Another Brent battle against forced academisation of a primary school

The impact of Coalition policies on education continues to be a major issue and I hope it will become more prominent as the General Election approaches. Fragmentation, incoherence and a lack of democratic accountability are major concerns.

The opportunistic  forced academisation of schools that get poor Ofsted reports continues depsite a lack of evidence that such a move actually helps schools improve.

In Brent this is now happening at St Andrew and St Francis Primary School.  The Teachers Panel of Brent, comprising the three main teacher unions, has issued this statement:

Teachers Panel Response to the consultation on whether St Andrew and St Francis Primary school should become an academy 

The teacher unions are against any school becoming an academy. We say it is part of the Government's plan to privatise state education just like they want to privatise the NHS. There is no evidence that turning a school into an academy improves the education of the children. The Education Parliamentary Select Committee has just published the findings of their year-long enquiry. Its Chairman, Conservative MP Graham Stuart, said, "Current evidence does not prove that academies raise standards overall or for disadvantaged children". He added that there are, “huge disparities within the academy sector and compared to other mainstream schools". This is a damning report on academies. There are also lots of issues over the financial management of academies and free schools as they are not overseen by the Local Authority. 

St Andrew and St Francis school is being forced to become an academy when there is no evidence that it will benefit the children's education. The school is already making very good progress with its action plan when it is not an academy, both the IEB and Brent Council sources have told us. The staff were given a promise that if they worked hard and improved the situation at the school then the school would not become an academy. For a Christian school to go directly against such a promise to the staff and unions find shocking. 

At the official meeting with staff and unions it became clear that the London Diocesan Board of Schools (LDBS) Academies Trust who is the proposed sponsor would continue to offer all the support they do now if the school was not an academy. Nothing basically would change if they became the sponsor except they would have financial control. So there is no benefit to the school becoming an academy. Though the staff and unions asked what the benefits were no answers could be given. It became clear that it is purely to follow what the DfE is dictating rather than for the good of the school. Even one of the members of the Interim Executive Board (IEB)  made it clear that her school had looked at whether they should become an academy and decided that they would not gain by doing so – it wasn't right for them. It is only the Government and DfE saying it is right for the school. 

Also at this meeting the IEB were informed of the increasing number of Headteachers and Governing bodies who are not allowing the DfE to dictate to their school and have managed to prevent their school becoming an academy even when they have been put in special measures. Turning a school into an academy should be decided democratically by a vote of parents as it was when schools went grant maintained not through force. The staff and unions believe that a new head should be appointed and then given a time-scale to show continued improvement before the question of whether to become an academy or not is considered. 

It became quite clear that the parents are also strongly against the school becoming an academy when Hank Roberts attended the parents meeting. The unions and staff had been banned from this meeting but the parents had asked him to come in. We would again ask why, but it is now clear that it is because there are no proper answers to the arguments being made against an academy. 

The IEB say they support parental choice so they should take account of the views of the parents at that meeting. Staff are totally against this move. Parents and staff should have a secret independently overseen ballot to properly seek their views, after they have heard arguments for and against. The unions have offered to pay for this. In this way the IEB would have the clear views of the staff and parents. If the IEB believe in democracy then they would act on this result.

A public meeting about the forced academisation will be held at St Andrew's Church, Willesden High Road on March 4th at 6.30pm
 

Disbelief as Brent Council choose Cara Davani to head up its Equalities Team!

There was disbelief today when the Kilburn Times LINK reported that Cara Davani, Head of Brent's Human resources and found by Watford Employment Tribunal to have racially discriminated against, victimised and constructively dismissed a black council worker will - wait for it - head up Brent Council's Equalities Team!

This is an insult to  Cara Davani's victim, Brent Council workers and Brent residents.

How on earth can anyone have any faith in our Council in the face of such an incredible decision?

Another Deputation that Brent Council will not hear - important questions for Cllr Butt on senior officers and the Employment Tribunal case

Guest Blog by Philip Grant 

Three weeks ago “Wembley Matters” carried a guest blog from me about the lack of action taken by Brent Council against Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert for their parts in the victimisation, racial discrimination and constructive dismissal of Rosemarie Clarke. LINK  This included a letter which asked the Leader of Brent Council, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, two important questions. The “Brent & Kilburn Times” published the same letter, in a slightly edited form, on 12 February.

On 19 February our local newspaper carried a letter from Cllr. Butt, saying that ‘Brent Council is deeply committed to equality, diversity and fairness.’ It may even have been written for him by Cara Davani, as it is very similar in tone to her reports on Equality to this week’s General Purposes Committee, or Michael Pavey’s report on his HR policies and practice review. It makes a point of saying ‘We already have Investor in People Silver standard and are working out way to Gold’, without mentioning that it was Rosemarie Clarke, when she was Brent’s Head of Learning and Development, who actually achieved that IIP Silver Standard for the Council. It is perhaps ironic that Brent might already have reached the IIP Gold standard if Ms Clarke had not been constructively dismissed. However, Cllr. Butt’s letter did not answer the two questions I had asked him.

My disappointment that Cllr. Butt had side-stepped the real issue was eased when I saw that the “Democracy in Brent” webpage for speaking at Council meetings said that:
 
‘The programme of council meetings for the remainder of 2014/15 at which deputations are permitted’ included the Full Council meeting on Monday 2 March 2015. As the deadline shown for giving written notice of a deputation for that meeting was midday on Friday 20 February, I sent off my written notice to Brent’s Chief Legal Officer, Fiona Alderman, (and not to Fiona Ledden, whose defunct email address is still shown on Brent’s website as the place to send notices!) with an hour to spare. I heard nothing back from her, and wrote to query this when I saw on Tuesday that the agenda for the meeting on 2 March did not include an item for “Deputations”.

Ms Alderman has replied to me, saying:

‘The Council meeting in March is the budget setting meeting.  Standing Order 34 explains at (b) that certain items on the council agenda do not form part of the agenda items when the budget setting is considered. Deputations (Standing Order 37 (i)) are excluded items. Therefore, no deputations will form part of council business on 2^nd March.’

I have checked, and she is correct. It was the details on the Council website which were “in error”, and this is not another case of senior officers (or members?) wrongly preventing a Deputation from being presented to councillors. So, I am setting out here the Deputation which I would have made to Full Council next Monday, if I had been given the opportunity to do so. I will send copies of it to Cllr. Butt, and to all the other Brent councillors. Perhaps we will eventually get a full reply!

Two important questions for the Leader of the Council to answer.

I am speaking as an individual, but I know that the points I am raising are of concern to many local residents, Council employees and a number of elected councillors as well.

In September 2014 an Employment Tribunal gave a judgement against Brent Council and its HR Director, Cara Davani, finding that its former Head of Learning and Development, Rosemarie Clarke, had suffered racial discrimination, victimisation and had been constructively dismissed. [Paragraphs 1-6 and 313 of the judgement]

In respect of Ms Clarke’s suspension in February 2013, for alleged gross misconduct, the judgement says:

‘The tribunal find it to have been unreasonable of the respondents [Brent and Ms Davani] to suspend the claimant [Ms Clarke] when they did, which suspension this tribunal finds was sufficient to breach the implied term of trust and confidence; the factual matrix not supporting the allegations, which factual matrix Ms Davani had been fully aware of.’ [Para. 271]   and:

'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.' [Para. 302]

In respect of Ms Davani stopping Ms Clarke's sick pay in June 2013, the judgement says:

'… the tribunal finds no procedural basis for Ms Davani taking the action of stopping the claimant’s sick pay when she did,' [Para.310]   and: 

'In the absence of Ms Davani being able to give an explanation for taking such action when she did, the tribunal on a balance of probabilities finds that this course of action was taken by Ms Davani as a direct result of the antipathy the tribunal finds she had then had against the claimant, following the claimant having done the protected act [the grievance complaint], which this tribunal finds Ms Davani to have been incensed by.' [Para. 311]

The grievance which Rosemarie Clarke raised in December 2012 was against Cara Davani, her line manager, alleging bullying and harassment. Brent’s HR policies say that ‘bullying and harassment will not be tolerated’. Because she felt that her case was not being dealt with fairly, Ms Clarke made a formal grievance complaint to Brent’s interim Chief Executive in February 2013. The following extracts relate to how Brent dealt with this.

After setting out details from Brent’s HR procedures of what an employee should have been entitled to expect in such a case, the Tribunal found that:

 ‘The claimant was not afforded any of these.’ [Para. 175]  and:

'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 procedure and a breach of contract.' [Para. 176]

Ms Clarke appealed by email against this summary dismissal of her grievance, and the Tribunal found:

‘The claimant chased up this email on 27 February, enquiring as to whether it had been received, Ms Gilbert responding stating that, it would be responded to as soon as possible.’ [Para. 196]   and:

‘The respondent has not responded further to the claimant’s correspondence. They maintain however, that a response had been drafted but not sent out, by mistake. The tribunal has not seen this correspondence.’ [Para. 197]

The Employment Tribunal judgement gives clear findings of fact, supported by detailed evidence, to show that Cara Davani victimised Ms Clarke over a number of months, and that Christine Gilbert, when the problem was brought to her attention, totally ignored Brent’s proper HR procedures. As a result of their actions, Brent will have to pay out a very large amount in compensation, damages and costs. Rosemarie Clarke had the courage to stand up to their bullying and indifference, and has been proved right to have done so.

The press release last September which announced the Council’s decision to appeal against this judgement says: ‘Brent Council takes all allegations of racial discrimination, victimisation, harassment or bullying extremely seriously.’ But the Council has done the complete opposite in this case, even after its appeal was thrown out last December because there were no reasonable grounds to support it. 

No action appears to have been taken against Brent’s Director of HR, or its interim Chief Executive, for their actions in this case, despite them being senior officers who are required to show high standards of conduct, promoting these ‘by leadership, and by example’, and by acting ‘in a way that secures or preserves public confidence.’

In a letter sent to Cllr. Muhammed Butt on 5 February, which was also published on a local blog site, and in a slightly edited form in the “Brent & Kilburn Times” on 12 February, I asked him two important questions. He has not yet answered them, so I ask him again:

1.  How can staff have confidence in the Council’s latest round of job cuts, when it is being presided over by two senior officers responsible for victimisation, racial discrimination and failing to follow the Council’s HR procedures?

2.  Why is Cllr. Butt still “protecting” these two senior officers, when he has known about their misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke case since at least September 2014?

I hope that the Leader of the Council will now give the Council, its staff and Brent residents his full answers to these questions.

Philip Grant.

Vulnerable children in need of care not cuts, a review of the impact of Council decisions since 2011

Guest blog by Anon.
 

During the Kenton by-election in February 2011, Muhammed Butt rang my doorbell and asked me if I was going to vote for the Labour candidate. I responded by saying I wasn't sure, that it was unlikely, and he asked why.  I said was very disappointed with the Council, particularly the Labour group, who appeared to be supporting severe cuts to frontline services, which, in my opinion, would affect the most vulnerable in our community. 

Mo asked me for an example and I told him that I heard the Council were proposing to close 24 Crawford Avenue (a large 6 bedroom house that had a 1/3rd of an acre of play space and is situated in the heart of Wembley).  Incidentally, the house was bequeathed to Barnardos specifically for the use of children in need. It was leased to Brent Council for decades at a reasonable annual rent. 

The Council leased the property for decades from Barnardos without any major issues. The unit was registered to provide overnight short breaks for up to 6 children, in addition to providing valuable day care during the school holidays and at weekends for another 6 children. It also accepted lockouts and emergency child protection cases.  Those who benefited from the service were children aged between 5-18 years, who although mobile, suffered from moderate to severe disabilities, including learning difficulties and some with challenging behaviours. In addition to giving children greater opportunities to develop and socialise and through play it also gave families much needed short breaks.

 However, whilst standing in my doorway, touting for my vote, Mo Butt responded absentmindedly. He said, "Oh yes, Crawford Avenue is going to close. Ironically, this was before any official community consultations had begun.  When I raised further concerns about how disappointed I was, he proudly informed me that he was the Deputy Leader of the Council and that I should put my concerns in writing to him.

Months later, the so-called public consultations eventually began and many people put their concerns in writing. Service users took a legal challenge to the high court.  The Council continued to argue that they knew best. That they were building a 'state of the art' unit, which eventually became known as the Ade Adepitan Centre, situated adjacent to the new Villlage School in Grove Park.  Whilst the new build was being built, the Council officially closed Crawford Avenue and merged it with Clement Close, a very small respite unit for children of families who had Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (PMLD) and other disabilities, designed for wheelchair users. 

 This effectively meant that the service provision was more than halved for both groups of children, as it wasn't safe for the young people to be booked in together. In addition to this, despite some basic refurbishment, the building was not fit for purpose and many families from Crawford declined to send their children to Clement.  Crawford Avenue was eventually closed in January 2012. Interestingly, months later, a pre-change of use planning application was submitted by someone, who recognised the enormous potential of this property. This was in December 2012.   For further details on this matter see LINK

Sadly, Crawford Avenue (a potential jewel in the crown of Wembley) was eventually sold by Barnardos for about £875,000 and the buyer succeeded in their application to the Council for cessation in lease for the  continued use of building as a children's home.

 Meantime, much community unhappiness developed at Clement Close as staff and service users tried to adapt to many changes in a building that was not fit for purpose.  It also appeared that more serious incidents occurred, including assaults on staff by children and in September 2012 an unhappy vulnerable child absconded.

Such incidents are of concern when you hear councillors and managers say that, 'The impact on the child must be our primary concern'.  From January 2012 to February 2013 staff, children and families endured many changes. In March 2013 Neil Macdonald (Interim Head of Service Children’s Commissioning) delivered reported to the Council on short breaks provision for Children with Disabilities. He confirmed that new Village short breaks centre was now open and had received its first children for respite care on 8 February 2013. 

 He said, "The centre was registered to provide short breaks for up to 8 children, double the capacity of Clement Close. The council was currently exploring how best to use this additional capacity" because of the low occupancy. Something, I understand, they still struggle with, possibly due to the institutional feel and poor design that cannot always accommodate the two different client groups safely.

 As for day care and after school care, I understand this has yet to be provided, despite misleading reports from Mr MacDonald to the Executive Committee.  

Further, Sara Williams (Acting Director of Children & Families) and her team, also reported to the Executive Committee in November 2013, less than a year after the closure of Crawford Avenue, that, 'The lack of appropriate children's residential care homes also hampers the council in its duty to take reasonable practicable steps to secure sufficient accommodation for looked after children where it's their best interest to be accommodated locally.

It really does beggar belief that our leaders can be so short sighted. Where will the  cuts end and what impact will they really have on our community in years to come?  

ANON