Medirest staff to protest outside Northwick Park Hospital on Thursday 5 September over issues of wages, bullying and over work

Staff working for Medirest at Northwick Park Hospital in Harrow are set to protest outside the hospital on Thursday 5^th September from noon to 4pm over poor wages and what they say is overbearing management and heavy workload.

 

Porters, cleaners, ward hostesses and kitchen staff who are employed by the multinational facility management company Medirest say that they have had enough.

A recent meeting organised by GMB heard many workers from the 80 strong crowd tell of how their workloads have increased and that many were being paid the National Minimum Wage £8.21 an hour.

Other concerns over a bullying supervisor were raised following the GMB presenting a petition signed by over half of the staff of 400.

Tahir Bhatti, GMB Regional Organiser said:

Last year we started to speak to the Medirest about increasing the wages from the minimum wage, as well as other issues.

Medirest have a lot of staff paid only the minimum wage, staff who clean up after patients, transport deceased patients and make sure the hospital functions. We feel that there should be respect and fairness for all Medirest workers. 

The union are calling for equal wages and a root and branch investigation into the concerns of the workers. 

Workers will stage a respectable protest outside the main entrance to the hospital.

Strike planned at Leopold Primary School over bullying allegations

National Education Union (NEU) members at Leopold Primary School in Brent have voted by a clear margin to take strike action over alleged bullying and harassment by the Headteacher. The first strike action is scheduled for 20^th to 22^nd March.

Last Autumn 13 members of staff, the majority NEU member,  submitted formal grievances against the Head. An independent investigator was appointed who submitted his report to the Governing Body and the London Borough of Brent in December. 

 The NEU claim that the complainants have still not been informed of the outcome of the investigation, in clear breach of the Grievance Procedure. Meanwhile they allege that several of those members have been subject to disciplinary allegations, at the instigation of the Headteacher.

The NEU have asked that the Head be suspended on full pay, and have no involvement in any disciplinary procedures until the issues arising from the grievances have been resolved. The NEU say that Brent  Council and the Governing Body have failed to respond.

Phil Pardoe NEU Regional officer said:

This is outrageous. The allegations are very serious. It is completely unacceptable for the Governors and Brent to sit on the report, and refuse to take any action to protect our members. We still hope to find a negotiated solution, but our members have reluctantly decided that they have no option but to take strike action in the face of the unacceptable behaviour of the Head and the seeming indifference of the Governors and Brent. 

Bullying at Brent Council - FoI response

The following response to a Freedom of Information request was released earlier this month. It is of interest in the light of the Cara Davani controversy LINK

FOI Request – 4686497

1)    How many employees of your authority  [Brent Council] have made an official complaint of harassment and bullying at work since the 1st April 2009?

15

2)    How many of these complaints were upheld in favour of the complainant?

2

3)    How many of those which were not upheld in favour of the complainant went on to Appeal?

3

4)    How many of those that went to Appeal were found to favour the complainant?

0

5)    How many complaints went on to an Employment Tribunal?

0

6)    How many of these were found to uphold the complaint?

N/A

7)    Out of how many of those allegations (the number given to question 1) did the complainant of bullying claim that the bullies were telling lies?

0

8)    How many staff does your authority have and what is the current population within your authority's area?

There are 2,109 employees as at 31/12/2015

The population of Brent, taken from the GLA short-term population projections for 2015, is an estimated 325,300.

Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert – Brent’s cover-up continues (or, another Deputation that the Council would not hear!)

Guest blog by Philip Grant

“Wembley Matters” readers may be interested to know what happened at Brent’s Scrutiny Committee meeting this evening (Thursday 30 April). 

Before it started, I was treated to the sight of Cllr. Butt sitting next to Cara Davani (Director of HR and Administration), laughing and joking with her, and pointing me out as the person who had come to present a Deputation about Equalities and HR. I don’t know why the Council Leader was there, except perhaps to impress on the committee members sitting opposite him that Ms Davani was under his protection, so they had better not do anything that might annoy her.

The Chair, Cllr. Aslam Choudry, soon got on to the question of the Deputation from Phil Grant, and said that there was a matter to sort out before I presented it. He asked for my agreement that if I were allowed to speak, I should not refer to any individual legal cases, as Brent’s Chief Legal Officer had advised me earlier in the day. 

I replied that I could not accept this restriction, for the reasons I had set out in an email sent to all of his committee members, and copied to the Legal Officer, some hours ago, which had not been answered. The legal case I wished to refer to was the one which Cllr Pavey’s review had been set up, as Christine Gilbert (interim Chief Executive, and also present) had announced last September, to learn the lessons from that case. As one of the points I wished to make was that an important lesson had not been learned, and both of the points required reference to the case in order to explain the reasons for what I wanted to say about the draft Action Plan, which Scrutiny Committee was being asked to give its views on, that case was relevant to committee’s consideration, and could not be ignored.

There was some further discussion with the senior Brent Lawyer, Arnold Meagher, at the meeting, who said that as the case involved had not been fully concluded, I should not be allowed to refer to it. I responded, saying that I would only be referring to “findings of fact” from the judgment in the case, and that judgment was final as it was no longer under appeal. I could not see how any reference to that part of the case would prejudice the position of any party to the remaining “remedy” hearing, at which the compensation award would be decided. I don’t think that this point was ever answered by Mr Meagher.

Cllr. Choudry said that he would discuss with his committee whether they should allow me to speak, as I would not accept the condition he had set out. There was a rather disjointed “discussion”, with several members of the committee speaking, but I could not follow what they were saying because they forgot to turn their microphones on. It seemed to be about the Legal Officer saying that I could not refer to the legal case I wanted to, but whether they viewed this as legal advice, or a legal instruction to the committee, was unclear. It appeared that the Chair was about to ask the committee to vote on the matter (which under Brent’s Standing Order 69(a)(i) he should have done, with only a simple majority being required to allow a Deputation to be received), but after further mumbled discussions Cllr. Choudry announced that I would not be allowed to present my Deputation, and moved on to the next item on the agenda.

Before leaving the meeting, I handed out the dozen printed copies of my Deputation I had taken with me to members of the public, co-opted members of the committee and other councillors present who wanted them, and I am setting out the text of what I would have said below, for anyone who wishes to read it.

Deputation to Scrutiny Committee on 30 April, in respect of item 9:
Cllr. Pavey’s Equalities and HR Policies and Practices Review and draft Action Plan.

I am speaking as an individual, but am aware that many local people, including Council employees and some Brent councillors, share the concerns I am raising.

In September 2014 an Employment Tribunal gave a judgment against Brent Council and its Director of HR, Cara Davani, finding that a former employee had suffered racial discrimination, victimisation and had been constructively dismissed.

Cllr. Pavey’s review of Equalities and HR policies and practices was set up ‘to ensure that we learn lessons from this case’. In the foreword to his review he says:

‘Policies are mostly sound. But policies are implemented by people and we need to do more to ensure that they are consistently applied.’

What Cllr. Pavey could not say, because his review’s terms of reference did not allow him to actually consider the Rosemarie Clarke case, was that an important lesson which should be learned is that even the best HR policies and practices are of little use if they are ignored by the officers who are supposed to follow them.

As an example, in guidance issued by Brent’s HR Director you can find statements like: ‘bullying and harassment will not be tolerated’. Rosemarie Clarke had raised a grievance against Cara Davani, because she felt she was being bullied and harassed by her. This led to a succession of acts of victimisation against her, recorded as findings of fact by the Tribunal, such as in para. 302 of the judgment:

‘'The tribunal is satisfied that the action of Ms Davani in seeking the claimant's suspension when she did, was a direct consequence of the claimant having raised a grievance against her. The tribunal finds that the claimant was thereby victimised.'

There were other findings of fact by the Tribunal about total failures to follow HR policies, which provided evidence of Brent’s constructive dismissal of Ms Clarke. Para. 176 of the judgment says:

'The tribunal finds that, from the correspondence from Ms Gilbert on 21 February, addressing the claimant's grievance of 18 February, so as to conclude and dispense with the grievance, this was not in accordance with the first respondent's [Brent’s] procedure and a breach of contract.'

If the Senior Officers responsible for such findings ignore Brent’s HR policies, what example is that setting to the Council’s other staff? The Action Plan is totally undermined, because why should managers bother to put the policies into practice, when those at the top ignore them and get away with it? Even if disciplinary action was taken against more junior staff for policy breaches, they could argue at any hearing that it would be unfair to penalise them, when no action was taken against Brent’s Director of HR for far worse misconduct.

Scrutiny Committee may wish to ask Ms Davani why she did not do the honourable thing, and resign, following the findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke case. It may also wish to ask Ms Gilbert why she did not institute disciplinary proceedings against Ms Davani when she failed to resign. If, having heard anything those Officers wish to say, committee members agree that the Equalities and HR Action Plan cannot move forward with Cara Davani still at Brent Council, I hope they will not be afraid to say so.

The second point I would ask Scrutiny Committee to consider is at Section 2 of the draft Action Plan [see page 5 of Appendix 2].  This has been prepared by Cara Davani, and is entitled ‘Achieving Excellence in Employment Policies’. 

I am deeply concerned at one of the “success criteria” which she proposes. This reads: 

‘Number of employment tribunals is low against benchmarked councils (benchmarks TBA) and ET cases are successfully defended.’

It is the second part of this that I find most worrying. “Success”, according to Ms Davani, should be measured by successfully defending Employment Tribunal cases. The risk of setting such a “target” is that it might encourage Council staff involved in these cases to fabricate or falsify the evidence that they give. 

As an example, in the Rosemarie Clarke case, a key factor in the finding of ‘racial discrimination’ against Brent Council was the decision to continue disciplinary proceedings against her after she had ceased to be a Council employee. In Para. 240 of the judgment it says:

‘With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant [Ms Clarke], following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made.’

As there would have been very few Council employees who could have made that decision, and at least some of those were witnesses at the Tribunal, this totally undermined the credibility of the Council’s evidence.

Scrutiny Committee may wish to ask Ms Davani and Ms Gilbert to tell them who did make that decision, and why. The stain of the ‘racial discrimination’ verdict against Brent Council cannot be removed, nor the Action Plan succeed, until a full and honest answer is given.

“Success” over Employment Tribunals is having none, and to achieve this I would recommend that the “criteria” should be: 

100% of managers honour in practice the core value set out in Cllr. Pavey’s review:
‘Every Brent Council employee deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.’ 

Thank you.

Philip Grant
30 April 2015.

Note from Martin Francis: Readers may be interested in seeing the Scrutiny Committee in action discussing whether Philip Grant should be heard. Unfortunately most councillors did not switch on their microphones so the public could not hear what was being said. Muhammed Butt is sitting with Cara Davani in the right hand corner of the horse shoe.

 

Will the Pavey review of HR win the confidence of staff?

In this week's Kilburn Times,  Brent Green  Party candidates for the forthcoming general election reiterate the Party's call for an independent inquiry into Brent Council, This would not only cover the human resources issues, including working conditions,  but also the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive and  the restructing of the senior managment team. We felt that an independent investigation was the only way to gain the confidemnce of staff and wanted to involve residents, associations,  voluntary organisations, teneants; groups and trade unions.

Philip Grant in this Guest Blog gives his personal assessment of the  more limited internal review being conducted by Michael Pavey:

-->

Councillor Pavey’s Review of Brent’s HR and Equalities practices and procedures

Anyone who has been following the story of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case will be aware that when Brent Council announced on 26 September that they would be appealing against the judgement, they also said there would be a review. The Council said that its Deputy Leader, Cllr. Michael Pavey, would ‘take stock of our [Employment] policies and practice’, ‘to ensure that we learn lessons from this case’. 

I did wonder at the time whether this was just a PR smokescreen, to draw attention away from Brent’s unfair and unreasonable decision to appeal. However, I have recently exchanged some emails with Cllr. Pavey which leave me a little more optimistic, and (with his permission) I would like to share some of the correspondence with you.

Ex Brent Council manager slams decision to appeal Employment Tribunal Judgment and failure to order independent investigation

Christine Collins, who used to be Community Engagement Manager at Brent Council, took to a Soapbox at Wembley Connects tonight to lambast the Council's decision to appeal over the recent Employment Tribunal case and its failure to appoint an independent investigator to review the workings of the Human Resources Department.

Collins told the audience that they may recognise her (she used to be the officer facilitating such events) but that she was now speaking in a personal capacity.

She said that she wanted to talk about the Employment Tribunal findings in a case against the Council which found that:

• a black staff member was directly discriminated against on the protected characteristics of race
• the claimant suffered victimisation
• the claimant was constructively dismissed

Christine Collins said that she had read the full findings and the picture painted of employment at Brent Council over the last couple of years was 'horribly familiar'.

She explained that in the summer she was proud to stand side by side with Brent councillors in Cricklewood to stop a group of racists and fascists from ;marching through our streets to divide our community.'

'Imagine my disappointment,' she went on, ' to learn how these same councillors have reacted to the Employment Tribunal findings.'

Collins said that she had expected a council committed to fighting racism and supporting diversity in its employment practices, to be horrified by the findings, sympathetic to the member of staff who was treated so appallingly and anxious to ensure that the climate  of fear and bullying was fully and independently investigated.

Instead the council had decided to appeal the decision which would put the staff member through further stress and anxiety. In addition they had decided to appoint 'one of their own to investigate.'

Pausing to look up from her speech and addressing the councillors and residents assembled at  Patidar House she said:

 'I say "Shame on you Brent Council!"'

Concluding her speech Christine Collins called on Brent councillors to accept the Tribunal findings and have a totally independent review of the conduct of Human Resources in Brent Council:

They are happy to take on large numbers of external consultants to carry out reviews of all kinds of things - why not this? If they are so convinced there is nothing seriously wrong, what have they got to hide?

Brent Council leader Cllr Muhammed Butt arrived late to the forum but asked to comment on the Employment Tribunal by Cllr Krupa Sheth, chair of  Wembley Connects, said that the council had to  'undertake due process' in making the appeal and that 'both sides have to be heard',

Challenged by residents with cries of 'nonsense' he became increasingly angry and stumbled over his words. Directly asked if he would order an independent investigation he said 'No' and claimed that Michael Pavey's review would hear from staff and independent consultants.

The audience reacted with derision and calls of 'shame'.

‘And the Brent Staff Achievement Award 2014 goes to ….ROSEMARIE CLARKE!’

-->

Leader of Council, CEO and Head of HR  celebrate popular public verdict.     

 Guest Blog by  ‘E.Tribunal’

Nice idea? Here’s how to achieve it. Every year London Borough of Brent asks for nominations from the public for staff members who have ‘gone the extra mile’ and deserve recognition for outstanding achievement. The nomination form is here  http://brent.gov.uk/your-council/staff-awards-2014/nomination-form/

I’ve just filled one in as follows:  

NAME:   ROSEMARIE CLARK       

DEPT:  HR        ADDRESS EMPLOYEE IS BASED AT:  CIVIC CENTRE                                                                    

REASONS FOR NOMINATION:  ROSEMARIE HAS BEEN AN EXAMPLE TO HER COLLEAGUES AND TO THE PEOPLE OF BRENT IN HER BRAVE FIGHT TO ACHIEVE JUSTICE IN THE FACE OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION , VICTIMISATION AND WORKPLACE BULLYING (I don’t have copyright on any of these words so please help yourself). 

I then filled in my name, address and email address. Given the climate of intimidation which exists, some people may find that part problematic. However, everyone has friends and relations who will have heard of Rosemarie’s experiences (or will be happy to learn of them now) and that knowledge will qualify them to vote and will validate their votes in turn.    WM readers will need no reminding that knowledge is power and modern technology presents us with infinite ways of both spreading the knowledge of Brent employees’ achievements and, at the same time, spreading the means by which people can vote on that knowledge.

 One other point: some may wonder whether Rosemarie Clarke, who is actually no longer a Brent employee,  qualifies for nomination; it would hardly reflect well on Brent Council, though, if this were to be raised as an objection given that the recent Watford Employment Tribunal’s verdict made clear that the responsibility for Rosemarie’s constructive dismissal was entirely that of Cara Davani, Christine Gilbert  and the rest of their friends on Brent Council, precisely the people who will most loudly be celebrating the presentation of these awards. Attempting to block nominations would only draw more attention to the Employment Tribunal’s findings.  Spread the word!

CLOSING DATE FOR NOMINATIONS IS  OCTOBER 17: DON’T DELAY, VOTE TODAY

Brent Labour Councillors must act on racism and bullying tomorrow

Former Brent Council Executive member James Powney returned to the subject of the current race discrimination and bullying scandal at Brent Council on his blog yesterday. LINK

This is what he had to say:

I notice that in a debate on Martin Francis blog some of the commentators appear to be confusing his position and mine.  My original post is here, and Martin has paraphrased it accurately, whilst adding his own view.  Hence the understandable confusion.

My view is that Brent Council had strong rules and procedures before 2012, including appropriate relationships between members and officers.  These were built up over many years since the nadir of the Tory administration in the 1990s, as explained here.  Since 2012, there has been a steady decline in the application of appropriate standards, leading to a situation where accusations of various forms of abuse, including racism and misuse of public money, are flying about.  This is, in my view, the result of the past couple of years where patronage and irrational decision making have increased, scrutiny has declined, and certain individuals appear to have been allowed to believe that they enjoy impunity from accountability.

My view is that it is up to elected councillors to step in and sort this out, whether the abuses are being committed by over mighty officers or whether they are being committed by elected members who are out of control (or indeed whether they are being influenced by people who fit in neither category). Given the composition of Brent Council, that primarily means the Labour Group.

The debate on Martin's blog can be found here. 

It would be a pity if Labour councillors meeting tomorrow as the Labour Group let personal antipathy towards James Powney (as a member of the old regime), myself (as a member of a rival political party or Graham Durham (well, as Graham Durham) get in the way of recognising the need to deal with this issue.

Up to this point the scandal has not hit national media but any risk assessment of the potential damage to the Council and perhaps the Labour Party's reputation would recognise that the matters needs to be dealt with decisively and action taken.

In the last fortnight I have received emails and phone calls from former and current Brent Council workers about working conditions at the Council, some of whom work at a senior level. They have been told they will be disciplined if they approach Councillors directly and those that have left have had gagging clauses imposed as part of the settlement.

I have inadvertently found myself in the position of being their only outlet because of the Council's actions.  Several have wept on the phone as they recall the effect on their health and emotional well-being as well as the impact on their families.

Councillors should recognise that it is their responsibility to ensure that their employees are treated fairly in an atmosphere free from harassment, bullying and fear.

It is as simple as that.

It is not something they can ignore.

Butt to be rebuffed by Labour Group on Monday?

The Brrent Council Labour Group on Monday will be discussing proposals for the Labour leader (and thus at present the Council leader)  and Cabinet to be elected on a basis other than an automatic annual election.

Muhammed Butt after the May elections said that a four year cycle would end the problem of him having to 'look over his shoulder' all the time.

Brent Central Labour Party recently passed the following motion unopposed:

Brent Central CLP believes that because of the benefits in terms of accountability the Leader of the Labour Group and the Cabinet should remain as annually elected positions.

The potential loss of democratic accountability and the loss of ability to exercise some power on an annual basis has been too much for some councillors although there had been talk of introducing some compromise process which would require a certain number of signatories to trigger an election.

Meanwhile disquiet is mounting over the reputational damage the Council and Labour Party is suffering due to the Cabinet's failure to grasp the nettle of the current scandal regarding the Human Resources Department and the personal, business and career relationships between senior council officers.

There has been one Cabinet resignation recently with Cllr Perrin unwilling to explain the reasons for his resignation beyond the usual 'personal reasons' statement.  It would be to his credit if he had taken a principled stand on the Cavani-Corporate Management Team issue and had opposed the decision to spend council tax payers' money on an appeal over the Employment Tribunal's Judgment.

James Powney's concerns expressed on his blog may be dismissed by some as sour grapes from a member of the deposed Ann John team but his concerns are shared by Labour Party members on the Brent Trades Union Council and members of the Brent Labour Representatation Committee who were never Johnites.

Victimisation, bullying, racial and sexual discrimination alleged in Davani case

From the Get West London website LINK Reporter: Hannah Bewley

A FORMER Brent Council manager claims she was discriminated against by superiors and “bullied and undermined” despite her years of experience.

Rosemarie Clarke, 50, resigned in April last year after four years as head of learning and development, and launched an employment tribunal claim against the authority and Cara Davani, now HR director but previously on a temporary contract, for constructive dismissal, racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, victimisation, bullying and harassment and psychiatric injury.

Lawyers for the Christchurch Avenue, Harrow, inhabitent wrote in her claim: “Ms Davani’s conduct made her feel like her managerial prerogative was being continuously and seriously undermined and that her professional integrity was also being undermined.

“The claimant asserts that the respondent treated black, female managers less favourably due to their race.”

Ms Clarke cited several incidents as part of her case, for which hearings began on Monday last week at Watford Employment Tribunal.

Her claim said she and Ms Davani had a disagreement about the termination of a contract of a temporary worker, Ms M, at the council.

Ms Davani instructed Ms Clarke to tell the Ms M her contract had ended while Ms M  was on holiday because there was an issue with her performance.

Ms Clarke attempted to persuade her boss to allow a few days for Ms M to hand over to someone else after her vacation.

The claimant told the tribunal Ms Devani said: “She Ms M didn’t say hello to me in the corridor the other week, which I thought was unprofessional.”

Ms Clarke added: “It was obvious Ms Davani didn’t like [Ms M].”

Ms Clarke’s claim form said: “Despite the claimant being of the view that Ms M had done nothing wrong, Cara Davani was insistent she had to go.”

Ms Clarke also said she received an e-mail from Ms Devani instructing her to contact learning and development expert Dr Yvonne Foster, who had previously worked with Ms Davani.

Ms Clarke said in reply she had adequate staffing levels and claims Ms Davani told her she should “find her [Dr Foster] something to do”.

Ms Clarke said: “I was being pressured to contact Yvonne Foster and offer her a job in my team.”

The claimant said she “wasn’t happy” about being shouted at by Ms Davani during an Investors in People accreditation meeting.

Ms Clarke resigned after being suspended in February over allegations of gross misconduct for alleged failure to follow reasonable management instructions.

Fellow Lib Dem MPs show Teather the way on forced academies

Although Sarah Teather MP cancelled her meeting with Gladstone Primary School parents last week two of her Lib Dem colleagues in the House of Commons, John Pugh and David Ward, made their opposition to the DfE's bullying tactics clear in the Westminster Hall debate on forced academies.

I hope she will take time to read what was said in the debate LINK and to read John Pugh's post-debate press release below:

In Westminster today, John Pugh MP led a debate about schools which are forced to become academies. Many other MPs supported John with similar concerns about ‘aggressive’ and ‘threatening’ representatives of the Department of Education. 

Under Ofsted’s new inspection framework, 123 primary schools across the country have been identified as ‘unsatisfactory’ under new Ofsted performance measures. 

Highly paid brokers are employed by the Department to manage the transition to academy status. The Department for health considers this to be the right way to tackle failing schools. Often, school governors and parents are not given a voice in the transition process.

The decision to remove the school from local authority management seems to be taken with little regard to the quality of the local authorities’ track record in education. Sefton, for example, has a strong track record in education. Further, it is the Department for Education, not the school, are also the ones to decide which academy group is best for a school to join.

Some schools have been offered money to change status. ‘£40,000 per school and an additional £25,000 for legal fees’ were offered to a cluster of Lancashire schools if they became independent from the local authorities, according to Lancashire Branch of the National Union of Headteachers. Many school governors have not felt able to give their names but have reported ‘bullying tactics’ by officials.

The Minister responded to John Pugh’s debate today by repeating the statement that the academies program had a track record of success. Previously, the Department for Education has said that is has no targets for converting schools to academies. 

John Pugh remains concerned that creating new academies has become the Government’s aim, instead of working with school governors to improve the quality of teaching for children and parents.

He said today:   

It is unacceptable that the Department for Education is employing aggressive tactics to push through unpopular changes on schools in this way. There remain many unanswered questions around the success rate and value for money of the academies program. Further, I have serious concerns about the removal of assets funded by the tax payer from local authority control. 

Two-way consultation must be undertaken by the Department for Education with governors and parents, before decisions are made. 

We don’t accept bullying in schools so why would we accept bullying from the Department for Education?

What Michael Gove's outrageous academisation programme is doing to my mother

The daughter of a teacher has asked that her Facebook posting on her mother's plight as a teacher be shared widely LINK I publish it here for you to share with others. 

I'm feeling low and a little bit helpless at the really horrible struggle my mum is currently going through. Hopefully she won't mind me posting about this - but I want to put it out there as it's something I really think people should know about.

My mum is a primary school teacher in a state school in Yorkshire, and has been for 20 years. She is a wonderful teacher: caring, committed, enthusiastic, her pupils love her, she has produced countless concerts, plays and choirs that have won national competitions, and has never received anything but very good / outstanding reports from Ofsted inspectors.

Her school is now, it would appear, in the midst of being systematically forced to become an 'academy school'. Academies have been around for a while - originally the stillborn brainchild of the Blair government, they are now being ruthlessly implemented by the self-important imbecile - sorry, 'moderniser' - Michael Gove; a representative of an even more clueless government obsessed with results tables and change for its own sake. But what is most disturbing about the whole pointless affair is not so much the staggering waste of time and resources, as the shockingly corrupt way it is being implemented.

For the first time in the entire history that my mum has worked at her school (which is 10+ years), the school was judged in an Ofsted report as having 'serious weaknesses' (having only ever been judged as good / outstanding prior to this). The headteacher was let go, and an 'executive head' was drafted in by the local authority, a woman who apparently has a reputation for supposedly 'turning around' failing schools (and by this I mean that she clearly deliberately fails them so that she can be seen to have 'turned them around' six months later).

The teachers were all subject to impromptu lesson inspections, and almost EVERY SINGLE teacher in the school, individuals my mum described as 'some of the best teachers I have ever known' were failed. My mum was failed for the first time in her career (Although on receiving this news she rather wonderfully told the inspectors "I don't give a monkey's"). The school has now been given six weeks to 'improve', before the government will come in to inspect them again. The teachers are doing 16 hour days in an attempt to do an impossible amount of work so that they don't fail this second inspection. My mum hasn't had an evening or a weekend off for weeks. She worked all through her supposed holiday last week. She is getting chest pains. One teacher collapsed from stress.

My mum had been planning to retire at the end of this year - this will be her final year as a teacher - what a way to thank her for 20 years of hard work and dedication to the state school system. She has always been an incredibly strong, cheerful, optimistic person, and whenever I speak to her now she talks of her life being a 'living hell' and 'just making it through the next five months'. I have never in my life heard her talk like this.

And all this in spite of the fact that the teachers at her school have been made perfectly aware that when the government come in to 'inspect' the school, they will be doing so with an agenda. That agenda being to turn the school into an academy - as they have done with several other schools in the area.

Essentially, all the work the teachers are putting in will most likely be for nothing, because the government have every intention to fail the school so that they can be seen to 'turn it around' and make it into an academy. It seems to me to be the most ridiculous scam - a con on a national scale which must be happening in countless more schools and which is abusing the time and resources of already desperately over-stretched, underpaid and under-appreciated teachers.

I feel very frustrated at not being able to make more people aware of what seems to me to be a total outrage. I am going to make this post public - please share, and if anyone I know is interested in the story or has any suggestions about how to increase awareness of this please get in touch. Thanks.

Kids defy Michael Gove

'Michael Gove' turned up at today's demonstration against Coalition education policies and told the children that he wanted their schools. This is their reaction.

Parents unite against Michael Gove's bullying

"If every school did the same as us...." another step forward

Parents have called  for a public enquiry into bullying behaviour endemic in forced academisation of school. They state that that parents from schools that have experienced bullying from the DfE are fighting back and launching a new campaign group - Parents Against Forced Academies (PAFA). This arose from the frustration parents feel at not being listened to on key decisions about the handing of our schools by rich businessmen running academy chains.

PAFA was born at a half term meeting by parents at several primary schools across London, where they decided to join forces in condemning what they perceive as extreme bullying tactics by Michael Gove and his academy brokers.

Governors and head teachers who resist forced academy are routinely threatened with the sack and in some cases this has been carried through Interim Executive Boards with no previous knowledge of the school or the community   Fake consultations with parents are being run after decisions have already been made and controlled by the academy chains who stand to gain most. The conflict of interest could not be clearer. In the case of Downhills Primary School in Haringey 94% of those taking part in the consultation did not want the school to become an academy sponsored by the Harris Federation. On the same day the consultation was published and available to parents the Secretary of State handed the school over to the Harris Federation. The DfE had funded the consultation to the tune of £50,000 of public money.

Parents are repeatedly being met with rude, abrupt, dismissive and patronising responses from DfE officials when they make a reasoned case for proper consultation and genuine choice over their school’s future. The behaviour of the DfE contravenes key principles set out in the government’s own legal advice and other government agendas such as localism, Big Society and community rights. When making a decision that will impact on the general public, Civil Service Departments are required to meet a series of tests in measuring the lawfulness of an exercise of public law, PAFA believes that Michael Gove is ignoring these basic rules of public life. It is more like dictatorship than democracy.

Parents from schools facing forced academy conversion are joining forces to call for a public enquiry into the decisions made about our schools behind closed doors and the privatisation of our education system by stealth. ‘We know that we are not alone in resisting the forcible academisation of our school,’ says Maria Bache, 40, an HR manager for a media group who has two children at Gladstone Primary in NW London. ‘We stand united with other schools across the country in publicising the unfair treatment we are being subjected to by the DfE.’

Another Gladstone parent, Zaman Wong, said : ‘The decision by the DfE to impose academy status on Gladstone Park Primary is a grossly disproportionate course of action, ignoring the many strengths of our school identified by Ofsted, the indisputable achievements of our pupils and the wishes of the parents. The entire process has been unjustified and artificially rushed, with a complete lack of transparency or any consultation with parents and governors’ The father of two children at the school, one in Reception, concluded: ‘Even a Year 3 child will tell you a choice with one option is no choice at all. ‘ 

PAFA is protesting against these illegal tactics. Key members along with Gladstone Park include protesting parents from high profile schools: Roke Primary in Croydon, and Downhills in Haringey. Other schools protesting schools include Calder High in Hebden Bridge and Thomas Gamuels in Walthamstow.

Angeline Hind of Roke Primary said: “We expect more and more parents and schools to join us as with Ofsted shifting the goalposts once again, there will soon be a torrent of schools subjected to the bullying and underhand methods we have experienced. At times it feels surreal like we are living in Communist China. Our schools are at the tip of a tidal wave to come as more and more schools are forced to convert. This is not about standards but political ideology and privatisation by stealth.”

Notes

The test measuring lawfulness of exercise of public law:

• Legality -  Departments must act within the scope of any powers and for a proper purpose; not  acting in a hasty and disproportionate fashion.
• Procedural fairness – for example giving the individual or individuals an opportunity to be heard.
• Reasonableness or rationality: including the principles of proportionality and the ‘Wednesbury principle’ (when making a reasonable and rational decision all relevant factors must be taken into account and all irrelevant factors omitted). Compatibility with the Human Rights Convention rights and EU law.

·        Parents from Downhills School were involved in working with filmmaker Rhonda Evans in a film about forced academies available online http://www.academiesandlies.org.uk/

These principles are all described in the Judge Over Your Shoulder (JOYS) document issued by the Treasury Solicitor: http://www.tsol.gov.uk/Publications/Scheme_Publications/judge.pdf)