Showing posts with label accountability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label accountability. Show all posts

Thursday, 20 October 2016

Tenants demand 'If BHP goes its replacement must be better and include tenants representation'




Brent Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee met last night to discuss options for a new housing management system system in the borough which will go to Cabinet on Monday. LINK

The meeting was extremely well attended by Brent Housing Partnership tenants and lease holders. At least two of the options would mean the end of BHP which is an ALMO (arms length management organisation) and semi-independent from Brent Council.

Tenants were forthright in stating that any return to an in-house housing management service would have to be much better than that which existed in Brent before BHP was formed.

Strong contributions to the discussion were made by Cllrs Conneely and Nerva but there may have been others as I arrived late from the Planning Committee which met at the same time.

In the current Brent Cabinet structure an in-house service would be monitored and overseen by an operational director and the lead member for housing.

This was felt to be be unsatisfactory given that lack of accountabulity and monitoring  contributed to BHP's current difficulties.

The first strong recommendation  from Scrutiny therefore was that if housing management is brought in-house there has to be a formalised, housing specific, oversight/scrutiny/sub-committee made up of councillots and residents represenattives of all types of tenure (eg tenants, leaseholders) preferably elected and with clear links with other levels of residents association.

A further recommendation was that if the in-house option was chosen that there should be complete transparency regarding the HRA (Housing Revenue Account) and it should be ring-fenced. 

Thirdly a much better and effective communications strategy needs to be put in place.

Lastly. if Cabinet opts for a joint venture any contract must come back to Scrutiny before being agreed.
 

Wednesday, 22 July 2015

Shahrar Ali, Green Deputy Leader calls for greater scrutiny of police on de Menezes anniversary


 

Shahrar Ali, Deputy Leader of the Green Party attended the event to mark the tenth anniversary of Jean Charles de Menezes' death at Stockwell station this morning. Speaking before the event he said

“I shall be paying my deepest respects to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes on the tenth anniversary of his fatal shooting. Their grief has been compounded by the failure of the IPCC and of our judiciary to hold any operational commander or firearms officer to account, despite the admission that mistakes had occurred.”

Baroness Jenny Jones, London Assembly member, said:

“The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes was not just a tragic error by the Met Police, but also an example of their trying to hide evidence, cover their tracks, and avoid justifiable scrutiny. I'd like to think that it couldn't happen again, but quite honestly, I think it could.”

Ali continued:

“Whilst the family seeks justice in the European Court, we also insist upon greater scrutiny of the police rules of engagement and racial profiling that allowed this to happen. We cannot abide by a scenario where a man or woman gets shot dead, out of misidentification and tactical error, simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Shahrar Ali, Deputy Leader of the Green Party who will attend the event to mark the tenth anniversary of Jean Charles de Menezes' death at Stockwell station tomorrow morning (1), said:
“I shall be paying my deepest respects to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes on the tenth anniversary of his fatal shooting. Their grief has been compounded by the failure of the IPCC and of our judiciary to hold any operational commander or firearms officer to account, despite the admission that mistakes had occurred.”
Baroness Jenny Jones, London Assembly member, said:
“The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes was not just a tragic error by the Met Police, but also an example of their trying to hide evidence, cover their tracks, and avoid justifiable scrutiny. I'd like to think that it couldn't happen again, but quite honestly, I think it could.”
Ali continued:
“Whilst the family seeks justice in the European Court, we also insist upon greater scrutiny of the police rules of engagement and racial profiling that allowed this to happen. We cannot abide by a scenario where a man or woman gets shot dead, out of misidentification and tactical error, simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time."
- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/07/21/de-menezes-shooting-greens-call-for-police-accountability-and-warn-of-risk-of-repeat-fatality-ten-years-on/#sthash.Q27r2hry.dpuf

Thursday, 2 July 2015

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


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



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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


QUOTES


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

National Union of Teachers (NUT)


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

Professor Cathy Nutbrown, The Conversation, Jan 2015


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

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


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

Nansi Ellis (Assistant General Secretary), ATL


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

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

Thursday, 30 October 2014

Natalie Bennett: Abolish politicised Ofsted & replace with collaborative body

 
Cartoon: Rose Asquith, Education Guardian

Natalie Bennett's letter to the Guardian today

Your vox pop of senior education figures (The verdict on Ofsted? ‘requires improvement’, Education, 28 October) was damning. It is clear that all trust has been lost; Ofsted is regarded as a highly politicised, untrustworthy, damaging organisation. That’s one reason why the Green party is calling for its abolition and replacement with continuous collaborative assessment and a national council of educational excellence working closely with local authorities.

Of course we need more change than that. The state of Ofsted is a reflection of the state of a system that is vastly overfocused on exams, has lost local democratic accountability, and has left teachers overworked, disempowered and increasingly demoralised.

Natalie Bennett
Leader, Green party

Sunday, 20 July 2014

A 'secret' meeting with Councillor Butt

Guest blog by Philip Grant

-->
The need for independent investigation of a number of important matters which appear to be going wrong within Brent Civic Centre has been the subject of a number of “blogs”, and hundreds of comments on them, in the past few months, most recently in Martin’s article about ‘Diminishing democracy in Brent’ on 13 July:- 


I was one of the people who urged our Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, to publicly answer the allegations which were being made, both in comments made and in emails sent to him both before and after the local elections in May. I also had outstanding matters from a letter I had given to him on 4 February 2014, at a “Brent Connects” meeting where I had spoken out in a “soapbox” slot about Senior Council Officers failing to honour commitments in Brent’s Constitution about proper consultation and working effectively with the community (the report back to the following “Brent Connects” meeting in April had incorrectly informed the public that ‘the Leader’s Office has responded to Mr Grant’).

I was therefore pleased when one of my emails finally received a reply, from Cllr. Butt himself, on 24 May saying: 

‘Let’s meet up soon so that we can discuss the points that you have been highlighting. I need to be appointed as leader again on June 4th at the agm of the council and if all goes ahead fine we can sit down soon afterwards.’

After some delays at his office, I finally met with Cllr. Butt, and his assistant Thomas Cattermole, in his office at the Civic Centre on Thursday 26 June. I am a retired Civil Servant, and right at the start of the meeting I made it clear that I wished to make a written record of our discussions. This is how I recorded it in the “Introduction” to my notes of the meeting (the only part of them which I feel I can disclose, for reasons which will become apparent):


Friday, 2 May 2014

Brent needs healthy local newspapers to hold Council to account

I have written about the importance of the local press for democracy before on this site. Here in Brent we have the Brent and Kilburn Times, owned by the Archant group and the Wembley and Willesden Observer, owned by Trinity Mirror. In some parts of the north of the borough the Harrow Times also circulates.

The number of reporters on the Brent ands Kilburn Times has reduced from the paper's heyday and readers will have noticed that the number of pages has also been reduced. It is sold in newsagents but also distributed free at some supermarkets, estate agents and elsewhere. It does not always contain a letters page which is often a good indicator of a newspaper's engagement with readers.

The Wembley and Willesden Observer is rather different as it is a local edition of the Harrow Observer series and despite having a great local reporter in Hannah Bewley is usually dominated by news about Harrow. A reader has to double check on stories beginning 'The Council...' to see which Council is involved - more often than not it is Harrow.

The paper's  door-to-door distribution in Brent is very patchy and its price of 90p where sold is unpopular with readers when they discover it contains very few Brent stories.

Trinity Mirror has gone through a difficult period and earlier this month told West Londoin staff that the Fulham and Hammersmith Chronicle, Westminster Chronicle and Kensington and Chelsea Chronicle were to close.

Trinity also  announced that their titles in Uxbridge, Hounslow and Ealing are to switch from door-to-door to 'pick-up' only. The Harrow Observer will remain distributed door-to-door but as I mentioned earlier this does not cover the whole borough of Brent. The newspaper's office is being moved to Watford.

Trinity are going through the process of making staff including reporters, photographers and sales staff redundant and the outcome for the WWO is awaited with some trepidation.

Clearly this is a gloomy picture, not only for the staff concerned, but for the health of local democracy and the important role local newspapers play in holding local councils to account.

Laura Davison, national organiser of the NUJ said about Trinity's closure announcement:
This announcement has come as a terrible shock to the hardworking staff of these titles.The speed of it means there is little time to look at meaningful alternatives to closure.Trinity Mirror should not simply be able to shut down these titles and lock them away after years of starving them of resources.It will leave some communities with no local paper, depriving them of a way to access information and hold local power to account. Readers and the Trinity Mirror journalists who serve them, deserve better.
Martin Shipton, chair of the Trinity Group chapel (NUJ branch), said:
These closures would leave many communities in the outer London area without a local paper, as well as Fulham, a significant and densely populated part of the capital. There is a compelling need for journalistic scrutiny of the budget of local authorities which cover the circulation of these papers. Instead of shutting them down, Trinity Mirror should be investing in quality journalism, for which the public undoubtedly retains an appetite.
I agree.

Friday, 15 November 2013

Controversial school expansion plans bring accusations of skewed consultation

Princess Frederica Primary School, Kensal Rise
I have been reporting here for some time some of the controversies around school expansion: loss of play space, loss of additional rooms such as libraries and ICT suites for classroom conversion, and concerns that primary schools can become too big and lose the intimacy and family centredness valued by many parents.

Present government policy restricts local authorities' ability to build new schools where they are most needed so they instead expand existing schools to cope with increased demand.  The government argues that Free Schools can provide additional places but this is dependent on a provider setting up in an area of shortage and many actually set up where there are already enough places. In addition Free School are not democratically accountable through the local authority system and do not have to employ qualified staff.  They are also much more expensive to set up than a local authority school and thus deprive LAs of finance.

Barry Gardiner MP and Cllr Michael Pavey have both supported the campaign for local authorities to be given powers to plan and build new schools. Meanwhile the problem remains,

The proposed expansion of Princess Frederica Primary School has been particular controversial with parents raising concerns in a letter to the governing body as long ago as July.

Now a local parent and residents has written to MPs and councillors about his concerns over the way the consultation has been carried out and made a formal complaint to Brent Council:

Monday, 5 August 2013

Why services are better in public hands - the need for a Public Service Users Bill


The We Own It campaign LINK  will launch their report on the need for a Public Service Users Bill on Monday. The Bill would promote and protect high quality and accountable public services.

They list the benefits of public ownership:

1. You use it

Meeting your needs – whether that's at the doctors' surgery or at the post office – should mean giving you time, attention and care. Public ownership makes it easier for staff to take the time that’s needed rather than squeezing services to boost profits. This means that when public services are in public hands, they tend to be better run. Local authorities across the UK are bringing services in-house to improve their quality and value for money.

2. You pay for it

Public services are something we all pay for, and we all use. Public ownership means your money is better spent, both locally and nationally. Money can be reinvested into services to improve them, instead of subsidising the profits of private companies. Savings are also made because services are integrated and there is no need to manage contracts. Publicly run East Coast rail has saved the taxpayer £600 million and if water was in public hands, household water bills would be around £80 a year cheaper.

3. You have a say in it 

When public services are run by local or national government, it's easier for you to know who to turn to when you want to complain, and to have your say in how you want services to be improved. The public sector must make data available to you and respond to Freedom Of Information requests (unlike the private sector). Public ownership also means it's possible for the whole of society to decide on a goal (for example, a long term energy policy) and achieve it efficiently. Most people want public services to be provided publicly and almost all of us want a say in how they are run.

4. You share it 

Public services are something we all share. When services are owned by all of us, it's easier for staff to work with service users and community groups to improve them. This can and should involve imaginative ways to keep making them better. In the 21st century, public services should be about people, not profit. Public ownership can sometimes involve the voluntary sector, social enterprises and cooperatives where that's the right solution, and where there are safeguards in place to protect public assets.

5. Examples all over the world show that it works better

In the UK, despite the current drive to privatise, many local authorities are bringing services in-house to boost satisfaction and save money. Across Europe, public ownership is making a comeback. For example, the water in Paris is now owned and controlled by the city, and in Germany energy is being generated locally by publicly owned utilities. In the US, a fifth of all previously outsourced services have been brought back in-house.

The Bill would ensure:

Public ownership would be the default for public services

1. Public ownership would be prioritised as the default option that is looked at first, before contracting out (supported by 60% of the public). Local and national government would always explore best practice public ownership, before turning to private companies.

2. There would always be a realistic, thorough in-house bid from the public sector whenever a public service – local or national - is put out to tender (supported by 80% of the public).

3. The public would be consulted before any service is privatised or outsourced (supported by 79% of the public).

4. Organisations with a social purpose – the public sector and genuine cooperatives, mutuals, charities and social enterprises – would be prioritised in the tendering process (supported by 57% of the public).

Private companies running public services would be held to account

1. The public would have a ‘right to recall’ private companies who are doing a bad job (supported by 88% of the public).

2. Private companies running public services would be transparent about their performance and financial data - as in the public sector (supported by 88% of the public).

3. Private companies running public services would be subject to Freedom Of Information legislation - as in the public sector (48% of the public mistakenly believe this is already the case).

4. The public would be properly consulted about the services they receive through public service contracts.

Friday, 7 December 2012

Local press continue to hold Brent Council to account


Following my recent posting on the importance of the local press in ensuring the accountability of councillors and the counter claim that the BKT was too close to the council, it was heartening to see the front page of the newspaper this week. LINK

Clearly the BKT is continuing to dig up stories that ensure resident know what is really  going on in the Town Hall.

The Wembley and Willesden Observer also has a story this week about the importance of the local press with post-Leveson comments from campaigners about the part local newspapers have played in enabling them to put their message across.

Monday, 2 January 2012

What happens when academies fail?



A spirited anti-academy campaign. More in 2012?

A repeated theme of my postings on academies on this blog has been the lack of democratic accountability. Although he leaves out the 'democratic' bit Sir Michael Wilshaw the incoming Ofsted  Chief Inspector  recognised the problem of accountability over the holiday, acknowledging that some of the increasing number of academies are likely to fail. LINK

His solution however seemed to indicate a new layer of supervision which would expand Ofsted's role and run in parallel with the existing local authority system. This duplication (and expense at a time of retrenchment) would be unnecessary if all schools remained within the local authority system - and of course we don't vote for Ofsted but we do vote for local Councils. Wilshaw however proposes that his 'Commissioners' would report directly to the Secretary of State - centralising power further,

There is an interesting piece on this on Brian Lightman's blog LINK   Lightman is General Secretary of the ACSL (Association of School and College Leaders). He describes Wilshaw's proposal as:
....effectively an devastating critique  of government policy, based on the premise that the move  an autonomous system of academies without local accountability has massively increased the risk of school failure?
He describes how much education policy is made up on the hoof and based on policy makers' personal experience. He suggest that the Crown should appoint a Chief Education Officer, along the same lines as the Chief Medical officer whose role:
...as a leading expert with the highest levels of specialist knowledge and experience would be to evaluate proposed and existing government policies with complete independence. In such a context  a proposal of this kind be would substantiated by a robust, credible and above all independent evaluation of its merits before a Chief Inspector announced it on the front page of a national newspaper.
After 36 years in primary schools I am certainly truly fed up with the way education policy seems to change on a whim with little research to back up proposals, but am not sure that a CEO is the answer.

Meanwhile there have been some responses to my question about Coop academies on the Anti Academies Alliance website HERE