Kingsbury head turns down union parental ballot offer

Friday's meeting between Kingsbury High School unions and the headteacher Jeremy Waxman and Chair of Governors failed to make any progress.  The unions offered to pay for an independently overseen ballot of parents in additon to the school's own consultation. They said they would recommend that any potential strike action would be called off in the event of a ballot.

Mr Waxman rejected the offer saying that academy conversion was not a 'referendum style' issue. The unions disagreed.

The unions disagreed with Mr Waxman's offer to sign a Model Agreement on Pay and Conditions. They did not doubt his sincerity in wanting to maintain pay and conditions of staff if the school became an academy but thought that such promises were hard to keep in the medium and long term.

The unions' action committees will now be meeting to discuss next steps and will be writing directly to all the Kingsbury governors to ask for their reactions to their offer.

Angry Kingsbury parents denounce consultation 'sham'

Kingsbury High School Parents Action Group, who are leading the fight to prevent the school converting to academy status have suffered another 'kick in the teeth' in their fight to secure a full and fair consultation process with the school Governors.

On Tuesday 13^th September they organised a public meeting to which representatives from both sides of the debate were invited to speak. Many different groups turned up and offered speakers, but Mr Waxman, the Headteacher at the school, and his Governing Body were notable by their absence. So, once again, instead of a debate we were given only one side of the argument, albeit ours!

The meeting heard that teachers at the school will be taking industrial action after having their voices ignored, but were told that this would be called off if the school chose to offer parents an independently overseen secret  YES/NO ballot, something we have been asking for since last term when we heard (but not from the school) that Governors were looking into academy conversion. We have since heard that Mr Waxman has turned down this offer from the teachers, which was presented to him by their union representatives on Friday..

The meeting on Tuesday 13^th voted unanimously on a resolution as follows:

“This meeting supports the teachers of Kingsbury High School. We request an independently

overseen secret ballot of parents’ views on academy status for KHS where parents vote YES/

NO after hearing unbiased arguments for and against. We also request a consultation of the

wider community, including feeder and other local schools, councillors, local residents and

students. We request that there is a pause in the academy application process to allow this

full and thorough consultation to take place. We declare that if our request for a parental

ballot is not met, then we will be supporting the teachers who decide to take strike action.”

This was then sent  to the school Governors but has so far not been acknowledged.

That very same evening Mr Waxman sent out an email to parents offering to meet with them on Thursday 15^th September to answer any questions that may have resulted from our public meeting. Members of the Parents Action Group took him up on this invitation and turned up to hear, yet again, his refusal to grant their wish for a simple ballot. Under further questioning as to the reason for this refusal, he eventually admitted that the so-called ‘consultation’ process he set up never had the intention of listening to stakeholder’s opinions with a view to changing the Governors’ decision. He said it was an exercise designed to find out our worries, so that we could be persuaded to change our minds, or, if he couldn’t do that, then to reassure us! We fear he has failed miserably on both these.

It was pointed out to Mr Waxman and his Chair of Governors that they have a massive advantage in that they are able to communicate with all parents via the school’s Parentmail email system and give their side of the argument, whilst parents themselves have no way to widely present their case. A request was made that he offer the parents the chance to do this so that stakeholders could present their views. This has also been turned down.

When asked whether students at the school would be able to air their views after hearing both sides of the argument, he said that this would be the case, but that those presenting the anti-academy view would not necessarily be people who believed in what they were presenting. Students at the school have already organised a petition and refused to attend lessons in an attempt to get their voices heard.

Parents are becoming increasingly worried that Kingsbury High, which under its previous Headteacher was a school renowned for its willingness to engage with stakeholders, is becoming more and more aloof from them. The ‘Kingsburian’ ideals that everyone was so proud of for so many years seems to be disappearing fast, a chasm is opening up with Governors and senior management on one side and the school’s staff, parents, pupils and local community groups on the other.

New blue bins: PR and PRoblems

The new blue topped dry recycling bins are being delivered around the borough but already there appear to be some teething problems. See Shahrar Ali's posting on  Brent Greens blog for details.

Primary expansion programme hit by delays

Brent's primary school expansion programme has had a patchy start this month. Preston Manor Primary School is not yet ready and will not be completed until half-term. Places have been offered instead at the temporary building in Ashley Gardens and the children will transfer later. Not the best start for young children settling into school for the first time.

Building work at Brentfield Primary which is expanding has been disrupted because asbestos has been found resulting in part of the building being cordoned off. It is reported that some parents have temporarily removed their children from the school because they fear for their safety.

Brent personnel are dealing with the issue as a priority and there may be an impact on the timetable for completion of some of the 'bulge' classes being installed for the children currently without a school place.

Although the asbestos find is a one off, the problems do draw attention to the impact of cuts on Council services. School building works used to be managed by the Asset Management department of Children and Families  but to increase efficiency this was merged with other council departments to create the Major Projects and Regeneration Department. However at the same time a number of posts were deleted and key staff were lost from the Asset Management department. Insiders report that although the merger has resulted in a more coherent strategy that staff are considerably over-stretched due to the large number of projects underway.  Time pressures on the provision of more school places and the variety and number of the projects undertaken means that when something goes wrong it has a knock-on effect.

It would be interesting to know if the savings made by the staffing reduction have been exceeded by the additional costs of delayed projects. The social cost of children not attending school whilst hard to express in financial terms must also be taken into account.

Highgate Ward by-election result

This is the result of yesterday's by-election in Camden.

Result

• Anthony Denyer, Conservatives: 593
• Martin Hay, Liberal Democrats: 111
• Sally Gimson, Labour Party: 1,178
• Alexis Rowell Green Party: 947

Turnout: 34.26%

Waxman digs heels in under parent pressure on academy ballot

Jeremy Waxman gave an adroit performance at tonight's academy meeting at Kingsbury High School, which was arranged after Tuesday's public meeting, but he left parents dissatisfied. He rejected their call for an independent Yes/No ballot on whether the school should become and academy, and said that the postal survey he was conducting was a more 'nuanced' way of gathering opinion. In the face of repeated calls for a ballot and criticism of the allegedly biased wording of the survey he dug his heels in and insisted that was the form of consultation he had chosen and that a ballot was not a suitable way of gauging opinion. Waxman said he would consider allowing parents to use the Parent E-Mail system to send out information.

Reminded that the teachers unions said they would call off threatened strike action if he agreed to a ballot of parents he said that the teachers' strike vote had been about conditions of service and that the two issues should not be coupled together. He told parents that he was meeting with unions tomorrow and that he was offering a binding agreement that the proposed academy would follow the National Model Agreement on Conditions of Service. Under questioning he said that he was prepared to remove the clause that allowed the employer to rescind the agreement. He admitted that all this was subject to the National Agreement continuing and there were murmers from the floor that Michael Gove wanted to get rid of it.

Waxman went on to say that the school would follow the Local Authority Admissions Code and would be subject to the same rules about admitting SEN pupils as other local schools. He insisted that Kingsbury would continue to work in partnership with other schools and that part of  Kingsbury's academy submission was that it would support The Village School. Its role in the local sporting partnership would continue.

He was strongly challenged about whether he could offer any guarantees at all as he would not be headteacher for ever and government policies and legislation changed.

When parents claimed that the information given out by the school was one sided and that the opposing case had not been given equal billing he responded that after carefully weighing up the options he was doing was what was best for the school. He was unapologetic that his material 'made the case' for academy status because 'that is the stage we are at'.  He insisted that becoming an academy was in the interests of the pupils and the local community. He was challenged that this only meant the pupils at the school now and not future pupils and that his idea of community was only the immediate area around the school: the whole community of Brent should be involved as changes would affect the future of children still in primary school or not yet born.  Kingsbury becoming an academy would take funds away from the central budget so other schools, and particularly primaries would suffer as a consequence.

Time and time again Waxman returned to the necessity of the additional funding to preserve the 6th form as a consequence of the equalisation of further education and school funding. He was warned that as more schools became academies and with free schools being given a disproportionate share of the education budget the funding advantage would soon disappear.

Questioned about consultation with students Jeremy Waxman said that he had held some talks but they were poorly attended but there had been assemblies on the subject. Senior staff had presented the arguments and not necessarily the ones they agreed with. Pressed on the need for a balanced debate he said that there would be two school parliament sessions devoted to the issue for 11-14  and 15-19 year olds.

Waxman said that the academies programme was not one that he favoured politically but the government was committed to all secondary schools eventually converting. and that this was the right time to become an academy. Neighbouring schools in Harrow, and Claremont in Brent,  had already taken the decision and he did not want to be the last to go. The way to avoid what happened to Wembley High and Willesden High when the majority of secondary schools in Brent became grant maintained was for all to convert. . He thought that all the secular secondary schools in Brent would eventually do so and that they watching carefully  what happened to Kingsbury.

Brent children agreed with Unicef 8 years ago

I was not surprised by Unicef's report published yesterday which concluded that UK children were caught in a 'materialist trap' in which parents felt pressurised to buy goods for their children. Children themselves said their their happiness depended on having more time with their families and having plenty to do outdoors.

I was involved in a consultation in 2003 on the Green Paper called Every Child Matters. The paper followed a number of high profile inquiries into the deaths of children, including some which took place in Brent. We brought together children from primary schools across Brent to hear their views on what would make them feel safe, secure and enable them to develop fully.

One of the most striking comments, that received support from pupils irrespective of the schools from which they came, was a concern that their parents had to work long hours and thus had less time to spend with their children. More than that the children also reflected on the quality of the time they they did have their parents. They described their parents as exhausted when they did get home and often irritated or short-tempered. One child said that this was when their mum or dad ended up hitting them when they did eventually get back from work.

Unicef suggest that the buying of branded goods is a way of parents compensating for the lack of time they spend with their children. In 2003 those children, now teenagers, had a simple solution. They said that wages were too low and that their parents had to work long hours or have several jobs in order to pay the bills. They said wages should be higher so that their parents could work a shorter day. They said that they would prefer to have fewer toys and gadgets and more quality time with their parents.

We are caught up in a long working hours, low wage economy with many parents working at several small jobs to earn enough to care for their family. I know of women who clean before school, work in a school in the kitchen or as a dinner lady during the day, and do an evening shift on a supermarket till in the evening. In some ways this low wage-long hours economy is supported by the tax and benefit system so that low wages are 'topped up'. Private companies are in effect subsidised and so can continue to pay low wages and maximise their profits.

As a headteacher I was always ambivalent about extended school hours that were seen as 'working parent' friendly but could see children in a school from 8am at a Breakfast Club until 6pm at an Afterschool Club - a 10 hour days for children replicating the parents' long working hours. Such provision is being eagerly advertised by academies and free schools - but at what expense to the child?

This is why the Green Party's policy on a Living Wage is so essential as a way of beginning to break out of the cycle. However Coalition policies are worsening the situation for children in many ways with cuts impacting on everything from play facilities to the ability to stay on at school to study. The housing benefit cap will have a major impact on low wage families and in Brent we are already seeing private landlords giving families notice to quit and an increase in the number forced into bed and breakfast accommodation.

Back in 2004  in reaction to the Green Paper the Mayor published a strategy document entitled 'Making London Better for All Children and Young People' - the 'All' is vital. It included the following aims:

All London’s children should have opportunities to:
• influence decisions about their city
• express their opinions on the kind of city they want
• participate in family, community and social life
• benefit from good quality, child-focused services such as health, education, social care, and housing
• be protected from exploitation, violence and abuse
• walk safely in the streets on their own
• meet friends and play
• enjoy green spaces for plants and animals
• live in an unpolluted environment
• participate in cultural events
• live as equal citizens of their city with access to every service,regardless of ethnic origin, race, religion, income, gender, disability or sexuality
 In the light of the discussions taking place in the wake of the riots we could do worse that revisit this document and renew the dialogue with children about their experiences and aspirations. As Kate Mulley, head of policy development and research at Action for Children said in reaction to the Unicef report 'The government needs to stop just hearing young people and actually listen to them'.

A child-friendly version of the Mayor's strategy is HERE

Kingsbury High academy battle intensifies

Parents from Kingbury High School decided last night to seek an independent ballot of parents on the school's bid to convert to academy status with the ballot to be accompanied by information giving the case for and against conversion. They also voted to support the strike by teachers if their demands were not met.

This meeting supports the teachers of Kingsbury High School. We request an independently overseen secret ballot of parents’ views on academy status for KHS where parents vote YES/NO after hearing unbiased arguments for and against. We also request a consultation of the wider community, including feeder and other local schools, councillors, local residents and students. We request that there is a pause in the academy application process to allow this full and thorough consultation to take place. We declare that if our request for a parental ballot is not met, then we will be supporting the teachers who decide to take strike action.

In turn the teachers' professional associations said that they would withdraw their strike threat if the school organised an independent ballot of parents. They promised to accept the outcome of a fairly conducted ballot.

Shortly after the meeting concluded the headteacher, Jeremy Waxman, sent this letter to parents via e-mail:

Thank you to all of you who attended our Academy consultation meetings last week. I very much enjoyed discussing this important issue with you.

I was asked at one of the meetings if there would be an opportunity for follow up questions, especially for those who may have attended this week's separately organised event on Tuesday evening.

I am pleased to say that there will be two opportunities this Thursday evening (15th September): one at 6.30pm and another at 7.30pm in the Upper School Hall.

You will know from my previous letter that, after careful thought, I have formed the view that Academy status is in the best interests of Kingsbury High and the communities we are proud to serve. I would therefore be very keen to answer any queries you have. Please do come along if you would like to discuss things further.

This offer is unlikely to satisfy parents as it does not answer the demand for an independent ballot and reiterates Waxman's determination to go ahead with the academy. He will answer questions about becoming an academy but consider parents' arguments against conversion.

His approach has been to insist on his right to put the case for conversion and refuse to give equal weight to the case against and ignore the views of staff who voted 84.5% against conversion. Parents at the meeting were scornful of the school's parent survey which was openly biased towards the conversion case with the first question asking "What do you feel are the advantages of becoming an academy?" and the last asking parents what they would like the extra money gained by becoming an academy to be spent on. The survey would fail an A level Sociology examination!

In a strengthening of Labour's position, Cllr Sandra Kabir (Queensbury ward) pledged the support of the three Queensbury councillors; Mary Arnold (lead member for children and families) and Ann John (leader of Brent Council) for the campaign against academy conversion. Cllr Kabir said that the meeting was only the first step and that capaigners needed to gear up for what needs to be done. She said, "We will be with you all the way."

Later in the meeting I pointed out that staff, parents and students were only part of the process. I said that the school belongs in the long term to the whole community and that conversion would impact on future students and other schools. Councillors as representatives of the community must provide leadership on the issue and campaign strongly against the breakup of the local community of schools.

Mr Waxmana nd his senior leadership team and Kingsbury governors had all been invited to the meeting so as to have a balanced debate  but only one parent governor attended. She pledged to vote against conversion.

During the debate there were disturbing reports of Kingsbury staff feeling wary of opposing the management for fear of a future impact on their careers. One parent expressed shock that what was once a happy and united school had become one where teachers were frightened of stepping out of line. It was pointed out that Mr Waxman was a champion of pupil voice and that the School Council had been thoroughly involved in discussion about school uniform and the timing of the school day but had been virtually ignored on the academy issue. A student commented that when they had eventually met with Mr Waxman they felt that they had been given one-sided information.

Equally disturbing were reports from academy schools that spoke of special needs children being taught by unqualified staff, of teachers having less time to plan lessons and assess pupils because they were being deployed to cover absences and invigilate examinations, of high staff number (Crest Girls Academy lost 33 teachers at the end of the summer and only one third have been replaced) and a developing culture of bullying of staff by their seniors as well as a breakdown in pupil discipline.

Representatives of the professional associations emphasised that rather than just defending their conditions of service that teachers were convinced that academy status would worsen the quality of teaching and learning in the school through changes in those conditions.

The financial arguments used by Mr Waxman were challenged from the floor. The extra money that he claimed would accrue to the school would be used for buying in services currently provided by the local authority, including those for special needs and the money would evaporate as more school became academies and free schools were set up. Meanwhile other secondary and primary schools in Brent would suffer as the local authority budget was 'top-sliced'. One speaker said that Brent lost £950,000 last year because of this and that 8% of Brent's cuts were attributable to this loss.