PAPER D

Purpose : for Decision

REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE

Date : 21 APRIL 2004

Title : SCHOOLS ORGANISATION

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

IMPLEMENTATION DATE : 4 May 2004

SUMMARY/PURPOSE

1. To reach a decision regarding the consultative process that should apply to the organisation of the school system on the Isle of Wight.

CONFIDENTIAL/EXEMPT ITEMS

2. This is not a confidential item.

BACKGROUND

3. The Executive meetings of 26 February 2002 and 17 December 2002 considered the report of the consultants, KPMG. This report was commissioned jointly by the Local Learning and Skills Council and the Isle of Wight Council to consider the future of 14-19 education on the Isle of Wight. The report suggested that there were 4 main options that could be pursued, 3 of which entailed major changes to the school system. It was decided that Option 1, that advocated collaboration between post-16 providers, should be adopted in the first instance and that the effects of this collaboration should be reviewed after a year’s trial. It was also decided that there should be no further consultation on the other options until this period was concluded. The review timetable was delayed so that the results of the Local Education Authority(LEA) OFSTED and the 14-19 OFSTED area wide inspections could be taken into consideration.

4. A number of additional general factors have arisen since the publication of the original report. They are summarised below (a fuller discussion is at Appendix 1).

· A clearer picture of the trend of falling rolls in schools (Appendix 2). This trend is affecting some areas and some schools much more than others e.g. areas to the West and South of the Island and particularly at Primary level.

· A consistent message, from the Local Authority and 14-19 inspection reports, that standards in our schools are not high enough, particularly at Key Stages 2 and 4 ( at 11 and 16 years). There are related comments about the capacity of schools to maintain curriculum continuity, ensure professional development and to cover specialist requirements.

· An increasing problem of both financial and staffing viability in our smaller primary and middle schools, with attendant problems of recruitment and retention of teaching staff, and headteachers in particular.

· A related problem of some small schools having to be funded at an increasingly higher level per pupil than other schools catering for the same age range.

· The existence of a national plan to refurbish/rebuild the secondary school estate over the next 15 years (Building Schools for the Future – BSF). Local Authorities need to bid for acceptance into a ‘wave’ of capital funding that will allow a substantial contribution to construction/ reconstruction costs.

5. These general factors are of particular importance when considering the future of the Island’s school system as they imply that some change is inevitable and that consultation on the form that change should take is desirable.

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

6. The Community Plan as expressed in Island Futures has, as a key theme, developing learning and skills.

7. The strategic context for organisational change of the school system is wide-reaching. The key Corporate Objective of Raising Educational Standards is central.

8. The core objectives of the Education Development Plan are delivered through the existing or planned school system.

9. The national objectives for raising standards of achievement and for reconstructing/refurbishing the secondary school estate are intimately involved with school organisation.

10. The Council’s objective to set up an integrated Children’s Services Directorate creates a context in which the range and location of services is an important part of the development of educational sites.

CONSULTATION

11. Preliminary discussions have already taken place with Headteachers and members of the Asset Management Steering Group, but the wider question of how formative and formal consultation should take place, and over what time period, is the subject for decision by this Committee.

12. Key stakeholders who will need to be involved in future consultation can be found at Appendix 3.

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

13. Each option for change to the existing school system has major budget implications. The scale of the likely costs will be detailed once clear options exist for formal consultation.

14. If a vision can be adopted by the Council, after consultation, it will form the basis for exploration of funding streams that may be most appropriate. Consideration will need to be given to the BSF funding methods, to PFI arrangements outside

this initiative and to other possible borrowing, including that offered under the Prudential Code.

There will be some expense associated with consultation. This is estimated at £5,000. It will have to be met from within the existing LEA Budget.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

15. The LEA is under a duty to ensure that there are sufficient schools for their area. This duty is found in Section 14 of the Education Act 1996. The LEA does not have to provide or maintain all the schools in their area, there could be a mixture of LEA-maintained and independent schools for example, but there must be sufficient in number, character and equipment to offer all pupils opportunities for education offering sufficient variety suitable for their different ages, abilities and aptitudes and for any special educational needs.

16. Section 6 of the Schools Standards and Frameworks Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) lays an additional duty on the LEA to prepare an educational development plan, and Sections 28-35 of the 1998 Act confer a duty on the LEA to publish proposals for closing schools or establishing new ones.

OPTIONS

17. Commission formative consultation, during June and July, on 5 main options (summarised below; a fuller discussion is at Appendix 4):

(i) continue with the existing school system including increased collaboration between High Schools and the College;

(ii) adopt KPMG Option 2 i.e. 5-11 Primary Schools, 11-16 Secondary Schools and a Sixth Form or Tertiary College;

(iii) as (ii) but with the variation that, in areas of lower density population, there would be provision for centres offering pre-school experience, community and multi-agency facilities, and education to the age of 7, followed by 7-16 schools;

(iv) adopt KPMG Option 3 i.e. extend the Middle School age range by a further year and reduce the number of High Schools from 5 to 4;

(v) adopt KPMG Option 4 i.e. 5-11 Primary Schools, 11-18 High Schools with increased vocational facilities and a reduced role for the College.

A possible timeline for formative and formal consultation is given at Appendix 5

18. Drop 1 or more of the options above and move straight to formal consultation on the remaining options.

19. Replace or add options not included in point 17.

EVALUATION/RISK MANAGEMENT

20. The risk of moving straight to formal consultation on a reduced number of options is that some stakeholders may feel that their preference has not been fully explored. Formative consultation has the virtue of full exploration followed by a reduction in the number of options for formal consultation based on a majority view. Formal consultation could take place in the Autumn of 2004.

21. Option 17(i) has some cost in as much as even the option to retain the current system implies that some schools are likely to close or amalgamate. It is not possible to estimate the cost at this point since it would depend on a combination of case by case details including value of sites, redeployment of staff, need to increase the size of some schools, possibilities of federation etc. Other options have considerable financial implications. Each would need capital investment beyond that available through normal annual capital allocations to the LEA. Access to the level of funds required is likely to involve a bid to the Government’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. The quicker we are able to establish a vision for the future of the Island’s education system, the quicker we can make an application to this programme. This suggests that we need to balance the need to consult properly with the need to make progress on an application.

22. Options other than 17(i) carry financial risks for the Council and possible changes to the way in which services might be offered to schools. £60-80 million pounds will be necessary for restructuring options. Any form of Private Finance Initiative(PFI) has implications for repayment over a 25 year period and the PFI partner may require service provision rights in areas such as catering and maintenance.

23. There is a risk to the Council, as Local Education Authority, from the next OfSTED inspection. If there is no clear plan to address issues of standards and capacity there is a risk that the Isle of Wight LEA would be described as a ‘failing authority’. Associated with this status would be increased centralised intervention and loss of local control.

24. There is a risk to the smaller schools in both the primary and middle sectors from future OfSTED inspections that may question viability, capacity and value for money.

RECOMMENDATION

25. a) The option in paragraph 17, above, with a time limit that allows for preferred options to be presented to the Executive in October 2004

b) The adoption of the time line as suggested in Appendix 5

BACKGROUND PAPERS

26. The Executive summary of the original KPMG report is available at Paper B of the meeting of the Education, Community Development and Lifelong Learning Select Committee 31 January 2002.

27. The full KPMG report is available by following the link on iwight.com (section 7.6 onwards are the relevant sections).

28. Appendix 1 gives more detail on emerging factors.

Appendix 2 shows the trend patterns relating to school rolls.

Appendix 3 shows the key stakeholders who will need to be consulted.

Appendix 4 gives more detail of the options that might be considered.

Appendix 5 outlines the proposed time scale for consultation and decision.

Contact Point : Kim Johnson Telephone: 823410 Email: [email protected]

K JOHNSON Head of Planning and Resources

J WAREHAM Portfolio Holder for Education and Community Development