London housing crisis worsens teacher retention and recruitment difficulties

 The London housing crisis and its impact on young public services workers including teachers and nurses took centre stage at the London Mayoral election hustings last night.

The London Teachers Housing Campaign is opposing the selling off of social social housing and requirements for social housing to move to market rents and calling for rent controls and opposition to the Housing Bill.

Esther Obiri-Darko, Green candidate and teacher

The Green Party GLA candidate for Merton and Wandsworth, Esther Oberi-Darko, backed the NUT's Manifesto call for rent controls and more affordable housing in London through investment by Councils to build homes. This is an issue that teachers' organisations in Brent have recently raised with Muhammed Butt.

Recruitment and retention of teachers has already been hit by the government's education policies, particularly the recent changes in curriculum and assessment, but housing presents a major practical headache for teachers who now face being priced out of the market long with the families of the children they teach.

An NUT Young Teachers' Housing Survey at the end of 2015 found that 60% of young teachers surveyed said that they could not see themselves still teaching in London in five years' time, although in that period 100,000 new school places will be required in London.  These are the stark facts that point to a growing crisis that will put at risk all the gains made in London schools in the last decade.

Of the teachers survey 59% were having to rent privately and 18% were living at home with their parents, more than were buying a property.  The NUT said:

Just like the families of too many of the children that they teach, young teachers are being forced into unsuitable housing, facing high rents and sometimes unscrupulous landlords.

Housing conditions are revealed by individual comments from teachers:

'We are five people sharing a three bedroom flat. This is the only way we can keep costs down.'

'Landlords frequently increase rent, forcing us to move or they sell property and force eviction.'

'It's noisy, horrible and with holes i the walls but it's all that I can afford.'

'We live in a tiny two-bedroom flat with three children. We can't even fit a second bed in the second bedroom. The property has damp and my daughter has asthma.'

'I work in the same borough that I grew up in. I don't want to move away from my life, my roots, just because of ridiculous housing prices.'

At yesterday's election meeting Shaun Bailey,  London List candidate for the Conservatives, seemed confused about policy, at one time seeming to support rent controls and advocating 'controlling landlords'. John Howson for the Lib Dem's was wedded to the market and Labour's Jeanette Arnold didn't bother to turn up. All the candidates supported raising Council Tax on empty properties. None mentioned the recent proposal from a GLA Committee to pilot a Land Value Tax in London LINK . Esther Oberi-Darko spoke about Sian Berry's proposal for a London Renters Union to help exploited private tenants challenge landlords.

On Sunday, March 13th, there is a National Demonstration against the Housing Bill. The Bill includes proposals to  off existing council homes to the highest bidder, removes secure tenancies and imposes 'pay to stay' market-linked rent rises for council and housing association tenants and reduces rights for private renters.

Marchers will meet at 12 noon at Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3TL (Holborn tube)

More information HERE

NUT call on the next Mayor of London to defend education and help teachers create a just society for all.

The NUT will be holding a London Mayoral Hustings on Monday March 7th 6pm at the union's headquarters at Hamilton House, Mabledon Place, WC1H 9BD, near Kings Cross,  off  the south side of Euston Road.

The meeting will be introduced by Christine Blower, NUT General Secretary.

The flyer advertsing the event lists the issues that matter to London teachers:

London's schools are under threat
London is a city full of creativity, talent and potential. Our schools and teachers are amongst the best in the world. Yet this sucess is under real threat.

Spending cuts
School budgets across London face 12% cuts under Government spending plans. In some boroughs, the losses could be over 20%. That would mean understaffed schools, bigger class sizes, more children's needs unmet and a narrower curriculum.

Teacher shortages
Talented, hardworking teachers are being driven out of London's schools by excessive workload, the lack of affordable housing and an exam factory culture which demoralises both staff ansd children.

Poverty and unaffordable housing
Almost 4 in 10 children in the capital grow up in poverty. Unaffordable rents force too many families into unsuitable housing. These conditions impact heavily on children's education and their schools.

Lack of school places
London needs 113,000 more school places to meet demand. Yet our Councils have neither the funds nor the legal powers to open new schools.

Stand Up for London's Education
The NUT belives that every child deserves the best. We have produced a Manifesto for London's schools calling on the next Mayor of London to defend education and help teachers create a just society for all.

Help stand up for education
Come along to our hustings and other local campaign activities across London. Distribute our manifestpoand talk with friends, colleagues and candidates about our demands.

Mail manifesto@nut.org.uk for the NUT's Manifesto for London's schools and colleges

NUT call for 2016 SATs to be suspended as ministers fail the 'test of competence'

-->

I have been hearing concerns from local primary teachers about the new SATs that are due to take place in May so I am not surprised to hear that the NUT is calling for them to be suspended.

This is what the NUT said today:

Nicky Morgan’s new system for testing and assessment of KS1 and KS2 pupils has come apart at the seams. As a result the NUT is calling for the 2015/16 SATs to be suspended.

In early February the DfE published its requirements in relation to teacher assessments of children’s writing standards. These have come far too late in the process. The detail in the exemplifications of the required standards and the number of separate pieces of evidence required for each individual assessment mean that they are impossible for teachers to deliver in the few months between February and June. Since these exemplifications are ‘interim’ and only for this year, they could also change completely again next year.

These proposals add to a chaotic heap of other demands. The reporting date for teachers’ assessments has been brought forward. The ‘expected standard’ that children are required to meet has been pushed upwards, beyond the reach of far too many pupils. The consequences of this shift on the requirement on schools to meet floor standards have not been thought through.

Ministers have failed the test of competence. Nicky Morgan’s pledge to give a year’s notice of substantial changes has been revealed as just a hollow promise.

The NUT is calling for the 2015/16 SATs to be suspended and will be meeting other teaching unions on Thursday 18 February to discuss a joint response.

NUT: Our Prevent concerns are raised to ensure the best possible system to protect children

The National Union of Teachers has issued the following statement from Kevin Courtney, Deputy General Secretary, after the Daily Telegraph accused the union of 'colluding in undermining the Prevent Strategy' LINK: 

Keeping children safe is a central concern of teachers and the NUT. The union opposes any attempt by any organisation to exploit children and young people. We do however have some concerns about the operation and training for the Prevent strategy which could undermine its aims. In particular there is a worry that some children may feel unable to speak in class discussions.

Our concerns, alongside many other organisations, are raised in order to ensure  that the best possible system is in place to protect young people and society.  To stop rational debate about Prevent is in the interest of no one. It is only through discussion with the profession that we will get this right in our schools.

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

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

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

The unions said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strike threat at Sudbury Primary School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Roan shows the way in challenging 'exam factory' schools

The current action by teachers at John Roan School in Greenwich has significance well beyond that borough. There is increasing recognition of the impact of a high stakes testing system both on teachers and pupils. As teachers' workload increases their stress levels rise and the fixation on grades and fear of failure produces stress in their students.

John Roan staff are taking the initiative in challenging what the NUT have called factory schooling.  (Exam Factories? The impact of accountability measures on children and young people NUT June 2015).Yesterday a number of organisations, working under the banner Reclaiming Education, came together at Hamilton House, the NUT HQ, to discuss some common aims in that campaign. Green Party teachers were among those who took part.

This is the message that John Roan staff have sent to supporters today:

Dear Supporters,

We thought we would update you on our campaign to defend our working conditions and the traditions of our comprehensive school.

Our strike day on Tuesday 10 November 2015, received phenomenal support from NUT Associations, other trade unions, parents, students and teachers from as far as New York Miami and Nigeria! We think this is because we are speaking up for teachers who are defending education and the conditions in which it can flourish. We want our students to do well in their qualifications but not at any cost; not at the cost of those who find exams difficult and feel they are failures, or the ones who want to do so well they work into the night, bent over books with the stress of heightened expectations and future failure.

Teaching should be something that brings fulfilment and reward, not exhaustion and demoralisation. They are destroying our vocation and turning it into alienating toil. We must stop this and our campaign is the start for us. We hope we have encouraged teachers everywhere to do the same.

We understand that a negotiating meeting has been called this week and we hope that The John Roan Management come to their senses and adopt policies that recognise the valuable contribution we make to our students' learning.  All we ask is that they respect that our workload should be reasonable and that we should be trusted to teach without excessive scrutiny and monitoring.

If we do not get agreement, we will have no choice to but to continue our strike on Thursday 19 November 2015. Our pickets are from 7.30am until 8.45am and we welcome everyone in joining us to support our strike.

Please continue to spread the word and if you would like us to speak at a meeting then reply us with details of when/where you would like us to come. We are all working teachers so we will do our best, but we have part-time and retired teachers who could speak too.

Thanks again and solidarity forever.

The John Roan NUT
www.thejohnroannut.org  johnroannut@gmail.com  Twitter @thejohnroannut

Public meeting on primaries' move to convert to academy status

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

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

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

Three passionate voices on the education crisis

I tweeted the above open letter, first published in the TES, yesterday on both @WembleyMatters and @GreenEdPolicy and it has been retweeted many time, including by the writer and broadcaster Michael Rosen. The letter clearly resonates at a time when many teachers are leaving the profession.

Michael Rosen posted this on Facebook earlier today:

On the Guardian thread about teacher shortages and how they could possibly have come about, I posted some government policies to keep teaching recruitment and retention down:

1. Encourage the press to run stories saying that teachers are lazy and that there are thousands of bad ones.
2. Get the head of Ofsted to say the same.
3. Keep this up for decades. (both main parties)
4. Bring in hundreds of measuring and assessment systems, levels, targets, tests, exams, which then breed more 'rehearsal' tests and exams.
5. Bring in a punitive, rapid, unsupportive inspection system which ignores the fact that scores are attached to children so that if you're in a school where there has been turnover the inspectorate say that has nothing to do with us.
6. Run a new kind of school where the salaries of management are not open to public scrutiny.
7. Allow interest groups to open schools which take on proportionally fewer SEN, EAL and FSM pupils than nearby LA schools.
8 Allow covert selection and exclusion process to take place around these new kinds of schools because the LA schools have to pick up the pieces.
9. Use international data as if it is holy writ and ignore evidence that suggests that comparing countries does not compare like with like, that some countries which are 'top' are selecting. Obscure the differences between the countries by only talking about 'places' in the table, without ever making clear whether these differences are 'significant' or not.
10. Use China as an example of utopia in education without making a comparison between the two societies - as if education exists separately from the societies that produce the respective education systems.
11. Make sure that very nearly all the people running the state education system from government have no, or very little, state education experience themselves.

Yesterday, Kevin Courtney (who also retweeted the letter as @cyclingkev ) Deputy General Secretary of the NUT spoke at the London Green Party Annual General Meeting on 'Fighting for the Education our young people deserve.' This is an extract from his speech that was delivered with as much passion as demonstrated by Colin Harris and Michael Rosen.

Things have got to change if our education system is to survice as fit for purpose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are extracts from the three main presentations:

 

 

 

Resisting the Trade Union Bill Meeting Tomorrow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUOTES

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

National Union of Teachers (NUT)

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

Professor Cathy Nutbrown, The Conversation, Jan 2015

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

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

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

Nansi Ellis (Assistant General Secretary), ATL

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

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

Infected by the GERM: Baseline testing

Guest blog by Kiri Tunks, a teacher and National Union of Teachers activist in London. Kiri is currently standing for the post of NUT vice president. Re-posted with permission from the Counterfire website LINK

Globally, education is under assault from governments and multi-national corporations who see it as a legitimate and lucrative business opportunity with an estimated market value of $4.4tn or more.

This assault, termed by Finnish educator Pasi Sahlberg^[1] 'the Global Education Reform Movement' or GERM, has created a model of education that puts profit before pupils while masquerading as the saviour of education for all. It claims competition between students, teachers and schools drives up standards and that ‘testing’ is the only way schools can be accountable to parents and taxpayers. A worldwide movement, it is reducing education to what can be measured and made profitable.

The drive to improve results has resulted in almost constant testing of our children with ‘practice’ tests a routine feature of the UK school experience. This means less time for learning and discovery and an inevitable narrowing of what children learn as they are taught to the test.

Now, the government wants children starting in Reception to be ‘assessed’ using one of six possible tests (chosen by the school) to give them a baseline level in English & numeracy. Within the first six weeks of starting school, each child will sit with a teacher for a 15-30 minute test and answer questions to establish their ‘ability’. This data will then be used to project progress targets for the child at KS2, KS3, KS4 and beyond. Typically, such data is not treated as aspirational but is instead translated into ‘Target Minimum Grades’: not a guide then but an expectation.

Parents should be concerned at the increased push to formalise learning for very young children when good practice in other countries sees formal schooling start as late as 7. There are those who say these tests won’t harm the children and that the psychological impact is over-played. There is much evidence and expertise^[2] in the field that suggests otherwise but time will tell.

The government argues that this assessment will give a clear picture of every child’s ability as they start school. Such an assertion assumes several things.

It assumes the data from the tests is reliable. But how can this data be reliable when we will be testing children of significantly different ages (a potential difference of 11 months)? How can it be reliable when schools are choosing which test to use from six different commercial providers? How can the results of a test from one provider be moderated with those from another?

It also assumes that teachers don’t already gather useful information on a child’s ability and development. They do. Teachers use the comprehensive EYFS profile document which covers 17 areas of development as opposed to just English & numeracy.

Then there is the assumption that assessment need only cover literacy & numeracy and that such an assessment is a good predictor of ability or progress across all disciplines or skills

The government also suggests that this assessment will reduce workload for teachers (even though many teachers are being told they need to do both the EYFS and the Baseline test). But even proposing the replacement of the EYFS profile with a one-off test is a cynical ploy. It may appear to reduce workload but it will bring with it a whole new set of problems.

What if your students don’t make the ‘expected progress’? Already, under PRP, have to justify progress to maintain or improve their pay or prove their competency. Now, this data will be used to challenge all teachers, across a child’s entire school life, on their progress. It will be used to hold teachers’ pay down. No account will be taken of other contributory factors. There can be no ‘excuses’ for failure.

This test is being ‘trialled’ from September 2015 and will be ‘optional’ from 2016 so it looks like schools have a choice. However, all primary schools are judged on their performance at the end of Key Stage 2. Schools using the baseline test will need to show that ‘pupils make sufficient progress’ from their starting point.

Schools who choose not to use the test will have to meet an ‘attainment floor target’ of 85% (compared to 65% now). Schools who fail will be forced to become sponsored academies.

The truth is, the industrial scale of testing which is becoming the norm in our schools, does not benefit students. The government is quite clear that these tests are about assessing ‘school effectiveness’. More and more, teachers are under pressure to teach a ‘pre-determined content domain’ which means that students are only taught what is prescribed. Any idea we once had of learning being a journey of discovery is under serious attack.

The GERM is not interested in schools because it cares about children. It sees schools as a potential for profit and teachers and their unions are a huge obstacle to its plans. Our job as activists is to make sure parents and communities understand that testing and accountability is a smoke-screen for privatisation; that attacks on teachers’ pay and conditions are not about dealing with failure but about ridding schools of challenging and expensive pedagogy; that not everything worth learning can be measured in a test; and that instead of giving them more say in their child’s future they are handing over their learning to what pleases the market.

The National Union of Teachers has committed itself to campaigning against these tests within the UK but also building campaigns with teacher unions from other countries against global providers like Pearson. In light of the election result we are going to have to redouble our efforts. We need to talk to parents about our concerns but also about the broader question of what education is for and the kinds of schools our children deserve. The imposition of these tests goes way beyond the question of how we measure a child’s progress. It questions the very nature of what kind of education we want for our society.

Notes

[1] GERM that kills schools, Pasi Sahlberg, June 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdgS--9Zg_0

[2] Early Years Education – NUT Edufacts http://www.teachers.org.uk/edufacts/early-years

Parents chain themselves to school entrance in protest against forced academisation

Parents chained themselves across school entrance

Report from Brent NUT and ATL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti forced academisation strike well supported

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Brent battle against forced academisation of a primary school

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christine Gilbert's Adventures in Haringey

In addition to her main job with Brent Council, Christine Gilbert also runs her own company, Christine Gilbert Associates which is still listed as 'active' although the company website is currently unavailable. In August 2013 the company had a networth of £75,421. In addition Christine Gilbert is Executive Chair of the Trustees of Future First an organisation that seeks to set up an alumni system for state schools and colleges in which former students can donate to their institutions as happens with public schools and universities.

In June last year, Claire Kober,  the leader of Haringey Council announced the appointment of Gilbert as 'Schools Champion' for Haringey LINK.

The Haringey Independent LINK yesterday reported that Claire Kober was personally involved in seeking action against NUT representative Julie Davies whose suspension has led to strike action in the borough.

The Kilburn Times reported that Christine Gilbert's post would be paid but that Haringey Council would not disclose the amount LINK 

It now appears that Gilbert is not being paid for this work  (at this point, anyway) but as you will see below it is occupying some of her time. I wonder if Brent Council will claim back any monies she is being paid while carrying out work for Haringey.  

Alan Stanton, in a Guest Blog takes up the story:

I thought Wembley Matters readers may be interested in a reply I received (25 November 2014) to a Freedom of Information Act request to Haringey Council about Christine Gilbert's work as "Education Champion" for Cllr Claire Kober, our Dear Leader.

You can find my request on the WhatDoTheyKnow website LINK.

On 11 June 2013 The Dear Leader (Claire Kober) announced that Ms Christine Gilbert (CBE) had been appointed as Haringey’s "first ever Schools' Champion", saying that as a former Head of Ofsted, Ms Gilbert would "help drive improvements in school performance and pupil attainment across the borough".

As a Haringey resident and a former councillor and school governor I was interested to know more about this appointment. Including the terms of the agreement between Claire and Christine; the work Ms Gilbert was doing; and how much (I wrongly assumed) Haringey was paying.

I'm now told that Ms Gilbert has made some visits (number unknown) to schools (unnamed). She has "provided a range of ideas" (unspecified). In addition Ms Gilbert has had a number(unknown) of conversations with senior officers on a number of occasions (unspecified). Unfortunately, they say that: "It is not possible to document the precise outcomes of that work, which has supported schools general improvement activity".

However, further light may soon be shed on these known unknowns. Haringey adds that: "We are expecting a report from Christine at the end of this year".

For known knowns we have their reply on the agreement and the cash. "There is no formal agreement in place between Ms Gilbert and the Council, nor has any payment been made and no council expenses have been incurred".

Which I found a little surprising. Not even coffee and a sandwich at the end of Christine's long bus-rides on the North Circular? I hope that, at the very least, we offered her an Oyster card.

While the exciting job of "Champion" is a new and evolving development in Haringey, in my imagination, I envisaged something slightly more businesslike. Maybe an exchange of letters or emails between Ms Gilbert and our Dear Leader. So that it was clear to both of them - and to the headteachers and senior staff in the Children's Service - when Ms Gilbert was dropping-in and why.

Of course, friendly inter-borough co-operation and contact is always helpful. But we can hardly have local government running on an informal basis, can we?