Monday, 2 December 2013

Brent Labour councillor defects to Lib Dems

Welsh Harp Labour  councillor Dhiraj Kataria  has defected to the Lib Dems citing his problems with top down leadership in the Council, library closures and cuts in street cleaning. 

This weekend Lib Dem councillor Reverend Clues resigned after two years spent in Brighton away from his Brent responsibilities. There will be no by-election because of the closeness of the 2014 local elections.

The Liberal Democrats will tomorrow announce their short list for Brent Central.

Swings and roundabouts.

Copland on strike again tomorrow against Ark take over


Staff at Copland Community School in Wembley will tomorrow  hold their third day of strike action against an attempt by Michael Gove and an imposed Interim Executive Board (IEB) to force the school to become an academy. Despite Cllr Michael Pavey, Lead member for Education in Brent, saying 'it is not a done deal' so far there had been no other option but ARK.

Staff will hold a rally outside The Torch pub at 10am  in Bridge Rd, Wembley against ARK forcibly taking over their school.


Hank Roberts, ATL Secretary and Immediate Past President said:
Stanley Fink, a leading ARK trustee, is the National Treasurer of the Conservative party and a friend of Michael Gove. He supports Gove's and the Conservatives policy, as revealed in the Independent, of handing over state schools to be run for profit. They're not in it for charitable giving. If they want to give Copland money we'd welcome it. Long term they're for taking money out of the system to add to the many millions they already have.

Tom Stone, NASUWT Acting Secretary said:
If Brent would only go and get the money the ex headteacher spirited away, the whole scenario of becoming an academy would disappear and Copland school would be a flourishing and effective school.

Lesley Gouldbourne, Joint NUT Secretary said,:
A recent leadership review of Copland carried out in October 2013 showed many improvements in teaching and learning and more robust financial management. Give the school time to continue this good work.

Sunday, 1 December 2013

Can Brent provide for vulnerable young people amidst the cuts?

Local councils, faced with savage Coalition cuts to their funding, have often promised to make sure that the most vulnerable residents are protected. This is becoming more and more difficult, whatever the political complexion of the council. Alongside this councils are reducing the range of services to the core services required by statute. I have argued before on Wembley Matters that this may mean that services which are very beneficial to residents, and based on the council's recognition of a local need, may end up being cut: non-statutory doesn't mean not valuable or not needed. In addition, out-sourcing of some statutory services, muddies the water in terms of direct democratic accountability.

The December 9th Executive will be making decisions on a number of items that will have repercussion for services to the vulnerable.

They will be making a decision on procuring an Advocacy service for the following safeguarding 'clients'  to ensure they are safe from abuse:
  • older people with physical disabilities
  • young people (14-25 years old) with physical disabilities
  • adults with mental health needs
  • adults with learning disabilities
I am concerned that  'price' makes up 60% of the evaluation strategy for this procurement.

Another item is a change of provider for the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service.  They propose to decommission services currently provided by Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust.  In a key passage they state:
Information has been sought from other boroughs to determine what they commission. This work makes it very clear that while some boroughs do commission elements of training and systemic or early help provision, they do not fund direct therapeutic interventions. The proposed new provision,detailed in section 5 below, is therefore in line with that provided by other Local Authorities.
I hope the Executive will investigate that a little more. Rather than reduce services to match those of other boroughs, shouldn't Brent assess the value of direct therapeutic interventions?  I certainly found those useful for pupils and their families when I wa a headteacher and such interventions may save money in the long run. Officers argue that it is not possible to continue expenditure at current levels without jeopardising other services.

The proposals would reduce expenditure on children with disabilities by £50,000 to £146,000 and Looked After Children by £230,000 to £107,000.

Officers state:
The proposed change in the service could lead to an increase in support required through Care at Home and Direct Payments, and there is also the potential for some of these children/young people to become LAC. However, such pressures will be contained as the current service is supplementing a service already commissioned by the CCG and existing users will be able to access support from the CCG.
Clearly the first statement needs some discussion in terms of its implications for the individuals concerned. There is a possibility that too much responsibility is being shifted to the relatively untested CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group).

The report admits that there may be longer waiting time for Looked After Children requiring appointments but suggests that this will be dealt with by a requirement for the service to prioritise this group of young people. When I was familiar with this service several years ago waiting time was already a problem so I am sceptical that a notional prioritisation will address the problem.

More worrying also is a statement in the Equalities Impact Assessment that consideration had been given to consulting with users but that this was felt 'not to be in their interests to do so as it it would cause unnecessary anxiety'. The Assessment says it is intended to get views on the new service through the Care in Action forum for adolescents but it is not clear whether this will be before or after the changes are implemented.

A report on Higher Needs Student Eligibility is also tabled for November 9th.  This refers to educational provision for young people between 16 and 25 with a learning difficulty and/or disability. Arrangements have changed through new legislation and the local authority has to allocate appropriate provision:

The report states:
Council therefore needs to have processes in place to support this change and ensure that the allocated budget is not exceeded.
Funds allocated are about £18,000 per head for an estimated 140 people  next year.

The council will need to carry out a Learning Disability Assessment on young people who:

 Will be leaving school aged 16-19 and
• Is going on to further education, higher education or training and
• Is likely to need additional learning support to access education or training opportunities
• New children arriving from abroad who do not have a statement and have a learning difficulty or disability
• Children in mainstream schools that are supported by school action and school action plus support

Talks will be take place with further education colleges and other providers about provision whcih will enable 'young people with disabilities to live active, independent and fulfilling lives in the community.'

It will be important  to monitor the progress of young people and the quality of provision to see if fulfils these aims.

Saturday, 30 November 2013

Did you celebrate 'Buy Nothing Day' and resist consumerist pressures?


As commercial companies tried yesterday to foist 'Black Friday on us, an American import supposed to mark the beginning of pre-Christmas consumption, Ad Buster publicised their Buy Nothing Day which took place today. LINK

They stress that the day isn't anti-shopping  as such or anti small shops but about creating awareness about the effect of consumption on the environment and its basic inequality.




This is how they explain the Day:


It's time to lock up your wallets and purses, cut up your credit cards and dump the love of your life - shopping.

Saturday November 30th 2013 is Buy Nothing Day (UK). It's a day where you challenge yourself, your family and friends to switch off from shopping and tune into life. The rules are simple, for 24 hours you will detox from shopping and anyone can take part provided they spend a day without spending!

Everything we buy has an impact on the environment, Buy Nothing Day highlights the environmental and ethical consequences of consumerism. The developed countries - only 20% of the world population are consuming over 80% of the earth's natural resources, causing a disproportionate level of environmental damage, and an unfair distribution of wealth.


Of course, Buy Nothing Day isn't about changing your lifestyle for just one day - we want it to be a lasting relationship with you consumer conscience - maybe a life changing experience? We want people to make a commitment to consuming less, recycling more and challenging companies to clean up and be fair. The supermarket or shopping mall might offer great choice, but this shouldn't be at the cost of the environment or developing countries

I wonder if we should celebrate this at the Wembley's London  Designer Outlet next year?

No clues needed for the timing of Rev's resignation decision


A cheeky card Cllr Krupesh Hirnai placed on his blog
I understand that the Reverend David Clues, Lib Dem councillor for Dudden Hill has officially resigned at last. Clues moved to Brighton in 2011 and both the Labour and Green parties have repeatedly called for his resignation. Local activist Kierra Box accosted him at his Brighton home with unanswered emails and letters.

The scandalous neglect of local residents and dereliction of democratic accountability seems to stem from the Lib Dem's reluctance to fight a byelection at a time of national unpopularity.  Latterly some apologists have argued that by not having a byelection they are saving council tax-payers' money.

Because the resignation is so close to the May 2014 local elections I understand there will not be a byelection. Just the saving of a few thousand on the councillor's expenses.

Friday, 29 November 2013

Pavey under pressure at heated Copland debate

Cllr Michael Pavey, lead member for children and families, took part in a heated debate last night on the future of Copland Community High School, which faces forced academisation through a takeover by Ark Academies.

Pavey turned up the heat by stating that Copland had failed all pupils but especially the most disadvantaged for whom education was most important:  Afro-Caribbean , special needs and refugee pupils. That was why he supported academisation. It was his job to make sure Brent children got the education they deserved: 'Pupils come first'. He pointed out that Brent Council did not have the resources to takeover Copland and improve it.

He was immediately challenged by a black member of the audience who said, 'How dare you use the black community to justify your policies. You are not one of us, you do not know our experience from the inside.'

His assertion that 'This is not a "done deal",' brought derisive laughter and he clarified by saying that academisation would happen but that it may not be Ark Academy but another academy chain or provider. When an audience member pointed out that they did not want any academy, Pavey said 'It's the law that it must be an academy' and under closer questioning said he was not prepared to break the law. 'We live in a democracy and the way to change laws is through the ballot box.'

Pavey said that he did not think all academies were great and remarked that Brent has some awful academies.He said that there had been discussions with the Cooperative College over them becoming Copland's academy sponsor but Whitehall had blocked the move. Hank Roberts of the ATL pointed out that this had been before the Ofsted inspection. He challenged Cllr Pavey to demonstrate that it was not a 'done deal' by exploring other possibilities.

Jean Roberts of the NUT, speaking from the floor said the Interim Executive Board (IEB) had put a stop to talks with the Coop, preferring Ark as sponsor. She called on Michael Pavey to look at the Coop as a sponsor because at least it  had emerged from the labour movement. In response Pavey said that he was a member of the Cooperative Party and a passionate supporter but the government had put a stop to its possible sponsorship of Copland.

Roberts gave the example of Snaresbook Primary in Redbridge where a campaign supported by parents, unions and the community, but especially by the local council which was Tory, had succeeded in avoiding being forced to become an academy. She said that the council had never provided that sort of leadership.

Several teachers spoke passionately against what they saw as a politicised attack by Ofsted on the school which Michael Pavey was reinforcing. One said, 'You are Michael Gove in a different suit!' Supported by school students they talked about their commitment to pupils, the hard work they put in and improvements that were already apparent. Pavey said that Ofsted was an independent body and he accepted their report as true.

Jenny Cooper, NUT member and special needs teacher, told Cllr Pavey that it made her angry when it was claimed that teachers were against all change. Of course teachers recognised the need for a change, it is not that they think no change needs to happen but the way  it is gone about. Teachers were opposed to Copland becoming an academy, and particuarly opposed to it becoming an Ark Academy. Academy chains are the fast route to marketisation of schools.

A school student, delivering a powerful speech from the platform, said that pupils had been denied a role in the consultation. They had submitted a petition to the council 7 months ago with no response. The media had made a mountain out of a mole hill with their comments on what was supposed 'light at the end of the tunnel'. Staff gave up their own time to help pupils and understood them. She said that 'unsatisfactory' was an insult to students. Ofsted had come with a mindset and had been biased in advance with an expectation that it was a 'rubbish school'.

One teacher speaking calmly, but clearly controlling her anger, told Cllr Pavey, 'I am working hard. I am working all hours for the children. I don't care what you say - you make the school an academy and I am leaving. You'll have to tell the children it's your fault that I've left.'

Earlier in the meeting, speaking from the platform I had traced the history of academisation in Brent starting from the City Academy which replaced Willesden High School, the Labour and then Lib Dem-Conservative support for the Ark Academy and the competition with other secondary schools that had resulted. Firstly Preston Manor became an all-through school in order to compete, and then, despite earlier denials, went for academy status.  Other secondary schools then followed with the exception of Copland which had always had comprehensive values.

Outlining what would be lost through academisation I spoke about 'post admissions selection' where pupils who did not conform to the school's expectation were spotted and move out through formal exclusion or other means, about the strict discipline which made the school a hostile environment for some pupils, about a teaching force that did not represent the communities from which the pupils come, and a lack of democratic ability which left parents with no recourse to another body to which to appeal.

A black teacher who had attended a discussion about academies with the NUT Black Teachers Group said that the evidence was that black teachers, in the political sense of ethnic minority, were being forced out of academies because their faces didn't fit, they did not match the profile the school wanted. He linked this with Michael Wilshaw's speech to headteachers where he had advocated cracking the whip. He said that the resulting stress and pressure would not help students' motivation. There would be a lack of role models in the academy schools.

A Copland parent, who had been on the previous governing body, told the audience how democratic accountability had disappeared from the school with the imposition of an IEB.  here had been complaints recently that Year11s had been give only 13 days notice of mock examinations that would set out their path for the real exams. English language students had fared worse with only 8 days notice for examination areas last studied in May.  Those studying History had been affected by the end of term break-up of the humanities department (see previous blogs) because during the move their text books and the exercise books in which they had made notes were lost.

His son had been helped y the mentoring department which was available to help the vulnerable, the bullies and the bullied and had been a safe place to talk, had been scrapped.  The student led Gay-Straight Alliance that had received national acclaim had been scraped. The School Anti-Bullying Council had met a similar fate despite the new headship adopting  zero bullying policy.

He said that schools were not all about examinations, they were also about quality of life and preparing young people for a changing world.

In his opening speech Hank Roberts said that the academy issue was all about money. Stanley Fink the hedge fund speculator behind Ark would be welcome to give money direct to Copland School but instead they were helping themselves (as they had in the economic crash) taking public money with an eye on eventually running schools for profit.  Fink was also Tory Party Treasurer and academy chains had people in the upper echelons of Ofsted.

Ark, already with a longer working week, had tried to get teachers to work two weeks longer, but had to give up when it became clear they would not be able to recruit on those terms.

A speaker from the floor summed up the feelings of many asking, 'What faith will young peple have in democracy when they have been treated like this?'







Wednesday, 27 November 2013

Debate the future of Copland tomorrow


'EU measures aimed at deflecting attention from benefit cuts'-Lambert

Information you don't often see


London’s Green MEP Jean Lambert has accused Tory PM David Cameron of trying to deflect attention from his own government’s benefit cuts by announcing measures to reduce benefit payments to nationals of other EU countries - over a million of whom live in London.

“This is all about deflecting attention from benefit cuts, and not really about protecting UK benefits and public services at all,” she said.

“People should bear in mind the principle that EU nationals are entitled to treatment on the same basis as a national, including access to social security- so what is Cameron’s message to us, if he’s planning to change the rules? That you will lose your right to benefits if you have no realistic chance (defined by whom?) of finding work after six months? That if you are homeless, you cannot be looking for work and will be punished accordingly?

“’Benefit Tourism’ is a myth - not borne out by the facts at all, as the EU Commission and the OECD have made clear. In fact, those born outside the UK tend to pay more tax, and claim fewer benefits, than those born here – they are, as a group, net contributors to the public purse.

“Overwhelmingly, people come here to work and some come because they feel safer here than in their home-country: both of these say very positive things about the UK. David Cameron prefers not to recognise that - he’s too busy looking for the next set of benefit cuts.”