Tuesday 23 June 2015

The Education Bill: A solution that will harm schools

Henry Stewart published this useful background article on the Education and Adoption Bill yesterday before the House of Commons meeting on the Bill organised by the Anti academies Alliance. First published by Local schools Network.



Today is the second reading of Nicky Morgan’s Education and Adoption Bill. The main purpose is to speed up the conversion to academy status of “inadequate” and “coasting” schools, It will force local authorities and governing bodies to implement an academy order, whether or not they feel it is in the best interest of the children.
And the evidence increasingly suggests it is not in the best interest of those children. The education select committee, chaired by Graham Stuart of the Conservatives, carried out a thorough review of academies and free schools and found no such evidence. “Academisation is not always successful nor is it the only proven alternative for a struggling school,”
Announcing the bill, the Secretary of State claimed to have “education experts who know exactly what they have to do to make a failing school outstanding.” I have submitted a Freedom of Information request to ask how many schools rated “Inadequate” by Ofsted have been converted and how many of these have since become Outstanding. I await the response with interest. 
A study of the current Ofsted listing of the most recent inspections for all secondary schools suggests she is unlikely to find many. For secondaries the number of schools going from Inadequate last time to Outstanding this time is precisely zero. For primaries there are eight schools listed as making that remarkable transition but none are academies. All are local authority or voluntary aided schools (“maintained schools”).
The Ofsted list, which shows the current and previous inspection, shows that a secondary school is far more likely to improve its Ofsted rating if it is not a sponsored academy. With academies that have had two Ofsted inspections since conversion (as the report does not list a school’s rating pre-conversion) we find:
Sponsored academies twice as likely to stay Inadequate
For secondary schools previously rated as inadequate, sponsored academies are twice as likely (18% v 9%) to stay inadequate as maintained schools. Non-academies are over three times more likely (27% v 6%) to move from Inadequate to Good or Outstanding than sponsored academies.
Sponsored academies twice as likely to fall from RI to Inadequate
For those previously rated “Requires Improvement” they are more than twice as likely (20% v 8%) to fall to Inadequate if they are a Sponsored academy
Non-academies three times as likely to move from Good to Outstanding
For secondary schools previously rated Good, they are almost four times as likely (19% v 5%) to fall to Inadequate if they are Sponsored academies. At the same time they are more than three times as likely to become Outstanding from Good (16% v 5%) if they are a maintained school as opposed to a Sponsored academy
These dramatic differences are only true of sponsored academies, generally schools that were “underperforming” and sponsored as an academy by another school or by an academy chain. “Converter academies”, where a school is generally Good or Outstanding and chooses to convert, perform as well as maintained schools.
This analysis appears to show that conversion of a school that is rated Inadequate is likely to slow its improvement. Indeed, rather than helping it, becoming a sponsored academy is more likely to lead to a school falling back to being Inadequate and less likely to become Good or Outstanding.
There is no data to back up the Secretary of State’s claims. The Bill is very clearly based on ideology not evidence. As the Education Select committee also stated, “the government should stop exaggerating the success of academies”. It is advice that Nicky Morgan would do well to take.
Note: This analysis only includes secondary schools. The reason is that, to qualify, a sponsored academy must have had two Ofsted inspections since conversion. While this is true of 211 sponsored academy secondary schools, it is only true of 2 sponsored academy primary schools.

Monday 22 June 2015

Kilburn councillor launches blog with email revelations over Brent HS2 vent meeting

Cllr John Duffy, Labour, Kilburn ward has launched a blog site this morning, Kilburn Calling,  LINK which states as its intention 'A blog that speaks out about the issues and concerns of people who live in the Kilburn area of the London Borough of Brent'.

Cllr Duffy attempted to persuade the Labour Group to raise Council Tax during the pre-budget consultation, arguing that to do so could prevent some of the worse of the cuts, particularly the ending of funding to Stonebridge Adventure Playground.


At the last full Council Meeting (there is another tonight) he protested that Kilburn had become disenfranchised because none of its councillors had been allocated places on Council committees.


In a posting today LINK he reveals what he claims to be an attempt by a senior Brent officer to stop him informing residents about his attendance at a key meeting on the controversial HS2 vent issue.


This is what he says:


A funny thing happen to me over the weekend, I received a email from a senior officer in Brent council, telling me about a meeting to discuss the HS2 train link running under Kilburn and the placing of the vent shaft.

The email said:
“Please accept this meeting request for discussions on the HS2 Vent Shaft issue that has arisen.
XXXX has called this meeting to ensure you all have the opportunity to be factually briefed on the issue, especially from the South Kilburn Regeneration perspective.
The meeting will be held at xxxxx. xxxxx (full address below). Please ask for XXXX XXXX upon arrival”.
I accepted the invitation to the meeting and believed I should inform the Chair of the local residents to highlight the fact that I was attending and therefore assuring them that their voice was being heard. So I forwarded the email to the Chair of the local residents a Mr F and merely added “FYI”. Believing that I had acted as a good councilor, I then prepared to enjoy my weekend. 

However on Friday night I received this letter from a Senior Director, which he had cc the leader of the council. Saying that he noticed I had forwarded his email stating.

Dear Councillor Duffy,

This is a private briefing for the new MP, the Leader, and relevant Lead Members from the cabinet and ward councilors only. It isn't an open meeting for members of the public or wider party members. I would wholly expect one outcome of the meeting to be wider consultation and engagement on the issues and we can discuss the approach to this at the meeting.

Can I leave you to inform Mr F of this situation please?
 
Thanks - see you next week
 
I was initially taken back by what I saw of an invasion of my private correspondence with a Constituent. However it would seem that Brent council operate a system that traces any person to whom they have sent an invitation to and any other person that the recipient forwards it onto. This despite the fact that the email did not state it was private or secret.

Because of my concern about this I then forwarded this note to two other colleagues asking them to advise me about what I saw as intrusion into my private email correspondence with my constituents.
To my amazement I received another email from the Director, which was sent to all of the three of my constituents I had emailed. Which said:
Dear Mr P, Mr G, MR K,

I understand that you have been forwarded a notification of the above meeting by Cllr Duffy.
Regrettably this meeting is a private briefing for local politicians and therefore attendance is restricted and I am afraid that you won't be able to attend.
One of the purposes of the meeting is to discuss how we best engage and consult with the many different residents and partners who have an interest in this issue with a view to ensuring that everybody's voice is heard.  I will make sure you are all notified of the relevant consultation meetings when they are set up.

Many apologies for the misunderstanding.”
Summary


It is clear the officer involved believes he alone controls the meeting; his way of dealing with councilors is by dictating to them and believes he can instruct councilors to obey him, because presumably he is an officer.

The way the officer has handle this situation and the tone of his emails is of great concern to me, it reeks of “big brother ” and his interference by directly emailing my constituents is frankly unbelievable. It is as if I had been a very “ bad boy “ and he is telling me off. It is condescending and I believe undermines the respect officers should show to elected representatives.

I am sure there are many Cabinet Members and Councilors, who believe they should just obey officers’ instructions and do what ever they say, and do not stand their ground. This officer seems to have confused me with one of them. 

I was quite happy to attend the meeting itself. I never invited anyone else contrary to the officer’s wild allegation. This meeting is about the vent shaft for HS2.  There are two options being discussed: one in Queens Park  (next to the station) and the other in South Kilburn next to St Mary’s RC School in the middle of the regeneration area that has been blighted as a building site for the last nine years.
I however do not accept the implicit suggestion from these officers that this will be sited (as indicated in their first e-mail) in the South Kilburn regeneration area. These residents have lived on a building site for last 9 years and have been shafted by the Tory government over the years by cuts in services, the bedroom tax and family credits etc. So I will attend the meeting to do my best to ensure the residents of South Kilburn are not literally “Shafted” again by both the Tory Government and over zealous Officers.







Saturday 20 June 2015

Greens out in force at End Austerity Now! demonstration

The extent of the Green Party's recent growth was evident at today's End Austerity Now! demonstration as well as the youth of many of our new members.



There were high spirits as hundreds of Greens processed through the streets of London in the company of thousands of other anti-austerity protesters. The Labour Party was  notably absent apart from the presence of leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn.

Unconfirmed reports say that the Green Bloc was the biggest bloc today.

At the Green Bloc assembly point in Cornhill, City of London Photo: Mike Shaughnessy  


Green Party Trade Union Group  Photo: Shahrar Ali
Green Party leaders Amelia Womack, Shahrar Ali and Natalie Bennett Photo: Amelia Womack





Fightback against the Education & Adoption Bill - House of Commons Meeting on Monday

Education policy failed to become a key factor in the General Election and we are now faced with five years of intensification of the Government's version of the GERM (Global Education Reform Movement) with the eventual aim of opening up state education to profit and the subservience of education to the demands of neoliberalism and globalisation. This is embodied in the Education and Adoption Bill currebtly before Parliament.

The Green Party fought the election with policies opposing the GERM and the associated academies and free schools programme, high stakes testing, narrow curriculum, performance related pay and policing of the system by a politicised Ofsted.

The meeting at the House of Commons on Monday organised by the Anti Academies Alliance* therefore comes at an opportune time to stand back and discuss where we go from here.

Of particular concern is the future of education for children with special educational needs and disabilities as well as the 'schoolification' of the early years.

I hope as many Green Party members and supporters will attend the meeting as possible.

This is what the Anti Academies Alliance circulated ahead of the meeting:


If  You Thought the 2010 Academies Act was Bad…..

The 2015 Education and Adoption Bill, described by the Local Schools Network as signalling ‘the new authoritarian conservative Britain’ will have its second reading next week. We have grave concerns about this Bill, which includes the rapid expansion of the free schools and academies programme, and the effect it will have on our schools. Therefore, on Monday 22 June from 6.00pm, while MPs debate the Bill, we’ll be hosting an open meeting in the House of Commons  to discuss how to oppose it. Visitors will need to go through security so allow plenty of time if you’d like to join us. 
 
As well as Alasdair Smith AAA national secretary, speakers include Henry Stewart of the Local Schools Network, Caroline Lucas MP, Catherine West MP and Clive Lewis MP who used his maiden speech to protest at the Inspiration Trust’s takeover of Hewett School in Norwich. 

Although the Bill promises that ‘coasting’ schools will be converted to academy status, it does not define ‘coasting’.  Will it be based on Ofsted judgements, pupil data or the whim of the Secretary of State or her viceroys – the Regional Schools Commissioners?  RSCs, whose personal key performance indicators include the number of academy conversions, will be given new powers to intervene in maintained schools.  The new Act, if passed, will see governors, councillors and local communities forced to implement the academy ‘solution’ whether or not they think it’s in the best interest of their children. And what of the ‘failing’ academies and free schools?  These are handed to the DfE’s academy sponsor of choice – no doubt a chain - without public scrutiny or consultation.  The price of ‘autonomy’ seems to be even more centralised control from Whitehall.

Free Schools in Free Fall

The Secretary of State found it difficult to put her finger on the number of ‘failing’ academies but one thing she can be sure of - it’s on the rise. Just take a look at our Twitter timeline @antiacademies or our Facebook page. This week we learned that a Catholic Free School in Camborne, Cornwall which cost £4.5million for only 60 pupils, is to be taken over by another sponsor. Also in the South West, Route 39 Academy has been judged to require improvement. Opening in North Devon with less than half the promised number of students, this was the school that offered free farm park tickets to parents who signed up to support their bid. 

40% Off at Ofsted

In an ironic twist, Ofsted has abandoned its own free market experiment and brought its inspectors in-house. The profit-making giants like Serco and Tribal that inspect our schools will lose their contracts from the start of next term.  However a whopping 40% of existing inspectors failed to get the in-house jobs.  And Ofsted told the TES that an ‘initial sift’ of additional inspectors took out about 500 who lacked the relevant qualifications or leadership experience, or did not possess qualified teacher status. 

And Finally

We bid a not so fond farewell to the Independent Academies Association which is closing in the face of insolvency. The Association, whose honorary president is Lord Andrew Adonis, acknowledged that in the future our children will be educated in Multi Academy Trusts – ‘chains’ to you and me – rather than individual ‘autonomous’ academies.


* Declaration of Interest: I am a member of th National Steering Group of the Anti academies Alliance

Friday 19 June 2015

Green Bloc & other Bloc meeting points/route for June 20th End Austerity Now! demo

The Green Bloc meeting point has been changed for tomorrow's demonstration. The Green Party will now meet at Cornhill/Royal Exchange for 11.30am.

This interactive map should be helpful:


 
Details of Short March and other information for people with disabilities HERE (Thanks to Alan Wheatley for prompt)

Welsh Harp Centre tender advertised with July 7th deadline

This advertisement appeared in the Kilburn Times yesterday. Unlike an earlier public notice it stipulates the continuation of environmental education work at the site, which is reassuring.

It is likely that there will be a bid by a school/schools in Brent, perhaps in partnership with a charity or voluntary organisation.

However success may depend on the balanced judgement the Council makes between the criteria for maximising monetary value and recognising the social value of a bid.

NB The deadline is July 7th 2015, not 2915 as the advertisement states!

Thursday 18 June 2015

Tell YOUR Brent councillor what you think about a possible “pay off” to Cara Davani

-->
 Guest post by Philip Grant
As regular “Wembley Matters” readers will know, I have been active in seeking to get the Council to ensure that Brent’s Director of HR faces the consequences of her actions in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case, since the Tribunal judgment was published more than nine months ago. Many of you commented on two blogs posted last week about the announcement that Ms Davani is to leave the Council at the end of June. One of the biggest concerns is that she may be receiving a “pay off” from Brent in return for (finally!) leaving, which might also include Brent “picking up the bill” for any damages and costs awarded against Ms Davani personally in the Rosemarie Clarke case (in which she and Brent are separately named respondents).

I had hoped to get some publicity for our concerns about any such “pay off” through a letter to the editor of the “Brent & Kilburn Times”, but there is no letters page in this week’s (18 June) edition. Worse still, the newspaper has also not included its online article about Ms Davani’s departure in the printed version. Instead, the space that it might have occupied carries a photograph of a smiling Cllr Muhammed Butt, alongside a story about a letter he has written to the Tory Party chairman, complaining about the embarrassment which the feuding rival Conservative groups are causing to Brent.

However, I have raised the issue of possible financial malpractice (as a result of conflicts of interest) in connection with any possible financial arrangements arising from Ms Davani leaving the Council, with the Head of Brent’s Audit and Investigation team. I will “copy and paste” below (for reasons explained in its final paragraph) the text of the covering email which I sent on Wednesday evening with my report and supporting evidence. 

The other reason I am writing this “guest blog” is to invite all readers who live in Brent, and who share my concerns, to write to their ward councillors (see the link at the right-hand side of “Wembley Matters” for contact details for local councillors, if you don’t already have them). Tell your councillors (politely but firmly, in your own words, and without abusive language, please) what you think about any possible “pay off” to Cara Davani, and ask them to raise questions about it with senior Council Officers and the Leader of the Council, with a view to ensuring that no such “pay off” is made. You might also wish to copy your email to chief.executive@brent.gov.uk , and to cllr.muhammed.butt@brent.gov.uk , for good measure. Individual messages from local voters, especially if there are a large number of them, can make a difference, so let your councillors know what you think on this matter.

I believe that there is a strong case for Brent not to let Ms Davani’s “friends in high places” give her a leaving gift at the Council’s (that is, our) expense. This is how I set out this belief in the final paragraph of the letter which I hoped would be published this week:

‘It is possible that the total Tribunal awards to Ms Clarke may be in excess of £1 million, quite apart from the Council’s own huge legal costs in fighting the case. The Council will have to pay whatever the Tribunal awards against it as “first respondent”; but funds needed by the Council for providing services (and supporting the jobs of local people who provide them) must not be wasted in making unnecessary and undeserved payments to Ms Davani, or on her behalf. Her actions have already had such a high cost, both financial and reputational, to Brent, quite apart from the harm done to the lives of the victims of her style of managing Human Resources in the borough.’

If you agree, please let the Council, and your councillors, know about it. Thank you.

Philip Grant


Text of my email of 17 June 2015 to the Head of Audit and Investigations (which he has acknowledged receipt of):-

Dear Mr Lane,

Possible Financial Malpractice / Irregularity over leaving arrangements for Director of HR

Following the news last week that Cara Davani, Director of HR and Administration, would be leaving the Council at the end of June, there has been great concern locally about a rumoured “pay off” to her. This concern can be seen in many comments on online blog items, for example



and has also been expressed to me privately by several local councillors, who are aware of my interest in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case, which may (finally!) have something to do with Ms Davani’s departure.

Under Brent’s Anti-Fraud and Bribery Policy, your department has a duty to prevent financial malpractice where possible, so that funds are not lost to the Council because of irregularities such as undisclosed conflicts of interest. I believe that any potential payments, or indemnities, which might be given to Ms Davani as part of her leaving arrangements are likely to involve conflicts of interest, and have set out the reasons for this in the attached report and supporting documents.

I would ask that you ensure, as a matter of urgency, that any financial arrangements with Ms Davani, other than the payment of her basic salary up to the end of June 2015, are suspended until the outcome of a proper investigation into the points I have raised.

I will forward a copy of this email to Brent’s Chief Legal Officer, who will need to ensure that certain documents I have referred to are secured, and made available to you, and may also need to take action over some of the points raised in her role as the Council’s Monitoring Officer.

I intend to publish the text of this email, although not any of its attachments, so that its contents are on public record, thereby hopefully ensuring that there is no attempt by anyone in a position of power at the Civic Centre to stop you from freely carrying out the Policy’s stated intention to ‘investigate any allegation that may have a direct, or indirect, impact of the finances for which [the Council is] responsible.’

Please acknowledge safe receipt of this email and its seven attachments. Thank you. Best wishes

Philip Grant.




Ramadan message from the Green Party


With Ramadan starting today the Green Party would like to wish Britain's Muslim Community Ramadan Kareem. With the long hot days ahead of us we’re keenly aware this year will be a harder Ramadan than years previous and we wish every Muslim fasting good health and a rewarding and spiritual month.

At this time we firstly want to celebrate the contribution that the Muslim community make to Britain. Ramadan is a time of contemplating and recognising the privilege many of us have in life, whilst remembering and empathising with those who have less. These are values I think every Green Party member can keenly associate with.

Equally over this Ramadan we are minded to think about the countless communities that face unrest and violence for the coming month. Ramadan should be a time of quiet spiritual contemplation but too many communities in Syria, Yemen and Nigeria face violence and unrest. Real international action is needed to build lasting peace, and we hope this month can catalyse a change. As an international movement of Green Parties we will continue to strive for real meaningful diplomacy and peacebuilding.

Ramadan Kareem to all those fasting this month

Benali Hamdache
Green Party Equalities Spokesperson