Ofsted and Academy Trusts

I am grateful to 'Reclaiming Education' for this. CfBT took over Gladstone Park Primary School following forced academisation, despite a strong parent campaign to keep it as a local authority school. E-Act runs the Crest academies.

Chris Dunne's letter, "We will come to regret not having defended our education system",  in the Financial Times can be seen here

Henry Stewart's piece looking at the progress of academies against maintained schools can be read here.

And, in case you missed these pieces on where the money is being wasted and who benefits, there is this piece in localgov.uk and this piece in Schoolsweek

Ofsted condemns Academy Trusts:  The Government has announced that it plans to force all schools to become academies.  The major problem is going to be who will run these schools, given that Ofsted has some major criticisms of at least 8 of the large academy trusts.

Ofsted Inspections of Academy Trusts

Ofsted has carried out focused inspections of academies within 9 multi academy trusts.  Significantly, only one, the last and smallest one, is positive.  The full reports can be found on the Government website here.   A map of where the academies are can be found here.

CfBT:  11 primary/8 Secondary

“CfBT took on too many academies too quickly. The trust did not have a clear rationale for the selection of schools, a strategy for creating geographical clusters or a plan to meet academies’ different needs. As a result, standards are too low. The trust relied heavily on external consultants but did not ensure their accountability in securing rapid and secure improvement. Headteachers were unable to provide each other with the much needed mutual support or share available expertise. Current CST leaders openly acknowledge these errors.”  Full report

Academies Enterprise Trust:  32 primary/30 secondary/5 special

"After operating for nearly eight years, the Trust is failing too many pupils. Almost 40% of the pupils attend AET primary academies that do not provide a good standard of education. It is even worse in secondary, where 47% of pupils attend academies that are less than good......
"Children from poor backgrounds do particularly badly in this Trust. The attainment and progress of disadvantaged pupils, in both the primary and secondary academies, still lags behind that of other pupils, and gaps in performance are not narrowing quickly enough......
"The outcomes of the focused inspections failed to demonstrate that the Trust is consistently improving its academies.  Full report

Collaborative Academies Trust: 9 schools

“Collaborative Academies Trust was set up in 2012 by EdisonLearning ......
.........Too many academies have not improved since joining the trust. Of the five academies that have had a full inspection since joining the trust, only one has improved its inspection grade compared with its predecessor school. Two have remained the same and two have declined. This means that, at the time of the focused inspection, there were not yet any good or outstanding academies in the trust. “  Full report

E-Act (formerly Edutrust): 23 academies (was more)

“...Nevertheless, the quality of provision for too many pupils in E-ACT academies is not good enough.
......Standards in the secondary academies are too low. Previous interventions by the Trust to raise attainment and accelerate progress have not had enough impact and any improvements have been slow.
....Pupils from poor backgrounds do not do well enough. These pupils make less progress than other pupils nationally. This is an area of serious concern. “  Full report

Kemnal Academies Trust: 15 secondary/26 primary

“Less than half of your academies were good or better and there are no longer any outstanding academies in your chain. .........

.. an overwhelming proportion of pupils attending one of the academies inspected are not receiving a good education. “  Full report

Oasis Community Learning Trust: 50? Schools – DfE list and Oasis website appear to disagree.

The academy trust has grown rapidly, taking on 30 new academies in the last three years ...
Across the trust, some groups of pupils do not achieve well. Disadvantaged pupils, particularly boys, make significantly less progress than their peers nationally.......... there is no evidence of an overall strategy or plan that focuses on these particular issues.  Full report

School Partnership Trust:  41 schools

“The impact of the Trust’s work in bringing about improvement where it is most needed has been too slow. Where standards have been intractably low for some time, the Trust is not driving significant, sustained improvement. ...

......The standard of education provided by the Trust is not good enough in around 40% of its academies inspected so far. “ Full report

The Education Fellowship: 12 schools

“There is no clear record of improvement in the trust’s academies and standards across the trust are unacceptably variable. In around three quarters of the academies, standards are poor.
Standards declined in five of the eight primary academies in 2014. In the majority of the trust’s 12 academies, the gap in attainment between disadvantaged pupils and their better off peers, both within the academies and compared with pupils nationally, remains unacceptably wide.”  Full Report

Wakefield City Academies Trust – the only positive one!

“Two years into its development, WCAT is making a positive difference to the quality of provision and outcomes for pupils within its academies. “ Full report

Ofsted finds much to praise but concerned about disharmony at Sudbury Primary School Academy

-->

The Ofsted Report on Sudbury Primary Academy has now been published and is Good in all categories except Leadership and Management. There is clearly much to celebrate as you can see from the summary above.

The headteacher of the school was suspended by the then Chair of Governors last year to enable an investigation into allegations against her to take place.

The full report is HERE

Ofsted said:

The governance of the academy
 

There is disharmony both within the governing body and in relationships between governors and some members of the leadership team and staff. Governors disagree with one another about whether decisions on teachers’ pay have been determined effectively. Governors act promptly to fulfil their duties when responding to complex staff management and safeguarding matters. However, they are less resolute and consistent in their actions in following up these issues. As a result, some staff say they have lost confidence in governors’ ability to fulfil their duties.

In order to improve the academy must: 

Improve the effectiveness of leadership and management by ensuring that any recommendations of an urgent, independent review of the work of the governing body are promptly acted on. This review should be completed and the outcomes obtained no later than the first half of the spring term 2016.

UPDATE: Sudbury School situation raises wider issues

Unions at Sudbury Primary School report that there was standing room only when they held a meeting last week for parents to discuss the way forward for the school after the suspension of its headteacher. They say that Sudbury teachers attended despite the threat of disciplinary action if they did so.

The unions said:

Several staff made it clear that, through all of this, their priority was the education and care of the children. Parent and union speakers said that without the staff the children would not be doing as well as they are.

The meeting was reminded by an emotional parent that it was the children who were the reason there was a school and we had to get to the bottom of what was going on for them. It was pointed out that if the school had still been with the local authority instead of being an academy, Brent would have stepped in and taken prompt action to deal with the situation.

Parents were angry that it had to be down to the unions to call such a meeting and felt the governors had kept them in the dark. It was revealed that a new Chair of Governors Ian Phillips, had just been put in place. The Ofsted report is due imminently after the inspection which took place after the Headteacher was suspended. The section on management of the school should make interesting reading.

The headteacher remains suspended while an independent investigation takes place. As stated in earlier coverage suspension this a neutral act to allow the investigation of allegations to proceed. 

However, the unions say that a petition for parents calling on the headteacher to 'do the right thing and resign' has been started: 'Staff remain united and determined but if this does not happen they will be taking action in the Spring term.'

 The situation is complicated by the fact that the Sudbury Primary School Academy Trust is a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Act 2006.  A large school with a budget of £9m plus it comes under the Education Funding Agency/DfE rather than the local authority, Brent Council. The Regional Schools Commissioner acts for the Secretary of State regarding academies and free schools but he does not appear to have intervened in this case so far, although there are provisions for intervention in the funding agreement LINK and the powers of the RSC.

The headteacher of Sudbury Primary School is the company's Chief Executive Officer and it appears from the last company report that all the governors are also Trustees of the company. The company secretary is Irfan Khan. LINK

At the time of the last annual report that I can find (for the period ending August 2014) in addition to the headteacher, chair and vice chair, there were 8 parent governors, 4 community governors and 3 staff governors on the Board of Trustees.

The case clearly raises wider issues regarding academies (and free schools) of accountability, local democratic representation, powers of intervention and governance.

UPDATE


The Kilburn Times LINK is reporting that Ian Phillips, Chair of Govers at Finchley's Woodhouse College has been appointed to the Sudbury governors on the recoemmndation of the DfE.

Chair of Governors, Bob Wharton, a former Lead Member for Children and Schools when Lib Dems formed a coalition with Brent Tories to run Brent Council, welcomed the appointment and said Phillips had made a good impression on staff.

The DfE said, 'We take very seriously any allegationb that children's education is being put at risk. We are continuing to work with the academy trust to strengthem governance. We recommended they (the school)  request support from other experienced governors.'

Jean Roberts, NUT, pointed out that if Sudbury had been an LA school they would have come in and taken control of the situation. It had only got to ths stage because it was an academy and being dealt with by the DfE. She added that this was why the education unions are against academies.
 

Staff and parents press for secret ballot on Furness academisation

The audience at the academies meeting

 

 

Statement from ATL, GMB, NASUWT, NUT, UNISON

Parents and staff from Furness Primary School, Harlesden, London gathered[1] to voice their deep concerns as to why their school was proposed to be turned into an academy. The Governors of Furness and Oakington Manor, federated schools, have made an application to turn the two schools into a sponsored academy trust without having first consulted parents and staff.

The question asked by everyone at the meeting was why? Furness school received a good rating by Ofsted in June this year. Oakington is currently rated as outstanding. The two schools federated three years ago to prevent Furness (which was then in special measures) closing or being taken over by an academy chain such as ARK.

The audience listened to Bridget Chapman, Chair of the Anti Academies Alliance, explain what academisation was all about – privatisation of state education and ultimately schools to be run for profit. She spoke about the evidence from research that showed that 13% of sponsored academies were classed as failing yet on 3% of state schools were in this Ofsted category. Further, the data shows a higher rate of exclusion among black and minority ethnic children in academies and there are fewer children with special educational needs. 99 academies had received warnings from the DfE about their financial dealing and 11 academy chains had received multiple warnings. The percentage of primary schools that have become academies is still very small and many of those have been forced to by the DfE despite there being no evidence that academies improve education for children, in fact the opposite.  Analysis of primary school results indicates that academy conversion actually slows progress” (Local Schools Network research).

Jean Roberts spoke on behalf of the education unions and told the audience how the unions had been stopped from making any presentation to staff at the so called consultation meetings held at both schools the previous week, as to why the education unions are united against the proposal. Staff who wanted to hear them, were shushed and told to be quiet by Mr Jhally, Chair of Governors of the Federation, when they protested. A motion of support for a campaign against the academy which had been passed by the Kensal Green Labour Party group was read out to much applause.

Mrs Libson who is the Executive headteacher of the federated schools had told the staff consultation meetings it was because Brent had done “nothing for the schools”. Brent LA dispute this most strongly. Jean Roberts had been sent a copy of the Brent Audit Report for Oakington Manor in June 2015. Auditors were unable to say that its accounts and accounting procedures were fully in order[2]. The report stated, “The key areas of weaknesses related to high value expenditure, income administration, stock management and pension administration”. One of the criteria Ofsted inspects in schools is the Governors oversight of school finances.

Janice Long a local councillor, who sent a message of support for the campaign against an academy, asked if the imminent Ofsted may be a reason for this rushed application.

Euton Stewart from GMB explained that in his experience the support staff were the first to be made redundant in academies. Academies can employ unqualified teachers, another concern of the teaching staff there. Parents spoke about the good teachers and the education they provided for their children at Furness and how all this change was unnecessary now the school had been given a good by Ofsted.

There was a clear commitment to continue to seek a secret ballot for parents and staff so that the Governors would fully know their views. Parents will continue to collect signatures on the petition. Staff are looking to hold meetings to discuss what they will do in response.

---

[1] Meeting held on 12^th November at St Mark’s Church hall, Kensal Rise, London.

[2] Reporting Definition of Limited assurance: Weaknesses in the system of internal controls are such as to put the client’s objectives at risk.

The level of non-compliance puts the client’s objectives at risk.

Nick Gibb 'wrong' to attribute increase in children in 'good or outstanding schools' to academisation

By Henry Stuart republished from original article on Local Schools Network
This is another really useful article by Nick which shows how the government misleads on the basics.

 Government ministers have repeatedly claimed that one million more children are in "good" or "outstanding" schools, and that this is a direct result of their academies policy. For example Nick Gibb, speaking at the consideration of the Education and Adoption Bill on Friday 11th September, said "there are 1,100 sponsored academies that started life as under-performing schools, which is a colossal achievement that has led directly to over 1 million [more] children being taught in “good” or “outstanding” schools." (col 208)

Analysis of Ofsted Data View does indicate that it is true that one million more pupils are in schools rated "good" or "outstanding" and it is clearly the case that many schools have been converted to academies. But a basic analysis of the data suggests it was not academisation that caused any improvement.

Vast majority of improved primaries are not academies
78% of the increase has been in primary schools, where only a small minority of schools have become academies. Indeed the latest Ofsted dataset indicates that there are 167 sponsored academy primary schools that are currently rated "good" or "outstanding". Assuming these have the same average size as primaries overall (411 pupils), this gives a total of 68,537 children.

Extra pupils in "good" or "outstanding" primaries           996,604
Pupils in "good" or "outstanding" sponsored primaries    68,637
% in sponsored academies                                                  7%

So for every 100 extra pupils in "good" or "outstanding" primaries, 93 were in schools that were not sponsored academies. The percentage of primary schools that are "good" or "outstanding" has gone from 67% in 2010 to 82% in 2015 but the vast majority of this improvement has been due to improvements in maintained schools, not in sponsored academies. Nick Gibb is entirely wrong to say the improvement results "directly" from the performance of sponsored academies.

Ratings for primaries are improving but more secondaries are being rated "inadequate"
The Ofsted annual report of 2014 made note of the fact that primary schools were continuing to improve but that this was not the case for secondaries (where the majority of schools are not academies). Indeed there is a worrying increase in the number rated "inadequate":

“Children in primary schools have a better chance than ever of attending an effective school. Eighty-two per cent of primary schools are now good or outstanding, which means that 190,000 more pupils are attending good or outstanding primary schools than last year. However, the picture is not as positive for secondary schools: only 71% are good or outstanding, a figure that is no better than last year. Some 170,000 pupils are now in inadequate secondary schools compared with 100,000 two years ago.” (Ofsted annual report 2014 p8)

I have noted here that sponsored secondaries are far more likely to remain or become "inadequate" than similar maintained schools, and here that sponsored academies lead to slower school improvement. The concern is that the direct effect of sponsored academies has actually been this substantial increase in secondaries rated "inadequate".

The data indicates that the Education Bill, in forcing all "inadequate" or "coasting" schools to become sponsored academies, is likely to substantially increase the number of pupils in "inadequate" schools.

Data Notes

Data on pupil numbers come from DfE for 2010 and 2015.

Data on schools overall Ofsted ratings come from Ofsted Data View.

The Ofsted dataset on ratings for all schools (June 2015), from which the numbers of Sponsored academies that are "good" or "outstanding" were calculated can be found here.

My calculations indicate that there are 997,000 more children in "good" or "outstanding" primaries in 2015 than in 2010 and 274,000 in secondaries, giving a total of 1.27 million. However 275,000 of the extra primary pupils are due to the increase in pupil numbers. If we take these out, the total is 999,000 extra pupils in "good" or "outstanding" schools, effectively the one milliion that the government claims.

Brent Labour fail to grasp nettle of Davani pay-off

I missed last night's Brent Council meeting but checking the Twitter feed it is clear that Labour made no attempt to address the issue of a pay-off to Cara Davani, controversial head of Brent HR, who resigned recently:

Ahead of the meeting Philip Grant had writtent the following email to his ward councillors:

Dear Fryent Ward councillors,

You have probably heard that on Wednesday a Council spokesperson confirmed that Cara Davani, Brent’s Director of HR and Administration, is leaving the Council at the end of June, to take a career break. If you had not heard, you can read the announcement, and reaction to it, at:

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/cara-devani-leaving-brent-council-to.html

While the Council’s statement praises ‘the significant contribution that Cara has made over the last 3 years’, it does not mention Ms Davani’s misdeeds, such as her vicious actions against a Brent employee as shown by findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case. That case has already cost Brent Council probably a six-figure sum in legal fees, and will land the Council with a further bill, quite possibly a seven-figure sum (i.e. more than £1 million) in compensation, damages and costs when the remedy hearing makes its decision (likely to be in about three months time).

Given this background, and the serious damage done to Brent’s reputation by the finding that the Council “racially discriminated” against Ms Clarke, I am seriously concerned (as are many others) about the financial terms on which Ms Davani may be leaving the Council’s employment. She is leaving at the end of June, and I would not seek to interfere with her salary entitlement up to that date (even though any decent person would have resigned when the judgment was published last September, and any other Chief Executive would have either insisted on that resignation or taken immediate action to dismiss her for gross misconduct). However, that last salary payment should be the only further financial reward that Cara Davani receives from Brent Council.

There should be no other “payoff” or leaving payment of whatever description made to her. If Ms Davani has been “persuaded” to leave now, there is talk of a possible “compromise package” - which, I understand, following changes made to HR procedures during Ms Davani’s reign, would normally be agreed on by either the Director of HR or the Chief Executive. As she is the Director of HR, the Chief Executive (Christine Gilbert) is her friend and former colleague from Tower Hamlets Council and Ofsted, who she helped to bring into Brent in 2012, the interim Director of HR is to be Mildred Phillips (another former colleague, first brought into Brent as an interim consultant, then given a permanent position and promoted by Ms Davani to be her deputy), it would not be possible for the amount of any payment, even if one were deserved (which it most certainly would not), to be arrived at on an arm’s length basis. It may be that she is leaving now, while she still has “friends in high places”.

[And please don’t suggest that the terms of any payment might be agreed instead by Brent’s Principal Employment Lawyer - Ms Davani’s personal and business partner, Andy Potts - or by its Chief Operating Officer, Lorraine Langham, another former colleague of Ms Davani and Ms Gilbert at Tower Hamlets and Ofsted. It is the extent of this “cronyism” at high levels in Brent Council that has previously allowed Ms Davani to get away with her actions against Rosemarie Clarke, and other now-former employees of the Council.]

The is another financial aspect of Cara Davani’s leaving Brent which councillors need to ensure is handled properly. The full title of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case is Ms RC Clarke v. 1) The London Borough of Brent and 2) Ms Cara Davani. Ms Davani is a separately named respondent in the case, even though it appears that she did not have separate legal representation at the full Tribunal hearing, with Brent’s barrister (at Brent’s expense) effectively defending her as well. There should be no agreement made under which Brent agrees to pay, or indemnify Ms Davani in respect of, any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally as the second respondent in the case. I also believe that Brent should make clear to Ms Davani that she will need to arrange and pay for her own legal representation in the case after she leaves the Council’s employment at the end of June. 

At first sight, this may sound vindictive, as the case relates to actions she took while Brent’s Head of HR (although she held this role up to 31 March 2013 as a self-employed interim consultant) and as interim, then formally appointed, Operational Director of HR. However, it is clear from the evidence and findings of fact in the Tribunal judgement that her actions against Ms Clarke were totally contrary to the Council’s HR policy and practices, and that her victimisation of Ms Clarke was done for reasons of personal spite, as a result of Ms Clarke complaining of being bullied and harassed by Ms Davani. Her actions were therefore not in the proper performance of her duties, particularly when those duties were of Brent’s most senior HR officer, who should have been leading by example.

I hope you will agree with the two propositions which I have highlighted, and that you will take early action to see that these are put in place. I would suggest that you could ask for “Departure from the Council of the Director of HR and Administration” as an item to be put on the agenda for the Full Council meeting on 22 June, with the current Chief Executive (or her representative, if Ms Gilbert is not available to attend) making a statement about Ms Davani’s departure, and then giving members the chance to comment or ask questions. The Chief Executive should give at least outline details of any planned payments, over and above her basic salary to 30 June 2015, which are proposed, and in particular, be asked to confirm that Ms Davani will be personally liable for any award made in respect of her as the second respondent in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case, and that Brent will not pay, or indemnify her in any way, in respect of such an award against Cara Davani personally. I am copying this email to the Chief Executive, for her information.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email, and let me have at least a brief response to my comments, which reflect the views of many people, even though I am the one articulating them to you. Please feel free to forward this email to any of your fellow councillors, if you wish to seek their views before deciding what action you should take in response to it. Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant

The Education Bill: A solution that will harm schools

Henry Stewart published this useful background article on the Education and Adoption Bill yesterday before the House of Commons meeting on the Bill organised by the Anti academies Alliance. First published by Local schools Network.

Today is the second reading of Nicky Morgan’s Education and Adoption Bill. The main purpose is to speed up the conversion to academy status of “inadequate” and “coasting” schools, It will force local authorities and governing bodies to implement an academy order, whether or not they feel it is in the best interest of the children.

And the evidence increasingly suggests it is not in the best interest of those children. The education select committee, chaired by Graham Stuart of the Conservatives, carried out a thorough review of academies and free schools and found no such evidence. “Academisation is not always successful nor is it the only proven alternative for a struggling school,”

Announcing the bill, the Secretary of State claimed to have “education experts who know exactly what they have to do to make a failing school outstanding.” I have submitted a Freedom of Information request to ask how many schools rated “Inadequate” by Ofsted have been converted and how many of these have since become Outstanding. I await the response with interest. 

A study of the current Ofsted listing of the most recent inspections for all secondary schools suggests she is unlikely to find many. For secondaries the number of schools going from Inadequate last time to Outstanding this time is precisely zero. For primaries there are eight schools listed as making that remarkable transition but none are academies. All are local authority or voluntary aided schools (“maintained schools”).

The Ofsted list, which shows the current and previous inspection, shows that a secondary school is far more likely to improve its Ofsted rating if it is not a sponsored academy. With academies that have had two Ofsted inspections since conversion (as the report does not list a school’s rating pre-conversion) we find:

Sponsored academies twice as likely to stay Inadequate

For secondary schools previously rated as inadequate, sponsored academies are twice as likely (18% v 9%) to stay inadequate as maintained schools. Non-academies are over three times more likely (27% v 6%) to move from Inadequate to Good or Outstanding than sponsored academies.

Sponsored academies twice as likely to fall from RI to Inadequate

For those previously rated “Requires Improvement” they are more than twice as likely (20% v 8%) to fall to Inadequate if they are a Sponsored academy

Non-academies three times as likely to move from Good to Outstanding

For secondary schools previously rated Good, they are almost four times as likely (19% v 5%) to fall to Inadequate if they are Sponsored academies. At the same time they are more than three times as likely to become Outstanding from Good (16% v 5%) if they are a maintained school as opposed to a Sponsored academy

These dramatic differences are only true of sponsored academies, generally schools that were “underperforming” and sponsored as an academy by another school or by an academy chain. “Converter academies”, where a school is generally Good or Outstanding and chooses to convert, perform as well as maintained schools.

This analysis appears to show that conversion of a school that is rated Inadequate is likely to slow its improvement. Indeed, rather than helping it, becoming a sponsored academy is more likely to lead to a school falling back to being Inadequate and less likely to become Good or Outstanding.

There is no data to back up the Secretary of State’s claims. The Bill is very clearly based on ideology not evidence. As the Education Select committee also stated, “the government should stop exaggerating the success of academies”. It is advice that Nicky Morgan would do well to take.

Note: This analysis only includes secondary schools. The reason is that, to qualify, a sponsored academy must have had two Ofsted inspections since conversion. While this is true of 211 sponsored academy secondary schools, it is only true of 2 sponsored academy primary schools.

Greens condemn Government's contempt for democracy and accountability in education

Samantha Pancheri, Green Party Schools spokesperson has challenged the thinking behind the Government's Education and Adoption Bill whioch was published today.

She said:

It should not come as a surprise that the Conservatives have stepped up their backdoor privatisation of schools by announcing a new Bill that would see schools deemed as ‘failing’ forced into converting to academies.

Once again, the wishes of school staff, pupils, and parents are being robustly ignored by Nicky Morgan, in spite of multiple high profile campaigns against forced academisation, and a profound lack of evidence that conversion to academy status actually improves educational outcomes.

Alarmingly, the bill also includes a measure to scrap the requirement for academy sponsors to consult with school communities, demonstrating nothing short of contempt for democracy and local accountability, while the government dismisses anti-academy campaigns as hindrances.

There is simply no place for business interests in our schools. Education must be protected from being encroached upon by profit motives, and to have schools sponsored by the likes of BAE Systems is a disgrace.

If the Conservatives truly wish to improve educational outcomes for children and young people, they must move away from the rigid and impractical categorisation of schools by Ofsted, and instead look holistically at the environment and opportunities provided in schools. Teachers and unions have highlighted the impact of high workload and stress on their ability to meet pupils’ needs, and also that excessive testing of pupils is damaging their learning experience.

There are many positive improvements that could be made to the school system by reducing teachers’ workload, scaling back overregulation, scrapping unnecessary standardised testing and, above all, investing in schools to enable them to provide the staff and resources that pupils need and deserve in order to realise their potential.

This proposed bill will achieve nothing in that respect, and is nothing more than another step in introducing marketisation, and removing local democratic accountability from our schools.

Mega primary proposals for Byron Court sparks education debate

Proposals to expand Byron Court Primary School from 3 forms of entry to 5  (the current 90 children per year group  going up to 150  per year group, making a total of 1,050 children from 4-11 years old) with an additional nursery, have caused concern amongst parents.

341 parents have signed a petition against the proposal and 760 residents have submitted their own petition.  Signatures have been collected on a stall outside the school gates.  The TV documentary about Gascoigne Primary School,  'Britian's Biggest Primary School' , on Channel Five seems to have increased fears rather than allayed them.

Parents feel that an emphasis on crowd control, rotas for lunchtime and play times, children not being known personally by the headteacher, high pupil mobility associated with children from a long way outside the catchment taking up places and then eventually moving to a closer local school, are all issues that could impact on the quality of education offered by the school, and more importantly for some, children's happiness.

"I would rather my child was happy, felt he was safe and that he belonged, and known to all the staff than the school had all these glossy new facilities," was how one parent put it to me.

The parents have challenged Brent Council on whether there is actually an increased demand in the area of the school, and point to the fact that a satellite class at Ashley Gardens is not full. They also say that the new 4 form of entry (120 pupils per year group) primary school at Wembley High will provide any new places needed in the locality.

Parents acknowledge the need for a new school building but suggest that they are being bribed by the Council who say that a new building cannot be provided unless the school expands.

The Executive Headteacher of the school is said to be keen on the expansion and new build because it could include facilities for specialist subjects such as sport and drama, with its own theatre and a hall that could seat 1,200. A radio station is also mentioned as have rooftop playgrounds.

It would enhance a school which was deemed 'Outstanding' by Ofsted some time ago and which is part of the Teaching School Alliance.

Residents in turn suggest that a 'jumbo sized' school in a quiet area with narrow roads will simply be out of place. They see problems with access for builders and particular the cranes required for the installation of the modular buildings that are proposed. There is also a longer term issue over increased parent car parking  due to the higher pupil numbers. It is already a major problem which no intervention has succeeded in tackling.

The proposal has two  prongs: the decision for expansion in principle following consultation goes to Cabinet on March 16th and if approved the planning application will go to the Planning Committee in April.

Insight into the business of Gladstone Free School: Are they doing it right?

Guest blog by Anonymous
 

It all started innocently enough. Jim Gatten and Maria Evans, a mum and dad from Barnet, decided to set up a new parent-led secondary school which they hoped the community would embrace. They applied to become a free school, a school independent of the local authority and accountable only to and funded directly by the Department for Education (DfE). They advertised for other parents and members of the community to join them in gathering enough signatures to show the DfE that it would be full for the first 2 years after opening, a box ticking exercise the DfE puts hopeful free school founders through. Off they went with their clipboards to various primary school gates gathering signatures. They got the required minimum of 250 signatures necessary for their free school application but there was never a groundswell of local support. Many parents who signed simply thought that a new school sounds like a good idea, after all, these are parents setting up a school and just need a simple no-obligation signature. No explanation was given as to the implications a free school has on the local communities and it was 2013, before the flurry of headlines of failing and undersubscribed free schools had hit the press.

Brent Odds-On for Private Eye Awards 2015

Local bookies braced for surge in betting          

                                                

Guest blog by I.L.Wager

Brent Staff Achievement Awards are not the only annual awards likely to prove a continuing embarrassment to Brent Council’s Butt, Gilbert and Davani over the coming months. The Brent Leadership’s attempt to figure in Private Eye magazine’s regular Rotten Borough Awards ( given to local councils who have demonstrated particular talents in the areas of corruption, greed, stupidity or cronyism) failed last year as they left their trump card ( the Rotten Boroughs article on the racist bullying verdict, jobs-for-the-girls, inflated salaries, romance in high places etc) too late in the year to overtake boroughs like Tower Hamlets and Rotherham who had made the most impressive early running. Not wanting to make the same mistake again, Brent have put down an early marker for the 2015 Cash for Cronyism category by getting the following article onto the Rotten Boroughs page of this week’s edition of Private Eye:

‘A heartfelt welcome back to Lorraine Langham, newly-appointed £140k ‘chief operating officer’ at the London borough of Brent. Ms Langham made frequent appearances in Rotten Boroughs in the Noughties, thanks to the umbilical link she appeared to have with her chum Christine Gilbert, wife of disgraced former Labour minister Tony ‘Second Home’ McNulty.

In the early Noughties, when Gilbert was chief executive of Tower Hamlets council, Langham was its communications supremo. Then in 2006, Gilbert became the boss of Ofsted and Langham was appointed director of corporate services. Now Lorraine has joined senior management at Brent following a ‘restructuring’ overseen by (amazing coincidence) the council’s ‘interim’ chief executive…….Christine Gilbert.   Small world!’ 

An unflashy, solid start from Team Brent but timing is all, and with the Failed-Rosemarie-Clarke- Appeal-Waste-of-Money story soon to come, and who knows what else up the sleeves of Butt/Gilbert/Davani/Langham, the smart money is beginning to take Mo’s girls’ chances for silverware in 2015  Very Seriously Indeed.

                                                                      Go Team Brent!

Pavey Review won't lance Brent's boil but points to future improvements

 

The Pavey Review which was published last week has this key sentence:

0. It is important to note that the review was not a review of our HR department. It is about the role each person has to play in making Brent Council the best possible place to work. There are clear recommendations in relation to employment policies and practice, and these require the action of the entire organisation and crucially managers at all levels.
   

This limitation is why Brent Green Party and others called for an independent investigation into Brent Council, not only in the racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal that an Employment Tribunal found against first respondent Brent Council and second respondent Cara Davani, but into the previous working connections of senior staff. The latest example of the latter is the appointment of Lorraine Langham as Brent's Chief Operating Officer who like Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani previously worked for both Ofsted and Tower Hamlets Council. LINK

In any other organisation disciplinary action would have been taken against a manager found guilty of such conduct. Muhammed Butt, when challenged by members of staff on the issue at Brent Connects said the council had to follow 'due process' and make an Appeal.

Some Councillors suggested to me that disciplinary action could only take place when the Appeal process had been exhausted. A Judge found that the Council had no grounds for an Appeal but still no action was taken. Two legitimate opportunities to lance the boil missed.

Some have claimed that disciplinary action in itself would amount to victimisation or even a 'witch hunt',  or would be to succomb to political pressure. This is  a red herring. The Council owes a duty of care towards its employees and this includes ensuring that they are treated fairly in their day to day employment regardless of race, gender etc. Brent Council should have confidence that their own disciplinary procedures are robust enough to withstand such pressures.

Now the Council is in the position of having someone in charge of HR who has been found guilty of the above offences but is nevertheless in charge of recruitment and redundancies policies. Long term mprovements in processes and procedures does not address immediate issue.

Michael Pavey has done a thorough job within his limited remit, consulting widely with staff and apparently winning their confidence. One glaring ommission is consulting with the staff who have left the Council and examining any gagging clauses that were imposed. They, after all, are possible victims of poor employment and practice.

However, given the comments I have received on this blog regarding working conditions at Brent Council (many unpublished so as not to reveal identity or due to gagging clauses) as well as emails and telephone calls, soemtimes distraught,  the following comment seems emollient:

This review finds that Brent is generally a happy and inclusive place to work. But there is plenty we can do better.

Although Cllr Pavey recognises that Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) statistics in Brent are better than some other London local authorities, he says they are far from satisfactory.  What is missing from his report is the connection between those statistics and the operation of the HR department (Proportion of BAME employees in Brent is 62%, Female employees 65%):

Both show higher proportions in the lower grade and I assume that BAME and Female would be higher still at tScale 3 to P2, and lower at the Hay grade.

Im terms of HR practice the reasons for leaving are also important and for both BAME and Females dismissals are higher (second column)

These are perhaps some of the most important recommendations:

-->

Finding: Generally, feedback from staff themselves suggests that practice is good; however, improvements can and should be made to employee management practice to achieve a more collaborative and inclusive culture. 


Engagement with staff suggests inconsistent application of policies and procedures, including as regards flexible working. There has clearly been great progress in implementing good management practice, but the Council should also seek to ensure that internal communication explain expected practice, underpinned by a clear explication of staff and manager competencies and behaviours.

·      At present, there are few reported incidents of bullying and harassment. The Council has an emphasis on informal resolution: according to the LGA this represents good practice. Consideration should be given to ensuring consistency, support and follow up within the informal resolution framework. 


·      The Council lacks a systematic Council-wide approach to learning from HR and legal processes when complaints are raised; whilst this is not uncommon, we have an opportunity to make improvements. In addition, this may give rise to inconsistent management responses. Thus, though HR takes the lead, individual managers are responsible for learning from ETs and grievances, and reviews take place with HR and within departments. Improvements should be made in terms of cross-organisational learning, peer review and Council-wide improvements. 


·      The Code of Conduct does not at present adequately articulate the behaviours and practice expected of managers and staff. Such behaviours should be clearly articulated, communicated and reflected in: 


·      recruitment and selection processes


·      ongoing team and line management

·      
appraisal processes

·      learning development processes and interventions.

Addressing this presents an opportunity to emphasise the significant priority the Council attaches to valuing diversity.

·      Evaluation of practice and understanding of staff experience should be regular and Council-wide. 


·      Internal communications should be strengthened to become a two-way flow of information. It is critical for senior management to be able to communicate values and good practice to the wider workforce. But it is equally important that communications enables the wider workforce to articulate their experiences to senior management. In two staff focus groups, more than half had not seen a copy of their service or team plan and participants suggested that improvements could be made to internal communications, including the ability for greater staff engagement and management visibility, for example through senior managers attending team meetings. This is increasingly important given the scale and pace of change. Managers themselves need to be supported to communicate effectively, but must also play the key role in staff engagement. Given the current and future constraints on funding, it is important that central advice and strategy is complemented by good practice within departments. 


The Full Report can be found  HERE