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

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.

33.

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 iii and v 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. ' 823410 Email: [email protected]

KIM JOHNSON

Head of Planning and Resources

JILL WAREHAM

Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services

SUMMARY/PURPOSE

CONFIDENTIAL/EXEMPT ITEMS