Councils need powers to build new schools - new campaign needs your support

I was pleased to see Green Party leader Natalie Bennett tweet her support to the new School Places Crisis campaign to Kevin Courtney, Deputy General Secretary of the NUT. The campaign calls for local authorities to get back the power to plan for the increased demand for school places and build new community schools.

At present Coalition policy under Michael Gove restricts any new schools to academies or free schools outside the control of local authorities.  In a posting on this two weeks ago I said LINK

Local authorities have the local knowledge to plan new schools where they are most needed and the expertise and resources to ensure that such schools are fit for purpose, have access to school support services and are professionally staffed so that they hit the ground running.  Free schools, even if they happen to be provided in areas of shortage (and many are not), do not have these guarantees.

Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide education and parents have a legal duty to ensure that their children attend school. Gove's policy, despite all his protestations, is actually thwarting both, and in the process damaging children.

At present in Brent we lack -3.2% of school places which will become -10.3% by 2016-17.

The Campaign says:

The way school places are organised changed dramatically when the Academies Act gained Royal Assent in 2010. Up until this point local authorities played a pivotal role in planning for, commissioning and providing high quality places for pupils across the country. This is no longer the case.

Local authorities have lost the power to open new schools and their budgets have been slashed. A Free School can now be set up anywhere at the whim of the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove. The problem with this is that it doesn't take into account local need or demand, or even the potential surplus of school places in any given area.

And that's why the UK is now facing a shortfall in quality school places. In London, this could be up to 23% by 2016.

Sounds scary? It is. But the solution is beautifully simple:

GIVE   THE   POWER   TO   COMMISSION   AND   BUILD   SCHOOLS   BACK   TO   LOCAL   AUTHORITIES

The Government must ensure that any extra places provided are quality places. All children deserve to be taught by a qualified teacher. They also deserve to be taught in an appropriate environment – it would be wrong to cram more children into already crowded classrooms.
The local authority still has a responsibility for education for all local children, but they cannot guarantee high quality school places without the ability to plan for the future, build schools or reduce school size where needed. Can you contact your MP to let them know your concerns?

The site has a link for you to  write to your MP and  to sign a petition. If we want to secure quality, planned and democratically controlled education for our children we should support this campaign.

Twitter link @placescrisis  Website: http://www.theschoolplacescrisis.com/

Brent Council to rely on volunteers for Meals on Wheels provision

Brent Executive approved the handing over of the provision of Meals on Wheels and meals at Day Care Centres to the voluntary sector this evening. There were passionate speeches by Brent Fightback and Labour Party members Michael Calderbank and Graham Durham expressing concern over the proposals and posing some incisive questions. Their speeches caused Cllr Pavey to hesitate saying they had raised legitimate concerns and Cllr Denselow said that he could see the concern, in an era of cuts, over a Big Society style solution, but he preferred to see it as a cooperative solution offering vulnerable people choice and control.

Calderbank expressed concern over redundancies at the current provider, payments to be made to new providers, whether the voluntary organisations would be paid the London Living Wage that the Council had committed itself to, the report's 'high risk' with  'medium' probability assessment that vulnerable people may go without a meal with a number of different voluntary sector providers.

Stressing he was not opposed to voluntary organisations providing services, but that this should not be  a cover for cuts, or at the cost of a reduction in quality, he asked about monitoring of quality and hygiene standards, and wanted confirmation that the new service would not longer provide puddings.
 
Calderbank said he couldn't believe that the Council was going ahead on the basis of such a small pilot project with one provider. This was not a strong basis for a major change. He asked what sanctions would be applied to providers who dropped out.

Durham said that he has spoken to the minister at Harlesden Methodist Church which had operated the pilot and found that the only person to be employed was a 0.7 cook, all the rest delivering the service would be volunteers. This was not a partnership with the voluntary sector but reliance on unpaid volunteers. The Council was creating no jobs and guilty of creating unemployment when it was already at 8.4%

Through the NHS Patients group he had heard complaints about food being undercooked, the lack of puddings and food put into one container like baby food.

He said with disparate providers there was a need for strong contract compliance to ensure  continuity of quality of food and reliability of delivery. The real motive seemed to be the £300,000 of 'savings' - where was the Council's much vaunted London Living Wage?

Phil Porter, Acting Director of Adult Social Services, responded rather than Cllr Krupesh Hirani, lead member for Adult Social Care, who was absent from the Executive Meeting. Porter said the changes had been drivem by better service and increasing cost and control, not by cuts. The previous provider had provided only one option from their base in Leicester. The new range of suppliers would give more choice. The Council had been honest in publishing negative comments from service users but the 8 in the pilot had been 'very happy. (In fact the pilot numbers were reduced to six with one dissatisfied and seeking alternatives and 'very happy' doesn't really describe some of the other users' comments),

He said there would be no change of service for vulnerable individuals without a review of their needs carried out by social workers to understand their capacity and support network- managing risk was part of the review.

There was no contract compliance because the Council had a new role facilitating the market rather than establishing a contractual relationship. This was part of a broader move which the Council was undertaking. It created a challenge and removed the comfort blanket of a single provider.

Porter said the Council couldn't make the providers commit to the London Living Wage  - they could only encourage them t pay it. It was fundamental to give power to the provider and all the support required to make sure the provision is also safe, The scheme would deliver savings and a better service.

He said 5 or 6* people employed by Apetito in Brent would be affected by redundancy. He could make no undertaking that jobs would be created because some providers would be able to provide within their existing infrastructure and others may not. 

Cllr Roxanne Mashari intervened to say that she had been concerned about nutritional standards being maintained in the new arrangements and had visited Cricklewood Homeless Concern to see their provision. As a result she thought it was a fantastic move and should have been made earlier. The food was fresh meat and fish, fruits such as avocado, not baby food, and was served in ceramic type containers. Cricklewood Homeless Concern were able to build on their existing relationships with their clients.

To protests from the audience that their questions had not all been answered, the Executive went on to approve the new arrangements.

* Please note earlier version because of a typographical error rendered this figure as 506. My apologies.

Crest Boys' Academy fails Ofsted Inspection and goes into 'Special Measures'

Crest Boys' Academy in Neasden, Brent,  has been put into 'special measures' after being judged 'Inadequate' on all 4 aspects of their June Ofsted inspection: Achievement of Pupils, Quality of Teaching, Behaviour and Safety of Pupils and Leadership and Management.

After a poor Ofsted, Copland Community School is being forced to become an academy. Crest Boys' is already a sponsored academy led by the E-Act chain and has failed despite this status. It has to remain an academy under current law but there may be a possibility of a transfer to another academy chain. Clearly this is a challenge those who make claims for the superiority of academies..

Because Crest is run by an academy chain Brent Council has no direct right to intervene. E-Act is barely mentioned in the Ofsted report but the DfE must surely look at its capacity to support improvement at the school.

The schools decision to seek academy status occurred under the Labour government and was done in order to secure new buildings which are nearing completion.

The situation is further complicated by an approved proposal to open a secondary free school, named Gladstone after the nearby park, in the area. It will offer 120 Year 7 places from September 2014.

On Leadership and Management the report said:

 Leadership and management are inadequate because the academy is not improving quickly enough. Since the previous inspection, actions taken by leaders and governors to check the progress of different student groups, tackle weaknesses in teaching and behaviour, and to develop the skills of subject leaders have not had enough impact...

Although the Executive Principal and recently appointed senior leaders have a clear agenda for change, improvement since the previous inspection has been too slow. Some leaders lack the skills needed to drive forward rapid improvement and improve teaching. Recently appointed senior leaders have had to take over the leadership and teaching of some subjects, which has placed heavy demands on their time.

 Frequent changes to staffing this year have made it difficult for new systems designed to improve teaching and behaviour to become fully established and to make a difference to students’ learning. This has prevented leaders and managers from promoting equality of opportunity adequately enough.

Until recently the academy’s monitoring of teaching was too generous and teachers’ performance was not checked thoroughly by leaders and governors. Teachers and leaders are now set challenging targets, linked to students’ progress, which they have to meet before they move up the pay scales.

It makes the following comment on the Governing Body

A restructured governing body has been in place since January 2013. The previous governing body did not check how targets were set to challenge and reward teachers, and was not aware whether additional money for students eligible for extra support was spent appropriately. Current governors understand that improvement has been too slow in the past and agree that aspects of the academy’s work are inadequate. They are not satisfied with the academy’s results and are already challenging decisions to make sure that they are focused on raising achievement and made in the best interests of students. Governors fulfil their statutory responsibilities for safeguarding.

 Ofsted will be making regular visits to the school to ensure that improvements are made.

The Crest Girls' Academy, also run by E-Act was  found Inadequate overall  based on an Inadequate judgement for Achieve of Pupils.  Leadership and Management were judged  and Quality of Teaching  Requiring Improvement.  Behaviour and Safety of the girls was judged Good. 

 Achievement was judged inadequate because of insufficient progress of AS students in the 6th Form which is shared with the Boys' Academy and too few gain qualifications at the end of their programmes of study.

Brent Fightback to protest at meals on wheels and care centre meals changes

Brent Fightback is calling a protest at the Civic Centre tomorrow Monday 16th September from 6.30pm to protest at the proposal that Brent Council hand over the delivery of the meals on wheels service to “a range of local charities, communities and businesses” and meals at day care centres will also be supplied by these groups.

The proposal will be discussed at the Brent Executive that evening at 7pm and a member of Fightback will address them about concerns.

Fightback say:

Currently, the meals on wheels service is outsourced. However, rather than a proposal which would cut out the profit-makers, this proposal is purely about cutting cost (by 50%). This decision will lead to cuts in quality of the meals, and pay (are the charities/community groups using unpaid volunteers?), the council's own risk assessment evaluates "Lack of market capacity leads to service users going without meals" = High!
http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s19140/asc-community-meals.pdf
ie. most vulnerable, elderly and sick could be left without access to meals!

Greens oppose Royal Mail sell off

The Green Party this weekend agreed to oppose the Royal Mail sell off.

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).

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)

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. 

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.

Protest at Brent Council's 'High Risk' Meals on Wheels changes

From Brent Fightback (see my previous posting on this proposal HERE)

Brent Fightback is calling a protest at the Civic Centre this coming Monday (16th September) from 6.30pm  to protest at the proposal that Brent Council hand over the delivery of the meals on wheels service to “a range of local charities, communities and businesses”.

The Brent Executive is set to approve the proposals at their meeting that evening.

Currently, the meals on wheels service is outsourced. However, rather than a proposal which would cut out the profit-makers, this proposal is purely about cutting cost (by 50%). This decision will lead to cuts in quality of the meals, and pay (are the charities/community groups using unpaid volunteers?), the council's own risk assessment evaluates "Lack of market capacity leads to service users going without meals" = High!
http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s19140/asc-community-meals.pdf

ie. most vulnerable, elderly and sick could be left without access to meals!