Implications for neighbouring schools' pupil numbers & budgets if Islamia Primary moves to Preston ward

A Brent resident has written to Brent Council raising issues over the impact of an Islamia Primary School move from Queens Park to Preston ward.

It's important to recognise the negative impacts the proposed move will have on the other nearby schools. The School Cuts site (schoolcuts.org.uk) illustrates the financially difficult position they are already facing next year, notwithstanding any previous or current budget deficits:

 

    - Byron Court Primary face £134k cut in 2023-24, equivalent loss of £180 per pupil

    - East Lane Primary face £181k cut, loss of £289 per pupil

    - Preston Park Primary face £61k cut, loss of £117 per pupil

    - Wembley Primary face £121k cut, loss of £148 per pupil

    - Mount Stewart Infant face £71k cut, loss of £281 per pupil

    - Mount Stewart Junior face £60k cut, loss of £192 per pupil 

    - Sudbury Primary face £152k cut, loss of £185 per pupil 

 

Moving Islamia Primary into an area with a high density of primaries may solve one problem but will create many more for the other schools, who will lose families wanting to attend Islamia as a faith school, exacerbating their financial problems and inevitably lead to cuts in activities and staff redundancies - a very slippery slope that is difficult to recover from. 

 

A very real example of this was the closure of Roe Green Strathcona Primary (a local authority school) on the exact same site. The public consultation in 2019 found 541 respondents in favour of keeping the school open whilst just a single respondent disagreed. Previously the then Lead Member for Young People and Schools, Cllr Amer Agha cited a drop in demand and excess places to justify the closure. Our local authority schools are already under immense pressure, and these proposals could very well over time lead to more closures. 

 

It’s vital that these proposals fit into the Council's School Place Planning Strategy 2019-23, https://legacy.brent.gov.uk/media/16419833/school-place-planning-strategy-2019-23-refresh-nov-21.pdf  yet it doesn't appear that they do:

 

    - South Kilburn - very close to Islamia's current location - is cited as an existing growth area for housing (page 6) with many developments already completed or in the pipeline. In contrast, Northwick Park is still many years away from that

 

    - the Council's duty to provide a 'reasonable offer' within 2 miles of home for children under 8 (page 9) clearly doesn't work for existing families if the school moves 6 miles away from the current site

 

    - strategy document recognises the difficulties spare places can cause schools (page 11). The operating principles (page 12) offers support to schools re changing demand and sustainability, minimising disruption to provision, and use planning areas for primary places. Yet none of this seems to have been undertaken in light of the proposals, especially since I know that Byron Court Primary and possibly other schools have not been consulted themselves or offered support 

 

    - the Planning Areas (pages 22-27) illustrate the capacity and projection in each area. Moving Islamia out of Planning Area 5 will reduce the capacity from 1252 to 830; based on a reasonable assumption that 20% of children will not move with the school and instead find another school place in the same area (80 children), this would reduce the surplus Reception places in 23/24 from 209 to 129. In contrast, the capacity in Planning Area 2 will increase from 750 to 1172; bringing the remaining 80% into the area (342 children) will lift the projected Reception intake to 928 but increase the overall surplus from 164 to 244. That surplus would not be evenly distributed if the 20% spare places in Islamia are quickly taken, as expected, by families with children in existing local schools

 

Finally, the report and subsequent decision to award a contract for technical consultancy for the Strathcona site development on 1 Nov makes absolutely no mention of the current public consultation or the award being contingent on the move being confirmed. This clearly implies that consultation is merely a tick-box exercise with a pre-determined decision already made to move the school.

 

 

Complex picture of future school places provision presented to Brent Cabinet this morning

 The Brent Cabinet will discuss the latest School Places Provision Strategy this morning.  Key points include:

• In the primary sector falling demand as a result of lower birth rate and Brexit 
• Organisational and budgetary impact of this on individual schools
  
• Lower than expected demand for secondary school places making planned secondary school expansions unnecessary at this point
• Higher demand for Special Educational Needs and Disability places across the age groups starting in early years

Within this there are variations as a result of the developments in some areas such as Wembley Park, although the demographic impact so far has been less than anticipated.

The planned action for the Wembley Park area does not mention a new primary school in the Quintain development area. Readers will remember one was planned as part of the regeneration and a site earmarked close to Wembley Stadium station. Philip Grant on a Wembley Matters post raised the issue of the disappearance of plans for a primary school in the long term plans.

One of the other issues not fully discussed is the number of  secondary pupils in the south of the borough taking up places in neighbouring boroughs:

The full report is below:

  

More light thrown on potential primary school place surplus

Most primary schools in Brent will have broken up by the time that the Cabinet disucuss a report on future school places on Monday. However, the report will have implications for future stability and potential surplus of places in some schools over the next few years.   The report signals the end of the recent expansion of Brent primary schools.

I have questioned the need for a new 630 pupil Ark primary school at York House in an earlier article LINK and plans may now be affectd by the government's decisions on education spending where monies may be taken from the free school budget to supplement school budgets.

Brent policy is to have 5% surplus spaces in primary schools to aid parent choice. It is currently about 4% but likely to rise - it will not be uniform across a complex borough and some schools will experience higher surplus capacity which has budget implications as funding is per pupil.

Without taking into account the new primary free schools of Ark Somerville (York House) and Floreat (Colindale)  we are looking at a surplus equivalent of more than a two form entry primary in 2018-2022. With the two free schools it is equivalent to a 3 form entry school.

The report states:

Table 4 shows the latest GLA forecasts and available primary places and Table 5 shows forecast demand for Reception places from 2017. The places available includes expanded provision at Byron Court, Elsley, Leopold and Uxendon Manor schools, which became permanent during the 2015/16 or 2016/17 academic years. 


The ESFA proposes to open 2 new primary free schools in Brent. The ESFA is reluctant to open new free schools on temporary sites until a permanent site has been identified. Floreat Colindale Primary, which will provide 420 places (2FE), was due to open in temporary accommodation in 2016 and move to a permanent site from 2018. However, latest plans are for the school to open in 2019 on the school’s permanent site at Oriental City. Ark Somerville Primary School  630 places (3FE) was originally approved to open in 2017 in the Alperton region of Planning Area 3. It is now earmarked for the York House site, Wembley Central which is adjacent to the other growth area in Planning Area 3. The final column of Table 5 indicates the impact these schools would have on Reception capacity if both opened in 2019. 


We are forecasting a reduction in demand for Reception places for September 2017, evidenced by fewer on time applications than at the same point in time in previous years. 


The latest pupil forecasts suggest that Reception cohorts will continue to fall for a further three years before beginning to increase again (in 2020/21). As a result there will be a temporary increase in spare capacity across the borough. Neighbouring authorities are reporting similar patterns.

We are currently working with schools to manage any changes in demand. Brent schools experience a high degree of pupil mobility due to families moving in and out of the Borough and families moving within the Borough. Overall forecasts indicate that year groups are expected fluctuate in size as they move through the system. There is a forecast deficit of primary places in Year 3 in Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 3 for September 2017. We anticipate that spare capacity in other planning areas will be sufficient to meet this need.

The full report including predictions of the need for two new secondary schools in the borough in the near future, can be found HERE

Driive to total academisation will do nothing for the crisis engulfing schools

Kevin Courtney, Deputy General Secretary of the NUT, has made the following statement on government plans to force all schools to become academies

-->

Finally the Government has come clean on its education priorities and admitted that its real agenda all along has been that every school must become an academy. The fig leaf of ‘parental choice’, ‘school autonomy’ and ‘raising standards’ has finally been dropped and the Government’s real agenda has been laid bare – all schools to be removed from the support of their LA and schools instead to be run by remote academy trusts, unaccountable to parents, staff or local communities.

Parents will be as outraged as teachers that the Government can undo over 50 years of comprehensive public education at a stroke. Only last week HMCI Sir Michael Wilshaw pointed out to Government the serious consequences for children’s education of schools being run by multi-academy trusts. But this arrogant Government is choosing to ignore the evidence from the HMCI, the Education Select Committee and the Sutton Trust’s own Chain Effects report, which clearly demonstrates that academy status not only does not result in higher attainment but that many chains are badly failing their pupils, particularly their disadvantaged pupils.

The Government’s ultimate agenda is the privatisation of education with schools run for profit. The NUT will continue to resist the Government’s attempts to privatise our education system and will campaign alongside parents and other allies to Stand Up for Education.

The most urgent problems in schools are to do with the chronic teacher shortage, real terms funding cuts, the school places crisis, chaotic implementation of the curriculum, and workload going through the roof. The drive towards total academisation will do absolutely nothing to fix those problems.

London needs £1.5bn to provide additional school places

This report is published today.  It is a pity that London Councils' press release does  not include a demand for the restoration of local authorities powers to plan and build new schools where they arte needed.
 

London will need to create 113,000 new school places over the next five years, requiring investment of at least £1.5 billion as the capital’s school population rises by 12 per cent, according to a new report published today.

‘Do The Maths 2015’ from London Councils, which represents the 32 London boroughs and the City of London, reveals that the Department for Education is not funding London boroughs sufficiently to meet the cost of providing new school places between 2015 and 2020.

Over the next five years London is set to experience pressure on both primary and secondary school places, with secondary in greatest need by the end of this parliament. London faces a shortfall of 78,275 primary school places and 34,835 secondary school places short by 2020.

With many London primary schools already expanded and secondary school expansions costing as much as 50 per cent more than primary, the straightforward options for increasing school capacity are disappearing.

Cllr Peter John, London Councils’ Executive Member for Children, Skills and Employment, said:

“At a time when budgets are under pressure across the board, boroughs cannot continue to subsidise the cost of school places in London. Time is running out for the Government to fully support councils’ efforts to provide primary and secondary school places in the capital over the next five years.

“Councils in London have worked exceptionally hard with school heads and governors since 2010. But without sufficient resources it will be extremely difficult to manage complex primary expansions and meet the rising demand for secondary school places in the future.”

London Councils is calling on the Department for Education to recognise the unprecedented challenge of creating almost 35,000 new secondary places in the capital and the associated site acquisition and building costs.

It is also asking for Government to fully fund the expansion of school places in London by allocating at least an additional £1.5 billion of Basic Need funding for the two-year period 2018/19 to 2019/20.

A commitment to increasing the funding offered per school place to ensure this matches the actual costs, as well as adequate funding to secure places in special schools and provision in mainstream schools for children with special education needs and disabilities (SEND), are the other main asks in the report.

Anger as thriving Preston Community Library faces curtailment

Preston Library campaigners went to Cabinet last night to raise concerns over the School Expansion report which will mean the Preston Library Community Hub restricting its activities to weekends from September.  The Council has decided that the former library building is needed for primary classes from Wembley High School as building work there is behind schedule.

Philip Bromberg from the campaign told the Cabinet that he was not convinced that there was no alternative buildings available (the report lists the former Anansi Nursery as available from July 2016 until July 2018 but states 'this building is no longer required').

He told the Cabinet about all the activities that are available at the Hub, including a cinema, with visitor numbers doubling. He said that the Community library was doing things that the Council had pulled out of and 'doing them very well'.  He told the Cabinet that if the Council could not succeed in cooperating with a large and successful group such as the Community Library and Hub, he could not see its strategy succeeding elsewhere.

After an optimistic letter from Cllr Mashari about joint design of the new facility in April little had happened with the promised collaborative approach and now the use by Wembley High was being discussed just 3-4 days before their licence ended, with no direct word to the Library from the Council.

A local film maker told the council about the sucecss of the cinema which had been funded with a £4000 grant from the council and had become a vital part of the local community with all showings at capacity. The grant would be a waste of money if the Library did not  continue.  He invited councillors and the governors of Wembley High School to visit the Community Hub. Campaigners were keen to establish as positive a relationship with Wembley High as they'd had with Preston Park Primary but this had not happened yet.

Michael Pavey agreed to amend the term 'pop up' used in the report about the library when a speaker said that it was a fully fledged community library with 663 visits in June.

Cllr Margaret McLennan, responding to the delegation, said the Council had always made it clear that the priority needs of the borough were school places and housing. These came ahead of the policy to bring buildings back to life. She substituted a new paragraph for one in the report which would now say that there was no prospect of disposal of the Preston library building until 2017-18 and options would be looked at for commercial or community disposal in August 2017 at the earliest.

To protests from campaigners Cllr Mashari said that she did not appreciate Philip Bromberg's claim that the council had reneged on a deal and had not responded to campaigners. She said that they had made it 'extremely clear' before the election that school places were a priority and the building had never been promised to one particular group. She concluded that the library supported 'fantastic community activities - but don't misquote us'.

Philip Bromberg asked for a right of reply to what he saw as a personal attack but Cllr Pavey refused.

Cllr Ruth Moher, lead member for Children and Families, said that places were needed so that schools had a 5% vacancy rate as required by the government. At present the soare capacity in Brent schools was only 2.3%. She was not expecting things to get any better in the near future but would eventually like to see buildings used as the community desires.

This is a relatively new requirement (I am not sure of its statutory basis) which is claimed to enhance parents' choice but also has the knock-on effect of increased pupil mobility, particularly in less popular schools, making it harder for them to improve.

STOP Factory Farming the Education of Primary School Children

Guest blog by Kaye James

(Definition of Factory Farming: Intensive, factory - ‘Intensive’ because as many animals as possible are crammed together in the smallest possible space; ‘Factory’ because the philosophy of mass production is what lies behind it all.)

Are any parents watching ‘Britain’s Biggest Primary School’ on Channel 5 and stamping their feet with regret that they don’t live in the catchment area of this school?

Whilst applauding the amazing job that the Head Teacher and his staff are doing on a daily basis in terms of the logistics of handling such a “mammoth task of teaching, feeding and managing the welfare of 1,100 pupils”, should we not be questioning whether this set-up will provide a long term return-on-investment in the education of our next generation? 

Super-size, or Titan schools such as the one featured in the documentary are a quite recent invention here, and have rapidly been taking off across the UK as a ‘quick fix’ to cover the obvious lack of long-term planning and investment in primary schools over the past years. Due to the fact that the Titan school concept hasn’t been around for very long in this country there has been no research here. Is the education of the next generation really something so unimportant that it can be subjected to such a high risk, unproven strategy? 

However, we do know about the effects of Super-size schools from experience on the other side of the pond - where everything is bigger but does that mean better? Super-size schools have been a part of the public education system for a much longer period of time and in March 2009 a review of 57 separate studies concerning the size of schools in the United States of America and Canada was published in the American Educational Research Association Journal:

“This review examined 57 post-1990 empirical studies of school size effects on a variety of student and organizational outcomes. The weight of evidence provided by this research clearly favors smaller schools. Students who traditionally struggle at school and students from disadvantaged social and economic backgrounds are the major benefactors of smaller schools. Elementary schools with large proportions of such students should be limited in size to not more than about 300 students; those serving economically and socially heterogeneous or relatively advantaged students should be limited in size to about 500 students.”

A Review of Empirical Evidence About School Size Effects: A Policy Perspective” by Kenneth Leithwood and Doris Jantzi (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto).

David Cameron fought the previous General Election pledging to “close the attainment gap between the richest and poorest . . . to make opportunity more equal and address our declining social mobility. The 2010 Conservative election manifesto stated:  

“A Conservative government will give many more children access to the kind of education that is currently only available to the well-off: safe classrooms, talented and specialist teachers, access to the best curriculum and exams, and smaller schools with smaller class sizes with teachers who know the children’s names.”

In fact, the number of primary schools with more than 800 pupils rocketed by an unbelievable 381% between January 2010 and 2014. (figures, as yet, unavailable for January 2015)

It is, perhaps, no surprise that the Titan primaries are not springing up in ‘well-off’ areas.  If you have the wherewithal  to choose where your children are educated, you do not choose to place them in this type of school.

During an era where young people from deprived areas:

▪rioted in the streets in 2011,

▪spend more time in a virtual community

▪are finding it more and more difficult to find work

▪are being radicalised

▪are disaffected, disengaged and without aspiration, and 1 in 10 are now suffering from anxiety and depression.

Why are politicians scratching their heads and wondering why - while at the same time piling young children into ever-bigger, more anonymous schools?

With all this in mind it is therefore no surprise that the plans of Brent Council to almost double the current intake of Byron Court Primary School in Wembley are being met with strong objections from the majority of parents. The school is planning to increase the intake to 1100 (1050 plus 50 nursery pupils) - the same number as Gascoigne, the school featured in the Channel 5 show – on a site that is a quarter of the size.

Byron Court is located in a catchment area which doesn’t even show clear evidence of need for places - they will be shipped in from Alperton and Sudbury (up to 5km away). There is also a mega-school currently being constructed less than 10mins walk away at Wembley High, with pupils being shipped in from Stonebridge and Harlesden (up to 7km away).  Why not invest in schools where the places are actually needed, instead of putting all the ‘eggs’ in one or two very large ‘baskets’?

What do we have to do to get politicians to address this issue? And for Brent Council, and other similar Councils, to re-think this method of Factory Farming  the Education of our children.  

 SIGN THE PETITION:LINK

Brent Council Risk Register reveals potential impact of the cuts

The Corporate Risk Register is an important document that highlights the risks of Council services not being delivered effectively and the actions taken to overcome that risk.

As the budget is reduced and cuts in staffing take place, as well as out-sourcing of services, it is important to keep an eye on the Register which flags up potential issues.

The full document is available HERE but below I have set out some of the main areas. The wording is from the original, except for the correction of some typos and spelling mistakes, with my comments in red.

Under each heading the risk is set out, the impact, and (in italics)  the most recent action undertaken to reduce the risk:

School place vacancies and waiting lists in Brent

School Census Day in October gives a snapshot of the current position regarding school places in Brent. The actual figures change constantly as places are taken up. Brent Council adopted a School Places Strategy recently that includes the aim of having spare capacity in each school to aid parent choice.

This has an impact on schools faced with competition from a populat neighbour.  Pupil 'churn' occurs when a child leaves a school to take up a place at their preferred school where had been on the waiting list. These children are often replaced by children new to the country, sometimes without previous schooling, who present a challenge to teachers.  Such children usually do extremely well in the long-term, aided by the expertise Brent teachers have developed in this area, but as one would expect there is a short-term impact on SAT results. Continuous 'churn' can have a destabilising effect.

Ark Academy Primary had 208 children on its Reception waiting list on Census Day. I predicted that all-though schools would have an impact on neighbouring primary schools when Ark was set up - parents are effectively choosing their child's secondary school when their children are four years old. It is of course easier for large families if all their children are in one school.

However Ark's waiting list is sharply reduced to 21 in Year 1 and 10 in Year 2 when children settle into their schools.

Recently expanded Harlesden Primary and Strathcona - Roe Green, had vacancies in their Reception classes on Census Day as did Carlton Vale Infants and Furness Primary.  Byron Court, which is currently consulting on expansion to five forms of entry had 7 reception vacancies but a waiting list of 18.

Across the borough and age groups there were 153 pupils not in school with the highest number in Alperton ward (33) and Wembley Central (21) with Year 6 children the largest group in each.

The secondary data shows a sharp divide between schools

The waiting lists appear high but these are children in school who would prefer another - not children out of school. In fact the ward data shows no Year 7 child out of school and  only 2 year 8s.

Three secondary free schools were due to open in Brent in September but only Michaela managed to do so. The DfE estates department failed to find Gladstone and Gateway sites but the data shows that they were not necessary in terms of pupils numbers although they may be in terms of parental choice, however there is no clear data on that.

Gladstone School accounts to the end of December 2013 showed an income of £190,056, expenditure of £77,218 and a carry forward of £112,838 - for a school with no pupils or premises.

The full details are in the Excel spreadsheet below:

'The MDC is okay with me' says Pavey but others disagree

Brent's Cabinet met at Roundwood Youth Centre this afternoon, as part of a programme to move the meeting around the borough. It was followed by a walk-about in the area.  There was more discussion than usual with backbenchers and residents contributing but once again a Brent Council meeting was marred by the failure of councillors to project their voices and the lack of microphones.

Democracy must be HEARD to be done!

The Cabinet approved the action plan arising from the Brent Education Commission which includes partnership work between schools and support for the Brent Schools Partnership which has recently appointed a Strategic Director who will work a three day week.

One of the more controversial issues was  planning school places:

Objective: Ensure that the local authority is proactive in encouraging the best schools in Brent and free school providers  to set up new schools in areas where extra places are need.

Activities:

Work wuth the Education Funding Agency, DfE Free Schools team, the Regional Schools Commissioner and other partners to attract the best quality providers to Brent.

Promote the establishment of effective local chains/federations/partnerships to promote new schools and offer a local solution for schools at risk of failure.

A Labour Council supporting free schools and chains will stick  in the throats of many, particularly on the day the Michaela Free school opened in a building that remains a building site and when Gateway and Gladstone Free Schools failed to open on time.

Deputy Leader and former lead member for Children and Families, Cllr Michael Pavey, raised the possibility of the strategy changing if there is a change of government policy after the General Election.

Cabinet approved plans to make school expansion contracts more attractive to building companies by putting several into a package.

The London Mayor's plans for a Mayoral development Corporation in the Old Oak/Park Royal area provoked most discussion. As explained in an earlier blog Brent Council has not opposed the MDC in principle. Backbencher Cllr Dan Filson thought that was a mistake and said that Brent should start from the position that the MDC is undemocratic and limits the input of Brent council into the plans. He though that having the three council leaders (Brent, Hammersmith & Fulham, Ealing) sitting on the MDC would not solve the problem as they would not have time to get down to the nitty gritty. The focus of the MDC was on Old Oak rather than the important task of reinvigorating the Park Royal Industrial Estate and rescueing it from being mainly devoted to warehousing.

Resident John Cox said that in the Harlesden incinerator campaign there were 180 councillors they could lobby. With the MDC it would be just three.  He said much of the land was publicly-owned, which we purchased in 1948 when nationalising the railways. Instead of flogging off public assets for the maximum value to developers, and then being supplicants to try and get some (so-called) affordable housing, we should value some of the land as zero, in perpetuity, and the state should build social housing. We could even call it council housing if we wanted to. He said the area was more like the Docklands development rather than the Olympic site.

Cox said that there was no chance of Crossrail coming to Wembley Central station  but Cllr Butt said that the Council had not given up the battle to make Wembley Central a destination: 'We can't afford to not having trains stopping there'. It was essential for the housing planned for Wembley.

Cllr Claudia Hector, another Labour backbencher, said that housing in the new development must be 'genuinely affordable' not the London Mayor's 80% of affordable rent. Director of Regeneration and Major Projects, Andy Donald, said the council was aware of that and that there would be a mixture of housing.

Cllr Pavey said that he thought the MDC was the right structure, with the wrong Mayor.  He could not see a combination of the three local authorities (Ed: Ealing's suggestion) as working for such a large development.

Muhammed Butt said that the three councils were continuing to talk but he stressed that they must come up with a 'credible alternative': 'We will have to work with the MDC if we don't come up with anything else'.

The Cabinet approved a bid to the GLA to make Alperton and Wembley Housing Zones. 20 will be created across London at a cost of £400m to create 50,000 new homes and 100,000 associated homes over the next 10 years.

Margaret McLennan said that the Zones were essential, especially in Alperton, to provide much needed infrastructure including new schools, health centres, transport etc to kickstart the areas. Cllr Perrin, lead member for the environment was concerned that this was at the  cost of moving businesses out of the area and there were also issues over contaminated land near the canal at Alperton.

I was pleased to see that £6m has been set aside for the provision of school nurses but this is going to external procurement, rather than in-house and only one bidder has emerged. it was confirmed that the provision would be free to local authority, academies and free schools but not to private schools. There was no detail about how many hours per school would be involved.

There was a rushed discussion of the Borough Plan where the Council hope to engage young people in schools in discussions about the future of the borough and no discussion at all on the Quarter 1 Performance Report where council services are given a RAG (Red, Amber, Green) rating. Support to enable families to be independent, take up of 3 year olds nursery education grant and the number of in-year applications for primary places getting a place withion four weeks of applying were all given a red rating.

Parent survey of Local Authority role in education shows potential support for Green Party policies

I print below the full press release from London Councils on the YouGov poll they commissioned on parents' views of the role of local authorities in education.  Green Party policy adopted at our Spring Conference is for the restoration of LAs power to build new schools where they are needed and for the integration of academies and free schools into the LA system.  Labour Party policy, especially on academies and free schools, has not broken free from Coalition policies.

The survey shows that we have a potential audience amongst parents for these policies.

• Leadership: 41 per cent of parents would turn to their council first if they had governance and leadership concerns – only 28 per cent say Ofsted.
• Free schools: 68 per cent feel that local authorities should have powers to intervene in these schools, an increase of 6 percentage points from last year.
• School places:  81 per cent support council influence over school places, up from 76 per cent last year.

London parents would turn to their local authority first if they had concerns about their local schools, a new survey reveals.

In the first survey of London parents since the Birmingham ‘Trojan Horse’ scandal, the highest proportion, 41 per cent, of parents said their first point of contact if they were concerned about governance and leadership in their child’s school would be their local authority - 28 per cent said Ofsted, 4 per cent said central government.

The poll, carried out by YouGov on behalf of London Councils, which represents London’s 33 local authorities, also found rising support from parents for councils to have a role in underperforming free schools.  Of those polled, 68 per cent of parents considered that local authorities should have power of influence over free schools, up by 6 percentage points from last year.

Asked whether they support councils having influence over all schools in their area (including free schools and academies) to find more school places or expand, 81 per cent of parents agreed – up from 76 per cent last year.

Cllr Peter John, London Councils’ Executive member for children and young people, said: “If you’re a parent and you’re worried about leadership or staff issues at your local school, it’s only natural you’d turn to your local council where they know the local issues. But councils don’t have formal oversight over free schools and academies, which is evidently confusing for parents, as this survey reveals.

“What’s more, parents increasingly support a council role in influencing schools to expand, if there is clear local need to build more places. This isn’t surprising given the scale of the shortage in London.
“Of course head teachers should run schools day-to-day, but it’s clear from this survey that on the wider issues, parents want a council role. The government should listen to mums and dads and allow councils to act in parents’ interests.”

Pressure on school places continues to rise in London due to a recent baby boom. London needs to create 133,000 primary and secondary school places by 2018, according to recent London Councils’ analysis (1). Councils are responsible for providing a place for every child, but cannot open schools themselves or direct academies to expand in areas of need.

83 per cent said there is an important council role in ensuring education standards are high in schools, up slightly from 82 per cent who said this last year.

The poll also revealed that 51 per cent of parents thought the education system was more under central government control than they had previously assumed.

There was also a modest 3 per cent rise (from 29 per cent in 2013 to 32 per cent in 2014) in parents opposed to the idea of moving toward more academies and free schools.

Copland land deal for rebuild and academisation

Ariel view of site. Copland is at the top on the High Road, St Josephs top right at end of  Chatsworth/Waverley and Elsley bottom right at end of Tokyngton

The Brent Executive on April 22nd LINK will discuss a land deal for the Copland Community School site and adjacent lands. Copland is due to become the Ark Elvin academy on September 1st 2014. Government money has been made available for a rebuild which also involves adding another form of entry.   Copland has suffered from an inadequate building for a long time and this has been mentioned in its Ofsted reports.

The previous headteacher Sir Alan Davies and the governing body had plans for redevelopment approved in 2006 which included the 'Copland Village' but these plans were never realised.  The land involved is currently in multi-ownership:

The Council intends to hand the land over to Ark on a 125 year lease and at the same time secure land for the necessary playspace and land for the expansion of Elsley Primary school which will double in size from two forms of entry to four. Current consultation on Elsley's expansion has been halted until the land issue is resolved.

The report states:

Copand Community School is a foundation school and therefore the land and buildings are mainly in the ownership of the school itself, the responsibility for which is vested in the Interim Executive Boards. The IEB has expressed agreement to transfer the freehold of the site which it currently owns to the Council instead, in order for the Council to rationalise the ownership and use of the site overall, ensuring an optimum footprint for the school. The ARK would under these proposals be granted a 125 year lease on the final school site.

 As part of these transactions, the Council would secure enough land from the overall site to facilitate the proposed expansion of Elsley Primary School.

On completion of the freehold transfer the Council will grant the ARK an interim lease agreement to allow occupation of the existing school building until the new building is completed. Following this a 125 year lease arrangement will be granted. The transfer from the IEB needs to happen before the conversion to Academy Status, because the IEB will cease to exist on the conversion date, proposed for 1st September.

The land transaction proposals in the report are dependent on the Secretary of State for Education agreeing to disposal of education land, and specific consent surrounding disposal of school playing fields, this is an absolutely critical point referred to further in section 6 below and the confidential appendix 1.

Section 6 outlines how school playing field disposal has to be approved by the Secretary of State. Because most of the appendices have been declared confidential it is not easy to see just how much of the playing fields will be needed for the new build. There will have to be a statutory  consultation:

Therefore, prior to any disposal or change of use of school land the relevant statutory process will need to be followed. The relevant statutory process that applies will depend upon who owns the said land (for example a governing body of a school, or local authority), and whether the land is playing field land, or non-playing field land. Each process for consent and/or notification has its own specific requirements and complexities.

The scheme would involve commercial development and housing on the present Wembley High road site of the school realising the Wembley Plan's vision of a shopping street from Wembley Central Station to the London Designer Outlet close to Wembley Stadium. The amount of housing and the proportion of it that will be affordable is not stated in the public documentation.

The report says that the new school building  will be behind the present one as envisaged in the plans approved in 2006. (Below) Note the East-West orientation of this plan: