5.
These
issues have been explored with a wide range of stakeholders (see Consultation
Section). The current structure and
possible alternatives have received an initial evaluation in terms of their
ability to confront and resolve these issues.
STRATEGIC CONTEXT
6.
The strategic context for organisational change of the
school system is wide-ranging. The key Corporate Objective of Raising
Educational Standards is central. The Council’s
objective of raising standards is expressed through the work of the Local
Strategic Partnership
7.
The core objectives of the Education Development Plan
are delivered through the existing or planned school system.
8.
The national objectives for raising standards of
achievement and for reconstructing/refurbishing the secondary school estate are
intimately involved with school organisation.
CONSULTATION
9.
The
following groups have received a standard presentation outlining the issues:
|
Date
|
Presentation To:
|
|
12 May 2004
|
Youth Council
|
|
15 May 2004
|
Governors’ Conference
|
|
19 May 2004
|
Headteachers’ Conference
|
|
27 May 2004
|
Isle of Wight College Board of Governors
|
|
7 June 2004
|
Local Authority Inspectors & Consultants
|
|
8 June 2004
|
The Learning Partnership
|
|
9 June 2004
|
West Wight Middle School (Open Meeting)
|
|
14 June 2004
|
Ventnor Middle School (Open Meeting)
|
|
16 June 2004
|
Early Years Partnership
|
|
21 June 2004
|
Medina Theatre (Open Meeting)
|
|
28 June 2004
|
Carisbrooke High School (Open Meeting)
|
|
30 June 2004
|
Ryde High School (Open Meeting)
|
|
6 July 2004
|
Cowes High School (Open Meeting)
|
|
7 July 2004
|
Sandown High School (Open Meeting)
|
|
13 July 2004
|
Local Strategic Partnership
|
|
13 July 2004
|
Cowes Community Partnership
|
|
15 July 2004
|
Work-based Training Providers
|
|
11 August 2004
|
Brighstone and other Town and Parish Councils
|
10.
In
addition, there has been further discussion at Headteachers’ separate phase meetings.
11.
The
issues have been discussed with: the Council’s Informal Executive; the
Council’s Select Committee for Children’s Services; Island First; Conservative
Group Members; Labour Group members; the Island’s MP; the Church of England
Diocesan representative; the Roman Catholic Diocesan representatives; the
Teacher Union and Association Secretaries; the Standards and Effectiveness Unit
Adviser; Youth Representatives from Connexions.
12.
The
Children’s Services Select Committee has conducted its own consultation with
stakeholder groups and their findings are presented, separately, at Appendix 1.
13.
The
results of the consultation are as follows:
·
At
meetings where the full presentation was followed by discussion, a questionnaire
was distributed for participants to express their views and, specifically, to
suggest which structures deserved to be fully appraised as part of the next
stage of consultation. (A copy is at
Appendix 2). 750 questionnaires were
distributed; 330 were returned and analysed at the end of July 2004. The open-ended comments will be included in
the general summary of points raised.
·
The
quantified results are:
Continue with the present 3
phase system 172
Create 5-11, 11-16 and Sixth Form/Tertiary
College 164
As above but with regional
variation 95
Extend the Middle School age
range by 1 year 42
Create 5-11, 11-18 Schools 111
These responses do not sum to
330 as respondents could suggest more than one option should be pursued.
·
Respondents:
Parents 191
Teachers 112
Support Staff 32
Governors 76
Pupils/Students 5
Others 51
These responses do not sum to
330 as respondents could specify more than one category eg parent and teacher.
14. Main findings from the first phase of consultation:
Standards
Evidence Required
·
Need
to know more about why it is that KS2 results in English/Maths are as disappointing
as they are and need to be sure that the reasons are structural before
proposing structural change as the answer.
·
Comparisons
need to be made with other middle school systems eg Suffolk and with areas of
similar profile to our own that have different structures eg 5-11 Primary
Schools in Authorities with similar socio-economic profiles.
·
Is
there evidence that schools of certain sizes do better than others?
·
Need
to know whether down-turn occurs in Y3 and Y4 or Y5 and Y6.
·
How do
standards at Sixth Forms in schools compare with Sixth Form Colleges?
·
Existing
attempts to improve standards through clustering and greater collaboration must
be properly evaluated before major change is contemplated, particularly as
there is a proposed change that will make Middle Schools totally accountable
for KS3.
General
·
Identify
and challenge specific schools that are under-performing rather than paint all with the same brush.
·
Standards
of achievement are not the only important things in education – breadth of
curriculum, social stability, happiness are as important for some.
·
Relatively
low standards are as likely to be because of poor parenting and low aspirations
as for any other reason.
·
Disruption
associated with structural change likely to lower rather than increase
standards.
·
Having
our school structure aligned with the National Key Stages will improve
standards because it will make schools properly responsible and accountable for
specific stages.
·
There
is a waste of time that occurs, particularly in Y7 and Y8 at Middle
School. Y8 can display poor behaviour
and motivation because they have outgrown the Middle School.
·
Standards
post-16 would improve if students could choose from a greater range of academic
and vocational courses in one centre.
·
Sixth
form students in schools provide good role models for younger pupils who are
motivated to perform well to acquire that status.
Sustainability
·
Acknowledgement
of the probable need for smaller schools to co-operate formally or informally;
need to consider small schools’ roles as providers of life-long learning in
their communities and as sites for multi-agency work.
·
Need
to co-operate fully to ensure the professional development of teachers.
·
Why not
keep successful schools and change less successful?
·
Increase
the size of primary schools through planned amalgamation/ consolidation. This would help transition to larger
secondary schools. Travel is not a
problem – four and five year olds travel to the Special School in Newport every
day.
·
Wherever
possible keep schools in local communities – young children should not travel
long distances to school.
Post-16 Education
·
Choice
for parents and students will not exist if there is only 1 Sixth Form College.
·
Choice
will be better for students if all courses are offered in Newport.
·
The
Isle of Wight College, the Training Providers and the existing five High School
Sixth Forms are competing for a gradually decreasing pool of recruits. They can’t
all survive.
·
Existing
structures can survive with genuine collaboration and joint planning.
·
Collaboration
is developing well.
·
Collaboration
is patchy and inconsistent.
·
The
Isle of Wight College is a vital resource for the whole Island. Whatever is decided must ensure its
continued viability.
·
Increasingly
important to think of 14-19 education, not post-16. Structures that allow flexibility and anticipate Tomlinson’s
proposals are essential.
Capital Funding
·
Is
this the big driver for change? Just
because “Building Schools for the Future” (BSF) exists it should not be the
reason for change.
·
BSF
is the reason for this talk of change.
It is the LEA wanting to get its hands on a pot of money.
·
School
site values and ownership would have to be carefully considered if
re-structuring were to be proposed.
·
Would
we get access to BSF if changes were minor or no change was the outcome?
·
BSF
would be funded through PFI. What
long-term implications would this have?
·
Is
there any certainty that BSF would continue to exist if there were to be a
change of government?
·
How
long would re-structuring take and wouldn’t it be very disruptive?
Curriculum
·
The
Primary Strategy was designed with 4/5-11 schools in mind. It is best implemented in one school. Middle Schools introduce a secondary
perspective too soon.
·
Middle
Schools add specialist teaching and facilities at an earlier age for 9-11 year
olds.
(Other points on curriculum are
made in the preceding sections on Standards and Post-16).
Other General Points
·
The
male role models to be found in Middle Schools are important, particularly for
children from families where no father is present.
·
Children
must be consulted for their views.
·
The
KPMG report is 3 years old and should not be used as the basis for considering
the way forward.
·
Variations
on the proposals should be considered eg 5-11; 11-14; 14-19 structures and
East/West differences where 11-18 schools exist in the East and 11-16 plus a
college in the West.
·
Whatever
changes are contemplated issues of transport must be carefully thought through
especially if they might contribute to further congestion.
·
The
whole debate has been too much to do with structures. The key factors are the quality of teachers and Headteachers.
·
Behaviour
and moral standards of pupils and their parents are the key variables to
success not the structure of schooling.
·
The
only important external test is GCSE .
What happens before this stage is relatively unimportant.
·
The
Dioceses have responded positively to the debate and have declared themselves
willing to discuss alternative structures if required, including the
possibility of an ecumenical approach.
The preservation of faith-based education is important but need not be
distributed as it is currently. The
presence of schools as at the heart of communities is vital.
·
The
consultation is about the LEA being seen to be doing something. The decision has already been made.
·
Who
makes the final decision? What role
does the LSC have?
The points, above, summarise
the main points that recurred in the consultation meetings and in written
responses.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS
15. The financial implications that have accompanied the first
phase of consultation have been contained within the Directorate budget.
16. The second phase requires detailed research and evaluation of
options for the future of the Island’s Education System. This will need external consultancy. The costs will be met from the DfES approved
14-19 post-OfSTED Action Plan fund. The Action Plan was produced jointly by the
LEA, LSC and the other key stakeholders in the provision of education and
training for this age range. The fund is dedicated to responding to the needs
identified in the 14-19 Inspection: issues that were echoed in the LEA
Inspection.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
17. The LEA is under a duty to ensure that there are sufficient
schools for their area . (Education Act
1996, Section 14.)
18.
School Standards and Framework Act 1998 lays
a duty upon a LEA to prepare an Educational Development Plan.
19 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.
OPTIONS
20. Stop the consultation at this stage on the grounds that no change
should be contemplated until existing initiatives have been evaluated fully.
21. Create a detailed specification for the external consultants.
It is expected that the specification
would include: comparison of standards with other Authorities with similar socio-economic profiles and
with other Authorities with similar structures; the sustainability of our
current provision with particular reference to pupil rolls, financial equity,
viability of curriculum and staffing, 14-19 provision. A draft summary of the specification to be
circulated to key stakeholders for comment before submission for tender.
The report should explain the implications of change on a
spectrum from minor change to existing provision, to wholesale structural
change. As a result of the first phase of the consultation and the change to a
2 year Key Stage 3, starting in September 2005, it is not intended that
consultants should focus on resolution of the identified issues within a
structure that added an additional year group to the existing Middle School age
range. (Option d in Appendix 2)
The report should recommend a preferred option or options
for further consultation with stakeholders.
To have this option/these options available for
consultation by early in 2005.
EVALUATION/RISK MANAGEMENT
22. The first stage of the consultation has shifted the focus away
from simply considering the options as proposed in the original KPMG report to
focusing on the key issues of standards of pupil achievement and the
sustainability and capacity of the whole system of education and training.
There are risks to children and to the key providers of education and training
if the commitment to tackle identified issues are not pursued.
23. The recommendation is to adopt (21) above. To recognise that we have issues of
unsatisfactory pupil achievement and some difficulties in sustaining our
current provision and then to delay exploring how best to resolve these issues
would be irresponsible. Both the 14-19 Action Plan and the LEA Action Plan have been ratified by the
Executive. They contain the commitments referred to in paragraph 22.
24. If the recommendation is accepted there are risks that
external consultancy will produce either a) inconclusive evidence or b) a model
or models that recommend changes that are perceived as unacceptable by some
stakeholders or c) a model or models that are not achievable for financial
reasons.
25. Other risks are dependent on the outcome of the second phase
of research and consultation. These risks will need to be evaluated in the
context of the need to provide the best possible outcomes for all the Island’s
young people.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
26.
It is recommended that the Executive approve that:
a)
The Head of Planning and Resources, in consultation with the Portfolio
Holder for Children’s Services and the key stakeholders, agrees with the LSC
a specification for a contract for further development and consultation work
by external consultants.
b)
The specification includes research to enable an evidence-based
selection of preferred options to be presented for formal, statutory
consultation during January and February 2005.
c)
The Director of Children’s Services, in consultation with the
Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, approve the preferred options for
inclusion in the formal, statutory consultation.
d)
The results of formal consultation, together with a recommended option
or options for the future direction of Island Education, are to be presented for
decision at the Executive meeting of 23 March 2005.
|
BACKGROUND PAPERS
27. Executive 21 April 2004 Paper D.
Contact Point : Kim Johnson, Head of Planning and
Resources
( 823410 Email: [email protected]
|
KIM JOHNSON
Head of Planning and
Resources
|
JILL WAREHAM
Portfolio Holder for
Children’s Services
|
