Striking Wembley primary school in forced takover demands DfE pause process during pre-election period

 

From Brent NEU

 

PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION UNION, PARENTS AND BARRY GARDINER TO PRESENT PETITION AT DfE

 

NEU members at Byron Court Primary School are continuing their strike in a fight to save their local community school which is threatened with a forced privatisation by the huge Harris Federation chain of academies. STRIKES CONTINUE TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY and THURSDAY this week. On WEDNESDAY the campaign group will present their petition of nearly 2000 signatories to the DfE.

 

Staff at Byron Court Primary School in Wembley continue their strike action this week to save their local community school from a forced “academy order” following an intimidating Ofsted inspection which has left some staff fearing for their mental health and their futures. They are hoping for a reprieve and pause in the academy order process due to government guidelines on the pre-election “purdah” period.

 

NEU MEMBERS, PARENTS, COUNCILLORS AND THE LOCAL COMMUNITY HAVE BEEN TURNING OUT TO SUPPORT THE PICKET LINES AND PROTESTS FOLLOWING A HIGH PROFILE PARENT CAMPAIGN WHICH IS ALSO SUPPPORTED BY BARRY GARDINER LABOUR PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATE FOR BRENT WEST. 

 

Meanwhile a live complaint lodged with Ofsted is now with the external adjudicator following the internal complaints process in which Ofsted “mark their own work” and there is also a formal complaint lodged with the Chief of Operations of Ofsted. It is hoped this may halt the takeover.

Parents and community members join NEU strikers on the picket line at Byron Court

 

 

The struggle to resist the handing over of Byron Court Primary School to the Harris Federation Academy Trust reached a crucial new stage on Friday when NEU members at the school went on strike. Having explored all avenues and marshalled support from parents, community Barry Gardiner MP and Gwen Grahl, Lead Brent Cabinet Member  for schools, without any move by the government, the NEU saw no other option but to take official industrial action supported by the requisite majority of members balloted.

Support on the picket line included Brent Trades Council, a speaker from the Lyon Park Primary School strikers who won most of their demands, and an NEU member from a school in Hackney facing similar academisation. A speaker from Brent Trades Council made a speech expressing solidarity as did Cllr Daniel Kennelly.

NEU co-secretary Jenny Cooper thanked parents for their support and recognised the practical difficulties that strike action would create, but emphasised that the long term aim was to safeguard the future of Byron Court as a locally accountable school, close to the community and offering a broad curriculum with support for SEND pupils and second language learners.

Hank Roberts, veteran anti-academies campaigner, called for a creative approach to the campaign to ensure maximum publicity.

The overall message on the picket line was the need for unity and resistance to efforts to divide and rule.

Tough questions from Byron Court parents at Brent Scrutiny Committee. Why did the Rapid Improvement Group fail?

 Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commitee: Byron Court presentation & responses

 

Two Byron Court Parents attended Scrutiny Committee thia evening to ask questions about what Brent Council had done to help the school when it was realised it was in difficulties, The Rapid Improvement Group (RIG) was set up in September 2022 more than a year before the Ofsted Inspection of November 2023.

Parents' Questions

Tanisha Phoenic: RIG history - we have put in an FOI request to help us understand how an Outstanding school with a teaching status in the borough has been left to languish, in the meantime, can the panel answer some of our questions:

 

Rig was put in place on Sept 2022, chaired by Shirley Parks. Why was RIG put in place? What issues were identified in 2022? Are some of these the same issues that Ofsted identified in their inspection?

 

What was achieved by the RIG between its inception and the Ofsted inspection in Nov 2023? How many meetings took place, what was the level of monitoring and support put in place?

 

Was it identified during the year that the RIG was in place that improvements were not being made? What interventions if any were made, were these issues escalated? If so, then where?

 

We understand that the support to the school via the RIG and SESS has not been as intensive as required i.e. meetings being frequently cancelled by Council officers. Has this in part led to the poor inspection rating?

 

Did the Council experience any barriers working effectively with the previous Headteacher and governing body?

 

We want to understand if a school mentioned in 3.3.2 that was rated “requires improvement” in 2022/2023  has had a RIG in place and been on “journey to good” - why has the RIG failed Byron Court?

 

Do the committee really believe that they have done all in their power to help the school and avoid what has now become a forced academy order?

 

 

Vina Vekria -  Assurances from now to academisation

 

Whilst we acknowledge that you are legally bound to comply with the academisation order, Gwen Grahl reaffirmed the council's commitment to supporting and improving the school and assured us additional leadership capacity would be in place after Easter. 

 

What if any guarantees can you give us that the council will be living up to its commitment to ‘protect/promote community schools’ as per the Labour manifesto? Will you commit to pushing for a reinspection?

 

We are campaigning for a reinspection of the school, what guarantees can you give that the RIG will do what is expected and required to achieve the rapid improvements needed?

 

What additional resources - mentioned by Cllr Grahl at the Cabinet meeting on 9 Apr - are being put into the school and when? Will this address the huge lack in capacity in the Senior Leadership Team?

 

Will the Scrutiny Committee agree to return to this item at their next meeting in order to provide details of actions put in place?

 

There was no specific reply to the RIG question or on resources as applied to Byron Court although it was claimed that RIGs were generally successful.   Cllr Grahl spoke about her letter to the Secretary of State and offered to meet with parents. Cllr Ketan Sheth (Chair) said the Committee would keep a watching brief and parents could submit questions to the Committee. Answering a councillor's question Brent officers said that they were confident that no other Brent school would suffer a similar fate to Byron Court.

This is the FoI request made to Brent Council:

Dear Brent Council,

I am writing to you on behalf of over 130 parents involved in the ‘Byron Court Parents’ Campaign group’. The group represents parents who are opposed to the forced academisation of the school following Ofsted’s report.

We urgently request under the Freedom of Information Act the following:

Date of the initiation of Rapid Improvement Group (RIG), details of reasons(or redacted) the RIG was requested/instigated
Date of RIG was put into place
RIG Lead and its members
Aims and Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) of the RIG
Minutes from RIG meetings
Details (or redacted) of improvements achieved

Stop the forced academisation of Byron Court Primary School, Monday 2.45pm

 

More questions than answers at Brent Council on school expansions and Bridge Park

I drew attention recently to the blackout on the apparent problems with some current Brent school expansion projects that the public have not been allowed to hear about. LINK

Information was withheld at the Cabinet meeting and the decision made in private session and now councillors have been told that the public will have to be excluded if the issue is raised at Full Council on January 23rd.

The issue is possibly about three current expansion projects at Byron Court Primary,  Stonebridge Primary and Elsley Primary schools. It is likely that the price agreed on the projects with contractors has not been viable and the Council is either left with having to pay out more or downgrading the designs.

The accountability issue is whether there was any fault by either side on the procurement of these works and at what financial or quality cost.

Item 9 is about decisions taken by the Leader and/or Cabinet because of their urgency before before Full Council.

Apart from the IT items clearly the Bridge Park Conditional Land Sale Agreement is important.  This involves Brent Council working with development companies registered in off-shore as covered on Wembley Matters LINK.

It is not entirely clear whether Full Council will be able to discuss this as the note above states, 'The matters before the Council are merely for reporting by the Leader of the Council.' Will the public me excluded from any discussion on this as well?

Information blackout on Brent school expansion design and build

Brent Cabinet will be getting an update on the design and build of school expansions in the borough at their next meeting but the public will not be allowed to see any report.

This is because the item has been restricted for 'commercial reasons' under the relevant legislation on the basis that:

Information is exempt to the extent that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

As this is 'commercial information' about a public resource it is likely to refer to building contracts, architects fees and other costs which may well be higher than the Council expected and thus require some modification of the building specification.  It could also mean a delay in completion of the expansions.

'Wards affected' are Northwick Park, Kenton and Stonebridge so my assumption is that the item refers to Byron Court and Stonebridge Schools.   The closed down Stonebridge Adventure Playground is currently being demolished.

I would argue that an explanation is in the public interest as the general public need to know of any budgetary implications and their impact on services and parents need to know when, or perhaps if, expansion is going ahead.

Has the time come for a Brent Planning for People Forum?

The above statement was made by Brent Council in response to a discussion on the London Live TV channel on  the Lucozade Powerleague proposals for Kingsbury High School.

It has been received with some cynicism by local campaigners who have been at the receiving end of decisions made by the Planning Committee.

Reporting regularly on planning issues from Wembley Matters I have repeatedly seen residents go along to Planning Committee in the belief that their objections to applications will be taken seriously, only to come out having given their 2 minute speech, listened to the often barely audible proceedings, angered that the Committee had then tamely voted in favour of the developer.

Residents are now realising that the time has come to make links with others in the same predicament.

Recently there have been some more independent decisions by the Committee and the chair, Cllr Sarah Marquis, has stuck her neck out but this seems to have earned her the ire  of Muhammed Butt the Council leader.  The latest manifestation of that was his intervention to ensure that proposals from Quintain for the area around Wembley Stadium, in his own Tokyngton ward, were rushed through at two Planning Committees last week.

That doesn't sound as if the Planning Committee is 'separate from the Council' and appears to be an attempt to get the Planning Committee back into line.

One of the problems is the Council's policy of 'smoothing the way for developers' promoted by Andy Donald, former Director of Regeneration and Major Projects.

Brent Council is in effect a partner with Quintain in the redevelopment of the Wembley Stadium area through the Wembley Masterplan.  This presents difficulties for planning officers' and councillors' independence.

It was reported to me last week that one councillor had allegedly remarked, 'It's Quintain - we have to vote for it.'*

Last week Brent residents were by-standers as Brent Council, Quintain and the Football Association deployed all their resources and experts on a battle that will impact on residents for decades to come. Our voices were barely heard. When one particularly preposterous claim was made and I couldn't suppress a response, a Quintain suit turned round and told me to be quiet. I replied, 'No I won't - I live here.' The exchange summed up our powerlessness.

The Roe Green Village residents challenging Lucozade have found that their ward councillors offer no support and so have mounted their own public campaign while the rsidents challenging the Wembley twin Towers are appealing to Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor.

It is just not Quintain of course but a whole range of developers and multi-national companies as well as Brent Council itself that we are faced with - what they have in common is that they have the money, resources and time. Residents squeeze their research into spare time in the evenings and weekends and have to go through a rapid self-education process in planning law and procedures.

I think it is time to consider setting up an umbrella group that will bring individuals, residents associations and voluntary organisations concerned with these issues together so that experience and expertise can be shared and proposals made to reform the consultation and decision making processes in Brent Council.

In time the group could perhaps pool resources to get their own professional advice as well as hold a 'People's Panel' to consider particular planning applications.  It would be strictly non-party political.

What do people think?

* This is from a previous posting on changes to the Planning Committee Code of Conduct. The issue of pre-determination is particularly relevant:

-->

Members of the Planning Committee are warned:

If a member does not abide by this Code the member may put the Council at risk of proceedings on the legality or maladministration of the related decision; and the member may be at risk of either being named in a report of the Audit and Governance Committee or Council; or if the failure to abide by the Code is also likely to be a breach of the Member Code of Conduct, of a complaint made to the Monitoring Officer.

The disclosure of 'disclosable pecuniary interests' is added to the requirements and members are told that decisions should not be influenced by the interests of Councillors or because of pressure exerted by applicants, agents or third parties. A new paragraph is inserted:

Members of the Planning Committee must take decisions in the public interest and take account of only of material planning considerations. They should not allow themselves to be influenced by members of the public and applicants, agents or third parties who might approach them and they should not be influenced by party politics.

My comment: There is something rather odd about having to take decisions in the public interest but also not being influenced by the public. This is reinforced by the duty to follow the 'rules of natural justice' and give people a hearing: 

The rules of natural justice include the duty to act fairly, the duty to give all those who will be affected by a decision the opportunity of a hearing before a decision is made; and the principle that no person should be a judge in his or her own cause. That principle means that members must be and be seen to be be impartial and without bias, and that members should not take part in any decision that affects their own interests.

A section of 'Bias and Predetermination' has been added:

Members should not take a decision on a matter when they are actually biased in favour or against the application, or when it might appear to a fair and informed observer that there was real possibility of boas, or where a member has predetermined the matter by closing their mind to the merits of the decision before they come to take it.

 ...A member taking part in a decision on a planning matters must be open to any new arguments about the matters up until the moment of a decision. A member should not comment or make any commitment in advance as to how they intend to vote which might indicate that they have closed their mind. Any planning decision made by a member who can be shown to have approached the decision with a closed mind will still expose the council to the risk of legal challenge.

The section on Interests has been amended to allow a member with a disclosable pecuniary interest to have a right to attend a meeting:

...where a member of the public has the right to attend the meeting, make representations, answer questions, or give evidence, then a member will have the same right. Once the member has exercised that right then they must withdraw from the room for the rest of that item and play no further part in the discussion or vote,

At present many planning decisions are made by officers alone but Council members have the power to 'call-in' decisions so that they will be decided by Committee. The Code is amended:

A member considering using the 'call-in' power should consider whether their objective could be achieved by an alternative means, for example by discussing the matter further with the relevant officer or facilitating a meeting between the objector and an officers, bearing in mind the additional cost to the council when a matter has to be considered by Committee. 

The key issue of planning submissions where the council is the applicant or landowner is covered by this paragraph:

Where the council itself is the landowner or planning applicant then a Planning member should consider whether he or she has had such a significant personal involvement in advocating or preparing or submitting the planning proposal that the member would be likely to be perceived as longer able to act impartially or to determine the proposal purely on its planning merits. A member would not be required to withdraw simply because they were, for example, a member of both the Cabinet, or a proposing committee, as well as the planning committee, However a member with a relevant portfolio or individual  responsibility for implementing a particular policy should carefully consider whether that role makes it inappropriate for them to participate in a particular planning decision.

My comment: Does this sufficiently deal with the wider conflict of interest over the Planning Committee being the  judge of the Council's own development schemes?

Residents enraged as Planning Committee approves controversial applications

Increase in schoool size to more than 1,000 pupils

Doubled in size to more than 840 pupils

Temporary  (2 year) 4 storey school

Retrospective permission for 2.4m fence aroud public space

361 dwelling tower blocks next to Civic Centre/Olympic Way

Last night's Planning Committee had a ridiculously heavy agenda with Chair Cllr Marquis, like a teacher  bravely concealing her irritation with councillors (pupils) who at times were sleepy and clearly wishing they were somewhere else, and at other times making rambling contributions way off the point,  struggled to make progress. Meanwhile the clock ticked away.

As always residents attending their first Planning Committee because of a local issue, this time the Uxendon Manor and Byron Court school expansions,  were enraged when they thought their concerns were being ignored. There were cries of 'Is this democracy?', 'Are we in North Korea?'. 'You are a disgrace.'

Byron Court  took up most time  (see posting below).  Cllr Keith Perrin made a presentation on behalf of residents. When Cllr Marquis asked if he had been approached by anyone about the application he answered 'between 1,000 and 2,000 residents'.  About 1,400 of those who had put their addresses on a joint letter about the application had not been contacted by the Council about the officer's report on the planning application. He derided the plans to use the Northwick Park car park for parents describing its impracticalities and producing the numbers to back this up. At one point the officer's response made him put his head in his hands in despair. His mood wasn't  helped when Cllr Marquis failed to give  committee members a chance to ask him questions about his presentation although this was remedied later.

Several members of the Committee declared that they had received phone calls about the application from Barry Gardiner MP that afternoon. The application was narrowly approved. I made it four for, 3 against and 1 abstention.  Loose ends will be tied up by officers regarding some of the conditions requested by Cllr Perrin. Members of the audience were reprimanded by Cllr Marquis when they scoffed in disbelief at Byron Court's Executive (she insisted on the title) Head Teacher's claim that the school travel plan was working well and that the revised plan, when the school had over a thousand primary pupils, would be equally effective.

The increased traffic arising from school expansion was also a major concern of residents around Uxendon Manor in an area with poor public transport links and questions were asked for each application regarding the need for additional school places in that particular area. The response was far from clear. In addition there were questions about overflowing sewers at Uxendon voiced by John Poole a long-time resident that were shrugged off by the development agent.

Cllr John Warren spoke for residents about the  Marylebone Boys School temporary building in Brondesbury Park and he also raised the issue of flawed school travel plans and estimates of impact on public transport.  He raised the issue of the height of the building (4 storeys) and its design being out of character with the neighbourhood as well as the noise with an increase from160 to 480 pupils on the site.

Marylebone Boys School application to fence in public space around its existing building in the former Kilburn branch of the College of North west London was approved without any representations.

It wasn't until about 10.30pm that the innocuous sounding 'Yellow Car Park' application was heard.  Actually a huge development next to the Civic Centre with 361 rabbit hutch style  dwellings and retail and community space the only query  from members was about the possible provision of a nursery in one of the units. There were no public representations and a short presentation from Quintain. It went through in about 10 minutes in contrast to the earlier item.

There will be  134 one bedroomd, 109 2 bedroomed and 52 3 bedroomed flats at market rents. 8 one bedroomed, 10 2 bedroomed and 21 3 bedroomed at social rent.  12 one bedroomed, 9 two bedroomed and 6 3 bedroomed at 'intermediate' which the report states will be 'affordable'.

Barry Gardiner and Brent Council at loggerheads over mega primary

The Kilburn Times LINK reports today that Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent North,  accompanied by Martin Dickens, chair of Parents Against Byron Court School Expansion and Suzanne D'Sousa, chair of Sudbury Court Residents Association, met with DfE officials to protest at plans to expand Byron Court Primary School to 5 forms of entry.

Brent Council proposals would increase the school to a total of 1,050 4-11 year olds plus nursery. Gardiner accused the Council of putting their statutory responsibility to provide school places above the well-being of pupils.

Brent Council has been under intense pressure over  primary school places for several years now and has moved from providing ad hoc 'bulge classes' to permanent expansions. The situation is exacerbated by rules under the Coalition and the present government that forbid local authorities from building new schools where they are needed. Instead any new school must be a free school or an academy which is of course dependent on providers coming forward.  Unfortunately this leaves provision at the whim of such providers who often make proposals in areas which are not those of greatest need.

In the secondary sector in Brent some academies have come forward with proposals for a new Brent North secondary free school that they will jointly sponsor.  There haven't been any similar proposals for primary so an increasing number of schools have doubled in size, affecting place space and facilities such as halls and libraries, as well as impacting on the ethos and management of the schools.

One loophole that is rapidly closing is the creation of 'satellite' schools under the auspices of an existing school but in a different building, often some distance from the 'parent' school.  Leopold Primary is such a school with an annex in Brentfield Road.  The DfE is likely to deem these to be new local authority schools in the future and thus not allowed.

I share the view that schools of this size are not suitable for the education of young children.  Sometimes plans are made for expansion with headteachers only for their long-term implementation and consolidation to be left to their successors. The arguments over the education benefot of very large primary schools have beenpreviously on Wembley Matters LINK

Mega primary schools result in highly paid headteachers who often have an 'executive' role quite different from the traditional role of the headteachers of smaller schools. There are increasing difficulties in recruiting new headteachers in the current climate created by government policy and the task of finding suitable candidates for mega primary schools, when current headteachers move on, is daunting.

Government policy, inherited from the Gove era, really must change - it does not serve the interests of children, parents or local democratic accountability.

Brent Council told the Kilburn Times that the decision to approve the expansion would not be reviewed.

This comment on the Council planning site gives a flavour of the opposition to the expansion which it is claimed was opposed by 90% of consultees (unedited)  LINK


There are several words I could use to describe my objection to this application: DISGUST that a proposal which had such overwhelming objection at the public consultation stage was passed through to planning. DISBELIEVE/OUTRAGE that the local councillor and cabinet members response to such objections was that most of them could be resolved at planning - the site is too small meaning the proposed building will be obtrusive to the immediate neighbours and detriment to our children's health as they will no longer be able to enjoy the fast array for physical activities currently available at the school; isolated in an already congested residential area - with increasing congestion and pollutions levels being experienced on East Lane and Watford roads as the main roads serving the estate; the school places are not needed in this area of the borough, Wembley High's primary school (when finished) will already provide a surplus of places in the area meaning the new attendees will have to be travelling some distance coursing further traffic and parking issues in the immediate and wider area (because of the limited public transport available in such an isolated area at the northern most boundary of the borough); and that the proposals are completely out of character for the area - frankly unless you are proposing to relocate the entire school to a more suitable location these are not issues which can be resolved. DISAPPOINTMENT at the behaviour of the Head teacher - backtracking on her own statement of a few years ago that "three form entry was more than big enough for a primary school" and her attempts to garner support from the parents by holding propaganda assemblies about the proposed new facilities with the children, sending them home to tell their parents to support it and the attitude of the school management and councillors in pushing these proposals forward are to the detriment of the local community. A state school, local council and its democratically elected members should be there to serve its community not to impose its own agenda irrespective of the needs and wishes of that community - it is telling that the only comments of support for this application have given the school address or addresses outside of Brent for their authors. As parents, of course we want better facilities for our children, of course we want the existing canteen with its leaky asbestos roof (which should have been condemned decades ago) replaced, of course we want to see the 'temporary structure' (porter cabin classrooms) which have been in use since the 1970's & 80's replaced with permanent classrooms in keeping with the current school architecture. BUT not at the expense of an intimate, cohesive, caring educational establishment which you should expect of a primary school and I am sure you cannot replicate in a school the size of the one being proposed. I urge those with the power to make a decision in this matter to reject it for the good of the children already attending the school and for the wider local community. Why should this small corner of the borough bear the brunt of the councils lack of planning over the last decade for an ever increasing population, coursed both by the increasing birth rate and the unsustainable over development without infrastructure (some distance away from Byron Court) in Alperton and Wembley Park and at other locations across the borough (but not immediately local to Byron Court)?

Barry Gardiner wins parents' meeting with minister over Byron Court school expansion

Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, yesterday agreed to try and arrange a meeting with parents from Byron Court Primary School either with her or the Minister for Schools to discuss their concerns over expansion of the school.

She was responding to the following question in the House of Commons from Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent North:

The Secretary of State said that her policy is that all “good and outstanding schools” should be able to expand to meet “the needs of parents” in their local areas. Byron Court primary school in my constituency is being forced to expand against the needs and wishes of parents in the local area. I shall not go into the details now, but will the Secretary of State meet me, parents and local residents who are desperately concerned about the state of this school’s expansion programme?

Brent Council has backed the expansion despite the parents' objections and a letter to the Cabinet from Barry Gardiner representing the parents' and residents' concerns. LINK

It became an issue during the General Election campaign. LINK

Brent Council to expand & merge schools & seek free school partners to tackle places crisis

The Brent Cabinet will tomorrow consider the School Place Planning Strategy 2014-18. It includes the above actions and the following schemes:

Expansion of the following schools in 2015 at a cost of £19.5m:

• Byron Court Primary to increase by two forms of entry (2 additional classes in each age group)
• Leopold Primary school to increase by two forms of entry on the site of the Gwenneth Rickus Building in Brentfield Road (2 additional classes in each age group)
• Oakington Manor Primary to increase by one form of entry (one additional class in each age group)

Amalgamations of the following separate infant and junior schools into all-through primary schools. It should be noted that the second two  involve expansion as well as amalgamation and in the Kilburn case a new building. This is a significant challenge to headteachers in terms of disruption.:

• Lyon Park Infants and Juniors (currently operating under one  headteacher)
• Carlton Vale Infants and Kilburn Park Juniors (subject to agreement on a suitable shared site for an expanded school in the South Kilburn regeneration area)
• Malorees Infants and Malorees Junior  (subject to agreement by the governing bodies of both schools to amalgamation and expansion)

 The Cabinet will also consider the use of a former school site in The Avenue, Brondesbury for educational use. The site is currently owned by a developer. The site could potentially be used for SEN provision.

The report notes that proposed free schools in the borough will potentially provided a total of 10 forms of entry for primary pupils and 9.3 for secondary pupils in the 2014-18 period.

The report notes:

....to be funded directly by the Education Funding Agency (EVA) at no cost to the council. There is a risk to the council that if all of these places are not provided via this route that the council will need to provide places  and fund the associated expenditure.

This September both Gateway and Gladstone secondary free schools failed to open despite recruiting pupils.

The council's policy to seek free school partners (Action 5 above) will be controversial in the light of problems associated with free schools not opening on time, having fewer pupils than designated so provided at considerable expense, and often without the backers having a proven track.

The report can be found HERE and the full Strategy HERE