Barry Gardiner closely questions Cllr Kabir on Village School academisation proposal

Barry Gardiner, the Labour MP for Brent North, The Village School's parliamentary constituency, has written to Cllr Sandra Kabir (Labour), Chair of Governors, with some pertinent questions about the school's proposal to form Multi Academy Trust with Woodfield School.

At the outset I want to put on record my admiration for the work the Governors and staff have done at both the Village School and Woodfield School each of which have been judged by Ofsted as outstanding. However, I write to express my concerns over the current proposal to form a Multi Academy Trust (MAT). I understand that you are inviting comments from parents and staff at schools, other local schools and elected representatives.

I am aware it is for the governing body of the school to determine who should be consulted but I hope you will consider involving local stakeholders with strong links to the school, in addition to the parents, teachers, other staff and their representatives. Can you provide me with a schedule of those you have contacted or who you intend to contact?

I would also ask if the Village School has already applied to the Department for Education (DfE) to become part of a MAT prior to the launch of the Consultation. If so, when did this happen? Can you provide me with a copy of the application and any other correspondence relating to the formation of the MAT, both with the DfE and any other relevant agencies.

The consultation document available on the Village School website sets out all the arguments in favour of forming a MAT, without setting out any of the problems or pitfalls which might arise in the process of creating a Multi Academy Trust or its subsequent operation. I would ask for a specific undertaking from you that during the consultation all responses will be given due consideration, that records of all consultations/responses and minutes of any further meetings are available, in accordance with the Academies Act 2010 and that any necessary further research is undertaken before a final decision is made. I note the five week consultation period ends on the 9th February and the consultation document says a final decision is expected by the end of March 2018.

Does this allow sufficient time for the following actions?

• Contact with all the parents and carers to explain the proposals, collate their observations and respond to them and publish the observations on line.
• Arrange a meeting with parents/carers or other opportunities to explain the proposals.
• Respond to requests (in writing) to view the proposals and answer questions.
• Discuss with staff about what becoming an academy means.
• Organise face to face meetings.

Can you provide me with a time line in relation to each of those points set out in the paragraph above.

The conversion of local authority-maintained schools to academies is a momentous decision involving legal, financial and structural changes and I have a number of concerns that I trust you will consider carefully.

The Village School benefited from a £29m capital investment from Brent Council to ensure the education of children with complex learning difficulties and disabilities would be transformed. Is it right that this public money and the capital assets should be outside of effective democratic control? In recent years the Village School and Woodfield School have worked together extensively on joint projects and in partnership with others such as the College of North West London (CNWL) for post-16 opportunities. It is unclear to me why why this positive arrangement should not continue.  This is not the case of a failing school being helped out by joining with a more successful neighbour. These are two existing successful schools. As such the case for a MAT must pass a very high threshold to show that the change is necessary.

I note that the school governors say they feel the extra freedom regarding curriculum and budget will help develop the vision for the school and ultimately improve the lives and learning of children. However, the consultation document states the leadership are still exploring the opportunities and checking staffing, finance, contracts lands an buildings. I find it difficult to see how, until the full details of the above are known, it can be sensible to rush into any change of legal status for either school.

Both schools already successfully develop children in all aspects of their lives, and I would question whether changing the status can deliver the value to compensate the extra work and extra risk involved in conversion to a MAT.

London schools within the local government framework have a proud and distinguished record of working together to reduce inequalities and raise academic achievements. This is founded on a high level of capital and revenue investment by councils across the city and, of course, payments out of the MAT budget allocation will need to be made to pay for services no longer provided by the local authority.

The Village School is an outstanding example of a school which has worked successfully with a council framework and benefited extensively from the capital and revenue investment I have referred to.

There is no guarantee that these services will not cost more 'even if taken from the local authority.' Critically the democratic oversight which the Local Education Authority (LEA) currently provides to ensure that the school provides value for money will be lost.

If the Academy were to struggle financially or academically there would be no back up from the local authority.

As a local authority school, staff terms and conditions are negotiated nationally and have protection. The Village School have said they will put in place protections to secure the staff terms and conditions are safeguarded. But what are these protection(s) and how does the school propose to make them legally binding for the future? This should have been clearly set out prior to any consultation, not alluded to during it. I am advised that many staff at Woodfield are agency staff and all staff are required to clock in and out each day.

Have the governors also considered the effect this might have on staff moral and whether it would lead to a high turnover of staff, including those with many years of experience who contribute so much to the school's current success.

I look forward to your full response to these serious concerns as a matter of urgency.

Now Woodfield School consults on academy conversion

Woodfield School, a secondary special needs school in Kingsbury, Brent has announced that it is consulting on the possibility of converting to secondary status.

It would be the first special needs school to convert and the last of the local authority secondary schools to move to academy status.

The document below has sent out to interested parties and sets out the Governing Body's position:

The Governing Body of Woodfield School is exploring whether to convert to academy status. As part of this exploration, the Governors are seeking responses about whether to convert, especially the reasons for the views that are held. The responses will help inform Governors’ final decision.

Brent Council face united challenge on imposition of IEB at Copland School

The governing body of Copland High School has joined with unions in challenging Brent Council's intention to  impose an  Interim Executive Board at the school following Ofsted's judgement that the school is failing.

Interim Executive Boards (IEBs) are appointed by the local authority and replace the usual governing body that includes elected parent and staff representatives, community and local authority governors. They are often appointed when the governing body is deemed to have failed but also when the authorities, local and central government,  encounter opposition to plans to forced a school to convert to academy status.

In letters to Dr Krutika Pau, Director of  Children and Families at Brent Council, they argue that an IEB is not necessary and may well be detrimental to the school's interests. The school has already experienced an IEB which was appointed following the loss of senior staff in the wake of the financial mismanagement scandal..

Dima Khazem, Chair of Governors,  writes:

Imposing a new IEB now will probably face opposition from staff at a time when the current GB has worked well in tandem with the JCC to put into effect a voluntary redundancy programme which will see staffing reduced drastically and will achieve significant budget deficit reduction alongside removal of ineffective staff. We are worried that this will delay the momentum of positive change and cause an upheaval which will harm the school, its pupils and the LA at a time of great change for all.

Moreover, research by Browne Jackobson has shown a generally low success rate for the 80 or so interim executive boards that have so far been introduced in maintained schools. LINK

We feel that interim executive boards are unsuccessful because of their interim and undemocratic nature and we therefore are not convinced that this is the best intervention that the LA can make in this instance, especially that it does not mirror what the OFSTED report has recommended.

Khazem concludes:

What this GB has tried to do, with increasing success recently, is to overcome barriers of distrust and build bridges of understanding and a culture of accountability across the school. Yet again, there is a limit to what this GB can do in the time frame it had and the textured, complex and widespread problems it faced. Based on the above, we are in disagreement with the LA that installing an IEB right now is the best course of action. It would be a real shame that when this GB started to understand and exercise its role and remit effectively, it is threatened with removal and gets blamed for a decade of neglect and negligence within and outside the school.

Writing to Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt, and the new lead member for children and families, Hank Roberts National President of the ATL and Brent branch secretary poses a number of questions:

Before you might act in haste to support this (Krutika Pau's proposal for an IEB)  I would ask you to respond to these questions.

1) What actual educational evidence, other than Government propaganda, do you have that turning a school into an academy improves teaching and learning?

2) Why would you seek to ignore the Ofsted Report's recommendation that there be “an external review of Governance” at Copland, which is not an imposition of an IEB?

3) How do you answer the detailed points raised in the Chair of Governors letter, written on behalf of the Governing Body, explaining what had been done and crucial background information?

4) If Brent is claiming to be acting in the best interests of pupils' education then will you be asking the Governors to call a meeting of parents and carers to actually establish their views, or do you intend to have no consultation with parents?

5) As the last IEB at Copland failed to overcome the school's problems, what leads you to believe, and what evidence do have, that it will succeed this time, especially if the staff did not want to co-operate with this imposed undemocratic body with no proper staff or parent representation?

6) Why would you and a Labour Council be acting to implement Gove's policies and do his 'dirty work' for him?

Princess Frederica debates the pros and cons of expansion

The Brent Executive this evening approved the plans for school expansion with the new  lead member for children and families, Michael Pavey, challenging the view (which is also my view) that very large primary schools are not beneficial to small children. Quoting his experience as Chair of Governors of Wembley Primary (an 840 pupil school) he said that he thought large schools were not necessarily cold and impersonal and could offer a warm, caring environment.  He thought large schools were good for Brent. Wembley Primary had a complete rebuild in extensive grounds to accommodate four forms of entry. Schools which are expanded by adding extra buildings often lose play space as a result as well as the space being used by additional numbers of children. Often the school hall is too small to accommodate all the children in assemblies or performances.

Coincidentally plans to increase the size of Princess Frederica Voluntary Aided Primary School by one form of entry (210 children) has provoked debate. .In order to address some of the concerns raised the school governing body has posted information for parents on the school's website LINK

There are briefings and Q&As as well as this statement from the Chair of Governors:

As many of you will be aware, we dedicated the March meeting of the governing body to the school expansion proposal and invited in parents/ carers and the public to express their views. This is because the governing body takes very seriously its responsibility to make a decision about the proposal to expand the school and wants to ensure that everyone has a voice.

Brent Council asked the Governing Body to agree to open a statutory consultation on expanding the school at the meeting on 21 March. We decided we did not have enough information proceed with such a consultation.

During April and May representatives from the governing body and school met with the Brent school expansion team. We discussed the key issues about expansion, as outlined on this page. Following this meeting, Brent LA have produced a detailed report about what expansion of Princess Frederica might look like.  The governing body will be meeting on Thursday 23rd May, 2013 to discuss this matter and decide whether we now have enough information to agree to a statutory consultation. It is very important to note that if we have a ‘yes’ vote, we are still not obliged to proceed. As a governing body we are committed to ensuring that our questions are answered before we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to expansion.

I would urge anyone with an interest – including those within the school, as well as neighbours – to make their views public on the website via the questions and comment function. Alternatively, you can email me at admin@princessfrederica.brent.sch.uk subject line: FAO Chair of Governors or drop a letter addressed to the governors into the office.

A Moss (Chair of Governors)