UCU calls for submissions to the union's response to the Government's Prevent review

From the University and College Union (UCU)

The government recently announced that it would be carrying out a formal review of Prevent, part of which includes the duty on universities and colleges to have 'due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism' which was imposed as part of 2015 terrorism legislation.

A review of Prevent is something that UCU and others have repeatedly called for since the statutory duty was introduced and we want your views and experiences of how Prevent impacts on both staff and students across England, Wales and Scotland.

UCU has a number of objections to the Prevent duty, including its threat to academic freedom and freedom of speech, the risk that the broad definition of terrorism could stifle campus activism, damage staff/student relations and discrimination against BME and Muslim staff and students.

The specific questions being asked by the review can be found in the formal online Home Office survey but it will look broadly at the following areas:

• Is Prevent achieving its objectives?
• How effectively is Prevent being delivered at local and national levels?
• How effectively does Prevent interact with other safeguarding and vulnerability strategies?
• How effective is the statutory Prevent duty; and how effectively is it being implemented?
• How could Prevent be improved to respond to criticisms and complaints?
• What should the government consider in the development of Prevent over the next 5 years, as the threat evolves, in order to best engage with and support people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism?

If you have experience of Prevent in the workplace and would like to inform the UCU response, please send your views and examples to Will Pickering by Monday 18 November. We are also interested in hearing from members who are studying the impact of Prevent.

The review is also welcoming individual responses from those with direct experience of, or views on, Prevent. A summary of the review and questions can be found here and the full survey is here if you want to respond to it in person as well as through UCU.

Jo Grady
UCU general secretary

ESFA find 'failings & weaknesses' that breach the Academies Financial Handbook at Woodfield School



Whistle blowers who raised concerns about financial mismanagement at Woodfield School, an academy, have been vindicated by a report into a review by the Education Skills Funding Agency (ESFA).  The National Education Union had cited these issues as one among many reasons to oppose the academisation of the Village School and the formation on a Multi Academy Trust (MAT) with Woodfield.  Village School education workers have taken strike action against the academisation proposals. In addition to to the finance problems there have also been concerns over equality at the school and the treatment of BAME staff. LINK

The review found that Woodfield, with a current roll of only 157 pupils, had paid consultants £400,000 since 2013-14 for various HR and financial services. They also found breaches regarding procurement, related party transactions (when a governor or trust member sells servics to the school), governor regulations and register of interests.

The NEU had repeatedly requested Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt to meet with them to discuss their concerns about the school.

The Executive Summary states:

Multiple concerns were received on 24 April 2018 in relation to Woodfield School, (hereafter referred to as the trust), raising concerns about financial management and governance. As a result, ESFA commissioned a financial management and governance review of the trust which took place from 25 to 27 June 2018.  

The ESFA review identified a number of failings and weaknesses in financial management and governance arrangements that breach the Academies Financial Handbook (AFH) 2017, the accounts direction, the charities SORP and potentially tax legislation. These also validate the concerns raised. Key findings of the review have confirmed: 

•           in relation to procurement practises, non-compliance with the at cost requirements and the trust’s scheme of delegation (paragraphs 11 to 17 refer) 

•           failure to declare related party transactions with the former chair’s limited company in the audited accounts, as required by the accounts direction in relation to disclosure of material transactions with related parties and the Charities SORP relating to the disclosure of the remuneration and benefits received by charity trustees (paragraphs 18 to 21 refer) 

•           the trust engaged the services of two consultants, one from 2013/14 and the other from 2014/15 to July 2018. One of which held the role of chief financial officer (CFO) off-payroll, between 1 December 2015 and 26 June 2018, as well as being appointed as the chair of trustees and a member of the resources committee (paragraphs 22 to 24 and 31 to 34 refer) 

•           the trust have not reported their current governance arrangements and structure on their website and Get Information about Schools (GIAS) (paragraphs 25 to 30 refer) 

•           the trust’s register of interests has not been kept up to date (paragraphs 35 and 36 refer) 

It is likely that the MAT proposal will be delayed until the ESFA are satisfied that the issues have been dealt with or perhaps the whole MAT project will be abandoned.

The full report is available below - click bottom right for a full-size version:

Should Brent follow Camden in proposing 100% Council Tax exemption for poorest residents?

Camden Council is currently consulting on changes in its Council Tax Reduction Scheme and its preferred option would mean that those people of working age with the lowest income would pay no Council Tax.

At present in Brent, apart from pensioners, everyone pays something towards Council Tax. A 20% payment, one of the highest in London,  is expected unless the person concerned falls into a 'protected' group if:

A person on their  partner or their dependant children are entitled to Disability Living Allowance, Personal Independence Payment, War Disablement Pension, War Widow(ers) Pension, Guaranteed Income Payment, Disabled Earnings Disregard, Disability Premium, Enhanced Disability Premium or the Council Tax Disabled person reduction

When the Brent scheme was consulted on in 2013 Zacchaeus 2000 put in a powerful submission arguing for a 100% reduction for the most vulnerable. LINK

In February this year Cllr  Butt told me at the Civic Centre consultation that there was not time to review the borough's Council Tax Support Scheme for 2016-17 despite the proposed rise of 3.99% in Council Tax. As a further increase of 3.99% is likely in 2017-18 (and beyond) we should expect Brent Coucil to take a leaf out of Camden's book and review its scheme without delay.

In Camden it has been argued that money will be saved by not having to chase up the poorest residents for unpaid Council Tax, releasing funds  to pursue non-payment by those able to pay.

Writing about the Camden proposals  Sian Berry, Green GLA Assembly member and former Camden Green councillor, said:

As Camden Green Party has argued, for several years, Camden Council is considering cutting council tax for the borough’s poorest people.

Since 2013 the council has removed the previous 100 per cent exemption for people on benefits – including disabled people and families with low incomes and children.

It now charges people with the lowest incomes at least 8.5 per cent of the normal rate, something it’s very hard to pay when you have no way of making the money required.

I have spoken out about this, called for the exemption to be 100 per cent, and have regularly criticised the council charging additional legal costs for enforcement against people who fall behind.

The fact is that this is revenue from people who would pay if they could, but simply don’t have the income.

They are more than likely to be subject to benefit sanctions and the bedroom tax already, and it has been inhumane for the past three years to be driving our poorest people into impossible debts.

I urge all Camden residents to respond to this consultation and say you are in favour of the 100 per cent exemption being restored.

These are the options offered by Camden Council in its consultation:

Proposed changes to Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2017-18

Overview

We offer a discount on council tax to eligible people in Camden as part of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS). The maximum discount available to working age people is currently 91.5%, which means that all working age people have to pay a minimum of 8.5%. We are proposing to increase the maximum amount of discount for working age people to 100%, meaning those with the lowest income would not have to make a contribution to Council Tax until their income increases.

Pensioners are already entitled to a maximum of 100% support.

There are five options set out below impacting on working age households only:

1. No change

Maximum CTRS discount available remains at 91.5% with no changes to eligibility or the applicable amount.

2. Maximum council tax discount available increases  to 100%

Maximum CTRS discount available increases to 100% with no changes to eligibility.

3. Decreasing the discount to less than 91.5%

This would increase the amount of Council Tax payable by all working age claimants.

4. Offer further discounts to specific groups

The scheme could provide protection to specified groups, such as families or disabled claimants, whilst keeping a deduction for all other claimants.

5. Design a different scheme

Develop a new scheme altogether, with discounts based on a different calculation than the current scheme. Any scheme would be subject to a full consultation and would not be implemented until April 2018.

Camden’s preferred option is option 2.

We currently collect about £1.03 million from customers on the maximum discount compared to £120 million for the whole borough. As well as relieving the burden of council tax on our poorest residents, this proposal will enable us to focus more resources on pursuing other debts from those that are seeking to avoid paying.

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.

Where next for Green Party policy on education?

My motion instructing the Green Party Policy Committee to initiate a policy development process in the light of Coalition policies, which would result in a  a redrafted Education Policy being presented to a future  Conference, failed to win a majority today. Part of the process I suggested was  to invite contributions from relevant teacher unions, educators and parent campaign groups to help shape the review.

One of the arguments against was that there had been a full and very thorough review in 2007 and that this should not be thrown away. Instead it was argued that a series of amendments should be tabled at a future Conference. It was also argued that the review would take time and may not be ready for the election period.

I believe something far more fundamental is required as you'll see from my speech notes, particularly as the ful schope of the Tory strategy was not evident at the time. . I wanted a far broader and participatory process but if we are to have a relevant policy in place for local elections in 2014 and the General Election in 2015 we must start thinking about amendments for Spring Conference now. The policy is 15 pages long so it is a substantial task. The current policy can be read HERE

These are the notes of my speech (not all of which may have been delivered as set out because of  the time constraints in a very rushed debate at the en of the morning session).

I want to start by acknowledging the work that went into the current policy and the many good and innovative ideas it contains. Don't blame me for the need for revision - blame Michael Gove!

The problem is, as Melissa Benn said at the panel on Friday, we are in a period of profound and unprecedented educational change in terms of both speed and ruthlessness. The post - war  settlement is being bulldozed into oblivion.

This is not just about individual policies but the neoliberal framework - subordination of education to economic aims and accompanying privatisation and profit making and the commodification of childhood.

Michael Gove is stealing our schools, our teachers' professionalism and our children's childhood.

Teachers 'deliver' lessons to deliver higher test results to deliver higher league table position and thus deliver us from Ofsted! (Prayer)

I am involved with many campaigns with parents, governors and teachers and am often  asked, where do you stand, what would you do? I have found the present policy wanting in giving a response.

The foundation of our policy needs to be strengthened - rejecting the Coalition's ideology and linking our approach to alternative views on the economy as well as the aims of education and the defence of childhood.

Although our policies are Green Government 'aspirational' they have to start with present realities and counter them. Don't protest -demand!

Areas for revision:

Local authorities fast disappearing regarding role in education   - academies & free schools and diminishing school improvement services.  We need to think about the 'middle tier' and role of Secretary of State. What democratic structures do we propose beyond the school level. What powers should the Secretary of State have?

We need to sharpen our critique of free schools and academies to stress issues around accountability, reinforcing social divisions and marketisation. Do we propose reintegration into a locally accountable community school system as we do with private schools? Should all schools have the same 'freedoms' as academies and free schools.

Sure Start - reducing and nature of early years education changing. We need more than 'continuing successful schemes such as Sure Start' what is our vision for the early years?

Ofsted - we say 'inspections will be revised' but we need to take account of its increasingly politicised role, the fact that it is privatised (Serco, Tribal) and overlaps with academy chains. What sort of school improvement service do we envisage - role and powers? How does this relate to institutions such as the HMI?

In our policy we say that the Inspectorate and LAs will be involved in the monitoring of governing body accountability structures - revision needed in the light of academies and free schools and decline in role of LA.

Pupil population expansion - because the Government has said any new school should be an academy or free school, LAs are being forced to expand primary schools with some in urban areas having more than 1,000 4-11 year olds and losing play space and additional rooms such as libraries and halls in the process. Again the role of LA in planning and provision has been undermined so we need to reaffirm their right to build new community schools to cope with the rising population.

Teacher education - university level teacher education is rapidly disappearing and being replaced by various 'on the job' training schemes with a neglect (and disparagement) of research, cognitive psychology, philosophy of education etc.   

I hope I have demonstrated sufficient grounds for revision, but more than this I am convinced that with the right policy, actively campaigned for in communities, teacher organisations, parent groups that we have a chance of building massive support and contributing to success in the forthcoming elections as well as having people flocking to support our campaigns. (I mentioned the successful NUT 'It's Time to Stand Up for Education' rallies aimed at parents, governors, teachers and pupils that were held in Brighton, Nottingham and London yesterday)

Declaration of Interests: I am a retired member of the NUT and a retired primary headteacher. I am currently chair of governors of two Brent primary schools and help convene the Brent Governors' Forum.  I am a trustee of the Brent Play Association and run Brent School Without Walls, a voluntary organisation that provides free nature and outdoor activities in Fryent Country Park for primary classes and out of school clubs. 

Brighton Green Party calls for Green councillors to 'take back' control of pay review process

This Green Party press release sheds more light on the current situation in Brighton and Hove

A meeting of the Brighton & Hove Green Party earlier this week overwhelmingly agreed that it could not support any Brighton & Hove City Council pay offer now being made that would leave staff worse off.

The council's pay offer, which it suggests will affect about 10% of staff, varies from employee to employee, so each offer is now being individually communicated to staff members by their managers during a 90 day 'staff consultation'.

Hundreds of staff face a drop in take home pay, offset by one-off, lump-sum compensation packages; the council has stated that, as a result of allowance changes and the compensation, some affected staff will be better off while others have to decide whether they feel the compensation is enough to offset their overall loss. This is an individual decision.

Much play has been made on social media that individuals may lose up to £95/week, or more than £4,000 a year. However, unofficial sources have recently revealed that a reduction of that level applies to just three employees and does not take into account their compensation package, which is worth about three years' losses.

Most staff face lower reductions and lower compensation, generally worth between two and three years of loss, sometimes a little more.

The complete picture is not this simple but it seems clear that once the compensation is gone, low paid staff will be living on even lower weekly take home pay. This has angered staff and it's unacceptable to the Brighton & Hove Green Party, which has resolved to campaign against it.

BHGP chair Rob Shepherd said:

“The party's made it clear it cannot support a final offer that appears to leave council staff with a cut in their consolidated take home pay. These include some of the city's lowest paid workers and we understand how they must be feeling.

"We recognise that the offer particularly benefits women who, it seems, have not been treated fairly under the existing payment structure. It goes without saying that women should be paid the same as men in comparable situations and we support creating a fair and gender-balanced pay structure. But it is not right if low paid people of either sex end up with a loss of income to achieve that balance.

"We're also disappointed with the council administration's decision to delegate pay negotiations entirely to council officers, meaning the administration now has no say in what's being proposed. This is a council offer, not a BH Greens offer. If there are pay cuts on the table, they are not in our name.

“We hope that, as a result of the party's intervention, the Green administration will find a way to take back control of the process and ensure the council will look again at any offers that result in consolidated pay losses."

Green MP Caroline Lucas said:

"Since the negotiations began, I have made my opposition to any cuts in take home pay very clear.

"I am therefore disappointed that, whilst some will gain from this process, a number will face a reduction in the money they have to live off each week.

"This is unacceptable. I know from the many constituents who have written to me about this issue that they agree.

"So too does the Brighton and Hove Green Party, whose members have voted to condemn the offer and also express dismay that responsibility for the pay negotiations was handed to council officers.

"With the support of the local Green Party, I have pledged to campaign against proposals made to workers that will lead to a loss of pay, in accordance with the local and national party's democratically agreed anti-cuts and anti-austerity policies."

Rob Shepherd added:

"We also condemn the city's Labour and Conservative parties for creating the mess that the council is seeking to manage. They are quick to criticise the Green administration yet they created the problem.

"Going back decades, both parties have presided over agreements which look blatantly unfair to some parts of the workforce and especially women. Both parties permitted what look like unethical, unequal deals. And both parties were warned time and again by council officers that they needed to sort it out but they bottled it in fear of industrial disputes.

"Whatever the current state of the pay offer, it is utterly hypocritical of Labour and Conservatives to say anything other than 'sorry'."

"However, it’s more important that all politicians now pull together in the interests of some of the city's lowest paid workers. These people must be at the heart of whatever we do."

Responding to the party’s decision, council leader Jason Kitcat said:

"I very much understand and sympathise with the concerns expressed in the local party motion.

"Members of council staff have just received the council's offer to create a fair and clear system of allowances which completes the final step of the ‘single status’ process. There is now a 90 day consultation period for staff to consider the offer, how it will affect them and respond to their managers with their views.

"I believe it is important to not prejudge that consultation, how staff may consider the proposals, nor any negotiations which I hope will follow.

"During this consultation period I am confident that the council continues to be open to any suggestions from staff and unions that could further improve the offer whilst ensuring it remains legally and financially viable."

More very large primary schools on their way in Brent

Map of phased developments

Apart from the decision to seek partnerships with free schools and academies (below), another controversial but undebated consequence of the School Review going before the Brent Executive REPORT is to increase the average size of Brent primary schools with some having more than 1,000 pupils (excluding nursery).

I continue with the view that 4-11 year olds need educating in a small and manageable learning community where staff are well-known to them and the geography of the building negotiable.  Such provision will now be rare in Brent with faith schools generally smaller than local authority schools.

There are plans to utilise closed down libraries to form annexes to existing schools, at some distance from the parent school. The Preston Library building will be removed from the Council disposal list to provide extra classes for Preston Park Primary and Kensal Rise Library will be reviewed for additional classes for Princess Frederica Primary.

Following the all-through schools at Ark and Preston Manor primary provision is being considered at Wembley High and Newman College.There is a proposal to co-locate Manor school for special needs pupils on the Braintcroft site where the Braintcroft building would be rebuilt.

The Report does not go into detail about the impact on playground and playing field space available to pupils when the schools are expanded but my Freedom of Information request earlier this year showed a reduction in space per pupil in the recent expansions LINK 

The following details are extracted from the report which includes notes and caveats on each proposal. My capacity figures do not include any temporary bulge classes or nursery classes.

 

Phase 1 by Sept 2013	Current capacity	Future capacity
Barham	630	840
Fryent	420	840
Mitchell Brook	420	630
St Robert Southwell	315	420
Phase 2 by Sept 2014
Wykeham	420	630
Uxendon	420	840
Preston Park	630	1050
Wembley High (new primary on site)	0	840
Vicar’s Green (Ealing)	315	420
Chalkhill	420	840
Harlesden	420	630
St Joseph Primary	420	630
Leopold	420	630
Northview	210	420
Princess Frederica	420	630
Phase 3 by September 2015
Mount Stewart Inf nd Jnr	630	840
Elsley	420	840
Stonebridge	420	630
Malorees Inf and Jnr	420	840
Braintcroft	630	1,050
Carlton Vale Inf and Kilburn Park Jnr	420	630
Oriental City (new primary school)	0	420
Kingsbury Green	630	1,050
Phase 4 between Sept 2016 and Sep 2018
St Joseph Inf and Jnr	420	630
Quintain site-Wembley new primary school	0	420
Our Lady of Lourdes RC	420	630
John Keble C of E	420	630
St Andrew and St Francis	520	630
Newman College (Sec) – new primary school on site	0	420

The report forecasts  a 'significant' shortage of secondary school places by September 2014 and a report on this sector will be tabled in December. This seems rather last minute as the number of pupils in our primary schools has obviously been known for some time.