PAPER B

Purpose : for Decision

Committee : CABINET

Date : 6 FEBRUARY 2007

Title : POST 16 EDUCATIONAL PROVISION: OUTCOME OF POLICY  COMMISSION REVIEW

Report of :    THE CABINET MEMBER FOR EDUCATION, SKILLS AND LEARNING

IMPLEMENTATION DATE : 16 February 2007

PURPOSE

1. The purpose of this report is to receive the Blue Paper Report of the Policy Commission on school standards at the conclusion of its enquiry into the Local Learning and Skills Council’s (LSC) proposal to open a sixth form centre.

OUTCOMES

2. The Policy Commission is recommending an alternative solution to the issue of under achievement at Key Stages 4 and 5 and therefore subsequently the rejection of the LSC’s proposal in its current form. The Cabinet is invited to endorse this recommendation and launch a formal consultation process culminating in a report to Council in March.

3. It is expected that the report to Full Council will be an ‘in principle’ decision which will require detailed implementation and financial planning to be prepared by officers by September 2007.

BACKGROUND

4. The LSC brought forward its proposal to open a sixth form centre in the early Autumn of 2006. This was followed by series of public consultation meetings which ran concurrently with the Policy Commission’s review of the LSC proposal.

5. The Policy Commission’s Blue Paper report is attached at Appendix A and has been considered in open session at its meeting on x January 2007.

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

6. The Policy Commission’s recommendation links directly with the corporate objective in Aim High with regard to improving the outcomes for children and young people. It also addresses the concerns expressed in the Area Review of post 14 provision (January 2004) and the Joint Area review (May 2006) regarding concerns about post 14 provision on the Island.

7. The recommendation also seeks to respond to the Government’s national agenda regarding the development of 14-19 diplomas and issues of choice and diversity in educational provision. National policy on these issues can be accessed on the DfES website www.dfes.gov.uk

CONSULTATION

8. The Policy Commission has undertaken extensive consultation – having received over 100 written responses and held three public evidence gathering sessions.

9. The stakeholders consulted include: schools, ConneXions, IOW College, LSC, parents, private training providers and Chamber of Commerce as well as young people.

10. The proposal reflects the main themes arising from the consultation as outlined in the Blue Paper report.

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

11. The revenue costs associated with this recommendation will be contained within the existing national education funding mechanisms.

12. There will be significant capital costs associated with the extension to middle schools to take Key Stage 3 pupils and the refurbishment of some existing high schools sites to meet the revised curriculum requirements. It is anticipated that significant capital receipts will be realised from the release of some existing schools sites, private investment, the LSC and the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

13. If the recommendation is adopted by Council the authority will need to issue statutory notices relating the closure and redesignation of the high school sites and the change of age group for middle schools. This process will be subject to the approval of the School’s Commissioner as required by the Education Act 2006.

OTHER IMPLICATIONS

14. The principle of choice and diversity is enshrined in recent legislation (Education Act 2006). The recommendation seeks to ensure choice and opportunity fore all post 14 learners not restricted by the local educational provision. The proposed recommendation does not actively discriminate against learners on grounds of gender, disability or ethnicity.

OPTIONS

15. The Policy Commission’s Blue Paper outlines the three main options and the reason for rejecting two of these. Within the recommendation there are three delivery models and the reasons for selection the preferred model is also expressed in the Blue Paper. The three delivery models as well as the advantages and disadvantages are listed in the following paragraphs:

16. Option 3 – Recommend an alternative i.e. to establish a formal collaborative or federated arrangement between the current high schools and possibly the College

Advantages

• Maintenance of choice and diversity and local provision post 16

• Improved economy re size and diversity than current

• Retain the role older models in High Schools

• Possible retention of capital investment and realisation of some capital assets

• Cowes ‘pathfinder’ remains on task

• Staff stability in two phases

• IOW Council seen as creative and innovative

Disadvantages

• Costs associated with extension of middle schools to take Y9

• Ignores to proposal re 11-16 faith based offer

• Some limited re-organisation of middle schools

• Staff morale and stability in high schools

16.1 6^th Form provision delivered by High Schools and College as one institution governed by one body

A single corporation replacing the college and the schools operating on, say, 4 sites around the island; this would be organised on a collegiate model similar to Oxbridge – there may be some technical difficulties with this model. It potentially does not meet the principle of choice and diversity.

16.2 6^th Form provision delivered at 3 or 4 sites, with College separate, in a Trust Foundation under a single Governing Body

Bringing together the current 5 high school provision under one leadership and governance (the ‘Trust’). The ‘Trust’ can be sponsored by both public and private sectors and can offer different provision on different sites. This might mean the current 5 high school reducing to 3 or 4 sites with each site offering the basic curriculum plus a number of specialisms (linked to new diplomas). Learners would be able to access their local learning site for pastoral support, guidance and the basic curriculum. Collectively the ‘Trust’ could offer the International Baccalaureate, something which no single school will be able to do. A single group of trustees will provide governance with a principal and heads of learning for each site.

16.3 As 16.2 but with each establishment retaining its own Governing Body responsible for provision

A weaker version of the ‘Trust’ would be a federation between separate 14-19 institutions with each site retaining some autonomy. This may not achieve the desired collaboration or provide an effective diverse curriculum offer.

RISK MANAGEMENT

17. A risk management action plan is attached as Appendix B.

RECOMMENDATIONS

18. The Cabinet is recommended to endorse the work and recommendation of the Policy Commission and to bring to Full Council a proposal for implementation based on the outcome of further consultation.

19. Senior officers are authorised to begin discussions with the DfES, LSC and other relevant regional and national organisations regarding the legal and financial implications of the Policy Commission’s recommendation, without incurring any significant additional resource until such time as Full Council presents its decision.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

20. Background papers include the Policy Commission’s consultation document, the written responses to this document (all to be found on the Council’s website); the LSC proposal (www.lsc.gov.uk) and the Education Act 2006 (http://www.dfes.gov.uk/).

APPENDICES

21. Appendix A: Policy Commission Blue Paper

Appendix B: Risk Management Action Plan

Contact Point : Steve Beynon, Director of Children’s Services,  tel: 01983 821000 ext. 6400, email: [email protected]

STEVE BEYNON Director Children’s Services

CLLR PATRICK JOYCE Cabinet Member for Education, Skills and Learning