Hats off to the editorial team at the Brent and Kilburn Times. This editorial sums up what many Brent residents are feeling at the moment:
WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Showing posts with label academy consultation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academy consultation. Show all posts
Thursday, 29 March 2012
Monday, 16 January 2012
The February 2011 Willesden Green Library consultatation that you missed!
The furore over the Willesden Green Library Regeneration had led many people to ask me about the earlier consultation on the proposals. The Council discussed the proposals on February 15th 2011 and then consulted two focus groups on February 21st and February 28th. Blink and you missed it!
We were all busy with the library closures, budget meeting and academies at the time but I did put a short post about the plans on Wembley Matters HERE
Details of the February 2011 consultation process can be found here HERE
We were all busy with the library closures, budget meeting and academies at the time but I did put a short post about the plans on Wembley Matters HERE
Details of the February 2011 consultation process can be found here HERE
Thursday, 15 September 2011
Waxman digs heels in under parent pressure on academy ballot
Jeremy Waxman gave an adroit performance at tonight's academy meeting at Kingsbury High School, which was arranged after Tuesday's public meeting, but he left parents dissatisfied. He rejected their call for an independent Yes/No ballot on whether the school should become and academy, and said that the postal survey he was conducting was a more 'nuanced' way of gathering opinion. In the face of repeated calls for a ballot and criticism of the allegedly biased wording of the survey he dug his heels in and insisted that was the form of consultation he had chosen and that a ballot was not a suitable way of gauging opinion. Waxman said he would consider allowing parents to use the Parent E-Mail system to send out information.
Reminded that the teachers unions said they would call off threatened strike action if he agreed to a ballot of parents he said that the teachers' strike vote had been about conditions of service and that the two issues should not be coupled together. He told parents that he was meeting with unions tomorrow and that he was offering a binding agreement that the proposed academy would follow the National Model Agreement on Conditions of Service. Under questioning he said that he was prepared to remove the clause that allowed the employer to rescind the agreement. He admitted that all this was subject to the National Agreement continuing and there were murmers from the floor that Michael Gove wanted to get rid of it.
Waxman went on to say that the school would follow the Local Authority Admissions Code and would be subject to the same rules about admitting SEN pupils as other local schools. He insisted that Kingsbury would continue to work in partnership with other schools and that part of Kingsbury's academy submission was that it would support The Village School. Its role in the local sporting partnership would continue.
He was strongly challenged about whether he could offer any guarantees at all as he would not be headteacher for ever and government policies and legislation changed.
When parents claimed that the information given out by the school was one sided and that the opposing case had not been given equal billing he responded that after carefully weighing up the options he was doing was what was best for the school. He was unapologetic that his material 'made the case' for academy status because 'that is the stage we are at'. He insisted that becoming an academy was in the interests of the pupils and the local community. He was challenged that this only meant the pupils at the school now and not future pupils and that his idea of community was only the immediate area around the school: the whole community of Brent should be involved as changes would affect the future of children still in primary school or not yet born. Kingsbury becoming an academy would take funds away from the central budget so other schools, and particularly primaries would suffer as a consequence.
Time and time again Waxman returned to the necessity of the additional funding to preserve the 6th form as a consequence of the equalisation of further education and school funding. He was warned that as more schools became academies and with free schools being given a disproportionate share of the education budget the funding advantage would soon disappear.
Questioned about consultation with students Jeremy Waxman said that he had held some talks but they were poorly attended but there had been assemblies on the subject. Senior staff had presented the arguments and not necessarily the ones they agreed with. Pressed on the need for a balanced debate he said that there would be two school parliament sessions devoted to the issue for 11-14 and 15-19 year olds.
Waxman said that the academies programme was not one that he favoured politically but the government was committed to all secondary schools eventually converting. and that this was the right time to become an academy. Neighbouring schools in Harrow, and Claremont in Brent, had already taken the decision and he did not want to be the last to go. The way to avoid what happened to Wembley High and Willesden High when the majority of secondary schools in Brent became grant maintained was for all to convert. . He thought that all the secular secondary schools in Brent would eventually do so and that they watching carefully what happened to Kingsbury.
Reminded that the teachers unions said they would call off threatened strike action if he agreed to a ballot of parents he said that the teachers' strike vote had been about conditions of service and that the two issues should not be coupled together. He told parents that he was meeting with unions tomorrow and that he was offering a binding agreement that the proposed academy would follow the National Model Agreement on Conditions of Service. Under questioning he said that he was prepared to remove the clause that allowed the employer to rescind the agreement. He admitted that all this was subject to the National Agreement continuing and there were murmers from the floor that Michael Gove wanted to get rid of it.
Waxman went on to say that the school would follow the Local Authority Admissions Code and would be subject to the same rules about admitting SEN pupils as other local schools. He insisted that Kingsbury would continue to work in partnership with other schools and that part of Kingsbury's academy submission was that it would support The Village School. Its role in the local sporting partnership would continue.
He was strongly challenged about whether he could offer any guarantees at all as he would not be headteacher for ever and government policies and legislation changed.
When parents claimed that the information given out by the school was one sided and that the opposing case had not been given equal billing he responded that after carefully weighing up the options he was doing was what was best for the school. He was unapologetic that his material 'made the case' for academy status because 'that is the stage we are at'. He insisted that becoming an academy was in the interests of the pupils and the local community. He was challenged that this only meant the pupils at the school now and not future pupils and that his idea of community was only the immediate area around the school: the whole community of Brent should be involved as changes would affect the future of children still in primary school or not yet born. Kingsbury becoming an academy would take funds away from the central budget so other schools, and particularly primaries would suffer as a consequence.
Time and time again Waxman returned to the necessity of the additional funding to preserve the 6th form as a consequence of the equalisation of further education and school funding. He was warned that as more schools became academies and with free schools being given a disproportionate share of the education budget the funding advantage would soon disappear.
Questioned about consultation with students Jeremy Waxman said that he had held some talks but they were poorly attended but there had been assemblies on the subject. Senior staff had presented the arguments and not necessarily the ones they agreed with. Pressed on the need for a balanced debate he said that there would be two school parliament sessions devoted to the issue for 11-14 and 15-19 year olds.
Waxman said that the academies programme was not one that he favoured politically but the government was committed to all secondary schools eventually converting. and that this was the right time to become an academy. Neighbouring schools in Harrow, and Claremont in Brent, had already taken the decision and he did not want to be the last to go. The way to avoid what happened to Wembley High and Willesden High when the majority of secondary schools in Brent became grant maintained was for all to convert. . He thought that all the secular secondary schools in Brent would eventually do so and that they watching carefully what happened to Kingsbury.
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Time for a 'Consultation Charter'?
There was an interesting exchange between Cllr Helga Gladbaum and Fiona Edden the Borough Solicitor at Monday's Scrutiny Committee. Cllr Gladbaum said that the Council seemed to be involved in a large number of consultations and asked about the statutory requirements.
Edden replied that consultation can mean a huge number of different things. She said that detailed requirements were not clear on issues other than those such as individual care and day care and that statutory requirements were few. She remarked that three month consultations did not necessarily produce anything useful. Requirements were flexible and often nebulous and the Council tried to be as practicable as possible.
I have discussed the confusion over consultations on this blog before and how residents are often disenchanted with the results LINK . Certainly controversy over the timing and extent of consultation is a regular feature of the local press (this week over parking charges in Preston Road and Bridge Road). Fiona' Edden's response does indicate a lack of clarity and because of the lack of statutory guidelines this may not be the Council's fault. However a 'Consultation Charter' might be useful setting out what the Council will consult about and who it will consult, and how the consultation results will be evaluated and used, may help make things a little clearer.
Edden replied that consultation can mean a huge number of different things. She said that detailed requirements were not clear on issues other than those such as individual care and day care and that statutory requirements were few. She remarked that three month consultations did not necessarily produce anything useful. Requirements were flexible and often nebulous and the Council tried to be as practicable as possible.
I have discussed the confusion over consultations on this blog before and how residents are often disenchanted with the results LINK . Certainly controversy over the timing and extent of consultation is a regular feature of the local press (this week over parking charges in Preston Road and Bridge Road). Fiona' Edden's response does indicate a lack of clarity and because of the lack of statutory guidelines this may not be the Council's fault. However a 'Consultation Charter' might be useful setting out what the Council will consult about and who it will consult, and how the consultation results will be evaluated and used, may help make things a little clearer.
Friday, 22 July 2011
Kingsbury High Pupils Strike Against Academy Plans and Lack of Consultation
Kingsbury High pupils are planning "strike action" today (Friday) at 9-9.30am to protest at plans to turn it into an academy and not being fully consulted on the plans.
At 9.15 when the bell goes, pupils were due to refuse to go to lessons and remain on the field/playground of Princes Ave (upper school site) instead.
At 9.15 when the bell goes, pupils were due to refuse to go to lessons and remain on the field/playground of Princes Ave (upper school site) instead.
Saturday, 16 July 2011
Kingsbury High School Academy Bid - democracy must prevail say unions
Following the decision of Kingsbury High School governors to go ahead with an application for academy status, Hank Roberts NUT/ATL Secretary and Shane Johnschwager NASUWT Secretary, have issued a statement to Kingsbury High staff vowing to work together so that democratic values prevail.
The Kingsbury decision follows that of Claremont High which was also criticised for failure to consult properly and ignoring the views of staff, parents and pupils as well as the more recent controversy at Holland Park where a consultation and decision took place in less than a week. If Kingsbury High became an academy it would join Ark and Claremont in the north of Brent, Crest Boys' and Girls' in the east and City Academy in the south
The unions' statement says:
· At the Governors meeting Thursday night (14th July) the Head concealed from Governors the fact that he had received formal notification from the Teacher Unions of a ballot for industrial action if the vote to apply went ahead.
· In advance of the meeting he refused requests by the Local Secretaries for a meeting to seek a mutually agreeable way ahead to avoid a ballot for industrial action. Even on the day he failed to respond to repeated phonecalls.
· The Head broke his promise to parents that he would tell them in advance of the Governors meeting whether or not he would advocate a pause in the process and a parental ballot.
· He misled parents by saying they would be told the result of the staff ballot. They have not been told. They clearly should have been told before the vote to apply.
· The Head advocated going ahead with no business plan having been provided, with no risk assessments having been done or provided, with no parental ballot having taken place and no proper pupil consultation.
· The Head of the Finance Committee said that they had 'chosen to have a deficit'. This despite the Head telling parents that the deficit was due to Governors failure to 'grasp the nettle' regarding the school's financial situation.
· The Head said that becoming an Academy, that is doing what Gove wants the school to do, would put Kingsbury in a better position to fight Gove if necessary. This despite the fact that the Secretary of State will ultimately have sole control of the school and its finances.
· The Head misled Governors by saying that the staff's only real objections were the loss of the requirement for national pay and conditions and it being part of the privatising of state education agenda. He did not state that the prime concern of staff is the long-term harm this would do to the education of Kingsbury pupils.
· Unions were accused of scaremongering about the potential loss of pay and conditions.
· Statements were made about long-term financial gains to the school ('for the life of this Government') on the basis of no supporting evidence.
· The main and longest speakers at the meeting were the Headteacher (in favour), a so-called 'neutral' advisor (clearly in favour), 'Associate members' of the Governing Body, (members of the Senior Leadership Team - in favour). All of these people are paid by the school. It is not in the spirit of good governance to have non-volunteers with such influence on such important decisions. Those who asked in advance of the meeting to speak against were told 'no'.
We believe a good Headteacher:
· Would not ignore the views of the overwhelming majority of their staff.
· Would have properly and democratically established parent's views (as he did teachers) before pressing ahead.
· Would not have concealed from Governors that the school had received formal notification for a ballot for strike action if the Governors went ahead at this time.
The situation is now becoming ludicrous. How can any school be considered normal, consultative and democratic where a small group of individuals propose such significant changes, without the support of any of their stakeholders?The literally thousands of staff, parents and pupils who ARE the school
All pretences of consultation and democracy have now been exposed as the sham they clearly always were. For the Headteacher to expect any member of staff to accept his 'guarantees' on pay and conditions when he has acted so dishonourably on this matter would be absurd.
In light of Mr Waxman's behaviour we suspect that he may also:
· Like Claremont, seek to bring forward the date for conversion despite promises to the contrary.
· Seek to rush and manipulate the parental ballot (if one occurs at all).
- Not have any proper and democratic consultative process with pupils
An e-mail sent by a Kingsbury High School parent to other parents supported the teachers:Despite this, we believe, Kingsbury WILL NOT become an Academy. It will be too difficult to resist staff opposition, industrial action and united parental and pupil opposition.
To press ahead with all their stakeholders clearly and overwhelmingly against would turn Kingsbury into a cause celebre for all those who hold democratic values. It would be unprecedented – not just in Brent but nationally. To risk this would be a step too far for a Head or Governor who values their reputation in the school and community.
The democratically untenable position of the Head and Governors cannot be sustained. Together we will ensure democratic values prevail.
As parents we need to strongly support the staff in this, they are the ones who so ably provide our children’s education. The final step towards conversion would happen around October so we need to step up our campaign between now and then to stop this.
The governors have decided to take action that they know a majority of stakeholders are against. Please use the time now to talk to other parents before the public meeting (planned for Autumn term). We can stop the school from going down this reckless path, but to do so parents, staff, pupils and others all need to work together.
Ha
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)