Coalition plans warehousing for children

Wates' 'repeatable school' template

We may soon be seeing these schools throughout the country if the Coalition gets its way and orders cut-price identical  new schools across the country with smaller classrooms, corridors and halls.

This looks like warehousing or factory farming for children and in the way ideologically reflects the conveyor belt nature of the examination system with its quotas and targets.

Capital Ciry Academy (Norman Foster)

Cleverly the Coalition in its justification takes a populist swipe at some of the grandiose school projects built under Labour, lampoons atriums, denigrates architects and opines that it is good teaching that makes good schools - not buildings.

The Victorians valued education and children more, just look at some of the education castles such as Kensal Rise Primary or St Joseph's in Harlesden, bold statements of the centrality of education to the community, and built to last from hard as iron industrial brick. They are still with us, if the haven't been converted into luxury flats such as those on Dudden Hill, whilethe post-war schools are crumbling.  It was ironic that the recent Brent Education Debate was held at Copland High School with the building's poor physical state there for all to see.

 How long will these 'Ikea' schools last?

Less space in schools, small halls, smaller playgrounds because of school expansion and sold-off playing fields - space is now a political issue.  Smaller school halls will mean that the whole school can no longer meet as a community affecting the social cohesion of the school.  The school won't all be able to meet together following major events such as the death of a pupil or to celebrate the school's achievements.   There won't be space for all the parents to attend a concert or other school performance. Opportunities to let out the space for community events will be reduced because of the hall's low capacity.

I was recently approached by someone who wanted to speak to the pupils at a local school about the scout movement, wanting to recruit more children to the local pack. She asked to come and talk at an assembly. I had to let her know that because of the large number of children and small school hall, she would have to speak to 6 separate assemblies!

Schools with large numbers of pupils but small halls, alongside the requirement for a daily act of worship, mean that mornings are tied up with assemblies (a timetabling nightmare) and the hall is not available for PE, music, drama etc. Some are even more restricted because they are also used as dining rooms.

Perhaps most importantly, good school building may not create good teaching, but they do convey to the children how much society values them.  What message is the Coalition sending to the next generation?

How Council Tax Support proposals will hit the poor

 The proactive Chalkhill Residents Association has put up posters around the estate urging residents('THIS IS IMPORTANT')  to respond to the consultation on Local Council Tax Support. The consultation ends on 10th August.  Unfortunately, despite paper copies of the consultation form being available in libraries and One Stop Shops, you really need to view the on-line documentation to get a full idea of the repercussions of the change from Council Tax Benefit to Local Council Tax Support. Unfortunately the complexity of these documents will put many off.  LINK   There was a public meeting about the changes at Brent Town Hall on Friday which unfortunately was not very well advertised with no details on the consultation site or on the leaflets. It didn't help that it was on the Olympics Opening Ceremony day.

In an article in the Guardian last week LINK Polly Toynbee put the changes into context stating that this was another example of the Coalition devolving the axe to councils: 

Here's the background: on average, households pay £1,000 a year in council tax. Until now, households on low incomes were exempt or paid only according to their means, so 5.9m households received council tax benefit. From next April, the benefit is cut by 10%, which is bad enough; but then insanity takes over. Each local authority will be given the sum that was handed out in benefit in their area (less 10%) to disperse as they please. They must keep paying the full benefit to pensioners and "the vulnerable". Each council must choose who is "vulnerable", as the government refuses to provide its own definition. Half of the recipients are pensioners, so protecting them means all other low-income households bear the whole cut, averaging 20%. People who live in areas with a lot of pensioners or a lot of the "vulnerable" will suffer the biggest cuts, as much as 30% or more.

Brent Council says that this represents a cut of at least £5.2m in 2013/14 taking account of the increasing number of people claiming benefit.  They say that if they were to retain the current Council Tax Benefit scheme it would have to reduce current services: 'Instead Brent is proposing a new scheme that is as fair as possible and in line with the needs of the community'. They are clearly caught between a rock and a hard place but end up carrying out the Coalition's cuts.

They set out these 'Key Principles':

Principle 1: Everyone should pay something

At present, claimants in receipt of income support, job seekers allowance (income based) and employment support allowance (income related) and other claimants not receiving these but with an income below the required level for their basic living needs, generally receive 100 per cent council tax benefit and therefore pay no council tax.

The council proposes that all working age claimants (unless protected) should pay at least 20 per cent of their council tax under the CTS scheme.

Principle 2: The most vulnerable claimants should be protected (from the minimum contribution)

Claimants will be protected from the 20 per cent minimum contribution if they or their partner or dependants are entitled to a disability premium or enhanced disability premium (normally given where disability living allowance has been awarded) or disabled earnings disregard, or the claimant is in receipt of disabled persons reduction for council tax purposes, war disablement pension or war widow’s pension.

Principle 3: The scheme should incentivise work

At present, the first £5 of a single claimant’s earnings, £10 of a couple’s earnings and £25 of a single parent’s earnings are not counted when calculating their weekly income for the purposes of determining their entitlement to council tax benefit.

The council proposes to increase this level by an additional £10 a week under its proposed scheme for single claimants, couples and single parents. This would mean that the first £15 of a single claimant’s earnings, £20 of a couple’s earnings and £35 of a single parent’s earnings would not be counted when calculating their entitlement to council tax support

Principle 4: Everyone in the household should contribute

At present, a deduction is generally made from potential weekly council tax benefit entitlement in respect of other adults aged 18 or over living in the claimant’s home. These are referred to as non-dependants. A non-dependant is a person who is living with the claimant but who is not dependent upon them, and not living in their home on a commercial basis, (i.e. as a joint tenant or sub tenant). Non-dependants include an adult son or daughter, a mother or father, friend etc of the claimant.

These people are assumed to be giving the claimant some money towards their council tax regardless of whether or not they are actually doing so. This assumed contribution is based upon the non-dependant's circumstances.

The draft scheme proposes doubling existing levels of these contributions. Additionally for other adults in receipt of job seekers allowance (income based), a charge of £6.60 is proposed instead of no charge as at present.

The current deduction rates applied to council tax benefit in 2012/13 and the proposed rates for the council’s local CTS scheme are shown in Appendix C.

Principle 5: Better off claimants should pay relatively more so that the least well off receive greater protection

The draft scheme proposes to continue to reduce entitlement to help with Council Tax as income / earnings increase. However, it is proposed that the calculation of this is adjusted so that the rate at which Council Tax Support reduces where weekly income exceeds basic living needs is 30p in every pound rather than the 20p currently applied. This is referred to as the taper and it is often expressed in proportionate terms. It is currently 20% per week for the existing Council Tax Benefit scheme and will become 30% per week under the proposed Council Tax Support scheme.

Principle 6: Benefit should not be paid to those with relatively large capital or savings

At present, working age claimants with savings and investments above £16,000 are generally not entitled to council tax benefit.

Our proposal is that working age claimants with capital such as savings and investments amounting to over £6,000 shall not be entitled to council tax support

Feature 1: Removal of second adult rebate scheme for working age claimants

The current second adult rebate scheme (whereby claimants whose own income is too high to receive CTB, but have other adult(s) in the household whose income is low, can receive a council tax discount of up to 25 per cent) is to be abolished for working age claimants.

Feature 2: Rate of allowances and premiums to be frozen at 2012/2013

levels

Premiums and personal allowances used to determine basic living needs for a claimant and their family when calculating entitlement to CTS shall be held at the rates applied for 2012/13.

 For practical purposes the most valuable document is probably worked calculations for particular circumstances and so I have made that available below:

The document sets out what the claimant will have to pay each week  from 1st April 2013 when Local Council Tax Support comes in, compared to current Council Tax Benefit. In the examples below the extra money the claimant will have to find (the difference between Council Tax liability and Council Tax Support) is in blue.

• A Single Person in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based) living in a Band A property. Claimant will need to pay extra £2.62 weekly 
• A Couple with 3 children, in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based) and Child Tax Credits, living in a Band D property. £5.24 weekly 
•  A Single Parent with 2 children, in receipt of Income Support and Child Tax Credits, living in a Band C property. £3.49 weekly 
• A Couple with 2 children, in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based) and Child Tax Credits, living with another adult (i.e. a non-dependant) in a Band F property. The non-dependant is also in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based). £14.17 weekly 
• A Single Person earning £90.00 per week and living in a Band A property. £3.82 weekly 
• A Couple with 3 children, with a total income of £400 per week (made up of Self-Employed Earnings and Tax Credits), living in a band D property £16.96 weekly. 
• A Single Parent with 2 children, with a total income of £270 per week (made up of Salary and Tax Credits), living in a Band C property £3.49 weekly. 

These extra payments will of course come on top of the housing benefit cap and other changes which will make the poor worse off.

I would welcome a report of guest blog from anyone who was at Friday's meeting. Send to mafran@globalnet.co.uk

Lib Dem councillors give verdict on the Coalition

If only......

Brent Performance Report reveals impact of cuts

Brent' Council's Performance Report for the third quarter of 2011-12 which is published as a supplement to the Performance and Finance Review gives an indication of how both Coalition policy and council cuts are beginning to hit services.

It uses a  RAG (Red, Amber, Green) traffic light system where Red indicates performance below target, Amber performance below expected levels but within tolerance of the target, and Green where performance is as expected and the target met or exceeded.

All the tables below are of services given a warning Red rating. Therese are the services where improvements need to be made. It is fair to point out that many services also achieve Green ratings and these are likely to be publicised in Brent press releases and the Brent Magazine.

The Environment and Neighbourhood Services department has suffered cuts and reorganisations so it is not surprising that out of 12 performance indicators half have a Red rating and 2 an Amber and only one Green. The others are black indicating that the Council thinks performance cannot be fairly measured against a target. In reading the table remember that there is another quarter to go.

Environment and Neighbourhood Services

Performance indicator	2010-11 end of year	2011-12 year to date	2011-12 current target
Volume of residual waste kg per  household	644	453	427
% of household waste sent for recycling	33	35	47
Tonnes of waste sent to landfill	80,000	59,000	53,000
Number of fly-tipping incidents	3882	4435	3000
Active library borrowers as % of population	18.6	13.81	16.4
% of streets below standard for litter	10.2%	11.7% Nov	9%

Despite the Council's claims made for the Library Transformation Project the target  for the percentage of Brent residents who are active borrowers was set below the 2010-11 level and performance is below that lower target. Next year with the closure of Willesden Green for redevelopment. the figure is likely to decline further. The number of library visits  per 100,000 population gets an Amber rating. The target was 4,834 compared with 6,660 in 2010-2011 and after the third quarter stood at 4,606.

The Council ridiculed the Green Party's claims that cuts to street cleansing would result in Brent becoming a dirtier borough but the figures justify our claim and the residual waste/recycling figures are also below  the Council's expectations.

Children and Families

Performance indicator	2010-11 end of year	2011-12 year to date	2011-12 current target
Net shortfall of places at Key Stage 1 (5-7 year olds)	n/a	-304	0
Percentage of 16 to 18 year olds not in education, employment or training	5%	4%	4%
Percentage of care leavers in  education, employment or training	71%	64%	80%
Number of looked after children with independent fostering agencies	112	100	89
Number of looked after children placed with in-house foster carers	103	109	127

 

The shortage of school places is a continuing problem which has been addressed by an ad hoc mixture of school expansions, temporary classrooms and bulge classes. Coalition policies giving priority to free schools and academies and providing them with disproportionate amounts of funding, makes it difficult for the Council to build the new schools that are needed.

At the other end of the age range the number of school leavers not in education, employment and training is likely to increase in the recession and the situation has been worsened by the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance. The plight of looked after children is highlighted by the number of care leavers who, as they enter adult life, are not in education, employment or training.

Regeneration and Major Projects

Performance indicator	2010-11 end of year	2011-12 year to date	2011-12 current target
% of major planning applications processed within 13 weeks	73	25	70
Gap between Brent and London for working people on out of work benefits	3	3.4	1.4
Number of households living in temporary accommodation	3,019	3.073	2,973
Proportion of residents with no qualifications (gap between Brent and London. Minus figure reflects higher than average gap)	n/a	-4.8	-2.0

The increase in the proportion of people on benefits compared with the London average and the increase in numbers of temporary accommodation are clearly the most worrying items ion the short term but the 'no qualifications' figures builds up problems for the long term.

Central Services

Performance indicator	2010-11 end of year	2011-12 year to date	2011-12 current target
Serious violent crime rate (per 1000 of population)	1.64	1.72	n/a
Serious acquisitive crime rate (serious thefts, burglaries per 1000 of population)	31.82	33.92	n/a
Serious knife crime rate per 1000 of population	2.05	2.09	n/a
Gun crime rate per 1000 of population	0.39	0.43	n/a
Time taken to process Benefit claims (average number of days)	9.77	8.33	8.0

 

Crime usually increases in a recession and although I am not suggesting a direct causal link, clearly delays in benefit payment do not help.

Adult Social Care

The Council is not meeting its target of 90% of Mental Health Social Care assessments completed within four weeks and the figure currently stands at 65%. Similarly the percentage of social care packages put in place within the recommended timelines following assessment is 65% against a target of 95%.

Financial Report

Adult Social Care is a major financial pressure  and although overspend has reduced compared with the second quarter the General Fund overspend stands at £292,000.  In Children and Families' General Fund there is as underspend on Achievement and Inclusion (School Improvement Service and Connexions which was cut) but an overspend on Social Care partly due to an increase in child protection cases following the baby Peter case.

Environment and Neighbourhood Services had no overall  under or overspend with savings from Neighbourhood Services (including libraries and transportation) offsetting an increase in Environment and Protection costs which receives a Red rating.

The Regeneration and Major Projects General Fund had a small underspend and there were underspends overall on Capital Budgets with that of the Civic Centre underspent as a result of 'adjusted profiled cash flow'. It was originally £51m and reduced to £29.5m.  Children and Families Capital Projects which this department has taken over gets a Red grading with an overspend of £5m.

The Department's main pressure is caused by the housing benefit cap with an increase of 27% in homeless applications and 42% in acceptances compared with last year. The total pressure is forecast at £750,000 for 2011-12.

Beneath all these figures are real people experiencing real hardship as a consequence of  the Government's cuts to national benefits and the  public sector, alongside cuts in local authority funding leading to cuts in Council Services.It all adds up to further evidence of the damage the Coalition's austerity measures are doing to people who are not to blame for the crisis.

24 Free Schools Is a Weak Start to Coalition Campaign Against Local Authority Schools

Wandswoth lobby against an ARK free school proposal

24 new 'free schools' are to open in September. 17 are primary, 5 secondary and 2 'all-through'. The government will pay capital costs of between £110m and £130m  for these schools, which will open in a variety of buildings including former shops, offices and libraries. Their running costs will also be provided by the government and they will operate outside local democratic control.  The capital costs are much higher than first suggested and budget issues may have restricted the number approved this year. If the budget is increased it will impact on already  stretched local authority budgets.

The government will try and sell the 24 schools as a great policy success but the number is actually very low in comparison will earlier government claims and the receipt of 323 applications in the first round and 281 in the second.  However numbers are likely to be artifically boosted because the government will insists that any new schools needed to address a rising pupil population must be free schools or academies. They will of course spin that the resultant increase in numbers reflects public support for the policy.

This is a similar tactic to that used under the Labour government to ensure that the new school needed in Brent was an academy: the Tory-Lib Dem Council administration were told that there was no chance of a new local authority secondary school. The same argument is being repeated today as the Labour council struggle to address the shortage of school places. Denied the possibility of new local authority primary schools  the Council will be under pressure to support free school bids. Providers such as ARK will claim they are performing a valuable service by providing for children who would otherwise be without a school place.


In fact, rather than being initiated by parents or teachers the list  includes two ARK primary schools which are run by hedge fund speculators,  while former fee paying Batley Grammar School will now be state-funded giving what one parent referred to as an unexpected 'bonus' when he no longer has to pay fees. The list also includes a significant number of faith schools.

Aldborough E-ACT Free School Redbridge
All Saints Junior School Reading
ARK Conway Primary Academy Hammersmith & Fulham
ARK Atwood Primary Academy Westminster
Batley Grammar School Kirklees
Bradford Science Academy Bradford
Bristol Free School Bristol
Canary Wharf College Tower Hamlets
Discovery New School West Sussex
Eden Primary School Haringey
Etz Chaim Primary School Barnet
The Free School, Norwich Norfolk
Krishna-Avanti Primary School Leicester
Langley Hall Primary Academy Slough
Maharishi School, Lathom Lancashire
Moorlands School Luton
Nishkam Free School Birmingham
Priors Free School Warwickshire
Rainbow Free School Bradford
Sandbach School Cheshire
St Luke's Church of England Primary School Camden
Stour Valley Community School Suffolk
West London Free School Hammersmith & Fulham
Woodpecker Hall Primary Academy Enfield

Brent Council seeks views on tackling child poverty

The high number of children in  most deprived wards

Click image to enlarge

Brent Council yesterday launched a consultation on its draft child poverty strategy. The Government requires each local authority to have such a strategy in place in 2011. The Council is keen to have feedback on any gaps in  the information they provide which will enable them to refine the final strategy. The consultation is aimed at council staff, community groups and young people.

Some key facts:

• Brent has become more deprived. It was the 35th most deprived borough in 2010 compared with 53rd previously.
• The highest rates of child poverty are in Stonebridge ward, Harlesden and South Kilburn. There are pockets of deprivation in other parts of the borough including in the south of Welsh Harp ward which was not deemed as deprived four years ago.
• Overall there  are up to 23,000 children (34.1%) in Brent living in poverty according the the Child Wellbeing Index.
• The numbers of children eligible for Free School Meals is a good indicator of poverty. The national average is 15.9% but Stonebridge 44.2%, Harlesden 38.7%, Dollis Hill 33.4%, Kilburn 33.2%, Dudden Hill 31% were much higher compared with Kenton at 11.6%.
• 72% of homeless cases have children or are pregnant. (This is likely to get worse when the housing benefit cap is fully implemented early next year). There has been a recent increase in the number of young Somali people who are homeless.
• There is lower educational attainment in early years and schools compared with London and national averages and lower attainment evident in some Black African and African Caribbean children.
• The highest number of lone parents is highest in Harlesden (570) and Stonebridge (560) compared with 95 in Northwick Park and 60 in Kenton
• Unemployment is highest in the most deprived areas with a Brent average of 9.3% compared with 8.7% in London and 7.7% nationally
• 7.6% of Jobseekers Allowance claimants are 18-24 years old compared with 6.7% in London and 6.9% nationally
• The Tellus Survey showed that lack of aspiration and fears about future prospects including jobs, further education and money are concerns amongst most young people and parents.

The consultation report says that Brent Council is responding to this situation by:

• Completing a child poverty needs assessment
• Drafting a strategy
• Consulting on the strategy

The Council gives its child poverty vision as:

For no children or young people to be disadvantaged by poverty by 2021 in Brent. Over the next decade we will ensure that each child has the best possible start in life and not be disadvantaged by family circumstance or background by breaking the cycle of deprivation

The problem is of course in achieving this vision against the back of Coalition policies whose overall impact, despite innovations such as the pupil premium, are increasing child poverty through reducing benefits, the housing benefit cap, and reducing the number of public sector jobs. The Council's own scope for initiative is clearly limited by the cuts in local authority funding and some of the cuts and higher charges they have made as a result will also impact on families and educational provision.

Faced with the statistics and the reality of  Coalition policies the objectives outlined in the consultation document  seem well-meaning but lacking in establishing a clear, practical policy direction. 'But how?' keeps coming into your mind:

Our objectives for 2021

1. To provide a safe and secure environment where all children are respected and cared for so that they grow into successful and responsible people.

2. To ensure all children have a happy life and life style to be able to progress and thrive.

3. To provide children with the best possible education in an environment where they can thrive; socially, emotionally, physically and intellectually.  

4. To ensure all children are happy, confident and ambitious capable to aim high and achieve what ever they aspire to.

The officers concerned hope that by establishing an over-arching framework they will enable different Council departments to produce more detailed plans. The consultation will be longer than usual and will involve 15 face to face meetings with various stakeholders covering the full range of provision.

The diagram below shows the framework:

Click on image to enlarge

The consultation itself is qualitative and asks open-ended questions including What are the causes of poverty? and In a ideal world what actions could be take to a. prevent children from living in poverty and b. deal with those who are already in poverty? There are 13 questions in all so whoever writes this up will have an enormous job to do as some of the questions invite mini-essays in response!

The consultation website is HERE and a PDF of the consultation document is HERE
The consultation closes on September 26th and comments should be sent to andrea.lagos@brent.gov.uk