Brent Momentum presses Council on education, regeneration, universal credit evictions and fossil fuel divestment

The latest Bulletin from Brent Momentum reveals areas of frustration with Brent Council policy implementation many of which have been covered on Wembley Matters.

Education is a major issue with the failure of the Council to oppose the academisation of The Village School and the proposals for a free school at the Roundwood Centre, are source of contention. The Bulletin does not refer to the proposals to close Strathcona School but I presume Momentum will support the threatened NEU strike action.

The failure of Brent Council Regeneration proposals to take account of community concerns in Granville/Carlton and Bridge Park is criticised as is the failure to ensure the quality of new build on the South Kilburn Estate.

Momentum strongly support the cross-party Divest Brent campaign which is urging Brent Labour to fulfil its local election pledge to divest its pension fund from fossil fuels.

Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council is often accused of making promises and then not fulfilling them, so Momentum is pressing for Butt's promise to not evict Council tenants unable to pay rent due to Universal Credit delays, to be incorporated into official  Brent Council policy.

Brent Council did not formally consult with secondary headteachers on alternative free school provision...

...Or that it what an FoI response from Brent Council to the National Education Union (NEU) seems to indicate.

At the Scrutiny Committee meeting on the free school proposal Gail Tolley, Strategic Director for Children and Young People was asked about consultation with secondary schools about the proposal and whether they were interested in running such provision themselves (extract from Wembley Matters report of the meeting LINK):

Strategic Director of Children and Young People, Gail Tolley, told Cllr Jumbo Chan that she had raised with secondary school heads the possibility of them taking on the alternative provision but they had not been interested. Those recognised by the DfE as able to set up a free school could still apply during the procurement process. Cllr Chan said that an informal discussion was not sufficient and requested evidence of a formal consultation.  Union representatives protested that they had not been consulted as educational professionals on the Council's proposal.

The NEU made the following Freedom of Information request:

We understand that local Headteachers are opposed to a Free School, and that they had initially been approached to take on Roundwood as an extension of their own school. We formally request, under FOI, copies of any correspondence relating to this.

Brent Council responded:

There has been no correspondence between the Local Authority and local Headteachers in relation to whether they had been approached to take on Roundwood as an extension of their own school. This point was confirmed at the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 9^th May 2019.

 The response is ambiguously worded but suggests that the local authority did not consult on what is a far reaching proposal for both local schools and the young people concerned.

Brent should invest in mainstream support for disabled pupils to ensure better outcomes - not alternative provision free school

This is the presentation made on behalf of Simone Aspis at theis evening's Scrutiny Committe which discussed the proposal for alternative free school provision at the Roundwood Centre:

Establishing an Alternative Provision Free Special school, which is just another special school for disabled pupils with special education needs will only limit future opportunities for this group of pupils. The evidence shows that disabled pupils, often with undiagnosed mental health issues, autism or neuropsychological conditions, educated in the segregated education system, such as in PRUs, are more likely than their mainstream school peers to experience poorer outcomes.

The government’s latest destinations data, focusing on pupils finishing their GCSEs in 2012/13, shows that nearly half (45 per cent) of young people leaving PRUs were not in education, employment, or training six months after the end of their compulsory schooling, compared to only 6 per cent of students leaving mainstream schools, and 11 per cent leaving special schools.

Furthermore, more than 50 per cent of Disabled young people with learning difficulties entering the criminal justice system said they had attended a special school at some point in their education, and similar numbers had been excluded from school. Thus, the evidence shows that Disabled pupils are at least twice as likely to be engaged in education, employment, or training if they attended a mainstream rather than a special school for Disabled pupils. What is needed is greater investment in mainstream education that is inclusive of everyone including disabled pupils.

This investment will ensure that disabled pupils will remain in mainstream education where they have better outcomes.

Simone Aspis Brent Resident in Willesden Green and Changing Perspectives Director

-->

Brent alternative free school provision call-in - what are the options?

Details of the Call-In of the Cabinet's decision to support a free school providing alternative education at the Roundwood Centre have now been published LINK

The Call-in was made by Cllrs Chan, Abdi, Mashari, Chappell and Hector.

The request was made by Cllr Jumbo Chan:

I am writing to request that the Cabinet’s decision to confirm approval of the establishment of an Alternative Provision Free School on the site of Roundwood Youth Centre, taken on Monday 15 April 2019, is called in.
Whilst I understand that it is not possible for Brent Council to open new community schools (Education Act 2011), we believe that there have not been compelling attempts to identify – or at least sufficient evidence of compelling attempts to identify – all the routes to establishing a new school on the site of the Roundwood Youth Centre (see Item 5.1 of Report from the Strategic Director of Children and Young People to the Cabinet on 15 April 2019). This may include, for example, evidence of formally approaching existing Local Authority schools to develop plans for them to run an Alternative Provision Local Authority unit at the site of Roundwood Youth Centre. 

The proposed alternative course of action suggested: 

Cllr Abdi:

We need to fully explore all the available alternatives. I am in favour of expanding existing local authority controlled schools instead of assisting the set up of another free school in Brent.

Cllr Chan:

That the Cabinet explore and evidence options for a Local Authority controlled school to provide Alternative Provision at the site of Roundwood Centre, and then proceed a with Local Authority controlled school to provide Alternative Provision at the site of Roundwood Centre.

That the Cabinet explore and evidence options for a Local Authority controlled school to provide Alternative Provision at the site of another site, for example, Roe Green Strathcona. 

Because the present and previous Labour administrations made little effort to oppose academisation, and indeed sometimes supported it, there are now no local authority secondary schools in Brent - they are all either academies or faith schools.  There are three types of academy in Brent: Capital City, (formerly Willesden High) which was the original Labour concept of converting failing local authority schools; stand-alone academies which converted from  local authority status mainly for financial rather than ideological reasons, and schools that are run by academy chains (Ark Wembley, Ark Elvin, Crest).  Special education provision is also largely academised via Multi-Academy Trusts except for the Phoenix Arch School.  There is also the Michaela Free School with its 'private school ethos' and controversial disciplinary regime and educational philosophy.

There was some wavering by primary schools a few years ago over academisation but the vast majority remain under local authority oversight.

If the aim is for the alternative provision to be run by a local authority school there appear to be two main choices: run by a Brent local authority primary school or by a local authority secondary school from a neighbouring borough.

Despite academisation some of the stand-alone secondary academies maintain a close relationship with the local authority and are seen by the council as part of the Brent 'family of schools'. They along with local authority primary schools are part of the Brent Schools Partnership (BSP).  The special schools have formed Multi-Academy Trusts but are  not part of an academy chain.  They might be cited as preferable providers if no local authority school solution is available, on the grounds that they have deep roots in the borough and links via the BSP to the council. However they all lack democratic accountability and oversight  and this is particularly worrying when some of the borough's most vulnerable pupils will attend the provision.

A further possibility is that the provider is a secondary faith school with a positive record of social inclusion.

An aspect of the proposal that will not be considered at the Call-In is the consequence of an expanded alternative provision in Brent. Ofsted has expressed concern over 'off-rolling' when pupils disappear from secondary school rolls just before examinations and there has been long-term concern over disproportionate permanent exclusions of Black Caribbean boys. Will secondary schools, keen to maintain or enhance their position in the league tables that are based on examination results, offload pupils that are unlikely to achieve good passes on to the alternative provision?  Will it contain disproportionate numbers of Black Caribbean boys or pupils with special educational needs or disabilities?

UPDATE: PROPOSED ‘FREE’ SCHOOL CALLED IN BY BRENT COUNCILLORS - BRENT NEU 'APPALLED BY PROPOSED PRIVATISATION'

From the Brent branch of the National Education Union (NEU)

UPDATE: The Call-In will be heard by the Scrutiny Committee on Thursday May 9th 

Brent NEU Officers have written in the strongest terms to Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, after the Labour Cabinet voted to support a ‘Free’ School on the Roundwood Youth Centre site. ‘Free’ schools are academies and part of this Government’s privatisation of state education programme.

Brent NEU had been repeatedly assured that there were no plans for any more ‘Free’ Schools. Cllr Butt had also publicly assured the local Labour Party of this when the idea was first mooted. Yet that is exactly what is happening – with Brent actually being the ‘sponsor’. It is to be run by Brent Special Academies Trust. 

Now the decision has been called in by a group of councillors led by Cllr Jumbo Chan stating that the Cabinet has not fully explored options for a Local Authority controlled school to provide alternative provision at the site of the Roundwood Centre or other potential school sites in the borough such as the Roe Green Strathcona site.

Brent NEU understands that local Headteachers are opposed to a ‘Free’ School, and that some of them had initially been approached to take on Roundwood as an extension of their own school. We have been told that these approaches had not been taken up. We have formally requested, under FoI, copies of any correspondence relating to this as we do not believe this was fully pursued by the Local Authority.

Brent NEU fully understand and support the need for more provision for students who are temporarily excluded from school, but strongly maintain that such provision should be under LA control and not as a ‘Free’ School run by a Labour council and an academy trust. 
It has been national Labour Party policy since last year not to support any new academies or ‘Free’ Schools and, when in power, to allow academies to return to the Local Authority. Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party, reinforced this message when he spoke to the NEU annual conference in Liverpool on 16^th April. A motion was also passed at the Brent 
Central Labour Party meeting on 18^tht April condemning this latest move by Brent Council. 

Hank Roberts, Brent NEU President and National Executive member said:

Has no-one at the top of the Council watched the Panorama programmes exposing the iniquitous practices of academies? I am sure they have, yet Cllr Butt and Cllr Sandra Kabir, who led the privatisation of The Village school, continue to support the privatisation of our schools supported by Gail Tolley, Strategic Director, Children and Young People. Instead they should follow the lead of other Labour Councils who are promoting the party line such as Newham, Barking and Dagenham, Camden and Redbridge to name but a few.

Editor’s Note: At the last Cabinet meeting when the free school proposal was approved local Labour Party member Graham Durham interrupted the proceedings to condemn the Labour Council’s move to invite potential sponsors to set up an alternative provision free school at the Roundwood Centre:

-->

Row looms over Brent Council's proposals for an 'Alternative Provision' free school

The proposal to set up a free school at the £5m Roundwood Centre has surfaced again to be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet.  This time it is called ‘Alternative Provision Free School with Integrated Youth Offer from the Roundwood Youth Centre’ shortened to Alternative Provision School.

I covered the proposal that followed Brent Council cutting youth provision even more severely in its proposed budget  than hitherto, leaving Roundwood free standing with few direct services. Roundwood Centre’s funding source via the Big Lottery MyPlace scheme meant that it could not be closed by Brent Council without penalty.

On January 17^th I drew attention to the proposal for a free school/academy on the site LINK:

In addition the council proposes that a PRU (Pupil Referral Unit) be set up in the Centre. This would provide for pupils temporarily excluded from school. It would be classified as a new school and as such would have to be a free school or part of a multi-academy trust. It is proposed that it be run by Brent Special Academies Trust (currently consisting of Manor and the Avenue special schools).

Given Labour’s policy of not creating any new free schools and academies this is controversial within the local Labour Party. This is not only about the issue of lack of public democratic accountability of academies but also the very ad hoc way special needs provision is being developed in Brent and the backdoor privatisation of most of the borough’s non-mainstream special needs provision. A practical issue is whether the BSAT has any relevant experience in running a PRU -  a different kettle of fish from managing special schools.

The Budget Scrutiny Task Force recognised this dilemma stating:

It is far from ideal in our opinion, that this new school would be a free school, but unfortunately the law ensures that new schools opening are always outside of local education authority control. Perhaps a change of central government policy [a Corbyn government?] in future may allow the school to one day become part of the Brent family.

The arrangement is also not perfect for Brent because the asset would transfer to Brent Academies Trust meaning any additional income they derive from hiring out other rooms on site would not be retained by the council, However we will retain some oversite (sic) of the organisations as a senior officer will sit on the Trust’s board.

Later on the evening that this post was published Brent Counci leader Muhammed Butt was asked about it at a Brent Labour Party meeting and I published a follow up on Saturday January 19^th LINK:

According to several sources at the Labour Party meeting on Thursday evening Cllr Muhammed Butt said that the PRU (Alternative Provision) would be run by the Local Authority and was not suitable for a school.  He then muddied the waters by vaguely commenting that the authority was part of a consortium looking to set up a free school.

I sought clarification from Muhammed Butt asking:

I’ve heard that you told LP meeting last night that PRU at Roundwood Centre will be run by the LA and not a MAT. Is that correct? If so does Roundwood remain the property of Brent Council? I’d like to put the record straight if the Budget Scrutiny Report was wrong.

Butt replied, somewhat unhelpfully, that he never discussed Labour Party matters externally.

I also asked Brent Council Press Office for a comment but they did not respond.

The proposal now is not that the Brent Special Academies Trust runs the free school/Pupil Referral Unit but that Brent Council seeks a sponsor via the ‘Free School Presumption route.’:

The Free School presumption route whereby the council would advertise a proposal to establish a new school and invite DfE approved academy sponsors to apply to run the school. The council is responsible for providing a site and buildings.

The Secretary of State would make the final decision on a sponsor.

The Council often refers to the Brent ‘family of schools’ to include local authority schools,  academies and free schools, but only local authority schools are under direct Brent Council oversight and democratic accountability and funded via the Council’s distribution of the Direct Schools Grant . Academies and free schools are directly funded by the government.

The Cabinet report notes:

Once open the council would commission places from the Alternative Provision School, funded from the High Needs block of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). Currently, the council commissions alternative provision places from within the borough at Brent River College and from external providers. The Alternative Provision School would allow an increased proportion of pupils to be placed in Brent. The procurement process should therefore consider the rates the provider would charge the council and secondary schools for commissioning places, as this will have an impact on the DSG, and there is potential to achieve better value for money for High Needs Block.

-->

On the Budget Scrutiny’s concern over the transfer of the asset the Cabinet report states:

The intention is for one single overall provider working with relevant partners to deliver the Alternative Provision School combined with the integrated youth/community offer. The Council would retain the freehold for Roundwood Youth Centre but the deed of designation would transfer to the new provider, who would take on responsibility for maintenance of the building.

Clearly the ‘deed of designation’ needs careful scrutiny if Brent is not to lose another of its assets, albeit one protected by MyPlace restrictions. The association of the proposal with budget cuts is made clear in the Financial Implications section of the Cabinet Report:

The budget for the Roundwood Centre and the associated MyPlace budget totalled £360k before a reduction of £250k is applied, as per the youth service saving (ref no. CYP005) approved as part of the 2019/20 budget setting process in February 2019. The saving to the General Fund is to be achieved by ending Council run and directly funded youth services from the site creating savings on premises costs, and creating a different model of community and voluntary provision. This model would come into effect when the Alternative Provision School plans to open in January 2020, so the running costs of the Roundwood centre and cost of any operational activity up until this date would need to be 
contained within the residual £110k budget, or alternative in-year savings would need to be found across the Inclusion service.

It is proposed that the Alternative Provision School would be based at the Roundwood Centre. As mentioned in paragraph 5.1, the Roundwood Centre is subject to a Big Lottery Fund MyPlace grant agreement which is protected by a restriction on the council title at the Land Registry and therefore the form of lease would be subject to the approval of the Education and Skills Funding Agency and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 


The Council claim that they have sought and received agreement in principle from the DCMS for the proposed use of this MyPlace funded site. 

Following on from the controversy over the  Village School academisation and the suggestion from Labour Party members  that Brent Council, and especially its leader Muhammed Butt, were not following Labour Party policy on academies and free schools, this proposal is likely to be seen as another move to privatise education.  Following on from the almost total (apart from The Phoenix) academisation of SEND education, provision for vulnerable pupils is also being removed from Brent Council responsibility and accountability.

The Cabinet report gives a long list of consultations but nowhere is there a report on the outcome of the consultations. We are expected to presume that that the consultees were in favour. I have submitted an FoI request asking for any reports/minutes on the outcome of the consultations. LINK

Confusion over alternative education provision at Roundwood Centre

On Thursday I published an article on the Counci's plans for the Roundwood Centre which, according to the Budget Scrutiny Panel  included the building accommodating a Pupil Referral Unit  to be run by the Brent Special Academy Trust LINK.  This would mean handing over the £5m asset to the Trust. The Panel must have got this information from somewhere because the original budget documentation merely said:

Site to be used for an Alternative Provision educational setting with evening and weekend activities being provided by the voluntary sector. 

There could be community concerns about the future arrangements. However the transformation of the Roundwood site to an educational setting with a wrap-around activity offer will mitigate community concerns.

According to several sources at the Labour Party meeting on Thursday evening Cllr Muhammed Butt said that the PRU (Alternative Provision) would be run by the Local Authority and was not suitable for a school.  He then muddied the waters by vaguely commenting that the authority was part of a consortium looking to set up a free school.

I sought clarification from Muhammed Butt asking:

I've heard that you told LP meeting last night that PRU at Roundwood Centre will be run by the LA and not a MAT. Is that correct? If so does Roundwood remain the property of Brent Council? I'd like to put the record straight if the Budget Scrutiny Report was wrong.

Butt replied, somewhat unhelpfully, that he never discussed Labour Party matters externally.

I have requested clarification from Brent Council's Press Office.

Privatisation marches on with PRU academy/free school at Roundwood Centre in Willesden

The multi-million Roundwood Centre

Readers will know that Brent Council cut their youth service leaving only the Roundwood Centre in Willesden which does not operate at full capacity and thus impacts on the council's revenue budget.

The Centre only escaped closure because Brent Council would have faced potentially having to pay back up to £5m representing the Lottery Grant that was awarded via the government's Myplace programme to fund the building. The fact that it resembles a group of white elephants is purely coincidental!

The proposal is to hand over the site to an academies trust with youth provision being delivered by an an external provider.  This could be the Brent Youth Foundation, a voluntary organisation  that was originally set up to help existing voluntary youth organisations apply for funding. It is funded itself via the Harrow School foundation arm, the John Lyon's Trust. Running youth services directly  would be a departure from the original remit. The Budget Scrutiny Panel suggested an examination of the long-term viability of funding from John Lyon's and the City Bridge Trust, presumably before the council makes a commitment.

In addition the council proposes that a PRU (Pupil Referral Unit) be set up in the Centre. This would provide for pupils temporarily excluded from school. It would be classified as a new school and as such would have to be a free school or part of a multi-academy trust. It is proposed that it be run by Brent Special Academies Trust (currently consisting of Manor and the Avenue special schools).

Given Labour's policy of not creating any new free schools and academies this is controversial within the local Labour Party. This is not only about the issue of lack of public democratic accountability of academies but also the very ad hoc way special needs provision is being developed in Brent and the backdoor privatisation of most of the borough's non-mainstream special needs provision. A practical issue is whether the BSAT has any relevant experience in running a PRU -  a different kettle of fish from managing special schools.

The Budget Scrutiny Task Force recognised this dilemma stating:

It is far from ideal in our opinion, that this new school would be a free school, but unfortunately the law ensures that new schools opening are always outside of local education authority control. Perhaps a change of central government policy [a Corbyn government?] in future may allow the school to one day become part of the Brent family.

The arrangement is also not perfect for Brent because the asset would transfer to Brent Academies Trust meaning any additional income they derive from hiring out other rooms on site would not be retained by the council, However we will retain some oversite (sic) of the organisations as a senior officer will sit on the Trust's board.

An asset worth £5m handed over in the form of a very long-term lease.

So far no academisation proposals have beend made for the local authority Phoenix School on St Raphaels which specialises in provision for autistic children and of course staff at The Village School are fighting academisation. If academisation went ahead there another multi-million Brent asset would be handed over to a Multi-Academt Trust.

I would argue that democratic accountability is even more important in special needs provisoon because of the particular needs and potential vulnerability of special needs pupils.