Selection by ability to pay?

Shortly after the Brent Education Debate I was passing the Ark Academy and overheard a parent, application form in hand, saying to his partner, "It is the nearest we can get to sending him to a grammar school." That speaks volumes about how the academies are really seen, despite assurances that they will cater for the whole community.

There are now more secondary school students at the Ark but none have been there long enough to produce any exam results on which parents could base their secondary choice. Apart from the impression of modern resources and facilities, what else do parents base their choices on?

Anecdotally, the lure of 'discipline' seems to figure high with parents. The academy reinforces that with strict rules and long hours. The television screen in the school's reception area portrays all the various hair styles that are not allowed, which when I saw it seemed mainly aimed at Afro-Caribbean children.

Needless to say the children I have spoken to don't always share their parents belief in the 'tough love' approach. I have a worry, with academies in general and free schools, that some sponsors have an underlying mission to discipline and 'civilise' working class and ethnic minority students.

Actual examination results in Ark schools are a mixed bag. In 4 of the 5 Ark schools with a GCSE intake the percentage of pupils gaining 5 A*-C grades this year has fallen since 2011.  Burlington Danes is down from 75% to 64%, Walworth from 69%to 62% and St Alban's from 68% to 50%. Only Charter has increased from 39% to 49%. Of course this is in the context of the marking controversy where I welcome Brent Council's decision to join in the legal challenge.

I have been approached by parents with children in the primary department of Wembley Ark Academy with concerns about the expenses involved in sending their children to Ark. One parent said, "I know the actual schooling is free but we are expected to spend a lot on outings and this can mount up when you have several children at the school."  Many community primary schools subsidise outings as they recognise  that they contribute to a well-rounded education and should be open to all children.

The  Wembley and Willesden Observer this week (Parents find uniforms a cost too far, page 5) quotes Judy Watson whose 11 year old twins joined Ark at the beginning of this year on the high cost of school uniform:

I had to buy a blazer for each of them, which was about £60, and a sweatshirt, they had to have bags with the school logo on and a tracksuit for PE s well. They are running the school like a private school and not every parent can afford it.

She contrasted this with the reasonably priced uniform at primary school and the ability to buy low-priced essential from supermarkets.  I have covered the case for generic uniforms before on this blog LINK

The grammar school system was a selective system based on the 11+ examination. My mother always bitterly regretted that despite passing the 11+ she was not allowed to go on to grammar school because her family couldn't afford the uniform. Selection by 'ability' was also affected by 'ability to pay'.

In a time of austerity don't schools have a  duty to make sure that 'ability to pay' is not a factor in school choice?

Record fine for flouting Brent planning laws

What Future for Brent Schools? Video of recent debate

Many thanks to Pete Murry of Brent Green Party for filming the second half of the What Future for Brent Schools debate. The video picks up after the presentations by the panel and the initial questions and statements from the audience.

The panel is from left to right (physically, not politically!) Cllr Mary Arnold, Brent Council leader member  for children and families;  Martin Francis Brent Green Party spokesperson on children and families; (Gill Wood, local parent, governor and chair); Jon O'Connor, Cooperative College; Melissa Benn author and governor and Hank Roberts, National President, ATL.

Butt on the rack says "We want to go back to what Labour stands for"

Speaking at an open meeting of Brent Trades Union Council yesterday evening, Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt admitted that some of the decisions the  council had made could have been made more wisely and that things could have been done differently. He said that he wants to take residents' views into account more in the future and that desire had caused some 'push back', which had culminated in the argument with Gareth Daniel.

He said that he wanted to take a detailed look at the council's budget, "How we provide services and why, reviewing every service."  He said that all directly employed council workers would receive the London Living Wage from October 1st  and that the council would be writing to schools to urge them to pay the LLW. He would be meeting with the London Living Wage Foundation to find ways of ensuring all the council's suppliers were London Living Wage compliant. He said that given the current difficult times the council had to do something positive to put money in people's pockets.

Other initiatives were to look at tenancies and how the council could improve standards without increasing rents, extend collective  energy procurement to include residents as well as council buildings and schools, and find ways of strengthening voluntary organisations such as the Credit Union, Private Tenants Group and the Law Centre.

He said, "We want to go back to what Labour stands for and why we are here."

In the discussion Butt was urged to recognise that the Labour Party was much more than just a council, it was part of the labour movement, and thus should be a campaigning  organisation against the capitalist system. He was asked how he was planning to organise a fightback alongside trades unions and the community.

Butt responded, "Me being here is just a start. I am willing to go anywhere, whether to a warm reception or a hostile one, to have a dialogue."

 He said that the Labour Group had appointed a new local organiser who would help get their message across and have a dialogue to move things forward, "We are starting campaigning and need to raise awareness. We want to make that change and if we don't our residents will suffer."

Asked about the budget process and council tax increases and urged to construct a needs budget as a campaigning tool,  he said that with the changes in the consultation system (The Area Consultation Forums have been replaced by Brent Connects) with a member/officer Any Questions type panel there would be more of a dialogue. Council Tax rises of 2.5% and 3.5% had been factored into budget planning but the council were waiting to see what other London councils were doing. The government's announcement of the settlement had been delayed until December but the council wanted an  indication before then. The council were also lobbying the government over the additional 60,000-70,000 extra residents indicated by the latest census which could be worth an additional £4m . This could negate the need for a rise in council tax because the council would only get 65% of the money raised by an increase He indicated that because of the delays the statutory consultation may run out of time.  He invited people to feed specific suggestions and questions into the budget making process.

When others present pursued the issue of making a needs based budget (ie deficit budget)  Cllr Butt said they were looking at campaigning  against the cuts. However, "We can oppose the cuts but budgets have to be set. We wouldn't be doing anyone any favours if the commissioners came in. They would keep only statutory services such as schools and adult social care. We would lose Sports Centres for example. We would land ourselves in more problems by taking that route. Instead we will have a dialogue which may mean working with other London boroughs. If you are asking us to take a lead, we will take a lead."

Outlining the sums the council needed to run services he said that government funding to Brent  was now £152m, was £192m, and by 2016 would be £110m.  Schools and Adult Social Care took £140m of this. The council needed £250m to run services so this total had to be made up from Council Tax and fees and charges.

Another speaker told Butt that a needs budget could not be set in the Town Hall, the council need to go out to voluntary organisations, trades unions and community groups - that was real democracy. He claimed that Labour had "forgotten what democracy looks like". In the absence of a fightback all sorts of rightwing nastiness and racism could arise.

Another speaker returned to the issue asking, "Are you considering a needs budget. It is a good propaganda tool showing what is needed and where the gaps are. Are you considering this or just administering cuts? We can't wait for the next Labour government. We need concrete exmaples of how you are going to fight."

Butt said that he was not ruling out a needs budget which would "show how much we have lost and how much we need". . Muhammed's new political advisor  he would be lobbying the Labour Party over how much cash needs to be put back into local government after the disproportionate cuts it had suffered.

On the issue of Willesden Green Library, raised by three members of the audience, Cllr Butt  said that he had met with Keep Willesden Green campaigners and had passed on their concerns to Galliford Try, planners and the Regeneration Team, and their points will be taken into consideration for the new plans being presented in December.. He said that the old Willesen Library was now being retained and this meant internal redesigns. The council were still looking at 92 private units at the back of the site and this was the only way to fund it.

He was challenged with  the alternative of a small amount of building and refurbishment and the loss of the cinema,  bookshop and car park in the current plans.   The questioner said, "It's like saying I need a new boiler so I will knock my house down! I've heard it called asset stripping."  Butt responded that a lot of the 'stuff' in the 80s building had come to the end of its natural life and the building was unfinished. The cafe and cinema  had closed as a result of not being used. "We need a mini Civic Centre in Willesden so people from this area don't have to travel all the way to Wembley and we need it an no cost to us."

On the plight of the disabled he said that he took the point about how they were being hit and that he was looking at helping them through the Council Tax Support Scheme: "If we have to lobby the government we will do so."

In answer to another questioner about the council's ambivalent attitude to free schools and academies and a possible forced academy in the borough, Butt said that they were a last resort to address the shortage of school places. He said that for free schools the council had set out criteria for partners that would keep the essential principles in terms of admissions, ethos and teachers conditions of service. He was urged to consider federation of schools and extending schools as an alternative.

Asked about the Counihan family, Muhammed Butt said that it was a difficult case. Brent had 18,000 families on the waiting list and only 900 properties available. The council hoped to provide 1,700 affordable properties by 2014. He said the only way  to tackle the problem was through regeneration and Section 106 funds  and the council needed to find developer partners. The situation would be exacerbated by the new Right to Buy scheme which would take out larger properties.

Clr Butt concluded by saying that the council had been rubbished by the press and had to admit it had got its messages wrong: "We need to get better, even if it means starting from scratch."

Pete Firm, chair of Brent TUC said that he felt the council were rolling over in front of developers. Labour seemed to be assuming it was going to win the next election, However, it should not be a matter of voting Labour because the alternatives were worse but Labour putting forward policies that people would be enthusiastic about.

Brent Council joins in GCSE judicial review call

Brent Council has  confirmed it will be joining other local authorities in an attempt to seek a judicial review into the altering of grade boundaries for GCSE examinations between January and June this year.

The council took the decision after conducting a thorough survey of predicted and actual GCSE pass grades among all of its secondary schools which found that as many as 100 students who sat exams in June were adversely affected by the grade boundaries being reset.

Brent's Lead Member for Children and Families, Cllr. Mary Arnold said:

"We believe that the AQA and Edexcel exam boards altered their grades between January and June of this year which resulted in a marked difference in students' predicted and actual grades. On behalf of the hundred or so students affected in Brent and the many thousands of other young people across England we are whole heartedly behind the legal challenge to Ofqual for a thorough investigation into this matter."

A formal joint letter of complaint, to which Brent is signatory, was issued to Ofqual on 20 September calling for a judicial review into the increase in grade boundaries.

Clive Heaphy spoke out on Brent school victims of IT scams

Yesterday I tweeted about Brent schools being featured on Panorama's 'Reading, Writing and Rip-offs' last night. This was based on a circular from the council to headteachers.

In fact Brent weren't mentioned as such but Brent schools have had similar experiences, although not as expensive as some reported.

Clive Heaphy  Brent Director of Finance (since suspended while allegations of gross misconduct are investigated) spoke to the Times Educational Supplement about it earlier this year and reported on this blog LINK

Furness Primary is being sued by a finance company for £301,083 plus interest calculated at £14,579 in April and still rising. But Brent Council said the equipment involved was worth just £9,150 when it was sold off by the finance company in February.

Kensal Rise Primary is being sued by the same company for £287,000. Both schools have made counterclaims for money they say they have already paid “in error” - £805,000 in the case of Kensal Rise. The same school has also received a more recent claim from a second finance company for £253,000.

Brent says schools have been tempted into such deals by offers of up to £15,000 “cash back” a quarter from equipment suppliers that make initial lease repayments appear more favourable than the real long-term cost. Clive Heaphy, the authority’s finance director, said that primary heads were not always “business savvy” and cannot always “see through” such offers.

Given the political disagreement about academies Heaphy was very clear with his warning:

 “Inevitably there is a recipe there for difficult times ahead and potentially for some mismanagement issues and possibly some fraud issues,” he told TES, adding that increased autonomy for local authority schools had already made it much harder for town halls to guard against them misusing public money.

“I still retain personal accountability for schools’ finances and yet I see less and less data and have fewer and fewer levers to be able to do anything about it,” Mr Heaphy said. “There is very little action in reality you can take.”

On academies he said: “The only watchdog over them is the Department for Education itself. We have no relationship with them, but who does?”

 

Brent LINk vote against Central Middlesex A&E Closure

After a debate between Dr Mark Spencer of NW London NHS and Graham Durham of the Brent Patients Campaign, Brent LINk members and any public attending, voted to oppose the closure of Central Middlesex A&E. There were two abstentions and no votes against.

In the course of the debate Dr Spencer repeatedly failed to answer Graham Durham's request for him to explain why he had stated in a BBC interview before the consultation began that four Accident and Emergency units would have to close in NW London.  Dr Spencer also admitted that despite the rise in the number of children in Brent schools and the importance of child health, that schools, headteachers and governing bodies had not been consulted.

There will be another chance for the public to make their views known when the 'Shaping a Healthier Future' roadshow comes to Harlesden Methodist Church on Saturday September 29th. The Q&A session will be from 11am until 12 noon.

Will Sarah Teather MP  come and hear what her constituents have to say about the proposals so that she can champion their views in the House of Commons?

Reading, Writing and Rip-offs and Brent Schools tonight

BBC Panorama tonight at 8.30pm, BBC1 apparently includes section on Brent schools exploited by IT companies: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n2t2f