If you're applying for a school place for your child you'd naturally want to know what you're applying for. But what do you do in the case of voluntary-aided Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls School if the Hackney website says that "normal point of entry is Year 5" and yet you know it to be a blatant lie?
And what do you do when the same lie is repeated on the school's website that Year 5 is the "normal point of entry to the school" when it clearly is not.
A Freedom of Information reply from Hackney shows that there has NEVER existed a Year 5 and Year 6 at Yesodey Hatorah. And not only has there never been a Year 5 and 6 at the school but since 2019 there has been a total of ONE SINGLE application for those years. Which tells you that not only does Yesodey Hatorah know it to be a blatant lie but that no one in the entire community is fooled either.
Before creating these fictional Years 5 and 6, YHS purported to hold a “consultation” in 2017. In the consultation document the school discussed where the Year 5 and 6 girls will come from (since Years 5 and 6 are not normal points of transfer from primary schools which run from Years 1 to 6).
The school wrote, “We have consulted the trustees at the [Yesodey Hatorah] primary school, and they are willing to seriously consider reducing their age limit, and providing an education only for the lower school, namely students from Y1-Y4. Transferring their Y5 and Y6 classes to the secondary school would free up valuable classroom space in that building.” So on paper at least the school anticipated using their usual feeder school for the new proposed year groups of Years 5 and 6. But NEVER did the primary school pupils ever even apply for those year groups. Why not? Because they knew it was a lie and there was nothing to apply for.
Yet as the above screenshot from Hackney shows, at the same time that the fictional Years 5 and 6 were created, admission numbers were reduced from 80 to 65. Because this was always the purpose of the non-existent year groups. To reduce admission numbers for Year 7 and exclude pupils not coming from the private fee-paying Yesodey Hatorah Primary School which acts as a de facto – and unlawful – feeder school. In particular, the Year 5 and 6 scheme, or scam, was to exclude pupils from Beis Yaakov Primary School who were around that time applying for the first time to YHS. And this exclusion policy continues to this day.
So if there's a query about this blatant lie you'd naturally want to turn to the Yesodey Hatorah Governing Body for an explanation. The Chair of the Admissions Committee is David Hochhauser while Rabbi Benjamin Dunner is the Chair of the Governing Body and also sits on the admissions committee. But when the JC reported on Hackney looking into the fictional year groups, these courageous individuals, who are responsible year after year for bullying parents and rejecting blameless children from their rightful school place, chose to hide behind the apron-strings of the Headteacher, Clare Neuberger.
Why is a Headteacher answering on admissions at all which is not within a Headteacher’s remit? Answer: This is Yesodey Hatorah which runs to different rules and can do practically as it wishes because the authorities will turn a blind eye on them.
And how did Clare Neuberger explain the non-existent classes? "The building is not designed for that number of students. The classrooms are small".
The school building was custom built for an intake of 90 children per year. If that’s not enough, the School itself wrote in the consultation to start Years 5 and 6:
"When the school was built and received Voluntary Aid Status in 2005 the PAN was set at 450. The present PAN is 400 with an expected 80 students per year group. The governors’ admission policy agrees with this PAN namely of 80 students per year. At present there are just over 305 students or roll, and the school is therefore operating at well below the PAN that was originally set. This puts the school in a vulnerable position both vis a vis funding and with regard to mid-year admissions." (My emphasis)
As the Hackney chart above shows, in 2020 the school was able to offer 81 places. There is also Be’er Miriam, a private fee-paying and Pinter-linked 6th Form, which operates rent-free on the school premises and taking up yet more space. But still we are to believe Clare Neuberger that seven extra pupils above 65 “is more than we would have liked”.
Yet despite all of this the authorities, Hackney, the Department for Education, Ofsted, do nothing. When cases go to appeal the school succeeds and parents lose. Why? Because the entire system is predicated on an assumption of good faith and is not geared towards a deliberately deceptive school that cheats and lies in order to exclude pupils.
The reality of the situation is that as "very sorry" as Clare Neuberger is for the rejection of pupils, there is an abundance of space at Yesodey Hatorah and the entire admissions fiasco is to deny legitimate places to Stamford Hill Charedi parents.
These are parents who live in a Charedi neighbourhood, dress as Charedim, daven in Charedi shuls, shop in Charedi shops and are part of the Charedi community for everything except for school places. Because according to fictional criteria concocted by Yesodey Hatorah in cahoots with UOHC for the sole purpose of excluding pupils, they are not Charedi enough for a school place. And even that would not be enough had they not also created these fictional classes to exclude children from a school overflowing with space.
This is all funded by you the taxpayer and carried out under the eyes and noses of Hackney, DfE and Ofsted who choose to sit back and allow it to continue year after year unabated.
The random use of an ampersand, unfamiliarity with the term "show of hands", references to "Top" lawyers and accountants, and other difficulties with formal written English mark out the work of Dayan Schwartz. It was nevertheless a brave attempt at copying the style of a man with far more years of education than him in the English language, and I commend him for his valiant efforts.
ReplyDeleteThe learned Dayan notes that the Constitution was changed and Rabbi Bassous stepped down as trustee, pursuant to a correspondence with the charity commission, apparently initiated by Rabbi Bassous' own burning desire to be seen at the vanguard of intolerance to homosexuality. Presumably this change would enable compliance with sections 117 (disposals of charity buildings to connected parties at an undervalue), 130+ (maintenance of accounting records) and 185+ (conditions for trustees to receive remuneration) of the Charities Act. The learned Dayan asked whether whether that constitutes a waiver of Rabbi Bassous' pre-existing rights to rule unchallenged and unaccountable. Of course rights Rabbi Bassous wielded unlawfully never were his to begin with. Nobody made him form a charity: he was quite entitled to trade at a profit, pay his taxes, and lay claim to be the owner of his empire.
There follows flouncing worthy of a prom from all parties, which the Beis Din correctly disregarded. Even the Dayan appeared uncomfortable with the hauteur and l'etat c'est moi logic of the Rabbi. However the logic of their position was that no form of discreditable conduct would have constituted grounds for accountability to the trustees, whose role, the learned Dayan submitted, amounted to signing the cheques and possibly where the Rabbi indicated in the accounts. Compliance with Covid regulations, charity law, and managing the build were all subject to delegation of authority from the Rabbi.
I rarely find myself agreeing with the buffoonish DG Ltd, but the depth of ignorance of basic business concepts of governance and accountability and the concept of fealty to an organisation rather than an individual were of a unique vintage.
The bottom line is this: despite exceptional and naive financial support at every step by the family, there is a £250k annual budget to finance, including a 275bps above base rate loan of around £2.5m to Unity Bank, which in a time before rising interest rates cost £85,000 to finance. The new trustees have no chance of servicing the debt, and so there will be no new trustees. This unhappy saga is far from over: Bassous needs the money more than the outgoing trustee needs Bassous, and and nothing in this arbitration can change that. The only solution which will stick is a split, and all the family need to do is wait until the property comes up for auction.
fulcpaXria-bi Candice Hall https://wakelet.com/wake/zxMA4_-lfJTrexX0CyAGi
ReplyDeleteconttipslistsu
OterpviQca_ku Leah Lundwall WonderShare Recoverit
ReplyDeleteWonderShare Recoverit
CorelDRAW
penanwoodbhou
Now you can visit to earn money online.
ReplyDeletehttp://bc.vc/T5BudQL
Mgnosinqui_ko Sarah Metcalf there
ReplyDeleteSoftware
genmocorpo