DRAFT (SECOND) DISCUSSION PAPER FOR FRIENDS OF BILSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE (FBCC)

Closure of Bilston Community College

Allegations by the Further Education Funding Council and Wolverhampton Elitists and Racists Exposed as False and Malicious

Contents

The Outstanding Achievements of Bilston Community College

Attacks by Elitists and Racists

The Further Education Funding Council (FEFC)

The Improper (and Illegal) Actions of The FEFC

FEFC Opposition to Partnerships and Education in the Community

Appeal by Bilston Community College Governors (Corporation) to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment

The Undermining of Human Rights

The Involvement of the Major Fraud Squad

The Further Education Funding Council and Bilston Community College

Conclusions

The Irrefutable Case for an Independent Inquiry

Closure of Bilston Community College: allegations of the Further Education Funding Council and Wolverhampton Elitists and Racists Exposed as False and Malicious

The Outstanding Achievements of Bilston Community College

Bilston Community College (1984 –99) was the only college to challenge, openly and emphatically, the elitism and racism of further education policies, as implemented by the Further Education Funding Council (1993-99). Bilston's distinctive characteristic, as a consequence of its equal opportunities and explicit anti-racist policies and strategies, was in the creation of new opportunities for thousands of working-class, including ethnic minority, citizens.

Access to further education for people who were previously excluded was created by providing appropriate programmes of study through democratically operating community partnerships. The experience and expertise of the tutors working in these partnerships made possible the development of suitable curriculum for people from outside the white middle classes. Because sufficient relevant experience and expertise did not exist within the statutory further education system before the Bilston initiatives, there were no appropriate programmes of study for the majority of ethnic minorities.

Most significant, were the steps taken by Bilston to remove institutional rejection, especially institutional racism. As a result, large numbers of people who had been rejected and alienated during their school years returned to education. For the first time they found tutors who understood their cultures and their educational needs and aspirations. Equally important, they were able to study in communities near where they lived and in an environment where they felt comfortable and confident.

The removal of racism and related institutional barriers, and (essential to this removal) the democratic approach to organisation, were the principal reasons the numbers enrolling at Bilston rose so rapidly – to over £50,000 per year by 1997. The evidence submitted to the FEFC in 1997, and the Department for Education and Employment in 1998, demonstrated that, for demand to be met, the number of student places in the areas served by Bilston needed to rise to over 100,000 per year by 2001.

Bilston Community College was also uniquely successful in recruiting ethnic minority managers and staff: by 1997 it had the highest proportion (over 30%) of any state-funded institution in the country. It became evident beyond question that, once racist barriers had been removed, there was a ready supply of black people with the necessary experience and qualifications to fill posts at all levels in further education.

Another essential factor in establishing a non-elitist, non-racist curriculum and ambience was Bilston's range of links to communities across the world – including in the black Townships of South Africa and Caribbean islands. Bilston was one of a group of colleges who recognised that it was a nonsense to pontificate about globalisation without internationalising the curriculum experience of students.

The wide-ranging achievements of the college – locally, nationally and internationally - are detailed in Appendix I.

Attacks by Elitists and Racists

From the time it opened the college and its open access, equal opportunities, community education policies were vehemently opposed by local elitists and racists. The record from 1984 shows a succession of letters of complaint (frequently anonymous) to governors, bureaucrats at local and national levels (eg the Further Education Funding Council) and government ministers. A significant proportion of these letters were direct attacks on education in the community for ethnic minority people. However, the fact that racists were determined to undermine the college was hardly surprising given that one of its main objectives was to counter Powellism in the area.

False allegations about Bilston Community College, frequently reported in the local press (as a result of secret- and strongly bias - briefings), continued throughout the whole of the college's life 1984-99. Some were blatantly racist, such as the direct attacks on community education for Asian and Afro-Caribbean citizens.

Other attacks emanated from opponents who objected to measures which challenged the system's institutional elitism and racism. It is elitism and racism which prevent the development of suitable further education curriculum for people who have missed out at school, mainly as a result of the white middle class ethos of most institutions.

There was particular anger and resentment amongst elitists and racists when Bilston Community College's anti-racist staffing policies revealed that there were black people sufficiently experienced and qualified to obtain, on merit, management posts at senior level in all areas of college activity. The success of elitists and racists in persuading trade union members to oppose the policies of the college was especially damaging. There were, unsurprisingly, people who felt they should have been promoted to the more senior posts where ethnic minority people were appointed.

In general, a disproportionate number of the attacks on the college (1984-99) were to do with opposition to

  1. its successful implementation of equal opportunities policies and strategies;
  2. its strong anti-racist (and anti-elitist) stance;
  3. the democratic approach to organisation which gave equal weight to black and white opinion.
Although conspiracies, by their very nature, are difficult to 'prove', by 1990 there was plenty of evidence of a network planning and plotting to destroy the college. This evidence includes secret meetings at the house of one of the college's leading opponents (see correspondence between the Chief Executive of Bilston and the Chief Executive of Wolverhampton Council). There is also a tape of a telephone call (from a 'friend') detailing the dirty tricks of the conspirators. The Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) Bilston Community College had a unique record of achievements in the sphere of open access community education when it was transferred from the Wolverhampton Local Education Authority (LEA) to the FEFC in 1993. It is merely a statement of fact to record that there were large numbers of visitors, from the UK and overseas, who came to observe and assess open access community education. The key to Bilston's success in reaching out to people previously excluded was the democratically operating partnerships in the community, which allowed students to become involved in the planning and development of their programmes of study. Representatives of community organisations were also fully involved in consultations on policy and strategy development. A situation where the views of black community leaders were given the same weight as the opinions of representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and local authorities was more than the opponents of the college could stomach. The traditionalists were committed to academic and vocational curriculum and opposed to community education for the unqualified and unemployed. Community leaders took the opposite position, which is why, at national level (eg with the FEFC) Bilston Community College found itself expressing the views of working-class, including ethnic minority, communities. The FEFC's approach was anti-democratic and strongly opposed to the type of student involvement encouraged at Bilston. It was even more strongly opposed to the involvement of black community leaders in the organisation and development of the college. Council officers refused to even discuss evidence of educational need produced by a group of black organisations and submitted in May 1997. Later (September 1997) the FEFC produced a pro forma to assess demand which blatantly excluded the demand for community education. The Council had no knowledge or experience of education in the community for working-class and ethnic minority people and rejected contemptuously the college's attempts to explain and discuss it. One example was in August 1997 when the response of FEFC inspectors to the Chief Executive's attempt to explain the democratic approach in community partnerships was that he was not exercising sufficient 'control'. The subsequent six months correspondence on the issue of democracy and control is carefully preserved. The inability of the FEFC to assess the education provided by Bilston is also illustrated by the report of an inspection in 1995. The inspector's criteria could cope with only traditional academic and vocational studies, which were less than half Bilston's provision. As the 1995 report illustrates, the inspection was incapable of assessing the progress in equal opportunities. Amongst a team of 20 inspectors, not one was black. As a token gesture, a black inspector was asked to visit the college for 2 days during the inspection. He was fully supportive of Bilston's equal opportunities and anti-racist policies but the fact that he was at the college for only 2 days determined that achievements in the sphere were inadequately reflected in the report. The Council was little better equipped (as subsequent events demonstrated) to assess Bilston's work with students of all races with special educational needs. A report (of an independent committee) highly commending Bilston for its activity in this sphere was suppressed when the work of the college was assessed in March 1999. Significantly, as with the opportunities created for ethnic minorities, the success depended on the strong links with voluntary organisations. At senior management level the FEFC was embarrassed and irritated by the success of the equal opportunities policies of Bilston Community College, particularly because the Council failed dismally to recruit ethnic minority managers and staff at senior level to its own payroll. The percentage of ethnic minority staff employed by the Council compared most unfavourably with the position at Bilston. Neither did it give any lead to the Further Education Sector on equal opportunities and anti-racism: indeed, its action in destroying Bilston Community College demonstrates how it hindered an equal opportunities and anti-racist approach to the employment of staff and to the development of curriculum. Bilston's unequalled achievements in the field of equal opportunities were also ignored in the March 1999 assessment. When it was suggested that, whatever the intention, some further education policies might have racist effects, this was rejected out-of-hand by an FEFC spokesperson (see Wolverhampton Express and Star July 1999). This was an extraordinary response for a public body when the government had accepted the recommendations the Macpherson Report on dealing with institutional racism. One of the most alarming factors relating to the closure of Bilston Community College was the way in which FEFC bureaucrats were able to act contrary to government policies as stated by Ministers (especially after 1997) eg
  1. on equal opportunities and race;
  2. on open access further education;
  3. on fair funding for colleges;
  4. on suitable education for all students, whatever their previous level of attainment.
From 1997, the Council's bureaucrats, operating largely in secret, anti-democratically, and beyond their legal powers under the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act, joined forces with long standing local opponents of the college to bring about its destruction and closure (in 1999). The Improper (and Illegal) Action of the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) The FEFC undermined the Chief Executive of the college by pressurising individual governors and college managers to ignore the policies which had been adopted by the governing body (the Corporation). Having determined that there would be no written record of the meeting (September 1997) FEFC senior officers launched an attack on the Chief Executive. As the correspondence (again, carefully preserved) following this meeting confirms, the Council was not prepared to give the reasons for this highly improper attack. The attack was 'improper' for a number of reasons, worth pausing to detail because the same impropriety persisted until the college was closed two years later. The impropriety (illegality) in the case of the Chief Executive in September 1997 included:
  1. the fact that, legally, the Chief Executive was employed by the governors (Corporation) and his
  • performance was entirely a matter for them;
    1. that, in any case, accepted procedures, and natural justice, requires that an individual be given the opportunity to, at least, comment on charges before they are paraded before colleagues;
    2. that, as subsequent events have revealed, there was no basis for the allegations anyway.
    Although the point at which impropriety becomes illegality is a fine judgement (ultimately one for the courts), there is no doubt that the FEFC acted in contravention of the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act – by intervening in matters which the legal responsibility of the governors (Corporation). Bilston Community College was funded well below the National Average per student 1993-97 (see Appendix II), a penalty of well over £10 million. Then, incredibly, it had inflicted upon it a 20% (£3.5 million) budget cut for 1997-98, against a national average cut of around 4%. As correspondence May – September 1997 shows, the Council refused to give any reasons for this punishment (which, in view of the officer's comments about 'revenge' it obviously was). These financial penalties were unfair, vexatious and, (given the disproportionate damage to the education of ethnic minorities and the jobs of black managers and staff) clearly racist in their effect. The governors (Corporation) considered a judicial review but were persuaded by the FEFC to use an appeals process, outlined in a letter received by the college in November 1997. In the context of this procedure, the governors (having had their submissions to the FEFC rejected without discussion in January 1998) appealed to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in March 1998. The Appeal was a unanimous decision of the governing body (Corporation). It was clear by April 1998 that the FEFC's strategy was to delay resolution of the issues raised by governors so that the college would bleed to death. The impropriety of this, and the damage to the education of thousands of students, was pointed out to the FEFC by an independent consultant in the summer of 1998 but his representations were completely ignored. At this stage the most astounding fact was that the FEFC (against which the complaints were made) was able to persuade the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) to ignore the governors' Appeal. Given subsequent events, it can only be assumed that the DfEE ignored the Appeal because it was fed with completely false allegations against Bilston eg that it was engaged in criminal activity. As has now been established by a 30 month investigation, there was no evidence to even 'suggest any of the activities of the college were of a criminal nature'. The 'manufacturing' of 'evidence' in this regard (now established by the investigation) was accompanied by (a) the retrospective application of funding rules to create debts (see letters from auditors to the FEFC) and (b) completely untrue allegations against the Chief Executive of the college. While the Appeal to the Secretary of State was pending, the Council was allowed to (a) 'persuade' governors to ignore the existence of the Appeal; (b) compel managers and staff to ignore the directives of the Chief Executive in accord with governors' policies; (c) pressurise governors to dismiss the Chief Executive and other senior managers. Completely ignoring the incontrovertible evidence of educational need and demand submitted by the college and ethnic minority organisations, the FEFC insisted on drastic cuts in expenditure over the period 1998 –2001. The obvious consequence was the removal of tens of thousands of student places and hundreds of jobs. It was clearly improper for such action to be taken before the outcome of the Appeal was known. It was even more improper for the FEFC to intervene in this manner for three important reasons:
    1. the governors had (unanimously) determined to appeal and, in accord with natural justice, it followed that no presumptive action on the future of the college could, or should, be taken until the outcome of the Appeal was known;
    2. college strategy, under the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act, was clearly the legal responsibility of governors;
    3. it was unlawful under the Act for the FEFC to pressurise managers and individual governors to undermine the Chief Executive and the policies democratically adopted by the governing body (Corporation).
    By forcing the college to implement drastic expenditure cuts, the Council was taking a decision on an appeal against its own actions - of funding Bilston at least £10 million below the national average per student 1993 – 97 and reducing the college's budget by £3.5 million 1997-98 (a 20% cut against a national average cut for colleges of around 4%).

    FEFC Opposition to Partnerships and Education in the Community

    The correspondence following the (already mentioned) survey of community provision in July 1997 demonstrated that the FEFC was determined to destroy community education. Typical of its unscrupulous methods of operating, the Council originally stated (July 1997) that the survey was not an inspection but to provide information to assist the college: three months later it stated that it was an inspection, that it would be graded, and that Bilston would be given a low grade.

    It was impossible to avoid the conclusion that the change (to enable the FEFC to grade the college) occurred because Bilston had challenged the statements opposing the democratic approach to the organisation of partnerships. This is just one example of how the Council would go to any lenghts to establish its 'control', especially when it had no legal right to do so.

    Parallel with the correspondence on this survey/inspection, the FEFC indicated its vicious opposition to the partnership companies which Bilston had established (a) to facilitate the democratic participation of staff and students; (b) to develop partnerships with ethnic minority community organisations; (c) to build links with communities internationally (eg in the South African black Townships).

    When the Council raised questions about the partnership companies (eg at a meeting with college governors and managers in November 1997) it refused to discuss their purpose, or to listen to the college's explanations of their equal opportunities and anti-racist objectives. Detailed descriptions of how the partnership companies operated were submitted immediately (after the November meeting): the Council never responded and refused to discuss the submissions.

    The FEFC personnel were clearly not interested in the reasons for providing education in the community for people previously excluded from further education. Their attitude in refusing to discuss the role of the partnership companies in 1997-98 remains relevant because it is still claimed (see Wolverhampton Express and Star August 2001) that the 'complexity' of the management arrangements between the college and the community partnerships was justification for referring matters to the Fraud Squad.

    This is clearly absurd and amounts to the Council confirming out of its own mouth (albeit from the grave) that there was no justification whatsoever for involving the police. Ironically, the main reason for confusion about finance (see later) was the complexity (see comments of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Education) of the FEFC's funding rules (which changed almost weekly and were applied retrospectively).

    The management arrangements were, in fact, not particularly complex and could easily have been understood as a result of discussion (which the FEFC refused). As a number of reports (eg Final Accounts 1996 – 97) demonstrate, auditors were satisfied with the arrangements. But, in any case, complexity is not a criminal offence and there was no evidence whatsoever (as the police investigation three years later has confirmed) of criminal activity.

    The real issue was the FEFC's opposition to the community education curriculum which developed when ethnic minorities were consulted about their educational needs and were permitted to become involved in the organisation of their programmes of study. It was extremely irritating and embarrassing for the Council to learn (from ethnic minority leaders) that the further education it was prepared to fund did not meet the needs of the majority of ethnic minority people.

    The curriculum developed by Bilston, in consultation with its partners, was in accord with the requirements of the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act - to provide 'suitable' education: the FEFC's opposition was in contravention of the Act. The greatest failure of duty by the FEFC was in refusing to even discuss the curriculum strategies which contributed to removing institutional racism.

    Appeal by Bilston Community College Governors (Corporation) to the Secretary of state for Education and Employment

    Bilston had been established as a community college in 1984 because Wolverhampton councillors were concerned that traditional academic and vocational further education did not meet the needs of the majority living in working-class, especially ethnic minority, communities. As already described, the open access community education provided after 1984, based on a commitment to equal opportunities and anti-racism, was strongly opposed by local elitists and racists.

    It was, however, assumed that, given its acceptance of the Kennedy Report on widening participation in 1997, the Blair government would be supportive of Bilston's open access approach. Five members of the Blair Cabinet (including the Prime Minister), Helena Kennedy – and at least a dozen MPs and MEPs - had visited the college in the 1990s and endorsed the work being done for working-class people, especially the unemployed.

    It was therefore anticipated that, whatever they were told about management at Bilston, government ministers would be interested, and perhaps a little concerned, if informed that the FEFC had taken a decision (by changing its funding rules) to cease funding the community education suitable for working-class, including ethnic minority, communities.

    It was also assumed that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment would, at least, ask a few questions if he received over 50 pages of evidence that the new rules were contrary to the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act, which placed on the FEFC a legal responsibility to provide adequate and sufficient 'suitable' further education for all citizens over the age of 16.

    This was the background to, and context of, the Appeal, submitted when governors and managers became aware that financial penalties and stealthy anti-college activities were undermining education for tens of thousands of people. The Appeal was specifically against:

    1. the college's level of funding since 1993 (dramatically below the national average);
    2. a budget cut of 20% for 1997/98 as compared with a national average reduction for other colleges of around 4%;
    3. the undermining of equal opportunities policies which provided jobs for black people and suitable curriculum for ethnic minority people;
    4. the improper interference by the FEFC with college strategy and employment matters, contrary to the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act.
    The Secretary of State failed completely to exercise his duty and deal with the appeal. The question of whether or not the Appeal would have succeeded is, of course, quite separate from the issue of the Secretary of State's failure to deal with it. Contrary to natural justice, the FEFC was allowed to deal with an appeal against action it had taken. Details of the financial penalties inflicted on Bilston Community College are in Appendix II and Appendix III is the Appeal to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The Appeal was, in reality, against the destruction of a college which, whatever its faults, was already enrolling over 50,000 students per year. A substantial number were working-class (including ethnic minority) people, for whom there was no suitable education elsewhere. The absence of suitable education elsewhere was pointed out to FEFC personnel when they met black community leaders in 1998. Furthermore, the evidence (from the communities) summarised in the Appeal demonstrated that, to meet the requirements of the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act (to provide adequate and sufficient suitable education for all over 16), the number of places in the areas served by Bilston needed to double over the next three years. Bilston's 'crime' in the eyes of the FEFC was in drawing attention to the large, and growing, number of excluded people. For reasons never stated, but which have emerged through subsequent events, the Department for Education sat on the Appeal from April 1998 to February 1999, when it must have been aware that the college was bleeding to death. After the FEFC took control of the governors it 'persuaded' them to withdraw the Appeal early in 1999. The determination of the FEFC (and presumably the DFEE) to prevent the content of the Appeal coming into the open is clearly a very significant factor.

    The Undermining of Human Rights

    The methods used to close Bilston Community College were vexatious, malicious, dishonest and contrary to the requirements of the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act. They included:

    1. briefings which resulted in inaccurate and completely one-sided reports in the local and national media;
    2. the circulation of lies about governors and managers;
    3. improper pressure on the governors to dismiss the Chief Executive and other managers;
    4. improper pressure on auditors;
    5. illegal interference with partnership companies, which operated under the Companies Acts (where the FEFC had no jurisdiction);
    6. use of unsubstantiated complaints (mainly in anonymous letters) to create adverse publicity, and as an excuse to initiate audits and investigations;
    7. libellous statements about the Chief Executive, other managers and governors.
    The information available indicates that the FEFC spent, or compelled others to spend, over £3million on audits and investigations 1997 – 99: in addition, the police investigation must have caused a very substantial sum. The Council had determined to dismiss the Chief Executive and close the college and desperately sought 'justification' for its unreasonable behaviour. When the type of 'evidence' wanted could not be found, it was invented – for example, the completely untrue allegations that the Chief Executive:
    1. appointed a (named) member of his family as a consultant;
    2. used college funds for family holidays;
    3. spent college funds travelling abroad when he was, in fact, in Bilston.
    The Council also prevented the accepted approach to audits. Individuals who were criticised were not informed of the criticisms or given the opportunity to comment (and correct errors of fact), which is the normal professional process. In many cases the first time the victims became aware of the criticisms was when they appeared in the local press. It is common, and reasonable, for matters to be referred to the police when auditors' reports conclude that there is evidence of criminal activity. To damage (in order to destroy) Bilston Community College, the FEFC ( and local elitists and racists) pressurised the police to investigate when audit reports had concluded that there was no suggestion of criminal activity. Throughout this whole process, the human rights of individuals were completely denied. This applies especially to the right of individuals to be informed of allegations made against them (within a reasonable period) and to have the right to comment and reply. In addition, the opponents of the college used dirty tricks to ensure that governors and managers were unable to put their case. Supporters of community education were intimidated and the media was silenced by (totally false) statements about criminal activity at the college. It appears that the FEFC tried to persuade the Public Accounts Committee that Bilston Community College could not be fully discussed because matters were sub judice. It is impossible to believe that the same tactic was not used to (for example) persuade the DFEE to ignore the Appeal and editors to suppress information about the college likely to expose the Council's improper behaviour. The public comments about criminal activity (when there was nothing to even suggest it), damaged reputations, prevented ex-employees getting jobs, and caused great distress to families and friends.

    The Involvement of the Major Fraud Squad

    Without any justification whatsoever, allegations against Bilston Community College governors and managers were submitted to the police – by at least one long-standing local opponent of its equal opportunities policies and by the FEFC. The Fraud Squad were persistently pressurised, by the Further Education Funding Council and the local opponents, to investigate the activities of the college and its partnership companies.

    These investigations continued for almost two and a half years and, so far as is known, at no time were any of the governors or managers questioned or given an opportunity to reply to the allegations made against them. Indeed, some three years after the allegations were submitted to the Fraud Squad, the victims still do not know what the allegations were.

    Now a letter has been received from the Major Fraud Unit which states:

    It must be emphasised that there can be no criticism of the police. They were pressurised to investigate and had no option but to act as they did.

    The Further Education Funding Council and Bilston Community College

    By 1997 some FEFC officers were so enraged about Bilston Community College that their behaviour became completely irrational. A deeply disturbing factor, beyond the concern about the closure of Bilston Community College, is that there appeared to be no democratic means of restraining, and bringing to account, a group of bureaucrats so self-evidently out of control.

    The subsequent solution – the abolition of the Council – in no way compensates for the damage to the reputation of governors and managers, the waste of public funds, and, above all, the denial of education to thousands of students and potential students.

    The FEFC's involvement of the Fraud Squad was undoubtedly malicious but there was also an abysmal ignorance about the college and its activities. The Council was equally wide of the mark on Bilston's financial circumstances. As demonstrated in Appendix II, by even the most conservative criteria Bilston was funded well over £10 million below the national average of funding per student 1993-97.

    The Council made no attempt to address this unfair and unreasonable situation but, presumably to cover its embarrassment, blatantly changed funding rules (see correspondence with auditors 1997-98). The 'new' rules were then applied retrospectively to claim back from the college funding which had been paid as a result of auditors' reports in accord with the rules as they were at the time.

    This turned reality on its head: the FEFC, preposterously, claimed that the college owed the Council money. This vexatious action was one of the issues which should have been addressed by the Secretary of State in dealing with the Appeal.

    The background to the clawback of funds is described in detail in Appendix II. In summary, as a consequence of abysmal financial mismanagement and planning, the FEFC suddenly discovered that it was running out of money. In January 1997, without any warning, colleges received a letter stating that there must be no more expansion: indeed, the Council stated, it might not even be able to pay for all the student places it had approved.

    As an attempt to disguise its incompetence, the FEFC quickly changed funding rules and started to find reasons to claw back money from colleges to balance its books. It collapsed into this financial mess despite the fact that colleges had submitted estimates of student numbers three years in advance. These circumstances help to explain the desperate measures used (with Bilston and other colleges) to create debts to the Council.

    By 1997 it was clear that some officers were so enraged by Bilston Community College that they were unable to act rationally. Yet the reasons for the uncontrolled anger were never stated. The nearest to an 'explanation' was when an officer confided that some FEFC personnel were so upset by the criticism of the Council in Further Education and Democracy (a book published by the college) that they had determined on revenge. So much for freedom of expression!

    Such improper behaviour by public servants is a much stronger reason for investigation than anything done by Bilston Community College.

    Conclusions

    The inevitable conclusion is that the allegations ( of criminal activity, improper appointments, financial mismanagement) were made without justification or good reason and amount to malicious libel. The FEFC's position is completely undermined by the fact that (in addition to the outcome of the Fraud Squad investigation) a series of audit reports, including forensic audits, also concluded that there was no criminal activity.

    The purpose of the audit reports (including audits of audits!), and the reference to the Major Fraud Squad, was clearly to damage governors and managers and "justify" closing the college. The extent of impropriety in the Council's behaviour is so massive as to stretch creditability to the limit.

    If the police, in a thorough investigation lasting over two and a half years, have found no evidence to suggest criminal activity the FEFC cannot have had any evidence to suggest criminal activity. It follows that the involvement of the police by the FEFC and other opponents of the college was improper and malicious.

    Throughout the whole process which, in all, lasted over three years:

    1. millions of pounds of taxpayers' money were expended in the pursuit of a vendetta;
    2. the educational needs of students (the subject of the Appeal to the Secretary of State) were completely ignored:
    3. the persons against whom the false allegations were made were refused any opportunity to respond or to defend themselves.
    All of the above is a matter of record. What cannot be known is the extent to which the media was 'intimidated' (by the intimation of criminality at the college) to prevent the supporters of the college putting their case. This clearly occurred when, for example, File on Four cut their interview with the Chief Executive of the college. The Irrefutable Case for an Independent Inquiry These very serious matters can be resolved only by an INDEPENDENT INQUIRY to address the questions below.
    1. Why was Bilston Community College funded so dramatically below the national average level of funding per student 1993-97?
    2. Why was the college penalised with a £3.5 million budget cut (20% compared with a national average cut of 4%) 1997-98?
    3. Why did the Secretary of State refuse to deal with the Appeal submitted by the governors in accord with the procedures laid down?
    4. Why were the governors forced to dismiss the Chief Executive and other managers?
    5. Why was the FEFC allowed to deal with an Appeal against its own actions?
    6. On what grounds did the FEFC and local opponents refer matters to the police?
    7. Why was the FEFC allowed to act so persistently (eg on management and staffing matters and on the curriculum) in contravention of the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act?
    8. How far was action in closing Bilston Community College racist in its effects?
    Appendix I
    From an article by DJ Kyte (Founding Chair of Governors of Bilston Community College) 1999
    Over the thirteen year period up to 1997, Bilston Community College's nationally and internationally recognised achievements included:
    1. awards for education, training, job creation for the physically and mentally disabled (eg. The Mountaprise Project);
    2. new curriculum for women, especially in non-traditional skills such as construction;
    3. vastly increased study opportunities for ethnic minority people, notably in community partnerships with Afro-Caribbean and Asian community organisations;
    4. greatly improved opportunities for ethnic minorities to obtain jobs in the college: the proportion of ethnic minority staff rose from under 1% in 1984 to over 30% in 1997 (including a growing number of managers);
    5. developing curriculum which resulted in an increase in the percentage of ethnic minority employees in several spheres of employment (eg. the police, the fire service, local authorities);
    6. a major extension of nationally recognised vocational qualifications (eg Bilston headed the national league table for colleges in 1995);
    7. numerous awards for the development of basic skills curriculum, particularly for work in community partnerships;
    8. successful community education projects in partnership with government departments, colleges and non-governmental organisations in other countries;
    9. a USA award for contributions to education internationally (and commendation for international work from Tony Blair and Bill Clinton);
    10. recognition of the college's overall achievements in equal opportunities - for example, by Investors In People (IIP).
    As I know from personal experience (I was the founding Chair of Governors 1983-1988), the work of Bilston Community College was always opposed by elitists and racists, who sought to undermine it from the time it opened in 1984. Following the retirement of Keith in 1998, the college was destroyed and opportunities for thousands then and in the future denied. This closure has had a number of very serious consequences, including the re-enforcement of institutional racism that the college had done so much to reduce. One of the most serious aspects surrounding the closure of the college is the anti-democratic suppression of the opinions of those who support open access community education and equal opportunities. The elitists have gone to extreme lengths to prevent a fair hearing for the college, for example:
    1. by 'persuading' the BBC not to broadcast an
  • interview with Keith Wymer;
    1. by briefing the press against any supporters
  • of Bilston Community College and its
  • policies;
    1. by circulating lies about the chief executive,
    the governors and senior managers; (iv) by attempting to intimidate supporters of the Friends of Bilston Community College. (DJ Kyte 1999)

    Appendix II Who Killed Bilston Community College? is available on request (£5 to cover costs)from:

    Devonshire International Associates Limited (DIAL),

    28 Devonshire Road,

    Handsworth Wood,

    Birmingham B20 2PQ.

    Appendix III The Appeal (to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (£5 to cover costs) is available from the same address.

    Published by The Friends of Bilston Community College

    Sept 2001

    Printed by Devonshire International Associates Ltd (DIAL).