1.
Background
The Learning and Skills Council stressed that the prime reason for considering the school structure on the island was not related to costs but raising levels of attainment. Stakeholders were however concerned that throughout the public consultation little evidence had been produced to support the view that the restructuring would raise standards.
Reservations were expressed about the status of the KPMG report which was produced in 2001 and was now several years old and written at a time when the IW College was failing. No account appeared to have been taken of the recently implemented cluster arrangements, collaboration between High Schools and the College or the latest Government 5 year Strategy on the future of education.
Stakeholders were of the belief that a clearer understanding be obtained on the effect of the Island’s seasonal employment situation, pupil turbulence and number of single parent families on aspirations and attainment.
It was the general view that the figures related to attainment were volatile due to small cohort sizes. There was a balance to be achieved between schools teaching to pass tests and the total educational enrichment of pupils.
·
The Executive will need to be satisfied
that, given the recent initiatives launched locally together with the proposed
Government’s 5 year strategy, the options used as the basis for the
consultation process are still valid.
·
The Executive must ensure that any
reorganisation of schools is strictly on the basis of improving educational
standards and attainment with clear evidence that this can be achieved within a
set timescale.
·
Any system should fit into the National
Testing Scheme.
2. Ofsted Reports
Stakeholders expressed concern as to the balance shown between the Ofsted reports arising from individual school inspections to the Ofsted report on the LEA.. The individual reports highlighted that teaching, attainment and school performance was satisfactory whilst there was criticism of the LEA on attainment levels.
Additionally the Ofsted reports on the 5 High Schools, all of which had been undertaken since the KPMG report, indicated that 6th forms were cost effective and particularly strong.
Whilst Ofsted were prepared to comment on educational performance it did little to offer advice on ways of overcoming the problems that they had highlighted.
·
The Executive should be aware that there is
an apparent conflict between the findings of Ofsted when undertaking individual
school inspections and its views arising from the inspection of the LEA.
3. Recruitment/Retention of Teaching Staff
There appeared to be conflicting evidence as to the level of recruitment problems in Island Schools. A stakeholder at the Middle School session indicated that there were no recruitment problems. The Learning and Skills Council however suggested that there were problems and these were on the same level as those experienced nationally.
Those stakeholders attending the High School session believed that if High Schools lost 6th forms then these would seriously affect recruitment and retention. Many of those teaching in Island High Schools had been attracted because of the presence of 6th Forms.
·
The Executive should ensure that clear
evidence is available on recruitment problems across all three sectors.
4. The Role of the LEA
There was a consistent view expressed by stakeholders that the Council’s Inspection Service operated satisfactorily. It was however believed that additional central resources were required to provide improved monitoring, advice and leadership functions.
In addition to the comments made in relation to schools organisation stakeholders also took the opportunity of raising associated issues.
The first was in relation to the decision by the LEA to take back control, in January 2003, of the Education Welfare Scheme. For a two year period management of this service had been devolved to schools. A great deal of time and effort had been invested by schools in establishing systems only for this to be aborted. One school had however retained the structure put in place but had to fund this from cluster money.
The second issue related to transfering certain SEN functions to schools. This meant that work was being duplicated at schools rather than being done once centrally by the LEA.
A third issue was the administrative work involved in the financial accountability of cluster money. This was believed to be particularly onerous for the sums involved. Also more clarity was required from the LEA on operational issues for the benefit of Headteachers, teachers, governors and parents.
The last topic related to information on individual pupil attainment. Stakeholders suggested that data was held centrally but could not be accessed by schools as staff had not received appropriate training. Schools ability to access this information could assist in improving attainment levels as individual pupils performance levels could be tracked.
The role of the Youth Service was debated and it was highlighted that its target age range was currently 13 – 19. This might have to be reviewed of secondary schools started at 11.
No evidence was forthcoming as to the ability of the LEA to effectively deliver changes under any of the options with the existing staff resources available. Any major change to the schools structure will impact upon central services particularly during the transitional phase.
·
The Portfolio Holder should ensure that
schools are fully consulted, and their comments taken into account, when
implementing changes to existing systems or proposing to introduce new systems
of working.
·
The Executive should consider strengthening
the central Inspection Team to assist schools.
· In looking at the restructuring of schools the work being undertaken through clustering should be taken into account.
· The Portfolio Holder should investigate the ability of schools having access to centrally held information on pupils.
· The Executive should satisfy itself that the existing staff resources within the LEA is capable of dealing with the work involved in supporting and delivering any of the options.
· In considering the possibility of a Secondary School system commencing at 11 years of age possible effects on the target age range of the Youth Service should be taken into account.
5.
Primary Schools
There were good links being established between pre-school/nursery groups and Primary Schools. Possibility of any surplus accommodation at Primary School sites being used for Early Years provision should be fully investigated. Some concern was expressed over the mix of Early Years and Primary School of 5 – 11 on same site.
It was also important to enable the effective delivery of the Foundation Stage without children having to transfer between sites with Early Years provision. If accommodation became available on existing Primary School sites these could be utilised for the Early Years Foundation Stage.
The smaller Primary Schools were able to be more creative and this ability could be lost if assimilated to a larger establishment. Support for a group of small Primary Schools coming under one Headteacher was seen as a cost effective way forward.
Stakeholders believed that the confidence gained by pupils through Primary School could be affected when transferring to Middle School. Although there was an induction process at Primary, Middle and High phases there was a view by stakeholders who went through this that this was insufficient in overcoming such problems.
The involvement of parents in school activities also tapered off as their children progressed through the school system. This led to a loss in continuity of support at each stage.
The Building Schools for the Future funding that would be available from the Government for the replacement/refurbishment of schools can only be used for Secondary Schools and not for Primary Schools. Therefore any works to these would have to be the subject of a separate funding process.
Stakeholders believed that the school system should perhaps be reviewed from the bottom up rather than the top down. This would take the ethos of Primary Schools upwards.
Stakeholders highlighted that Primary Schools, especially those in rural areas, formed the basis of the local community. If any changes were to affect this there was a need to ensure that consultations were undertaken on an individual school basis so that all local issues could be properly addressed.
·
The Executive should encourage the
appointment of a Headteacher for groups of small Primary Schools.
·
The Executive should ensure that in pursuing
any option the likely costs across all sectors are identified together with the
funding provider.
·
In the transfer between phases consideration
be given to improving the induction process by consulting with pupils.
·
That the Executive should ensure that
consultations on an individual school basis are undertaken where any proposals
had an effect on Primary Schools and their role in the local community.
·
There appeared to be a need to explore
comments made regarding the exchange of information on pupils between Primary
and Middle Schools.
6. Middle Schools
Stakeholders emphasised that arising from Ofsted Inspections no Middle School had been categorised as requiring special measures. Middle Schools also provided pupils from single parent families with that first contact with male teachers as many Primary Schools were predominantly female.
Middle Schools already had specialist staff in languages, music and technology. This appeared to ‘future proof’ the LEA in delivering aspects of the 5 year strategy for children and learners recently issued by the Department for Education and Skills.
The biggest concern expressed by Stakeholders related to disruptive behaviour in class. Whilst accepting the principles of full inclusion this did have an effect on other students.
Concern was also expressed about the attainment levels at Key Stage 1 and information passed between the phases. Unlike other Key Stage tests those taken at Key Stage 1 were internally assessed. There was a separate QCA test which could overcome the concerns of Middle Schools. The close links being forged through cluster working should overcome any difficulties experienced with regard to information sharing although this would not deal with pupils transferring to a school not within that cluster.
·
The Executive should request officers to
review the policy on behaviour at school with Headteachers with regard to the
effect on pupils attainment.
·
The Government’s 5 year strategy should be
taken into consideration when looking at the options on schools structure.
7.
High Schools
A number of Stakeholders believed that there was little evidence to support the theory that restructuring would raise standards of choice. Aspirations needed to be raised and a range of vocational and academic subjects should be offered.
The option of 5 – 11 Primary Schools and 11 – 18 High Schools with increased vocational facilities was preferred but there was an increased role for the College. There was a concern however if a High School of approximately 2,200 might be required as this could lose some of its community identity.
More practical based courses for those pupils aged 14 who were less academically able should be made available so to prevent such pupils from being disengaged at school.
Some students were concerned that they were not made aware of all subjects or options available to them by teachers. The service provided by Connexions in supporting students was highly praised. Concerns were outlined to members that students had the impression that some teachers did not want to teach those in the lower bands. There appeared to be some disengagement by students at school at 14 if they were not academic with little or no interest in 6th Form for some element of further education.
·
That the Executive considers the maximum
size of any High School and its impact on the local community.
·
The Executive should consider the benefits
of work based courses being established for less academically able students
from the age of 14.
8. 6th Forms
There was an acceptance by stakeholders that there should be a depth and breadth of subjects available for 6th Form students. The number of students was also small. Cross Island Collaboration on courses had been introduced in September 2003. This involved all 5 High Schools and the College. This was still being developed but there appeared to be a need for all High Schools to participate equally and a better selection process for students attending the College so that all had achieved the basic skills required.
A 6th Form College could become the Islands Centre of Excellence. This could however reduce the choice currently available to parents of having five separate choices for 6th Form education. It was also noted that funding for 6th Forms was better from the Department for Education than from the Learning and Skills Council.
Additionally a 6th Form facility operated by the Council as the LEA was seen as being more locally accountable to the Council Tax payer.
· The Executive should consider the work being undertaken on collaboration and whether this shows sufficient signs of achieving improved provision for all students.
· The Executive in discussing the option of one 6th Form College should take into account whether this provides parents, and students, with the principles of choice.
9. Further Education
The substantial progress made by the Isle of Wight College was highlighted. Whilst it was noted that there was collaborative working between the College and High Schools it appeared that there was a varying degree of commitment.
Stakeholders considered that it was important to ensure vocational pathways were opened up for students between Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4. This would be assisted by individual learning plans for each student. The ability to provide general careers guidance at an earlier age, 11 years old was suggested, would assist pupils in identifying the full range of options available.
· To assist students in becoming more aware of the full range of career pathways available to them, general careers guidance should be made available from the age of 11 irrespective of any school structure.
· The Executive should ensure that there is full commitment by the High Schools and the College on collaborative working.
10. Other Issues
Stakeholders expressed appreciation to be given the ability of raising concerns directly with members of the Select Committee. Where time permitted an opportunity was given to Stakeholders to raise non-school organisation related concerns.
The first subject was that of the length of the summer holiday. There was a view that the length of this had an effect on maintaining pupils engagement in learning.
The second subject was the costs to schools of using Council leisure facilities. The recent increases meant that smaller schools had to seriously consider the cost effectiveness of use, particularly if having to also pay for a vehicle from Wightbus.
Thirdly was an indication given that there was an increasing trend for children in day nurseries to exhibit challenging behaviour. If this was allowed to continue unchecked substantial problems could then be encountered through subsequent Primary schooling.
· The Portfolio Holders’ attention be drawn to the other issues raised during the consultation process.