COPLAND’S IMPROVED A LEVEL RESULTS: A LESSON FOR GOVE AND OFSTED?

Guest post by Mistleflower

By my reckoning, the successful Copland  6^th form students who  achieved creditable and  ‘significantly improved’  results at A level this year  enjoyed their 7 years of secondary  education presided over by managements made up of :  first,  a bunch of (alleged) crooks led by a man knighted for ‘service to education’; second, a local Head brought on for a few weeks when the alleged malfeasors had suddenly to be substituted; third,  another  local Head on temporary loan for a season; and, finally,  a longer-lasting Leadership team ultimately deemed ‘Inadequate’ by Ofsted and put on a free transfer after failing to restore the school to its former glory after a difficult 3 seasons in the lower leagues. (The current management duo were drafted in too late to have had any influence on the A level results in question).  Despite all this disruption and disturbance, these Copland 6th formers seem to have flourished in their time at the school.

 Could it be that  Michael Gove, ever on the lookout for a new wheeze and a cheap headline,  will see Copland’s  improved A level results  after the school’s  unusual management journey as a potentially winning formula which he will announce at the Tory party conference  is soon to be rolled out in (state) schools across the country?  Could it be that LA  Directors of Education are  at this very moment being urged by DfE clones  to headhunt gangs of  fraudsters to help begin the ‘turning round’ of ‘failing schools’?  Have all Ofsted inspectors been ordered to produce the names of 10 ‘Inadequate’ Leaders  by noon on September 1 or face being declared ‘Inadequate’ themselves to their eternal shame and that of their children, Yea Even Unto the Tenth Generation?  Are teams of these newly-rehabilitated ‘Super-Inadequate ’ Leaders to be parachuted in to ‘failing’ schools across the nation, to begin the process  of driving up their A level results in time for the next election but one? Could it be that South Brent will soon be held up as an example of  educational ‘good practice’ in the same way that Gove has previously cited as relevant exemplars the educational systems of  Singapore, Finland, Guam,  Kyrgistan,  Vanuatu,  North Korea and the Gilbert and Ellice Islands in the days of Arthur Grimble (ask your grandad) ?

Or…………. might it just be, in fact, that these successful  Copland A level students worked pretty damn well over a period of 7 years in a school  that had been robbed blind by corruption, that was physically falling to bits, that was badmouthed by their friends and by some parts of the press (though nobly supported by others),  that was betrayed by its local authority, that was woefully mishandled by incoming ‘Leaders’ who seemed to have been briefed that the same staff who, on their own, had lanced the boil, were not really themselves  the victims of historic criminality  but were, in fact, the problem?

And could it be that these staff carried on teaching these students pretty well  over these same 7 years, trying not to be too distracted by having to spend time doing stuff the governors, the local authority or the fraud squad should have been doing   (detection, financial auditing, evidence gathering , taking witness statements,   accusation, publicising, and then union  action endangering their own livelihoods and career futures)  in order to bring to an end the haemorrhaging of millions of pounds of Brent taxpayers’ money?

 Could it be that these teachers continued teaching these students  by  using the same guiding  principles which had brought them into teaching in the first place: a respect for learning,  an affection for their students and a belief in the potential that learning has to change their students’ lives?   Could it be that they gave only weary lip-service to the  ‘Strategies for Delivering a  Good to Outstanding Lesson’  spouted at them on  INSET days by various  Leaders,  most of  whom were themselves demonstrably  incapable of producing anything approaching  the thing which they seemed to imagine  their status in the management hierarchy  gave them the authority to pontificate on?

Might we not ultimately conclude, therefore,  that the most important thing in any school has nothing to do with ‘Leadership’ and everything to do with the organic relationship between teachers and students. That the mantra taught in Leadership School ,  ‘I Am Passionate About Making a Difference ‘,  was never more than  a tired formulation , convenient for contestants on The Apprentice and  those who lack the imagination to invent their own platitudes, but one which barely conceals the barely-hidden fear of all Leaders  that maybe ‘Leadership’, in the sense that it is encountered in many of our schools, ie separate from and ‘above’ the organic teaching relationship which  is the essence of effective education , is no more than a self-serving dead end;  that most ‘Leadership’  ultimately doesn’t make  much difference at all to anything?  And might we not hope that  at least a few of the more talented individuals who have gone down the Leadership road might now see the error of their ways and  find their way back into respectable employment: as teachers?

Well done to those Copland students. You did a great job in exceptionally difficult circumstances.

Well done also to those Copland  teachers.       And, if you’ve still got a job, keep up the good work.

Brent project seeks to reduce fuel poverty and carbon emissions

The Brent Campaign Against Climate Change, of which I am chair, has had preliminary discussions with Cllr Roxanne Mashari, lead member for the Environment, on the possibility of setting up a Low Carbon Zone in the borough after our Secretary, Ken Montague, made a presentation to the Brent Executive.

That is selecting an area where a concerted programme of measures aimed at reducing energy consumption through structural changes (roof and wall insulation, double glazing, micro-generation) and educational initiatives. It would include housing, businesses, schools and public buildings in the area. The LCZ would serve as an exemplar, that after valuation could be rolled out across the borough in due course.

We pointed out that  money was available through the ECO (Energy Company Obligation) which is designed to tackle fuel poverty, affordable warmth and carbon emissions at zero cost to those in highest need.

I therefore welcome a report that goes before Monday's Executive which sets out a tender process to find a project partner to deliver an ECO programme in Brent. LINK

The report sets out the project aims:

The project’s key objectives are to:-

• Improve the energy efficiency of properties and reduce energy consumption

• Reduce carbon emissions,

• Reduce consumer energy costs and alleviate fuel poverty; and,

• Safeguard and create employment opportunities.

As the project’s primary requirement is to deliver the required improvements to domestic properties, the delivery partner will be required to treat domestic properties as the service priority, i.e. marketing its services, facilitating customers, explaining and securing the sign-up and installation of appropriate energy efficiency improvements across the Borough. 

It is envisaged that a significant portion of the market and therefore a key target for the project will be ‘hard to treat’ domestic properties i.e. those that cannot accommodate cost-effective measures and may therefore have missed out on previous energy improvements. These properties will have the potential to access ECO funding. Given the priority to be attributed to domestic interventions over non-domestic the balance of the finance, scope and value of the opportunity will favour the former. It is likely that any scheme will include the HRA stock as a priority but it should be stressed that fuel poverty and energy efficiency issues affect the growing private sector and there is an expectation that any scheme will seek to address these issues. 

Furthermore, in order to achieve long term investment in the Borough’s supply chain and employment opportunities, some form of confidence in the longevity of this market locally is required. Consequently a 5 year contract (with up to a two year extension if necessary) is sought, with a break clause included at the end of the first phase of ECO to safeguard against any major changes in legislation/obligations.

The report recognises, as with the LCZ, that an area by area approach may be beneficial:

The ECO is measured in terms of meeting carbon reduction targets; different types of energy efficiency works therefore attract different levels of funding. In addition, the situation of the existing tenant or homeowner can influence the level of funding given. A commercial partner may be likely to seek to meet its ECO obligations in the cheapest and most efficient way, for example by carrying out work on an estate or area basis to achieve economies of scale. Any commercial imperative will need to be balanced against the council’s own priorities in terms of the greatest benefit to low income households. 

There will be occasions whereby an area by area approach is the most appropriate and could offer wider regeneration opportunities and it is likely that stock within the HRA will fit this model. The position may be complicated by the presence of leasehold homes within a block - for example, if in a low- rise block of flats, external ECO funding was available to cover all of the social housing properties but within the block, 5% of flats were privately owned and considered ‘able to pay’. The position of leaseholders varies according to the terms of the lease: in some cases, the council is entitled to re-charge for improvements while in others this option may not be available. Since the expenditure in this case is not incurred by the council, it is envisaged that any re-charge would be waived. Additional staff resources may also be required to support the project and contract manage the partner. The specification will include an expectation that any requirement for this will be funded by the partner. Any other costs, which will include officer time, will be met from existing budgets.  

The Council has an existing long-standing SLA arrangement in place with ‘Energy Solutions’ and their role in this project in terms of stock analysis, encouraging take up and identifying our most vulnerable residents who require assistance needs to be formalised. 

Controversial Veolia Public Realm decision to be made at October Executive

Tomorrow the petition against Veolia being given the £250m plus Brent Public Realm contract will be presented to the Executive at the Civic Centre. The Bin Veolia campaign will be given 5 minutes to speak to the petition at the beginning of the meeting and there will be a demonstration of supporters outside the Civic Centre from 6.30pm.

Overnight the Council released  information that the Executive will make their decision at their October 14th meeting:

ITEM
To award the contract for public realm services including waste, recycling, street cleaning, winter gritting and grounds maintenance for Brent Council land and Brent Housing Partnership parks and open spaces and approve any consequential recommendations.

The campaign for Veolia's exclusion is based on the claim that their activities in the Occupied Territories of Palestine provide infrastructural support for the illegal settlements and that this amounts to 'grave misconduct'.

In June an Israeli court fined TMM Integrated Recycling Industries, owned by Veolia, NIS 1.5m for burying waste after finding inconsistencies between the company's reports on the amount of waste it had handled - and for which it had to pay a fee - and the actual amounts disposed of.

Th judge said it was amazing how the company was able to transform large qualities of waste into 'sorting remnants' in a single day without any additional manpower, overtime hours or additional shifts - and amazingly it happened as soon as the landfill fee was  instituted.
Source: Haaretz 13.6.13

The Executive report on the contract will not contain full information: LINK

The report will contain an appendix wih confidential information as specified in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, namely: information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding the information); confidential information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

Brent Council has been playing cat and mouse with Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign over legal issues to do with the procurement process. The withholding of information by the Council has led some experienced legal advisers to suggest that there could be grounds for a Judicial Review in the future.

The exchanges over an FOI request can be found HERE

Derek Wall speaking on economics and the environment at Balcombe

The video below was taken yesterday at the Reclaim the Power camp at Balcombe. Taken in a tent where another workshop was also in session on a hand-held camera the quality is not the best - but I think the quality of what is said is worth the effort of viewing.

Feeling the power at Balcombe

I spent a stimulating afternoon down at Balcombe today where the anti-fracking protest camp has been reinforced, a mile or so further down the road by the Reclaim the Power camp. It was noteworthy how many young people were present as well as many families.

Reclaim the Power state:

It's clear that if w want to change the way we power our lives, we need to change who has power over our lives. The two are so closely connected.

Reclaim the Power is about building the links between people and campaigns that can work together to stop the dash for gas and create a sustainable safe future where our common needs of not just energy but also health services, education, food, transport and freedom  of movement belongs to us and ar accountable to us and not profit and corporate greed,

Another power is possible, and we can all be part of creating it.

Certainly the positive and friendly atmosphere in both camps, and the willingness to engage in comradely discussion, made me think another power is possible.

Reclaim the Power camp plan

Workshop discussion

Impromptu concert

Workshop tent

Straw bale urinals

Portable solar panels

The 'Kids' Space'

Sign at the roadside protest camp

Roadside agitprop

A friendly welcome awaits locals at the Green Party tent

Police guard the entrance to the drilling site

Butt poses key questions on future of NHS provision in Brent for Executive endorsement

The Brent Executive will be asked to retrospectively endorse a personal submission made by Council Leader Muhammed Butt to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. The IRP was gathering evidence on the Shaping a Healthier Future plans for health services in North West London which include the closure of Central Middlesex A &E  and submissions closed  yesterday.

Th IRP will report to the Secretary of State on September 13th and his decision will be made in October 2013.

Muhammed Butt's Submission

I am writing to you to express my views on the Shaping a Healthier Future programme (SAHF). It is accepted that the NHS needs to change and services have to evolve but I have some serious concerns with the proposals as they stand, and whether they can really deliver improvements to health care in North West London within the planned timetable for implementation. I support the referral that Ealing Council has made to the Secretary of State for Health that will see the Shaping a Healthier Future proposals reviewed by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. It is important that the plans are subject to robust and independent scrutiny and that the modelling and assumptions built into the proposals are properly tested.

Out of Hospital Care

SAHF makes it clear that changes to out of hospital care are essential if it is to deliver the planned changes to acute care. The general princip le of transferring services from acute to community locations with investment in primary and community care, where appropriate, is welcomed. People should not have to travel to hospitals for routine care or to manage a long term condition.

That said, I am concerned about whether the proposed changes can really be delivered, and even if they are, will they deliver the reduction in demand for acute services that SAHF claims?

I have seen no guarantees that out of hospital care will get the investment in the near future that is needed to ensure that SAHF can deliver improvements. The business case outlines the level of out of hospital care investment required, but in times of financial pressure and constantly shifting priorities, I need cast iron assurances from all of the CCGs in North West London that this money will be allocated to out of hospital services that underpin SAHF no matter what other challenges are faced in the coming years. 
 

The Decision Making Business Case (DMBC) is clear that commissioners and providers should not undertake reconfiguration of hospital services until out of hospital care is shown to be working and have sufficiently reduced demand on acute services. But I need clarity on exactly what the thresholds are for the reduction in demand that will need to be met before the reconfiguration of acute services is allowed to begin, particularly on critical services such as A&E.

I also need to be convinced that delivering more and more services out of hospital will be cheaper for the NHS. There is an assumption that this is the case, but I have seen no evidence to support it. One of the benefits of providing services in a hospital setting is the critical mass that can be achieved by locating services in one place. For some services, such as maternity, we will see a reduction in the number of places services can be offered.

For other services, we will see an increase in settings as services are delivered away from hospitals. The CCGs need to demonstrate more clearly how out of hospital services will be cheaper.

While there appears to be a general consensus of support across CCGs in North West London for the provision of out of hospital care, the provision of this falls to individual CCGs and individual Out of Hospital Care Strategies. A failure to deliver an Out of Hospital Care Strategy in any one CCG areas could have a knock oneffect on neighbouring CCGs, particularly if it affects demand on shared acute care services. For example (and this is hypothetical), if Harrow CCG fails to reduce demand for acute services, how will this affect Brent residents using Northwick Park Hospital where services could be under extreme pressure? Similarly, in these times of stark finances and shifting priorities, if one CCG decided to reduce its commitment to out of hospital care, it is not clear what the effect would be on neighbouring boroughs and shared acute service provision.

GP Support and “Hubs”

The Out of Hospital Strategy underpinning SAHF cannot succeed without GP support and I note that one of the key issues listed in the panel’s terms of reference is the consideration of GP’s views. I have seen no evidence of grass-rootsGP support for the changes, particularly in relation to out of hospital care (I refer to GPs themselves rather than the CCG). Although GP events took place, the DMBC gives limited reference to them, despite the report’s acknowledgement that Health Scrutiny Committees in North West London had made it clear that they expected to see evidence of GP support.

It seems to be a general assumption throughout the decision making process that the support of CCGs should be taken as implicit supportof GPs. This is an erroneous and dangerous assumption. Shaping a Healthier Future relies heavily on additional out of hospital services and without the full buy-in and cooperation of GPs SAHF will face serious, if not insurmountable, challenges. I ask that the IRP challenge the CCGs to provide the full details and results of the GP engagement activities that were undertaken to demonstrate that there is GP support for their proposals

Besides the lack of evidence of general support fro m GPs, we have seen little evidence that GPs will be prepared to make changes to the way they work or provide additional services/support that is required. SAHF and the CCGs needs to satisfy the panel that the GP elements of the Out of Hours services can be delivered, and what the back-up alternatives are in cases where it proves they cannot.

One of the key elements of the Out of Hospital Strategy is the provision of additional local medical centres (“hubs”). Yet purpose built centres that already exist in Brent have not fulfilled their potential. Monks Park Medical Centre for example remains under-occupied and consequently underused. Similarly, I understand that the NHS Brent has failed in the past to encourage a GP practice (the Willesden Medical Centre) to relocate into the Willesden Centre for Health and Care (one of the designated hubs) despite considerable efforts. I urge the panel to fully investigate SAHF's claims that the proposed centres will really be able to deliver on their promises across NW London and particularly in Brent.

Evidence from Brent to date suggests that efforts to move GP practices into purpose build medical centres have not succeeded and that they remain committed to working from their existing premises. Why should SAHF change this?

Given that “hub” medical centres are a central component of the Out of Hospital strategy underpinning SAHF, I need to see more clarity on exactly what services are planned for each hub. In particular there needs to be clarity on exactly what services will be provided at Willesden Centre for Health and Care and for Wembley Centre for Health and Care, which are already large medical centres in Brent and two of the designated hubs. I also want to see assurances that no existing services at these sites are going to be removed.

GP access is already a serious issue in Brent, particularly in the south of the borough, and previous attempts by the PCT to address this have had little success. Since SAHF is dependent on increasing GP access I urge the panel to establish with the CCGs (particularly Brent CCG) what evidence they have that that their new attempts to increase GP access will succeed where previous attempts have failed. Without this A&E attendances and acute demand will continue to rise.

Changes to acute care

I have seen little tangible evidence to support the models for individual services leading to reduction in demand on acute services. I acknowledge that there will be an element of risk in the modelling of any service reconfiguration, but the scale of change is huge and the impact of the Out of Hospital services not producing the required reduction in acute demand could be catastrophic. To this end I urge the IRP to establish what mitigation plans there are if the model fails, either for individual parts of the reconfiguration or for more fundamental modelling of the reconfiguration as a whole.

An example of a proposed service change that causes me concern is the provision of maternity beds at Northwick Park. Under the proposals there will be an increase from 69 to 70 beds by 2015/16, but a 20% increase in births atthe site. This appears to be based on the questionable assumption that a 15% reduction in average length of stay can be achieved by 2015/16. I ask the panel to establish what provision has been made if North West London Hospitals fails to deliver the numbers proposed?

Previous attempts to reduce acute demand through faster discharge have been unsuccessful and I would be interested to hear why SAHF believes it will succeed where previous attempts have failed.

I am particularly concerned about the deliverability of the proposals - maternity is one example. Changes on the scale proposed by Shaping a Healthier Future would ideally be carried out in a stable and highly functioning health system. But, we know that the NHS is in crisis, and North West London is not immune to this

.

Central Middlesex Hospital

It will come as no surprise to you that I am concerned about the future plans for Central Middlesex Hospital. Central Middlesex serves the south of Brent, which contains areas of significant deprivation and poverty. Has there been any research done on the evening closure of A&E at Central Middlesex that is already in place, and its effect on Northwick Park, St Mary's and other neighbouring hospitals? Northwick Park’s A&E Department is already failing to perform adequately or safely. Unless out of hospital services deliver a marked reduction in the use of Northwick Park’s A&E, the removal of A&E services at Central Middlesex could cause Northwick Park hospital to reach breaking point.

I note that North West London Hospitals and Brent CCG both support the plans for the closure of A&E at Central Middlesex but that does not alter the fact that there is a genuine, strongly felt public opposition to this plan which cannot be ignored and I urge the panel to give this strong consideration when they consider the proposals.

It is proposed that Central Middlesex be an elective hospital with an Urgent Care Centre. However, there is a complete lack of information on precisely what elective services will be delivered at the site, and what catchment area they will serve. It is also unclear what the UCC will provide despite plans for a standard UCC offer to be developed across London. A working group set up to develop plans for UCCs has,to the best of my knowledge, not published any proposals. I need to see clarification from Brent CCG on its plans for services at Central Middlesex Hospital and assurances on its long term viability as an NHS hospital before I can support the proposed changes.

Northwick Park Hospital

Northwick Park has struggled for some time to deliver an adequate or safe A&E and has one of, if not the worst, “four hour waiting time” performance in the country. It has recently had a crisis summit focussing on A&E leading to the imposition of an “Implementation Plan” to address the issues. Is it really prudent to give extra A&E responsibilities to a hospital that has shown itself incapable of delivering adequate A&E services to date and what is being put in place to manage these increased risks? The recent risk summit at the Trust highlighted the depth of the problems that currently exist and I have serious concerns about how you can transform a system which is already in crisis.

In addition, the response to the current A&E crisis at Northwick Park has been to utilise facilities at Central Middlesex. What back-up options will there be in the future once Central Middlesex’s emergency facilities have been removed?

Equalities and Population

Many residents of the south of Brent suffer deprivation and hardship. It is an area with a high proportion of BME residents and residents with English as a second language. We have sought assurances from SAHF that these communities will not be unduly disadvantaged by the reconfigurations and particularly the closure of Central Middlesex A&E.

In particular we have sought clarity on the travel implications for both patients and residents. To date we remain dissatisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to this. Clinical priorities are cited as being more important, but we should not ignore the fact that the mental health and recovery of patients can be dependent on regular visits and support from family and friends and I urge the panel to push for clarity on the effect that the changes would have on low cost transport options for patients and visitors, particularly in this deprived area. We would similarly seek assurances from Brent CCG that it will take seriously the public transport implications to the medical centre "hubs", which besides being an equalities issue, could reduce the numbers of patients using these services.

Conclusion

I want Brent Council to work constructively to challenge our NHS colleagues. I am not opposed to change without good reason, but I remain concerned at the lack of clarity in key areas, including: 

 

• The ability to deliver better out of hospital services

• That Northwick Park Hospital will be able to provide additional acute services for an expanded population

• The future of Central Middlesex Hospital. Despite the Shaping a Healthier Future plans being published a year ago, I am no closer to understanding what will be delivered from the Central Middlesex Hospital once it becomes an elective centre.

Labour launch petition on fares and ticket office closures

The message below comes from a Labour Party source but I thought worth sharing with Wembley Matters readers. HOWEVER A WARNING There is a major reservation that I have concerning the petition. By signing it you leave yourself liable to be contacted by the  Labour Party or its elected rpresentatives and can only opt out by writing to a very small print postal address. I think it would be much more ethical to enable signatories to opt out electronically. There have been some concerns about people's names appearing on Labour Party websites locally, interpretable as endorsement, without their knowledge.

On Monday it was revealed that Boris Johnson plans to close every ticket office at TFL stations in London. It will mean no ticket offices at Wembley Park, Wembley Central, Northwick Park, Kilburn, Queens Park, Queensbury etc.

The effect will be dramatic. Firstly it will mean no human presence to help out when things go wrong – ticket machines out of order, Oyster Card lost or stolen etc. Secondly it will make stations less safe, particularly for older commuters and travellers. Thirdly it will make access to travel for disabled passengers in Brent even harder than it already is. Fourthly it raises serious questions over whether there will be enough staff at stations to cope in an emergency situation and lastly it will result in up to 6,000 job losses. Disastrous all round!

On top of this the Mayor looks set to raise fares above inflation yet again for 2014. Under Boris Johnson fares have become the highest in the world. A single bus journey is 56% more and a zone 1-6 travelcard is £440 a year more expensive. The Mayor is asking Londoners to pay more for less.

Sadiq Khan, Shadow London Minister has launched this petition – www.GreatToryTrainRobbery.co.uk and given the statement below:

Boris Johnson has an abysmal record of hiking fares year on year that has contributed enormously to the cost-of-living crisis in London. London fares are now the most expensive in the world. Since Boris became Mayor the cost of a single bus journey has increased by 56% and the price of a zone 1-6 travel card has increased by £440 a year. He must recognise that Londoners are struggling and that their budgets can’t keep stretching forever and freeze fares at least at the rate of inflation for 2014.The Mayor can afford to do this; all that is missing is the political will.”

On top of this, the Mayor plans to give Londoners a worse service for their money. On Monday his secret plans to close every ticket office in London were revealed. His plans mean you will get no help if your oyster card doesn’t work, or is lost or stolen. There will be no help for tourists who need advice or disabled passengers who need assistance. It raises questions about whether there will be enough staff at stations to deal with emergencies and will result in 2,000 job losses. This is one of the worst examples of breaking a manifesto promise I have ever seen in London politics. No wonder the public are so cynical of politicians.

What future for the Brent Town Hall memorial plaques?

Memorial garden outside Brent Town Hall

Brent Council is due to come back to me regarding the future of the memorial trees and plaques in the garden area outside the Town Hall now that it is to be refurbished as the Wembley French International School (see below).

The Council's attitude towards heritage and posterity has been under scrutiny in the light of the fate of  Dollis Hill House,the Old Willesden Library, the Palace of Industry and Oxgate Farm.

These plaques have been neglected and are in poor shape but nonetheless represent Brent Council's concerns with our wider history and as such merit some consideration.