Get Connected!

In an online forum I regularly visit a story from late December 2011 has cropped up. It involved the assault of a three year old girl by a two year old girl which resulted in potentially serious injuries for the three year old.

As a parent whose child was bullied throughout her primary years and into her secondary education I have held strong opinions that schools are a law unto themselves and despite the presence of OFSTED get away with too much.

The incident happened on the 13th December 2011 and was widely reported on the 22nd December. At that point the OFSTED report had not been published and so was not available to see, it was published two days later on the 24th. Remembering the story I decided to look to see if the report had been published.

The Daily Mail printed a copy of the accident/injury record for the child who was injured. It clearly states that there was no witnesses to the incident. The OFSTED report clearly states that the incident was witnessed by a member of staff who was unable to get to the children before the injuries were inflicted.

As the report does not mention the conflict in information the question must be asked what reports OFSTED looked at when it was checking what procedures were followed by the nursery for such a basic conflict of information to emerge. It is difficult to not to conclude the nursery managed to cover up its short comings on this particular occasion.

Sadly until all schools and nurseries take bullying and assaults seriously they will remain one of the few places where our children are truly at risk. Until the system stops protecting them and schools are successfully prosecuted when there is a clear culture of turning a blind eye to the safety of children these stories will continue.

However as a society we too hold a certain amount of responsibility. In a culture where suing and wanting someone else to be held responsibile a culture of trust and honesty will be hard fought to come by. Most of the schools my daughter went to were open and honest with us about various incidents and how they proposed to deal with them. One however was in total denial of any bullying going on, despite their student boasting how they bullied certain children. Guess which one I found I could not work with as a parent.

You can see the accident/injury report at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077039/Katie-Ann-Guttridge-3-attacked-Leicester-nursery-2-year-old.html

You can download the OFSTED report for this incident at http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/CARE/226456/(type)/33/(typename)/Childcare on Non-Domestic Premises

The report is only three pages, the relevant section which contradicts the accident/injury report is on page 2.

Tuesday I was at the launch of the 1000 Communities campaign by the NFTMO and ATIC

The campaign is aspirational, trying to reach as many communities as possible with information about council tenants right to manage, as well as encouraging housing associations and other social housing landlords on the benefits of tenant management.

Three presentations, by NFTMO, ATIC and the Urban Forum were well received.

ATIC emphasised with the restriction in current funding for development the need for finding the right people to take forward new tenant management organisations. Meaning that in most cases there would need to be a currently active group with a proven record in making a difference and landlords who support them.

Urban Forum have been doing some research on tenant management organisations and are due to publish their findings next week.

The NFTMO announced the creation of its charity arm, the NFTMO Terry Eddis Trust. The aim of the charity will be to raise funds to provide better information and education about tenant management. One idea for fund raising was to tie the funding campaign with the olympics by having their own torch touring TMOs in England. Hosting TMOs will put on an event to promote tenant management and would invite local communities along to learn more.

A number of issues were raised from those who attended.

Flexible tenancies has been a primary concern for tenant management organisations who depend on finding tenants who are willing to invest their time for the benefit of neighbours and the community they live in. Tenants are less likely to get involved if they have an expectation to move on after a two years, or even five.

Traditionally it has taken at least two years to develop a new TMO from start to going live, with some examples taking much longer. With limited funding groups are more often given 18 months. This more intensive and does take a lot of time of those residents driving it forward. Even after going live it is likely that for the first 12 to 18 months management committees will be meeting every two to four weeks as the transistion is made.

TMOs traditionally take on a range of services, however it was also pointed out that there is nothing stopping a new TMO taking on one or two services to begin with to prove themselves and to build capacity. Later on they could take on further responsibilities.

Another concern raised was the new drive for right to buy. TMOs are good at providing a better service for less money, but these savings can only be made against tenants and not leaseholders. It is by investing these savings back into the community that often seperate TMO estates from other council estates, and make them more popular for right to buy tenants.

One of the main obstacles for developing new TMOs are the councils that block the development of TMOs in various ways. The NFTMO has been using recent consultations to push for councils denying tenants of their legal rights to fall under the 'serious detriment' test for them to be taken to the ombudsman.

Lack of understanding what TMOs are was another concern and their general unwillingness to promote tenant management. So the question was asked if there was local authority support for these people if they were interested. LACOG is a group of local authority workers involved in TMOs and are happy to provide support and advice to workers and authorities who were interested in TMOs, as were the NFTMO and ATIC.

For once I am not going to criticise the government for going to far.

Those who abuse tenancies by illegal subletting are, in my opinion, scum. They takes homes from those who need them, undermine the welfare system and steal from taxpayers.

If anything I believe the proffered solution to be too low and that 2 years should be the minimum.

Any such legislation should be the last resort. There is plenty of legislation out there that provide much stiffer sentences. The Fraud Act is a good one to start on, and each section breached should be charged as a seperate offence.

If a tenant is illegally subletting then there are other considerations.

If a tenant is illegally subletting then they are are providing a service, are they therefor running a business? If so then they should be prosecuted as a director of a company, not as an individual.

Private landlords are expected to hold tenants deposits in a tenant deposit scheme, unless the tenancy started before 6th April 2007. As tenancy cheats are unlikely to be doing this either the lack of deposit is used as evidence of long term fraud with money illegally gained calculated as such, and/or the illegal tenant is helped to enforce their rights, ie take the person to court and be awarded the full deposit back plus three times the deposit value. This would help the illegal tenant (who is often a victim of these scum as well) to have the deposit for another flat.

I would go even further, confiscating all assets and splitting the money amicably between the government and the organisation that the fraud has been inflicted on, after the illegal tenant has their deposit back unless it can be shown that they were complicit in the offence and in which case they too should be prosecuted. It is also one of the few cases where I would back a move to esure that they are never given access to social housing again. Once they come out of prison let them become tenants of private landlords.

In the latest spat of playground fights between the church and state IDS has responded to Church of England Bishops who are threatening to defy him in the Lords on the Welfare Reform Bill.

"The question I'd ask these bishops is, over all these years, why have they sat back and watched people being placed in houses they cannot afford? It's not a kindness.

I would like to see their concerns about ordinary people, who are working hard, paying their tax and commuting long hours, who don't have as much money as they would otherwise because they're paying tax for all of this. Where is the bishops' concern for them?"

The minister added: "I would like to see a more balanced response".

So would we Mr Smith!

Why was it necessary to put these families into such high rent flats in the first place?

Because a conservative government decided it was better to sell of social housing and to stop councils from building any more. A policy that was kept by Labour, though with a lower subsidy, and exacerbated further by encouraging councils to give away their stock.

Despite all the sound bites figures show that new builds for 'affordable housing' has dropped even further. This is against all projections showing that housing needs will continue grow and there is not sufficient housing now.

Where was your concerns when these policies were being put in place?

Considering your response, what are your long term plans for those who cannot afford the homes they live in? ie those who need HB or LHA?

Of course it could be that there is a different point of view about what housing is. It is likely that there will always be arguments between those who see housing as a necessity and those who see it purely as a commodity in a free market.

In the latest spat of playground fights between the church and state IDS has responded to Church of England Bishops who are threatening to defy him in the Lords on the Welfare Reform Bill.

"The question I'd ask these bishops is, over all these years, why have they sat back and watched people being placed in houses they cannot afford? It's not a kindness.

I would like to see their concerns about ordinary people, who are working hard, paying their tax and commuting long hours, who don't have as much money as they would otherwise because they're paying tax for all of this. Where is the bishops' concern for them?"

The minister added: "I would like to see a more balanced response".

So would we Mr Smith!

Why was it necessary to put these families into such high rent flats in the first place?

Because a conservative government decided it was better to sell of social housing and to stop councils from building any more. A policy that was kept by Labour, though with a lower subsidy, and exacerbated further by encouraging councils to give away their stock.

Despite all the sound bites figures show that new builds for 'affordable housing' has dropped even further. This is against all projections showing that housing needs will continue grow and there is not sufficient housing now.

Where was your concerns when these policies were being put in place?

Considering your response, what are your long term plans for those who cannot afford the homes they live in? ie those who need HB or LHA?

Where were the Conservative concerns for the hard working families when they destroyed the manufacturing base of this country? Where are your concerns when this government is destroying jobs and creating so much confusion that no one knows where they stand? Where are your concerns when those you say you are concerned about lose their jobs and cannot afford to live in the homes they are currently living in?

Of course it could be that there is a different point of view about what housing is. It is likely that there will always be arguments between those who see housing as a necessity and those who see it purely as a commodity in a free market.

A lot has been said recently about Gove's plan to make it much easier to sack poor teachers.

Like many parents I can point to teachers who I believe should never have been teaching children.

The teacher who demanded an apology from my daughter for calling her stupid, and with the head there when Stacey explained that the teacher said everything we eat turns to blood and tried to correct the teacher told her to shut up. The teacher then said she was talking about animals, and I had to explain to Stacey in front of them that the teacher was still wrong. At the end of the year her abilities had been severely marked down.

The teacher who told her that if she wanted the boys to stop bullying her stop wearing a bra to school!

On the other hand, while it was not acceptable, I had a little sympathy for the art teacher who told Stacey's class they could not what they want as he would no longer bother trying to teach them.

I would certainly not have called for the sacking of two teachers when during a meeting I lost my composure and told them I didn't care what their personal differences were I expected them to behave in a professional manner to ensure the best results were found for my daughter and others, and then threatened if I had to ask for another meeting I would bang their heads together until they did get the message.

One problem is the very mixed message that is coming across. It is not aimed at new teachers, but those who have been teaching for a while and still cannot produce expected results, but it would allow poor teachers to be sacked in one term.

It would be interesting to see how you demonstrate fully supporting a poor performing employee and take action to sack them within one term.

In the second example above the teacher was moved back to teaching younger children and I was told they would not be allowed to teach that age range again.

The third example for me reeked of frustration at a system that had failed to support the teacher as an employee, and while I had hoped they would get the support they were not at the school after that term.

The first example, ideally I would like to have seen the teacher required to take further training before being allowed to teach science again, and then with proper support. However that particular example and others I have seen makes me believe that another factor in poor performing schools is being over looked.

The head teacher had, rightly in my opinion, supported the teacher. But I was shocked when I was told by the HT that I had not helped by disagreeing with what the teacher had said ie everything we/animals eat turn to blood. Things from there went downhill, and after writing to the school and having made several allegations against the teacher I was threatened with legal action if I didn't withdraw the letter. I told the them both that I would not withdraw the letter but if they wanted to take me to court then I was fine with that, I could prove all I had written and would not be bullied. The matter was dropped by them, though as mentioned Staceys end of year report was seriously downgraded.

Though I took her out of that school the following year they were inspected and put in special measures.

Head Teachers have an incredible amount of authority and influence. For a short period I was a school governor in a primary school that was, already, in special measures. One of the key areas for being in special measures was the lack of proper support for special needs children. As a school governor with the SEN portfolio it was something I was passionate about and wanted to see the school improve.

It was a constant battle. For example the school had a student with a severe sight disability. I asked to do a walk around with the SENCO and head teacher. Within an hour I had identified over 30 issues that needed to be dealt with. Loose bannisters, painted the same colour as the walls, poor step markings to one of the most stupid things I have ever heard. I asked how the child was able to access the computers. I was told that the school had bought giant mouse for the student to use. As I had not seen it I asked about this and the teacher was told to put it away because it was expensive and 'children were using it'! I arranged an extra large monitor to be donated by the company I was working for to be donated, and then went in with the teacher and IT teacher to set up one of the computers to better meet the child needs, changing some of the settings and putting in css sheet to over ride website settings to allow eaiser access.

The final straw was after spending time with the SENCO to make it as easy as possible for classroom staff to capture the information needed to monitor the performance and improvement of children on school action+ and those with statements. During the meeting with the teachers there was a lot of opposition, in the end the head teacher said it would be left to the individual teachers if they would follow the process or not. At that point I realised I was wasting my time and that evening wrote my resignation and sent it to the Chair and Clerk. By the end of the year the head teacher was gone.

All head teachers have an automatic place on the governing body, I believe that while this is acceptable for many head teachers for poor head teachers this gives them too much influence and ability to manipulate the board. To make the situation worse I am also aware that staff members who are on the boards of their schools often feel conflicted - it can be difficult to disagree with the person who has the power to terminate your employment at the school.

While well known and documented changes in the head teacher can drastically reverse the performance of a school, for the better or for worse. Yet how many stories have you seen praising a head teacher who has gone into a school and drastically improved it, compared to stories showing the opposite?

If schools are coasting on a satisfactory rating then perhaps the first place to look is at the head teacher and their senior management team.