11.
The Community Plan as expressed in Island Futures has,
as a key theme, developing learning and skills.
12. The
key Corporate Objective of Raising Educational Standards is central.
13. The
key Corporate Objectives of encouraging job creation and economic prosperity both
require an education service that maximises potential and helps to attract inward
investment.
14. The core objectives of the Education
Development Plan are delivered through the existing or planned school system.
15. The national objectives for raising
standards of achievement and for reconstructing/refurbishing the secondary
school estate are intimately involved with school organisation.
16. The Council’s objective to establish 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.
17. The 14-19 Action Plan, the Government’s
5 Year Strategy, the recently published Education White Paper and those aspects
of the Tomlinson report that have been accepted also provide strategic context.
CONSULTATION
18.
Paragraphs 9 to 14 inclusive of Paper C, Executive
6/10/04, give details of the first phase of the consultation undertaken between
May and August 2004. It was formative in nature and the outcomes of this phase
contributed to the terms of reference for consultancy expressed in the
Invitation to Tender (ITT). An outline of the ITT was sent to Headteachers and
Chairs of Governors for comment. The Middle School Heads’ Forum suggested
additional areas of comparative research that were subsequently included in the
final ITT. The consultants, FourS, spoke directly with the College Principal,
most Headteachers, a number of Chairs of Governors, Work-based learning
providers, senior politicians and other stakeholders. A full account is given
in their final report available at: www.eduwight.iow.gov.uk/the_LEA/policies_plans/Schools_Organisation_Consultation.
19.
The process to date has involved a formative
consultation phase (May – August 2004) and a recent information-giving phase
(February – March 2005). The formative phase was taken in to account by the
Executive, in October 2004, in determining to proceed with the appointment of
consultants.
20.
Although many individuals and groups have taken the
opportunity to give their views during the February – March meetings they are
not analysed here because this phase was not consultative.
21.
In the context of proposed structural change, there
must be a formal consultation process if there is a decision to reorganise
schools. The details of this phase will be the subject of a further report to
the Executive in June 2005. The outcome of that consultation will be a
significant factor when the Executive determines a final scheme for submission
to the School Organisation Committee.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET
IMPLICATIONS
22.
Firm details of capital and revenue
costs cannot be given at this stage since they are dependent on the
consultation outcomes. The paragraphs below set out the best estimates
available currently.
23. The consultants, FourS, have estimated
that capital costs associated with recommendation 2 would be between £54 and
£70 million (low and high cost options). There are also revenue costs
associated with project management, personnel functions, redundancy, transport,
training and the need for formula revision if schools change their age range.
24. The range of capital and revenue costs is included
in Appendix G, Paragraphs 21 to 34 of the consultants’ report (see paragraph
18, above, for the link). A summary of the main points is reproduced below.
25. The main sources for funding these costs
are:
Sources of Capital finance:
a) Formula allocations already notified to the
Isle of Wight (£20m available).
b) Formula allocations beyond 2008.
c) Delegated formula capital for schools (£7m
in the next 3 year period).
d) Building Schools for the Future –
authorities that do not have an early place in the programme could have an
advance special allocation for the building of one new secondary school (Approximate
value is £20M)
e) Targeted capital building for community
schools – bid programme (up to £12m).
f) Targeted capital programme for voluntary
aided schools.
g) Post 16 capital allocations from the LSC
national allocation and the use of the Single Capital Pot
h) Prudential borrowing in advance of
allocations
i)
Capital
receipts and sale of land.
j)
Capital
financed by revenue/or revenue savings.
26. d),
above, is an allocation against criteria i.e. no bid is required. The Isle of
Wight will know by July 2005 whether it is to be in the first tranche of
Authorities.
27. e), f)
and g), above, are bid dependent. One criterion for bidding under Targeted
Capital is for Standards–based reorganisation. This would be the basis of the
Island’s bid.
28. Outcomes of the TCF bid, e), would
be known in July 2005. Bids for grant under f) and g) would be
made in cooperation with the Dioceses and the LSC respectively.
|
29.
|
Revenue Funding Summary:
|
|
|
The main sources of additional revenue expenditure
can be summarised as follows:
|
|
30.
|
Schools Block:
Additional curriculum and
IT equipment for changed age ranges.
Additional training programme for staff.
New and reorganising schools allowance including
non-capital items for the new school.
The protection of budget factor.
Additional site specific costs of secondary schools.
Additional lump sum for the new secondary school.
The specific sums in these headings would need to be
modelled and would vary depending on the options chosen.
Sums available for re-distribution of the schools
block would come from:
|
—
|
Reduced lump sum for each school closed (£32k for
primary, £80k for middle schools)
|
|
—
|
Reduced small schools subsidy
|
|
—
|
Saving on site-specific
costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
LEA Block:
The
major additional costs fall on the LEA Block and comprise:
|
—
|
Redundancy/early retirement/staff
redeployment schemes - £2.9m is a worst-case redundancy only estimate.
Redeployment and allowances associated with staff transfer could reduce
this cost. This would be phased over two years.
|
|
—
—
|
Project
implementation and review - £500k.
Additional transport cost if pupils are
transferred from closing schools. The cost per pupil is £405 but the total
cost would depend on the number of individual schools.
|
|
|
32.
|
The cost and savings impact in any one-year would
also need to be modelled.
There would need to be discussion with the Schools’
Forum about sources of finance for the LEA Block, which is already under
severe pressure. In particular there would need to be a discussion on who
picks up redundancy costs. Potential sources of funding include schools’
balances, the use of closing school balances, and the use of lump sum savings
for closing schools and capital receipts. Prudential borrowing against future
capital receipts is another source of funding.
Setting aside one-off costs the estimate of the
recurrent long term savings from a number of closures, particularly from the
headings of site-specific factors and lump sums, should generate savings from
the schools block in excess of £1m per year.
|
|
34.
|
The consultants’ view is
that finding the one-off cost would present challenges and require the
agreement of the Schools’ Forum but the issues are not insuperable.
|
LEGAL
IMPLICATIONS
35.
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.
36.
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.
37. The Learning and Skills Act 2000 places a
duty on the LSC to plan and fund post-16 education and training and to work
strategically with the LEA and other stakeholders in making provision for 14-19
year old students.
38. The responsibility for determining the
provision of schools on the Island lies with the Schools Organisation Committee
which is not a part, or function, of the Isle of Wight Council.
OPTIONS
39.
A number of options arise in the light of the FourS
report:
i.
Reject the recommendations of the consultants’ report
and make no changes to school organisation, but undertake other work to
identify ways of improving educational attainment.
ii.
Defer a decision on the grounds that there is
insufficient evidence to warrant change at this stage, and undertake further
investigatory work
iii.
Schools, the Isle of Wight Council and the Learning
and Skills Council develop a
collective vision for Island education services, to include specific targets
and responsibilities for each partner
iv.
The schools system to be re-organised to a two tier
model of 4-11 primary schools and 11-18, secondary schools, with a new,
possibly Voluntary Aided, denominational school for 11-16, with a sixth form
based at the Isle of Wight College.
v.
To develop for post-16 students an Island-wide formal
framework of learner entitlement with effective collaboration between all
providers – schools, the I.W. College, Work-based Learning Providers and
Connexions.
EVALUATION/RISK
MANAGEMENT
40.
There is a general understanding and acceptance that
‘no change is not an option’. There is,
however, disagreement about how much change is needed to bring about real
improvement in standards of achievement and what needs to be done to produce a
sustainable structure. An evaluation of the different options needs to be
undertaken against key criteria:
a. complete
accountability for the outcomes of the Primary and Secondary curricula
b. the
ability to attract and develop professionally the best possible staff
c. the
optimum use of scarce resources to meet all pupils’/students’ needs
d. the
need to be in the mainstream of national planning, training, curricular support
and professional development
e. the
preservation of choice, including faith–based schools and the ability to
respond to different learner needs, particularly for older students
f.
the ability to deliver and sustain viable educational
institutions over the next generation
g. the
model should be achievable/practicable
This list is not exhaustive but is
fundamental to the twin aims of standards improvement and sustainability over
time.
It is possible to have other
criteria for judgement e.g. produces least disruption, costs as little as
possible, but they would have to be able to demonstrate that they are critical
factors in achievement of higher standards and in producing a sustainable
structure into the future.
41.
Applying criteria a) to g), above, to the 5 options
helps to evaluate and assess risk.
42.
Option i – Reject the consultants’ report
43.
The focus on unsatisfactory achievement and the need
to provide a system of education and training that is sustainable for the next
generation is the challenge that has been identified, not only by external
inspectors and consultants but by the Island’s own professional educational
community. There are risks to children and to the key providers of education
and training if the commitment to tackle these issues is not pursued. The
commitment is already present in the14-19 Action Plan and the LEA OFSTED Action
Plan that have been ratified by the Executive.
To pursue this option would run
counter to these commitments and would increase the likelihood of national
intervention following unfavourable external inspection.
44.
Option
ii – Defer any decisions
45.
There have been, in addition to the FourS report, 4
other external analyses of the Island’s education and training system. The
first three - KPMG, the Melia Report and the 14-19 Area inspection, all focused
on 14-19 provision. Recommendation iii
(Paragraph 56) is a consistent and coherent response to the findings of all of
these reports. The LEA OFSTED inspection and the Area Inspection both pointed
to unacceptable standards of achievement, the 14-19 report focused on GCSE and
post-16 standards, and the LEA inspection on achievement beyond Key Stage 1.
The nature of that underachievement and the reasons for it are analysed in the
FourS report. Their recommendations have emerged from their brief – “what steps
need to be taken to ensure standards on the Island are raised and how can a
long-term educational structure be provided”. The evidence base from these
sources makes the second option untenable.
46. Option
iii – Lead the Development of A Collective Vision
Option
iv – Reorganise to a two tier system
Option
v – Enter into a formal post-16 framework and partnerships
47.
At one end of the continuum are those who believe that
we should close or federate the smallest schools and focus on the poorest
performing schools. This, it is argued, would be sufficient and not
particularly disruptive. This model goes some way to meet criteria c) and f)
but does not meet criteria a), b, d) or g). The practicability problem is
threefold.
·
Federation as a sustainable option for all of the
smallest schools depends on the availability and willingness of partner schools
to participate. This may be feasible at some times and in some areas.
·
There is a DfES presumption against closing small
rural primary schools if there is local opposition and closure is not part of a
larger rationalisation.
·
The evidence of the LEA’s School Improvement Team is
that intervention with weaker schools is successful in the short-term but that
this often does not sustain once the intensive support is removed.
48.
Whilst options i and iii are necessary they are not
sufficient. Evaluating them against the criteria it will be seen that they do contribute
to c), e)and g) but do not, by themselves, address a), b), d) and f).
49.
However, if all three options, iii, iv and v, are
taken together they do meet each of the criteria that have been suggested.
·
aligning the Island’s system with that in which more
than 95% of the nation’s children are taught ensures full accountability;
·
removing one obstacle that might prevent potential
applications for jobs in the school system – the lack of ability to teach
across the normal primary and secondary age range;
·
promoting the optimum use of resources for learners by
insisting on formal collaboration between providers, particularly at 14-19
level, and by proposing fewer schools in a changed structure;
·
advocating placement of Island educators and trainers
in the mainstream of professional development and training;
·
preserving choice of type of institution e.g. in terms
of faith-based education and in terms of learner choice at 14-19;
·
proposing rationalisation of provision to a structure
that includes schools of viable size and sustainability
·
it is achievable providing capital and revenue
resources can be made available.
50.
There are risks associated with the recommendations.
They include:
·
acquiring all capital allocations at the right time to
achieve change within the minimum period;
·
all the risks associated with major project
management;
·
the need to harness the professionalism and commitment
of all stakeholders to achieve all the recommendations with the least
disruption possible to students, staff and other stakeholders;
·
the risk of losing sight of educational personnel and
real teaching and learning by concentrating on transport, finance, structures
and systems;
·
a failure to acquire sufficient revenue to employ the
necessary expertise to see through the major project of reorganisation.
51.
There are risks associated with not following the
recommendations. They include:
·
further relative decline of standards of achievement
for another generation of young people;
·
a failure to deliver the commitments entered into in
public Action Plans;
·
a failure to act decisively to create a sustainable
system;
·
loss of momentum for change.
Next
steps
52. LEA officers and members should play a
full part within existing groupings and in those that are set up for the
purpose of achieving Recommendation i. (Paragraph 56)
53. Officers should begin preparation of
detailed propositions that can be put to local communities about how this
reorganisation might be accomplished.
54. They should prepare a detailed scheme for
formal consultation and further details of costs and timetable for the new
Council’s Executive meeting of 1 June 2005.
55. LEA officers and members should continue
participation as active partners in the new structures that have been set up to
meet the requirements of the 14-19 Action Plan and should help to create the
formal agreement referred to in Recommendation iii.(Paragraph 56)
56. RECOMMENDATIONS
i. Schools, the Isle of Wight Council and the
Learning and Skills Council should create and then implement a collective
vision for the Island education service with specific targets and
responsibilities being agreed for each partner.
ii Schools
should be reorganised into the national pattern of 4-11 primary schools with
11-18 secondary schools, but the new, possibly Voluntary-Aided denominational,
school should be 11-16, with its sixth form based at the Isle of Wight College.
iii For post-16 students
there should be an Island-wide formal framework of learner entitlement
with effective collaboration between all providers – schools, the IW. College,
Work Based Learning Providers and Connexions.
iv The Executive will receive further reports
proposing a detailed scheme for formal consultation, at its meeting on 1 June
2005.
v
On the conclusion of the formal consultation, the Executive will receive
a further report to determine a scheme to be submitted to the School
Organisation Committee.
vi To deliver the post-16 framework two formal
partnerships, one based in Newport and the other in East Wight, be entered into
by 21 October 2005.
vii In the event that the framework has not been agreed, or if
either of the two partnerships have not been formed by 21 October 2005, the
Executive should receive a further report considering a post-16 centre in
Newport associated with the I.W College.
BACKGROUND
PAPERS
57. FourS consultants’ final Strategic
Options Report (January 2005).
58. Isle of Wight Council Executive Paper D,
21 April 2004.
59. Isle of Wight Council Executive Paper C,
6 October 2004.
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
Contact
Point : Kim Johnson, Head of
Planning and Resources, Children’s Services.
Telephone: 823410 Email:
[email protected]
|
KIM
JOHNSON
Head
of Planning and Resources
|
JILL
WAREHAM
Portfolio
Holder for Children’s Services
|
