COPLAND STAFF & PARENTS DENIED SECRET BALLOT ON ARK (EVEN IF THEY FOOT THE BILL THEMSELVES!)

Guest blog by 'Fair Play'

Misjudged attempts by Copland Community School’s  Interim Executive Board (IEB)  to outmanoeuvre the school’s  staff have failed embarrassingly. The Brent Council-imposed governing body have refused staff and parents’ proposals that there should be a secret ballot conducted by the trusted and prestigious Electoral Reform Society on whether the school should be taken over by Ark Academies. Anticipating pleas that such a ballot would cost too much, the staff unions were prepared to foot the bill themselves.  The teachers’ proposal that strike action would be suspended if the ballot went ahead was put to the IEB with a very reasonable deadline of giving a response by last Thursday, 5.00pm. They failed to meet this deadline but promised to have decided by Friday pm. They ignored this too.

Aware that their tactical stalling would leave little time for teachers to meet to decide their response, the IEB appeared to hope that the strike action on Tuesday (announced  weeks ago by the staff and backed by their national union organisations) would be called off. As an attempt at an additional sweetener, they were said to be considering yet another version of their own ‘consultation’ vote instead of the Electoral Reform Society secret ballot  However, when Copland staff met on Monday there was anger at the tactics of the IEB and a near-unanimous vote to continue with Tuesday’ strike. Staff felt that the IEB’s contemptuous disdain for their attempts at  reasonable discussion and negotiation reinforced their view that the whole academisation ‘consultation’ was a sham and that, despite Michael Pavey’s claims to the contrary, the takeover by Ark is, in his own words,  a 'done deal'.

Ok, Michael. If it is a done deal, why not let the staff unions go ahead and pay for their ballot of parents and teachers at their own expense? It won’t make any difference to anything, after all.

However, if, as you claim, it isn’t yet a done deal, then what harm is there in demonstrating that at least one ‘consultation’ in Brent is prepared to canvass and listen to the views of the greatest possible number of stakeholders consulted in the most open and democratic manner possible and at no expense to the council? 

What believer in participatory democracy could possibly resist?

( But whatever you decide, please don’t tell us that the IEB is an independent body over which you have no influence at all. You’d  have us believing in Santa next). 

Brent Council should work with the community on Barham Park Library

Guest blog by Philip Grant following the Barham Park Planning Committee decision and the Freinds of Barham Library's statement that they would challenge any appeal by the Trustees of Barham Park Trust

As at 3pm on 16 December, Brent's Planning Department had not been notified of any appeal by the Planning Inspectorate (to whom any appeal by the Barham Park Trust, or by a Brent Council Officer in Regeneration's Property and Asset Management section on their behalf) would be made. However, as I doubt whether the "Friends" would put out this Statement without firm evidence of the facts, I will comment on the basis that an appeal has been made.

A blog item on the original Planning Committee decision can be found at: http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/planning-committee-upholds-community.html
I am convinced that Brent's Planning Committee made the right decision, and that the Planning Officer's recommendation to give consent to the change of use was wrong because it relied on a document which was dishonest. 

At the Civic Centre on the evening of the meeting I spoke with people from both sides of the argument. Although she has been criticised for supporting the application, Cllr. Mary Daly did so only because she saw the Trustees deal with ACAVA as the only way to get the Barham Park buildings back into use quickly. She, like me and others, is concerned that the longer the buildings remain empty, the more chance there is that they will fall into disrepair, and suffer the fate of Titus Barham's mansion in the park, which was demolished in the 1950's after years of neglect by Wembley Council, to whom it had been gifted for the benefit of local people, along with the park and remaining buildings in it, in 1937.

I did not think that letting all of the space to ACAVA for artists' studios was the only answer, and after speaking to representatives of Pivot Point and FoBPL, I wrote to all of the Barham Park Trustees on 15 November. I suggested to them that they should invite ACAVA to join them in an attempt to find a solution, by sitting down with the two local community groups who also wished to use part of the buildings, on a "without prejudice" basis, to see whether they could agree a workable way in which they could all share the facilities currently allocated solely to ACAVA. If they could agree how they would share the buildings, Council Officers should be instructed to draw up the necessary agreements to allow this to happen as soon as possible.

There may be some people within Brent Council who regard my efforts to get involved and give advice (on matters where I feel I have the knowledge or experience to make sensible suggestions) as "troublemaking", but here I was definitely trying to help as a "troubleshooter". I genuinely thought that 'given goodwill on all sides, this could be the way to get the buildings back into use, for ACAVA and for the local community, producing rental income to contribute to the refurbishment costs and help pay for the future maintenance of the buildings and to bring life back into the park.'

I have not heard back from any of the five Trustees (Cllrs Crane, Denselow, Hirani, Mashari and Ruth Moher), or from anyone at the Council on their behalf. If they have taken up my suggestion, I have not heard any word of it. I had said in my email to them: 'I realise that you may wish to take advice from Council Officers on my suggestions, but please remember that you are the Trustees, and the decisions are yours.' Despite this, it looks as if the Council Officers have got the upper hand (with the support or acquiescence of our elected Councillors, with their Trustee hats on). Their plans have been thwarted, quite rightly, by Brent’s Planning Committee, but they are determined that at whatever cost in (Council Taxpayers') money, and whatever the delay, and potential consequences in terms of the future of the Barham Park buildings, their will must prevail. 

Sadly, it makes the final comment in my email to the Barham Park Trustees of 15 November seem prophetic: 'I believe that the time of Officers would be better spent in working on a solution to the problem, rather than in searching for reasons to try to justify a scheme which is not a solution to it, and will only prolong the discord between Council and local community, rather than healing it.' 

Can anyone, please, explain why Brent Council makes it so difficult for Councillors, Council Officers and local people to work together for the mutual benefit of our community?

Philip Grant. 

Party with Preston Library campaigners tonight

Barham Library campaign to oppose Trustees' Appeal

Statement from Friends of Barham Library

The attempt to change the planning designation from 'community use'  for the Barham Library building  failed when the Planning Committee voted by 6 votes to 1 to REFUSE the planning application on the grounds that there would then be far too little genuine 'community space' in the remaining parts of the building.

Sadly the Labour Councillors who sit as Trustees of the Barham Park Charity (the Charity and not the Council own the building) have now decided to spend around £10,000 on an Appeal against the decision of the Planning Committee. The Appeal will now be heard by an independent Planning Inspector from Bristol but not for another 6 months.

The Barham Library building has now been empty for over 26 months and will now remain empty for another 6 while we await the Appeal Hearing. This is just an appalling waste of time and money.

We will of course oppose the Appeal and keep up the fight to get Barham Library reopened.

Figuring out Brent secondary school applications

Following my story revealing the number of Brent 1st preference choices for Michael Community Free School  Year 7 admissions for September 2014 was 46, several people have asked about comparable figures for other secondary schools. I have submitted a Freedom of Information request for 1st preference figures for other Brent secondary schools.

Meanwhile the following statistics from last year's admissions (September 2013 applications for Year 7) will give a picture of the relative popularity of Brent secondary schools. These are all applications - not just first preferences.  Please be aware that admissions criteria vary between the schools but that many places are filled by siblings of children already in the school. Some schools also give preference to their primary feeder schools.

In 2013 67.26% of  Brent Year 6 children got their first choice of  secondary school.

School	Year 7 places available	Number of on-time applications
Alperton	220	471
Ark	180	2479
Capital	196	425
Claremont	252	934
Convent of Jesus & Mary	180	270
Copland	240	283
JFS	300	1225
Kingsbury	315	1148
Preston Manor	252	1148
Newman Catholic College	150	133
Queens Park	208	1256
St Gregory’s	176	601
Crest Boys’	150	137
Crest Girls’	180	219
Wembley High	210	2254

Alternative uses proposed for Central Middlesex Hospital after A&E closure

The Central Middlesex Accident and Emergency facility is still set to close despite extensive local opposition.  However the hospital is still being paid for through a Private Finance Initiative scheme so North West London NHS has to find ways of using the building to the maximum once the A&E is closed. It is claimed that just having an elective hospital there would result in an £11m recurring deficit.

At a Shaping a Healthier Future (SaHF) meeting on Thursday the initial plans were unveiled.  SaHF said that they want to make changes as 'soon as practicably possible' but also need to consider whether neighbouring A&Es are ready for transition and whether Central Middlesex and Hammersmith Urgent Care Centres are operating according to North West London wide specifications.

Options of using Central Middlesex as just an Elective Hospital (pre-arranged treatment) and the closure of the site were rejected. Instead SaHF opted for an option in which a 'Bundle of Services from multiple providers' would operate on the Central Middlesex site. After reducing an initial 'long list'  of possibilities their 'optimised proposal' is:

HUB PLUS FOR BRENT - A major hub for primary care and community services including additional out-patient clinics and relocation and expansion of community rehabilitation beds from Willesden Community Hospital.

ELECTIVE ORTHOPAEDIC CENTRE - A joint venture for local providers delivering modern elective orthopaedic services.

BRENT'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES - Transferred from Park Royal Centre for Mental Health.

REGIONAL GENETICS SERVICE - Relocated from Northwick Park Hospital.

These are in addition to a 24/7 Urgent Care Centre at Central Middlesex. The changes would necessitate considerable investment in the site.
 
In answer to my question SAHF  said Sickle Cell services would continue from Central Middlesex. They argued that the Hub Plus option would mean more primary care and community services available on site, direct access to diagnostic services, more out-patient clinics and that co-location would support integration.  Provision of community rehabilitation beds would have repercussions for the Willesden Community Hospital site with a possibility of other services moving there.including another GP service, or that some of it may be sold off.

SaHR said that dedicated planned/elective care would give the advantage of reduced length of stay and low infection and complication rates. It would be based on a 'proven model of care receiving high patient satisfaction' as provided by  the South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre. It would be a joint venture between Northwick Park, Ealing, St Mary's and Charing Cross (Imperial) hospitals.

They claim that the transfer of Mental Health Services would mean better standards and a reduction in risk and the optimisation of care. Patients would benefit from a rebuilt mother and baby unit and moder pharmacy services that could also be used to support other services on the site.

The Regional Genetics Services provides outreach services across North West London and surrounding counties. It has two laboratories at Northwick Park which are independent of the general labs which are provided by a private provider. SaHF claim that moving it to Central Middlesex would 'allow profitable service lines to be developed' at Northwick Park.

It is proposed to hold an 'Options evaluation workshop with wide stakeholder audience' on the proposals on January 14th 2014.

Unfortunately the audience on Thursday was made up of people who were expert in the area, understood the jargon, and were on first name terms with the organisers. SAHF asked for ideas on how to engage more people, and apart from reducing the jargon, an idea that I put forward was for a special meeting about the proposals for the lead first aiders/welfare assistants of Brent schools  so that they can be briefed about the upcoming changes and can pass that knowledge on to parents of children who use those services.

Green Euro candidate hits out at industrialisation of schools

A leading Green Party politician has condemned Government league tables that show nearly half the areas with primary schools not meeting new nationally set targets are in Yorkshire.

Cllr Andrew Cooper, who is lead Green candidate for Yorkshire & the Humber in the European elections next year, said he was at least as concerned about the process of league tables as he was about the findings. Greens would abolish league tables as they are currently devised and used.

Many areas badly affected by Government austerity
“These targets are nationally set and take no account of local issues," said Cllr Cooper . "It is telling that many of the schools identified are in areas of social deprivation which have been especially badly affected by the Government’s austerity drive.

League tables a crude mechanism
"Using league tables, which by default rank schools above or below others, is a crude mechanism for determining real educational needs and outcomes. It is not helpful and simply stigmatises schools where teachers, parents and pupils are often working incredibly hard in spite of frequently lacking resources or having to keep adjusting to changing diktats from central Government.”

Cllr Cooper went on to say, ”This comes in the same week we have heard that the Coalition’s flagship policy on free schools is running two times over budget and failing to meet need in areas with oversubscribed places. It is dreadful for the Government to now compound this assault on education by using a one dimensional process to assess our primary schools.”

Cllr Cooper added, “Greens want a very different approach to education. We support a model where needs are determined more locally but on a community basis rather than in the way free schools are allowed to operate, and in particular we want the education process to be one that is geared to individual children’s needs rather than Michael Gove’s latest idea.”

He said that Greens support primary children starting academic schooling at 6 rather than 5, which would be in line with successful education systems such as those in several European countries. Prior to that, building on the Surestart programme, a system of free nursery education should be available with an emphasis on learning through play. Greens would also adopt the Scandinavian model of “all through schools” where pupils would remain in the same school throughout their education but the schools themselves would become more local in their nature and smaller than some of the super-sized establishments found across the UK today.

“We want schools that are linked to the local community, not Whitehall, and that are central to the local area and focus on the varying needs of children,” said Cllr Cooper. “The Government has a two-faced approach of encouraging elitist free schools which drift off in their own direction but then imposes a one-size-fits-all assessment which simply tarnishes the reputation of less well resouced schools and even their local area."

Cllr Cooper concluded, ”Like any parent, I want my children to have an education that meets their needs, not some national target. Schools should not be exam factories; pupils are children, not widgets.”

Is Michaela Academy Free School viable?

A Freedom Of Information request has revealed that Michaela Academy, a secondary free school due to open in a disused College of North West London building, in September 2014, has received only 50 1st preference applications for the 120 places available.

In addition to 46 first preferences from Brent there were a further 4 from Harrow. Applications naming the school but not as first choice came from Croydon, Ealing, Harrow and Hillingdon.

The school, the creation of Katharine Birbalsingh, who lost her previous job when she spoke about children in her then school at a Tory Party Conference, had tried to set up in two other London boroughs but was firmly told it was not wanted.

The building the school is due to occupy, Arena House, opposite Wembley Park station, is rumoured to need its asbestos removed. There is no evidence of any work being carried out and some windows have been left open which allows pigeons access. It is rather a sad sight.

With the recent revelations that free school costs are twice as high as predicted, some free school opening with very few pupils,  free schools employing unqualified teachers and free school heads walking out after 6 months in the job, it is legitimate to ask, with only 46 first preference applicants, whether Michaela is viable.

An objective Department for Education would subject any further expenditure to stern scrutiny. However as after her Tory Conference appearance Birbalsingh is Michael Gove's darling and a favourite of the Tory Right, that seems unlikely. Brent Council certainly establish whether the money could be better spent and make their views known to the DfE.

The 120 places are likely to fill up eventually not only with children for whom the school is not their first choice, but who have failed to get into other schools, but also with new comers who moved into Brent after the application process closed.

It isn't a great start.