Wednesday 25 March 2009

The Campaign continues

The Anti-Trust group is still determined to stop the two Trust Schools being built in Waltham Forest. There have been several recent interventions that have gained more support for our campaign. 

We have in the past weeks protested outside the Surgery of Councillor Robbins, where we also asked members of the public to send letters objecting to the change of use of the cricket ground. The Councillor in question did not turn up to his surgery despite it being advertised as his week to be there. 

We did put the illusive Councillor under a bit of pressure when he turned up at the Community Council meeting the following week. He was asked by one of our group if he intended to ballot the parents of the schools about 'Trust Status' , along with the local residents. He replied that would not happen because it was just a "side show". Yes! to the councillor who is responsible for education and was democratically elected-democracy is a sideshow. Perhaps future voter, especially in Grove Green ward should remember this.

Graham Moss was also reluctant to have a parents' ballot when it came to Norlington school. Well, I guess we all know where they stand on this one.  

Last Thursday 19 3 09, there was a parents' meeting at Norlington to consult over Trust Status. The parents that did attend were all against the Trust and some were very angry indeed. At the end of the meeting many were chanting for a ballot but Graham Moss was not listening. Perhaps he and Chris Robbins have selective hearing difficulty-more likely they know how unpopular the Trust is with parents and residents but want to impose their views on the rest of us.

There is however, some possible good news on the horizon. The UCU union at the Institute and UEL have been contacted. The UCU lecturers' union, opposes academies and trusts in principle, along with the NUT, who have been a major force in the WFCAT group. They may be able to make some interventions in the campaign directly to the Institute and the UEL- something we have not been able to do.

Keep up the campaign!
Pat Stoppard 

Thursday 12 February 2009

Don't forget to go to the Town Hall at 6.45pm

We need as many people as possible to come along tonight to prove that we don't trust the Trusts. We don't want them building on the Cricket Ground. Walthamstow Town Hall 6. 45pm.

See you there.
Pat Stoppard

Wednesday 11 February 2009

Update of the Anti-Trust Campaign

On Friday 6 Feb there was a very well attended meeting of the group. Several invited people spoke about different aspects of the campaign and shared their different perspectives with an audience of about seventy people. The meeting was chaired by Roger, a local resident.

Steve White spoke about the educational problems that would come with a Trust and also the problems it would cause for NUT members' pay and conditions. The NUT is the biggest national Teachers' union and has a national policy opposing them.

The second speaker was a local resident involved in local sports activities for young people. He spoke about his lack of belief in the Local council when they talk-up the prospect of increased sports facilities. He told the meeting that sports facilities were likely to be further diminished if this proposal to build such a big school on the site goes ahead. He shockingly added that the whole borough has only two 400 meter running tracks and this proposal will reduce the one on the site to 300 meters.

The next speaker was from a heritage group who spoke against the proposal because of the unsuitability of the new school on the site. He added that most school new-builds did not try and blend with the environment but were completely aesthetically insensitive to their surroundings.

After the speakers there was a lively debate from the meeting with many good contributions made. Mike Barton stated that the best way to stop this appalling proposal was to democratically organise against it. He said as many people as possible should turn up at the BSF council meeting on Thursday at 7.pm to show just how discontent we all are.

A teacher from Norlington stated that his members were so disgusted with the proposal that they have indicated that if the consultation is not fairly done they are prepared to strike. They are in fact permitted under union law to ballot for strike action if their employer is changed from the Local Authority, which of course will happen under the trust proposal.

A teacher from George Mitchell stated that he had resigned from the group at his school that were working on the proposal because they had not been honest about why the Trust was proposed. He stated that it only came about because GM had fallen into 'National Challenge Status', which means their exams results were not regarded as satisfactory and they had been threatened with an Academy: an even worse option for the school. 

Other contributions included some very angry parents and local residents who want more for their kids than an educational experiment.

At the end of the meeting it was resolved to fight even harder. The actions that the group will take are as follows:
Attend the council meeting at the Town Hall on Thursday 12th Feb at 7.pm
Meet in the Bowling club on Friday 13th to plan our next series of meetings and action.
Write to local papers
Write to local councilors
Write to Chris Loy in opposition to the proposed building in very large numbers.

Bring your ideas for further action to the meeting on Friday. It is on the Cricket ground site   

Wednesday 4 February 2009

Public Meeting called for 6th February At Leyton Cricket Ground

A Public Meeting has been called by local residents on Friday 6th February at the Leyton County Cricket Ground for 7 pm. 

Speakers from the NUT have been invited to give their views on Trust Schools.

 Local residents are encouraged to attend to discuss the the implications of building on the playing field and what a huge increase of school children in the are will mean for them. 

Waltham Forest Anti-Trust Campaign wants local people to become active in this campaign: please attend the meeting and bring your ideas along regarding what we can do next

Friday 30 January 2009

PUBLIC MEETING FEBRUARY 12th

The Public Meeting is about Building Schools for the Future and the consultation document does not mention the Trusts. If you are concerned about this, make sure you are there and demand that the rebuilding programme is carried out WITHOUT chanfging schools to Truststatus.

A public meeting will be held at Walthamstow Town Hall - Thursday 12 February 2009 at 7pm at which the Director of Children and Young People Services and the Portfolio Lead Member for Children will invite your comments and questions related to the publication of the proposals.

You can still download the consultation document (1.91MB PDF file) which contains the information on the BSF programme proposals for schools in Leyton, Leytonstone and Chingford including proposals for schools in Walthamstow.

Wednesday 28 January 2009

Urgent Planning protests needed

There has been an important new development.

Waltham forest has put their planning Notice in wF Magazine on page 16 of their WF Magazine.

Objections should be emailed to:chris.loy@walthamforest.gov.uk

Write to: Chris Loy
C&YPS,
LBWF,
Silver Birch House,
Entrance A,
Uplands Business Park,
Blackhorse Lane,
London E17 5SD

Wednesday 21 January 2009

Some more options for the campaign

I recently acquired the Planning Brief for the George Mitchell site.

It does not give much away but it does mention more options about who to appeal to. 

6.7 states-consultation should be carried out with local residents and key stakeholders at all stages of the process.
Comment- This has not been done. There is a meeting at the Town Hall on February 12th, Chris Robbins and Chris Keirnan will discuss the so called BSF consultation. We could all suggest that it has not been carried out.

6.7 states- The scope for the GLA's intervention is contained within the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. Under Article 3, Local Planning Authorities(LPAs) are required to notify the Mayor of "applications of potential strategic importance. Applications for developments that meet or exceed the following category  of thresholds can trigger the potential for the Mayor's intervention in determining the application.

1. Development which is likely to prejudice the use of a playing field of more than 2 hectares of land which is
(a) used as a playing field.

It then goes on to qualify the term playing field.

Comment.
Clearly, the definition of the prejudice is important here, however it could be argued that this building definitely does exactly that: it might well be worth getting in touch with Boris.

Other Contacts
Kevin Herring
Section Manager
Development Management
Environment and Regeneration
Sycamore House
Forest Rd
E17 4JF
0208496 6706
kevein.herring@walthamforest.gov.uk

Ron Presswell
Programme Manager
ron.presswell@walthemforest.gov.uk
02084966736


For Parents and Teachers of the Schools in question

It is worth pointing out that we do not believe the proper consultation process has been adhered to. See below for the process that should have taken place. Again, The place to take this to is the meeting on 12 2 09 at The Town Hall.

It appears that we are being given the impression that the process for consultation is much shorter than it should be under guidelines about Trust Schools issued by the Government.
What is more worrying is the fact that Waltham Forest are pretending that the BSF consultation is a consultation on Trusts without ever mentioning the word Trust in their documents. This is deception and should be vigorously opposed. We need to demand that the so called consultation is declared void and they need to start a proper consultation based on the government guidelines below.







 

 

Wednesday 14 January 2009

School on Leyton County Cricket Ground?

ARE ALARM BELLS GOING OF IN YOUR HEAD?

If not …. THEY SHOULD BE!

If the local council gets its way and builds a school for over 1,000 pupils on the cricket ground, this area is going to change radically in the next few years — and not for the better!

· There will be two schools in this area with a total of 1700 pupils, almost tripling the current school population.
· Two schools whose pupils already seek each other out to fight will not have to travel far—they can meet in Brewster or Crawley Road for their rumbles!
· There will probably be more than three times the number of cars dropping off and picking up children at the beginning and end of the day as one of the schools will be for primary aged children as well as nursery, secondary and sixth form. This will cause problems with traffic, parking and noise.
· One of Leyton’s very few assets, i.e. the lovely area of open space surrounded by trees and with a historic, listed building on it, is under threat.
· It is proposed that the new schools will no longer be run by the local authority but by a trust, which will mean there will be fewer restrictions on what they do and how they do things in the future, if not straight away.
· There has been the minimum of information and consultation — the council doesn’t want you to know too much because they know you won’t like it!

They will try to tell you
· that this is the only way we can improve our schools. NOT TRUE. Other areas are receiving funding for schools from central government without being taken over by the private sector.
· that the cricket ground, trees etc. are safe. But do we believe a council who have tried so hard to keep important information from the local residents?
· that an ’all-through school’ for children aged 3-19 will improve their education! Well, try to find anyone who knows anything about education who will back that up. So far they have not provided any evidence that this is the case. In the USA where this has been tried, it has proved to be a mistake.

The consultation period ends next Monday 19th January.
The plans are on show at the SCORE centre on Oliver Road but if you want to see them you will need to ask someone. They are not easy to find. If you are commenting on the plans send your response to:-
Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners
14 Regents Wharf
All Saints Street
London
N1 9RL

OR

Why not write to the local paper:
Carl Brown
Waltham Forest Guardian
Guardian House
480-500 Larkshall Road
Highams Park
E4 9GD

OR

Write to one of our local councillors or MPs

Your letter does not need to be a work of art, have correct spelling or grammar or be written on nice paper — you only need to make your feelings clear about the proposals.

Don’t bother with a petition. The last time a petition was sent in
regarding another Waltham Forest school in a similar situation it was treated as if it was from one person instead of the number of people who had actually signed it.

Why Oppose Trusts

PARENTS - WHY YOU SHOULD OPPOSE TRUST STATUS FOR YOUR SCHOOL



What is wrong with Trust school status?



1. Foundation schools are State maintained schools where the employers of staff are the school governing bodies, not local authorities. Trust schools are Foundation schools to which trusts are attached. Trustees have the power to dominate their school governing bodies by nominating the majority of governors.



2. We think that schools are best able to meet the needs of their communities when they remain Community schools and local authorities are there to support them.



3. The vast majority of schools have community status, where the local authority is the employer, with each school being responsible for its budget. We believe that this balance has served the local authority family of schools well, with local authorities being able to provide back up and support to individual schools when they need it.



Are Trust schools more or less democratic than Community schools?



4. We think that parents, teachers and local communities should have a full say in the future of their schools. The Trust can appoint the majority of governors for each school within the Trust. Trust nominated school governors are not independently elected but are under the control of the Trust. Trusts undermine the democratic rights of parents to elect governors to governing bodies.



5. The Government claims that Trust nominated parent governors will continue to enable effective parental representation on governing bodies. Parents, however, will have no choice over who is nominated as a parent governor by the Trust. Trusts that appoint a majority of governors are required to create a legally constituted Parents Council for each school but Parents Councils have no powers and do not replace the powers lost by parents to elect independently their parent governors.

Do Trust schools encourage the best form of outside partnerships?



6. School governing bodies which set up charitable trusts are expected to secure a lasting commitment from the outside bodies which make up the trustees. Charity law requires detailed commitments which include commitments from trustees to nominate and remove governors.



7. Trust schools could encourage sponsors to seek control of governing bodies for their own interests through their nominated governors. There is every argument for schools to establish partnerships with outside bodies, whether companies, charities or universities. The most effective arrangements, however, are where outside bodies work in genuine partnership rather than seeking to dominate the schools with their own ideas or to use the schools as commercial opportunities.



8. The irony is that opportunities for developing genuine external/school partnerships are likely to be significantly reduced, since Trust schools will be constrained to relate solely to the partners that are incorporated into their trusts.



9. There is no reference in Government Trust school guidance to one of the best and most longstanding partnership available to schools: that of each school’s partnership with its parents through parent/teacher associations. PTAs have provided effective and consistent support to schools over time. We believe that the work of PTAs should be celebrated, not undermined, by the creation of separate Parents Councils.



What evidence is there that Trusts can improve education provision?



10. There is no evidence that Trust school status of itself improves standards.



11. Parents should press Governing bodies considering Trust status to produce evidence that Trusts will improve standards. They should be asked why it is not possible through more flexible partnership arrangements to establish links with outside organisations.



12. Local authorities have a vital role in securing effective co-ordinated admissions arrangements for schools; in planning to meet children’s special educational needs and in co-ordinating the ‘Every Child Matters’ agenda, which helps to make sure that all children and young people are safe and well provided for. Removing schools from local authority provision will weaken this planned approach.



Are there additional workload implications for school staff arising from Trusts?



13. It is important for parents to understand that, once established, staff of Trust schools will have to become involved in servicing the trusts. Many trustees will have no prior experience of the functioning of trusts or knowledge of their legal role and responsibilities. Head teachers and staff will be not only accountable to their governing bodies, but also expected to respond to a variety of demands from trusts. These demands will range from open-ended expectations and responses to enquiries, to the implementation of trust policies.



14. Where trusts appoint the majority of governors, school governing bodies are required legally to establish Parents Councils. Parents Councils can only provide advice to school governing bodies. They have a legal basis, including being required to have regard to the advice of the Government. This means that clerking, servicing and administering Parents Councils will entail administrative commitments as great as those that face governing bodies. The amount of time which schools want and need to devote to parent/teacher associations could be also undermined. In fact, Trust status will triple the administrative burdens on schools. Existing school commitments to servicing governing bodies will be added to, not only by additional commitments to trusts, but also by commitments to administer Parents Councils.



15. In short, the formal existence of trusts and their accompanying Parents Councils will take away from head teachers and staff invaluable time which should be devoted to learning and teaching and liaising with parents and replace that time with unnecessary bureaucratic burdens.







Can Trust status be removed?



16. The Government intends that trust arrangements are permanent. While it is not impossible to reverse those arrangements, the process is stacked against that taking place. Where parents, teachers and the wider community are dissatisfied with the trust, it will be for the governors who created the trust to take the decision to remove it.



17. Only when a school is deemed to be failing, either by OFSTED or by a local authority, can a local authority intervene and remove governors and their budget responsibilities. Once a school has improved, it still cannot return to community status but has to retain foundation status. Indeed, it is important to remember that under current legislation, schools cannot return to community status once they have voted for foundation status.



How will the admissions arrangements be affected by the acquisition of Trust school status?



18. Although Trust schools, as Foundation schools, are required to act in accordance with the Admissions Code of Practice, they will be able to set their own admissions policies. Recently published research, by the Institute for Public Policy Research, shows that schools setting their own policies leads to the social segregation of pupils.



19. The NUT believes that the fairest means of allocating school places is where local authorities set admissions policies, enabling authorities to plan for whole areas and take individual circumstances into account. Creating a plethora of individual schools’ admissions policies could jeopardise balanced pupil intakes.



Who funds Trust schools?



20. While Trust schools will continue to receive their funding from local authorities on the same basis as other Foundation schools, ownership of land and buildings will be transferred from the local authority to the trust. Effectively, assets that have been paid for by the public will transfer into the hands of trustees. These can include assets such as swimming pools and playing fields, which are often used by the local communities. Transfers of assets could lead to trustees charging for or restricting the use of previously shared facilities, creating the potential for community hostility to the school.



What should teachers and support staff do if a school governing body proposes a trust?



21. If governors propose a trust, they should initiate a public consultation which should include parents and staff. According to guidelines published by the Department for Education and Skills, the consultation should last six weeks. We believe that at least eight weeks should be agreed by the governing body.



22. School governing bodies are required by law to give consideration to the outcomes of the consultation and any concerns that arise from parents, staff and others. If a school governing body does not take the results of consultations seriously, anyone involved in the consultation can complain to the Schools Adjudicator, who has the power to overturn a proposal.



23. The NUT believes that it is vital that, where a Trust school is proposed, the school governing body must be held to account for its proposals by an open and democratic debate. There are a range of strategies which can be adopted by parents which will enable arguments against Trust status to be heard and won.



· If the governing body is determined to consult on its proposal, it should then be urged to:



- convene a meeting to which all parents are invited, with sufficient time given for the case against the proposals to be heard, as well as the case for Trust status;



- make available to all members of school communities affected by the proposal all printed views submitted prior to its decision, including the views of parents, teachers and their organisations;



- hold a ballot of all parents with material accompanying the ballot papers covering all views on the proposals.



· A press strategy should be agreed by opponents of the trust proposal, including seeking articles in the local Press and interviews in the media. The Press may be interested in articles which debate the proposals.



24. The arguments for Trust status are weak. At best, trusts will create new layers of bureaucracy that parents, head teachers and staff will have to deal with. At worst, they will fragment and undermine the capacity of all schools to work with each other and also open the door for private individuals and companies to skew the curriculum towards their interests.



25. No school governing body can be forced to adopt Trust school status. The voice of parents can stop them.



26. Detailed information on Trust schools published by the Government, can be found at http://www.ssatrust.org.uk/trustschools2/default.aspa.

About Us

This campaign is supported by Waltham Forest Trades Council, Waltham Forest National Union of Teachers and parents.

If your Union, group or organisation wishes to support  the campaign please email us on wfcat@rocketmail.com.

If you as an individual wish to support us, email us and we will put you on our mailing list.

The campaign has been formed to oppose the setting up of Trust Schools in Waltham Forest. In particular we are campaigning against the proposals to take Norlington School, George Mitchell School, Beaumont Primary School, Tom Hood School and Cann Hall School out of the community of schools under Waltham Forest Council and to turn them into Trusts.