Agenda item
TO CONSIDER MOTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
The motions submitted by Councillors for debate at this meeting are set out in the attached report.
Decision:
12.1 Motion proposed by Councillor Bill Turner regarding Academy Schools – Bethnal Green Technology College
Councillor Bill Turner moved, and Councillor Amy Whitelock seconded, the motion as printed in the agenda and as amended by their own tabled amendment.
Councillor Peter Golds moved, and Councillor Zara Davis seconded, a further tabled amendment to the motion. This amendment was put to the vote and defeated.
Councillor Fozol Miah moved, and Councillor Harun Miah seconded, a further tabled amendment to the motion. This amendment was put to the vote and defeated.
The substantive motion as amended was then put to the vote and was agreed as follows:-
This Council notes:
1. That education results in Tower Hamlets have improved at a faster rate than in any other area of the country over the last 10 years.
2. This significant improvement in attainment has been achieved through collective working between schools and the Local Authority, under previous Labour administrations.
3. That the previous Labour Government initiated the academy programme as a way of levering funding for improvements in failing schools.
4. That the Tory-led coalition Government’s policy to allow outstanding schools to automatically become academies and others to apply for academy status is an extension of their policy of opt-outs in the 1990s and will allow thousands of privately owned and managed schools to operate, fully funded by the taxpayer.
5. That Tower Hamlets Council has consistently maintained its support for non-selective comprehensive education and has previously declined the prospect of an academy in the borough, believing our schools are stronger together than apart.
This Council further notes:
1. The Governors of Bethnal Green Technology College (BGTC) voted apply to become an academy with the intended conversion date of 1st January 2012.
2. BGTC has moved rapidly from special measures and made significant progress in the last three years with exam results rising from 27% 5+ A* to C including English and Maths in 2007 to 59% in 2010.
3. This improvement has been achieved with support from the Local Authority, including £17 million of funding from Building Schools for the Future (BSF).
4. Officers at Tower Hamlets Council are committed to working closely with the leadership and governors of BGTC to achieve the highest aspirations of the school, and the Lead Member for Children’s Services has stated his own commitment in this regard.
5. That the leadership of the school however has identified a problem with high levels of midterm admissions, that they believe the Council has failed to resolve.
6. Sir William Burrough and Ian Mikardo schools have also registered interest in academy status.
7. Many local groups and individuals are opposed to BGTC’s and other schools’ applications for academy status, including the National Union of Teachers, East London Teachers’ Association and local headteachers, several of whom have publicly made a convincing case for the damage academy status would do to the community of schools in our borough, with few tangible benefits for the schools in question.
This Council further notes:
1. That academies are removed from local accountability structures, meaning parents and pupils have no recourse to assistance from local authorities.
2. That academies are not subject to the admissions procedures of the local authority.
3. That there is no conclusive evidence that academy schools are more effective at raising educational standards than other types of maintained school.
4. That academies have a destabilising effect on the ability of neighbouring schools to achieve a balance of abilities amongst their pupil intakes.
5. That exclusions of pupils in academies have been significantly higher than the national average.
6. That parental representation on governing bodies is minimal.
7. That unlike maintained schools, academies are not required to automatically recognise trade unions and many choose not to and that academies are not required to adhere to the national terms of pay and conditions for teachers, meaning that many teachers are subject to inferior arrangements for pay, conditions of service or working time.
This Council believes:
1. That the long-standing principle of the non-selective comprehensive system must be defended, to ensure all our children in Tower Hamlets have free and equal access to a high quality education, regardless of background or income.
2. That the Tory-led Government’s academy programme is intended to break up Local Authority involvement in education and extend privatisation in education, removing schools from local, democratic control.
3. That if one school converts to an academy, this will undermine the collective agreement to date between schools that remaining with the Local Authority is in the best interests of local children and there is too much to lose by opting out.
4. That this could lead to more schools becoming academies and result in a two-tier system of state education in Tower Hamlets, with the Local Authority powerless to drive up standards or ensure consistent admission standards or curriculums.
5. That BGTC has significantly benefitted from the strong collective approach to education in Tower Hamlets, not least agreement among local schools that BGTC should be prioritised for BSF funding.
6. That the principle aims of BGTC’s academy bid – to become an outstanding school and to become popular and fully subscribed – can be achieved under the current system with support from the Local Authority, as with Stepney Green school before.
This Council resolves:
1. To oppose any future proposal to establish an academy school in Tower Hamlets.
2. To urge the Headteachers and Governors of BGTC to continue to work with the Local Authority family of schools, whatever the outcome of their application for academy status.
3. To work with other schools to maintain support for the collective system of state education provision in Tower Hamlets.
4. To work with BGTC to effectively address its concerns with high levels of midterm admissions.
5. Where schools do convert to academies, to work with parents, teachers and the unions to encourage cooperation with the Local Authority and other schools, to ensure local children’s access high quality education is not undermined.
(Action by: Isobel Cattermole, Acting Corporate Director, Children, Schools & Families)
12.5 Motion proposed by Councillor Judith Gardiner regarding Housing Sales Phases 2 and 3
Councillor Judith Gardiner moved, and Councillor Helal Uddin seconded, the motion as printed in the agenda.
Councillor Timothy Archer proposed, and Councillor Peter Golds seconded, a procedural motion under Rule 14.1.4 as follows:- : “That the matters detailed in this motion be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration.” This procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
The substantive motion was then put to the vote and was agreed as follows:-
DECISION
This Council notes that:
1. Tower Hamlets has amongst the highest levels of housing need in London with the waiting list standing at about 23,000 households. Of these, over 1,677 households need a home with four bedrooms or more.
2. Despite this, in December 2010, the newly elected Mayor and his Cabinet agreed to dispose of 5 properties in Swaton Road and two other properties – 19 Parfett St (a 6 bed house) 102 Tredegar Road. In April 2011 the Cabinet also agreed to dispose of 63A Sewardstone Road - on the open market by auction.
3. A further 12 properties in Bruce Road, Old Ford Road and Mount Terrace have also been identified for sale.
4. The sales of Swaton Road properties have now taken place and have achieved some £1.6m, the sale of 19 Parfett St, 102 Tredegar Road and 63A Sewardstone Road have already been advertised.
This Council believes
1. That given the desperate need for family size and street level properties in this Borough, disposal of such properties should be halted.
2. That it was wrong for the Mayor to reverse the Labour cabinet’s decision to seek to maintain family sized homes as social housing and instead sell them to the highest bidder.
This Council therefore calls upon the Mayor to ensure
1. That receipts from any such sales are ring-fenced for the provision of new family size homes, preferably in the areas where these homes are being lost, rather than for other housing purposes.
(Action by: Aman Dalvi, Corporate Director, Development & Renewal)
That the matters detailed in the motion above be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration.
(Action by: John S Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services)
12.12 Motion proposed by Councillor Shiria Khatun regarding the English Defence League
Councillor Shiria Khatun moved, and Councillor Kosru Uddin seconded, the motion as printed in the agenda.
The motion was put to the vote, declared carried unanimously by the Council and was agreed as follows:-
This Council notes:
· That the English Defence League (EDL) has signalled its intention to hold a march in Tower Hamlets this August.
· That the EDL had planned to march through Tower Hamlets in June 2010, but after discussion with the Council, local police and community Groups, their plans were cancelled.
· That previous EDL marches around the UK have been marred by violence, racism and tension within communities.
This Council believes
· That Tower Hamlets is a community which is at its best when it is united.
· That any group or organisation that encourages division and tension in our communities is not welcome in the Borough.
This Council Resolves:
· To call on the Home Secretary to ban the proposed EDL march in Tower Hamlets.
· To work with the Mayor, political groups, the Police, Interfaith Forum and community organisations to respond to any planned action by the EDL and ensure the safety and security of residents.
(Action by: Isabella Freeman, Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services); and Stephen Halsey, Corporate Director, Communities, Localities and Culture)
Motions 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6, 12.7, 12.8, 12.9, 12.10, 12.11, 12.13 and 12.14 were not considered due to the time limit for the meeting being reached.
Minutes:
Motions 12.1, 12.5 and 12.12 had been considered earlier in the meeting.
Motions 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6, 12.7, 12.8, 12.9, 12.10, 12.11, 12.13 and 12.14 were not considered due to the time limit for the meeting being reached.
Supporting documents: