PAPER B

EDUCATION, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND LIFE LONG LEARNING SELECT COMMITTEE - 16 JUNE 2003

LEA INSPECTION 2003

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

REASON FOR SELECT COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This report is submitted for information, scrutiny and to assist member involvement in the inspection of the LEA by OfSTED in September 2003. It was originally included in the workplan of the Committee as “Post Ofsted Action Plan 2001”.

ACTION REQUIRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE

To note the scope and timing of the inspection of the LEA by OfSTED and the Audit Commission in September 2003.

1 BACKGROUND

1.1 Local education authorities are routinely inspected by Ofsted, in conjunction with the Audit Commission. The Isle of Wight LEA was last inspected in June 2000 and has been notified that a second inspection will take place between 15 September and 3 October 2003. The inspection will take place under the terms of the Framework for the Inspection of LEAs, effective from January 2001.

1.2 The nature and form of the inspection process is broadly as follows:

Ø 28 April 2003: initial meeting with the LEA Senior Management Team and the lead inspector Mrs Jean Samuel HMI to discuss and confirm arrangements for the inspection.

Ø Completion of the Chief Education Officer’s statement (23 May 2003) noting the authority’s views on progress since the last inspection and changes since that inspection including a self-assessment of the LEA’s performance against the Judgement Recording Statements’ grade criteria. (See Appendix 1)

Ø Additional forms for completion before the inspection begins detailing the organisation and funding of the LEA’s services and functions.

Ø Data from the Audit Commission’s new annual survey of schools will also form part of the inspection’s evidence base.

Ø 26 June 2003 : meetings with the lead inspector and members of her team with:

o SMT

o LEA Staff group

o Leading members and the Chief Executive Officer

This meeting is to discuss the detail and format of the inspection.

Ø Jean Samuel will lead a team consisting of HMI, Audit Commission inspectors and additional inspectors which may include a secondee from another LEA and an elected member from another local authority.

Ø The inspection will cover all the inspection criteria grouped under the five key functions of the LEA:

(a) the LEA’s strategy for school improvement

(b) school improvement

(c) special educational needs

(d) promoting social inclusion

(e) corporate issues

The inspection team will judge how effective the LEA has been in the discharge of the activities grouped under these headings.

Ø The time and attention allocated to each criterion will vary according to the nature and significance of issues. The weighting given to each criterion will be assessed by a small team of inspectors using the LEA performance indicators, the previous inspection report and action plan (See Appendix B), the CEO’s statement and the LEA profile, including National Curriculum Assessments and GCSE results. As a result of this process a brief will be prepared which will identify clearly the issues for inspection, the time allocated and the inspection activities, which are planned.

Ø The lead inspector will discuss the inspection brief at the meeting on 26 June to identify the requirements of the inspection, including the selection of focus groups.

Ø It is expected that the relevant inspection grades from the inspection will be incorporated into the 2003 Comprehensive Performance Assessment.

1.3 In conducting the inspection, the team’s work will include:

Ø Analysing the statistical profile of the LEA in the light of the LEA’s own audit in its recent EDP;

Ø Considering the match of the audit to LEA priorities as defined in LEA plans, and whether the LEA has applied Best Value criteria to the discharge of functions in support of those priorities;

Ø Analysing the information provided by the LEA, and in the school survey; and

Ø Scrutiny of any Best Value Review (BVR) that is to be included in the inspection.

Evidence to be collected is likely to include:

Ø Analysis of LEA documentation;

Ø Interviews with the CEO, other LEA senior officers, the Chief Executive Officer and elected members with responsibility for education;

Ø Discussions with a variety of stakeholders, including contractors, when there has been significant outsourcing of education services;

Ø Analysis of case files on pupils requiring special support; and

Ø An examination of evidence of the quality and efficiency of services subject to BVRs.

If school visits are undertaken, the aim is that individual visits would only last for half a day. These visits would focus on the issues identified as having the most impact on standards.

1.4 The feedback dates for the findings of the inspection are provisionally:

Ø Draft report to the LEA by 24 November 2003

Ø The LEA has five working days to comment

Ø Formal feedback to the LEA of the final report 3 December 2003

Ø Publication of report within thirty days

1.5 The LEA has a statutory duty to publish the report within thirty days of its receipt and draw up an action plan within seventy working days, which must be sent to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector (HMCI) and the Secretary of State.

2 RELEVANT PLANS, POLICIES, STRATEGIES AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

2.1 The inspection process will include an examination of all the LEA’s key plans and policies including:

Ø The Corporate Plan

Ø The Best Value Performance Plan

Ø The Directorate’s Strategic Plan

Ø The Education Development Plan

Ø The SEN Development Plan

Ø All of the LEA’s statutory and Service Plans

2.2 All key performance indicators will be used as evidence in the inspection process.

3 CONSULTATION PROCESS

3.1 Although there is not consultation on the inspection process key stakeholders are being informed through existing meeting arrangements and the Audit Commission has conducted the Schools Survey.

4 FINANCIAL, LEGAL, CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

4.1 Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools has the power, under Section 38 of the Education Act 1997, to inspect any function of an LEA.

4.2 All of the LEA costs for the preparation and involvement in the inspection will be met from within the LEA budget share. OfSTED and the Audit Commission meet their own expenses.

4.3 There are no crime and disorder implications.

5 APPENDICES ATTACHED

5.1 Appendix A - “Isle of Wight Council Local Education Authority Chief Education Officer’s Statement May 2003”

Section 1: “Changes to the Context of the LEA

Section 3: “Impact of Improvement: The LEA Assessment of its Performance Against the Inspection Criteria

Appendix B - “Isle of Wight Local Education Authority Post Ofsted Action Plan January 2001

6 BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT

Ø Isle of Wight Council Local Education Authority Chief Education Officer’s Statement May 2003

Ø OfSTED: Framework for the Inspection of Local Education Authorities January 2002.

Contact Point :David Pettitt, Strategic Director, Education And Community Development, F 823400, e-mail david.pettitt@iow.gov.uk.

DAVID PETTITT

Strategic Director Of Education And Community Development

APPENDIX A

SECTION 1 :

1. Changes to the Context of the LEA

1.1. Introduction

The Isle of Wight LEA strives to be a high performing LEA and has built upon the position described in the last inspection in June 2000 by addressing the key recommendations in the inspection report and building upon good practice in service provision for school improvement. The common sense of purpose and collegiality shared by schools and officers that was identified in the inspection report has provided a sound base to improve our corporate strategic capacity and target particular areas such as SEN. The Council now articulates its vision clearly through a coherent Corporate Plan which has education and learning as a key priority.

1.2. Our Purpose, Beliefs and Values

Our purpose is to secure the highest quality educational, learning and cultural opportunities through life for the whole population of the Isle of Wight (Directorate Strategic Plan 2001 – 2004). Central to this is our belief that every individual in the community should have the opportunity to achieve the very highest that their potential will allow. For young people this will centre on the provision of high quality schools supported by excellence in service provision.

To achieve this we:

Ø Challenge and support schools to strive for excellence by protecting their budgets as far as possible facilitating autonomy and freedom to manage their own resources.

Ø Encourage teachers, governors and parents to work in partnership with the LEA and other agencies to develop strong communities of schools that will collaborate to strive for higher standards.

Ø Lead the drive for higher standards through shared and clearly articulated improvement strategies.

Ø Promote and recognise the professionalism of all our staff and maintain a high-quality teaching and support staff force for our schools and LEA services.

Ø Ensure the LEA secures and provides services that achieve the highest standards for quality and best value.

Ø Work in effective partnership with a wide range of agencies and providers to maximise the impact of services for the education and support of children and young people.

1.3. Our Schools

A review of OfSTED school inspections and our own information shows that most of our schools are graded as good or very good, particularly in the primary phase. However, we recognise that we must work with our schools to increase the proportion of those judged to be good or very good and redress the imbalance between higher and lower performing schools. Central to our school improvement strategy is the importance of sustaining improving pupil performance as children move through our middle and high schools. A number of our schools have achieved national recognition with four gaining beacon status and twenty named in the 2002/3 national School Achievement Awards.

Not all schools do as well as can be expected, and we work hard to support those in difficulty through the “Supporting and Challenging Schools” framework. This has been an effective extension and revision of our previous programme which was commented upon favourably at the last inspection. Of our 69 schools, very few fall into the two OfSTED categories of concern. It is our objective to have no schools in these categories by the end of the 2003/04 academic year and then sustain this position.

1.4. Levels of Disadvantage

The last inspection recognised that the island has some areas with significant levels of disadvantage. However, as our response to JRS 1 ‘Context’ shows we believe this was underestimated and recent data shows disadvantage to be more widespread, as measured by key indicators. We believe this impacts adversely upon pupil performance and although we do not seek to use these reasons as an excuse for underperformance, we realise we need to recognise this more specifically in our school improvement strategy. Hence the development and implementation of a school ‘cluster’ approach to the challenge and support school performance.

1.5. Partnership Working

Partnership working was identified as an area for development in the last inspection report and the LEA has invested significant effort into forging more effective collaboration with a wide range of agencies and providers. We are working closely with partner organisations to develop joint strategies and integrated operations. This has included partnerships with social services and health agencies on children’s services and the SEN agenda and the first full 14 – 19 area review in collaboration with the Local Learning and Skills Council. The response to JRS 49 in Section 2 provides more detail.

1.6. Support from Members

The involvement of members and shortcomings at the corporate level were criticised at the last inspection and the Council has focussed on improving these functions. A generally favourable CPA inspection in October 2002 noted an improving corporate strategy and this has been particularly evident with regard to education services. The Council has continued to give priority to the education budget share and protecting school’s budgets as was shown in the 2003/04 budget round where the Council exceeded the EFSS allocation against a backdrop of severe pressures. The full implementation of the modernised local government structure has resulted in a more effective and rigorous approach to the corporate governance of education and members committed to education and learning as a key council priority. (See response Section 2 JRS43 – 48).

1.7. 2003 – 2007 and Beyond

EDP2 represents an important opportunity for the LEA to build upon our improvement since the last inspection in 2000. Over the last three years the school improvement programme has produced a number of successes:-

Ø An increasing number of schools being judged as good or better.

Ø A very low number of schools requiring special measures or judged to have serious weaknesses.

Ø Continuous improvement of Key Stage 1 performance.

Ø Overall improvement in Key Stage 2 performance.

Ø A reducing proportion of pupils requiring statements of SEN.

Ø Maintenance of very low levels of pupil exclusions

Ø Reduction of the proportion of pupils educated in special schools.

However, we know there remains much to do and EDP2 articulates the strategy for the next five years. Challenges include the following:

Ø Early Years, the Foundation Key Stage and Family Learning. We believe that high quality early years provision is the cornerstone of school improvement and we will work hard to extend our excellent provision in this area. Family Learning is a priority in our PSA agreement.

Ø Pupil Achievement at Key Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4. This is a critical priority and our work in this area is detailed in EDP2 Annex 2. We are determined to support schools in transforming learning in our middle and high schools. Central to this are practical strategies, within a three phase system, to raise standards of literacy and numeracy at Key Stages 2, 3 and 4.

Ø 14 – 19 Curriculum Coherence. Following the first 14 – 19 Area Review in England (2001/2002) we have worked with the Local Learning and Skills Council to develop and implement a Collaborative model for 14 – 19 education on the Isle of Wight in partnership with all providers including Schools, the FE College, training providers, local employers and Connexions.

Ø School Self Evaluation and Improvement. We are determined to build upon the early success of the school self-evaluation programme to support schools in their desire to be effective self-improving organisations and the impact this has on raising the standards of achievement and attainment of pupils.

Ø Special Educational Needs. This priority was identified at the last inspection and through the extensive review that the LEA conducted as part of the 2000 – 2002 SEN consultation. The SEN Development Plan is now being implemented as detailed in Priority 5 Annex 2 of the EDP.

2. School Performance

Within the LEA’s overall context of disadvantage the performance of schools is satisfactory. Most pupils achieve what they should, though the key national performance measures are often similar to the last inspection.

Performance in the early years sector is high. For schools the overall performance is higher in the primary sector than the secondary sector.

Indicators of deprivation together with cohort data, such as the baseline profile, display an increasing degree of challenge for schools in the overall ability of the cohort. This is reflected in the raw headline percentage standards achieved by the LEA. However, as indicated in section two, the performance of schools when examined in relation to their QCA context bands is often in line or above. This indicates, and is supported by LEA data and OFSTED inspection reports, that pupils’ achievement is often at least good given the background context with which the LEA and schools work.

Overall improvement is evident in the proportion of schools achieving good or very good grades in second cycle OFSTED inspections. In all OFSTED inspections 72% of schools achieve an overall grade of good or better. Similarly 29% of schools achieved a DfES School’s Achievement Award for their performance in 2002.

The LEA is not complacent with this position and recognises, as do schools, that there are significant opportunities for improvement, as in writing, boys performance and GCSE A*-C matriculation in the core subjects. These priorities provide a clear focus to the EDP and the LEA’s work in meeting its strategic objective of raising standards for all children in the Island.

2.1. Pupils with SEN in mainstream schools

The performance of pupils within mainstream schools is monitored. An analysis of data is completed and this is related to their particular special needs to ensure continuity and progression.

2.2. Pupils in Special Schools

Pupils within the special school sector are monitored and tracked closely within school to ensure they make appropriate progress. Students have been given opportunities to take GCSEs at Watergate School and ASDAN awards are provided within specials schools. The PRUs have been offering Compact Club achievements and a number of certificated courses linked to skill acquisition e.g. First Aid.

2.3. Children in Public Care

Pupil progress is tracked by designated teachers and the ‘Looked After Children Education Service’ LACES team. Results are volatile because of the very small cohort, thus results fluctuate year on year. The LEA is acutely aware that young people in care in mainland placements tend to perform particularly badly at GCSE.

3.1. Funding, including the co-ordination of external funding

The Isle of Wight’s Education SSA for 2002-3 was a little above the average for Shire Unitary Authorities (4.4% for pupils aged 5-10 and 4.8% for pupils aged 11). Funding for pupils over 16 was 5.2% lower than the Shire Unitary average. The Authority achieved the delegation target and spent £11 per pupil less on central administration than the unitary average.

The settlement for 2003-4 was disappointing as funding was at the minimum level of a 3.2% increase per pupil. Central government funding was £807,000 less than their target for this Authority. Despite this, the Council levied a 14.32% increase in Council Tax in order to help fund a ‘standstill budget’ for its schools, some £³/₄ million more than the government target.

3.2. Allocation of the Education Budget

The main priority is to maximise resources to schools. There have been pressures on the non-schools budget, particularly in provision for SEN and Home to School Transport, but growth in the non-schools area has been minimised eg £770,000 (9.1%) of LEA Block allocation was transferred to Schools Block for the financial year 2003-4.

There is a continuous review of the schools funding formula and the Schools Forum has started to look, in detail, at our current distributive mechanism. They will be making recommendations in the late Autumn 2003 as part of their general contribution to budget setting for 2004-5. All recommendations will have been passed through Headteacher and Governor Groups before formal presentation.

There are factors in the formula which relate to the very small size of some of the Island’s Primary Schools. Protection is applied to schools that lose more than 5% of their revenue from year to year.

The Authority is supporting the development of Cluster Group working and has allocated approximately £100,000 to each of the 5 Clusters to support school improvement initiatives based on EDP priorities.

The Headteachers’ representative group that worked collaboratively with the LEA to determine the formula for the allocation of ‘High Incidence’ SEN funding to schools has met recently to consider proposals for further devolution of ‘Low Incidence’ funding. There is little support for this idea at present.

3.3. External Funding

The Authority has secured additional funding from the Transport Pathfinder 16-19 Grant for 2002-3 and for an additional 3 years.

In addition it has co-ordinated and/or supported bids that have secured funding from the following sources:

· NOF ICT Training

· NOF Out of School Hours (Ryde High)

· SRB Family Learning (Ryde High)

· SRB Family Support (Ryde High)

· Teacher Training Agency

· Sports Grant Awards for All

· British Council

· Sports England

· Sports Council

· NPQH

· Learning Skills

· PGCE Placements (Portsmouth University)

· European Social Fund (Medina High)

Specific external funding for Early Years has been obtained from the following sources:

3.4. Early Years External Funding

Source	Funding
DfES	General Childcare Grant
DfES	Foundation Key Stage Training
DfES	SEN Training
DfES	SEN Early Intervention
DfES	Childminder Start-Up Grant
DfES	Childminder Sustainability
DfES	Disability, Development & Maintenance of Inclusive Childcare Places
DfES	Childcare Places & Sustainability – from October 2003 Replacing NOF Monies
DfES	Capital Grant for Conversion to Full Daycare Provision
DfES	NEG for Three Year Olds – in ESS from April 2003
DfES	Neighbourhood Nursery Grant - Revenue
DfES	Neighbourhood Nursery Grant - Capital
DfES	Early Excellence Centres
DfES	Sure Start Ryde Local Project
DfES	Extending Schools & Childcare Grant – from 2004
DfES	Children’s Centres – from 2004
ESF	Toy Library Project
ESF	Childcare Recruitment Project
ESF	Daycare Expansion

4.1. The Council and Its Committees

The Council has been operating the Executive model of modernised political management since April 2000. This was slightly revised in June 2001 to recognise the changes in legislation and the results of the local elections that were held that month. The Leader and Executive of the council are responsible for the efficient and effective day to day political leadership of the council and the majority of its decisions The portfolios are:

Leader of the Council	Mrs Shirley Smart
Deputy Leader/Best Value	Mr Peter Harris
Resources	Mr Reginald Barry
Agenda 21 and Countryside Matters	Mrs Teresa Butchers
Tourism and Leisure	Mr John Fleming
Transport	Mr Ernest Fox
Social Services Housing	Mr Gordon Kendall
Fire Emergency Planning & Consumer Protection	Mr David Knowles
Economic Development, UK and EU, Regional Issues	Mr Harold Rees
Education, Community Development and Lifelong Learning	Mrs Jill Wareham

There are six Select Committees which cover all the service responsibilities of the Executive. These committees combine advice on policy development and through their scrutiny function assist service improvement and the questioning of Executive decisions. Their function is to review the decisions made by the Executive before they are implemented.

The six select committees are:

• Economic Development, Tourism and Leisure Services
• Education, Community Development and Lifelong Learning
• Environment and Transport
• Fire and Public Safety
• Resources
• Social Services, Housing and Benefits

(Each Select Committee has 12 members)

In addition there is a Standards Committee and three regulatory committees one for each of the following:

• Development Control (14 Members)
• Licensing (7 Members)
• Regulatory Appeals (3 from 15 Members)

4.2. The Political Composition of the Council

The Council is comprised of 48 Councillors elected every four years, the last election was in June 2001. The current political make up of the council is:

28 Island First (Liberal Democrat and Independent Alliance)

13 Conservatives

3 Labour

4 Independents/Other

4.3. The Strategic Directorate Team and Directorates

At officer level the council is headed by the Chief Executive Officer (who is Head of Paid Service and Strategic Director of Corporate Services), with three other Strategic Directors

- Education and Community Development

- Social Services and Housing

- Environment

The Chief Fire Officer also operates at Strategic Director level and has additional responsibility for emergency planning.

The Strategic Directors Group meets fortnightly to provide collective, team based strategic leadership to the corporate organisation and its resources. This team works closely with the Executive to define and establish the long-term vision and priorities for the organisation integrating the range of statutory and local initiatives and allocating resources to meet the needs of the Isle of Wight Community. The Strategic Directors Group also works closely with the Strategic Management Team, which is comprised of Heads of Services, to ensure that the Council’s priorities are translated at the operational service level. The SMT group meet every six weeks.

4.4. The Council’s Priorities

The Council’s vision “Improving Island Life” and priorities for action are set out in the ‘Corporate Plan’ which includes four key elements:

1. The Council’s Strategic Vision

2. Making it Happen

3. Financing the Plan

4. Next Steps

The Corporate Plan is fully integrated with the Community Plan and the Best Value Performance Plan and provides the framework for individual service plans. The Council’s six corporate objectives support the mission of “Improving Island Life” :

Ø Improving health, housing and the quality of life for all

Ø Encouraging job creation and economic prosperity

Ø Raising education standards and providing lifelong learning

Ø Creating safe and crime-free societies

Ø Improving public transport and the highways infrastructure

Ø Protecting the island’s physical environment

5. Procurement and Provision of Services

To best understand the position of the Isle of Wight it may be helpful to provide context and background.

The LEA was typical of many in the 1980s. It was paternal, provided the full range of services and exercised financial control. LMS was introduced successfully, but because of the ‘enclosed community’ and the generally close relationship of the schools and the LEA, the latter continued to be ‘the provider’. Many schools discussed Grant Maintained status when it was a possibility but there has been a considerable reluctance to see damage to one sector of educational provision brought about by the actions of schools in another sector. No schools on the Isle of Wight became Grant Maintained. This ‘collective culture’, underpinned by the realisation by the High Schools that 95% of pupils in neighbouring Primary Schools would become their future customers, influences current thinking. For example, the catering contract can provide services to the smallest Primaries in excess of anything that they could negotiate independently. This is possible only because of the profits made in the bigger schools.

The LEA has tested the market for external suppliers of services eg during the SEN Best Value Review a number of companies were approached to ascertain their interest in running services on the Isle of Wight. Nord Anglia’s reaction was typical in describing the scale of operation to be too small. Hampshire LEA was prepared to consider the prospect but only if the School Improvement function was included. As they would not cost the option until the commitment was made there was no basis for knowing whether Best Value could be obtained.

There have been recent examples where the support function has been vital and the need for it immediate. If Inspectors were not based on the Island this would have been difficult to provide. Even with the diseconomies of scale the LEA is not seen as an expensive provider of services (Central Administration costs are £39 per pupil, per year against a Unitary Average of £50 per pupil – further detail is provided in the Financial Section).

The LEA has brokered services for schools in the following areas:

· Continuing Professional Development in a particular partnership has been developed with University College, Chichester and a full list of consultancies is available through the Education Centre.

· The proposed consultancy to support training of teachers concerned with developing boys’ writing at KS2.

· SEN Training – this was discontinued after participant feedback revealed problems with the quality of delivery.

· The provision of a Graduate Teacher Programme through partnership working with a Designated Training School and the joint funding of a post for both the development of this programme and NQT Induction development.

· Grounds maintenance – schools use their delegated budgets to purchase a differentiated packaged from two major providers. The LEA assisted with the tendering and evaluation processes.

More typical, however, has been the experience of NgFL. The Authority arranged for major players to make presentations for Heads and Governors in order to choose which suppliers would be involved initially.

However, the critical decision had already been made, by Heads and Governors, to commit collectively to one supplier only and that all schools would buy-back central administration and management of NgFL from their delegated funds. NgFL, NOF and now Broadband development are seen as exemplary and have been predicated on the LEA as organiser, after consultation.

This model applies similarly to Teacher Recruitment and Retention Standards Fund allocations during the last year. 85% of schools decided, after consultation, to pool their money to create a number of initiatives to be organised by the LEA. A teacher recruitment CD Rom, Golden Handcuffs and the GTP/NQT initiative have resulted from this collective response.

Thus it would be true to say that the sometimes neglected 5^th ‘C’ of ‘Best Value’, ‘collaboration’, has been, with ‘consultation’, most prominent in determining procurement activities.

Different models for procurement may emerge from the Directorate’s involvement with the full scale review of Council-wide procurement. Education Premises Development has volunteered to be the first pilot project in a bid to develop a partnering arrangement with a small range of architects, project planners and building firms to build a medium-term relationship. Ideas for sharing ‘pain’ and ‘gain’ will be fostered in an attempt to reduce inflated tendering bids.

A small-scale comparative exercise has been undertaken in the area of teacher cover insurance. One of the major private providers in this field, BEST (now part of CAPITA), were asked to quote for different levels of cover and this was compared to the three levels offered currently under the LEA Scheme. The latter was shown to be good value for money and was preferred but its efficacy is heavily dependent on a high level of school participation. It may be that it becomes a casualty of the schools’ current attempts to find savings to avoid redundancies this year.

The LEA has explored options with an external provider (SOL Training) regarding management of the Key Stage 3/4 PRU and providing a range of off site activities. The management charges for the PRU were considered to be excessive and this option was rejected. The same provider was engaged to provide off site activities but the quality of provision in comparison to the cost was deemed to be less than good value and it is unlikely that this service will be used again.

Options for contracting off site provision for girls with a charitable organisation was discussed with High School Heads but was rejected although some individual pupils do access this provision, the cost being borne by the referring body.

Challenge will be provided to existing patterns of Service provision through the work of the Schools Forum. Its forward plan includes a thorough review of all contracts and SLAs but it would be instructive to attend one of its meetings. Those held so far have maintained the dominant cultural characteristic, described above, of looking at proposals for change in the light of the overall educational enterprise in all three school sectors.

It may be that a wide collection of centrally run services might be attractive to an outside provider and it is likely that the market will need to be tested and the findings discussed within the Schools Forum. If services were poor or expensive there might be more incentive to make this a priority for schools and the LEA. It is not so at present.

6.1. Staffing and Structure : Recent History

The Directorate of Education and Community Development was created in October 1999 when the Education and Community Development departments of the council were merged. The Directorate was further extended in October 2001 and July 2002 with the additions of Wight Leisure and Tourism respectively.

The Directorate was awarded full Investors in People Status in June 2002.

6.2 Responsibilities

The Strategic Director holds the position of the Council’s statutory CEO and additionally has strategic responsibility for leading the Community Development function of the Council which includes libraries, museums, heritage, arts and culture, sport development, Leisure and Tourism and adult and community learning.

The senior management team comprises the Director and the four senior officers in the Directorate. This group is the leadership team for services and comprises:

Strategic Director:	David Pettitt (appointed Nov 2002)
Head of Community Development Leisure and Tourism:	John Metcalfe (appointed Oct1999)
Assistant Director : Planning and Resources	Kim Johnson (appointed Sept 2001
Principal Education Officer SEN:	Rob Faulkner (appointed Nov 2000)
Senior Inspector:	Keith Simmonds (appointed 1 Oct 1998)

The Leadership team is supported by the Directorates Service Managers who meet every six weeks as the Departmental Management Team.

6.3. Number of Staff

The Isle of Wight Council has 5,259 people on the payroll (as at May 2003). The number of staff in the Directorate’s services are:

School based staff		2876
Planning and Resources branch	79	753
Educational Effectiveness and Life Long Learning (School Improvement and SEN)	290
Community Development	384
Total Directorate Staffing (including schools)		3629

SECTION 3: IMPACT OF IMPROVEMENT: THE LEA ASSESSMENT OF ITS PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE INSPECTION CRITERIA

JRS criteria	Progress since last inspection			LEA’s current assessment of the effectiveness of support for each function
	Grade in last inspection	Has any LEA evaluation taken place since the last inspection? (Please include that material.)[1]	Please asterisk if improvement has been made since the last inspections	Good	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory
SECTION 1: SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY
1. The socio-economic context of the LEA	4					6
2. The performance of schools	4				4
3. Funding	4				4
4. The LEA’s strategy for school improvement including where appropriate the EDP and Excellence in Cities	5	*	*	2
5. The progress on implementing the LEA’s strategy for school improvement including the EDP and EiC	3	*	*	2
6. The extent to which the LEA targets its resources to priorities	4	*	*	2
7. The extent to which the LEA has in place effective strategies to promote continuous improvement including Best Value	5	*	*		3
SECTION 2: SUPPORT FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
8. The extent to which the LEA has defined monitoring, challenge and intervention and shared those understandings with schools	3	*	*	2
9. The extent to which the LEA's support to schools is focused on areas of greatest need	3	*			3
10. The effectiveness of the LEA's work in monitoring schools and challenging them to improve, including the use made of performance data	3	*	*	2
11. The effectiveness of LEA identification of and intervention in under-performing schools	4	*	*	2
12. Support to schools for raising standards in Literacy	2	*			3
13. Support to schools for raising standards in Numeracy	2	*			3
14. Support to schools for raising standards in and the curriculum use of information and communications technology	3	*		2
15. Support to schools for raising standards at Key Stage 3	-				4
16. Support to schools in raising standards of ethnic minority and Traveller children including the effective deployment of the ethnic minority and Traveller achievement grants	4				4
17. Support for gifted and talented pupils	-				4
18. Support for school leadership and management including support for schools efforts to achieve Best Value	-			2
19. Support to school governors	3				3
20. The effectiveness of its services to support school management	2	*		2	3
a Financial services	-			2
b Human resources	-	BVR		2
c Property services	-	*		2
d Services for ICT in school administration	2			2
e Cleaning and caretaking	-			2
f Grounds maintenance	-	*		2
g Catering	-	*		2
21. The extent to which the LEA is successful in assuring the supply and quality of teachers	-				3
22. The effectiveness of the leadership of services to support school improvement	2	*		2
23. The effectiveness of the deployment of staff to support school improvement	3	*	*	2
24. The effectiveness of strategic planning of services to support school improvement	3		*	2
25. The effectiveness of the performance management of services to support school improvement	3	*	*	2
26. The standard of expertise of staff to support school improvement	2			2
27. The effectiveness of services to school improvement	3	*	*	3
28. Value for money of services to support school improvement	3				3
SECTION 3: SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
29. The effectiveness of the LEA’s strategy for SEN	5	BVR	*		3
30. The effectiveness of the LEA in taking steps to meet its statutory obligations in respect of SEN	6	BVR	*		3
31. The effectiveness of the LEA in exercising its SEN functions to support school improvement	5	BVR	*		3
32. The extent to which the LEA has exercised its SEN functions to meet the requirements of value for money	5	BVR	*		3
SECTION 4: PROMOTING SOCIAL INCLUSION
33. The overall effectiveness of the LEA in promoting social inclusion	-	*			4
34. The effectiveness of the LEA in relation to the provision of school places	2			2
35 The effectiveness of the LEA in discharging asset management planning	1	*		1
36 The effectiveness of the LEA in relation to admissions to schools	1	BVR		1
37 The extent to which the LEA meets its statutory requirements and achieves value for money in relation to provision for pupils who have no school place	6	*	*		4
38 The extent to which the LEA meets its statutory requirements and achieves value for money in relation to school attendance	3	*			4
39. The extent to which the LEA meets its statutory requirements and achieves value for money in relation to behaviour at school	4	*	*		3
40. The extent to which the LEA meets its statutory requirements and achieves value for money in relation to Health and safety, welfare and child protection	4		*		3
41. The extent to which the LEA meets its statutory requirements and achieves value for money in relation to children in public care	4	*	*		2
42. The effectiveness of the LEA in combating racism	4				4
SECTION 5: CORPORATE ISSUES
43. The clarity, consistency, coherence and feasibility of corporate plans	5	*	*		3
44. The effectiveness of the procedures for implementing and evaluating corporate plans	5	*	*		3
45. The speed, transparency and effectiveness of decision-making (particularly financial decision-making)	5	*	*		3
46. The quality of leadership provided by elected members	5		*		3
47. The quality of the leadership provided by senior officers	2				2
48. The quality of the advice given to elected members	3	*			3
49. The effectiveness of the co-ordination of actions in support of priorities involving collaboration between several agencies	4		*		3
OVERALL JUDGEMENTS
50. The progress made by the LEA overall since the last inspection	-
51. The LEA’S capacity for further improvement	-
52. The overall effectiveness of the LEA	4

APPENDIX B

ISLE OF WIGHT LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY

POST OFSTED ACTION PLAN

January 2001

ISLE OF WIGHT LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY POST OFSTED INSPECTION ACTION PLAN

JANUARY 2001

			Page:
Introduction			1
	Action Plan Summary Matrix		2
	Action Plan Index		3 - 4
OFSTED Report Section 1:
	LEA Strategy for School Improvement
	· The Education Development Plan	Context	5
		Action Plan 1.1	6 - 7
		Action Plan 1.2	8 - 9
	· SEN Funding	Context	10
		Action Plan 1.3	11 - 12
OFSTED Report Section 2:
	LEA Support for School Improvement
	· Monitoring, Challenge, Support and Intervention	Context	13
		Action Plan 2.1	14 - 15
		Action Plan 2.2	16 - 17
	· Support for Governors	Context	18
		Action Plan 2.3	19
OFSTED Report Section 3:
	Strategic Management
	· Improving Strategic Management	Context	20 - 21
		Action Plan 3.1	22 - 23
		Action Plan 3.2	24 - 25
		Action Plan 3.3	26 - 27
	· Services Delegated to Schools	Context	28
		Action Plan 3.4	29

OFSTED Report Section 4:
	Special Education Needs
	· Quality of SEN Support for Schools	Context	30 - 31
	· Annual Reviews	Context	32
		Action Plan 4.1	33 - 34
		Action Plan 4.2	35 - 36
		Action Plan 4.3	37 - 39
OFSTED Report Section 5:
	Access
	· Admissions Forum	Context	40
		Action Plan 5.1	41
	· Provision for Children Educated Otherwise	Context	42
		Action Plan 5.2	43 - 44
		Action Plan 5.3	45 - 46

Introduction

This plan sets out the actions proposed in response to the recommendations contained in the OFSTED Inspection Report of Isle of Wight LEA published in October 2000. The purpose of the plan is to address the recommendations to ensure continuing improvement in standards in and services to Isle of Wight schools. The plan gives appropriate emphasis to action around functions identified as not adequately exercised:

· Corporate and strategic planning.

· Support for some key aspects of special educational needs.

· The provision of education other than at school.

The plan is intended to raise standards further in the Isle of Wight and is thus of direct relevant to:

· Parents, governors and teachers;

· Elected members;

· Officers and inspectors in the Education and Community Development Directorate;

· Other offices of the Local Authority;

· Partner services including Health, and the Local Learning and Skills Council;

· Diocesan Education Authorities;

· OFSTED;

· DfEE;

· Voluntary agencies and a range of other partners with whom we work.

The following matrix summarises the key recommendations of the OFSTED report and the numbered action plans which address each recommendation.

Action Plan Summary Matrix

OFSTED Recommendations

Action Plans

1.1

1.2

1.3

2.1

2.2

2.3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

4.1

4.2

4.3

5.1

5.2

5.3

In order to improve the Educational Development Plan

ü

ü

S

S

S

S

ü

ü

ü

S

S

In order to ensure that SEN funding is based on a more direct measure of need

ü

In order to improve monitoring, challenge, support and intervention

ü

ü

S

S

S

In order to improve support for governors

ü

S

In order to improve strategic management

S

S

ü

ü

ü

In order to ensure LEA-provided management services to schools remain good value for money

ü

S

In order to improve the quality of SEN support for schools

ü

S

ü

ü

ü

ü

In order to ensure that stakeholders are represented appropriately in the admissions process

ü

In order to improve its provision for children educated otherwise

S

ü

ü

Key: ü Central contribution to key recommendation

S Supporting Action Plan

Summary of Recommendations

In order to improve the Educational Development Plan, the LEA should ensure that future revisions:

1.1 Strengthen the links between the EDP and other corporate, directorate and statutory plans; and

1.2 Have robust success criteria for all actions to enable effective monitoring and evaluation.

In order to ensure that SEN funding is based on a more direct measure of need:

1.3 The SEN index in the formula should be reviewed before any further delegation of SEN funding.

In order to improve monitoring, challenge, support and intervention:

2.1 Improve the quality analysis and evaluation of all written reports to the standard set by the best; and

2.2 Ensure that the degree of challenge in target setting is consistent across all schools, and appropriate emphasis is given during the target setting process to identifying realistic curricular and teaching strategies.

In order to improve support for governors:

2.3 Act swiftly to fill outstanding LEA governor vacancies.

In order to improve strategic management:

3.1 Accelerate the rate of progress on the production of corporate plans and establish firmer links with the Best Value processes;

3.2 Engage Members fully in policy development and scrutiny; and

3.3 Improve the coherence of various plans produced by the Directorate.

In order to ensure LEA-provided management services to schools remain good value for money:

3.4 Establish procedures for reviewing the performance and cost-effectiveness of services in collaboration with schools.

In order to improve the quality of SEN support for schools:

4.1 Comply fully with the statutory requirements to initiate annual reviews;

4.2 Ensure that the planned programme for consultation, development and implementation of a clear strategy for SEN proceeds according to the set timescale;

4.3 Ensure that the strategy:

· Is clearly communicated and understood by LEA personnel, school staff and governors;

· Includes effective procedures for the monitoring of SEN provision;

(4.3 continued)

· Has robust systems and structures for evaluating the progress made by SEN pupils and for making judgements about value for money; and

· Improve the links and coherence between the separate SEN service plans and policy documentation

In order to ensure that stakeholders are represented appropriately in the admissions process:

5.1 Keep the need for an admissions forum under review.

In order to improve its provision for children educated otherwise:

5.2 Improve and increase the quality and quantity of LEA educational provision for pupils who are not in school; and

5.3 Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of LEA support for these pupils.

LEA STRATEGY FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT: IMPROVING THE EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Key Recommendation

In order to improve the Educational Development Plan, the LEA should ensure that future revisions:

· Strengthen the links between the EDP and other Corporate, Directorate and Statutory Plans.

· Have robust success criteria for all actions to enable effective monitoring and evaluation.

Context

The Education Development Plan is the major vehicle for the LEA’s strategy for school improvement. The plan has approval for three years and the sole condition that modifications were made to the section on schools causing concern was met in June 2000 (during the inspection). The inspection report notes that the second edition of the EDP (May 2000) represents improvement over the original plan and that implementation of the EDP is leading to improvement (paragraph 28 and 30).

However, shortcomings remain with insufficient links with other plans and inconsistency in the specificity of success criteria.

Over the past year consultation about the revision of the EDP has been strengthened with schools and a formal schools / members evaluation panel will oversee the monitoring, evaluation and revision of the plan.

Analysis of the critical points raised in the inspection report points to the need to address:

· Monitoring, evaluation and revision of the plan for April 2001 and a subsequent full review of the priorities for 2002.

· A strengthening of the links between the EDP and other Corporate, Directorate and Statutory Plans.

· A strengthening of success criteria through improved specificity.

Summary of Proposed Action

· Interim revision of the EDP in April 2001 followed by a full revision for April 2002.

· Revisions of the EDP to be undertaken in consultation with officers and groups producing related plans. Actions and targets revised April 2001, priorities revised April 2002.

· An overall plan matrix to be produced detailing the links between the EDP and other plans.

· Explicit cross-referencing of EDP priorities and activities to other plans and policies.

· A full revision of success criteria through the termly and annual monitoring and evaluation procedures leading to more measurable and specific success criteria.

Section 1: Strategy for School Improvement

ACTION PLAN: 1.1
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to improve the Education Development Plan, the LEA should ensure that future revisions strengthen the links between the EDP and other Corporate, Directorate and statutory plans.
Activity	· The revision of the EDP, in 2001 and 2002, to strengthen its links with other Corporate and Directorate plans and policies.
The purpose of the activity	· To improve the quality of the EDP and its coherence with related plans and policies.
The nature of the activity	· Revision of the EDP to include the involvement of all officers responsible for Directorate service plans and statutory plans and officers within other council directorates producing related plans.
The target group for the activity	· Officers responsible for the production and revision of Corporate and Directorate plans and policies.
The action to be taken	· Interim revision of EDP activities and targets to take place in January and February 2001 following review and consultation with all stakeholders, including schools, directorate officers, officers from other Council Directorates and elected members. Plan for 2001 – 2002 to be published in April 2001. · EDP to include an overall plan matrix detailing links with other plans from within the Directorate and corporate service and statutory plans. Each activity to include detailed information on resource allocation and links to internal and external plans. · Actions to be reviewed by April 2001 with full revision of plan including priorities for April 2002.	Timescale · January 2001 – Statistical data and attainment targets collated and returned to the DfEE following Autumn consultation with schools. · February 2001 – Renewal activities re-drafted for 2001 – 2002 and consulted upon. Direct links made to other plans. Officers and managers for service areas to complete this task. · April 2001 – EDP for 2001 – 2002 published. · November 2001 – Renew and consultation on the EDP for 2002 – 2005 publication. · January 2002 – Agreed attainment targets returned to DfEE following Autumn term consultation. · February 2002 – Redrafted EDP for 2002 – 2005 out for final consultation. · April 2002 – Publish 2002 – 2005 EDP.

(Action Plan 1.1 continued)

Allocation of responsibility	· Assistant Director of Education, Educational Effectiveness and Lifelong Learning.
Success criteria	· Interim and full revisions of the EDP completed within the defined timescale including specific reference within actions to links with other plans and resource requirements. · Activities within the EDP to relate practically to other plans for coherence and cross-referencing. Additional information to be included within the revised activities ‘grids’. · Revised EDP impacts upon other Service and Statutory Plans within the local authority and specific success criteria and attainment targets are shared. · Coherence across plans, EDP activities co-ordinated with corporate plans.
Monitoring and evaluation	· Monitoring and evaluation to be undertaken through the EDP review panel within the termly timescale detailed in the EDP. · Draft revisions of the EDP presented to the Select Committee.
Responsibility	· EDP Review Panel. · Education and Community Development Select Committee.
Resource requirement	· Assistant Director planning time 15 days:	£4,000
	· Lead officer and service manager time 10 days for 9 officers with directorate:	£11,988
	· Lead Officers within other Council Directorates; 5 days for joint service planning activity for 25 officers:	£13,888
	TOTAL COST:	£29,876
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· Corporate Plans: Community Plan; 25 Council Service Plans; Isle of Wight Council Strategic Plan. · Education and Community Development Strategic and Service Plans. · Statutory Plans. · Link to Action Plan 1.2.

Section 1: Strategy for School Improvement

ACTION PLAN: 1.2
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to improve the Education Development Plan, the LEA should ensure that future revisions have robust success criteria for all actions to enable effective monitoring and evaluation.
Activity	· To define clear, robust and measurable criteria for all EDP activities.
The purpose of the activity	· To enable effective monitoring and evaluation of EDP activities.
The nature of the activity	· To review and refine EDP activities and success criteria through the annual revision procedures.
The target group for the activity	· Steering groups and officers responsible for EDP activity areas.
The action to be taken	· All success criteria to be revised through the termly and annual EDP monitoring and evaluation procedures. · Steering groups and lead officers responsible for activity areas to revise and redraft specified measurable success criteria. · Consultation over success criteria takes place as part of the Spring review 2001 and annually thereafter. · See Action Plan 1.1 for review timetable.	Timescale · Termly monitoring by EDP review panel. · Interim revision of all activities and success criteria for April 2001. · Full revision of all EDP priorities, activities and success criteria for April 2002.
Allocation of responsibility	· Assistant Director of Education, Educational Effectiveness and Lifelong Learning.
Success criteria	· All activity success criteria to detail specific and measurable targets stated within the EDP. · Activity success criteria to cross reference to attainment targets in other activities and to show the level of contribution towards these. · Success criteria to be clear, specific, robust and measurable. · Evaluation reports show the impact of the success criteria.
Monitoring and evaluation	· Monitoring through the EDP review panel and activity steering groups. · Evaluation through the spring meeting of the EDP review panel. · Final draft of revised EDP submitted to Select Committee.
Responsibility	· Activity Steering Groups. · EDP Review Panel. · Education and Community Development Select Committee.

(Action Plan 1.2 continued)

Resource requirement	· Activity success criteria are produced as part of the EDP review process under the same cost heading as Action Plan 1.1. Cost to the directorate came within this specified resource allocation of £4,000 for Assistant Director time and £11,988 for lead officers / service managers. · Total cost: £15,988.
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· Link to Action Plan 1.1 and through this to other Corporate, Directorate and Statutory Plans.

LEA STRATEGY FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT: ENSURE THAT SEN FUNDING IS BASED ON A MORE DIRECT MEASURE OF NEED

Key Recommendation

In order to ensure that SEN funding is based on a more direct measure of need:

· The SEN index in the formula should be reviewed before any further delegation of SEN funding.

Context

· The inspection report notes that the Council exercises good financial control and prudent management. Alongside significantly increased delegation there has been regular consultation about the school funding formula which has led to additional monies being rightly directed to primary schools. However, the LEA’s spending on SEN has increased steadily over the last few years. The report notes that the formula for allocating funds to schools includes a high level of pupil led funding (83%) with SEN funding (3.5%) based on a free school meals index. The net effect is to produce relatively little differentiation between schools of a similar size but with different needs. Thus the LEA needs to review the SEN index in the formula to achieve greater differentiation reflecting diverse school needs before any further delegation of SEN funding.

Summary of Proposed Action

· A schools / officer working group will be convened to review the SEN funding index and produce proposals for consultation with schools.

· Revisions to the SEN funding index will be implemented prior to further delegation of SEN funding.

Section 1: The LEA Strategy for School Improvement

ACTION PLAN: 1.3

KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to ensure that SEN funding is based on a more direct measure of need the SEN index in the formula should be reviewed before any further delegation of SEN funding.

Activity	· To review and revise the SEN funding index.
The purpose of the activity	· To determine an SEN funding index which is based upon a more direct measure of need prior to further delegation.
The nature of the activity	· To consider alternative criteria for the SEN funding index and produce proposals for consultation.
The target group for the activity	· All schools.
The action to be taken	· Establish draft criteria for consultation. · Convene a working group to consider the SEN funding formula drawn from officer and head teacher representation (achieved November 2000). · Produce proposals for SEN index and consult with schools. · Implement the revised SEN index. · Conduct review after 12 months to evaluate and review the effectiveness of the criteria for delegation.	Timescale · Working groups met November 2000 and produce proposals for January 2001. · January 2001 consult with schools. · April 2001 implement revised index as part of further delegation. · Establish annual review procedures.
Allocation of responsibility	· Assistant Director of Education, Educational Effectiveness and Lifelong Learning.
Success criteria	· Proposals for revised formula based upon free school meals entitlement and cognitive ability measures agreed through the working group November 2000 (achieved). · Consultation and agreed index used as the basis for full delegation of new high incidence SEN statements from April 2001. · The delegated funding achieves differentiation and enables more effective provision of SEN support as measured through the SEN monitoring and evaluation procedures and evidenced by SEN monitoring and evaluation reports. (See Action Plan 4.3.)
Monitoring and evaluation	· Monitoring by Director of Education and Community Development. · Evaluation through head teacher and governor groups. · Evaluation though the select committee as part of the overall SEN review process.
Responsibility	· Director. · Select Committee and head teacher / governor groups.

(Action Plan 1.3 continued)

Resource requirement	· Officer time on working group 5 x 1 day:	£3,333
	· Statistical / data analysis – clerical and technician time 2 x 5 days:	£4,000
	TOTAL COST:	£7,333
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· Linked to the SEN priority and activities in the EDP and relevant SEN policies and service plans. · Linked to recommendations in 4.2, 4.3.

LEA SUPPORT FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT: IMPROVING MONITORING, CHALLENGE, SUPPORT AND INTERVENTION

Key Recommendation

In order to improve monitoring, challenge, support and intervention:

· Improve the quality analysis and evaluation of all written reports to the standard set by the best.

· Ensure that the degree of challenge in target setting is consistent across all schools and appropriate emphasis is given during the target setting process to identifying realistic curricular and teaching targets.

Context

The inspection report notes that school improvement services are well led and effective in their challenge and support of schools. Provision to schools causing concern is very good and effective, as is the LEA’s and schools use and analysis of data to secure targets and improvement. Overall school improvement services provide good value for money. However, although the report notes good practice, some shortcomings are evident in the consistent quality of analysis and evaluation in written reports. Similarly not all target setting discussions, with schools, sufficiently embed the agreed numerical targets into planned change in curricular and teaching targets. The proposed action will ensure that practice becomes consistent and is raised to the level of the best examples identified by the inspectors.

Summary of Proposed Action

· Production and agreement of common writing criteria for school improvement services.

· Training in use of writing criteria for all school improvement personnel.

· Written feedback to staff, on writing quality, from the Senior Inspector’s monitoring of written reports.

· Production and agreement of common criteria for target setting discussions with schools.

· Collation of provisional school targets prior to Link Inspector meetings with schools.

· Training for Inspectors in analysis of target data and use of the discussion criteria.

· Written feedback to staff from the Senior Inspector’s monitoring of target setting reports.

· Senior Inspector to meet with relevant personnel to ensure coherent cross-service challenge/support for each school in meeting its targets.

· Procedures will be established for feedback and evaluation from schools on inspector visits. The Senior Inspector will use this information to monitor the quality of inspector contact.

Section 2: LEA Support for School Improvement

ACTION PLAN: 2.1
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to improve monitoring, challenge, support and intervention improve the quality analysis and evaluation of all written reports to the standard set by the best.
Activity	· To implement explicit criteria on which all written reports for school improvement are based. · To improve the quality of analysis and evaluation within reports on school improvement. · To ensure the respective roles and responsibilities of each service are understood in relation to reporting upon school improvement.
The purpose of the activity	· To ensure that written reporting of school improvement is clearly analytical and evaluative in its judgements. · To support schools and LEA personnel with a clearer definition of judgements in reports.
The nature of the activity	· To raise the value of written reporting to that of the highest in respect of analysis and evaluation of the school’s position.
The target group for the activity	· All services who provide written reports on schools. · In particular, Inspectors and special educational needs personnel.
The action to be taken	· Feedback from schools used to review and evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the work of the inspection team. · Agreement and definition of common criteria and proformas / formats for reports based upon the current schools inspection framework. · Training for all personnel involved in report writing. · Quality assurance and monitoring by the Senior Inspector and relevant service managers for SEN staff with regular feedback. · Procedures reviewed and modified as necessary annually in the Autumn term. · Annual report to schools and members in the Autumn term.	Timescale · November 2000 – February 2001 – common format agreed / defined. · February 2001 – June 2001 – training for staff. · Ongoing activity for monitoring and feedback · November 2001 - review. Annually thereafter.
Allocation of responsibility	· Senior Inspector.

(Action Plan 2.1 continued)

Success criteria	· Revised procedures in place and operating February – June 2001. · Greater consistency and improved quality of written reports with clearer specific targets and actions contributes to improved attainment. · Outcomes from collated reports from service areas used to procedure summary reports of targets, actions and outcomes which are disseminated to schools and members, promoting sharing of best practice.
Monitoring and evaluation	· Evaluation incorporated into EDP and service plan monitoring.
Responsibility	· Assistant Director – School Effectiveness and Lifelong Learning.
Resource requirement	· Development and agreement of writing criteria – Senior Inspector – 4 days:	£800
	· Personnel training – 5 days – for all teams:	£2,250
	· Consultation with Headteachers – normal meeting cycle:	£200
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· EDP · Inspection and Advice – service plan. · SEN service plans. · Guidance and Procedures for Schools requiring Additional Support. · Action Plan 2.2.

Section 2: LEA Support for School Improvement

ACTION PLAN: 2.2
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to improve monitoring, challenge, support and intervention ensure that the degree of challenge in target setting is consistent across all schools and appropriate emphasis is given during the target setting process to identifying realistic curricular and teaching strategies.
Activity	· To develop and implement explicit criteria on which all school target setting discussions are based. · To collate all initial school targets prior to Link Inspector visits. · To ensure that written reports of target setting visits detail the school’s intended methods of achieving the targets and identifies and agrees the support, where necessary, for curricular and teaching strategies.
The purpose of the activity	· To ensure that target setting is challenging and achieve consistency of support in achieving targets across the LEA’s school improvement services.
The nature of the activity	· Raising the standards achieved by pupils and schools.
The target group for the activity	· All services which provide challenge and support to the achievement of school targets, in particular, Inspectors and SEN personnel.
The action to be taken	· Agreement and implementation of common criteria for target setting discussions with schools and establish clear protocols for this process. · Established protocols to show clear differentiation matching the categories detailed in the schools requiring additional support policy. · Collation and analysis of all indicative / provisional school targets prior to Autumn target setting discussions. · Training for all personnel involved in target setting discussions (inspectors, SEN staff). · Monitoring by the Senior Inspector of target setting in written reports and feedback to staff. · Senior Inspector and relevant personnel agree coherent challenge / support for each school.	Timescale · November 2000. · November – annually. · November 2000 – February 2001. · Ongoing activity. · January 2001 – annual review of schools.
Allocation of responsibility	· Senior Inspector.

(Action Plan 2.2 continued)

Success criteria	· Consistency of target setting information and visits / discussions with schools. · Improved quality of written visit reports. Higher perceived value by schools. Consultation to obtain schools’ view of report and visit to show improvement. · Higher proportion of schools meeting or exceeding targets through the raising of pupil standards. · Outcomes of reports collated and disseminated to schools and members.
Monitoring and evaluation	· Evaluation incorporated into EDP and service plan monitoring.
Responsibility	· Assistant Director – School Effectiveness and Lifelong Learning.
Resource requirement	· Development and agreement of visit criteria – Senior Inspector – 2 days:	£400
	· Personnel training – 5 days – for all teams:	£2,250
	· Consultation with Headteachers:	£200
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· EDP · Inspection and advice – service plan. · Guidance and Procedures for Schools Requiring Additional Support. · Action Plan 2.1

LEA SUPPORT FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT – LEA GOVERNOR VACANCIES

Key Recommendation

In order to improve support for governors, act swiftly to fill outstanding LEA governor vacancies.

Context

At the time of the OFSTED Inspection, there were two longstanding LEA governor vacancies in Island schools (from a total of 210 LEA governors). Appointments have since been made in both cases. Longstanding vacancies are atypical, although that is not to minimise the recommendation.

Formal procedures for LEA governor appointments were fully revised in 1997 to allow a maximum 6-week period for nominations to be received from elected members, and amended in 1999. The amendment created a reserve list of people prepared to serve as school governors where no nominations are received from elected members. The list is compiled from recruitment campaigns for school governors, which include briefing meetings for interested persons. Candidates are placed on the list after a meeting with the portfolio holder for Education and Lifelong Learning and attendance at a governors meeting as an observer. Where no nominations are received, a candidate(s) is put forward by the portfolio holder for Education and Lifelong Learning as appropriate. For the two vacancies noted by the inspectors, repeated reference to councillors for nominations had been unsuccessful, and there were no candidates on the reserve list living near the two schools in question.

We believe the current procedures are basically sound and work well, given reinforcement with elected members and periodic advertisement and recruitment to the reserve list. It should also be noted that, under the modernising agenda, appointments are now made by the Executive, which meets weekly. This in itself will speed up the appointments process compared to the less frequent timetable of the former Education Committee.

Summary of Proposed Action

· Re-publicise and reinforce the appointments procedure with councillors.

· Publicise the procedure with schools and others so that suitable persons can be brought to the attention of councillors.

· Advertise regularly and recruit to the reserve list of candidates.

· Annual report to the Select Committee on governor vacancies.

Section 2: LEA Support for School Improvement

ACTION PLAN: 2.3
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to improve support for governors act swiftly to fill outstanding LEA governor vacancies.
Activity	· To reinforce and embed existing LEA procedures for the efficient nomination and appointment of LEA governors.
The purpose of the activity	· To ensure an efficient stream of nominations for LEA governor vacancies.
The nature of the activity	· Publicising LEA governorships and appointments procedures.
The target group for the activity	· County Councillors, schools and public.
The action to be taken	· Re-issue appointments procedure to all Councillors (achieved). · Issue appointments procedure to schools and advise schools to refer potential candidates to elected members (achieved). · Publicise reserve list of candidates and invite applications from interested persons. · Annual report to the Select Committee on the status of governing vacancies.	Timescale · December 2000 · December 2000 · Annually · Annually – Autumn term.
Allocation of responsibility	· Education Officer (Staffing & Governor Support).
Success criteria	· All LEA governor appointments made within a maximum period of 3 months from the date of a vacancy. · Increase in the number of nominations through elected members.
Monitoring and evaluation	· Director of Education and Community Development. · Select Committee for Education and Community Development.
Responsibility	· Assistant Director – Planning and Resources.
Resource requirement	· Time prioritisation by Education Officer (governor support) 6 days:		£933
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· EDP Activity 6.6 · Governor Support Service Plan 2001/02.

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT:

IMPROVING STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

Key Recommendation

In order to improve strategic management:

· Accelerate the rate of progress on the production of corporate plans and establish former links with the best value processes.

· Engage members fully in policy development and scrutiny.

· Improve the coherence of various plans produced by the Directorate.

· Record the results of consultation more formally.

Context

The inspection report notes that “Strategic planning on a corporate basis is under-developed and until recently has been given insufficient attention and resources” (paragraph 74). There is also criticism of the pace of progress in formulating a corporate plan and the need for firmer links with the Best Value processes. The report also notes the lack of clear political leadership has restricted progress (paragraph 74).

The inspectors also reported that members are not involved early enough in the process of decision making and policy formulation although they are well informed and given timely advice. The report notes the progress made on the Directorate’s draft Strategic Plan but that more needs to be done to achieve coherence between various plans and record the outcomes of consultation more formally.

Over the past year the Directorate has produced a suite of 21 service plans, linked to the draft strategic plan, which will all be implemented following consultation in April 2001.

The report requires the LEA to co-ordinate the revision of these plans to achieve greater coherence, as well as to report consultation outcomes more formally. At a corporate level greater urgency is required in establishing corporate plans and the increased engagement of members in the development and scrutiny of policy.

Summary of Proposed Action

· Achieve a consistent approach to service plans across all Council services.

· Develop objectives for the Council for 2000 - 2002, include these in future Best Value Performance Plans.

· Establish a local strategic partnership and work plan to create a community strategy.

· Create the Island’s Community Strategy.

· Re-assess Council objectives with reference to the Community Strategy.

· Finalise the Council’s corporate strategy.

· Executive portfolio holders and select committees to consider the creation of corporate objectives.

· Member workshops to develop service and community planning.

· Members involved in the local Strategic Partnership.

· Select committee to utilise service plans as part of their scrutiny role.

· Executive portfolio holders to use service plans in their policy development role.

· Complete the revision of the Education and Community Development draft Strategic Plan.

· Complete the review and revision of the Directorate Service Plans.

· Complete the review and revision of all Statutory Plans.

· Ensure that all participants in formal consultations are informed of the outcomes.

· Ensure that all participants and discussion groups where consultation occurs are informed of the outcomes.

Section 3: Strategic Management

ACTION PLAN: 3.1
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to improve strategic management accelerate the rate of progress on the production of corporate plans and establish firmer links with the Best Value processes.
Activity	· The production of corporate plans and establishment of firmer links with the Best Value processes.
The purpose of the activity	· To improve strategic management.
The nature of the activity	· Establishing and developing the Authority’s corporate planning process so that it consists of consistent service plans across all Directorates (annual), an Island wide community strategy (a vision for 10 - 15 years ahead) and a Council wide or corporate strategy (for 4 years). · Ensuring that the service and corporate plans drive future service reviews and reflect the outcomes (actions and performance indicators) of past reviews.
The target group for the activity	· Directors, Directorate Management Teams, Service managers and teams undertaking fundamental service reviews.
The action to be taken	· Implement a consistent approach to service plans across all Council services. · Draw up a strategy to ensure a consistent approach to all service plans and feedback any areas of inconsistency; with special reference to target setting. · Define objectives for the Council for the period 2000 - 2002, include these in future Best Value Performance Plans (BVPP’s) and to guide forthcoming fundamental service reviews. · Establish a Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) and work plan to create a community strategy. · Create the Island’s Community strategy. · Re-assess Council objectives and in light of the Community strategy and finalise the Council’s corporate strategy and show on a planning matrix.	Timescale · By May 2001 Re assess Summer 2001 · November 2000 - February 2001 · November 2000 – May 2001 · May 2001 - May 2002 · May - July 2002
Allocation of responsibility	· All Directors, Corporate Policy Team. · All Directors, Elected members, Corporate Policy Team. · Corporate Policy Team. · Local Strategic partnership. · Elected members & Directors.

(Action Plan 3.1 continued)

Success criteria	· Service plans in place for all Council functions by May 2001 and differences between Directorate formats eliminated and key stakeholders report on the consistency across Council plans by May 2002. · Objectives agreed by Council for inclusion in the 2001 BVPP for April 2001. · Local strategic partnership and work plan approved by Council by May 2001. · Draft Community strategy in place by May 2002. · Council Strategy adopted and local authority targets are met.
Monitoring and evaluation	· All Directors, elected members, external audit. · All Directors, elected members, external audit. · Members of the partnership, the partners, the public, elected members. · The public, the LSP, the partners, elected members. · Elected members, Directors.
Responsibility	· Chief Executive of the Council and CMT.
Resource requirement	· Establishment of the LSP requires resourcing for external consultancy and from the corporate policy team. The community strategy will require resources from partners. · Total costs £50,000 (approx.)
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· The service plans being prepared and planned community strategy will inform and influence all future statutory and non statutory plans prepared by Directorates (such as the Education Development Plan). · The Community strategy will carry forward the current LA21 strategy and the UDP. · The Council’s corporate strategy will be linked to a medium term financial strategy that will guide future resource decisions. · Future Best Value Performance Plans will show how the Council is attempting to meet the emerging corporate objectives, performance against these and how functions are contributing towards the achievements of island wide themes in the community strategy thus informing the public more clearly about how the Council is spending their money. · Directorate Plans will increasingly show how Directorate groupings of services will pick up themes from corporate and community plans.

Section 3: Strategic Management

ACTION PLAN: 3.2
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to improve strategic management engage Members fully in policy development and scrutiny.
Activity	· Engaging Members in policy development and scrutiny.
The purpose of the activity	· To improve strategic management.
The nature of the activity	· Developing the role of elected members in creating service, corporate and community plans that provide a framework for their democratic decision making and assist them monitor and review the performance of individual services.
The target group for the activity	· Elected members.
The action to be taken	· Executive portfolio holders and select committees to consider the creation of corporate objectives. · Collate local authority objectives and targets and circulate to senior staff and elected members. · Member workshop held to establish the approach to service / community planning and requirements. · Members to be part of the Local Strategic Partnership creating the island wide or community strategy. · Select Committees to use service plans in their scrutiny role. · Executive portfolio holders to use service plans in their policy development role. · Establish ongoing member workshop programme to review policy development and match to changing objectives, priorities and targets.	Timescale · By January 2001 · By January 2001 · By May 2001 · From May 2001 · From May 2001
Allocation of responsibility	· Directors and Head of Corporate Policy. · Head of Corporate Policy . · Head of Select Committee Support & Head of Corporate Policy. · Head of Corporate Policy.

(Action Plan 3.2 continued)

Success criteria	· Objectives agreed by Council for inclusion in the 2001 BVPP for April 2001. · Workshop held. · Members participating in LSP. · Select Committee agendas and minutes to show the use of service plans in directing their work. · Executive agendas and minutes to show the use of service plans in directing their work.
Monitoring and evaluation	· Head of Corporate Policy · Head of Select Committee Support
Responsibility	· Chief Executive of the Council and CMT.
Resource requirement	· Workshop = £2,500 · Select / Executive Committee Support = £65,000
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· The development of corporate objectives and service plans that meet members information requirements are crucial to the establishment of a corporate planning and performance management process for the Authority. This was identified as a fundamental requirement during the audit of the Council’s 2000 BVPP. · Corporate objectives will provide the framework for all future fundamental service reviews and service plans will, ultimately, show how the results of such reviews are to e implemented and by whom. · The active involvement of elected members in the LSP that will create the Island wide community strategy is the key to establishing the Council’s community leadership role in accord with the Government’s ‘Modernising Agenda’. · The availability of consistent service plans and clear corporate objectives for the use of Select Committees, individual portfolio holders and the Executive as a group provides them with information to fulfil their performance monitoring, policy development, service review, resource allocation and local community roles. This will improve the transparency of the Council’s operations.

Section 3: Strategic Management

ACTION PLAN: 3.3
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to improve strategic management improve the coherence of various plans produced by the Directorate.
Activity	· To involve and co-ordinate the work of Senior Managers to improve the coherence of Directorate Plans. · To achieve this through the Senior Managers Group.
The purpose of the activity	· To improve the quality and coherence of Directorate Plans.
The nature of the activity	· Dissemination of information and the use of common procedures to improve the coherence of Directorate Plans.
The target group for the activity	· Senior Managers responsible for Directorate Service and Statutory Plans.
The action to be taken	· Establish protocol to audit and analyse progress, revise targets and define actions for directorate plans. · To complete the revision of the draft Strategic Plan following consultation. · To complete the review and revision of the Directorate Service Plans with reference to corporate Planning Procedures. · To complete the review and revision of all Statutory Plans within the relevant timescales. · Produce composite planning matrix to show all directorate targets.	Timescale · By April 2001. · Strategic Plan to be reviewed and revised April 2001. · All Service Plans to be reviewed and revised April 2001. · All Statutory Plans to be reviewed and revised as required. · Corporate matrix produced by November 2001.
Allocation of responsibility	· Strategic Plan – Director of Education and Community Development. · Statutory and Service Plans – Assistant Directors within their areas of responsibility.
Success criteria	· Revised strategic and service plans in place for April 2001. · Service Plans produced within common corporate framework and utilised for Select Committee discussions / recommendations. · Strategic Plan and Service / Statutory Plans detail linkages between plans and detail contributions to targets for attainment and service provision. · Reviews and re-drafting of Directorate plans achieved as specified by the Directorate and Council Strategic Plan within the annual timetable completed by April each year.

(Action Plan 3.3 continued)

Monitoring and evaluation	· Monitoring to be undertaken through the SMT Group and the senior managers group. · Evaluation of plans and coherence between plans to be undertaken by steering groups and relevant plan review panels as appropriate. · Strategic Plan and Statutory Plans to be presented to the Select Committee for Education and Community Development or Executive Committee as appropriate.
Responsibility	· SMT and Senior Managers Group. · Steering Groups as appropriate. · Select / Executive Committees as appropriate.
Resource requirement	· Training for service managers to produce plans within Council template 16 x 1 day:	£2,133
	· Review and production of Strategic Plan Services Officer and clerical support:	£2,115
	· Review and production of Directorate Service Plan – 16 service managers x 3 days:	£7,466
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· Link to Actions 1.1 and 1.2. · Link to EDP; Strategic Plan; all Service Plans.

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT: EFFICIENCY OF SERVICES DELEGATED TO SCHOOLS

Key Recommendation

In order to ensure LEA-provided management services to schools remain good value for money, establish procedures for reviewing performance and cost-effectiveness of services in collaboration with schools.

Context

Almost all management services to schools are delegated. These total 11 in number. The majority (8 services) were delegated in April 2000 under Fair Funding.

All delegated services are available for buy-back by way of service level agreements. These set out the nature, quality standards and performance targets for the services provided, and their cost to schools. For 2000/01, every service has been bought back by every school except for one service in one school.

The inspection found that LEA services “are good value for money and highly valued by schools”. All service level agreements have helpline and contact numbers, and most service managers and service officers are known personally to heads, governors and other school staff. At the same time, there are few alternative service providers in the Island and a consequent challenge for service managers to retain a competitive edge and responsiveness to schools in an environment which is largely non-competitive.

The directorate will develop annual questionnaire surveys of schools, on a common format for all services, to test service standards and offer formal opportunity for feedback and comment from schools. Services will be involved in Best Value reviews, which can be expected to involve customer consultation and performance benchmarking. There is a balance to be struck between profitable levels of participation by schools in service review and development, and overburdening schools with demands for comment and feedback.

Summary of Proposed Action

· Improve information to schools on service performance.

· Formalise annual review questionnaires for schools on delegated services.

· Establish a system of annual reports from services to include service performance and benchmarking where possible.

· Implement a pattern of feedback and review meetings.

· Provide training for relevant service staff on customer contacts and approaches to “customer care”.

Section 3: Strategic Management

ACTION PLAN: 3.4
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to ensure LEA-provided management services to schools remain good value for money establish procedures for reviewing the performance and cost-effectiveness of services in collaboration with schools.
Activity	· Maintain and improve the quality and fitness for purpose of Council services for schools.
The purpose of the activity	· To provide efficient and responsive services.
The nature of the activity	· Establish mechanisms for school participation in service review and development. · Train staff in ‘customer care’ techniques.
The target group for the activity	· All relevant Council service managers and staff.
The action to be taken	· Improve documentation for schools to show which services are centrally retained and costs. · Provide information to schools on a service by service basis to assist value for money judgements. · Develop and implement annual questionnaire surveys of schools. · Establish annual reports to schools from service managers. · Implement review and feedback mechanisms as appropriate, e.g. service managers attend scheduled Headteacher meetings. · Provide staff training in customer care.	Timescale · February 2001 · March 2001 · March 2001 · On-going
Allocation of responsibility	· Service managers (across the Council) initiated by Assistant Director Planning & Resources.
Success criteria	· School satisfaction with services provided as measured by data from questionnaires and consultations. Minimum standard 90% satisfaction level.
Monitoring and evaluation	· Questionnaire surveys and consultation mechanisms. · Benchmarking/Best Value data on service provision. · Absence of complaints by schools. · 90% + satisfaction levels.
Responsibility	· Assistant Director – Planning and Resources.
Resource requirement	· Finance Officer, service managers and clerical support = £12,680
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· EDP Priorities 6.2, 6.5 and 6.6 · Strategic Plan 2001-04 Objectives 39 and 41. · Service Plans.

SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS: IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF SEN SUPPORT FOR SCHOOLS

Key Recommendation

· Comply fully with the statutory requirements to initiate annual reviews (see additional paper page 27).

· Ensure that the planned programme for consultation, development and implementation of a clear strategy for SEN proceeds according to the set timescale.

· Ensure that the strategy:

- is clearly communicated and understood by LEA personnel, school staff and governors;

- includes effective procedures for the monitoring of SEN provision;

- has robust systems and structures for evaluating the progress made by SEN pupils and for making judgements about value for money.

· Improve the links and coherence between the separate SEN service plans and policy documentation.

Context

The inspection found that ‘overall the provision for special education needs (SEN) is unsatisfactory (paragraph 90) but that SEN provision and services were in transition and that action was already being taken to remedy weaknesses.

The LEA is currently engaged in a comprehensive review of SEN provision involving an extensive two stage consultation process initiated prior to inspection with the assistance of an external consultancy. The report notes that the LEA is working towards a more coherent strategy and that a management review in September 1999 gave a clearer and coherent structure to the management of SEN services (paragraph 91).

The inspection found that “overall, the support given to schools by SEN services is satisfactory” (paragraph 94), but that “although work has started on updating many of the LEA policies and working documents the information is diffuse and not comprehensively laid out for ease of reference and understanding” (paragraph 96).

The report also notes at the time of inspection the absence of monitoring and evaluation procedures meant the LEA had no effective means of judging whether services provided value for money.

An analysis of the criticisms with the inspection report highlights a need for the LEA to address:

· Full compliance with the statutory requirement to initiate annual reviews.

· Ensure implementation of the SEN strategy.

· Ensure the strategy is fully understood by all the interested parties.

· Ensure that the SEN strategy includes effective monitoring and evaluation procedures for service provision and the progress of pupils with SEN.

· Improvement of the coherence between separate SEN service planned policy documentation.

Summary of Proposed Action

· Maintain compliance of LEA initiation of the annual review process.

· Incorporate into current procedures any such provisions as may be introduced by the new SEN code of practice.

· Evaluate the content of annual reviews.

· Ensure that the programme for consultation, development and implementation of the revised SEN strategy is achieved within the set timescale.

· Ensure that the SEN strategy is understood by all key parties.

· Ensure that effective procedures for the monitoring and evaluation of SEN provision and the progress of individual pupils are established to facilitate clean judgements on value for money.

· Establish a clear procedure and timetable for the coherent review and revision of SEN service plans and policy documentation.

· Establish annual SEN training programme.

SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS: ANNUAL REVIEWS OF SEN STATEMENTS

Key Recommendation

In order to improve the quality of SEN support for schools, comply fully with the statutory requirements to initiate annual reviews.

Context

At the time of the inspection, the LEA had not complied fully with the statutory requirements as to the initiation of annual reviews of statements. Specifically, schools and parents had not been notified routinely of impending reviews. Reviews took place correctly, but were, by and large, initiated independently by schools. Current regulations require the LEA to provide schools with a list of all pupils to whom review will apply in the following academic year, together with in-year follow-up notes to schools and parents at least 11 weeks before the date of each individual review.

Nevertheless, comprehensive manuals of guidance, separately for primary and middle schools and for high schools, were drawn up in 1999, supported by training for heads and/or SENCOs. These contain, inter alia, standardised templates of letters from schools to parents and other review attendees, review reports and recommendations arising from review. The review process is now formalised and consistent across all schools. Alongside this, and extending into the current year (2000), the SEN administration section has been re-organised and expanded. Considerable work has been undertaken by a seconded IT specialist to embed the full range of data bases within the Capita/EMS SEN computer module. From June 2000, LEA initiation of annual reviews was fully operational. Annual lists were supplied to schools in June, making use of the IT database, and monthly notifications are now made of impending reviews at least 11 weeks in advance of each individual review, including letters to parents.

Some refinement of current practice may be necessary if the simplified procedures for annual review and other statementing issues proposed in the draft SEN Code of Practice are implemented in 2001. There may be a need to re-evaluate the content of some annual reviews, and particularly the timing of the annual review at which consideration is given to the transfer of a pupil from one school sector to the next, to align the review timetable more closely with the normal annual admissions cycle for schools.

Summary of Proposed Action

· Maintain the compliance, which has now been achieved, of LEA initiation of the annual review process.

· Incorporate into current procedures any such provisions as may be introduced when the draft SEN Code of Practice is implemented.

· Evaluate the content of annual reviews and particularly the review at which pupil transfer from one school sector to the next is considered.

Section 4: Special Education Needs

ACTION PLAN: 4.1
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to improve the quality of SEN support for schools comply fully with the statutory requirements to initiate annual reviews.
Activity	· To ensure compliance with statutory procedures on statementing, particularly annual reviews, and including proposals in the draft SEN Code of Practice.
The purpose of the activity	· To ensure that statemented pupils receive their full educational entitlement and avoid complaint by schools and/or parents.
The nature of the activity	· To maintain SEN data base and SEN records · To maintain efficiency in statementing and annual review procedures.
The target group for the activity	· SEN Administration Section · Other LEA SEN staff · Schools
The action to be taken	· Restructure SEN section to ensure that records are maintained and administrative efficiency secured (achieved). · Review current statementing procedures when revised Code of Practice is published. · Evaluate the content of annual reviews, with particular reference to timing of the review at which school transfer is considered. · Establish monitoring and review process of LEA work in this area and report to the Select Committee on effectiveness and efficiency as part of the annual SEN report.	Timescale · December 2000 · February 2001 · February 2001 · December 2001 and annually thereafter
Allocation of responsibility	· Education Officer (SEN Administration).
Success criteria	· Annual reviews within statutory timescale. · LEA decisions after reviews published on time. · Absence of complaints by schools and/or parents about the statementing process. · LEA informs schools of review timetable.
Monitoring and evaluation	· Via monitoring reports from SEN database. · Records of complaints from schools/parents. · Service report to Select Committee.
Responsibility	· Assistant Director – Planning and Resources.

(Action Plan 4.1 continued)

Resource requirement	· Enhanced staffing for SEN section for data and record keeping. 1 FTE clerical officer and support:	£21,000 pa
	· Time prioritisation for Education Officer (SEN) to monitor. 10% time allocation:	£3,100
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· EDP Activity 4.2. · Strategic Plan Objectives 34 and 35. · SEN Service Plan.

Section 4: Special Education Needs

ACTION PLAN: 4.2
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to improve the quality of SEN support for schools ensure that the planned programme for consultation, development and implementation of a clear strategy for SEN proceeds according to the set timescale.
Activity	· To ensure the achievement of the programme for consultation, development and implementation of a clear strategy for SEN within the set timescale.
The purpose of the activity	· To ensure that a clear SEN strategy is developed, agreed and implemented.
The nature of the activity	· A two stage consultation process resulting in a clear strategy for SEN provision with effect from April 2001.
The target group for the activity	· All parties and individuals with an interest or concern for SEN provision.
The action to be taken	· Formative (first stage) consultation with all interested parties concluded 30 November 2000 (achieved). · Plan for SEN provision and strategy drawn up in December 2000 (achieved). · Formal (second stage) consultation on this plan January and February 2000. · Final plan produced taking account of the formal consultation March 2001 and presented to the Select Committee. · Inform schools of revised service. · Implementation starts April 2001. · Initial review of SEN provision in April 2002; report to Select Committee and schools annually thereafter.	Timescale · Formative consultation (first stage) September – November 2000. · Plan produced December 2000. · Formal consultation (second stage) January / February 2001. · Final plan submitted to select committee and published March 2001. · Implementation April 2001. · Report to Select Committee and schools April 2002 and annually thereafter.
Allocation of responsibility	· Assistant Director of Education, Educational Effectiveness and Lifelong Learning and Principal Education Officer (SEN).
Success criteria	· Consultation, development and implementation timetable achieved. · Implementation commences April 2001. · Coherent and clear strategy for SEN provision is established for April 2001.

(Action Plan 4.2 continued)

Monitoring and evaluation	· Monitoring and evaluation of the process by the Director of Education and Community Development. · Evaluation of the process and procedures by the Select Committee for Education and Community Development and head teacher / governor groups.
Responsibility	· Director of Education and Community Development. · Select Committee for Education and Community Development.
Resource requirement	· Officer time allocation: - Director - Assistant Director - Principal Officer SEN	£7,500 £11,600 £36,000 £55,100
	· Clerical administrative support	£8,500
	· Consultation costs: - Professional conferences - Stakeholder groups	£2,800 £3,800
	· SEN consultancy	£1,500
	TOTAL COST:	£71,700
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· Linkages to the EDP, all SEN policies and plans and other plans as appropriate, e.g. Social Services, Health Authority. · Linkages to recommendations 1.1; 1.2; 1.3; 3.3; 3.4; 4.3; 5.2; 5.3.

Section 4: Special Education Needs

ACTION PLAN: 4.3
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to improve the quality of SEN support for schools ensure that the strategy: is clearly communicated and understood by LEA personnel, school staff and governors; includes effective procedures for the monitoring of SEN provision; has robust systems and structures for evaluating the progress made by SEN pupils and for making judgements about value for money.
Activity	· To ensure that the SEN strategy is understood by all key parties. · To ensure that the SEN strategy includes effective procedures for monitoring and evaluating SEN provision, progress made by pupils and value for money.
The purpose of the activity	· To facilitate the implementation of the SEN strategy and ensure effective monitoring and evaluation of provision. · To improve the quality of SEN support to schools.
The nature of the activity	· Implementation of the strategy and policies resulting from the SEN consultation and review.
The target group for the activity	· All parties with interests in SEN provision: LEA personnel, school staff, governors, elected members, parents and pupils.
The action to be taken	· Following formal consultation the SEN strategy to be clearly communicated to all parties (see action 4.2). · Publish for consultation procedures for monitoring and evaluating SEN (achieved). · Consult on SEN monitoring and evaluation procedures. · Establish ‘pilot cluster’ for SEN monitoring and evaluation. · Review and revise monitoring and evaluation procedures to the light of the pilot. · Implement full monitoring and evaluation procedures. · Establish training programme for school staff, governors and LEA staff from April 2001. · Publish annual training programme thereafter.	Timescale · SEN strategy consulted upon and implemented April 2001. · SEN monitoring procedures published and consulted upon Autumn 2000. · ‘Pilot cluster’ established Spring 2001 and renewed / revised Summer 2001. · Full implementation of SEN monitoring and evaluation procedures September 2001. · Establish training programme from April 2001 and publish annually thereafter.
Allocation of responsibility	· Principal Education Officer (SEN).

(Action Plan 4.3 continued)

Success criteria	· Successful consultation and implementation of SEN strategy for April 2001. · Successful consultation and implementation of SEN monitoring evaluation procedures for September 2001. · Acquisition of information to facilitate effective monitoring and evaluation of SEN leading to improvement in the quality of the service and support to schools. · Feedback to schools identifies areas for development and strategies for improvement of SEN provision in schools and SEN support services. · Link inspection and OfSTED inspections show improvement in SEN provision / attainment in schools.
Monitoring and evaluation	· Monitoring by Assistant Director and Principal Education Officer SEN. · Evaluation through schools groups – head teacher and governor groups. · Overall evaluation by Education and Community Development Select Committee.
Responsibility	· Principal Education Officer (SEN).
Resource requirement	· Officer time to develop and implement procedures within that allocation under Action Plan 4.2.
	- Assistant Director - Principal Officer (SEN) - Consultation costs - Pilot costs - Implementation costs annually	£733 £2,400 £1,200 £8,600 £28,000 (approx)
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· Linkages to EDP and existing SEN policies and activities. · Linkages to key recommendations: 1.1; 1.2; 3.2; 3.3; 3.4; 3.5; 4.2.

Section 4: Special Education Needs

ACTION PLAN: 4.3 (continued)
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to improve the quality of SEN support for schools improve the links and coherence between the separate SEN service plans and policy documentation.
Activity	· Implement procedures for the regular review and revision of SEN service plans and policies. · Establish collection and referencing system for all service plans and policy documentation.
The purpose of the activity	· To establish comprehensive review, revision and referencing system for service plans and policies.
The nature of the activity	· Documentation review, revision and referencing.
The target group for the activity	· Officer and Steering Groups with responsibility for service plans and policies.
The action to be taken	· Establish and publish review timetable for all service plans and policy documentation. · Establish referencing and access system for documentation and disseminate to schools, elected members and interested parties. · Co-ordinate revision procedures for SEN documentation with corporate, directorate and other plan revisions.	Timescale · April 2001 strategic plan and service plans reviewed and revised. · April 2001 referencing and access system established. · September 2001 referencing and access system disseminated to schools and elected members.
Allocation of responsibility	· Principal Education Officer – SEN.
Success criteria	· Strategic plan and service plans reviewed and revised April 2001. · Referencing and access system established April 2001. · Reference system disseminated September 2001. · Regular review and revision timetable established from April 2001. · Shared and contributory targets identified for cross-referencing.
Monitoring and evaluation	· Monitoring by Assistant Director of Education, Educational Effectiveness and Lifelong Learning. · Evaluation by Director of Education and Community Development, Head teacher / Governor groups and Select Committee.
Responsibility	· Monitoring: Assistant Director. · Evaluation: Director, schools and Select Committee.
Resource requirement	· Officer time allocation: £4,778
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· Linkages to key recommendation actions 1.1; 1.2; 3.3; 3.4; 4.2; 5.2 and 5.3.

ACCESS: REVIEW THE NEED FOR AN ADMISSIONS FORUM

Key Recommendation

In order to ensure that stakeholders are represented appropriately in the admissions process, keep the need for an Admissions Forum under review.

Context

The (then) Education Committee decided in September 1999 not to establish an Admissions Forum for the Isle of Wight. Admissions forums are recommended by the DfEE but are not mandatory.

A local forum was not proceeded with because:

· There is a single school system in the Island with admission at the ages of 4, 9 and 13 years, and a co-ordinated system of admissions arrangements across all local schools including voluntary aided schools. Co-ordinated arrangements have come about because of the history of close liaison amongst Island admissions authorities, including the two local dioceses.

· There is little or no cross-border movement of pupils and hence liaison with mainland admissions authorities.

· There is annual, statutory consultation on admissions policies and admissions numbers between the LEA and all school governing bodies, community, controlled and aided i.e. consultation amongst the primary bodies represented on an admissions forum.

· As a non decision-making body, an admissions forum could not resolve any dissension between local admissions authorities. That is the role of the Adjudicator.

There has been no local demand for an admissions forum from those who would be represented thereon, nor have there been admissions issues in recent years that would have benefited from informal discussion or conciliation.

Nevertheless, circumstances and pressures change over time and the recommendation for periodic review of the need for an admissions forum is understood and accepted.

Summary of Proposed Action

· Consult with stakeholders and review with the Education Lifelong Learning and Community Development Select Committee every two years or, within that period, should an immediate need for an Admissions Forum become apparent.

Section 5: Access

ACTION PLAN: 5.1
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to ensure that stakeholders are represented appropriately in the admissions process keep the need for an admissions forum under review.
Activity	· To review the current decision not to set up a local Admissions Forum.
The purpose of the activity	· To decide policy stance on the need for a Forum.
The nature of the activity	· Consultation with stakeholders and report to Education Lifelong Learning and Community Development Select Committee.
The target group for the activity	· Elected Members, schools, dioceses.
The action to be taken	· Consult stakeholders (schools, dioceses) bi-annually on the need for a forum. · Report to Executive Committee on the outcome with appropriate recommendation; bi-annually. · Shorter timescale for above if clear review imperative should arise.	Timescale · September 2001 and on-going. · September 2001 and on-going.
Allocation of responsibility	· Assistant Director (Planning & Resources).
Success criteria	· Agreement amongst stakeholders and agreed recommendation to Select Committee on the future of an Island Admissions Forum.
Monitoring and evaluation	· By reference to the emergence, or not, of significant admissions issues against which to judge the need for an Admissions Forum.
Responsibility	· Director of Education and Community Development.
Resource requirement	· Time prioritisation by Assistant Director: £680
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· Client Services Plan 2001/02.

ACCESS IMPROVING PROVISION FOR CHILDREN EDUCATED OTHERWISE

Key Recommendation

In order to improve its provision for children educated otherwise:

· Improve and increase the quality and quantity of LEA educational provision for pupils who are not in school.

· Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of LEA support for these pupils.

Context

The inspection report notes that, at the time of the inspection, the provision for Children Educated Otherwise than at School (EOTAS) was too variable (paragraph 109). The report acknowledges that the LEA recognised that improvements were necessary and that from September 2000 provision for these children would be changing.

In September 200 two tuition centres opened with permanent staffing providing for pupils who are unable to attend school, including those permanently excluded. The report highlights the need for the LEA to implement procedures to monitor pupil performance and evaluate the quality of provision. Actions described and detailed in sections 5.2 and 5.3 address these issues and those raised with reference to children educated by their parents.

Summary of Proposed Action

· Establish two tuition centres for pupils not attending school.

· Establish referral systems for the centres.

· Establish management systems for the centres and the monitoring of pupil progress and performance.

· Identify LEA staff to undertake the monitoring of pupils educated by their parents.

· Meet and consult with representative parent groups for children educated by their parents.

· Establish a monitoring schedule and timetable for pupils educated by their parents.

· Ensure that individual pupil reports are rigorous and evidence on work completed and progress achieved.

Section 5: Access

ACTION PLAN: 5.2
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to improve its provision for children educated otherwise improve and increase the quality and quantity of LEA educational provision for pupils who are not in school.
Activity	· To improve provision for children educated otherwise than at school.
The purpose of the activity	· To increase the quality and quantity of provision for pupils who are unable to attend school.
The nature of the activity	· To develop a coherent service structure for children educated otherwise than at school.
The target group for the activity	· Tuition Support Team. · Children not attending school.
The action to be taken	· Establish quality standards for provision and performance targets. · Appoint permanent members of staff. · Set up referral process. · Establish a management committee and its role in monitoring and quality assurance. · Produce a monthly printout on provision to assist monitoring. · Establish baseline assessment procedures for pupils to measure attainments over time.	Timescale · By April 2001 · September 2000 (completed) · September 2000 (completed) · November 2000 (completed) · November 2000 (completed) · December 2000
Allocation of responsibility	· Principal Education Officer (SEN) · Teachers in charge
Success criteria	· Staff appointed. · Referral system and referral panel in place. · Management committee established. · Monthly data sheets produced. · Pupil progress documents available. · 25 hours minimum tuition for permanently excluded pupils not in school by April 2002. · Regular analysis of provision for children in terms of quantity and quality. · Monitor and evaluate against quality assurance requirements and targets.

(Action Plan 5.2 continued)

Monitoring and evaluation	· Parent satisfaction survey established. · Review through inspectorate. · Survey of mainstream schools who have had pupils in attendance. · Evidence of pupil attendance related to Best Value indicators. · Evidence of individual pupil progress.
Responsibility	· Assistant Director – Educational Effectiveness and Lifelong Learning. · Management Committee.
Resource requirement	· Additional resources for pupils with statements of SEN – transferred from SEN budget pro rata. · Cost of KS1 / 2 and KS3 / 4 Tuition Centres; reallocated from home tuition budget from September 2000 = £145,108 (full year cost).
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· SEN priorities in the EDP. · Student Behaviour and Welfare Support Development Plan. · Best Value Performance Review. · SEN Service Plans. · Strategic Plan.

Section 5: Access

ACTION PLAN: 5.3
KEY RECOMMENDATION: In order to improve its provision for children educated otherwise monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of LEA support for these pupils.
Activity	· To improve the process of monitoring and evaluation of pupils educated otherwise.
The purpose of the activity	· To improve the process of monitoring. · To improve the quality of monitoring. · To evaluate effectiveness.
The nature of the activity	· To develop a systemic process of monitoring and evaluation.
The target group for the activity	· Tuition Support Team.
The action to be taken	· Establish quality assurance protocol based upon reports and actions following visits. Publish for parents and elected members. · Teacher in charge of tuition centre to undertake a monitoring role for pupils educated by their parents (achieved). · Meet and consult with representative parent groups (achieved). · To establish a schedule of monitoring in accordance with the LEA’s position paper. · Ensure individual pupil reports are rigorous and based upon evidence of work completed and progress achieved.	Timescale · By November 2000 · November 2000 · December 2000 · January 2001 · January 2001
Allocation of responsibility	· Principal Education Officer (SEN). · Teacher in charge of tuition centre.
Success criteria	· Key staff members undertaking activities as outlined. · Parents groups consulted. · Timetable of visits established and implemented. · Pupil reports available with evidence of progress included. · Annual report on provision and evaluation of pupil progress.
Monitoring and evaluation	· Record of visits included on a data system. · Feedback from parent groups. · Reports to management committee. · Review through inspectorate.

(Action Plan 5.3 continued)

Responsibility	· Assistant Director Educational Effectiveness and Lifelong Learning.
Resource requirement	· 80 days costed time of teacher in charge of tuition centre:	£13,733
Links to other priorities, activities and plans	· EDP priority 4.6. · Student Behaviour and Welfare Support Development Plan. · SEN Service Plans.

---

[1] Please indicate if this function has been evaluated either by the LEA or commissioned by the LEA in the last two years. If the function has been the focus of a BVR, or encompassed as part of a BVR, please put BVR in the box. If the function has been evaluated in any other way, please insert an asterisk in the box