The Green Party this weekend agreed to oppose the Royal Mail sell off.
WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Sunday, 15 September 2013
Where next for Green Party policy on education?
My motion instructing the Green Party Policy Committee to initiate a policy development process in the light of Coalition policies, which would result in a a redrafted Education Policy being presented to a future Conference, failed to win a majority today. Part of the process I suggested was to invite contributions from relevant teacher unions, educators and parent campaign groups to help shape the review.
One of the arguments against was that there had been a full and very thorough review in 2007 and that this should not be thrown away. Instead it was argued that a series of amendments should be tabled at a future Conference. It was also argued that the review would take time and may not be ready for the election period.
I believe something far more fundamental is required as you'll see from my speech notes, particularly as the ful schope of the Tory strategy was not evident at the time. . I wanted a far broader and participatory process but if we are to have a relevant policy in place for local elections in 2014 and the General Election in 2015 we must start thinking about amendments for Spring Conference now. The policy is 15 pages long so it is a substantial task. The current policy can be read HERE
These are the notes of my speech (not all of which may have been delivered as set out because of the time constraints in a very rushed debate at the en of the morning session).
One of the arguments against was that there had been a full and very thorough review in 2007 and that this should not be thrown away. Instead it was argued that a series of amendments should be tabled at a future Conference. It was also argued that the review would take time and may not be ready for the election period.
I believe something far more fundamental is required as you'll see from my speech notes, particularly as the ful schope of the Tory strategy was not evident at the time. . I wanted a far broader and participatory process but if we are to have a relevant policy in place for local elections in 2014 and the General Election in 2015 we must start thinking about amendments for Spring Conference now. The policy is 15 pages long so it is a substantial task. The current policy can be read HERE
These are the notes of my speech (not all of which may have been delivered as set out because of the time constraints in a very rushed debate at the en of the morning session).
Declaration of Interests: I am a retired member of the NUT and a retired primary headteacher. I am currently chair of governors of two Brent primary schools and help convene the Brent Governors' Forum. I am a trustee of the Brent Play Association and run Brent School Without Walls, a voluntary organisation that provides free nature and outdoor activities in Fryent Country Park for primary classes and out of school clubs.I want to start by acknowledging the work that went into the current policy and the many good and innovative ideas it contains. Don't blame me for the need for revision - blame Michael Gove!The problem is, as Melissa Benn said at the panel on Friday, we are in a period of profound and unprecedented educational change in terms of both speed and ruthlessness. The post - war settlement is being bulldozed into oblivion.This is not just about individual policies but the neoliberal framework - subordination of education to economic aims and accompanying privatisation and profit making and the commodification of childhood.Michael Gove is stealing our schools, our teachers' professionalism and our children's childhood.Teachers 'deliver' lessons to deliver higher test results to deliver higher league table position and thus deliver us from Ofsted! (Prayer)I am involved with many campaigns with parents, governors and teachers and am often asked, where do you stand, what would you do? I have found the present policy wanting in giving a response.The foundation of our policy needs to be strengthened - rejecting the Coalition's ideology and linking our approach to alternative views on the economy as well as the aims of education and the defence of childhood.Although our policies are Green Government 'aspirational' they have to start with present realities and counter them. Don't protest -demand!Areas for revision:Local authorities fast disappearing regarding role in education - academies & free schools and diminishing school improvement services. We need to think about the 'middle tier' and role of Secretary of State. What democratic structures do we propose beyond the school level. What powers should the Secretary of State have?We need to sharpen our critique of free schools and academies to stress issues around accountability, reinforcing social divisions and marketisation. Do we propose reintegration into a locally accountable community school system as we do with private schools? Should all schools have the same 'freedoms' as academies and free schools.Sure Start - reducing and nature of early years education changing. We need more than 'continuing successful schemes such as Sure Start' what is our vision for the early years?Ofsted - we say 'inspections will be revised' but we need to take account of its increasingly politicised role, the fact that it is privatised (Serco, Tribal) and overlaps with academy chains. What sort of school improvement service do we envisage - role and powers? How does this relate to institutions such as the HMI?In our policy we say that the Inspectorate and LAs will be involved in the monitoring of governing body accountability structures - revision needed in the light of academies and free schools and decline in role of LA.Pupil population expansion - because the Government has said any new school should be an academy or free school, LAs are being forced to expand primary schools with some in urban areas having more than 1,000 4-11 year olds and losing play space and additional rooms such as libraries and halls in the process. Again the role of LA in planning and provision has been undermined so we need to reaffirm their right to build new community schools to cope with the rising population.Teacher education - university level teacher education is rapidly disappearing and being replaced by various 'on the job' training schemes with a neglect (and disparagement) of research, cognitive psychology, philosophy of education etc.I hope I have demonstrated sufficient grounds for revision, but more than this I am convinced that with the right policy, actively campaigned for in communities, teacher organisations, parent groups that we have a chance of building massive support and contributing to success in the forthcoming elections as well as having people flocking to support our campaigns. (I mentioned the successful NUT 'It's Time to Stand Up for Education' rallies aimed at parents, governors, teachers and pupils that were held in Brighton, Nottingham and London yesterday)
Greens discuss key issues on academies and free schools
Introducing the Free Schools and Academies Panel at the Green Party Conference, Natalie Bennett said Green Party policy was simple: we don't agree with free schools and academies and are in favour of community comprehensive, and local and democratically controlled schools
Dr Susanna Wiborg from the Institute of Education spoke about Swedish Free Schools from which Michael Gove derives his model. They have been established for 20 years and are growing quite quickly. They are not just niche schools but a movement spreading rapidly. Why was a social democratic country establishing profit making schools? It was a right wing government that believed that choice was needed.
In the beginning they were seen as way of getting parents involved but actually there was not much interest from parents and there was a move to private providers for profit. In terms of attainment levels, one large research project said pupils did a little better at lower secondary level but this was cancelled out at higher secondary level. There has been discussion about grade inflation accounting for the achievement levels at the lower secondary level and there was a similar pattern in Denmark and Norway. Evidence on comparative cost is not definitive but in some municipalities there are higher costs because of over supply of places due to the free schools and the authority paying for extra spaces in their schools.
Looking for positives, some parents were more involved as they had chosen school at the beginning, and some schools initially were more innovative but now more similar to state schools.
Melissa Benn looked at free schools and academies in broader context of what is happening in English education. It is an exceptional period in terms of the speed and ruthlessness of the 'reform'. The government claimed to be doing it in the name of greater freedom and parents' choice. Free schools get more publicity but academies are more important. Most 'voluntary' conversions were for the additional money not freedoms. Forced academies increasing as a result of the government using the standards agenda for political ends.
This produces instability and the government's strategy is changing the life and craft of teachers. They are using the 'enemy of promise' label for an enormous and increasing number of groups including the NAHT, governors and academics. The Canadian ideal is 'reform without rancour. Ours is reform with rancour.
In the UK we set up a divided system post-war and this led to resistance to comprehensivisation. Labour was divided with Blair and Adonis against comprehensives. Benn said her allies on education were in the Green Party rather than the Labour Party.
We need to look at the increased segregation caused by academies and free schools and look over the horizon to what we want: less test based, less rote learning, stronger teacher education system, emphasis on the oral and a return to every school having a balanced intake.
Commenting on Green Party policy she said there was a contradiction between locally based schools and having a balanced intake. She emphasised the importance of funding as an issue.
Sue Shanks, Brighton and Hove lead member for Children and Young people said she joined the Green Party because of its education policy. There were no free schools then. She said the problem is that we have a policy against free schools and academies and a Govenment that wants us to have them. She had been accused locally of having principles that get in the way of school place provision. The city had no converter academies and there was no great push from parents for academisation. The DfE were trying to persuade them to have academies and free schools. At present there was no major pressure on school places in comparison with the crisis elsewhere but there were some areas of difficulty.
Shanks said there was great concern about the issue in local government. She recognised that the Green Party want more diversity but LA can't decide what free schools to approve. She finished by saying that Brighton and Hove Council were determined to keep the role of the education authority and maintain core services to schools.
Discussion afterwards included some affecting descriptions of the impact of Gove's policies from education practitioners and parents as well as testimony from a former student of an 'outstanding' school whose personal experience was that it may have done well academically but it cared little for pupils' well being.
Contributions were made about the problems faced by pupils with special needs under the current regime as well as some parents rejecting state schools for their children because of the testing regime and narrow curriculum.
One core issue was that we have never had fully comprehensive education in this country and another that some schools managed to be creative with a broad curriculum despite the current setup.
I asked what sort of structures we wanted to ensure democratic accountability in the light of increasing numbers of academies and shrinking of local authorities.
Disappointingly, Christine Blower, General Secretary of the NUT was unable to join the panel.
Friday, 13 September 2013
Protest at Brent Council's 'High Risk' Meals on Wheels changes
From Brent Fightback (see my previous posting on this proposal HERE)
ie. most vulnerable, elderly and sick could be left without access to meals!
Thursday, 12 September 2013
The Sulivan school scandal should shame Michael Gove and galvanise the Green Party
 |
| The outdoor space currently enjoyed by Sulivan children |
 |
On Saturday I will be moving a motion calling for the revision of Green Party Education Policy in the light of the enormous changes brought about by the Coalition government.
Down in Fulham in South West London a battle is raging which epitomises these issues. Sulivan Primary is a local authority school rated Good with outstanding features by Ofsted. It is a small school with a form entry of 45 children. It is strongly supported by its parents who rate its care for pupils, accessibility for SEN and disabled children, and the amazing learning opportunities provided by its large play areas and outdoor science laboratory.
Just the kind of child-centred community school that we in the Green Party would like to be the norm.
 |
| Save Our Sullivan campaigners at Hammersmith Town Hall |
In a further twist it wants to close Sulivan and transfer pupils to New Kings School, a one form entry school which is committed to become a privately sponsored academy.
At present there is spare capacity at Sulivan (overall 89% full but at capacity in younger classes) the closure/merger would actually reduce the overall number of school places at a time when an increase in demand is projected. The merged school would have a 2 form entry (60 children) against the current joint entry of 75.
Closure of Sulivan will enable the borough to divest itself of a local authority school and will satisfy Gove with another academy and free school to add to the empire which is accountable only to him.
Not surprisingly teachers and parents have risen up against this proposal and organised themselves into a effective lobbying force. At a recent meeting about the closure, attended by parents, teachers, residents and governors there was standing room only with the attendance estimated at between 250 and 300.
An account of the meeting can be found HERE . Among the contributions was one by the mother of a child with impaired mobility who said that the single storey Sulivan was accessible for her child. She feared segregation at the Victorian New Kings, even if a lift were fitted.
A child bravely got up in front of the panel and large audience and, praising her headteacher and teacher several times, said that she loved he school and that she and other children would do everything they could to save it. She got huge applause from the audience but only a 'we'll bear what you say in mind' from the chair.
A teacher pressed the question, 'Please explain – with evidence and examples - how you know that this amalgamation will provide a better education for the children.' and never got a satisfactory answer. Because of course this is not a decision that will be made on educational grounds but one made to further Gove's agenda of dismantling democratically controlled and accountable schools and opening the system up for privatisation and eventual profit making.
The dismissal of parents' views (unless they are parents who want to set up free school), ignoring of children's interests, and undemocratic procedures and sham consultations are all consistent with what teachers, parents and governors are experiencing with converter academies and forced academies.
The Green Party must stand alongside local campaigners on these issues.
Follow Save Our Sulivan on Twitter @SaveOurSulivan
Wednesday, 11 September 2013
Brent Council refuse to recognise the community value of the Queensbury Pub
Guest blog from the Save the QueensburyGroup. It really does seem to be The People against The Developers (Kensal Rise Library, Willesden Green Library, Queensbury Pub) with Brent Council unable or unwilling to stand up for local people - and seemingly subservient to the developers.
The Save The Queensbury group is very disappointed that the pub has not been added to Brent Council’s list of Assets of Community Value. Our nomination (via the NW2 Residents Association) was refused following a 15 page letter from the Fairview Homes law firm to Brent Council and we are now considering whether to try for a third time.
We are disappointed that Brent Council did not recognise and agree that the site of the pub has been an important resource in our community since 1925. The regulations on ACVs ask whether a property has community use currently or at any time in the recent past. We were confident that because the building has been a social club between 1925-2012 and a pub since 2000 it would reasonably meet that criteria. After all many pubs already listed elsewhere are actually closed, often by developers who want to build flats. This is precisely why these regulations were introduced.
We are also disappointed that Brent Council did not agree that the Busy Rascals activities for toddlers and the National Childbirth Trust meetings for parents both reflect the pub’s place in the community. Fairview argued that this is not a normal use of a pub, claiming it actually contravened the pub’s lease and sought to discount it for ACV purposes. Brent council seem to agree. Let’s remember that Fairview have strenuously and persistently sought to undermine Busy Rascals and the pub, at every turn.
Aside from current use, there is also a test as to the future use of a building over the next five years. We argued that the pub has a lease until 2017 so it’s a no-brainer? We also stated that there is no permission for anything other than community / social club / pub use. Plus there are no current plans before the council to change this. But, again, Brent listened to Fairview Homes who said that they have no intention of opening the building for community use and every intention of demolishing it. As far as we can tell there is nothing in regulations about a landowner’s intention and desire, otherwise surely no building would be listed if an owner could simply say they wanted to demolish it?
We put a lot into our nominations. We took advice and we looked at other successful nominations of pubs and other buildings. What we got in return was a convoluted process which heavily favoured Fairview Homes (they had two weeks to respond to our nomination and we were afforded two days). We are a small, voluntary group without the expertise and resource of a multinational law firm. Yet we did address Fairview’s points and were confident that our nomination met the criteria and Brent had a duty to list it.
It really is an uphill struggle, so we’re taking stock and considering our next moves, but we’re certainly not giving up in our fight to save The Queensbury.
The Save The Queensbury group is very disappointed that the pub has not been added to Brent Council’s list of Assets of Community Value. Our nomination (via the NW2 Residents Association) was refused following a 15 page letter from the Fairview Homes law firm to Brent Council and we are now considering whether to try for a third time.
We are disappointed that Brent Council did not recognise and agree that the site of the pub has been an important resource in our community since 1925. The regulations on ACVs ask whether a property has community use currently or at any time in the recent past. We were confident that because the building has been a social club between 1925-2012 and a pub since 2000 it would reasonably meet that criteria. After all many pubs already listed elsewhere are actually closed, often by developers who want to build flats. This is precisely why these regulations were introduced.
We are also disappointed that Brent Council did not agree that the Busy Rascals activities for toddlers and the National Childbirth Trust meetings for parents both reflect the pub’s place in the community. Fairview argued that this is not a normal use of a pub, claiming it actually contravened the pub’s lease and sought to discount it for ACV purposes. Brent council seem to agree. Let’s remember that Fairview have strenuously and persistently sought to undermine Busy Rascals and the pub, at every turn.
Aside from current use, there is also a test as to the future use of a building over the next five years. We argued that the pub has a lease until 2017 so it’s a no-brainer? We also stated that there is no permission for anything other than community / social club / pub use. Plus there are no current plans before the council to change this. But, again, Brent listened to Fairview Homes who said that they have no intention of opening the building for community use and every intention of demolishing it. As far as we can tell there is nothing in regulations about a landowner’s intention and desire, otherwise surely no building would be listed if an owner could simply say they wanted to demolish it?
We put a lot into our nominations. We took advice and we looked at other successful nominations of pubs and other buildings. What we got in return was a convoluted process which heavily favoured Fairview Homes (they had two weeks to respond to our nomination and we were afforded two days). We are a small, voluntary group without the expertise and resource of a multinational law firm. Yet we did address Fairview’s points and were confident that our nomination met the criteria and Brent had a duty to list it.
So what next?
This is a small chapter in a battle to save both The Queensbury pub and the activities of Busy Rascals by preserving a landmark building in a conservation area. But we have little expertise, limited resource, not much local Councillor support and a developer with a lot of money at stake and a huge legal resource to lobby and bully the council.It really is an uphill struggle, so we’re taking stock and considering our next moves, but we’re certainly not giving up in our fight to save The Queensbury.
48 hours to secure the right to know about local air pollution
From 38degees
The air we breathe has a direct impact on our health. But the government is trying to push through damaging changes which remove the responsibility for local authorities to assess air pollution and declare where it is a problem.
If the government's successful, you won’t be able to find out what the air is like in your local area. Or hold local authorities to account if it’s at unsafe levels. Which currently you’re able to do. And as usual it’s the poorest who will suffer the most - poorer areas have dirtier air and so are likely to feel the health impacts. These changes would leave poorer people, and particularly children, paying the price.
The government’s being sneaky. They’ve launched a consultation during the summer holidays, hoping that the public won’t cotton on and they can slip the changes through. Together we can do something about this: if enough of us respond to the consultation they’ll realise how important this is to people. Together we can stop the changes before they get too far.
The consultation closes in 48 hours on the 13th September. It only takes a few minutes to respond. Please click here:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/air-quality
Air pollution causes 29,000 early deaths a year in the UK – more than obesity and alcohol combined. It causes heart attacks, strokes, respiratory disease and children living near busy roads have been shown to grow up with underdeveloped lungs. It doesn’t really make much sense, but the government is trying to pretend that taking away duties to measure pollution would lead to more action on air pollution, and an increased focus on EU requirements. In reality the changes would mean that we would know less about the air we breathe and so less will be done to improve it.
The government is trying to slip this through under the radar because they’re already feeling the pressure. They’ve been taken to court by environmental lawyers to push them to do the right thing.
Environmental lawyers, ClientEarth, think a big display of public opposition could make all the difference to how the government responds. Please click the link to write in to the consultation, it’s really simple and will only take 3 minutes:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/air-quality
This is the message I posted on the website:
Please don't push through damaging changes which remove all responsibility for local authorities to measure air quality and declare where it is a problem (options 3 and 4 in your consultation).
As a former teacher and headteacher in the inner city I kept track of air quality in order to advise children and families, particularly those already suffering from asthma and allergies, of periods when they would be liable to have respiratory problems..
Where I live in Brent, with main roads including the North Circular, and areas of poor air quality around Park Royal, Wembley and Neasden, local people have a right to know the quality of the air they and their children breathe. This gives them the knowledge to take personal preventative action as well as to make representations through the political process, locally and nationally.
Be responsible - don't remove these responsibilities.
The air we breathe has a direct impact on our health. But the government is trying to push through damaging changes which remove the responsibility for local authorities to assess air pollution and declare where it is a problem.
If the government's successful, you won’t be able to find out what the air is like in your local area. Or hold local authorities to account if it’s at unsafe levels. Which currently you’re able to do. And as usual it’s the poorest who will suffer the most - poorer areas have dirtier air and so are likely to feel the health impacts. These changes would leave poorer people, and particularly children, paying the price.
The government’s being sneaky. They’ve launched a consultation during the summer holidays, hoping that the public won’t cotton on and they can slip the changes through. Together we can do something about this: if enough of us respond to the consultation they’ll realise how important this is to people. Together we can stop the changes before they get too far.
The consultation closes in 48 hours on the 13th September. It only takes a few minutes to respond. Please click here:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/air-quality
Air pollution causes 29,000 early deaths a year in the UK – more than obesity and alcohol combined. It causes heart attacks, strokes, respiratory disease and children living near busy roads have been shown to grow up with underdeveloped lungs. It doesn’t really make much sense, but the government is trying to pretend that taking away duties to measure pollution would lead to more action on air pollution, and an increased focus on EU requirements. In reality the changes would mean that we would know less about the air we breathe and so less will be done to improve it.
The government is trying to slip this through under the radar because they’re already feeling the pressure. They’ve been taken to court by environmental lawyers to push them to do the right thing.
Environmental lawyers, ClientEarth, think a big display of public opposition could make all the difference to how the government responds. Please click the link to write in to the consultation, it’s really simple and will only take 3 minutes:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/air-quality
This is the message I posted on the website:
Please don't push through damaging changes which remove all responsibility for local authorities to measure air quality and declare where it is a problem (options 3 and 4 in your consultation).
As a former teacher and headteacher in the inner city I kept track of air quality in order to advise children and families, particularly those already suffering from asthma and allergies, of periods when they would be liable to have respiratory problems..
Where I live in Brent, with main roads including the North Circular, and areas of poor air quality around Park Royal, Wembley and Neasden, local people have a right to know the quality of the air they and their children breathe. This gives them the knowledge to take personal preventative action as well as to make representations through the political process, locally and nationally.
Be responsible - don't remove these responsibilities.
Companies ejected from Arms Fair after Caroline Lucas' intervention
Two companies have been ejected from an arms fair after the Green MP
for Brighton Pavilion raised evidence of breaches of the law in
Parliament.
Caroline Lucas was provided with evidence that items being promoted at the DSEI arms fair currently under way at ExCel were illegal under UK law. They included handheld projectile electric shock weapons, weighted leg cuffs, and stun batons.
She tabled a question in Parliament, and raised a point of order today. DSEI has now confirmed “that the Tianjin Myway International Trading Co. and Magforce International have been ejected from DSEI “
Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion said:
Caroline Lucas was provided with evidence that items being promoted at the DSEI arms fair currently under way at ExCel were illegal under UK law. They included handheld projectile electric shock weapons, weighted leg cuffs, and stun batons.
She tabled a question in Parliament, and raised a point of order today. DSEI has now confirmed “that the Tianjin Myway International Trading Co. and Magforce International have been ejected from DSEI “
Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion said:
It’s frankly disgusting that items like this are being are being promoted at a supposedly legitimate trade event in Britain.
It’s incredibly worrying that it takes a question in Parliament for action to be taken when there was clear evidence of items being promoted illegally. Time and again the organisers of DSEI have shown that they cannot guarantee that exhibitors will remain with the law. The Government is supposed to regulate this event and has shown startling complacency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)