Where does the power lie in Brent Council?

Muhammed Butt and Cara Davani

The Brent Labour Group will be meeting on Saturday for its Annual General Meeting ahead of the Council AGM LINK on Wednesday 20th May.

The meeting comes at a time when some Labour backbenchers are still angered at the failure to deal effectively with the Employment Tribunal case and the personnel involved, as well as concerns about who will be the next Chief Executive.

There have been mutterings about Brent CMT 's connections with Tower Hamlets and similarities in ethos, in the light of the Lutfur Rahman Inquiry findings.

It is unclear whether the vacant Lead Member for Environment post will be filled at the AGM or incorporated into an existing portfolio, plus reducing the size of the Cabinet.

The Council AGM will again decide which of the rival Conservative groups will be designated the official opposition, unbless the groups come up with their own agreed solution beforehand. The composition of Committees will also be decided at the two AGMs with Scrutiny the most important. The committee has been severely criticised for its failure to scrutinise effectively but 7 out of its 8 members will remain Labour councillors. The General Purposes Committee is effectively the Cabinet plus one opposition member.

If any councilor digs deep enough they may also be concerned about proposals to extend the powers of the Chief Executive in proposed constitional changes. Particularly 2.3.2 below:

“2.3.1 The Chief Executive shall also have the authority to carry out all executive functions in the interim in the event of there being no Leader, or Deputy Leader appointed and insufficient members of the Cabinet appointed to achieve a quorum.

2.3.2    Exceptionally, notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Chief Executive shall be authorised to exercise either executive or non-executive functions where the matter is urgent unless this is prohibited by law.

2.3.3    If the Chief Executive acts in the circumstances set out in paragraphs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 above, the Chief Executive shall notify, as appropriate, the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Council, the Lead Member with portfolio responsibility for the matter to which the decision relates and the Leader of the Principal Opposition Group of any such action.“

Taste of Sailing on the Welsh Harp - Thursday 6pm ages 8-80+

Thursday 14th May – 6pm

Ever wondered what it would be like to sail or windsurf?

Come along for a FREE taster – first come gets on the water first - ages 8 to 80+

All you need is a change of clothes, a towel and soft shoes that you don’t mind getting wet. We provide everything else you need.

Please click here to let us know you are coming

How to find us

enquiries@welshharpsailingclub.org

 Can't make Thursday night?

Phoenix Canoe Club offer sessions on Saturday 16^th / Sunday 17^th May

for a taste of sailing, windsurfing and kayaking– Click here for details

 

The Welsh Harp Sailing Club is a volunteer-run RYA Sailing & Windsurfing Club based near Wembley at the Welsh Harp, Birchen Grove, London, NW9 8SA.

A Green's place is in the movements

The Green Party is committed to advance its cause through standing in elections but importantly its members are  also involved in many movements for environmental and social justice.

At General Election time the focus is inevitably on election campaigning and there is a danger that this takes away from other, broader campaigns.  In London with the Assembly and Mayoral elections happening next year we could end up continuing on the electoralist road and putting all our energy into getting Green Assembly members elected.

This is important but I would argue that with the Tory's forming a new administration that will renew the war on the poor and the vulnerable that our energy should also go into participating in and building the movements challenging neoliberal policy on  the welfare state, benefit caps, gentrification and social cleansing, reckless plundering of the world's natural resources, fracking, industrialised schooling and the demonisation of migrants.

The Green Party's  Philosophical Basis states:

We do not believe that there is only one way to change society, or that we have all the answers. We seek to be part of a wider green movement that works for these principles through a variety of means. We generally support those who use reasonable and non-violent forms of direct action to further just aims.

Our beliefs will bring us into conflict with those committed to material affluence, the accumulation of power and the unsustainable exploitation of the Earth. We are always ready to negotiate with those who oppose us, and seek fair settlements that respect their needs for security, self esteem and freedom of choice.

We will even work with those who disagree with us where sufficient common ground can be found to do so. However, we do not seek power at any price, and will withdraw our support if we are asked to make irreversible or fundamental compromises.

Yesterday's skirmishes in Downing Street protesting at the Conservative election victory presage a likely new wave of direct action in the face of five more years of austerity and cuts.  The issue of legitimacy of the new Government is clear when you consider that Tories won on 36.9% of the vote, when about a third of the electorate (15.8 m people out of an electorate of 46.4m) did not vote, and that the first past the post system meant hat it took many more voters to elect a minority party MP:

The equivalent figure for Conservative has been quoted at 34,000 and Labour 40,000.

The Green vote in 2010 was just 265,187 but the number of Green MPs remains only one. A proportional system would have give 30 Green MPs although the prospect of many more UKIP MPs is a major concern.  A petition for a fairer voting system has been set up HERE

In her speech yesterday Caroline Lucas MP set out her post-election ideas:

The election results have served as a stark reminder that our political system is broken. The time for electoral reform is long overdue. Only proportional representation will deliver a parliament that is truly legitimate, and that better reflects the views of the people it’s meant to represent.

But we must move forward today. While the campaign for electoral reform gathers momentum, those of us wanting to see a fairer, more compassionate and progressive politics must find new ways of working together, a new way to do politics – and put that into practice now. 

Unless we break free of tribal politics and work together to fight austerity, and promote crucial, common-sense climate policies, we’re faced with an incredibly bleak political future. For the sake of all those who’ll suffer most at the hands of the Tories, we must rethink our relations and recognise the importance of our common ground. 

That should include shared platforms and case-by-case electoral pacts, to build a strong progressive alliance to challenge the Tories over the next five years.  Clearly in Wales and Scotland, where there are PR elections for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, this doesn't apply, but where First Past the Post continues to distort election results, it should surely be considered.

And one of the first challenges such an alliance will face is ensuring we win the referendum on membership of the EU.

 While we certainly support urgent EU reform, we cannot allow backward-looking Tories to make common cause with UKIP and lead us out of the EU and into the wilderness.

This is all well and good but it sees things very much through traditional party politics, something that has been rejected by thousands of  activists and seen by many ordinary people as irrelevant to their day to day struggles.  A 'new way of doing politics' should mean the Greens participating much more in struggles on the ground, taking part in direct action (something Lucas was prepared to do over fracking') and most importantly learning from these struggles and feeding what has been learnt into Green Party policy and strategy.

Our position as an 'anti-austerity' party needs to be much more fully explored and explained. Although we said  that being anti-austerity was a different way of doing things and was based on a alternative economic model I think Greens failed to  explain what this would mean in real terms in the context of the media obsession with the deficit and national debt.  This made us vulnerable on the media and in local hustings to the cry of 'but where is the money coming from?' and led to our depiction as 'dreamers' and 'idealists' unrelated to the real world.

In short if we are 'anti-austerity' what are we 'pro'? Can we frame that 'pro' positively to convince people that a different economic system could work to their benefit?  Should there be a new name for the People's Assembly Against Austerity  - the People's Assembly FOR.....

Paul Krugman in his influential Guardian article on the 'austerity delusion' LINK expressed astonishment at UK Labour's buying into the delusion and this may well have contributed to Labour's failure in the election - 'if we are going to have austerity anyway, who not vote for the devil we know?'

Unfortunately the initial reaction to Labour's defeat seems to be an attempt by Blairites to reclaim the agenda and push Labour further right - exemplified by Peter Mandelson on the Marr Show this morning say that Miliband's ditching of 'New Labour' was a 'terrible mistake.' LINK

Mandelson's distancing from the trade unions and their role in the Labour Party gives an impetus to the Green Party's work with trade unions, not only encouraging everyone, and espcially young workers, to join unions but setting up direct links locally and nationally.


If Labour is re-captured by the Blairites it leaves space for creating a real alternative - not just through a political party but through a movement - and establishing a different way of doing politics through social and environmental movements.

Infected by the GERM: Baseline testing

Guest blog by Kiri Tunks, a teacher and National Union of Teachers activist in London. Kiri is currently standing for the post of NUT vice president. Re-posted with permission from the Counterfire website LINK

Globally, education is under assault from governments and multi-national corporations who see it as a legitimate and lucrative business opportunity with an estimated market value of $4.4tn or more.

This assault, termed by Finnish educator Pasi Sahlberg^[1] 'the Global Education Reform Movement' or GERM, has created a model of education that puts profit before pupils while masquerading as the saviour of education for all. It claims competition between students, teachers and schools drives up standards and that ‘testing’ is the only way schools can be accountable to parents and taxpayers. A worldwide movement, it is reducing education to what can be measured and made profitable.

The drive to improve results has resulted in almost constant testing of our children with ‘practice’ tests a routine feature of the UK school experience. This means less time for learning and discovery and an inevitable narrowing of what children learn as they are taught to the test.

Now, the government wants children starting in Reception to be ‘assessed’ using one of six possible tests (chosen by the school) to give them a baseline level in English & numeracy. Within the first six weeks of starting school, each child will sit with a teacher for a 15-30 minute test and answer questions to establish their ‘ability’. This data will then be used to project progress targets for the child at KS2, KS3, KS4 and beyond. Typically, such data is not treated as aspirational but is instead translated into ‘Target Minimum Grades’: not a guide then but an expectation.

Parents should be concerned at the increased push to formalise learning for very young children when good practice in other countries sees formal schooling start as late as 7. There are those who say these tests won’t harm the children and that the psychological impact is over-played. There is much evidence and expertise^[2] in the field that suggests otherwise but time will tell.

The government argues that this assessment will give a clear picture of every child’s ability as they start school. Such an assertion assumes several things.

It assumes the data from the tests is reliable. But how can this data be reliable when we will be testing children of significantly different ages (a potential difference of 11 months)? How can it be reliable when schools are choosing which test to use from six different commercial providers? How can the results of a test from one provider be moderated with those from another?

It also assumes that teachers don’t already gather useful information on a child’s ability and development. They do. Teachers use the comprehensive EYFS profile document which covers 17 areas of development as opposed to just English & numeracy.

Then there is the assumption that assessment need only cover literacy & numeracy and that such an assessment is a good predictor of ability or progress across all disciplines or skills

The government also suggests that this assessment will reduce workload for teachers (even though many teachers are being told they need to do both the EYFS and the Baseline test). But even proposing the replacement of the EYFS profile with a one-off test is a cynical ploy. It may appear to reduce workload but it will bring with it a whole new set of problems.

What if your students don’t make the ‘expected progress’? Already, under PRP, have to justify progress to maintain or improve their pay or prove their competency. Now, this data will be used to challenge all teachers, across a child’s entire school life, on their progress. It will be used to hold teachers’ pay down. No account will be taken of other contributory factors. There can be no ‘excuses’ for failure.

This test is being ‘trialled’ from September 2015 and will be ‘optional’ from 2016 so it looks like schools have a choice. However, all primary schools are judged on their performance at the end of Key Stage 2. Schools using the baseline test will need to show that ‘pupils make sufficient progress’ from their starting point.

Schools who choose not to use the test will have to meet an ‘attainment floor target’ of 85% (compared to 65% now). Schools who fail will be forced to become sponsored academies.

The truth is, the industrial scale of testing which is becoming the norm in our schools, does not benefit students. The government is quite clear that these tests are about assessing ‘school effectiveness’. More and more, teachers are under pressure to teach a ‘pre-determined content domain’ which means that students are only taught what is prescribed. Any idea we once had of learning being a journey of discovery is under serious attack.

The GERM is not interested in schools because it cares about children. It sees schools as a potential for profit and teachers and their unions are a huge obstacle to its plans. Our job as activists is to make sure parents and communities understand that testing and accountability is a smoke-screen for privatisation; that attacks on teachers’ pay and conditions are not about dealing with failure but about ridding schools of challenging and expensive pedagogy; that not everything worth learning can be measured in a test; and that instead of giving them more say in their child’s future they are handing over their learning to what pleases the market.

The National Union of Teachers has committed itself to campaigning against these tests within the UK but also building campaigns with teacher unions from other countries against global providers like Pearson. In light of the election result we are going to have to redouble our efforts. We need to talk to parents about our concerns but also about the broader question of what education is for and the kinds of schools our children deserve. The imposition of these tests goes way beyond the question of how we measure a child’s progress. It questions the very nature of what kind of education we want for our society.

Notes

[1] GERM that kills schools, Pasi Sahlberg, June 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdgS--9Zg_0

[2] Early Years Education – NUT Edufacts http://www.teachers.org.uk/edufacts/early-years