Showing posts with label Krutika Pau. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Krutika Pau. Show all posts

Saturday, 1 June 2013

Sign of Michaela's desperation?


Wembley residents were aghast when they were confronted by this gigantic 'in your face' advertising hoarding opposite Wembley Park station this week.  The hoarding was fixed to the crumbling and possibly asbestos ridden Arena House, site of the proposed Michaela Community School.

Michaela is the free school brain child of Michael Gove acolyte, Katharine Birbalsingh.  The school failed to gain support at its recent consultation meetings and is now getting desperate for custom. Apart from the advertisiing hoarding they have managed to get on the front page of the Wembley and Willesden Observer this week with a plea for parents to get involved.

Despite being funded by tax-payers' money, to the detriment of other local schools badly needing cash for rebuilding, the school promises  'private school values' whatever that means. Krutika Pau, current Director of Children and Families, while admitting that the school was 'experimental' and had no track record, nevertheless thought it accorded with Brent schools' ethos.


The advertisement  boasts of 'private school values', 'traditional education', 'strong discipline' and 'healthy competition' as well as a long school day. The subtext merits further discussion!

The school is now seeking Year 7 applications for September 2014. Parents should be aware that they will be choosing a pig in a poke compared with other Brent secondary schools which have (with the exception of Ark whose pupils have not yet reached examination age ) examination results and Ofsted reports to back up their claims. Michaela has no evidence to back up their assertions - parents have to judge whether their 'bigging up' of their plans amounts to anything substantial or is a risk too far in terms of their children's future.

Michaela's claim of being an 'Exceptional' school (word obscured by trees on the strap line of the advertisement) is based on nothing more than assertion. What does the Advertising Standards Authority say?

Friday, 24 May 2013

Brent Council accepted Michaela Free School as a 'fait accompli' in letter to DfE

In Brent Council's  letter to the DfE regarding the application by Michaela Community School to set up a secondary free school in Wembley, Krutika Pau reported on the views that came out of a meeting of a group of Brent headteachers, councillors and council officers who met with the Michaela proposers. She said  that Katharine Birbalsingh's 'highly laudable intention to provide excellent education' in a way that 'helps them overcome social disadvantage' accords with the aims of existing Brent secondary schools. However concerns are expressed about the 'experimental character' of the school and the risks arising from this and the fact that it does not have a track record.

The position of Arena House and the facilities offered, even after refurbishment, also concerned the Council and particularly the need for external play space.

In a key sentence Pau accepts that the school is a fair accommpli despite the fact that the results of the very poorly attended public consultation have not yet been reported:
It is fair to say that this local authority would not have invited the Michaela Community School into the borough as part of its school expansion plans but given that its opening is a fait accompli, we plan to work with the school both constructively and with vigilance.
In another (redacted) document released as a result of my freedom of information request, Sara Williams, Assistant Director, reports on her meeting with Tome Legge and Katharine Birbalsingh of Michaela Community School. The report is undated but before March 2013:

·         The purchase of Arena House has gone through

·     The school will open with 4 forms of entry in September 2014.  They will open in Year 7 only though they are open to suggestions for provision in Year 10 if we need it

·      Under the free school legislation, there has to be a period of consultation (Section 9/10?).  The timing of this hasn’t been nailed down yet.

·     Tom has agreed that the school will do a presentation to a group of Brent stakeholders as part of the consultation:  I will organise this once we know the timeframe of the consultation.  It needs to be handled carefully (including the invitation list) but will be a good opportunity I think.

·      The school will enter the authority’s admissions process

·      It will sign up to the Fair Access Protocol

·      They will send their admissions policy for us to vet

·      They want to balance the intake through banding like Capital City (good practice in my view)

·      They are interested in an admissions ‘node’ in the south of the borough (like Ark).  We are suggesting near QPCS as that school is very oversubscribed yet the transport routes to the undersubscribed schools are not good.  Carmen will talk to Mike Hulme about this to give him the heads up.

·      They will admit SEN pupils like any other school and aim to be inclusive

·      The curriculum will be depth before breadth – extra Eng, Ma, Sci with no D&T or ICT as discrete subjects

·      Music and art will be included in the curriculum

·      There will be an extended school day

·      They will look to rent PE space from other schools

·      They will recognise TUs if their staff want to be members

·      They will require QTS (Qualified Teacher Status)

·      They will have an LA rep on their governing body

·      They will have parents on their governing body

·      They will share performance data
They will let the premises to the community and encourage suitable community uses
 Williams notes:

The consultation is not a process whereby the local authority can realistically prevent the school opening – or this is my understanding from reading up on it.  Jean can you look into it and give me some wording on the legal position? 
LINKS

Krutika Pau's full letter with additional information on banding and catchment HERE

Sara Williams' full notes HERE

Sunday, 26 August 2012

A new primary school for Wembley and other children's issues

The September 19th Brent Council Executive will be a big night for Krutika Pau, Director of Children and Families, with several major reports from her department being discussed.

However the first on is being fronted by Andy Donald, Director of Major Projects and Regeneration and concerns the acquisition of a site in the Wembley Stadium area for a new primary school.  This has been on the cards for a while and was part of the original Quintain/Wembley Plan. It was expected to be in Fulton Road but concerns have been expressed about the proximity of 'bad neighbour' waste management facilities. These concerns will have been heightened by the recent problem with a vile stench from the Careys/Seneca MRF in Hannah Close.

Educationally, and this is where Krutika Pau comes in, it is likely to be controversial if the council follows through the Executive's August decision to vigorously purse partnerships with free school and academy providers.

Ms Pau will be leading on 'A Plan for Children and Families in Brent 2012-2015' which sets out how to keep Brent children healthy and safe, close the attainment gap between different groups, provide school places and integrate services to 'develop resilient families'. Complex and challenging.

The Executive will also consider the Local Safeguarding Children's Board Annual Report and will be expecting to see significant improvements in some areas that were only deemed adequate when last assessed.  The Annual Fostering and Adoption Annual Report is also due to be considered and attention will focus on whether there have been improvements in the rate of adoption placements, the number of adoption orders, increasing the number of Brent adopters for Brent children and earlier matching of children to adopters.

For fostering the council seeks to increase the number of foster parents recruited and move children out of Independent Fostering Agencies.

Saturday, 19 May 2012

Brent defends record on school finances monitoring

Krutika Pau, Brent's Director for Children and Families, has written to the Times Educational Supplement after they published a critical article drawing attention to the number of cases of financial mismanagement in Brent Schools, which obviously raised the question of  the effectiveness of Brent Council's monitoring and auditing processes. I posted on this issue recently LINK asking why there was no report from Children and Families on this issue tabled for Monday's Executive Meeting.
I was very dismayed to read the article entitled, “Financial scandal continues to plague Brent Council” that appeared in the TES on 4 May, accusing Brent Council of being negligent in its duty to oversee school finances robustly and effectively.

Brent Council takes its role in ensuring sound financial management in schools very seriously and takes firm action against schools whenever there is evidence of it taking place.

In the case of Malorees Primary School, a thorough audit of the school identified that a number of improvements in financial management were necessary and the current head teacher is actively engaged on making these changes.

Brent has over 80 schools which receive an audit on a two or three year basis. It would be impossible within current resources to audit every school each year. Auditing schools on a rolling programme basis, so that each one is audited every two to three years, is very normal within local authorities and Brent does more than most in relation to school audits and has a very detailed audit brief.

In fact, the very detailed nature of our audit brief is precisely why Brent has managed to uncover these, thankfully rare examples of financial mismanagement that have occurred in the four schools your article mentions, over a fairly long period of time.

Schools have a duty to monitor their financial position on an on-going basis and this can throw up potential overspends that could worsen in the future unless corrective action is taken. In the case of Malorees School, the current head teacher has identified potential issues and is working proactively with Brent Council to take decisive action now to ensure that any potential problems are averted in the future.

Whenever irregularities occur we do not attempt to conceal them but are open and transparent at all times about our investigations and provide appropriate support to schools so that corrective action can be taken.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Krutika Pau
Director of Children and Families


Tuesday, 21 June 2011

Brent officers and councillors warn against fragmentation of education service

Gareth Daniel, Brent Council's Chief Executive warned against fragmentation of the education service when he spoke at the Brent Governors' Conference today. In a reference to academies and free school he said that it was crucial to keep Brent's 'family of schools' together and that it was important for schools to keep sight of the 'bigger picture'. He emphasised the importance of partnership work and said 'we must remember what unites us'.  He stressed the vital  role of the local authority when things go wrong in individual schools He said that his attitude was one of general pragmatism and 'to be blunt we have to follow the money' rather than take an ideological stance. However he said that local politicians were not comfortable with free schools and that he was not comfortable with them himself.

Krutika Pau, Director of Children and Families,  urged governors to keep their eyes on the long-term and reflect on the permanent damage that would be caused by a fragmented school system. She said that we must face current difficulties in a rational and principled way.

Cllr Mary Arnold, lead member for Children and Families also stressed the importance of the 'family of schools' and the responsibility to the wider community of terms of special educational needs provision, looked after children and child protection. Links between schools and through the local authority were important in terms of collective provision and so that the most vulnerable could be reached.  She also drew attention to the recently revealed errors in the funding of academies with excessive amounts being diverted from the local authority. 'Top slicing' had cost Brent £1m.

All three also addressed the shortage of primary places and said that they were lobbying with other London local authorities for additional funding to provide places. Gareth Daniel warned that some local authorities would not be able to meet their statutory responsibilities.  Krutika Pau said that the shortage of places kept her awake at night and drew attention to the current consultation (see my BLOG). She cited a 10% increased in reception applications for next year and said she wanted 'excellent provision rather than just a range of bulge classes'. 

The context of government cuts and their impact on the council was a central theme with Children and Families accounting for  £14m of Brent's total of £42m cuts. .Krutika Pau outlined steps that had been taken in terms of amalgamation of departments, reducing management layers and reducing the ratio of managers to workers, On the services that schools buy-in she said that the services would be refined next year and that they would employ a 'full cost recovery method' next year. (I interpret this as meaning that there will be an increase in costs to schools). She warned that in terms of budgets, schools would experience in the near future what that authority has had to endure this year: 'schools will have to make every penny count'.   Gareth Daniel said support services had to provide 'value for money' but those provided by Brent would not necessarily be the cheapest. He said in a free market for such services schools 'wouldn't pay peanuts for monkeys'. He said the authority would be more selective in what it did but would do it well. Supporting a call for schools to be more open to other activities taking place there out of hours he said governors should make schools 'work for their living'.

Outlining the context Krutika said all this was happening while more than one third of Brent children were from low income families, over one quarter were on free school meals, three quarters were in social housing and one fifth in single income households. Social care referrals had increased by 25% and there had been in increase in the number of children with disabilities and the number requiring a special needs assessment.

After muted welcoming applause Sarah Teather gave a subdued speech in which she said the Coalition had two main objectives: raise standards and narrow the attainment gap.  She said they wanted more autonomy for schools but only with accountability but didn't specify how this fitted into academies and free school policy.  Se said that the government would provide guidance on the use of the pupil premium but that schools would be left to make their own decisions. Judgement on the effectiveness of the school's use of the money would be based on outcomes rather than requesting details of what it is spent on.

In a controversial part of the speech she talked about proposals to pare down the number of people on a government body. She said that a smaller body would be more dynamic and effective and that there were too many 'clingers on' who did not contribute. Such governing bodies 'would not be hindered' by having too many voices represented. In answer to a question she said that there would still be space for local authority representation but schools will be allowed to say that they do not want an LA representative but someone with different skills.  She doubted whether the quality of school improvement advisors across the country  justified their inclusion remarking that although some were good other local authority School Improvement Services were poor. She said that there had been an issue in Brent of school governing bodies not being strong enough  to challenge headteachers effectively. She said that the National College of School Leadership  was look at training chairs of governing bodies and giving them the skills to challenge. A key role of governing bodies was to focus on the progress of the most vulnerable children.

Teather was challenged on the early years by Cllr Helga Gladbaum who mentioned that Brent had been unable to open three of the 20 planned Children's Centres because of cuts. Sarah Teather replied that she would champion the early years in her ministerial role. In answer to a question on Coalition expenditure in Libya at a time of financial retrenchment Teather justified military intervention on humanitarian grounds.  Criticised for the Coalition's stance on Pupil Referral Units and challenged to visit Brent units,  she said that there across the country they 'are a very mixed bag - some are appalling'. The Coalition planned to make schools accountable for what happens to pupils after they are excluded.


Sunday, 5 June 2011

Teather in the hot seat?

Another meeting!  I don't spend all my time at them, honestly, but this is one where we might see a bit of accountability.

Headteachers and governors have been wrestling with the twin-pronged pressures of government policy changes and budget cuts. Conversion to academies is an active issue with Ark, Capital City,Claremont,  Crest Girls, Crest Boys academies and Kingsbury and Woodfield considering conversion. The prospect of a primary Free School is on the horizon. The Council's stance on academies has been somewhat opaque with Cllr Mary Arnold, lead member for Children and Families stating her opposition, but Krutika Pau, Director of Children and Families, putting forward a 'neutral' stance.

In terms of cuts, governors have found themselves in a difficult position regarding detailed budget figures from the council which were received very late in the budget making process, as well as having to make decisions about 'buying in' services from the council at increased cost and provided by fewer staff. School have often been tempted to buy-in services from external providers instead.

The two issues are connected because poor back-up from the Local Authority undermines arguments against converting to academy  status.

We are also in the rare position of having a local MP in the government with an education brief . Sarah Teather, Minister of State for Children and Families,  is currently leading on early years provision and special educational needs. Dr Rhodes Boyson, Conservative MP for Brent North, was the last local MP in such a position.

Sarah Teather will be speaking at the Brent Conference for Governors on Monday June 20th 2011. She will be speaking about the new Education Bill and Krutika Pau will be speaking about changes in Children and Families and her vision for her brief.

Gareth Daniel, Brent's Chief Executive will examine what he sees are the main challenges ahead and how they will affect schools and children's centres.

The event, at the Wembley Plaza, is free to Brent school governors, children's centre board members, associate members and clerks. There is a charge of £70 per person  for other interested parties.

Sunday, 26 September 2010

New Director of Children and Families

Usually reliable sources tell me that Dr Krutika Pau has been appointed as the new Director of Brent Children and Families following the retirement of John Christie.   Krutika has worked for Brent (with a break) for a long time and until this appointment was Assistant Director for Strategy and Partnerships. As Krutika Tanna, she was principal research officer for the Brent Race Unit   She is known as an excellent administrator and organiser.  It will be interesting to see whether she now delivers on vision.

Blogging on June 8th 2010 I set out my views on what I felt was required:

Although policy is in theory made by councillors, the Director of Children and Families... is extremely powerful and his or her educational philosophy and perspective on current educational issues vitally important. Will the  Labour Council appoint someone with the ability to stand up for children and schools, with an independent mind and the strength to resist government pressure; or will they appoint someone who will manage 'efficiency savings' and implement poorly thought out 'innovations' and in the process oversee the deterioration of Brent's education system?

An issue that has concerned some in education in Brent is that the post was filled internally, in effect ring-fenced, because of the 'savings' restructuring going on in Brent. This meant that there was a very narrow field with only a handful of people eligible to apply. In contrast when headteacher and deputy headteacher posts in schools are vacant they are always, as a matter of policy, advertised nationally to ensure the widest and best quality field of candidates.  This is because the children of Brent need and deserve the best possible headteacher and the field should not be limited for other less worthy reasons.