Brent Council urges parents to respond to government consultation on school funding

From Brent Council today

Parents, schools and Brent Council are uniting to defend local school children following Government plans to cut funding to local schools by £2.2 million.

The proposed cuts - which would see local schools lose two per cent of their budgets overall and equate to £105 per pupil - are a result of the government's National Funding Formula. Overall, schools in London are set to lose £19million.

As around 80 per cent of a school's budget is spent on staff salaries, funding reductions are likely to result in fewer teachers and support staff posts in schools, as well as increased class sizes. This is significant because top quality teachers who are motivated and highly skilled are the main reason that children make progress and achieve good results in their education.

Cllr Mili Patel, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, said:

In recent years, schools in Brent have made great strides. We have gone from 78 per cent of schools in the Borough rated as 'Good' or 'Outstanding' by Ofsted, to 96 per cent currently. Our primary school, GCSE and A Level results are all above the national averages and we are in the middle of an ambitious school build programme to ensure that every child in Brent has access to a good local school place.

All of these things are absolutely fantastic and a result of the tireless hard work and dedication that our senior leaders, teachers, support staff and governors in Brent put in every single day. But we need the teachers and schools' staff in the first place and this is only possible thanks to the sustained investment over many years.

Fewer teachers and bigger class sizes will do nothing to help our school children thrive - especially in a hugely diverse borough like Brent where pupils come from a huge range of different backgrounds. This is why we, at Brent Council, will do everything we can to support our schools.

 If you are a parent of a school age child, the Government's current plans will see nearly £105 a year taken away from your child's education. I would urge all of our parents and carers in Brent to respond to the Department for Education's consultation and let them know what you think.

ENDS
 

What to do if you would like to know more or share your views

Have your say: You can submit your views to the government consultation about the NFF online at: https://consult.education.gov.uk/funding-policy-unit/schools-national-funding-formula2/which is open until 22 March 2017.

These are  suggested responses to certain questons as set out below. 

·       Q1: In designing our national funding formula, we have taken careful steps to balance the principles of fairness and stability. Do you think we have struck the right balance?

·         The proposals do not provide enough financial stability for schools. All Primary schools in Brent stand to lose significant amounts of funding, and all schools are experiencing rising costs.

·         There is no evidence that schools can manage the funding reductions whilst maintaining or improving performance levels.

·         Additional funding should be allocated to prevent cash losses to individual schools.

·       Q2: Do you support our proposal to set the primary to secondary ratio in line with the current national average of 1:1.29, which means that pupils in the secondary phase are funded overall 29% higher than pupils in the primary phase?

·         Locally in Brent the proposals mean moving away from this national average resulting in primary schools losing funding.

·         The Department for Education should look again at the impact of the national formula on London primary schools.

·       Q7. Do you agree with the proposed lump sum amount of £110,000 for all schools?

·         Small school funding is not just a rural issue.  Smaller primary schools, including faith schools, serve their community but can not always expand as physical space is an issue in London.  Smaller primary schools should receive additional funding.

·       Q14. Are there further considerations we should be taking into account about the proposed schools national funding formula?

·         The school national funding formula should be considered alongside the Pupil Premium funding.  We believe that an area cost adjustment should also be applied to the Pupil Premium to reflect higher costs in London.

·         Many of the cost pressures facing schools are the direct result of government policy, such as changes to national insurance and pension contributions, and the introduction of the Apprenticehip Levy. Any action the government can take to ease these cost pressures would make the introduction of a fair funding formula less challenging.

Bellevue Place Education Trust statement on Mossack Fonseca connection

This statement was posted on the Bellevue Place Education Trust  on Sunday April 10th by Mark Greatrex.  The Wembley Matters blog and Sunday Times article on BPET were published on the same day. LINK

Governance of Bellevue Place Education Trust

In response to the recently published Sunday Times article Bellevue Place Education Trust wishes to be very clear that the Bellevue shareholder who made an investment in Bellevue Education via a company registered by Mossack Fonseca in the British Virgin Islands has no connection with the Trust.

Bellevue Place Education Trust is a not for profit charitable trust set up with the sole intention to establish and maintain high performing schools in and around London.  The Trust was established by two parties, Bellevue Education and Place Group.  The Trust’s governance structure is clear as to the structure and who the members and trustees are.

Below for transparency, is our statement we sent to the Sunday Times.  We have made it very clear that Bellevue Place Education Trust is a not for profit charity that was approved by the Department for Education to manage and maintain state funded free schools.  The Trust is a separate, independent organisation from Bellevue Education that is solely focused on offering high quality education provision to its pupils.  We have some fantastic staff and governors who are supporting the delivery of this vision and we aim to see off these allegations as promptly as possible, enabling us to focus on our core purpose.

Below is the statement we have issued we have also included the Department for Education’s clear statement.

Statement from Bellevue Place Education Trust send to Sunday Times:

“Bellevue Place Education Trust is a multi-academy Trust, sponsoring seven primary Free Schools across London and the South-East. The Trust’s core purpose and responsibility is to establish, maintain and manage state funded Free Schools.  All Bellevue Place Education Trust schools are focused to deliver high quality education provision in areas where there is a shortage of primary school places.”

“Bellevue Place Education Trust is an independent charitable organisation, with six trustees, of which one is Mark Malley.  Trustees delegate responsibility to a Local Governing Body for each school, who appoint all staff (except the Headteacher), set the schools budget and ensure the curriculum meets the needs of the pupils, in line with the vision of the Trust.”

“In applying to be a Free School promoter, the Trust undertook stringent due diligence and was approved by the Department for Education and Charity Commission.”

A DfE spokesperson:

“We demand the highest moral and professional standards from anyone involved in educating our children and, in common with every free school proposal, Bellevue Place Educational Trust (BPET) was subject to detailed scrutiny. We are clear that no-one will be handed control of a school unless we are entirely happy with the result of the checks.

“Bellevue Education and BPET are separate organisations. Our records show the individual named is not in any way involved in the governance of BTEP schools. There are strict rules that prevent free schools and academies being run as for-profit organisations.

“These include due diligence checks, credit checks, and enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (formerly Criminal Records Bureau) checks and may include police and other checks necessary to ensure the suitability of people to be part of the free school programme.  As part of those checks, we would look at an individual’s association with other people or organisations.”

***********************************************************************************

This is what the Evening Standard wrote about BPET in February 2014 LINK

Both partners clearly have interests in financial returns.

Bellevue Place Education Trust is a partnership between two companies, Bellevue Education, founded in 2003 by former prep school headmaster Mark Malley, and chaired by private equity investor Mawan Naja, and Place Group, a provider of educational advisory services, including “potential income generation” and the identification of “appropriate investment vehicles”, to groups setting up free schools and academies.

***********************************************************************************

These are the most recent accounts of the Belleveue Place Education Trust that I can find: 

 

Parents 'want councils to have powers to act on failing free schools'

With Michaela  Free School due to open on September 15th and Brent Council committed to talks with free schools providers to create  extra school places in Brent, parents may be interested in this report from today's Evening Standard:

Report by Anna Davis

Growing numbers of London parents want local authorities to step in if standards drop in free schools, new research reveals.
There is confusion among parents with children at free schools about who exactly is responsible for intervening if there are problems, according to a poll carried out by YouGov.

More than half of parents with a child at a free school in London said they believe local authorities have the power to intervene if it is underperforming.

But in fact local authorities have no powers over free schools, which are independently run and accountable to the Department for Education 

Parents were then asked which schools local authorities should have powers over — and 68 per cent said free schools. This is six percentage points higher than when the same survey was carried out last year. Sixty three per cent of parents said councils should have control over academies, which are also independent.

It is the first survey of London parents since the so-called “Trojan Horse” takeover plot in Birmingham schools and was carried out by London Councils, which represents all local authorities in the capital.

Peter John, London Councils’ Executive member for children and young people, said: “If you are a parent and you are worried about leadership or staff issues at your local school, it’s only natural you’d turn to your local council. Of course head teachers should run schools day-to-day, but it’s clear that on the wider issues, parents want a council role.”

The survey found that 81 per cent of parents want councils to be able to ask free schools and academies to expand to fit more pupils in. This has increased from 76 per cent last year. Councils are responsible for providing a school place for every child, but cannot open schools themselves or direct academies to expand.

London Councils predicts that 133,000 new primary and secondary school places are needed by 2018 to cope with growing demand.

Mr John said: “Parents increasingly support a council role in influencing schools to expand, if there is clear local need. This isn’t surprising given the shortage in London.”

A Department for Education spokesman said: “We have consistently demonstrated that we are tough on underperformance in all types of school. When we have concerns about academies or free schools, we act quickly. The introduction of Regional schools Commissioners and Head Teacher Boards will further ensure swift action in the small number of cases where academies struggle

Professor: academies are failing black students

An interesting article from Voice on Line LINK which gives pause for thought as the academisation of Brent secondary school nears completion:

A LEADING academic has said that black pupils achieve worse GCSE results in academies than in local authority schools with a similar intake.

Professor David Gillborn, director of the centre for research in race and education based at the University of Birmingham, pointed to the Government’s data which revealed that while other ethnicities performed better, attainment among black pupils leaves much to be desired.

According to the Department for Education’s Equalities Impact Assessment: Academies Bill published in 2010, 37.1 per cent of black children enrolled at academies achieved five top GCSEs including maths and English.

But in local authority-run schools with similar characteristics, that figure was 41 per cent among children of African and Caribbean heritage.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “These are not the most up-to-date figures. In fact, results in sponsored academies are improving at a faster rate than in other state-funded schools. Analysis published by the department last year shows that, in 2011, the proportion of black pupils achieving five good GCSEs including English and mathematics was 2.5 percentage points higher in sponsored academies than in similar council-run schools.”

For other ethnic groups including white and Asian, this pattern was in reverse with both groups performing slightly better.

Academies tend to have a higher proportion of black pupils than other ethnic groups. Gillborn, a guest speaker at the annual London Schools and the Black Child conference, said: “The Government claims that academies are going raise standards for everyone but, actually, its own data suggests academies are bad news for black students.

“When compared with similar local authority schools they do worse...this has not stopped the policy being rolled out across the country. [The Government] has taken no steps whatsoever to identify where this problem might be arising from, let alone taking steps to ensure that it doesn’t happen in every single new academy.”

Crucial day for future of Gladstone Park Primary School

Gladstone Park Primary School parents yesterday presented a letter to Michael Gove at the Department for Education, backed by 572 petition signatories, calling for the school to be allowed to continue its current improvement strategy without being forced to become a sponsored academy.

They backed the request up with data evidence that showed the strong progress now being made in years 3-5 where Ofsted had previously found weakness and HMI's and the local authority's approval of the strategy now in place. Any change in school status would disrupt this progress to the detriment of the school and its pupils.

Today some of the Gladstone Park governing body will be meeting with Michael Gove to discuss the school's situation and I understand that Sarah Teather MP will also be attending the meeting. Sarah Teather lost her position working with Michael Gove in the last government re-shuffle and has since distanced herself from some Coalition policies, particularly those concerning welfare.

Act Now to Keep Climate Change in the geography curriculum

The announcement that Michael Gove wants to remove teaching about climate change from the curriculum of under 14 year olds has been met with equal amounts of disbelief and anger from many quarters.  A national campaign got Mary Seacole and Ouladah Equianno retained in the history curriculum - we must now act on geography.

People and Planet has set up an on-line e-action page HERE and I reproduce their statement below:

In 2011, in response to a proposal to drop climate change from the national science curriculum, People & Planet's petition to the Department for Education was the largest email campaign received by the department that year. But new proposals now threaten to remove climate change from the geography curriculum.

At People & Planet, our experience working in schools and colleges has shown us that teaching about climate change is crucial to ensuring a new generation of young people who understand and are able to be leaders on climate change, taking action to protect the environment and human life.
Prof. Sir David King, the government’s former science adviser, says:

“It would be absurd if the issues around environmental pollution weren’t core to the curriculum. I think we would be abdicating our duty to future generations if we didn’t teach these things in the curriculum.”

Adapt the letter to Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, and Ed Davey, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, which is HERE and say what you think of these new guidelines removing climate change from the national geography curriculum.

Please adapt the suggested text and subject line below, and remember to:

• let them know if you are a student, teacher, parent - or just concerned
• tell them how important your own knowledge and understanding of climate change has been to you
• be polite!

How Michael Gove is killing democracy in our schools

This letter to Michael Gove from parents of yet another school that is being forced to become an academy,  demonstrates just how governors, staff and parents are being trampled on:

Dear Mr Gove,

We are a group of parents whose children attend Thomas Gamuel Primary School (TGPS) in Walthamstow, east London.We are writing to object to the Department for Education’s decision to force TGPS into Sponsored Academy status, ignoring the objections of the parents, carers, teachers, support staff and governing body

:• 95 per cent of parents returning a ballot voted against academy status (60 per cent of parents voted)• 85 per cent of teachers voted against converting
• The governing body unanimously voted against becoming a sponsored academy.

We understand that the local authority has this week applied to you 'for consent to constitute the governing body of Thomas Gamuel Primary School as an Interim Executive Board (IEB) in accordance with Schedule 6 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006'. We strongly object to this application to dissolve a governing body that has made a decision the local authority disagree with.

We have met with our local MP Stella Creasy and our local councillor Clare Coghill to try and get some answers. We now write to you to outline our major objections and to ask that you reject the local authority’s application and allow the school to continue on its current path to improvement:


1. We are not a failing school. Ofsted inspected TGPS in April 2012. They rated the school ‘inadequate’, mainly due to an administrative error, informing the governing body two months after the inspection at the end of the summer term. Ofsted allocated a timetable for improvement between June 2012 and April 2013 (nine months). Ofsted’s interim monitoring report in November 2012 (three months into the plan) said the school was making ‘satisfactory progress’ in implementing its improvement plan. The monitoring report specifically noted that the administrative error which had caused the 'requires improvement' rating in April 2012 had now been fully resolved.The DfE states on its website that: 'When schools have been underperforming for a long time, decisive action is needed to raise standards and ensure that the children in these schools are able to achieve their full potential.'TGPS’ previous two Ofsted reports (2009 and 2006) rated the school 'good' with 'outstanding' aspects. We do not understand why one unsatisfactory Ofsted report classes us as ‘underperforming for a long time’

2. Teaching standards are improving. We are aware that teaching standards in the school need to be raised. The parents and carers are confident that this is being achieved. The teachers and support staff, and the governing body are confident, indeed even Ofsted is confident - as it reported in its monitoring inspection in November 2012. Why then is the DfE forcing TGPS to rush into Sponsored Academy status?The DfE states: 'Wherever possible, the Department will seek to find solutions to raising standards that everyone can agree on - as has been the case with the vast majority of the schools that have become academies. Where under performance is not being tackled effectively the Secretary of State does have powers to intervene to help ensure standards are raised.'The School Improvement Plan in place is tackling underperformance - and we as parents can see the visible results of this. We are all committed to this plan and want the DfE to allow the plan to run the course of its original timetable (April 2013).As stated earlier, the parents of children at the school have voted overwhelmingly against sponsored academy status. The school governing body have voted against it. The teachers at the school are against it. How is the DfE seeking to find a solution that ‘everyone can agree on’?

3. We are not being consulted. Since October 2012 the DfE has been consistently applying pressure to TGPS’ governing body to agree to conversion to sponsored academy status. The Local Education Authority is now also applying pressure, regardless of the fact that the improvement plan’s original timetable – agreed by Ofsted – has not expired.The governing body originally voted against making a decision without consulting parents and chose instead to focus on improving teaching standards within the school. When they did consult with us, they listened and voted with us. The local authority is now planning to take away the only body that truly has our children’s best interests at heart.We want the original school improvement plan and timetable – ratified by Ofsted – to stand. The changes that have already been implemented need time to embed.We want to make an informed, unrushed decision about our future status. A proper consultation – with all the facts about what the change will actually mean – needs to take place. We would like a choice of sponsor. There has been a lack of transparency of the criteria used by the DfE/local authority to choose the proposed sponsor.

Thank you again for your time and attention.

Yours sincerely

TGPS Parents Say No 
(Representing the voice of the majority of parents and carers at Thomas Gamuel Primary School)

Gladstone Park gains window of opportunity on forced academy conversion

Gladstone Park Primary Reception Class  December 2012
The Department for Education has told the governing body of Gladstone Park Primary that they will delay making a decision on the proposed sponsor until February 11th. The DfE had been expected to name a sponsor last week.

The letter, which appears on the school's website LINK broadens the grounds for forced academisation:

Where schools are underperforming (my emphasis) or in an Ofsted category, Ministers have been very clear that the Department should lead on brokering sponsored Academy solutions. This is because the Department's sponsor assessment process and regular contact officials  have with sponsors means that the Department is best placed to provide a complete view on an individual sponsor's current capacity and capability to deliver.

The designation of 'underperforming' clearly widens the scope for forced academisation and confirms that this is a strategy designed to escalate the conversion of local authority primary schools to academy status.

 Offering  the governing body the opportunity to give its views and ideas 'before the proposed sponsor is decided' (Note - not whether academisation is the the best solution for the school and one favoured by the governing body, staff and parents) the DfE Brokerage and School Underperformance Division delay the decision until February 11th.

However, having offered that limited opportunity, the DfE makes it clear that 'formal consultation' only takes place AFTER the governing body has agreed that the school should have a particular sponsor:

...The Department believes it is most appropriate to meet with the governing body to discuss Academy status as it is the body responsible and accountable for the school's performance and strategic direction, and can make the decision to apply for an Academy Order. We recognise the importance of consulting locally and this is a requirement before any school can open as an Academy.The formal consultation is usually started when the proposed sponsor has been identified by the Department, the governing body has met with, and agreed to be sponsored by the sponsor, and the proposal has been given Ministerial approval to be taken forward. As the key stakeholder groups (parents, staff, the local authority and the wider community) are represented on the governing body in elected and non-elected roles, it is well-placed to take this decision.

There is a tacit recognition of the potentially conflicting claims of the DfE and ministers and the local democratic role and responsibilities of the governing body. 

Reading between the lines it appears that the Department wants to avoid appearing to ride rough-shod over current democratic arrangements (as it did at Downhills) by recognising the role of the governing body, but at the same time seeks to have the deal signed, sealed and delivered in advance of the consultation.

A key word is the 'usually' in the passage in bold. Perhaps there is space here for the governing body to insist that the consultation includes alternatives to academy conversion including the school managing its own improvement in collaboration with Brent's School Improvement Service or some other agency, or forming a soft or hard federation with another school.

It is important that Brent Council steps in to offer Gladstone Park support in such an approach.

Parents bid for secondary free school in NW2 area

A small group of Brent parents are in the process of applying to the Department for Education to open a secondary free school in the NW2 area.

They have circulated e-mails to local residents and are distributing leaflets at local primary schools in an effort to get a minimum of 240 parents of children currently in Year 4 or 5 to pledge support for their application. The deadline is just before Christmas.

I have been warning for some time that the disproportionate number of secondary schools in the south of Brent, compared with the north, could lead to such an application. I have also suggested that many parents prefer a smaller school. This proposal is for a four form entry which would make it smaller than some of the expanded Brent primary schools.

The group have a website HERE.

They summarise their proposal thus:

Gladstone is an exciting new school offering 120 places each year to 11-19 year olds in north west London. Designed by education professionals and parents, the school will create strong links with universities, the local community and London's creative, scientific and cultural organisations.

Our vision is for an ambitious, popular, community-focused school. The knowledge, skills and confidence it provides will transform the aspirations and achievements of all it touches. We'll set high standards, because young people learn best when we expect the best of them. Children starting with us will receive academic rigour, inspirational teaching and rich cultural and physical activities. But we'll also focus on enjoyment since the most ambitious targets are met when learners are active, happy and motivated. Those children will leave us as successful young adults, with qualifications to secure the best that life offers. And they will know the pride of being part of a community, but the confidence to go it alone.

This is what they say about their ethos:

The "inspiration; confidence; success" mantra underpins and informs the management of every element of our school life, from individual child to whole-school policies. Any planned action must be measured against the same checklist: how does this inspire students? how does it increase their confidence? how can we, or they, measure success?

 

It also provides a firm foundation for the school ethos, which includes the following aims:

• to provide a strong academic curriculum, balanced with creative and entrepreneurial activities;
• to promote individual ambition by setting and monitoring personalised targets for every student, alongside tailored academic and pastoral support, so that every student maximises their academic and personal potential;
• to relentlessly pursue exciting and inspirational opportunities for all students, and to seek out individuals and organisations who can support these aspirations;
• to capitalise on the interests, passions and expertise of local parents and the community;
• to ensure all students secure the academic achievements needed to go on to university, if they choose to;
• to encourage and empower young people to become independent: in their learning and their lives generally; and
• to attract and retain the very best teachers by providing them with tailored support, encouragement and professional development opportunities.

I have submitted a number of searching questions to the group about their proposal and hope to carry their answers soon. The questions focus on issues of  access, equality, accountability and teachers' conditions of service.