Thursday 12 June 2014

Education Commission honestly critiques Brent's record but does it have the answers?

Regular readers of Wembley Matters will be aware of concerns over the fragmentation of education in the borough as free schools are proposed and academy conversions take place. The provision of additional school places has been ad hoc and often last minute and led by the Regeneration  department of the Council rather than Children and Families.

An Education commission set up by Chief Executive Christine Gilbert, a former head of Ofsted, is reporting to the next Cabinet on Monday.  The report is to be welcomed but needs a much wider discussion. It is hard to see how how its far-reaching recommendations can be given proper consideration at a meeting with much else on the agenda and a lead member for Children and Families only a few weeks into her post.

The introduction starkly sets out the issues which in effect also constitutes a critique of the lack of leadership on education in the borough, a matter also raised on this blog.
Brent boasts impressive results in early years education and at key stage 1. Its GCSE results are close to the London average and its key stage 5 results are higher than the London average. But these achievements obscure less flattering statistics. 

Given the excellent education the youngest children in Brent receive, it would be reasonable to expect progress would be equally impressive by the time they reach key stage 2. Unfortunately, it is not. Brent lags the London average at key stage 2 and its position relative to the other 32 boroughs is getting worse: it slipped from 15th place in 2012 to 22nd last year. This trend cannot be allowed to continue. 

A few years ago, Brent outperformed most London authorities at GCSE, now it barely manages to be average. Although overall its youngsters perform creditably, disproportionately few of them get the highest grades. And even though a third of the authority’s secondary schools are classed as ‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted – compared to less than a quarter nationally – it has the highest proportion of ‘Inadequate’ schools in London. 

Unfortunately, these failings are magnified by a lack of shared vision and the absence of a strong, energetic relationship between the local authority and its schools. All want the best for the children in their care but too often good intentions are unsupported by good practice. And where good practice exists it is too rarely shared.
In short, education in Brent is muddling through; scrambling reactively to avoid immediate problems when it should be planning ahead, pulling together and setting its sights on becoming one of the highest performing boroughs in London so that children and young people thrive in all Brent Schools.
There are 34 recommendations in the report which I reproduce below.  The full report needs careful consideration but two things immediately strike me. One is the contradiction betweem the authority cutting back on its School Improvement Service whilst at the same time wanting to get to know its schools better and have early warning of any difficulties. Will handing over responsibility to the Brent Schools Partnership, an organisation at an early stage of development, be sufficient to address this problem. There is a worrying absence of any reference to the role of School Improvement Partners (SIPs), the 'inspectors' of old, in the school improvement process, and consideration of their effectiveness and quality control.

Secondly, given the fact that Crest Academy, City Academy and now Alperton Academy have received less than Good, and sometimes Inadequate Ofsted ratings, and the failure of two planned Free Schools to open, is the proposed cooperation with academy and free school providers a viable option?

The impact of cuts and staffing uncertainties is honestly assessed:
Feedback to the Commission indicated that the Council’s approach towards many issues is not sufficiently strategic or ambitious. It is described as often being too reactive and too late.
The Commission was given the example of the abolition of assessment levels, as announced by the Secretary of State. There seems little preparation for this and, consequently, a risk that each school will act separately, resulting in a lack of common language about assessment and learning across the borough.
Another example is the lack of forward planning for free schools meals capacity.

Head teachers believe that, to some extent, significant reductions in education staffing, particularly at managerial levels, have made this inevitable.

Another factor is the lack of continuity of staff within the Council. Lots of interim posts add to the challenges of long-term strategic planning and reduce the drive to implement agreed priorities.
Establishing a staffing structure, which has resilience and continuity, should be a priority for the new Director, Children and Young People

RECOMMENDATIONS

Education Strategy and Leadership 

1.     The local authority should set out a clear statement about its own role, within the changing education landscape, for discussion with the education community. This should be rooted in ambitious aspirations for and expectations of Brent Children and Brent Schools. The statement should underline the moral imperative for all schools in the borough to have shared ownership for the education of all children in every Brent school.
2.     The role of the governing body as an important force for support, challenge and improvement should be recognised and the local authority should invest in the development of governors.
3.     A strategic group involving the principal education partners should be established, chaired by the new Director of Children and Young People, to drive forward the education strategy in conjunction with key education partners.
4.     This new strategic group should develop and agree the vision for education in the borough. This must not be a protracted process. The resulting vision should lead to a strategy which contains a few key goals that are owned by all key participants and result in well-defined, agreed actions.
5.     The local authority, in collaboration with schools themselves, should set out challenging but achievable excellence targets demonstrating high expectations for children in the borough. The Commission believes that these excellence targets should include an expectation that all schools in the authority will be good or better within three years and that outcomes at key stages 2 and 4 will be at least 2% above the London average within three years.
6.     The Leader of the Council and the Lead Member for Education should establish a forum for meeting on a termly basis with a group of representative head teachers to ensure the education strategy is being taken forward and to reinforce the importance of education as part of the political agenda of the council. 
 

Planning School Places 

7.     The local authority should produce an agreed strategy for place planning. The quality of education and the potential for school improvement in any expansions should be the foremost priority when determining the programme of expansion.
8.     The Council should appoint one head of service to be responsible for drawing up and implementing all aspects of the place planning strategy across the two departments that currently have responsibilities for place planning.
9.     The new Director of Children and Young People should urgently review the authority’s arrangements for projecting the future school population and the geographical spread across the Borough to ensure they are rigorous and fit for purpose.
10. The local authority should be proactive in encouraging the best schools in Brent and free school providers to set up new schools in areas where extra places are needed. The Council should encourage open competition in order to establish new schools.
11. The place planning strategy, and future updates about its progress, should be kept under review and progress should be discussed with school leaders, chairs of governors, academies, and faith and community groups, on a regular basis. 


Knowing Brent Schools
 
12. To support school improvement, the local authority should put in place a system to provide each school with a picture of how they perform against both local and national indicators. These would be a range of quantitative and qualitative indicators. The process for designing this system, in particular the evidence used, should be co-produced with schools, both head teachers and governors.
13. To support their role as champions and guardians of the needs and interest of children, the local authority should produce an annual report that should be easily accessible to parents and the local community. This should set out achievements and progress in education in Brent, as well as highlighting challenges and areas for development. It should be sent to the governing bodies of all schools in Brent as well as academy trusts, Ofsted and the Secretary of State.
14. The local authority should urgently investigate, with schools, the introduction of a data tracking system that can be used to risk assess the progress and performance of schools within the school year as well as at the end of the year. This system should be co-produced with head teachers and school governors.
15. Through the new strategic group, an agreed programme of peer reviews should be established between schools, drawing on best practice in models elsewhere. The peer review model should influence Brent’s current Rapid Improvement Groups (RIG) process. Regular development opportunities should be provided for teachers to observe good practice in other schools.
16. The local authority and schools should devise a programme of activities to showcase excellence and interesting practice in education in Brent
17. The local authority, in conjunction with the Brent Schools Partnership and teaching schools, should publish case studies of good practice in local schools, before the end of 2014. This should give a clear picture of what good and outstanding schools look like in practice.
18. An annual schools awards scheme should be established in 2014/15 to recognise and celebrate practice in Brent schools. 
 

Promoting and supporting school - to - school networks 

19. As part of its changing role, the local authority should work together with all education partners to build the capacity and effectiveness of the Brent School Partnership. This should include its ability to commission teaching schools and other excellent providers in Brent.
20. The Brent School Partnership and the local authority should be encouraged to learn lessons for school partnerships from other authorities and from families of schools, such as chains, federations and trusts.
21. Mechanisms should be put in place across all schools in the borough for school-to- school challenge and support in order to improve practice and build shared ownership for the education of all children in Brent schools. The local authority should play a key role, encouraging schools to consider the benefits of cluster and other partnership arrangements and to break down any barriers that may prevent such collaboration.
22. The local authority should provide funding to the Brent School Partnership to appoint a full time Director, or coordinator, for two years with a formal review built into the end of year 1.
23. The new strategic group (see recommendation 2) should work with the Brent School Partnership steering group to agree a set of priorities and a costed programme for action in the school year, 2014-2015, for all schools. The local education authority should provide financial support to incentivise collaboration and work in clusters or networks. It should also agree a process for how the Brent School Partnership and teaching schools might be commissioned to provide and broker support for schools causing concern, including use of the Rapid Improvement Group process.

Providing challenge to address weaknesses
24. There should be more forensic examination of the schools that are assessed as being at risk or requiring improvement through investigation of teaching and its impact on learning in the classroom.
25. There is a need for more effective support for schools that are struggling, drawing on the wider capacity and expertise of other Brent schools.
26. The local authority should be bolder in deploying executive heads, NLEs, LLEs, teaching schools, federations and academy sponsors to ensure that schools judged inadequate or requiring improvement have the necessary leadership and governance expertise to drive improvement.
27. The local authority needs to identify underperformance at an early stage and to be prepared to be more robust in how it addresses concerns, including issues relating to underperformance in leadership. 

Improving school governance 

28. All schools in Brent should review their governance arrangements and consider reconstituting their governing body in line with the new regulations.
29. The local authority should complete and implement its review for nominating local authority governors with a view to speeding up the process, drawing in a wider pool of talent and making the skills and capacity of nominees the primary criteria for nomination.
30. The local authority should produce guidance for schools on conducting audits of governor skills.
31. The local authority should give greater priority within the governor development programme to understanding and using data and to supporting the role of governors in school improvement.
32. The local authority should broker collaborations between pairs of governing bodies to scrutinise each other’s performance data and to engender confidence and skill in providing constructive challenge.
33. The local authority should look at opportunities for governors to observe how each other works, perhaps on a cluster or network basis, and through developing contacts in other boroughs to observe and learn about good practice.
34. The best chairs of governors should be encouraged to seek accreditation as National Leaders of Governance and be deployed to support other chairs.

THE FULL REPORT IS AVAILABLE HERE



Great line up for Willesden Green Garden party on Sunday - book now!

Ahmed Dickinson
 
This is the  lineup for the Brent Stop the War and Palestine Solidarity Campaign garden party to be held in Willesden Green  on Sunday 15th June. 
The performers are:

Rachel Rose Reid - story teller and performance artist
Archetype - rapper and poet
Farhad Khalid - asian/easten folk jazz guitarist, singer song writer
Finistere - guitar, Irish whistle and songs
Ahmed Dickinson - Cuban virtuoso guitarist
Ian Saville, Socialist Magician and our MC

We also have the most amazing raffle prizes donated by organisations. They are:

Vouchers for comedy nights at The Good Ship in Kilburn
3 x vouchers for 2 tickets to the BFI (British Film Institute)
1 x voucher for 2 tickets to a main feature at the Lexi Cinema
2 x vouchers for a meal for 2 at Maramia Palestinian Cafe In Golborne Road
1 x fairtrade recycled bag from Ganesha fairtrade shop
1 x book "The Blood Never Dried" by John Newsinger from Bookmarks

Order tickets by emailing brentstopthewar@gmail.com or phoning Sarah on 07951 084 101. 

Tickets bought in advance cost £15 waged/solidarity, £12 pensioners /low waged and £8 students/benefit claimants.  On the door prices: £20, £15,  £10

Sunday June 15th  5pm onwards
In Kate & Jamie’s beautiful garden close to Willesden Green station.
We will tell you the address when you buy your ticket.
BRENT STW and PSC Summer Fundraising Garden Party

Please spread the word by joining the Facebook event and inviting all your friends – see here. https://www.facebook.com/events/1427576110826752/?fref=ts

Wednesday 11 June 2014

COPLAND IS GETTING GOVE’S ‘REVERSE -TROJAN -HORSE’ TREATMENT

Guest blog by Will Shaw

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, the bizarre events surrounding the Birmingham ‘Trojan Horse’ schools should have finally made clear that Ofsted exists to give the government the inspection reports it requires to support whatever its  schools strategy happens to be at any particular time. If the inspectors don’t come up with the right report they can be sent back into schools until they do. This is not usually necessary as the inspectors know what is expected of them and they dutifully supply it. Their lack of integrity or principled independence of thought can be measured by their deafening silence in objecting to this role over the years  and the extreme rarity of any individual resignations.

Ofsted inspections are a key weapon in the government’s overriding aim of ultimately turning  all (state) schools into centrally-run academies and  taking them out of local democratic accountability.  Once Ofsted supplies the government with the ‘appropriate’ inspection report on a school, the next stage is special measures, the imposition from outside of a non-accountable IEB  and forced academisation. This is the stage Copland has been at since last September. 

Obviously, this stage in the process has to appear  to be both necessary and beneficial and it’s Ofsted again which is used to show how much schools like Copland  improve as a result of the government’s wise policies. At Copland, if the inspectors are to be believed, the beneficial results of government policy were almost instantaneous. Their report after last November’s visit spoke of  the school having ‘turned a corner’ and ‘students making better progress’. It continued ‘ teaching …..attendance and punctuality are improving’, ‘students are keen to learn’, ‘ there has been a sea-change in the pace of improvement’, ‘the interim headteacher and associate headteacher and very strong governance of the IEB are driving this change well’ and so on; and all this after only 6 weeks! The nature of the narrative had been set. 

March 2014’s Copland report took the hagiography to the next level:  ‘… the  headteacher of St Paul’s Way is an astute Chair of the Interim Executive Board….. IEB members are asking the right questions about the school’s performance.. balanced in the rigour of challenge and in the quality of their support. Senior leaders are ‘stepping up to the plate’ more …. having greater impact on the work of the school ……... responding well to the high level of challenge being laid down by school leaders and the IEB... ……more accurate understanding of students’ needs  ……..higher expectations for students……  behaviour is much improved and the school is a more respectful place…… zero tolerance to poor behaviour … ….. an attitude of respect between and among students and staff……more confident and articulate learners. …….a richer quality of teaching…..teaching is better… lessons are more structured’. Clearly carried away with the spirit of the thing, the reporting inspector at one point came over all Mills and Boon and, revealing  a bureaucrat’s tin ear for the speech patterns of 21st century London youth,   wrote this:

 ‘One student, capturing the views of many, said, ‘We can see hope now.’ This new-found optimism is palpable’.  

 (I like to imagine the inspector considering whether to  attribute the final 6 words to this ‘student’ as well, but wisely deciding that this might be pushing it a bit). 

It’s difficult not to laugh (if only at the writers’ belief that they could get away with this tosh) but many teachers and pupils have worked very hard at Copland this year and it’s a pity that any truth which these Ofsted reports might contain is tarnished by the relentless gung-ho bollocks  of the rest of it. But then, establishing  the truth is not at all what these inspections are about. How could they be when 2 inspectors come in for a day and a half and watch 10 or 15 minutes of a few lessons?  No, as in Birmingham their function is to provide bogus supporting evidence for actions already decided on. In the case of Copland, we are being provided with the  narrative of the ‘saving’ of a school by Gove, forced academisation, ‘tough’ but necessary action, (60 staff and half the curriculum axed), and finally the salvation that is The Ark Rescue.  

It’s a satisfying narrative  so far and it will be interesting to see how far the Ofsted inspectors think they can push it when the report on their imminent final visit comes out in a few weeks time.  As the purpose of the report is pre-determined and as the inspectors know what is expected of them (and  also know that their continuing employment depends on their coming up with the goods), the report  might as well have been written last September. If it was, I hope they don’t change anything if they , by chance, should come across this blog. And if they’re looking for further fictional inspiration, what better place than in the sort of book that, if he’d ever read it, Michael Gove would surely have banned, if only for the fact that it isn’t even really a decent, proper, stout English novel but rather some thin, poncey, foreign-sounding thing called a ‘novella’: Animal Farm.

“It has become usual in Wembley to give Mr Gove, Michael Pavey, the IEB, the Interim Headteacher and the Associate Headteacher  the credit for every successful achievement and every stroke of good fortune at the school. You will often hear one pupil remark to another, “Under the guidance of our Senior Leadership Team  I have progressed  five levels in six months” or two teachers, enjoying a drink at the staffroom water-cooler, will exclaim, “thanks to the leadership of Headteacher  Marshall and  Associate Headteacher John, how excellent this water tastes!”...” (With apologies to  George Orwell).
The next Copland Ofsted visit is ‘imminent’  and the inspector’s report will be published in a few week’s time. But please remember, and thanks to Martin, you read it here first.

Tuesday 10 June 2014

Brent Labour, Increasing Inequality for the working poor

Guest Blog by Scott Bartle who was the Green Party candidate for Mapesbury ward in the local election

The Private Rented Sector Licensing Consultation.

Brent Council have released their consultation paper for the Private Rented Sector Licensing.
The consultation can be found HERE

This was initially discussed at the Brent Council Executive Meeting on Tuesday 22nd April 2014.

What I am interested in, as I'm sure you are is Council's making policy based upon firm evidence, but the research this private rented sector licensing is based upon is very shoddy, hence its very important for people to have their say in the consultation.

After a review of the research it is clear that

1)The  anti-social behaviour and the case scenarios that are described in the report are best dealt with by the police who have relevant anti-social behaviour orders to do with it. There is a lot of conflation between Anti-social behaviour and criminal acts.

2) The sample size of people that responded was too small. In total 121 households renting in the private sector out of 20,182 spoke to the researchers (and 67 from other tentures). Their perspectives can not be considered representative, and their responses will be bias as they would have had a specific interest to speak to the researchers.

Of these: only 3 people from Mapesbury ward responded and according the map these are people living in housing association properties and A> will not be affected by the tax and B> due to the nature of their accommodation (and the nature of the banding system) have a higher likelihood of vulnerable people with various difficulties living in the properties.

3) HQN analysed both the Council and Police data to map anti-social and some criminal behaviour in Brent to identify where the anti-social behaviour was most concentrated. The 'anti-social' of highest frequency relates to litter and flytipping.

At the Executive Council Meeting on 22 Apr 2014 7.00 pm - Councillor Butt admitted that the data is corrupted by people that do not live in the area (such as tourists visiting Wembley Stadium dropping litter). Similarly one might ask if people would really 'poo on their own doorstep' & flytip in their own local area. Often the flytip appears to be related to building works and could thus be identified as being left by people who are only in the area on short term contracts. Similarly, in Mapesbury the data is skewed by the number of adhoc workers on Chichele Road who litter etc who the local dispersal order was directed towards.

In table 3: The majority of the acts listed are criminal acts and are already dealt with by the police.
e.g. violence theft etc. Therefore one might ask if it is the role of the Council (and if they really have the budget) to try and do police work.

4) Similarly, they include 'burglary' in this statistics to evidence why they should put this tax upon tenants and landlords who are both equally likely to be victims of burglary. This policy will clearly not be effective in solving 'burglarly' as an 'anti-social behaviour' by placing a tax on the very people that are affected.

HQN has analysed both Council and Police data to map anti-social and some criminal behaviour in Brent to identify where anti-social behaviour is most concentrated.

5) The research talks of problems with HMO's (Houses of Multiple Occupancy) which indicates a [quoted from the report] "A significant problem with the mangement and condition of HMOs in Brent." - I would like to point out that HMOs are ALREADY Subject to mandatory licensing under the Housing Act 2004 and are already under eye of Brent Council. However, they are reported STILL be a significant problem. This is further evidence that this Private Rented Sector Licensing policy will not be effective at what it proposes to do and will only serve to penalise residents in Brent for an issue that it is clearly not possible for the council to deal with.

6. The consultation paperwork shows that The Enforcement Team in Brent’s Private Housing Services unit records its activities dealing with sub-standard accommodation in the private rented sector. Yet prosecutions are very low - less than one a year. his is further evidence to show that sub-standard accommodation is not an issue that Brent Council can affect real change with. There is also no evidence to suggest changing the accommodation will reduce anti-social behaviour.

7. Punishing the residents of Brent for increased littering or flytip due to a failure in contract negotiations with Veolia very unfair. According to the results of a freedom of information request Brent did not ringfence funding for specific tasks when they outsourced the public the service to a private company. The primary aim of a private company is to make profits therefore based upon the reduction in service, the poor collection of bins and additional issues experienced with Veolia it is clear they are squeezing service to increase their income.

8) The final figures in the report states that the six wards where the most anti-social behaviour was recorded were, in order:

Willesden Green, Mapesbury, Wembley Central, Aperton, Northwick Park and Harlesden.

In the report the authors state themselves that "the number of incidents was small - less than 35 a year."

35 divided by the 21 wards in Brent = 1.6* incidents, per ward per year.

This is evidence that the only purpose for this policy can be for income generation and this a stealth tax.

We must remember, that a council tax increase has already been proposed so it is unclear if this is a fair way to deal with the issue.

At the beginning of the consultation it states:
"Brent’s private rented sector has over 35,000 properties many of which offer good accommodation but some are of poor quality. There is evidence that poor quality accommodation can contribute to anti-social behaviour and there may be other associated problems including overcrowding."
It is well known that 'poor quality accommodation' is often lived in my people with limited means and is generally considered to be an indicator of people living in Poverty. Ergo - with this policy they are blaming the poor for 'anti-social behaviour' and wish to tackle this by a licensing the landlords, who will pass the costs on to the tenants thereby further increasing inequality and making the people who live in this accommodation poorer. Also worrying is the parallels this has to the 1986 Westminter 'homes for votes' scandal where the conservatives allegedly aimed to force out the poorer sections of society to increase their vote share.

Most people everywhere have concerns relating to 'anti-social behaviour' and the people in Mapesbury would be no different in that regard, but the question is if the research this policy is based upon and the problem it purports to solve is sound. In this case, the research is not as it conflates 'anti-social behaviour' with criminal behaviour and also confuses correlation with causation. It is ill thought out and is clearly not the solution to the issue.

Reference:

a) The Consultation details on the Brent Website HERE

b) The details from the Executive Meeting HERE



Get on your bikes and enjoy Chalkhill cycling facility

The Chalkhill biking site is officially launched on 25 June at 2.30pm.
The first BMX club session starts on Saturday 14 June - 1.30pm until 3pm.
The BMX Track

 Chalkhill BMX cycle track – free club membership this Saturday

Come to the Chalkhill BMX track this Saturday at 1pm for the launch of Brent BMX club. Everyone is welcome, from beginners to expert riders of all ages. We have a set of bikes, helmets and gloves available and the first session is completely FREE. We are also providing FREE club membership for people attending the first session. Check out our Facebook page



Brent BMX Club is a volunteer-led club for the local community. Established as part of Access Sport’s BMX Legacy Programme (www.londonbmx.co.uk) and supported by Brent Council we are looking for anyone who would like to get involved in BMX or willing to help out at the clu.


 There are  three tracks at the Barnhill/Chalkhill open space for bike and scooter users to enjoy.
Please note that some club sessions may take priority at certain times.

BMX track

The BMX track design has been created to suit all abilities of riders from beginners to experts as all obstacles are 'rollable', meaning not so confident riders can roll over each obstacle and still carry sufficient speed for the next.
The nature of the obstacles and angle of the berms allow more experienced riders to carry further speed and negotiate the obstacles in a number of different ways.

Family cycle trail

The family cycle trail is a 'Green Grade Trail' based on the International Mountain Bicycling Association's (IMBA) grading of routes and trails.
The difficulty level of the proposed trail equates to 'Leisure and Easy' and is built to IMBA Standards for Green Grade Trails.
The family trail snakes its way around the field with boulder stones placed to add features to the trail and help create a natural segregation from riders and pedestrians.
All aspects of the trail are integrated into the exiting land forms as much as possible for example elevations and deviations of the existing parkland.

Scooter track

The scooter track consists of small low obstacles linking from one to another.
There is a low start hill to allow riders to gain sufficient speed to negotiate the obstacles along the track.
The entire scooter track is finished in asphalt to allow a smooth finish for the small wheeled scooters and bikes.

Find a BMX and cycling club near you






Brent Council reports one third increase in rough sleepers in borough

Guest blog by Scott Bartle
 
In a report to the executive dated 16/06/2014 Adam Salmon, Street Population Coordinator and Andy Donald, Strategic Director for Regeneration and Growth report an increase of a third in verified rough sleepers recorded in Brent for the year 2013/14. Salmon & Donald report that whilst the national average increase in the number of rough sleepers is 23% with a London average increase of 43% Brent’s increase was nearer 500%. Salmon & Donald go on to report that Brent has not traditionally had high numbers of people ‘living on the street’ but put the increasing trend down to the impact of the recession and welfare reform.

The impact of Welfare reform and implementation of the Bedroom Tax on homelessness is something that the charity Crisis warned about in May 2013. It was reported by Randeep Ramesh, social affairs editor of the Guardian that Leslie Morphy chief executive of Crisis said: 
Without enough one-bedroom homes to move into, tens of thousands are powerless to avoid the anxiety, debt and arrears caused by the bedroom tax. Our fear is that many, through no fault of their own, will in the end become homeless as a direct result of government policy. Ministers must accept these facts and rethink the bedroom tax now.
The Green Party has been united in its opposition to evictions due to the bedroom tax. Councillor Liz Wakefield of Brighton described the bedroom tax as ‘yet more immoral and harmful legislation from a morality-free coalition government’.

Whilst Caroline Lucas MP told parliament that: 
The bedroom tax is a cruel and counterproductive measure from a Government that is intent on punishing the poor.  There is no evidence that all this will save the Government money, but what it will do is lead to mass evictions and homelessness, and all the related problems that brings to our communities.
Despite this, Brent Council’s Labour Executive pressed on and when Councillor Janice Long, now representing Dudden Hill ward, made the eviction threat via the Brent and Kilburn Times in March 2013 it is clear that they meant it. During the local elections Brent Labour announced that their ‘Manifesto is their contract’ and it is signed by our Labour Councillors. They promised ‘better backing to get through tough times’, ‘better care for our most vulnerable residents’ and ‘better connected communities’. Unless they recognise how immoral and harmful this policy is to people experiencing financial hardship and stop the evictions, they’ve already broken their promises. 

Brent Green Party has campaigned consistently against the Bedroom Tax and will continue to oppose evictions of tenants who have defaulted on rent payments because of this unfair tax.
 
References
1)      Salmon & Donald (2014) Authority to tender a contract for Rough Sleepers Outreach and Housing Advice and Resettlement Service. Brent Council. http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s24259/rg-rough-sleeping.pdf
2)      Ramesh, R. (2013) Bedroom tax ‘could make thousands of poor people homeless’ http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/27/bedroom-tax-poor-homeless
3)      Brighton Greens (2013) Greens say no to Bedroom Tax  Evictions http://www.brightonhovegreens.org/news/greens-say-no-to-bedroom-tax-evictions.html
4)      Walker, M. (2013) Eviction threat for brent residents hit by bedroom tax. Brent & Kilburn Times. http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/eviction_threat_for_brent_residents_hit_by_bedroom_tax_1_1993763
5)      Brent Labour (2014) Manifesto. http://www.brentlabour.co.uk/manifesto_2014

Muhammed Butt accused of tricking Labour councillors on Scrutiny



James Powney, ex Brent Labour councillor, has returned to the matter of the changes in Scrutiny voted through by the Full Council on June 4th with no comments or questions from Labour backbenchers.

Here is an extract from his hard-hitting posting about the Labour Group meeting LINK:
Neither Cllr Butt nor anyone else chose to mention the drastic changes to the Council Constitution which he at least must have known about.

Why therefore did the entire Labour Group simply nod them through?  I asked a councillor this, and was told that no one in the Labour Group had chosen to read the changes and therefore they did not really know what they were voting on.  If true, that statement is a fairly damning comment on the thoroughness with which councillors prepare for meetings.  When the Tories pointed out the content of the rule changes, the inevitable partisan instincts kicked in and the Labour councillors all voted for them.

Had I been there I would have argued for deferral on the grounds that most of the councillors didn't understand what they were being asked to vote for because parts (eg describing scrutiny arrangements) are just obscure, and parts have sersious implicationms which new councillors simply won't understand until they are given some sort of grounding in Council governance.

Cllr Butt has effectively tricked his colleagues.  I hope they return to the issue at a later date, when they have had time to think about it.
The claim that 'no one in the Labour Group had chosen to read the changes' is interesting. The day before the Full Council I emailed a selection of councillors from all parties with the following message:
Dear Councillor,

First of all congratulations on your election as a Councillor for 2014-18.  With a Council returned with a large majority it is important that there is effective scrutiny in place with backbenchers playing a full part. Effective scrutiny protects against bad decision making and also protects against the damage to the Council's reputation that could be caused by poor decision making.

There has been extensive coverage on Wembley Matters of the proposed changes tabled for Wednesday which have not had full discussion, tabled as they are just two weeks after the election and with many new councillors elected.

Effective scrutiny is a matter for all political parties on the Council and I suggest that you read the pieces below and consider referring back the proposals to allow for the provision of more details and to allow for proper discussion.

Martin Francis










The only councillor who really questioned the changes and pointed out the issues was John Warren, leader of the Brondesbury Park Conservative Group.

I understand that disquiet is now developing in the Labour Group with newly elected councillors complaining about the lack of discussion beforehand. A source suggests that there is a possibility of a review although there may be some constitutional impediment to the reversal of a policy recently adopted by Full Council.




COPLAND IS GETTING GOVE’S ‘REVERSE -TROJAN -HORSE’ TREATMENT

-->
Guest blog by Will Shaw

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, the bizarre events surrounding the Birmingham ‘Trojan Horse’ schools should have finally made clear that Ofsted exists to give the government the inspection reports it requires to support whatever its  schools strategy happens to be at any particular time. If the inspectors don’t come up with the right report they can be sent back into schools until they do. This is not usually necessary as the inspectors know what is expected of them and they dutifully supply it. Their lack of integrity or principled independence of thought can be measured by their deafening silence in objecting to this role over the years  and the extreme rarity of any individual resignations.

Ofsted inspections are a key weapon in the government’s overriding aim of ultimately turning  all (state) schools into centrally-run academies and  taking them out of local democratic accountability.  Once Ofsted supplies the government with the ‘appropriate’ inspection report on a school, the next stage is special measures, the imposition from outside of a non-accountable IEB  and forced academisation. This is the stage Copland has been at since last September. 

Obviously, this stage in the process has to appear  to be both necessary and beneficial and it’s Ofsted again which is used to show how much schools like Copland  improve as a result of the government’s wise policies. At Copland, if the inspectors are to be believed, the beneficial results of government policy were almost instantaneous. Their report after last November’s visit spoke of  the school having ‘turned a corner’ and ‘students making better progress’. It continued ‘ teaching …..attendance and punctuality are improving’, ‘students are keen to learn’, ‘ there has been a sea-change in the pace of improvement’, ‘the interim headteacher and associate headteacher and very strong governance of the IEB are driving this change well’ and so on; and all this after only 6 weeks! The nature of the narrative had been set. 

March 2014’s Copland report took the hagiography to the next level:  ‘… the  headteacher of St Paul’s Way is an astute Chair of the Interim Executive Board….. IEB members are asking the right questions about the school’s performance.. balanced in the rigour of challenge and in the quality of their support. Senior leaders are ‘stepping up to the plate’ more …. having greater impact on the work of the school ……... responding well to the high level of challenge being laid down by school leaders and the IEB... ……more accurate understanding of students’ needs  ……..higher expectations for students……  behaviour is much improved and the school is a more respectful place…… zero tolerance to poor behaviour … ….. an attitude of respect between and among students and staff……more confident and articulate learners. …….a richer quality of teaching…..teaching is better… lessons are more structured’. Clearly carried away with the spirit of the thing, the reporting inspector at one point came over all Mills and Boon and, revealing  a bureaucrat’s tin ear for the speech patterns of 21st century London youth,   wrote this:

 ‘One student, capturing the views of many, said, ‘We can see hope now.’ This new-found optimism is palpable’.  

 (I like to imagine the inspector considering whether to  attribute the final 6 words to this ‘student’ as well, but wisely deciding that this might be pushing it a bit). 

It’s difficult not to laugh (if only at the writers’ belief that they could get away with this tosh) but many teachers and pupils have worked very hard at Copland this year and it’s a pity that any truth which these Ofsted reports might contain is tarnished by the relentless gung-ho bollocks  of the rest of it. But then, establishing  the truth is not at all what these inspections are about. How could they be when 2 inspectors come in for a day and a half and watch 10 or 15 minutes of a few lessons?  No, as in Birmingham their function is to provide bogus supporting evidence for actions already decided on. In the case of Copland, we are being provided with the  narrative of the ‘saving’ of a school by Gove, forced academisation, ‘tough’ but necessary action, (60 staff and half the curriculum axed), and finally the salvation that is The Ark Rescue.  

It’s a satisfying narrative  so far and it will be interesting to see how far the Ofsted inspectors think they can push it when the report on their imminent final visit comes out in a few weeks time.  As the purpose of the report is pre-determined and as the inspectors know what is expected of them (and  also know that their continuing employment depends on their coming up with the goods), the report  might as well have been written last September. If it was, I hope they don’t change anything if they , by chance, should come across this blog. And if they’re looking for further fictional inspiration, what better place than in the sort of book that, if he’d ever read it, Michael Gove would surely have banned, if only for the fact that it isn’t even really a decent, proper, stout English novel but rather some thin, poncey, foreign-sounding thing called a ‘novella’: Animal Farm.

“It has become usual in Wembley to give Mr Gove, Michael Pavey, the IEB, the Interim Headteacher and the Associate Headteacher  the credit for every successful achievement and every stroke of good fortune at the school. You will often hear one pupil remark to another, “Under the guidance of our Senior Leadership Team  I have progressed  five levels in six months” or two teachers, enjoying a drink at the staffroom water-cooler, will exclaim, “thanks to the leadership of Headteacher  Marshall and  Associate Headteacher John, how excellent this water tastes!”...” (With apologies to  George Orwell).
The next Copland Ofsted visit is ‘imminent’  and the inspector’s report will be published in a few week’s time. But please remember, and thanks to Martin, you read it here first.