56.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 February 2005 were confirmed.
57.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Mr R G Mazillius declared a personal interest in Minute 60 – The
future of Education and Training on the Island, as his son’s business was
involved in providing services in connection with school buildings.
58.
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Written questions were submitted by Deborah Hart,
Cheryl Blake, Maureen Franklin, Wendy Welsford and Chris Welsford (PQ11/05) all
in relation to school organisation. The questions and responses given are
contained in the Public Question Register. A question was also submitted by Mrs
R Trodd in also relation to school organisation. A written response was to be
provided following the meeting. In view of the debate to be held later in the
meeting on this topic the Chairman advised the questioners that they would be
invited to ask any relevant supplementary questions following this.
Mrs M Swan also asked a question in relation to the
number of persons employed by the LEA and the number of pupils in Island
schools. The Head of Planning and Resources indicated that this information had
been outlined in the response provided when the question had been raised at the
22 February 2005 Council meeting. There
were approximately 19,500 pupils but he would need to confirm the number of
staff.
59.
FORWARD PLAN
The Head of Select Committee and Review Team
reported that the only item of relevance to the Select Committee contained
within the Forward Plan for March 2005 to June 2005 related to school
organisation which was to be considered by the Executive on 24 March 2005.
60.
THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING ON THE ISLAND
The Chairman welcomed Mr S Clarke, Chief Executive of
Four S and Mr D Gamble, Joint Head of Education and School Organisation from
Milton Keynes Council.
The Select Committee had before it the report of the
Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services which was to be considered by the
Executive on 24 March 2005. Mr S Clarke
gave an outline of findings contained on the Strategic Options report produced
by Four S on school organisation. He
explained that there was a need for all stakeholders to work together to
improve school standards. The strong
link between school attainment and economic development was also stressed.
The review undertaken by Four S highlighted that the
accountability of each partner required improvement. The existing school structure did not enable a sustainable
approach to be developed on pupil achievement.
There were ongoing difficulties with recruitment into Island schools
beyond the normal ‘Island Factor’.
Teachers were trained nationally in either the secondary or primary
sector and this created difficulties for staff movement between two tier and
three tier systems. Whilst
collaborative working on post 16 had shown some pressure the pace of
improvement was not sufficient and consistent.
It was accepted that cluster working was having some impact on
identifying best practice. Any change
in the organisation of schools would still enable cluster working to be
developed further as one of the elements in an overall framework.
Mr Clarke indicated that issues relating to pupil
behaviour had not been specifically raised during the consultation
process. A 2 tier system could be
beneficial in giving increased opportunities for schools to help develop pupils
from age 11 without the difficulties created through a change in schools at 13.
Mr D Gamble indicated that Milton Keynes was not
making such a substantial change to its school organisation as on the Island. A further review of the effectiveness of the
changes being made to part of its system was however anticipated in the future. The changes, which would be introduced from
September 2005, would mean that Milton Keynes would have 10 Secondary schools
with 35 schools with age range 4 – 12, 17 for 8 – 12 and 37 for 4 – 8. Whilst for some areas there would be two
transitions for pupils these were being aligned to National Curriculum Key Stages.
Changes were being introduced due to standards in Milton Keynes being lower
than that in other comparable authorities.
Difficulties were also being encountered with recruitment of staff. Mr Gamble outlined the consultative process
utilised and how key stakeholders were engaged on the review leading into
planning and implementation stages.
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee at Milton Keynes
was fully involved in all the processes through a small Sub Committee which
looked at the details of implementation at each stage. Specific working parties involving
Headteachers, Governors and Officers were established to consider implications
for human resources, Diocesan issues, Finance, transition management and
accommodation. Funding was made
available to compensate schools for staff time lost in this work. A communication strategy was developed which
identified a framework to which all publicity was linked. An important element in overcoming concerns
of staff was a specific fund to cover the transition period. This was also part of an overall recruitment
and retention package. Milton Keynes
Council had also recognised the importance of small schools and had drawn up a
policy on these outlining how these would be supported. A co-ordinator for
small schools had been appointed to provide advice to these and help
co-ordinate and develop joint working.
The importance of good working relationships between
the Council, the Department for Education and Skills and the Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister had enabled works to be funded through normal capital
funding grants. Additional revenue
expenditure would be met from the LEA schools budget for the four transition
years during which time a review of funding arrangements for schools would have
been undertaken. In agreeing to the
changes Milton Keynes Council had been aware of the positive impact on school
attainment that had been in Enfield and Buckinghamshire following similar
school reorganisation.
The Select Committee noted that post 16 education
was not an issue in Milton Keynes and would continue to be delivered by its
secondary schools.
The disparity between individual schools Section 10
Ofsted reports and overall school attainment also appeared to be an issue in
Milton Keynes as it was on the Island.
The Select Committee then discussed the report and
recommendations that were to be considered by the Executive.
The projected forecast for the Island school
population was raised. This indicated
falling rolls over the next 8 years despite predictions on known housing
development during this time. The
Portfolio Holder highlighted that the viability of small schools was a major
issue that had to be addressed. She
explained that no decision had been taken by the Council to close any school on
the Island. If the Executive agreed to
the recommendations then a formal consultation process would have to be carried
out. The final decision regarding any
changes would be for the School Organisation Committee, which comprised of
representatives of School Groups, Diocesan Authorities and the LEA. Members discussed the important part played
by schools and their impact in local communities, particularly rural areas. The
Portfolio Holder believed that the ability to incorporate changes envisaged as
part of “Every Child Matters”, including extended schools, and greater
community usage in any changes should not be overlooked.
The Select Committee was advised of the increasing
difficulties in teachers being able to engage in appropriate training relevant
to primary or secondary education due to the three tier system. This made it very difficult for involvement
in the School Improvement Programme.
The importance in accessing relevant capital funding
to any changes to school organisation was stressed. Some funding was only available on a bid basis and if the
deadline was missed this could create a delay of up to 2 years. Also a more structured approach could be
adopted if bids were submitted by the LEA alongside those of the Diocesan
Authorities.
The Select Committee noted the importance of
ensuring that all stakeholders were kept fully appraised of what was happening
on school organisation. It was vital
that there was clarity over the processes and associated timetable. It was also important that full Council had
a debate on school organisation.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE EXECUTIVE
1. All reports concerning school organisation be brought to the Select Committee by the Portfolio Holder before going to the Executive to demonstrate accountability, transparency and full member engagement.
2. The Executive be recommended that a scheme be developed to provide a transitional protection for staff if it decides to adopt the recommendations from Four S and that this scheme be brought back to the Select Committee within 6 months.
3. A specific communications strategy be developed for ensuring that all stakeholders are kept fully aware of actions being taken on school organisation.
4. A date be set by which time schools, the Council and the Learning and Skills Council should have created a collective vision for the Island education service.
5. A debate on the future organisation of Island schools be held by the full Council following the May 2005 elections.
6. If the Executive approves the recommendations contained in the report to be considered on 24 March an information leaflet be distributed to all Island households explaining the stage reached and the processes that will follow as a result.
61.
QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT REPORT – QUARTER 3 2004-05
Due to the length of time taken to fully debate the
previous item on school organisation it was agreed to defer the report on the Quarterly
Performance Management Report to the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN