From the National Education Union in Brent
Following a report from an inside source in the DfE that the DFE has rejected the Village School and Woodfield School’s application to form a Multi-Academy Trust, the Interim Executive Headteacher Kay Charles confirmed to the press that further information has been requested from the school. She said: “The DfE have ... requested additional information which we are in the process of providing.” Staff and parents are now concerned, rightly, that a change in proposal could be submitted, for example, an attempt to include more schools or a free school, without any consultation with them and other stakeholders.
Or might a new plan be to join with Brent Specialist Academy Trust (BSAT) to form a large chain, monopolising SEND provision in Brent? BSAT recently announced plans for BSAT to set up ‘hubs’ in Local Authority schools to provide education to pupils who have Educational Health Care Plans. These pupils attract increased funding. Once the BSAT hubs are in place these pupils would come off the roll of their own school taking all their funding with them to BSAT. Or are they intending their own version of this for the Woodfield and Village MAT? No new proposal can be acceptable that has not been fully and properly consulted upon.
Meanwhile the NEU have received a 67-page document from the school, following a Freedom of Information request. This shows invoices up to £240,000 which were paid to a Mr Greg Foley of School Business Strategic Services over a two-year period, from 2015 - 2017, when Mr Foley was Chair of the Trustees at Woodfield academy school, an unpaid position. To receive personal financial gain whilst a Trustee is against the Academies Financial regulations. In addition, there was a conflict of interest here since Mr Foley was operating as Finance Officer for the Trust. The NEU understands that Mr Greg Foley is still being paid for finance services at Woodfield. We are informed that he was previously being paid in the region of £9000 every month for this!
NEU officer Hank Roberts states:
This new information must place, yet again, the whole proposal under question. We are looking at a consultation which trusted its financial due diligence to a man who did due diligence on himself! We, the NEU, call on the DfE to justify the establishment of a new MAT by people who were aware of this. Taking money from these vulnerable children and placing it into the hands of a private consultant who was abusing his position is abetting corruption. So many academies have had a history of corruption. The question is, will any action be taken by the DfE or any other responsible body regarding this?