Two education stories involving Kent may, at first glance, appear unrelated.

The first involves parents in Sevenoaks petitioning Kent County Council for more grammar school places; the second involves Ofsted failing Kent's first secondary school academy and placing it in special measures. Seven years after it first opened its doors, the Marlowe Academy in Ramsage has been deemed to be offering students an unacceptable education.

Marlowe Academy failed by Ofsted>>>

Nothing could better illustrate just how stark the differences are in Kent when it comes to schooling. In one of the most prosperous and least disadvantaged areas of the county, parents are making the case for more selective places while in another - the county's economic blackspot where nearly 15% of 18-24-year-olds are out of work, the life chances and prospects for hundreds of children are being undermined because a school that cost £30m is, according to inspectors, failing.

The failures of the Marlowe cannot, of course, be laid at the door of those in Sevenoaks - which has the lowest unemployment rate in Kent and fewer 18-to-24-year-olds out of work than anywhere in the county -  where parents say they are simply arguing for increased capacity in the area to avoid children having to travel out of the area.

But the impact of selection on some schools in many areas cannot - and should not - be underestimated when it comes to making judgements about their achievements. Imagine being in a 100-metre sprint against Usain Bolt and just as you line up ,the marshal instructs you to move 25m behind the start line.

That is how many non-selective schools feel about the impact that grammars, which top slice the 25% of the most academically able children,  have. To their credit, many choose not to offer that as an excuse and are justifiably proud of what, in many cases, are outcomes that are - given their starting point - arguably better than some schools which select.

Roger De Haan, the chairman of governors at the Marlowe, says selection hasn't helped the challenge of improving the prospects of its pupils but you won't ever find Ofsted acknowledging - or even taking into account -  the potential impact that a selective system has on a non-selective school's performance.

It is often said by those in charge at County Hall that the "diversity" of Kent's schooling system is one of its strengths, and that such diversity affords parents the kind of choice not available elsewhere. Except, of course, that presumes a system in which all schools are doing equally as well - which is patently not the case.

To its credit, KCC has sought to bridge the gap between selective and non-selective schools in some ares through federations and partnerships and has set up the Kent Challenge to address the shortcomings of under-performing schools.

But the fact remains that there is a wide - some suggest widening gap - between the outcomes of pupils that is not being adequately addressed. Indeed, KCC's own director of education Patrick Leeson has been candid enough to say that there is less social mobility achieved in Kent through its schools than elsewhere and that the gap between the achievements of less well-off pupils and the more affluent is "extremely unacceptable."    

The damning Ofsted inspection of the Marlowe Academy is a striking reminder for both KCC and the government - which is ultimately accountable for academies - of just how far things still have to go before there is a genuine level playing field in Kent when it comes to schools and the outcomes and prospects for all children.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IT is now more than two years since an audit inquiry into Kent County Council’s extensive commercial trading operations cleared the authority of competing unfairly with private business.
The probe followed well-publicised complaints from the private sector about KCC having an unfair competitive advantage over others and allegations of cross-subsidies.
The Audit Commission cleared KCC of this but noted in a report that to allay concerns it needed to be more transparent about the activiites of its companies like Kent Top Temps and Kent Top Travel.
In response, the council set up a committee to oversee the various companies that together have a turnover of £400m a year, called the Governance and Audit Trading Activities Sub Group. Given the extent of KCC’s commercial trading companies, and in the face of an on-going trial involving fraud allegations, it is something of a surprise to discover that this committee has not met since May 2010

Are we to believe that there has been nothing of note to record about any aspect of commercial trading at KCC? Nothing like a high level independent review of the way they are governed, for example?

Two things stand out from the budget for Kent and both are issues that could, in time, store up difficulties for the government from Conservatives in the county.

George Osborne confirmed directly and in the strongest terms yet that the idea of a new airport was now firmly on the table and would be a key part of the government's consultation on aviation capacity.

MPs were told: "I also believe this country must confront the lack of airport capacity in the South East of England – we cannot cut ourselves off from the fastest growing cities in the world."

It would have been interesting to see the reaction of Kent backbenchers in the Commons but we didn't - it is hard to imagine they were doing anything but grimace.

It is clear the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have, if not completely won round, are becoming much more enthused and interested in the idea, particularly in view of the possibilities the scheme holds for regeneration.

Kent's Conservative MPs are united in their opposition and only this week several signed an open cross-party letter to the Daily Telegraph underlining their concerns about the consequences.

The politics of this are intriguing. What Kent backbenchers are undoubtedly anxious about is the potentially awkward timing. Government consultation gets underway shortly and will last, according to the Chancellor, until the summer.

Thereafter, it is unclear. The proposal could, of course, be killed off completely.

But if isn't - and knowing how long it can take for major infrastructure projects to move forward - the issue could be left hanging in the air. What will worry Kent Conservative MPs is, if the uncertainty is prolonged and the government prevaricates, they could be going into the next election not knowing where they stand.

If the government ultimately decide to press ahead with the idea, they could have to be campaigning against a key commitment.

It is, of course, some way off but if Boris Johnson wins the mayoral election in May, it is unlikely that he will let go of the idea and it is widely thought that he has the ear of the Treasury and the Chancellor.

The related issue is the government's determination to push ahead with planning reforms that many fear will result in a developers' charter, making it much harder for councils and others to resist development because of a new 'powerful' presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Out in the shires, the unease has been marked among Conservatives - and others - who fear the reforms represent a real threat to the Garden of England and will lead to vast swathes of green fields being concreted over.

One of Kent's most effective PR campaigns, masterminded by the late KCC leader Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, was to resist the Labour government's plans to increase house-building in Kent under John Prescott's grand schemes for a huge expansion in house-building numbers.

Kent countryside was described as being "non negotiable" and it was very effective, too. One of the first things the coalition did was scrap these house-building targets and promise that local councils would determine what they wanted to see built.

Now it seems another front has opened in a battle over the Garden of England many thought they had won.  

IF you visit a library in Kent this Saturday, you probably won't notice anything different. And you certainly won't come across any special event or activity.

Odd? Not especially, until you realise that it is National Libraries Day, a now annual event to celebrate libraries.

Kent County Council is facing claims it is 'snubbing' the national day of celebration from several campaigners who have questioned why there are no events planned to mark the event.

Unlike many other authorities, KCC has opted not to put on a specific programme for the day. Inevitably, that has led to claims the council is downplaying the event because it does not want to draw attention to a shake-up that some fear could mean cutbacks.

For its part, the council says it has a year-round programme of activities and it is focusing on promoting those. There's no major scandal here. But a briefing note from managers to staff appears a little sensitive over the fact that nothing is going on.

The note says staff approached about National Libraries Day “must refer all enquiries from members of the public, community groups and organisations to your district manager."

The memo says: “As NLD is a Saturday, the busiest day of the week for us, all our staff will be fully engaged in helping people to use our wide range of services. There is much to celebrate about libraries in Kent and we will mark National Libraries Day in the best way possible - by continuing to deliver the best quality service to our very many satisfied customers.”

One council library worker told us that staff had effectively been silenced.

In a statement, KCC said: “Managers were briefed on National Libraries Day and advice was given to staff on how to deal with enquiries. The message reminded staff it is not appropriate to engage in campaigning activity which undermines Kent County Council’s commitment to the library service. However we do fully support the National Library Day’s aim to celebrate libraries, librarians and library staff in all sectors and there are more than 14,500 events throughout the year being held in local libraries, from children’s reading sessions and coffee mornings to computer training sessions.”

CILIP, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, which backs the event, said: “We want to see as many local authorities get involved as possible. It is disappointing but there’s nothing mandatory that says councils must be involved.”

Ironically, the low key approach adopted by KCC has only served to draw attention to its lack of activity - which was surely not intended.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Education secretary Michael Gove faced MPs to answer questions on a range of subjects this week. He was characteristically confident but less convincing when pressed about the use of private emails by him and his advisers to conduct government business.

He and his department have faced claims that they have done so to avoid the public gaze over potentially sensitive issues. It was because of this that we asked - via the Freedom of Information Act - whether he or his advisers had done so in relation to Kent county council's challenge through the High Court over the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future project.

That was three months ago. We're still waiting for a response. 

The publication of school league tables show many things - possibly too many - but the one striking feature of this year's data is that, for the first time, the achievements of disadvantaged pupils can be compared to others.

Kent's secondary school results>>>

The measure used to make this comparison is the numbers on free school meals or in care. In Kent, the figures show that those from disadvantaged backgrounds are half as likely to get five or more good GCSEs than those that are not. That is behind the national average by 6%.

Why? The temptation is to blame - or explain - the difference on Kent's selective system. Recently, Kent county council's own director of education told county councillors that there was less social mobility achieved in Kent than elsewhere - although he did not go on to articulate the reasons why he thought that was the case.

I'm not so sure that it is as simple as pointing the finger at the grammar school system. It is undeniably the case that grammars in Kent have far fewer children on free school meals - a handful have none at all. On the other hand, in some as many as one in five children are disadvantaged - more than many non-selective schools.

When you sort the tables for Kent by point score, the percentage of children on free school meals at those grammar schools in the top 20 range from 0% to 41%.

To add to the complexity, among the top 20, there are many non-selective schools where the 'added value' to pupils' progress is astonishingly good.

Nonethless, the results do beg important questions of those politicians who routinely argue that Kent's so-called 'mixed economy' of schools can work equally as well as areas where there are comprehensive systems. And one key question ought to be whether some of Kent's grammar schools are doing enough to give opportunities to those from disadvantaged backgrounds given that is the system we have. 

Kent accounts for roughly one in ten of the 107 schools nationally that are failing to meet basic targets.

This is not to say that the county education chiefs do not recognise the problem. County Hall has set up its version of the National Challenge to target support at those schools that are under-achieving (although it won't say which schools are on its list). 

This is said to be having some success although without the authority detailing which schools might be benefiting it is hard to tell.

The problem for Kent is that the government's move to give schools greater freedoms and autonomy through the academy and free schools programme is further fragmenting an already complex jigsaw of schools that exists.

Academies are not answerable or accountable to KCC and although much has been made of the collaborative spirit among Kent schools, for headteachers the key priority is how well their own pupils are doing.

The government is right to shine a light on to how well - or poorly - schools are doing by their less advantaged pupils. Talent is undoubtedly going to waste and in Kent, it seems more of it might be gong to waste than elsewhere.

That is unacceptable.

THERE will be considerable dismay in some quarters that the Prime Minister appears to have agreed that the idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary should be fully investigated.

Government to consult on Boris Island airport scheme>>>

But there ought not to be surprise - even if opponents will throw back at him his declaration more than a year ago that the government had 'no plans' to build such an airport. A similar commitment was given to the Rochester and Strood MP Mark Reckless by new transport secretary Justine Greening in precisely the same terms.

But it was George Osborne who paved the way for the idea of examining the scheme in November when he announced the government would 'explore all the options' for tackling the problems around aviation capacity.

Even so, today's news will be seen as a U-turn and a politically awkward one given the deep hostility among his own MPs in Kent.

It is worth pointing out that there has never been any likelihood the government itself would 'build' an airport - that would be for private investment consortiums.

Some will see it as a shot in the arm for Boris Johnson's campaign to be re-elected as London Mayor although I've never been persuaded that aviation capacity is something that preoccupies London voters as much as issues like tube fares or crime.

Politically, Mr Cameron will have to confront the fact that among the county's Conservative MPs, there is universal opposition. The Conservative controlled Medway Council remains wholly unconvinced - although there have been recent hints that Kent County Council may not be quite as implacably opposed as it once might have been. 

He may also be seen as having performed an about-turn and of betraying those who took him at his word that the government was not interested in the idea. Never an ideal position for a PM or for backbenchers who, in some cases, have marginal seats to defend in 2015.

What has changed? Underlying the news appears to be the feeling that aside from addressing the problem of capacity, a new airport would deliver a huge jobs boost and regenerate a part of the south east in a way no other project could conceivably get close to.

Perhaps it is no coincidence the news has come out on the day that unemployment figures have shown another rise in both Kent and Medway.

Those arguments will inevitably have to be balanced against the fact that an airport would have huge environmental consequences.

One thing is clear from today's news. Whatever one thinks of the idea, it can no longer be dismissed as 'pie in the sky.'

Not for the first time, Kent County Council has shown that when it comes to transparency, its view of what the public has a right to know depends rather on what the circumstances are.

It will not, we are told, be disclosing the details of the severance package it has agreed with its departing managing director Katherine Kerswell because it is bound by a confidentiality agreement. Ah, the good old confidentiality clause.

Perhaps with all the frenzy over trying to come to an agreement with Mrs Kerswell, the authority overlooked its new obligations to publish such information under the transparency regime that, to his credit, the communities secretary Eric Pickles has insisted all councils must follow.

Specifically, KCC appears to have not given much thought to a change in the Audit and Account Regulations 2009 that ensures the public is entitled to much more detailed information about the remuneration of senior council staff.

This places a requirement on councils to disclose how much senior employees have earned in salary, fees and allowances, bonuses and "the total amount of any compensation for loss of employment paid to or receivable by the person and any other payments made to or receivable by the person in connection with the termination of their employment by the relevant body."

In other words, everything about the pay and perks, as well as pension value, of senior staff for the financial year - including their names if they are earning more than £150,000.

So KCC will have to detail the sums involved in scrapping the group managing director's role when it next publishes its full accounts - probably around June.

This does, of course, give the council the advantage of hoping that enough time will have passed for everyone to have forgotten about it but I suspect that may be a vain hope.

So, why doesn't KCC grasp the nettle instead of hiding behind this fig leaf? One of the reasons is that it has form when it comes to eye-watering pay-offs to departing staff, most notably when it agreed to pay former chief executive Peter Gilroy £200,000 on the day he left the authority as part of the package agreed when his contract was extended by a year.

So, it undoubtedly wants to avoid a further clutch of embarrassing headlines.

Its own avowed approach to transparency is - and I quote from the county council leader Paul Carter - is that "it is enormously important that residents of the county who pay substantial taxes know where their money goes. We have no problems with that at all."

Could there be a more compelling case for disclosure of how taxpayers' money is being spent?

KCC is forever telling us how much its controversial re-structuring has saved the taxpayer. And its report proposing the deletion of the post of managing director emphasises how much it will save by not paying her salary - £265,000 a year.

If it can be so transparent on these matters, we are surely entitled to know the other side of the coin.

While KCC keeps its counsel over the future of its managing director Katherine Kerswell amid the on-going swirl of rumours and speculation, some questions arise about the recent behind-closed-doors meeting where the issue was discussed.

KCC held what was described as an 'urgent' meeting of its personnel committee last week. It gave no advance notice of the meeting and produced no advance agenda and has yet to produce any minutes or reports from it. It has, however, recently posted a link to the meeting on its website (after the event) - which you can see here

So, was it consistent with the Access to Information regulations that set out the obligations of councils when it comes to holding and giving notice of any committee meeting, regardless of whether the business of that meeting is discussed in open or closed session?

The legislation states that principal local authorities must give five working days notice of any meeting it plans to hold and must additionally provide agendas, reports and background papers.

Even if part of the business to be discussed in private, the agenda of any meeting has to set out in advance what confidential or exempt items are to be discussed.

That certainly doesn't appear to have been the case here. And the legislation provides no cover to councils on the grounds of the urgency of the meeting - items of business can be added to an agenda as 'urgent' but there is nothing about 'urgent' meetings being able to sidestep the legal requirements.

Some of these points were raised last week at the meeting by the opposition Liberal Democrat member Cllr Tim Prater who questioned (during the public part of the meeting) whether KCC was being compliant with its legal obligations.

Like me, he wonders whether the council has fallen short of the Access to Information regulations.

So, could KCC have been able to hold its meeting under its own constitutional rules? Even there, it would appear there are questions as its own procedural rules for council meetings are broadly the same as the Access to Information Act.

The constitution says all meetings will be advertised five working days before they take place although shorter notice will be permitted 'in exceptional circumstances' - such as a meeting to consider a revised budget.

The constitution also talks about the copies of agendas and reports being available five days before. So, nothing at all so far as I can see about 'urgent' meetings. 

Back to the Access to Information Act and a further requirement which relates to the publication of information after a committee meeting. Under this, councils are required to publish the agenda, minutes and any reports.

Even where items are exempt or confidential, there is an obligation to produce some summary of the item without disclosing the exempt details. To date, KCC has not done so - although it appears there are no time limits on this.

The irony is that as managing director, Katherine Kerswell initiated the authority's own transparency crusade under which the citizens' rights to information were supposedly to be enhanced.

He couldn't quite bring himself to utter the words 'Thames estuary' or 'Boris Island'.

But George Osborne has done enough in his budget statement to ensure that the idea of a new hub airport in the south east has not been completely grounded. Indeed, there are some who believe he has engineered a situation that will encourage proponents of such schemes rather than deter them.

The telling phrase he used was that the government intended to 'explore all the options.' Had he wanted to sound the death knell for either Boris Island or Lord Foster's £50bn vision, he could have said so - just like he did by ruling out any further consideration of Heathrow.

A flat denial could have ended the persistent speculation and would have given some solace to the county's MPs who are deeply hostile to the idea and fear that the government is not helping their re-election prospects.

Several have suggested that George Osborne is merely trying to help his friend Boris as he seeks to secure another term as Mayor of London.

Others have gone further with theories that should Boris return to the House of Commons as an MP, he will be joining forces with Osborne when he takes a tilt at the leadership.

That might be a motive but I am not wholly convinced. If you polled Londoners on the issues they have most concerns about, I'm not sure you'd find aviation high on that list (except in west London). Tube fares perhaps.

I suspect the government doesn't really know whether it wants to see a new airport off the north Kent coast.

But it's worth reading the National Infrastructure Plan published by the Treasury.

It notes how, since 2005, the performance trends on airports in relation to capacity, access and availibility - as well as service quality and reliability - have all gone down. For other transport modes, they have either stayed the same or improved.

That is not an argument for Boris Island or Lord Foster's scheme but as Mr Osborne said, the UK risks falling behind countries like China and Brazil who are building infrastructure schemes at a lick.

Precisely the kind of point that Boris has been making.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There was a meeting of KCC's personnel committee on Monday at the highly unusual hour of 5.30pm. I cannot tell you what was discussed as there was no advance agendas or papers - as there normally would under Access to Information rules - as it was an "emergency" meeting, meaning such rules can be bypassed.

Still, let's speculate about what might have been discussed behind closed doors. If recent events are a guide, some might think the councillors summonsed to attend were discussing the way the authority might be run in future and the option of doing without a managing director.

We may have to wait a little while for this to be confirmed but it may not be long. Meanwhile, KCC's managing director Katherine Kerswell "is and remains" in her post even though not many people have seen her around County Hall in recent weeks.

When Katherine Kerswell was appointed as KCC’s new group managing director, she spoke of her delight at joining an authority in “such an exciting role.”

The leader of the council, Paul Carter, said how “enormously impressed” the appointment panel was by “her breadth of vision and energy and her absolute commitment to placing Kent citizens at the heart of the services we deliver.”

She certainly came with a reputation for doing things a little differently – she had become something of a You Tube viral sensation in her previous role at Northamptonshire county council after encouraging staff to “taste the strawberry”.

Apparently, it was an attempt to encapsulate the ‘flavour’ of  the council’s services.

Barely one year on from this optimistic beginning, rumours are rife that the Managing Director - described as the biggest job in local government by Cllr Carter - is poised to depart.

The welter of speculation around County Hall has not been helped by KCC’s reluctance to say terribly much other than issue a bewildering and cryptic statement that says Mrs Kerswell “is and remains” the managing director. Which is factually accurate but doesn't really say an awful lot.

Intriguingly, this was also circulated to members of the Conservative group with the note: “The current line is as follows…” – rather implying that there are likely to be new lines coming.

The council won’t, incidentally, even comment on whether she is at her desk.

The circumstances of her reported departure remain a little unclear. If she is to leave, why is she going?

And, of course, if it transpires that she is, what pay off will she get? Some insiders have suggested a figure of close to £1m.

(Given the authority’s new-found enthusiasm for transparency, it will be interesting to see whether we will be told how much or a gagging clause is inserted preventing anyone speaking about it?)

Whatever account KCC chooses to give publicly, there appears to have been some kind of falling out between her and the political leadership.

It is certainly the case that Conservative councillors felt the direction KCC was taking was being led more by officers than by them. This was partly the reason why there was a leadership challenge. I’ve been told that there was a pledge by Cllr Carter to tackle this when he addressed the group in when he was challenged for the job.

There was also political disquiet over aspects of a far-reaching restructuring of the authority, which was supposed to slim down the number of top officers but made only marginal changes at the top.

The shake-up led to the departure of a string of senior directors with years of experience which cost the authority £350,000 in redundancy payments.

Temporary gaps were filled with a series of costly interims and consultants.

Known as the “Change To Keep Succeeding” programme, it was backed by the Conservative administration despite unease that it was being done at the same time as KCC was dealing with huge budget cuts and an expected 1,500 job losses.

It is not uncommon for council bosses to leave their jobs before the end of their contract. It happens frequently – and commonly, it is a personality clash that lies behind it.

What is worrying about this, however, is that it has happened barely a year after Mrs Kerswell took over the reins of what is the largest county in the country.

We do not know what the plans are for a replacement – or, indeed if there will be one – but as things stand, official information is in short supply and in an information vacuum, you end up with rumours and speculation.

On the other hand, if it is to do without a chief executive as is widely reported, perhaps that may not be such an issue.

IT is probably a little much to declare it a 'victory' - as the inevitable press release described it - but it is undeniably good news that KCC, along with a handful of other councils, are poised to recover  the money they invested in former Icelandic banks.

KCC on course to get Icelandic cash back>>

But while the words "rejoice" may be resounding around the corridors of Sessions House, it is worth making a couple of relevant points.

KCC originally invested the £50m because it was attracted by the rather generous interest rates being offered by the banks, around 5-6%. It put the money there precisely for that reason and no other. It is not, however, money the authority will be seeing - and you can do the maths yourself to see what budget papers usually refer to opaguely in accounts as the "net impairment loss."

According to KCC's audited accounts for 2010-2011, the sum associated with the 'net impairment loss' is £7.6m. Now, I am guessing this is the sum that the council expected to make as a return on its deposit but now won't. Victorious in the courts, yes but that is only part of the story.

And the protracted legal wrangle, which lasted three years, will also have a cost but as the action was being pursued on behalf of 100+ authorities, this may be relatively modest.

There is no doubt that treasury management policies at County Hall were not quite as robust as they should have been at the time this happened, but neither were they at many other town halls and public bodies (and before I'm reminded the now defunkt Audit Commission was among them).

There was the unopened email that meant £3m more was invested when brokers had advised KCC to halt, for example.

One consequence of the saga is that there is now a little more transparency about how and where taxpayers' money is being invested. Previously, little was volunteered about the subject and what was was largely impenetrable to many.

However, much of it unfortunately goes through an informal members group at County Hall, whose meetings are closed to the public.

******************************************************

SOCIAL services chiefs appear to have finally got to grips with the crisis in vulnerable children's social care. A positive Ofsted report which apparently says KCC has successfully addressed many of the problems identified in a highly damning report issued a year ago is due out shortly. We'll know the full details in a week or two.

Having overcome that challenge, another is on the horizon - adoption, where Kent appears to have a fairly dismal track record compared to many others when it comes to the speed with which it deals with applications from would-be adopters.

Clearly,the downward trend began a few years ago but for whatever reason, was not spotted or was but ignored.

Adoption challenge for KCC>>

All of which makes me wonder again exactly how it was that for several years, KCC secured high ratings from inspectors for the quality of its social services.

The suspicion is that County Hall had any number of policy wonks skilled in completing self-assessment forms on which judgements were often based but rather fewer people overseeing what was actually happening at the coal face.