a meeting where a constructive dialogue could take place with headteachers about the issues involved. There had been no response and eventually An-Nisa had given up. This was despite the fact that the Strategy was supposed to be 'community led'.

Humera juxtaposed the impact of the Prevent Strategy on the Muslim community with the requirements of Brent's 2015 Equality policy. The default position of Prevent was that Muslim=Violent Extremism, the whole community was being stigmatised and marginalised.

Khalida Khan, of the An-Nisa Society, emphasised that teachers were not a branch of the Intelligence Survey.  Reminding the audience of institutional failures over child protection she suggested that there was a huge potential for institutional failure on Prevent and gave the example of a primary school where the first names of pupils felt to be in danger of 'radicalisation; were publicly released.

The danger is that the Prevent Strategy is helping fuel Islamophobia. A recent Public Attitudes Survey had found that 71% of those surveyed thought that Islam was incompatible with British culture and 45% of Britons think there are too many Muslims in the country.

Khalida said that Muslim parents were now worried about the normal 'wierd or funny' things that all children say might now get them into trouble.  Sympathy for the plight of refugees could now be seen as extremist.

She spoke of the effect on the Muslim community, which already felt excluded, of their children and young people being monitored. It would affect mental health and feelings of exclusion and negatively affect parenting.  Making people afraid to speak out would damage the Muslim psyche and undermine self-respect and sense of belonging.

The Strategy put communities against each other and the promulgation of 'British Values' implied that only the British had these values, while in fact they were universal.

Khalida suggested that the ultimate goal was to abolish the Prevent Strategy, for the Council to work with others to pressure the government for its abolition, and meanwhile find ways of legally working around it. There was a need to adress the needs of Muslims as citizens.

Rizwan Hussain, speaking for Brent Anti Racism Campaign and the community organisation Jawaab, gave the example of a young man, Abdul, and how he was experiencing the present climate.

Abdul had been stopped and searched on the way to his mosque. This was an invasion of what he thought of as his 'safe place' - a place of solace and a constant in his life which offered protection and role models.

Abdul was scared about the attitudes he was now encountering which included attacks on his hijab wearing sisters. His personal and social spaces were being invaded by Islamophobia.

Rizwan said that in Jawaab's work with young people discussions of foreign policy figured but there were also  major concerns over mental health and unemployment that needed to be addressed. Young people needed safe spaces where they can gain empowerment to become leaders, develop the skills to tackle difficult situations, develop self-empowerment to make change in their own lives.

These spaces could not be created under Prevent, because people like Abdul won't engage with that strategy, but created by organisations experienced in this area. Facilitators would help youth use their experience to create resilient young people, educating them but giving them power to make decisions.

Bill Bolloten, from Education Not Surveillance, welcomed the meeting as a 'conversation about Prevent' and a way of arriving at strategies to deal with the issue.  There were different experiences at different ages in the education system with Prevent starting at the Early Years Foundation Stage. The Ofsted requirement that schools should pay 'due regard' to the Strategy  and that this was part of the Ofsted inspection, meant that nursery and school staff had to monitor children for extremism/radicalisation and provide evidence that staff had been trained in the Strategy.

Training materials were not openly available and there was no empirical evidence justifying the theory behind the 'signs and indicators of radicalisation'  that trainers gave.

Counter-terrorism experts had said that the Prevent Strategy indicated a 'shallow understanding of the radicalisation process'.

Despite the short-comings referrals to Channel (the conduit for passing on concerns about individuals and families) had gone up from 20 in 2012 to 424 last year, half of which had come from education.

Bill agreed that prevent was fuelling anti-Muslim prejudice. A survey of 6,000 pupils had found  widespread anti-Muslim feeling. Pupils had estimated an average figures of 36% for the Muslim population of the country whereas it was actually 5%.

Bill concluded with the recommendation that we should ensure schools are safe places for Muslim pupils. We should make sure that they feel they belong. A dialogue with school headteachers and governors should be established. We need better ways of understanding our duties under the Equality Act.

Rob Ferguson of the NUT and Newham Stand Up to Racism said that Prevent also applied to supplementary schools and classes and was a bridgehead to attack the whole community through young people. The Newham statement (see below) had been conceived at a local level by Muslim and non-Muslims to put pressure on the council to break with the Prevent agenda.

Rob said that both Newham and Brent were in the top 10 for attacks on Muslims on London. There had been a 300% increase in attacks.  He spoke about the fire bombing of the East London Mosque and how hate crimes were being unreported. Muslim teaching staff were avoiding using public transport and not wearing the hijab in public. Parents were telling their children to keep silent in class - 'Don't mention the War' was no longer a joke.

After the softer Post 9/11 versions of Prevent where organisation took government money to promote social cohesion the Counter Terrorism and Security Act in February amounted to state promotion of Islamophobia. He warned that the next round of legislation citing 'reasonable justification' could be widened to a whole group of other issues.

Kiri Tunks speaking for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign on the impact of Prevent on education about the issue said, 'If you can't talk about Palestine, there's something wrong with our society'.   A film about Palestine for classroom use had been attacked as being anti-Semitic as a way of silencing discussion. Now in the current situation  students tended to be silent and teachers frightened. Tis emphasised the need for schools to provide 'safe spaces'  for children to talk about contemporay issues.

Hank Roberts, of the ATL, speaking from the floor commented that even during the worse of the IRA bombing campaign teachers had not been asked to spy on Irish children in the classroom for signs of IRA sympathies.  We need to see through this nonsense, and incidentally reclaim the term 'radical' - 'there's nothing wrong with Radical. 'I'm a radical'.

Malia Bouattia from the National Union of Students was unable to attend but send this message:

We're encouraging Student Unions and student officers to take up a stance of non-compliance with PREVENT and working with academics and staff to undermine the implementation of the Prevent duty and essentially, make it unworkable in practice.

We've had over 30 Student Unions now pass policy to this effect.

The NUS Black Students' Campaign have produced a student handbook to PREVENT and campaigning against it which is available online.

We're also encouraging students to lobby their university/college to come out against PREVENT but so far we're at early days of the campaign and are prioritising raising students' awareness of PREVENT and getting them to build opposition amongst students and academics on their campuses.

Shahrar Ali,  deputy leader of the Green Party told the meeting that the Prevent Strategy was counter-productive on its own terms. he said, 'You can't fight injustice by perpetrating injustice'.

Commenting that  the Secretary of State can direct universities to comply with the Prevent Duty he asked,  'How can you not encourage contestation of ideas in universities? Students must be free to explore and discuss.'

Shahrar described the Prevent Strategy training he had undergone and the spurious video example of of extremism.

He concluded by pledging the Green Party's opposition to Prevent.

Cllr Harbi Farah, who attended after Cllr James Denselow (Lead member for Stronger Communities) and Cllr Liz Dixon (leading on Prevent) had been unable to attend, stressed that he was not t the meeting to defend Brent Council. He said that the Muslim community itself was diverse and many in it do not even know what Prevent is. The Council had a statutory responsibility to operate the Strategy but because secondary schools were now all  academies (MF or faith schools) the council had little influence over them.

Harbi committed himself to try and improve the relationship between the voluntary sector and the Council and arrange a meeting with Cllr Denselow or Cllr Muhammed Butt.

In addition to the proposed meeting with councillors it was also decided to formulate a statement similar to that from Newham (see below) and develop the Monitoring Prevent in Brent Facebook so that people could report what is happening on the ground.

Strike threat at Sudbury Primary School

Staff at Sudbury Primary School in Brent passed a vote of no confidence in the headteacher and governance of the school by 43 votes to 3 last night. The headteacher is currently suspended, which is deemed a 'neutral act', while allegations are investigated.

Staff from NASUWT, ATL, GMB and NUT approved the following resolution after a lengthy discussion about events at the school:

This meeting expresses no confidence in the headteacher and governance of Sudbury Primary and calls for the immediate removal of the headteacher from her post.

If this demand is not agreed we call on our unions to ballot us for sustained strike action.

Union sources said that they were concerned that an attempt is being made to undermine the independent investigation report that led to the suspension of the headteacher and the sequence of events that should flow from the report.

Sudbury Primary is the only Brent primary school to voluntarily convert to academy status. It became an Academy in September 2012. Academy status means that the local education authority has limited intervention powers.

Staff unions are currently challenging moves by Oakington Manor and Furness Primary schools to convert to academy status.

Public meeting on primaries' move to convert to academy status

So far among Brent primary schools  only Sudbury Primary School has voluntarily converted to academy status. Other primaries have been forced to academise after critical Oftsed reports often in the teeth of fierce staff and parental opposition.

In a surprise move Oakington Manor anf Furness Primary schools, part of a 'hard' federation, are reported to be looking to voluntarily convert to academy status.

Teacher unions are organising a public meeting to discuss the issue on Thursday 12th November at St Marks Church Hall, Bathurst Gardens, Kensal Rise, NW10 5HX

Direct action needed to challenge the Trade Union Bill

The government's Trade Union Bill represents an assault on the last bastion of opposition to neo-liberalism a crowded meeting at Learie Constantine Centre heard last night. The meeting, organised by Brent Central Labour Party and Brent Trades Union Council, heard from John Burgess of Barnet Unison, Michael Brady of Unite the Resistance, Ian Hodson of the Bakers' union BFAWU and Hank Roberts of the ATL.  Dawn Butler, MP for Brent Central rounded off the discussion with an account of current events in Parliament.

Although they addressed the issue from different perspectives all contributors emphasised the seriousness of the attack on trade union rights and its potential impact on conditions of employment and social justice.

John Burgess, who is currently standing for election as General Secretary of Unison LINK outlined the exemplary Unison campaign in Barnet against the council's privatisation agenda which will see most services out-sourced. He said that he'd had a meeting with Muhammed Butt, Labour leader of Brent Council, to tell him not to get into bed with Barnet Council. 

Michael Brady spoke of the need to put words into action and for direct action against unjust laws as soon as any one union or group of workers fell victim to the laws. This was echoed by Ian Hodson who said they 'can't put all of us in prison'. He said the right to withdraw our labour is what makes the duifference between a worker and a slave.

From the floor, Peter Murry, Secretary of the Green Party Trade Union Group, read out Caroline Lucas' statement  denouncing the Bill as a 'savage and vindictive assault on UK employment rights' and underlying her willingness to take part in non-violent direct action if necessary to challenge an unjust law. Dawn Butler remarked that she did not want to end up in prison but clearly saw that as a possibility of the law went through.

Hank Roberst said,  'We must never  underestimate the ruthlessness of these people' and went on to give the context of the assault i education  where first the government had bribed schools to become academies, then threatened them, then forced indiivudual schools to seek sponsors and were now trying to force all schools to become academies. The final destination was for schools to be ru for profit.

In a contributionfrom the floor I spoke about the need to be aware of, and build solidarity, over other attempts to curb rights in the Counter Extremism Bill, Prevent Strategy, Extremism Disruption Orders and plans to repeal the Human Rights Act. The Trade Union Bill was part of a wider strategy to use the label of Extremist against those challenging the governemnt and turn us all into 'Domesticated Moderates'.

There will be a lobby of parliament on the TU Bill on Monday November 2nd. Details below:

For those who can't make the lobby there will be an 'After Work' protest on Mondat at 6pm in Parliament Square. Organised by the Trade Union Co-ordinating Group the speakers will include Matt Wrack (FBU General Secretary), Christine Blower (NUT General Secreary), Steve Gillian (POA General Secretary) Jo Stevens MP, Lisa Cameron MP and Natalie Bennett (Leader, Green Party).

'Are the kids alright?' Green Party Conference hears an emphatic 'NO!'

The current crisis in education, and in the nature of childhood itself, has been a recurrent themes at recent Green Party conferences. The Green Party education policy has won plaudits from many involved in challenging the Conservative's neoliberal agenda and the GERM (Global Education Reform Movement).

Greens challenge 'factory schooling', with its emphasis on high stakes testing and the grading of both children and their teachers, along with the associated narrowing of the curriculum and the undermining of teachers' professionalism.

In this we make common cause with teacher associations including the NUT and ATL, the Save Childhood Movement, the Too Much Too Soon campaign and the Anti academies Alliance and many others.  

The NUT-ATL fringe this year focused on the impact on children, especially early labelling as failures, stress and mental illness.

In my intervention I praisedthe many  teachers who despite all the pressures from the DfE, Ofsted and sometimes their own senior management, and the resulting heavy workload and exhaustion, still do their best to give children an enriching school experience with a broad and creative curriculum that fosters curiosity about the world and the joy of learning. I suggested parents and governors should go out of their way to encourage such teachers by praising the work that they do.

These are extracts from the three main presentations:

 

 

 

United campaign against Baseline Assessment calls for support from parents and teachers

England’s leading early years organisations have united with teaching unions in opposing the September 2015 introduction of Baseline Assessment.

In response to the government’s announcement on approved Baseline Assessment providers leading organisations, including the Save Childhood Movement, the Pre-school Learning Alliance, The British Association for Early Childhood Education (Early Education), TACTYC:The Association for Professional Development in Early Years and the National Association for Primary Education (NAPE) have launched a new joint campaign, Better without Baseline, opposing the introduction. They have been joined by the National Union of Teachers (NUT) and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) – which between them represent the majority of primary teachers in England.

The campaign is also supported by leading academics, including Dr David Whitebread, Senior Lecturer in the Psychology of Education, University of Cambridge, and Dr Pam Jarvis, Senior Lecturer, Institute of Childhood and Education, Leeds Trinity University. Other high-profile figures who have voiced their opposition to the plans include: Wendy Scott, OBE, President of TACTYC; Professor Cathy Nutbrown [Chair of The Nutbrown Review into Qualifications for Early Years workers]; Sue Palmer, literacy expert and author of Toxic Childhood; Dr Richard House, Founding Fellow of The Critical Institute and children’s authors Philip Pullman and Michael Rosen.

A Change.org petition against the tests has already attracted more than 6,500 signatures.

Despite considerable expert opposition, and against the recommendations of the government’s own consultation process, the schemes are being introduced as an accountability measure to ‘help school effectiveness’ by scoring each pupil at the start of reception. 

Schools were initially asked to choose from a list of six approved commercial providers, which have now been reduced to three. Although the tests will remain optional, the campaign is concerned that there has been significant pressure on headteachers to adopt a baseline scheme to mitigate against the risk of punitive measures if their schools do not reach the government’s raised floor standards when the Reception cohort reaches the end of Key Stage 2. It also queries the statistical comparability and validity of such different approaches.

Although some schemes take a more observational approach, the joint alliance fundamentally disagrees with their use as tools of school accountability.

The DfE requires that the assessments be carried out for all children within six weeks of starting Reception, on a “pass/fail” basis for each scoring item, and with a narrow set of results being condensed to a single score. The alliance questions the validity and predictive value of the results, and is concerned about teacher time being diverted away from helping children with settling in and learning. Opponents of baseline assessment also question the value for money of the scheme, which is expected to cost around £4 million.

Similar baseline tests were introduced by the Labour government in 1997 and abandoned in 2002 because it was an “ineffective and damaging policy” (Cathy Nutbrown, The Conversation, Jan, 2015). They were also introduced by Wales in 2011 and withdrawn in 2012 as “time consuming, ill-thought through and denied children and teachers essential teaching time” (NUT comment 2012)

Under current plans, the statutory Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP), which is not a test but a rounded assessment of children’s development based on observation over time, will become optional from September 2016. Members of the alliance believe that the loss of this data will:

1) undermine the Study of Early Education and Development (SEED) project, introduced by this government to assess the longer term impact of early years experiences

2) damage current work with colleagues in the health and social services who make use of the EYFS Profile in bringing together services for children and families

3) compromise the longitudinal data needed for the government to assess the impact of the Early Years Pupil Premium, and

4) remove one of the few available indicators used by Ofsted to measure the effectiveness of children’s centres

The campaign now has a new website www.betterwithoutbaseline.org.uk and petition, and is calling for the support of parents and teachers in challenging government policymaking that fails to respond to the recommendations of democratic consultation, and that continues to prioritise school accountability over the best interests of the child.

QUOTES

“Baseline Assessment is a bad policy, badly implemented. The DfE promised schools that by 3rd June they would know who their providers were, so that on 1stSeptember they could begin assessments. Schools have only just been told. At the same time, the TES reports that the DfE is considering changing the way in which ‘progress’ is measured.  Out would go baseline assessment at ages 4/5. In would come a new baseline – in the form of the restoration of SATs at key Stage 1. Amid such incoherence and uncertainty the case for baseline assessment gets weaker by the day.”

National Union of Teachers (NUT)

“Baseline assessment does not support learning, in fact, it takes teachers away from teaching and so wastes learning time. It is not in the interests of young children, whose learning and other developmental needs are better identified – over time – by well-qualified early years practitioners who observe and interact with young children as they play.”

Professor Cathy Nutbrown, The Conversation, Jan 2015

“The difference between 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds as a percentage of life experience is one fifth – which equates to testing a 10 year old against an 8 year old and finding the 8 year old ‘wanting’ in some way. Or even finding a 20 year old lacking in adult life skills as compared to a 25 year old, or, at the other end of the scale, expecting a healthy 80 year old to be no different in any way to a healthy 64 year old.”

Dr Pam Jarvis, Leeds Trinity University, Too Much Too Soon Campaign

“The Association of Teachers and Lecturers is very worried that the new baseline testing of four and five year olds will undermine these children’s transition to school, by reducing our children to data points on spreadsheets. Of course teachers will assess children as they start school, in order to plan learning that supports and challenges each individual child. However, this new national baseline system has been designed to provide numerical scores rather than useful information for teaching. Nicky Morgan assured teachers before the election that she would give ‘more notice’ of any changes to assessment and accountability measures. Fewer than four weeks before the end of term is surely not enough time for teachers to prepare for tests which will be the first experience of school for many children, the results of which will define their journeys through school. Baseline is a bad policy, poorly implemented.

Nansi Ellis (Assistant General Secretary), ATL

“Unlike the existing early years assessment – the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile – the majority of the baseline tests that have been approved by government have a narrow focus on language, literacy and mathematics, with little or no reference to other fundamental skills such as physical development, and personal, social and emotional development. Equally concerning is the fact that most of the tests are computer- or tablet-based, and rely heavily on a ‘tick-box’ approach to assessment. Early learning should be about much more than just those skills that are easy to measure. To introduce an assessment that is more concerned with collecting data to compare and rank schools than it is with supporting child development is to do our children a grave disservice.” 

Neil Leitch, chief executive of the Pre-school Learning Alliance.

Parents chain themselves to school entrance in protest against forced academisation

Parents chained themselves across school entrance

Report from Brent NUT and ATL

Parents and their children used 20 metres of chains and padlocks to chain themselves across the front entrance of their primary school. They were there to support the teachers and support staff who were taking strike action against the school being forced to become an academy. St Andrew and St Francis Cof E Primary in Belton Rd, Willesden, Brent had taken their first day of action last week and this week they are on strike for two days.

The parents are demanding an independently overseen ballot with full information of the arguments for and against an academy. The so called consultation was a mere letter supporting an academy and a form that asked parents if they did or not. On a small turn out the majority agreed. But the IEB ignored a meeting of parents held at the school who made it clear they were unanimously against an academy. This was not even mentioned in the consultation report sent to the DfE.  Both parents and the education unions have been talking to and handing out information to parents about why the school should not be an academy. The parents’ petition has reached over 360 signing to say they are totally against a forced academy and demanding a fair ballot.

The staff, parents and children sang songs, blew whistles, banged drums and shouted No academy! There was a fantastic feeling of solidarity among the crowd and a determination to continue the campaign.

Irene Scorer, a parent, said, “Today was fantastic. We really showed that we support our teachers and support staff. We’ll keep going until they give us a ballot. We’ll be looking at how we can escalate the campaign. We won’t be bullied into becoming an academy.”

Lesley Gouldbourne, Brent NUT secretary, who represents the majority of the teaching staff at the school, said, “It was great to see so many parents with their children supporting the staff today. The IEB still refuse to recognise the parents’ democratic right to be heard – and we will keep shouting until they do!”

Hank Roberts, ATL Secretary, who also represents staff at the school said, “Today shows that support for the staff taking action against the school being forced to become an academy is growing. 

We also have more staff joining the strike this week. Some children were in school today taught by strike breakers from senior management. But with the growing support from staff and parents to continue and increase such action, the IEB needs to start listening and agree a ballot.”

After Easter more strikes are planned if the IEB do not agree to a ballot for parents which the Unions have even offered to pay for. What have they got to fear from this?

The Brent and Kilburn Times gives the following quote from Brent Council:

A Brent Council spokesman said: “It is central government policy that schools in special measures become academies. Since this is inevitable, it is better that the future of the school is resolved speedily.

“We are aware that trade unions are against St Andrews and St Francis School becoming an academy, however it is important to note that the majority of parents who took part in a consultation earlier this year on the school becoming an academy, said that they were in favour of the proposal.”

The statement ignores the parents' views and is misleading in suggesting that forced academisation is automatic and inevitable. Other schools, with support from their local authorities, have successfully fought of forced academisation proposals.  Unfortunately Labour in Brent acquiesce in such policies even as a General Election approaches where that policy can be challenged.

Anti forced academisation strike well supported

Parents and support  staff joined teachers on a strike picket line on Wednesday at St Andrew and St Francis C of E Primary School in Willesden.

Teachers from the NUT and ATL were striking against  the Interim Executive Board's plan to academise the school following a criticval Ofsted report. Staff and parents argue that this is unnecessary as improvements are already in progress.

Further anti-academisation strike at St Andrews and St Francis Primary tomorrow

Teachers at St Andrews and St Francis School C of E Primary in Belton Road, Willesden, in Brent will be taking strike action on Wednesday, 18th March.

Lesley Gouldbourne, Brent NUT secretary, who represents the majority of the teaching staff at the school, said,

“Staff at the school deeply regret that it has come to this. Strike action is a last resort, but the school is not a failing school. This government is increasingly forcing schools to become academies, whether the parents like it or not. What happened to parental choice? Despite our and parents objections no proper information was given to parents and no secret ballot allowed despite our offering to cover the cost. Parents and teachers have had enough of education by dictatorship.”

Hank Roberts, ATL Secretary, who also represents staff at the school said,

“Academisation is part of this Government’s plan to privatise state education just the same as it plans to privatise the NHS. The so-called consultation was a farce. Only reasons why the school should become an academy were sent to parents with no information allowed to be sent to them with arguments against becoming an academy. This despite the chair of the IEB John Galligan saying, “Everyone should hear both sides”. John Major, the previous Conservative Prime Minister, insisted on ballots for schools regarding the change of status. Why haven’t they done this under David Cameron? Because they know the vast majority of parents, when they are given the facts, are against. Parents and staff are standing firm to defend their children’s education.”

The parents have organised a petition and continue to collect signatures against the academy proposal.

The school has also been notified of a further two days of strike action next week in a campaign of escalating strike action.

Another Brent battle against forced academisation of a primary school

The impact of Coalition policies on education continues to be a major issue and I hope it will become more prominent as the General Election approaches. Fragmentation, incoherence and a lack of democratic accountability are major concerns.

The opportunistic  forced academisation of schools that get poor Ofsted reports continues depsite a lack of evidence that such a move actually helps schools improve.

In Brent this is now happening at St Andrew and St Francis Primary School.  The Teachers Panel of Brent, comprising the three main teacher unions, has issued this statement:

Teachers Panel Response to the consultation on whether St Andrew and St Francis Primary school should become an academy 

The teacher unions are against any school becoming an academy. We say it is part of the Government's plan to privatise state education just like they want to privatise the NHS. There is no evidence that turning a school into an academy improves the education of the children. The Education Parliamentary Select Committee has just published the findings of their year-long enquiry. Its Chairman, Conservative MP Graham Stuart, said, "Current evidence does not prove that academies raise standards overall or for disadvantaged children". He added that there are, “huge disparities within the academy sector and compared to other mainstream schools". This is a damning report on academies. There are also lots of issues over the financial management of academies and free schools as they are not overseen by the Local Authority. 

St Andrew and St Francis school is being forced to become an academy when there is no evidence that it will benefit the children's education. The school is already making very good progress with its action plan when it is not an academy, both the IEB and Brent Council sources have told us. The staff were given a promise that if they worked hard and improved the situation at the school then the school would not become an academy. For a Christian school to go directly against such a promise to the staff and unions find shocking. 

At the official meeting with staff and unions it became clear that the London Diocesan Board of Schools (LDBS) Academies Trust who is the proposed sponsor would continue to offer all the support they do now if the school was not an academy. Nothing basically would change if they became the sponsor except they would have financial control. So there is no benefit to the school becoming an academy. Though the staff and unions asked what the benefits were no answers could be given. It became clear that it is purely to follow what the DfE is dictating rather than for the good of the school. Even one of the members of the Interim Executive Board (IEB)  made it clear that her school had looked at whether they should become an academy and decided that they would not gain by doing so – it wasn't right for them. It is only the Government and DfE saying it is right for the school. 

Also at this meeting the IEB were informed of the increasing number of Headteachers and Governing bodies who are not allowing the DfE to dictate to their school and have managed to prevent their school becoming an academy even when they have been put in special measures. Turning a school into an academy should be decided democratically by a vote of parents as it was when schools went grant maintained not through force. The staff and unions believe that a new head should be appointed and then given a time-scale to show continued improvement before the question of whether to become an academy or not is considered. 

It became quite clear that the parents are also strongly against the school becoming an academy when Hank Roberts attended the parents meeting. The unions and staff had been banned from this meeting but the parents had asked him to come in. We would again ask why, but it is now clear that it is because there are no proper answers to the arguments being made against an academy. 

The IEB say they support parental choice so they should take account of the views of the parents at that meeting. Staff are totally against this move. Parents and staff should have a secret independently overseen ballot to properly seek their views, after they have heard arguments for and against. The unions have offered to pay for this. In this way the IEB would have the clear views of the staff and parents. If the IEB believe in democracy then they would act on this result.

A public meeting about the forced academisation will be held at St Andrew's Church, Willesden High Road on March 4th at 6.30pm