Barry Gardiner closely questions Cllr Kabir on Village School academisation proposal

Barry Gardiner, the Labour MP for Brent North, The Village School's parliamentary constituency, has written to Cllr Sandra Kabir (Labour), Chair of Governors, with some pertinent questions about the school's proposal to form Multi Academy Trust with Woodfield School.

At the outset I want to put on record my admiration for the work the Governors and staff have done at both the Village School and Woodfield School each of which have been judged by Ofsted as outstanding. However, I write to express my concerns over the current proposal to form a Multi Academy Trust (MAT). I understand that you are inviting comments from parents and staff at schools, other local schools and elected representatives.

I am aware it is for the governing body of the school to determine who should be consulted but I hope you will consider involving local stakeholders with strong links to the school, in addition to the parents, teachers, other staff and their representatives. Can you provide me with a schedule of those you have contacted or who you intend to contact?

I would also ask if the Village School has already applied to the Department for Education (DfE) to become part of a MAT prior to the launch of the Consultation. If so, when did this happen? Can you provide me with a copy of the application and any other correspondence relating to the formation of the MAT, both with the DfE and any other relevant agencies.

The consultation document available on the Village School website sets out all the arguments in favour of forming a MAT, without setting out any of the problems or pitfalls which might arise in the process of creating a Multi Academy Trust or its subsequent operation. I would ask for a specific undertaking from you that during the consultation all responses will be given due consideration, that records of all consultations/responses and minutes of any further meetings are available, in accordance with the Academies Act 2010 and that any necessary further research is undertaken before a final decision is made. I note the five week consultation period ends on the 9th February and the consultation document says a final decision is expected by the end of March 2018.

Does this allow sufficient time for the following actions?

• Contact with all the parents and carers to explain the proposals, collate their observations and respond to them and publish the observations on line.
• Arrange a meeting with parents/carers or other opportunities to explain the proposals.
• Respond to requests (in writing) to view the proposals and answer questions.
• Discuss with staff about what becoming an academy means.
• Organise face to face meetings.

Can you provide me with a time line in relation to each of those points set out in the paragraph above.

The conversion of local authority-maintained schools to academies is a momentous decision involving legal, financial and structural changes and I have a number of concerns that I trust you will consider carefully.

The Village School benefited from a £29m capital investment from Brent Council to ensure the education of children with complex learning difficulties and disabilities would be transformed. Is it right that this public money and the capital assets should be outside of effective democratic control? In recent years the Village School and Woodfield School have worked together extensively on joint projects and in partnership with others such as the College of North West London (CNWL) for post-16 opportunities. It is unclear to me why why this positive arrangement should not continue.  This is not the case of a failing school being helped out by joining with a more successful neighbour. These are two existing successful schools. As such the case for a MAT must pass a very high threshold to show that the change is necessary.

I note that the school governors say they feel the extra freedom regarding curriculum and budget will help develop the vision for the school and ultimately improve the lives and learning of children. However, the consultation document states the leadership are still exploring the opportunities and checking staffing, finance, contracts lands an buildings. I find it difficult to see how, until the full details of the above are known, it can be sensible to rush into any change of legal status for either school.

Both schools already successfully develop children in all aspects of their lives, and I would question whether changing the status can deliver the value to compensate the extra work and extra risk involved in conversion to a MAT.

London schools within the local government framework have a proud and distinguished record of working together to reduce inequalities and raise academic achievements. This is founded on a high level of capital and revenue investment by councils across the city and, of course, payments out of the MAT budget allocation will need to be made to pay for services no longer provided by the local authority.

The Village School is an outstanding example of a school which has worked successfully with a council framework and benefited extensively from the capital and revenue investment I have referred to.

There is no guarantee that these services will not cost more 'even if taken from the local authority.' Critically the democratic oversight which the Local Education Authority (LEA) currently provides to ensure that the school provides value for money will be lost.

If the Academy were to struggle financially or academically there would be no back up from the local authority.

As a local authority school, staff terms and conditions are negotiated nationally and have protection. The Village School have said they will put in place protections to secure the staff terms and conditions are safeguarded. But what are these protection(s) and how does the school propose to make them legally binding for the future? This should have been clearly set out prior to any consultation, not alluded to during it. I am advised that many staff at Woodfield are agency staff and all staff are required to clock in and out each day.

Have the governors also considered the effect this might have on staff moral and whether it would lead to a high turnover of staff, including those with many years of experience who contribute so much to the school's current success.

I look forward to your full response to these serious concerns as a matter of urgency.

Open letter adds to pressure on the Village School to reject academisation

The following open letter has been sent to local and national newspapers regarding the proposed academisation of The Village School, a special school in Kingsbury. It has been signed by a number of Brent Labour councillors (The Village School Chair of Governors is Cllr Sandra Kabir, the Labour Group whip), union activists and educationalists:

The Village School is an important, valuable local asset. We oppose the unnecessary proposals for its academisation, and strongly believe that it should remain within the direct control of Brent Council.

Having been rated 'Outstanding' in its most recent Ofsted inspection, it is not only one of Brent Council’s flagship special needs school, but represents its very best. Much taxpayers' money, time and energy has been poured into this priceless local institution, and it should be directly accountable to, managed and owned by the people of Brent.

The academisation agenda is another fallacious government venture designed to fragment our state education system, pit quality staff against one another, and remove all semblance of real democratic accountability. The outstanding, hard-working and passionate teachers and support staff at the Village School – who work tirelessly every day to nurture the school’s young students and maximise their potential – have taken action to fend off this threat of academisation. We applaud their actions, and will continue to support them until this unconstructive proposal is dropped.

We implore the governing body of The Village School to halt any further discussions of academisation, and to explore other more sensible ways of working with other schools, such as legal partnerships with other schools whilst remaining in direct control of Brent Council.

Cllr Jumbo Chan, Brent (Lab)

Kevin Courtney, Joint General Secretary of the National Education Union

Louise Regan, President of the National Education Union (NUT section)

Kiri Tunks, Vice-President of the National Education Union (NUT section)

Martin Powell-Davies, London Regional Secretary of the National Education Union (NUT section)

Ian Murch, Treasurer of the National Education Union (NUT section)

Hank Roberts, Past National President of ATL and National Education Union London Executive (ATL section)

Lesley Gouldbourne, Secretary of Brent National Education Union (NUT section)

John Roche, Secretary of Brent National Education Union (ATL section) 

Jenny Cooper, Joint National Education Union Representative at The Village School

Oscar Ayyadi, Joint National Education Union Representative at The Village School

Cllr Claudia Hector, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Roxanne Mashari, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Mikey Pavey, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Sarah Marquis, Brent (Lab) 

Cllr Keith Perrin, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Ruth Moher, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Lesley Jones, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Parvez Ahmed, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Pat Harrison, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Ahmad Shahzad, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Janice Long, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Abdi Aden, Brent (Lab)

Prof Sir Tim Brighouse, Former Honorary Norham Fellow at the Department of Education, University of Oxford

Prof Diane Reay, Professor of Education at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge

Dr Christine Doddington, Fellow Emerita at Homerton College, University of Cambridge 

Prof Stephen Ball, Distinguished Service Professor of Sociology of Education at the UCL Institute of Education

Dr Melanie Cooke, Senior Teaching Fellow at the School of Education, Communication and Society, King’s College London, and Executive Committee member of King’s College London UCU

Dr Martin Dewey, Senior Lecturer at the School of Education, Communication and Society, King’s College London

Dr Nick Andon, Lecturer at the School of Education, Communication and Society, King’s College London

Prof Richard Hatcher, Professor of Education at the School of Education and Social Work, Birmingham City University

Dr Henry Tam, Director of Question the Powerful

Madeleine Holt, Co-founder of Rescue Our Schools

Anne Clarke , Co-founder of Rescue Our Schools 

Jonny Crawshaw, Co-founder of Rescue Our Schools 

Shana Carquez, Joint Chair of National Education Union London Young Teachers Network

Laurence Rose, Joint Chair of National Education Union London Young Teachers Network

Dr Michael Calderbank, Secretary of Brent Central Constituency Labour Party

Colin Adams, Treasurer of Brent North Constituency Labour Party

Dr Mike Phipps, Chair of Kensal Green Branch Labour Party

Alasdair Smith, National Secretary of the Anti Academies Alliance

'Why take a successful school away from local accountability, connections and scrutiny?' Public Meeting 8th February 6pm Brent Civic Centre

From Barry Gardiner MP

Brent North MP Barry Gardiner has called an urgent meeting at the Civic Centre on Thursday 8^th February to discuss plans to join the Village School with Woodfield School to form a Multi-Academy Trust.

6:00pm at Brent Civic Centre Conference Room on Thursday 8^th February 2018.

Senior Staff and governors from the school have been invited to answer questions and explain the proposed move to parents, staff and members of the community. There is a stay and play children’s activity facility in a separate room to allow parents to attend the meeting.

Barry said:  “I was pleased to welcome a group of parents and teachers who came to lobby me at the House of Commons recently. They raised a number of serious concerns about the proposal. It is right that governors should have the opportunity to hear from all the interested, caring and committed individuals who work in the schools or whose children are educated there and of course for the governors to explain why they think this Multi Academy Trust is necessary.

Ofsted, has rated the Village School outstanding in every area of its work, including how it cares for these wonderful, special children.  The governors must explain clearly to the community what the advantage to the children is to take a highly successful caring school away from local accountability, local connections and local scrutiny?   I have already written to the interim executive head of The Village School and Woodfield School asking just those questions.”

Brent CEO apologises to Salusbury Primary School over asbestos

Salusbury Primary and Paddington Old Cemetery

Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive, publicly apologised yesterday evening for the Council's failure to contact the headteacher of Salusbury Primary School over the possible asbestos contamination at Paddington Cemetery, which borders the school.

Ms Downs was moved to apologise after parents  had told the meeting about their fears for their children's health when they heard about the issue earlier this year. Several parents pointed out that the children grow vegetables in the school garden adjacent to the cemetery, The area has been closed off to pupils pending investigation of the soil. Parents said that even if they had not been told it was incumbent on the Council to inform the headteacher so that she could decide what action to take.

The Chair of Governors of Salusbury Primary requested a clear timeline of Council action to reiterate their commitment to making the area safe. She asked for the school to be consulted over the timing of the proposed removal of soil from the cemetery mound. She asked for much better communication and transparency.

Council Officers had argued  earlier that they had received advice that there was more public risk in raising parental anxiety by publicising the issue than the low risk posed by the asbestos contamination itself.

The CEO had earlier told the meeting that the full report into the asbestos had only been withheld from the public in case there was enough evidence to press criminal charges against those who had dumped the asbestos.When it was clear that there was insufficient evidence the report had been published on the council website. LINK

During the meeting the tension between Cllr John Duffy, who has pursued the issue relentlessly, was palpable. Duffy was confined to making interventions from the audience and his contributions were frequently curtailed or interrupted by Amar Dave, Head of Regeneration who was conducting the meeting. I think it would have been better if Duffy had been invited to join the panel and make his contribution alongside Chris Whyte (Operational Director of Environmental Services), Michael Bradley (Head of Audit and Investigations) and Simon Clennel-Jones (of Delta Simons who prepared the investigation of asbestos at the cemetery). That would have enabled him to make a clear presentation of his own investigations and answer questions from the audience.

Duffy contested whether Michael Bradley's report had been truly independent, he wanted an external investigation, and pointed out that the Delta Simons investigation had analysed soil samples after soil had been removed to the West London Waste Authority facility.

Cllr Duffy protested that the Bradley investigation had not interviewed gravediggers at the site, the people most at risk because their daily work disturbed the contaminated soil, and had spoken to managers instead. He was told that workers would now be interviewed.

The Simon Delta report had emphasised the low risk posed by the incidence of asbestos found which they said was normal for an urban environment but a member of the audience pointed out the section in their report that stated:

Nevertheless, the Client as landowner (and potentially as employer) has a duty to manage to ensure exposuresis kept as low as reasonably practicable; further, the assessment has identified the potential for exposures to exceed a level at which has been considered in civil litigation as being a material contributor to a case of mesothelioma. (Para 8.1)

Officers said that Veolia had advised their workers to contact their GPs over possible exposure which raised for me what appeared during the meeting to be a grey area of responsibility between Brent Council, as a public body, and Veolia, a multi-national company.

This was evident when Friends of Old Paddington Cemetery LINK raised issues about works, other than asbestos related, at the Cemetery which was listed on the National Register of Parks and Gardens and where English Heritage should be consulted about any changes.  The Friends had been distressed about the destruction of footpaths to accommodate new graves without any consultation. It was unclear from responses whether the council had been fully informed of works Veolia had carried out.

Officers said they were going to remove all the soil from the 'mound', the area where the suspect soild had been dumped as a way to reassure residents.

After the meeting it was clear that some residents still did not feel they had the full pictures and there was particular confusion over key dates and what took place on them. The timeline promised by the council may address this or it may raise further questions.

Other Brent councillors were present at the meeting, including Muhammed Butt, leader of the Council,  but none spoke except for Cllr Duffy.

Huge opposition to aggregate superhub expected at Barnet Planning Committee tomorrow

Barnet Planning Committee will be making a decision tomorrow on the aggregate superhub at 400 Edgware Road. The meeting is at 7pm at Barnet Town Hall, The Boroughs, NW4 4BG. There have been a huge number of objections to the planning application from Brent residents who will experience traffic and air pollution from the site and a big turnout of objectors is expected tomorrow.

DOCUMENTS 

PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA

PUBLIC EXHIBITION (Jan 2018)

Cricklewood Railway Terraces Residents Community Association have made a powerful case against the application. Click on bottom right corner to enlarge.

GMB support call for an independent report into Paddington Cemetery asbestos issue

Vaughan West, Regional organiser of the GMB union said today:

The GMB are obviously concerned if members of staff and/or the public have been exposed to asbestos and would expect any employer and  especially a public body such as Brent Council to do everything in its power to demonstrate and reassure  its staff and the wider public that their health and safety is the primary concern and issue. 

If that means the commissioning of  an independent report to reassure people then that is a small price to pay.

Asbestos Meeting Tonight: Duffy asks for public to a have a vote on whether a public inquiry is necessary

The waste transfer note from Carpender's Park 17.08.15

Cllr John Duffy has written to Carolyn Downs, Chief Executive of Brent Council asking that residents attending tonight's public meeting in Kilburn Square be given  an opprtunity to vote on whether there should be an independent inquiry into the asbestos waste issue:

As you know there is a meeting tonight and its very important the two undisclosed consignment notes for the asbestos found on the mound are available. 

Hopefully they will go some way to establishing how much asbestos was delivered to Paddington Cemetery from Carpender's Park in August 2015. That will also go some way to answering the question of how much contamination was present before the two discoveries on May 9th and 18th*  and since the asbestos transported in August 2015.

I believe the council is being disingenuous by mixing up the Eton report, and then the Delta Simons specialist  reports, with the initial test notes. Both the Eaton and Delta Simons report  were taken after the Asbestos was removed, therefore thankfully they only show a trace in most parts of the mound. I  do welcome their  finding  that the level of asbestos risk is now  low since  the Asbestos has been removed. However  because they engaged after the Asbestos was removed, they do not answer the three most important  questions of how the Asbestos got there, how much Asbestos was found in May 2017 and did the council put anyone at risk by the way the council handle the first  discovery of  asbestos bound for Section 3D in Paddington Cemetery from August 2015?

I am therefore suggesting  the Agenda for tonight's meeting is in three parts. One being the present situation, which will reassure residents that the mound and the cemetery in generally free of asbestos and safe to use. The second being  the past situation of how the asbestos got to Paddington Cemetery and did the actions of the council put anyone at risk. This part could also involve discussion on why the council took such extreme measures to ensure the residents (meeting where the press and public were excluded) were kept in the dark about how the  the asbestos arrived at Paddington Cemetery? Thirdly after  the residents have heard from both Delta Simons ( Part 1)  and the council (Part 2).  The third part should be a vote by residents on if they believe a independent investigation  is necessary to find out all circumstances around the discovery of the asbestos in Paddington Cemetery and whether the council put residents and the workforce at risk.

CEO Will  you  please confirm the agenda will be in the three parts and  you will personally  ensure officers take a democratic vote of the residents.The vote will see if  they believe an independent open investigation by health and safety expert which ail explore all the facts .If you are unwilling for the  vote to take place ,can we have a statement from you explaining why , you do not think it is unnecessary .

Regards 

* I mistakenly said the 19th of May in previous emails, i have now checked the email from the CEO and it was on on the 18th May the second "find " on the mound took place

Carolyn Downs replied that Amar Dave, who had been copied into Duffy's email, would be running tonight's meeting.

 7pm at Kilburn Housing Co-operative, Kilburn Square,

 Victoria Road, Kilburn, NW6 6PT

Community prepare for another Queensbury pub battle as new plans published

Proposed development

Rejected development

Existing

The  long-running controversy over the Queensbury pub in Willesden Green started a new chapter yesterday when a new redevelopment was submitted by developers.  First reactions on Twitter and Facebook were not complimentary despite the developer claiming 77% of consultees  supported reproviding a pub on the site and 55% provision of new housing. They made great play of increasing the proportion of the 48 flats that are 'affordable' (presumably using up to 80% of market rent definition) from 30% to 35%. Another of their selling points is the provision of a community space on the site.

There seems to be a prospect of 'poor doors' in the developer's statement that 'the affordable housing will be served via a separate core to maximise the prospect of interesting a registered provider...'

However most initial reaction was over the appearance of the development, despite the developer claiming that they had addressed heritage concerns. One person commented:

Is that what they are planning in its stead!! What’s happening to Brent planners they are allowing the demolition of lots of beautiful old buildings and houses across the borough.
Brent is becoming ugly!

Neighbourhood comments on the application (Reference 18/0210) close on March 1st. The full planning application can be viewed HERE

Plan of the proposed development:

Click on image to enlarge