Academy strike vote at Kingsbury High but parents and community views to be sought

I understand that majority of NUT members at Kingsbury High School have voted  for strike action over the plans to become an academy.  However members are keen to wait to hear the views of parents and the community before going any further with their plans. They hope that a many as possible turn up to hear about the issues at the public meeting they have organised next week.

The meeting is at 7pm on Tuesday September 13th at the Father O'Callaghan Centre, 26 Hay Lane, Kingbury, NW9 ONG

Kingsbury High Parents Urged to Seek Ballot as Staff Ballot for Strike Action

Why have Kingsbury staff voted against converting to a Gove Academy? Why have parents demanded a ballot? Come and discuss at a public meeting on Tuesday 13^th September at 7:00pm in the Father O'Callaghan Centre, Main Hall, 26 Hay Lane, London, NW9 0NG  

Dear Parents,

As you know at the Governors meeting on 14^th July governors voted for Kingsbury High to apply for academy status. This despite the fact that ...

è  84.5%, over 4/5^ths of staff opposed the idea and voted NO in an independently overseen secret ballot.

è   at two parents meetings the overwhelming majority of parents voiced outright opposition or serious concerns.

è   parents had not then (and still have not) had their own independently overseen ballot.

è   any extra money Kingsbury might receive if they became an academy would be taken from the budgets of other schools. Younger children of Kingsbury High parents could suffer in Brent feeder primaries, losing funding, resources and even staff.

è   any extra money provided would be temporary. Michael Gove has said “the government is clear that a school converting to an academy will not have a financial advantage or disadvantage”.

è   Councils have been granted leave for judicial review of the funding arrangements. Further, the Government is itself presently reviewing funding.

è   no business plan had been done or provided for stakeholders scrutiny.

 

è   the vast majority of Brent schools are not Academies and have no plans to become Academies.

      Further, the Headteacher deliberately withheld from the Governors the fact that the school had received formal notification that staff (reluctantly and as a last resort) would be balloted for strike action if Governors voted to apply. Staff are now in the process of being balloted for strike action

           The Headteacher may tell you that the staffs' only real objections are the loss of the requirement for                n         national pay and conditions, and it being part of the privatisation of the state education agenda. They

           are not. The prime concern of staff is the long-term harm this would do to the education of

           Kingsbury pupils.

      As you know the teaching and support staff at the school are dedicated and committed to providing the best education for the pupils at the school. They are clearly against academy status. There is no evidence to show that this school becoming an academy would raise educational standards.

This is a matter of democracy. Kingsbury High School is a community asset. Proper regard and due weight in deciding its future should be given to key stakeholders, including parents and indeed pupils.

NO FINAL DECISION HAS YET BEEN TAKEN. DEMAND A BALLOT AS STAFF WERE ALLOWED. MAKE YOUR COLLECTIVE VOICE HEARD.

Parents have set up their own action group. They can be contacted via khsaac@hotmail.co.uk

We are the staff's local professional association representatives. Please contact us if you have any questions.

            Hank Roberts hankr@hotmail.com      0208 961 2251 or 07762737306

            Shane Johnschwager johnschwager@hotmail.com  07734703072

Kingsbury High NOT Academy Campaign on Facebook

Support the students' campaign HERE

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 (14^th 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

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.

An e-mail sent by a Kingsbury High School parent to other parents supported the teachers:

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

HOLLAND PARK LOBBY TONIGHT

My internet has been down so sorry for the lateness of this notice:

URGENT: JOIN THE LOBBY OF HOLLAND PARK SCHOOL'S GOVERNORS. MEET AT THE SCHOOL TONIGHT (Thusrday) AT 6.00 PM
 

After a "consultation" with parents which consisted of a meeting with parents on Monday evening oh yes, they also had the opportunity to comment online by, Wednesday - they had received the invitation the previous Thursday - and after promising students that they would be consulted, THE GOVERNORS OF HOLLAND PARK SCHOOL ARE GOING AHEAD WITH THE MEETING AT WHICH THEY WILL DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO CONVERT TO ACADEMY STATUS.

The meeting is at the school tonight at 6.30 pm. If you agree that such an important decision should not be taken without proper consultation with all groups - teaching and non-teaching staff and their unions, parents, students, local primary schools and the community - that this consultation should include information and arguments for and against Academy status and that after a FULL consultation there should be ballots of staff, parents and students, please join us to lobby the governors. 

ASK THEM TO POSTPONE THEIR DECISION PENDING THE COMPLETION OF FULL, INFORMED CONSULTATION.

Student letter to Holland Park and Council Bosses on Academy

OPEN LETTER TO THE ADMINISTRATION AT HOLLAND PARK SCHOOL AND KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA COUNCIL (posted on Education Activist Network)

Dear all,

We have recently become aware that plans are afoot to transform Holland Park School into an ‘academy’, in conjunction with widespread changes occur across the education sector. We are aware a consultation process is required for such a sweeping change to the way the institution is run, and assert that as students, we are the primary stakeholders in the education service and therefore deserve not only a voice but an influence over anything likely to affect the delivery of our service.


We maintain confidence that your central objective is to provide a healthy, happy, and focused academic environment for students and staff to thrive in both inside and outside the classroom. This taken into account, we urge you to therefore reconsider this proposal sharply. It is not hyperbole or exaggeration to suggest that academy status could drive a wrecking ball through the positive place that is Holland Park, as it has done in so many other schools across the United Kingdom.

Bear in mind that academies are taking place against a backdrop of a fundamental reorganization of the education sector. On 30th June, four teaching unions are set to strike against an unfair and regressive assault on their pension schemes. Last winter, Parliament voted to raise tuition fees to £9,000. Since then, it has become clear that this will decrease student participation in higher education, will cost the state far more than it saves, and will ‘price out’ many smaller and less prestigious universities. Some universities are announcing course cuts of up to 70%. The scrapping of Education Maintenance Allowance, meanwhile, has been slammed by the very thinktank who wrote the report that the government used to justify their decision to remove it! We have seen schools left in temporary accommodation indefinitely since the Building Schools for the Future scheme was summarily axed. We move, therefore, to say that the Coalition Government based on their current record cannot be trusted with school reform, and are committing untold damage to an education sector built up on talent, academia, and public money over generations.

Yet there are far more specific reasons to oppose the introduction of academies. Listed below are a small number of issues, by no means complete or comprehensive, of the drawbacks of academies.
-       Much of the government’s marketisation of schools strategy originates from a similar system in Sweden. Per Thulberg, director general of the Swedish National Agency for Education, says “This competition between schools that was one of the reasons for introducing the new schools has not led to better results.”
-       Academy providers cannot be trusted with schools. The biggest Academy chain in England is ULT. The government told them they could have no more Academies after Ofsted failed their 2 Academies in Sheffield. In 2002 Edison USA was caught in the stock market meltdown, with its shares plummeting from over $21 to under $1. The company solved this by selling off its books, computers, lab equipment and musical instruments! Edison are already running schools in England.
-       Of the 74 Academies which have entered pupils for GCSE’s for 2 or more years, a third have seenThe National Governors Association, National Association of Head Teachers, National Grammar Schools Association, the Catholic Church, the Church of England have all raised major concerns with the Academies proposals. their results fall.
-       The Academies Bill proposes that schools can become Academies simply by a vote of the governors – no consultation with parents, teachers, support staff or the local community. They are not accountable to the Local Authority, so they are not accountable to the public. Their governors are appointed, not elected. Academies are not covered by Freedom of Information legislation. In short, they are unaccountable and undemocratic.
-       Every Academy can set their own terms and conditions. This proposal will see the end of national negotiations, with headteachers and governors setting pay and conditions school by school.
-       The only extra money available for schools that opt to become academies will be taken from money the local authority holds centrally for support services.

This information is taken from the Anti Academies Alliance, an admittedly non-neutral source, but one corroborated by a range of external and neutral sources.

Holland Park School has a uniquely cosmopolitan tradition. It was the first state comprehensive in London, and remains the only state comprehensive in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; meaning it accepts students from all social and economic backgrounds. It has educated great minds and public personalities from historians and princes to writers and actors. It has improved its examination results year on year consecutively, to well above the national average, and was listed last year in the Good Schools Guide. It has sent a significant number of students to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, as well as other prestigious higher education institutions. To be clear, we are performing very well as an institution, thanks to committed staff and students. We see no reason to jeopardise this success with a structural change that the best evidence suggests will do way more harm than good.

In addition, we resent that this decision-making process is in progress during the pivotal examination period. Speculation it may be, but many feel that this move is intentional, to marginalise participation in the debate around school reform as staff, parents and students are busy preparing for national qualifications. We move to delay the decision process until September, when a more far-reaching and inclusive debate can be had around the subject.

To summarise, we are afraid of the impact academy status will have upon our cosmopolitan tradition, our learning environment, and our staff and students. We see the change as part of a wider ideological assault against public, collectively-accountable education at school, FE, and HE level. If one of the state comprehensive model’s greatest beacons in the country is suborned before the Academy juggernaut, there is little hope left for any other school or institution to resist Gove’s reforms, which are currently popular with no-one but those who would profit from the breakdown of the education sector.

We, the undersigned, implore you to reconsider the decision, and add that it is of the highest urgency that any decision at all is postponed until the coming academic year.

Sincerely,
Nathan Akehurst
VI Form Student

Holland Park academy conversion to be rushed through

I heard today at the SERTUC Conference on Academies and Free Schools that parents at Holland Park School in Kensington and Chelsea got a letter on Thursday about a meeting on academy conversion that will take place  on Monday. Governors will make a decicion on Thursday. What a breathtaking contempt for parents, pupils and the community!

Holland Park, where Tony Benn sent his children, is the only community secondary school in Kensington and Chelsea - so where does that leave parental choice?

The parents' meeting is at 6.30pm and leafleting will begin from 6pm or thereabouts.  If you have time please come and join us.

Harrow Education Unions Challenge Academy Conversion

As education unions in Brent consider taking action over Claremont High School's conversion to academy status, their counter-parts in Harrow have issued a statement about proposals for seven of the borough's high schools to become academies. In contrast to Brent Council, Harrow Council has clearly stated its opposition to their schools becoming academies.

This is the statement by the NUT, ATL, NASUWT, GMB and Unison:

Our hard working members in teaching and support roles across Harrow face an unprecedented period of change as seven of Harrow’s secondary schools decide whether or not to break away from the local authority and become answerable to government as independent academy schools. Academy conversion brings with it serious repercussions for our membership who face potential job loss and alterations to their terms and conditions. Yet all we are hearing from school management teams in this consultation is half hearted ‘intentions’ to retain existing national and local terms and conditions with no commitment to formal agreements. 

We will take full part in these important consultations and will use all available means to act in our members'  best interests but we are vigorously opposed to academy conversion and we support Harrow Council’s preference that all schools should remain within the local school family. Our members do not want to become academy employees, do not support the academy programme and are passionately opposed to it.

If the seven school governing bodies do decide to convert to academies, they will be independent from the local authority breaking a rich tradition of community based, locally accountable and publicly-managed schools. For many years our comprehensive schools have been nationally recognised for achievements in educational excellence which have benefited many generations of Harrovians. We do not have a tradition of failing schools which the original style of academies were mainly focused on.

The expansion of academies are no more than a Coalition Government experiment which is intent on breaking up state comprehensive education by introducing competition and demanding that schools compete for money, students and staff as businesses against one another. It is proven that market capitalism has no place in education and these changes are driven by an ideological disdain for all thing’s public. The Coalition Government should not be allowed to play party politics with our children’s future.

It is also claimed by Government that academies will improve standards but independent research and evaluation provides no evidence that academies are better than other schools in raising educational performance. We struggle to see how academy conversion will help schools in Harrow who are already judged to be outstanding and given the unknown and risky implications of conversion, this could have serious implications for our young people’s life chances.

It is also unclear how any of the freedoms which the Government claims academies will bring can improve schools. Harrow schools already work with the biggest devolved school budget than any other local authority in the country and with a significant degree of discretion and freedom to act in collaboration with other schools and Harrow Council.

To suggest, as Bob Blackman MP has done (Conservative Harrow East), that schools should be ‘freed from the dead hand of Harrow Council’ is fundamentally wrong, unhelpful and is fuelled by political prejudice. He does not recognise that academies will be under a far greater degree of central control and scrutiny, in terms of budgets, school performance and governing body appointees than at present and will be directly answerable to the Secretary of State and his regulator, the Young People’s Learning Agency. Free from bureaucratic interference this is not.

"Harrow schools play a major part of community life which means the academy consultation is of paramount importance to the residents of Harrow. The decision by school governing bodies will not only affect the seven schools in consultation but we believe will have a negative impact upon all schools in the borough and will have far reaching implications on the level of educational provision across the area.

Conversion will impact the life chances of future generations of Harrow’s young people and will involve a huge transfer of public assets (e.g. school buildings & land) to the private sector. Any decision should not be taken lightly or without hearing all views from the local community.
"A ‘big question’ like this requires ‘big society’ input, consultation and civic engagement from the wider community. We encourage pupils, parents, staff, our members, Harrow Councillors and interested residents to take part in the school consultation meetings which are taking place on Monday 21st March 2011 at the seven affected schools (more information is available from school websites).

 To hear more of a presentation of the real facts concerning academies we urge people to attend an Anti Academies Alliance parents/public meeting on Friday 25 March at 7pm (Council Chambers, Harrow Civic Centre, Station Road, HA1 2UU).

Parents Demand a Voice in Claremont's Future

Despite short notice and a clash with a school production, concerned parents  of Claremont High School students attended a meeting tonight at Kenton Methodist Church Hall about the possible conversion of the school to an Academy.

Parents reported that they had heard little about the proposals and were surprised to hear that a decision may be made tomorrow. One parent reported that he had e-mailed the school with six questions on the issue but had received no response. He had rejected sending his child to Wembley ARK Academy because he had reservations about the academies programme only to hear that the school where he had eventually sent her may itself become an academy.  Another parent commented that 'surgeries'  with senior staff and governors on the issue had been held when other meetings were taking place. There were also complaints about the difficulty of accessing the academy documents on the school's website. One document had a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) with no answers. A letter that had been sent to parents on February 1st had not reached all the parents present and was not seen as even handed in its presentation of the case.

An exchange of opinion and information took place during the meeting and Hank Roberts of the NUT and ATL, two of the unions that had called the meeting, said this was precisely what the education unions wanted.  All they were asking was that parents should have the same opportunity as staff:  to hear both sides of the debate, time to make up their own minds, and then have the chance to express their views in a ballot. A teacher remarked that if the school leadership was so proud of what they were doing in seeking academy conversion why had they not proclaimed it, rather than be secretive. A parent asked why the school hadn't used recent parent meetings to inform them about the issue.

There was general agreement that parents should contact the school by e-mail to say they had not been properly consulted and asking for a delay in the decision so that parents could research the issue, attend a debate representing the case For and Against the proposal, and then cast a ballot. Some parents would attempt to speak to governors before the meeting.

Hank Roberts said that if there was a fair debate and a ballot that went against the unions' point of view they would accept that was the view of parents. The governing body would have to weigh up the views of staff and parents in considering whether to convert. He emphasised that it was all about democracy and that there was the possibility of legal action to ensure the fairness of the process.

Campaign against Claremont becoming an academy

Anti-academy activists will be leafleting outside Claremont High School tomorrow (Monday) from 3pm until 3.20pm ahead of an emergency parents' meeting on the issue.  They will welcome anyone who can join them.

ADDRESS
Claremont Avenue,
Kenton,
Middlesex HA3 0UH

Parents force academy retreat

Parents at Kenmont Primary School are on their way to winning the battle to halt governors' plans to turn the school into an academy sponsored by ARK which runs the Wembley academy.  Following a vigorous campaign by parents a new strategy has been adopted by the governing body which includes recruiting a new headteacher and involving  parent governors.

One of the parent campaigners, Polly Iannaccone, said  "We were determined to defend our right to keep our school they way we want it, which is a true reflection of everything that is positive about state education, and as a fantastic example of harmonious multicultural community life in inner London. Hopefully now we have done just that."

Although Kenmont is in the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham it is close to the border with Brent and attended by many Brent children.

RECLAIM OUR SCHOOLS

As the Wembley Park playing fields disappear beneath the ARK Academy building works there have been a number of developments on the academies front. The government has announced that private sponsors will no longer have to cough up £2m towards the cost of new academies and it turns out not many did so anyway. The government apparently believe this will squash claims that academies are a form of privatisation rather than create claims that our schools will now be given away to private companies. Giving away schools will no doubt mean that all sorts of strange private sponsors will emerge but the government promises a stringent procedure to vet them - let's wait and see.

The underlying assumption that private organisations, by their very nature, will be better at running schools has been challenged by the fate of Sheffield Park Academy. This Academy, run by United Learning Trust, took over from Walthe School which in 2004 was making 'satisfactory progress'according to Ofsted. Walthe was rebuilt at a cost of£8m in 1998 but in 2006 was replaced by the Academy which moved into new buildings costing £90m last year. The latest Ofsted inspection report on the Academy rates it as 'inadequate' in all categories and criticises its leadership and management -precisely the area which is supposed to give private sponsorship the edge. ULT is the largest academy sponsor with 17 schools.

To add to the confusion, arch-Tory Westminster City council has commissioned a report by Professor David Eastwood which recommends that local councils should have the power to take over failing academies. The commission warned that academies were refusing to cooperate with boroughs on developing coherent local plans for schools. The Evening Standard said that councillors feel 'politically vulnerable' because voters see them as responsible for education, despite them having no control over academies.'

The sooner the academies are brought back under the democratically accountable control of local authorities the better. Perhaps this could become an issue in the May 2010 local election so that the new school being built in Wembley Park belongs to us, the taxpayers and community charge payers, rather than a hedge fund millionaire.

GREENS FIGHT ON AGAINST ARK ACADEMY

Boris Johnson, the London mayor, has decided not to stop Brent's plans for a city academy on the Wembley Park playing fields site. The decision means that Brent Council can make its own decision to go ahead. However, there is still the possibility of further delays through intervention by the Government Office for London or legal action.

Martin Francis, Brent Green Party spokesperson for children, families and schools and the party's General election candidate for the Brent North said:

"The Green Party continues to oppose the concept of academies as they are run by private concerns with a built in majority on the governing body and there therefore not democratically accountable, although funded by taxpayers. We believe in locally accountable, community schools which are open to all. Brent Green Party also oppose the building of a school on the site of the Wembley playing fields because of the loss of local amenities, concerns about the structural viability of the site, the proximity to Preston Manor High School, its distance from the area of need in the south of the borough and its generation of traffic. We support the building of a community secondary school in the south of the borough which would serve local residents and become a local resource for education, recreation and the arts and a beacon of hope and pride for the area.

We are disappointed by Boris Johnson's decision but remain determined to stop the Wembley ARK Academy and will explore the next steps with our fellow campaigners."

There's no connection of course, but on election day hedge fund speculator Arpad Busson, head of ARK is hosting a £10,000 a head charity dinner for 900 guests at the old Eurostar Terminus at Waterloo. The keynote speaker at this 'glittering' event? Boris Johnson, London Mayor.

ARK PLAN APPROVED

The plan for a city academy at Wembley Park sponsored by a hedge fund millionaire, was approved tonight when two Labour councillors supported the Liberal Democrat's proposals.

The Lib Dem's Conservative coalition partners and a Democratic Conservative councillor opposed the plans. They were joined by Cllr. Habhajan Singh (Labour, Welsh Harp) who had earlier unsuccessfully moved for deferral on the grounds that the council should produce an Environmental Impact Assessment and provide fuller detail on traffic issues. The Brent Green Party had made the lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment for such a major project a major plank of its objection to the planning application.

It was heartening to see a councillor willing to step out of the party line to make a stand for the environment. However the actions of fellow Labour councillors James Powney and Ruth Moher means that an unofficial Lib Dem-Labour coalition exists on the city academy issue, despite the overall council being run by a Lib Dem-Conservative coalition.

The chair refused to call me to speak on the Green Party's submission on the curious basis that I represented a political party and that this was not a 'party political issue'! He also refused to call Hank Roberts of the Wembley Park Action Group and would only allow Jean Roberts to speak despite her protests that she had submitted both names. She made an excellent speech and cogent arguments were also made by local residents.

The application will now be referred to the London Mayor's Office and the battle will move on to that ground.

Brent Green Party's submission can be found on its website.

ARK on the rocks?

Tuesday April 7th has been fixed as the date when the Planning Committee will hear the revised Planning Application for the permanent ARK Wembley Academy. Letters went out on the 6th March giving 14 days to respond giving a deadline of Friday March 20th. However the Council said later submissions will be considered if a decision has not yet been made.

However, potential respondents soon found that the promised revised documents were not available on the council website www.brent.gov.uk/planning.nsf (reference 08/2842) as of Sunday March 8th. The planning application is also available for inspection at the One-Stop Shop on the ground floor of Brent House, 349 High Road, Wembley, HA9 6BZ (9am-5pm Mon, Tues, Wed and Friday, 9am-1pm Thursdays). The Planning Service is also open on Wednesday evenings between 5pm-7pm at the One Stop Shop to give advice to the public on town planning matters. There is no reference to the documents being available at other One Stop Shops or Brent Libraries as is normally the case.

The documents were revised following criticism from individuals, the Wembley Park Action Group, Barn Hill Residents Association, Brent Green Party and other local groups, and the GLA. They include the Design and Access Statement, Flood Risk Assessment and Landscaping and most importantly, according to the Council, the Transportation Assessment and Travel Plan.

IS CONSULTATION A CON?

‘Consultation’ has become a buzz word – the government consults about the third runway, the post office consults about post office closures, the health service consults about ‘super surgeries’ or ‘polyclinics’, the local authority consults about graffiti, climate change, care charges for elders, planning including the Wembley Masterplan and the Wembley Academy.

Too often, consultation seems to offer us a way of affecting decisions but leaves us feeling disgruntled and rather cheated. What starts as an extension and deepening of democracy leaves us cynical about decision makers and politicians. Despite a fight post offices closed, despite a fight Heathrow expansion is going ahead.

“It doesn’t make a difference. They’ve already decided anyway.”

For Brent Council I suggest the questions should be:

1. What do we consult about? When do we decide a consultation is necessary? How do we justify not consulting on some issues? It sometimes seems that the most controversial issues are not directly consulted about. We had no consultation about whether the people of Brent were in favour of City Academies as a form of semi-private provision (publicly funded but private controlled), little about where it should be – but were asked about its name and catchment area. We weren’t asked if we wanted a Civic Centre and the subsequent loss of the Town Hall, but were asked (rather glossily and expensively) about graffiti. A new contract has been awarded for play-services but the clubs and clients were not consulted during the bidding process. The new provider, ‘Kids’ has an odd trio of patrons (David Cameron, Cherie Blair and Elton John) and its inadequacies have been exposed by Private Eye – Kensington and Chelsea have already thrown it out.
2. How do we consult? It is not just a question of Area Forums, questionnaires in Brent Magazine, meetings with the Youth Parliament, on line forms, focus groups etc but what information is made available, how and when. There are major questions of accessibility. Having to down-load tens of multi-paged documents is not an option for all, working out from cryptic list of documents on the planning site which are relevant is a full-time job, trying to get hold of documents at libraries and one stop shops can be a marathon under-taking. Timing is crucial major increases in care charges were consulted about over the Christmas holidays when day centres and voluntary organisations were closed. The most telling recent case has been the Wembley Masterplan when local residents and businesses (small and large) were forced to form the Wembley Community Association because they were so enraged by the Council’s failure to reach the people most affected. They managed to force an extension of the consultation process so that they could put their case against the opening up of North End Road and for a more realistic project to be completed sooner. An approach reinforced by Quintian’s comment that the Masterplan was ‘unrealistic, undeliverable and unaffordable and the Govt Office for London demanding more convincing evidence of ‘realism and deliverability’.
3. How good is the quality of information we use for consultation? This includes the quality of questionnaires and whether they enable credible, useful information to be gained (e.g. school places question on school size gave no opportunity to state a preferred size – only to agree/disagree with Council policy); the quality of the often expensive reports carried out by consultants; whether reports actually do the job they are supposed to (the traffic survey for Wembley Academy assume Wembley Primary and Preston Manor pattern of trips to school when children will be travelling from South Brent, flood report says no evidence of local watercourses from street names when Brook Avenue and Kenbrook are nearby - duh!)

4. How fair are our consultation procedures? This relates to accessibility of information as above but also who is consulted and to what lengths we go to reach everyone. The Climate Change Strategy, Wembley Masterplan consultation, and the Care Charges consultation have all had to be extended to give people more time to respond – and it is to Brent Council’s credit that it has bowed to public clamour and done that. But there have also been complaints about the geographical limits of consultation and the need to write to more people and involve the ‘hard to reach’. A colleague has also raised the question of payment for attendance at Focus Group meetings, whether such payments are just known to those ‘in the know’, and how such payments stand ethically. How do you get on a focus group and how are they constructed to give a fair representation?

Perhaps more important is the question:
Does consultation raise unrealistic expectations about changing or reversing decisions? If consultation is really only about small, often cosmetic changes, perhaps it is best to say that at the outset rather than mislead people into thinking they can make any substantial impact on a decision and alienate them by seeming to ignore their well-thought out arguments. After all the ultimate consultation is at election time but if people are fed up with consultations, and thus also with politicians by then, they probably won’t vote.

What we (the people) should be demanding:

Don’t be humbly grateful to be granted a small say – instead:

Demand Council learn from recent problems:

· Widen consultation
· Ensure accessible and high quality documentation
· Ensure procedures are fair with adequate time lines

To strengthen democracy and accountability

COUNCIL URGED TO REJECT ACADEMY PLANNING APPLICATION

Brent Green Party's submission to the Planning Committee due to discuss the application for the Wembley City Academy on January 14th calls on them to reject the application because of missing documentation and misleading information.

The Green Party argue that residents and other interested parties have not had access to full and accurate information for the following reasons:

*No Environmental Assessment has been made for a development that builds on playing fields, includes a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation, and will increase traffic flows in the area
*The council Screening Checklist that was used to decide an Environmental Assessment was not available on the planning website for public perusal
*Several items on the Screening Checklist were based on out of date information used for the temporary primary planning application, a key item on congestion was not completed, and the council say there are no nearby water courses when the Wealdstone Brook flows a few hundred yards from the site
*The Transport Assessment was not available on the website and only one copy of a very large document was available for study on site at Brent House
*The Traffic Assessment was based on the mistaken premise that pupil travel methods would be similar to Preston Manor High School and Wembley Primary, where 56% of pupils walk to school, when the Academy will be serving pupils from the south of the borough who will have to travel by car or public transport
*The Habitat Survey and Protected Species Assessment was carried out in mid winter when identification is most difficult

GLA REFUSE STAGE 1 PLANNING FOR PROPOSED ARK ACADEMY

The reasons for the continued postponement of the Brent Planning Committee date to consider the planning application for the proposed permanent academy on the Wembley Park Sports Ground is now clear. The Greater London Authority (GLA) has stated in their Stage 1 planning report that, “the application does not comply with the London Plan”. (Report attached) The Report gives Brent Council a long list of areas where they need to revise, review and carry out more research as to the impact of the proposed academy.

A wide range of well thought out and detailed objections have been sent to Brent Planning Department and many have also been copied to the London Mayor. It is not surprising that the Mayor’s officers are concerned about this ill thought out proposal. They question whether this is the right site for such a project, something that WPAG and Brent teachers have been saying for years.

There is also the question as to whether the academy is really necessary. Brent’s own figures on school places showed in November (report attached) that there were 205 spare reception places in the borough, 8 at the temporary ARK academy which was supposedly over subscribed! That number is now down to 100 empty places. A Brent spokeswoman claimed that “the vacancies are so scattered it disproves the idea that places are not needed.” She obviously didn’t look at her figures properly as there were, for example, 19 and 20 spare reception places in schools close to the temporary ARK school. These figures show clearly that it has undermined the local authority primary schools already and was not needed. It was a costly and cynical attempt to bolster the claim that the permanent application had to receive approval.

If the permanent academy goes ahead, then it is clear that it will also undermine the local secondaries. There are sites elsewhere including in the South of the borough. There is still time to look at these and build a secondary school at one of these places.

The academy programme itself has yet again shown itself to be making little or no difference to children’s achievement. Nearly a quarter of ‘failing’ secondary schools in London are academies! It is the first years of any new project when you would expect the best results but, despite the millions poured into them, academies have not achieved what the Government promised. The most recent Price Waterhouse Coopers report concluded that there is “insufficient evidence to make a definitive judgment about the Academies as a model for school improvement”.

It is the state comprehensives that are doing best in the value added stakes. In Brent the ordinary state comprehensives’ A* to C’s results increased by approximately twice the average of those in the Capital City Academy (See Brent’s results for last year and this year). The teachers in the Academy are adding value, but are hamstrung by the ridiculous and counterproductive system of private control.

We are faced with the unbelievable situation when the Government are nationalising the banks while privatising the education system. Campaigners against the Wembley Academy will keep up their pressure and stop this ill thought out scheme.

WEMBLEY PARK ACTION GROUP