Brent restructuring steams ahead but will have to be done again in 2-3 years

The proposed structure

I went to yesterday's Brent General Purposes Committee on a high - not in anticipation of an exciting meeting but because I was buzzing with optimism from an event I had just attended at Chalkhill Primary School. The Sports Hall had been full of families, not just parents but grandparents, aunts and uncles and children ranging from babes in arms to secondary school students.  The occasion was the graduation ceremony for the 8 week FAST (Families and Schools Together) course that had taken place at the school. Among those working with families alongside school staff was the chair of the Chalkhill  Residents Association. A real community effort. The hall was buzzing with chatter and lively with children dressed up for the occasion playing amongst the tables or tucking into food and drink while some adults were in dazzling national costume.. Real pride was on display when each family went up on the stage to get their certificate to cheers from the audience.

FAST aims to provide a fun and relaxed space for families to experience a mixture of play and learning activities, hands on coaching and support for parents and carers. Each week families can win a resource hamper to help support children's learning in the home. The programme has high success rates in improving family relationships and links between home, school and the local community. The project is run by Save the Children and funded by Morrison's.

So it was with renewed faith in our local authority community schools that I went to speak to the General Purposes Committee about the restructuring of the senior management at the council and the children and families department.

I had three main concerns. The first was by combining adults' and children's social care with education and public health that the Council was creating a 'high risk' department. One risk was that these were areas where things could go badly wrong as we know from previous child protection cases as well as concerns over the treatment of vulnerable adults. The second risk was that these are areas under huge budgetary pressures and the eventual cost of public health is not yet known.

The second concern was that that education and children's social care were being separated. They had not worked well together when they had been separate departments and as a headteacher I had seen improvements in processes when they came under one director. I said it was essential that there were clear lines of responsibility in terms of child protection and safeguarding. The operational director would be dealing with complex cases on the ground but the strategic director would have overall responsibility.

The third concern was much broader and about the current fragmentation of the local school system with academisation and free schools. I said that Gladstone Park Primary's experience had given other heads the jitters and it was essential that there was strong leadership in education that championed the role of the local authority and demonstrated that the LA had the capacity to help schools improve. In that regard the reduction in the role of the School Improvement Service and the creation of the Brent Schools' Partnership introduced a note of uncertainty underlining the need for strong leadership.

I noted that when the post of Director of Children and Families last became vacant that it was ring-fenced to existing council staff. At the time this was criticised  LINK on the grounds that schools by statute have to advertise vacant head and deputy head posts nationally so as to have the widest possible field to select the best quality candidate. I argued, recognising that there might be HR issues involved, that this should also apply to these vital posts - Brent children and adults deserve the best.

Christine Gilbert, responded to some of these points in her presentation. She recognised that this would be a 'high risk' department but said that the safeguarding aspects should carry on much as they are now. She said that the strategic directors would have to have a good grasp of the operational issues. Gilbert told councillors that there would need to be another restructuring in two or three years as further cuts were made in funding. Muhammed Butt, chairing the meeting, said that the only constant was change.

Cllr Mary Arnold challenged my suggestion that there was a risk in the Brent Schools Partnership lacking an independent critical voice and said that the partnership was with the local authority which would retain core services and offer services that schools could buy into: it was a schools partnership with the local authority.

Cllr Jim Moher expressed support for my call for strong leader for education in the face of fragmentation. Cllr Pavey spoke enthusiastically about the excitement he felt about the opportunities offered by restructuring. It's probably fair to say that his enthusiasm didn't set the rest of the room on fire.

Paul Lorber for the Lib Dems wanted more information about the role of the Assistant Chief Executive and suggested that perhaps it would be better to employ a director for one of the other service units instead. He was told that the delayed appointment of the permanent Chief Executive would go ahead in May and that the new structure, after consultation, would  help the appointment. Lorber also asked if the new structure at office level with fewer departments would mean a reduction in the size of the Executive with their parallel responsibilities. That has happened in Hounslow but not elsewhere.

Christine Gilbert asked for suggestions on alternative names for the new departments which would sum up their functions concisely.  Mary Arnold suggested that Economic Growth and Employment might better reflect the developing role of Regeneration and Major Projects.

The recommendations in Christine Gilbert's report were accepted subject to consultation on some aspects.

Caroline Lucas: Time to nail Coalition's biggest lie-TINA

The Counihan Campaign: Housing and Social Justice

London Councils calls for London to be treated as a'special case' on benefit reform

London Councils released a report yesterday  that tracks the impact of benefit reforms and suggests Londoners will be hardest hit by the changes.

The report indicates that up to half-a-million working age people could be touched in some way when the changes take effect this year. It estimates that 27,000 households in London will be affected by the benefit cap alone, due to be piloted in four boroughs from April.

An additional 456,000 Londoners will pay more council tax as a result of council tax benefit payments moving to council control, with reduced funding. And up to 80,000 homes could be adversely affected by the so-called ‘bedroom tax’ designed to deal with under occupancy in social housing.

Mayor Sir Steve Bullock, London Councils’ Executive Member for Housing, said:

While we recognise the need for reform, councils across London have concerns about the speed this is being implemented and the effect on families of so many changes taking place at once. I want to see London treated as a special case as the process moves forward.

For some ordinary families with two children looking for work their benefit could drop £183.00 per week, while an identical family unit in Manchester would be unaffected.

London Councils supports a fairer, more accountable system of welfare that encourages work. But since changes to housing benefits in April 2011 the number of households claiming housing benefit for private rented housing in London rose by over 32,000. Rents went up by nine per cent for the most basic housing in that period and this is increasingly a London issue.

The report, Tracking Welfare Reform, is available on the London Councils website LINK  along with a wide range of research and background materials.

Michaela Free School: not needed, not wanted, not interested...

I was only the sixth (and the last) person to attend the Michaela Free School Consultation this afternoon. The first on the attendance list was another opponent of the school so Michaela didn't do very well. There were more people from Michaela itself present than there were members of the public who attended throughout the 2 hours consultation period.

Nevertheless I had an interesting chat with Suella Fernandes, vice chair of the Michaela governing body. When I asked about the appointment of Katharine Birbalsingh as headteacher of the school and the process involved I was told that Katharine was the proposer of the free school so she was the headteacher - 'That's the way it goes with a free school'. When I asked, therefore, what quality control there was of the appointment, given the rigorous procedures involved in the appointment of headteachers in the maintained sector, I was told that the free school application had been 'vetted'  by the DfE.

Turning to the governing body I asked how they had been appointed, Apparently they are supporters of the bid and all 'passionate' about education. She did not demur when I said, 'So you are all self-appointed', that's how it is with free schools, apparently. I was told that apart from herself, a planning barrister, other governors included Chidi Amadi, an ex-pupil of Birbalsingh's and Dr Tony Sewell, CEO of Generating Genius. LINK

When I asked whether parent governors would be elected or appointed I was told they would be 'recruited'. As many free schools and academies have only one or two parent governors I asked how many Michaela would have. That was probably unfair as the governing body is still incomplete and hoping to recruit 'professionals' locally, and the vice chair could only hazard a guess off the record.

 Recruitment of teachers is clearly an issue with Michaela offering English, Maths, Science, History. Geography, Religious  Education, French, Spanish, Music, Art and extended day competitive sport, help with university applications, Latin, Mandarin, business and personal financial skills and social and cultural education.  It was clear from my conversation that staff recruitment had not got very far and I warned that some of these were shortage subjects where it would be hard to recruit.

With the school intending to open in September 2014 with four classes of 30 (presumably Year Sevens) I asked how the range of subjects could be covered by 'about eight teachers' and was told that this would be 'no problem at all'.

Pursuing the thought that parents were being sold a pig in a poke I pointed out that with local secondary schools parents could judge them from their examination results (except for Ark that doesn't have any yet) and Ofsted Reports, but all we had for Michaela were assertions in a glossy brochure: 'That's the way it is with free schools starting out'. But they wanted to offer parents a choice based on tradition and discipline.

With Michaela having been rejected in two areas of South London I asked how they had ended up in Brent. Initially I was told that this was because there was a need here and because of the challenges Brent faced with its multicultural population and people not having English as their first language. When I pointed out that Brent secondary schools were achieving well and amongst the top 10% of schools in the country with a proven track record, the grounds switched to the shortage of secondary places. I pointed out that the Council had published plans to deal with this but was told that Michaela was one of the ways Brent was tackling the shortage. When I pressed further the fact that there was a site available in Wembley at Arena House became the dominant factor.When I suggested that the real need was for a secondary school, open to all, in the south of the borough, Suella suggested that I find them a site.

When I asked about planning permission for a secondary school in Arena House I was confidently told by the planning barrister that it wasn't required. When I pointed out that this meant local people had no say in something that would affect them, yes, you've guessed: 'That's the way it is' but people could come along and tell them about their concerns at the next consultation. In the future there will be school students from Ark, Preston Manor, Michaela and the French School at the Town Hall concentrated in this small area of Wembley. When I said that residents were likely to raise a hue and cry the short response was 'Let them'.

I asked about play space in the new school and Michaela agreed there would be very little and they would look elsewhere in the borough for sports facilities. Apparently no agreement has been reached with the Ark about the use of their facilities. At first they did not seem to know about the Town Hall French School but them confirmed that they had been in negotiations for the building but had dropped out because it would not have been ready in time for September 2014. Instead Arena House will be refurbished - at what cost to taxpayers I do not know - but at a time when the poor state of Copland High School has made national headlines...

Suella Fernandes involvement strengthens Michaela's links with the Conservative Party. (Katharine Birbalsingh's career as a Govite was launched when she addressed a meeting at the Tory Conference). Suella is a daughter of former Brent Conservative councillor Uma Fernandes and herself stood as a Conservative candidate in Fryent ward. She attended a local Brent primary school, Uxendon Manor, but her secondary education was at Heathfield School in Pinner - a Girls Public Day School Trust establishment.

The next consultation is on April 4th, 6-8pm Powell Suite, Chalkhill Community Centre

Bin Veolia in Brent boosted by Labour motion calling for Veolia's exclusion

The Bin Veolia in Brent Campaign received a boost last week when a motion critical of Veolia was passed at the Brent Central  General Committee of the Labour Party.  The Campaign calls for Veolia to be excluded from the current multi-million Brent Public Real Contract because of its complicity in the breaking of international law in the occupied territories of Palestine.

The motion was proposed Sabina Khan of the Dudden Hill branch of the Labour Party.  Those present were generally aware of the issues involved and there were several other speeches in favour.

There was a further suggestion that the issue be raised with Cllr James Powney (Kensal Green) who is the lead member for environment and neighbourhoods.

The full text of the motion and a downloadable petition can be found HERE

Risks in council's reduced role and restructuring

Long term out-sourcing reduces democratic accountability

 It was rather disconcerting during yesterday's Barnet Spring march to find a rather touching faith in the ability of the Labour Party to deliver something quite different to the Tory's Easy Council option. A speech from a libraries campaigning from Newcastle and chats with those of us from Brent, introduced a touch of realism into their expectations.

Of course Labour Brent and Tory Barnet are not identical but they do share some of the basic assumptions and I am under no illusions that the Greens in Brighton have fundamentally different views as to the future. They are all in different ways 'managing' the decline in financial and political power of local councils.

One way of doing this is to reduce the 'need' for local services through lowering expectations and reducing costs via out-sourcing to the lowest bidder. Out-sourcing is privatisation and  removes democratic accountability and further reduces the role of the council. What is required instead of accommodation to the Coalition agenda is out-right concerted defence of local government and local democracy.

This is how the Brent Council restructuring document puts it:

The changing role of the Council

The scale of the challenge to public services through the reductions outlined above is considerable. It cannot be managed by the traditional local government responses of streamlining staffing and restricting access or eligibility to services which may be of poorer quality than they are now. This can only lead to conflict and declining trust among local people. We must:

• find more innovative ways of preventing demand for public services arising in the first place

• do more to ensure that if a need arises, ways are found to meet it without relying on public services

• help people themselves self-manage a long term need, rather than relying on a service

• minimise duplication by integrating all services-not just those provided by the

council-around individuals, thereby facilitating a more personalised and coherent approach

• explore ways of enabling service users to improve services by commissioning services directly.

Barnet wants to do away with the local authority's day to day management role altogether with massive long-term contracts to then likes of Capita. However Brent isn't really that far behind if you consider the huge contract currently being procured for the Public Realm (street cleaning, waste collection, recycling, Parks and BHP grounds maintenance) as well as adult social care and parts of the education service.

Brent Council's restructuring of senior management is a response to the declining role of the local authority in service management but also reflects the growing role of major projects and regeneration as the Council seeks to sell the family silver (public assets) to remain afloat.

Under the proposals:

• The Corporate Management Team will be reduced from 9 posts to 5
• CMT Directors will be reduced from 8 posts to 4
• Assistant Directors will be reduced from 19 to 14
• A new post of Assistant Chief Executive will be created

A common theme is the creation of 'Strategic' and 'Operational Directors' in the new departments. As an example we can look at the newly created Education, Health and Social Care Department. As the name suggests this includes education, children and adult social care and the newly acquired public health functions. It is a huge remit and contains some of the riskiest areas of the Council's operations. BACES is transferred from education to the Major Projects and Regeneration Department.

There will be a Strategic Director of Education, Health and Social Care and s/he will manage the Operational Directors for 1) Education 2) Children's Social Care 3) Adult Social Care and a Director of Public Health (a statutory position) who will report to the Chief Executive.

This set-up may provoke some anxiety in terms of the complexity and associated risk factors in these departments, particularly regarding safeguarding of vulnerable children and adults. Both child and adult social care have huge budget pressures and as a new service it is unclear what the eventual financial position will be regarding public health.  Christine Gilbert's report claims that the reorganisation takes account of the Munro Review's recommendation that the role of Director of Children's Services should not have additional functions in order that the focus on vulnerable children should not be diluted. This proposal should be given careful scrutiny by councillors mindful of Brent's unfortunate history in this area, and the difficulty of recruitment to such posts.

The Department of Environment and Neighbourhoods will have a Straetgic Director and two Operational Directors for 1) Neighbourhoods and 2) Environment and Protection. It will now be responsible for Community Safety.

The already huge Regeneration and Major Projects department now takes on Brent Customer Services,  a new Employment and Enterprise function, and associated with the latter BACES is transferred from Children and Families. There will be a Strategic Director and four Operational Directors 1) Property and Projects 2) Planning and Regeneration 3) Housing and Employment and 4) Customer Services.

I have previously expressed concern that this department, currently head by Andy Donald, has a great deal of power and possible conflicts of interest, and my concern is not lessened by the reorganisation. As with Education, Health and Social Care, here are a great many eggs in one basket.

Petition launched against Birbalsingh's Michaela Free School

The petition from parents, teachers and local residents launched today is available as a PDF on the panel opposite. Please run off copies and circulate to friends, work colleagues and neighbours. The petition will be sent to the Michaela Academy as a response to their current consultation (the first consultation meetng is on Tuesday March 26th in the Powell Suite,Chalkhill Community Centre 3-5pm and the second on April 4th 6-8pm. The Community Centre is at 113 Chalkhill Rd  Wembley, Greater London HA9 9FX. Directions: Cross the road from Wembley Park Station - turn left and then take first right.

The wording is self-explanatory:

We are a group of local parents, teachers and members of the local community opposed to the setting up of the Michaela ‘free’ school in Brent.

We think that the planning for school places has to be done in collaboration with the local community. Putting this school in the north of the borough of Brent will directly compete with our existing local schools and is not where the school place shortages are.

We believe that the evidence from ‘free’ schools has shown that they lead to increased social segregation, lower attainment and have been run for profit. Brent schools are in the top 10% of schools in the country so have a proven track record improving attainment for all children ensuring equal opportunities for pupils from all backgrounds.  

We believe that all children need decent school buildings, investment in their schools and smaller class sizes. Free schools have been funded by cutting two desperately needed grants, including the BSF (Building Schools for the Future) money promised to our existing local schools. We know that the cuts to education and public services and the raising of tuition fees will harm our communities. The free school movement is Michael Gove's experimental pet project and is part of the plan to privatise our services and will worsen education for all.

We, the undersigned, oppose the setting up of the Michaela Community School. This could destroy other local schools. We believe that school places need to be planned and the setting up of a school to ‘compete’ with others is damaging to our communities.