APPENDIX 1
LLSC 14-19 REVIEW – CURRICULUM ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS
Option 1 – Greater collaboration
and co-operation between High Schools and the College under the guidance of a
Tertiary Board.
Implications
To be seen as successful and meeting the objectives set out in the LLSC review this option must go beyond simple collaboration and co-operation between the existing institutions. In defining the range of Isle of Wight post 16 provision and in the longer term defining the 14-19 provision, consideration must be given to the following in addition to the role of schools and the college:
Independent trainers – focus to the vocational field need to ensure a coherent
range of provision with that of schools and the college. Need to investigate
the concept of compacts with providers for specific courses – AVC tourism and
leisure – local hotel on job training element – schools provision of
classroom/ICT facilities;
Mainland providers – the LLSC do not see the Island as a separate entity but
as an element of the Hampshire Wight Region. It is therefore essential that
this option examines the establishing of links with mainland providers.
E-learning/Open access learning - It will be essential that this independent style of
learning is developed across all schools and the college. Facilities currently
exist in all High schools and are being actively developed at the college.
However, there will be a need to enhance and sustain provision. If successfully
implemented the development of E-learning has the potential to resolve some of
the more difficult logistics associated with this option. With a well developed
E-learning model the movement of students could be minimised and that of staff
reduced to almost nil.
Timetabling/Day organisation - For this option to be successful there will need to be a
harmonisation of the school and college day and both school and college
timetable structures. Consideration must be given to all institutions working a
three session FE style day for initially post 16 and in the long term all 14-19
provision. There will need to be agreement and provision across all
institutions on a core subject range and timetable and on the collaborative
elements probably provided on an East/West Wight split with individual
collaboration with the college and other providers.
Development of new
courses/provision –
Traditionally new provision has been planned in relation to the defined needs
of an individual instituition, as with high school development of vocational
courses, in this model there must be an agreed route by which the need for new
provision can be assessed and whether it will be core, provided by all, or
developed by one or more institution as part of collaborative work. The role of the LLSC, LEA and Tertiary
Strategic Group in relation to the institutions’ needs to be defined so that we
establish a developing rather than static curriculum.
Resourcing – In this model the main areas of curriculum resourcing will
be associated with:
·
organisational cost
of common day and timetabling models. Possible central support costs in
establishment of timetabling curriculum organisation group;
·
transport of students
and staff between institutions. This can be reduced by full implementation of
E-learning facilities;
·
E-learning costs both
initial set-up and on-going provision.
CONCLUSION
This model offers the least disruption to the overall educational system, however, the achievement of true collaboration will require each institution to give up a significant element of its own autonomy for the benefit of students. This will require considerable time, leadership and central support to be achieved.
Summary of costs
·
Harmonisation of
institution organisation/timetable:
Lead Consultant – 3
years - £40,000 per annum £120,000
Support of harmonisation
group – 3 years –
£10,000 per annum £30,000
Lead Co-ordinator – HT level – 3
years –
£70,000 per annum with on costs £210,000
·
E-learning
implementation:
Broadband fees – 5 years - £80,000 per annum £400,000
Establishment of central E-learning support –
5 years - £25,000 per annum £125,000
Course licence provision – 5 years - £50,000 per
annum £250,000
Total estimated curriculum costs
to implement this model - £1.135
million.
Option 2 – First and middle
re-organised into 5-11 primary. 11-16 secondary feeding a Tertiary College for
all post 16 education.
This
option offers the prospect of significant disruption to the current system with
little overall curriculum gain. Currently the high school post 16 provision has
received good OFSTED reports and A/AVCE/AS results are strong in the school
sector.
However,
it is questionable that a Tertiary College model will resolve the key issues
causing concern in the short term. In the long term curriculum success will
only be achieved at Post 16, in this model, if the Tertiary College either
replaces all school and College Post 16 provision or has overall control of the
College as a ‘skills’ annex. To implement this model in relation to school
provision only would be to require the level of collaboration of option 1
without the potential goodwill and capacity of the school system.
5-11 Primary curriculum
This provides the simplest element in curriculum terms. Most primaries currently have a capacity in organisation and teaching experience to cope with an extension to Year 6. In curriculum terms the main advantages are:
·
coherent KS2 model;
·
school ownership of
KS2 and key Year 6 achievement indicators;
·
removal of Year 5
regression;
·
strong primary
leadership model.
The
main disadvantage lies in the cost of resourcing. Though some resources could
be transferred from the middle sector consideration must be given to increased
resourcing of all primaries.
11-16 Secondary curriculum
This aspect of option 2 offers the possibility of the maximum disruption with perhaps the least gain. The curriculum model of an 11-16 secondary is distinctly different to that of either a high or middle school. It is probable that improvement in KS3 standards would be halted during the re-organisation and that the sustaining of KS4 standards would prove difficult until the new schools had settled down. It is also probable that staffing re-organisation would lead to the best staff polarising to the primary and tertiary sectors, leaving the 11-16 schools with the weakest provision.
The
option particularly in relation to the proposed 14-19 ‘green paper’ provision
would appear to open a range of system problems as in:
·
14-19 accreditation
flexibility;
·
14-19 student
acceleration or deacceleration;
·
Match of Post 16 curriculum
to 11-16 – KS4 – continuity of student development;
·
Introduction of Post
16 transfer regression potential impact on standards in the current AS/A2
system.
The
main curriculum advantages are:
·
removal of KS3
transfer and regression;
·
single school
ownership of KS3 and KS4 standards;
The
main disadvantages are:
·
potential replacement
of KS3 regression with similar issues at KS2 transfer and Year 7 regression;
·
match to tertiary
post 16 with similar transfer and regression;
·
quality of teacher
supply with consequent impact upon standards and pupil progress;
·
significant staff
training in respect of KS3 middle staff ability to cover KS4;
·
major resource input
particularly in specialist areas, no middle school facility could cover KS4
requirements.
Tertiary College
The main issues here, beyond the costs and training in the College’s setup, are the relationship to Isle of Wight College. As set out at the beginning of this option unless there is a concept of overall curriculum organisation and management being led by the College we may achieve no better Post 16 provision than in option 1.
CONCLUSION
The main gains in this option are at KS2 and 3. The potential mismatch with the 14-19 ‘Green paper’ proposals offer the possibility of creating a new system with inherent problems just as our current system is able to maximise its 14-19 curriculum advantages. The major disruption in establishing this system, with the inevitable interim drop in standards, do not seem to give enough gains over option 1 to make it viable.
Summary of costs
Possible
curriculum related costs are as follows:
·
Primary Sector
Resource
development in all schools – 43 schools
approx.
£10,000 per school £460,000
Training
costs in addition to Standards Fund £130,000
·
Secondary Sector
Resource development in converted middles –
6 schools - approx. £100,000 per school £600,000
Training costs in addition to Standards Fund £120,000
·
Tertiary College
Curriculum set up and resource costs £1,750,000
Initial training costs £ 50,000
Total estimated curriculum costs
to implement this model - £3.11
million.
Option 3 – Middle schools
re-organised to 9-14 age range. Expansion of high school vocational provision
with close collaboration between schools and IWCAT, as option 1. Reduction from
5 to 4 high schools.
In
pure curriculum terms this option has the potential to offer some significant
gains in relation to the disruption of the change in system. It retains the
strong input of the primary sector whilst giving full ownership of KS2 and KS3
standards to the middle schools. This has the potential to provide greater
coherence to progression and all pupils’ learning experience throughout KS2 and
KS3. It also offers the opportunity to ensure that the middle schools are more viable
curriculum units, therefore, removing some of the inbuilt compromises of the
current 9-13 age range and relatively small size of most middles.
The
model also offers the opportunity of a focussed high school curriculum across
KS4 and Post 16. It has the potential to realise the maximum gains in
achievement from accreditation flexibility and acceleration/deceleration as set
out in the 14-19 ‘Green paper’. The main curriculum disadvantage lies in the
transfer at 14+ to the high schools in respect of option choice. This is not
insurmountable and could be a planned part of the 11-16 curriculum with the
last year in middle being seen as a foundation for Year 10 in high. The
potential could exist for a modular type system across Year 9 to Year 10 to
minimise the impact of transfer.
The
main curriculum advantages are:
·
ownership of KS2 and
KS3 in the middle school;
·
potential for more
coherent progression and higher achievement;
·
system provides a
potentially strong KS4 to Post 16 model – aligns well with the 14-19 ‘Green
paper’;
·
least staff
development and training need, other than option 1, across KS3, 4 and Post 16.
The
main curriculum disadvantages are:
·
transfer regression
at Year 10;
·
the need to make KS4
option choices within the middle phase.
CONCLUSION
The
main gains in this option are across KS2 to Post 16. There is a high curriculum potential to secure improvement in the
system with in the long term acceptable disruption. Other than option 1 this is
the most viable curriculum option.
Summary of costs
Possible
curriculum related costs are as follows:
·
Middle Phase
Resource
development in all schools – 18 schools
approx.
£50,000 per school £900,000
Training
costs in addition to Standards Fund £
50,000
·
High Phase
As option 1 in respect of Post 16 collaboration £1,135,000
Total estimated curriculum costs
to implement this model - £2.085
million.
Option 4 – First and middle
re-organised into 5-11 primary. 11-18 secondary no reduction in high schools
some vocational to schools.
Essentially
this is the same in curriculum terms as option 2, though it removes some of the
inherent quality of staffing and learning issues, which can arise with 11-16
schools.
CONCLUSION
A
slightly better curriculum option than option 2 but with most of the inherent
problems. Has the possibility to bring the system more in line with the
majority nationally but at high disruption cost in terms of pupil achievement.
Summary of costs
Possible
curriculum related costs are as follows:
·
Primary Sector
Resource
development in all schools – 43 schools
approx.
£10,000 per school £460,000
Training
costs in addition to Standards Fund £130,000
·
Secondary Sector
Resource development in converted middles –
5 schools - approx. £100,000 per school £500,000
Training costs in addition to Standards Fund £170,000
Vocational developments
– resource costs £750,000
Total estimated curriculum costs
to implement this model - £2.01
million.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
If a focus to the curriculum and the maintenance of pupil achievement, whilst raising standards and increasing opportunity is taken then option 1 and 3 offer the best alternatives for further exploration and potential implementation.