Hands off Haywood High - Effective Community Engagement

Often, fine words, sentiments and laws come from the Government. Somewhere along the line, between the legislation and the local implementation, these sentiments are, for some reason - whether political, selfish, negligent, apathetic or ignorant - lost.

The extracts on this page are taken from Govermnent publications:

The Benefits of Community Engagement: A Review of the Evidence (Home Office, published 8 July 2004) http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/151525

Promoting Effective Citizenship and Community Empowerment: A guide for local authorities on enhancing capacity for public participation (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: London, February 2006) http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/143519

All the extracts make comforting reading for those who wish to live in a proper democratic society.

But they also should make people wonder where it all went wrong in Stoke.

The Home Office says in The Benefits of Community Engagement: A Review of the Evidence (our comments are in bold on the red background):

Community engagement and education

Introduction

There is a growing appreciation of the need for schools and educational authorities to cultivate strong relations with the communities they serve, engaging local people and local groups. Schools which understand themselves as simply agents of the state, there to deliver a service to passive parents or pupils, tend to do less well than those that actively engage parents, pupils and the community more generally in their work.

Currently, Haywood Engineering College falls into the second category - "those that actively engage parents, pupils and the community more generally in their work". Any new school forced on the community without proper input from the community will definitely fall into the first - "simply agents of the state, there to deliver a service to passive parents or pupils".

Schools have a particularly important role to play in communal life. In the first place, they are responsible for shaping the life chances and character of the children in their care. If they are to succeed in this role, it is vitally important that they do as much as possible to win the trust and cooperation of pupils and parents – especially those from marginalised and hard to reach groups.
At the same time, schools are particularly prominent and widely used public institutions with enormous potential as a focus of local collective life. Where schools are open and encourage engagement; where they work with parents, students, voluntary organisations, community groups and other local bodies, they will help foster strong social networks. Schools are, for many people, their primary contact with the public sector. They can shape people’s perception of public services and the public sphere more generally, and serve as a first rung onto broader forms of civic engagement.

"Schools are, for many people, their primary contact with the public sector". For many, in the current situation in Stoke-on-Trent, the debate on the future of the City's schools is their only potentially meaningful contact with the public sector, and the public has come away with the feeling that their views are not going to be listened to. This is hardly community engagement.

There are at least four benefits that can result from engaging communities in their local schools:

It can help ensure that schools and related services understand the needs and values of parents and students, so delivering a better service to them
It can foster social networks and social trust, with all the benefits – including increased education achievement – which these have been shown to deliver
Involving parents, pupils and locals in the decision-making process can help schools to gain the trust and co-operation of the communities they serve. It may also help to ensure that school policies are understood and seen as fair and intelligent
Involving parents, pupils and community representatives in school governance encourages the habit of active citizenship.

Any school foisted on the community will only be perceived as an instrument of the state, and will lack support from within the community.

Will these new "undemocratic" schools, with their newly appointed Governing bodies and Headteachers, understand the needs and values of parents and pupils?
Will there be any social networks or trust, whether social or otherwise?
Parents feel excluded from the current decision-making process. A new Acreswood school would need years to rebuild the trust and co-operation that already exists at Haywood.
Some of the new schools proposed by Serco and the City Council (that is the four Academies) will restrict the representation of parents on the Governing body to one. Currently Haywood has four serving parent Governors, with vacancies for two more. Why should the community have reduced representation in the running of the school?

As the "consultation" process on school reorganisation progressed, the citizens of Stoke became more and more disillusioned. Distrust in the Council was already elevated before the process started, but now the feeling of antipathy towards that body has probably reached an all-time high. Moreover, with the recent actions of certain officers, people seriously wonder whether the Council has any interest at all in the well-being of the community.

The Government, in its publication Promoting Effective Citizenship and Community Empowerment: A guide for local authorities on enhancing capacity for public participation, has the following to say (our emphasis is in bold red italics):

Sustaining the dialogue, learning to listen Building a sustained dialogue with communities is important for reinforcing people’s learning experiences, and for democracy as a whole. It takes time to establish people’s trust and confidence, so keeping the dialogue going over the long-term is crucial. Curtailing engagement breeds cynicism about local government, damages peoples’ confidence and can increase their sense of alienation. Local authorities need to ensure that people’s involvement is acknowledged, to provide feedback on responses they have received and to say how participants have influenced action. All parties need to learn how to listen. The case study from Ipswich, below, shows how responding to citizens’ concerns can sustain and extend their involvement, and deliver positive lessons in local democracy.
	CASE STUDY: DEMONSTRATING EFFICACY Evidence of a virtuous circle can be found in Ipswich, where “people who don’t see the council as ever having done anything positive” are gradually believing that by working together, with the council, as citizens, their quality of life is improving. Ipswich’s MAD team (‘make a difference’) went into areas for five weeks to find out what people want. If the priorities are to address graffiti, dog mess, abandoned vehicles or litter, that is what the team will do. Strong anecdotal information suggests that it is the scope for local people to access resources, and influence how money is spent that is improving confidence in the council, councillors and the police; people saying, ‘we’ve realised we can make a difference’. Physical outputs include better lighting, footways, children’s play equipment and additional police presence.

The silent majority Most councils are aware that their consultation and participation strategies do not touch the majority of their constituents. The question is whether people lack the relevant knowledge, feel disempowered, or are simply disconnected from local democracy. After all, few people are actually untouched by council services, even if they are disengaged with council politics. Silence may also be a product of increasingly busy working lives, leaving little time for the responsibilities of being a good citizen. A number of strategies might be adopted to connect this ‘silent majority’ with the council and, once connected, to deepen their learning and draw them into more meaningful engagement. Information on citizenship and the council. Councils should ensure that those members of the public who do not actively seek involvement are nevertheless informed of opportunities for participation, made aware of the impact which they can have, and encouraged to take part if they wish. From consultation to connection. One of the criticisms made of the increasing use of citizens panels as a means of consultation, is that it treats people as mere consumers of services. A number of local authorities have been connecting citizens’ panellists to wider learning opportunities and fostering deeper connections with democracy.

Initiatives to support effective citizenship are likely to be more effective if the council’s whole culture and organisation demonstrably values and encourages citizen input.

Learning within organisations Learning within local authorities and partner agencies is essential. As the Home Office put it, this means “expanding learning and development within public services, so that professionals, practitioners and policy-makers are better equipped to engage with citizens and communities”. This applies to frontline staff – community workers and others – that work directly with a range of social groups, but also to officers in other departments as well as Councillors.

Officer Attitudes “You need cultural change and capacity building among officers to persuade them that there’s value in participation, to build the capacity of officers to go out there and meet the community face to face. This may mean subtle shifts in attitude, like being receptive and open-minded enough to think, well, perhaps we’re not delivering the best of services ”

Political groups, too, need to give careful consideration to what is legitimate to attack and what is needlessly undermining local democracy and discouraging voter turnout.

Cultural change in local authorities If people are to become more effective citizens, then there needs to be a change not just in their own behaviour, but also in the culture of decision-making bodies, including local councils. Attitudes towards public participation may need to become more accommodating.

These are fine sentiments.

However, the gap between what is thought out in Westminster and what is put into practice in Stoke-on-Trent is far greater than the physical distance that separates the two.

"... are likely to be more effective if the council’s whole culture and organisation demonstrably values and encourages citizen input".

But our Council's culture and organisation demonstrably does neither.

It neither values, encourages nor accepts valid criticism from its citizens, and has shown itself extremely reluctant to properly canvass opinions.

Instead it employs persons - at salaries hugely in excess of what an average citizen can hope to earn [80% of the population of Stoke-on-Trent earns less than £25,577 (ONS, 2007)] - to tell us that the Council is wonderful and that any criticism whatsoever should be supressed.

"Curtailing engagement breeds cynicism about local government, damages peoples’ confidence and can increase their sense of alienation".

Yes, it does.

And if the views of the community are not taken into account during this consultation exercise, all the more alienated it shall become.

"Strong anecdotal information suggests that it is the scope for local people to ... influence how money is spent that is improving confidence in the council".

Maybe our Council, for its own perverse reasons, maybe even to ensure its very survival, does not want the confidence of citizenry in its actions to improve.

Clement Attlee once said: "Democracy means government by discussion but it is only effective if you can stop people talking".

So, not much has changed in sixty years!

We would prefer an idea put forward by Kurt Russell: "We are in a democratic society. It's our job to question".

We wholeheartedly agree with the following opinions expressed by the Roosevelt Institution, and truly hope that our City Council would concur:

"By democracy, we mean more than casting a vote in elections. Rather, we define democracy as constant engagement in active, participatory, and deliberative self-governance not only in public, but in private and civic institutions as well, where power is diffuse and belongs to the people, citizenship is extolled as a virtue, and individuals and communities control their own lives. Through cooperation among individuals, communities, and private and public institutions, we can shape our own future. Only by acting together can different sectors of society - public, private, and civil - realise a progressive society. We believe that all people equally deserve the conditions that allow them to pursue a good life for themselves, their families, and their communities".

"Democracy thrives with the many voices of people from diverse backgrounds and viewpoints. Decisions in a democracy must be made through dissent, debate, and deliberation".

"A society is only free when the people can shape their own lives".