PAPER A

Committee: FULL COUNCIL

Date: 23 April 2007

Subject: Report on 14-19 Education Proposals

REPORT OF THE CABINET MEMBER FOR EDUCATION, SKILLS AND LEARNING AND THE DIRECTOR OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Summary

1. This report provides information to members of the Council on the outcomes of the consultation regarding the two proposals:

· To change the governance arrangements for high schools

· To extend the age range of middle schools to include Year 9.

Context

2. Over the last three years concern has repeatedly been expressed by external inspection agencies regarding educational standards on the island. This concern was most recently expressed in the 2006 Joint Area Review in which inspectors concluded that educational standards were inadequate (report can be found at www.eduwight.iow.gov.uk). As a result the Department for Education Services (DfES) has awarded £1.4m over two years to improve leadership in the Island’s schools. In addition to the concern regarding standards, the inspectors also commented on the very slow progress being made by post 16 providers to secure access for students to the breadth of curriculum stated in the agreed learner entitlement.

Background to the Council’s proposal

3. The Isle of Wight Council’s current proposals regarding 14-19 provision on the Island have arisen following the Learning and Skills Council’s (LSC) proposal in July 2006 to develop a post 16 Sixth Form College linked to the current IOW College. The proposal was recommended to the Cabinet for rejection by the Policy Commission (Blue Paper published January 2007 can be found at www.eduwight.iow.gov.uk) following evidence gathering by the Commission during the autumn 2006, resulting in sixth forms being retained in the Island’s high schools. However, the Policy Commission in gathering evidence recognised that ‘no change’ was also not an option. In reviewing the evidence the Policy Commission identified a number of key themes, namely:

· The history of poor collaboration between post 16 providers in the past.

· The desire to keep learning and schooling as close to communities as possible.

· The need to keep strong role models and to extend further the involvement of sixth formers in primary schools.

· A need to maximise the professional development/experience to recruit and retain teachers of a high calibre.

· The need to retain expertise and specialisms in high schools to support developments in middle schools.

· The present 3 tiers, with some modification, mirrors the national 14-19 agenda.

· This is a seminal moment to be innovative and prepare for the future rather than adjust for what has happened in the past.

4. As a result the Policy Commission developed two proposals. Firstly, a proposal regarding a number of ways to secure more effective co-operation and collaboration for 14 – 19 provision. Secondly, a proposal to extend middle schools to take accountability for the whole of Key Stage 3 by retaining Year 9 pupils.

5. Since the Policy Commission concluded its deliberations and published its Blue Paper there have been a number of national developments which have implications for the 14-19 school organisation proposals. These are summarised below:

· A revised Key Stage 3 curriculum model is proposed which focuses on the core curriculum and the development of pupils’ independent learning skills.

· A proposal that the success of attainment at Key Stage 3 is measured by the number of pupils attaining level 6 in English and mathematics rather than the current level 5.

· The Government’s intention to raise the participation age for all students to age 18 as from 2013.

· Proposed changes to the training of teachers to move from the current choice between primary or secondary training to one of adjacent key stages.

· Announcement of the first cohort of school/college collaboratives to begin development of the new 14-19 diploma lines of learning in 2008 (Isle of Wight has been judged as ‘not yet ready’ for 2008 but has been awarded development funds to prepare for 2009).

· The stated intention of the Learning & Skills Council to ask the IOW College to develop academic sixth form provision at its current site.

6. The Cabinet considered the Policy Commission’s recommendations on 6 February and approved them for public consultation. The consultation has taken a number of forms:

· Six public meetings held in various venues across the Island.

· Telephone survey with parents.

· Information to parents distributed through schools.

· Six in-depth focus groups with young people aged 10 to 20 years.

· Other meetings held at request of representative bodies.

Consultation Responses

7. The responses to the consultation are summarised in the attached appendices. The key messages are:

Governance

8. A number of statutory partners (LSC, IOW College and Dioceses) have signalled their support for Option 2 (see Appendix A). However, there is no overall consensus within the wider stakeholder group regarding the governance options. A number of contributors across all stakeholders (parents, students and school staff) have expressed a desire to see a two tier option revisited. Equally a number have expressed a view that ‘no change’ or the ‘status quo’ should also be the outcome. Where views are expressed there is a spread across option 2 and 3. A small minority favour option 1 and this is not supported by the LSC at this stage, although not ruled out for the future.

9. Whilst closure and removal of a high school has been raised as a consistent concern, it is important to note that this will only become a reality if either or both of the statutory partners (the LSC and the Dioceses) decide to bring forward their own proposals regarding post 14 and post 16 provision. The closure and removal of a high school is therefore not a direct result of the governance proposals themselves. Therefore no change in governance may still lead to consideration of removal of at least one high school.

10. This lack of consensus means that the Council will need to take a leadership role and determine what, in its view, is the best way forward to address the key issues of low attainment and inconsistent collaboration across the post 14 curriculum offer.

11. In considering options 2 and 3 Council members need to ask themselves which of these will secure the access and choice that the new 14-19 curriculum demands.

12. Option 2 will provide single leadership and governance (financial, curriculum, and senior staff appointments) across the high school sector. It can be achieved in a number of ways and the next stage of consultation could focus on the implications of each method. Whatever method is adopted there will be a need to establish local management committees at each school site who will be comprised of parents and students and will be able to take local management decisions regarding the day to day running of the school.

13. Option 3 relies on governing bodies addressing the past issues collectively and securing the broad offer now required. It is interesting to note that whilst 3 of the 5 high school governing bodies have suggested a vertical (locality) structure as an alternative option they have chosen not to offer any collective suggestions as to how the post 14 collaboration could be improved across the whole sector (see Appendix A). It is also important to note that a locality grouped governing body will require the ‘technical closure’ of more schools and the travel of staff and pupils between schools; something which is raised as a concern by a range of stakeholders.

Year 9

14. There is a greater consensus regarding this proposal which is a negative response. There are broadly five areas of concern. These are:

· Insufficient time/expertise to offer guidance to young people on their post 14 options.

· Lack of expertise/resources within middle schools to deliver the whole Key Stage 3 curriculum.

· Concern about the welfare of younger pupils (9 year olds) if there are 14 year olds in middle schools.

· A potential negative impact on teacher recruitment and retention.

· Loss of the settling in time in high schools in preparation for GCSE.

15. It is important to note that the two Dioceses are supportive of this proposal and wish to move to a combined church offer based on a 9-14 middle school with the possibility of further expansion of age groups in future years. There was also support from 75% of the middle school heads for this proposal. (see Appendix A)

16. Much has been made on the need to consult with young people. In the evidence gained from the focus groups (see Appendix D and E) the feedback indicates that the suggested universal rejection by young people of the year 9 proposal is not substantiated. The petition signed by around 700 young people (see Appendix A) links their opposition to an assumption about school closure. Whilst this should not be dismissed, the threat of any closure is likely to provide a strong response as evidenced by these young people.

17. If the Council decides to proceed with this proposal there will be a need to ensure that the next round of consultation specifically addresses the issues outlined above and works with parents, staff and pupils, particularly those in middle schools, to develop an implementation plan that has a high level of support amongst these stakeholders.

Recommendations

18. The Council is invited to determine whether either or both proposals should be pursued further.

19. With regard to the governance proposal a single governance arrangement (option 2) can be achieved through one school on various sites or separate schools with one governing body. Should this option be adopted then further work will need to be undertaken by officers in consultation with DfES officials to determine which method should form the statutory proposal.

20. Option 1 can be realised, if agreed by the new governing body, following Option 2 with the IOW College then becoming a core member of the Trust.

21. Option 3 requires no statutory action, only the public commitment of each high school governing body to collaborate with each other to secure access to the full range of post 14 and post 16 curriculum offer for all students.

22. With regard to the Year 9 proposal, statutory proposals will need to be developed with full costs relating to each middle school and high school identified. This will require a further consultation on the implications for each school and the development of an implementation plan. Should the Council wish to proceed, detailed planning will be required to address the main issues of concern raised though the consultation process as identified in paragraph 14 above.

23. Through the consultation a number of other suggestions/options were proposed. These are listed below with a proposed response which the Council may choose to adopt.

· Two tier option – this is rejected on the basis that this will create wholesale disruption to the entire educational provision and put at risk a number of small primary schools (especially those in rural areas) which would not be able to expand on their school sites to accommodate the two extra years. A significant number of young children would need to travel to school. The amount of travel for older pupils was raised as an issue by many consultees (see Appendix A). A fresh period of consultation would be required. This is a revolutionary change as opposed to the evolutionary change contained within the Council’s proposals.

· Alternative three tier (comprising transfer at Y3 and Y7 or an infant, junior and high school arrangement). The first is rejected because it retains a split which consists of one year in a key stage at both key stage 2 and 3 and could lead to loss of motivation in the first year of a key stage. This is already an issue with the one year split at key stage 3 and is unlikely to address the issues of pace and continuity through a pupil’s learning pathway. The second is rejected on the same principle that it would require whole system change as in a two tier option. It would mean significant changes within all three current phases and greater modification of school facilities than is envisaged by the Council’s proposals.

· A three tier of primary, junior high and senior high schools. This is rejected as it again will put at risk a number of rural primary schools and is a whole system change which will cause greater instability.

· A geographical structure centrally managed (see Appendix A and response from Chamber of Commerce). Whilst this may secure choice and diversity for pupils it will not meet the Government’s requirement for diversity and competition between providers.

· No change, or delay for more research. These are rejected because the current levels of low attainment cannot be allowed to continue for any longer. The Policy Commission concluded that no change or the status quo was not an option. With regard to more research and evidence gathering this will be a fundamental part of the next stage of consultation as the implementation plan is developed.

· Vertical federations. This proposal has merit and is worth exploring on a locality basis. The Council’s governance proposals for post 14 can be developed through the next stage of consultation to ensure that vertical federations for 3-13/14 can be linked with the proposed governance arrangements for 14-19. This proposal and the Council’s proposal are not mutually exclusive and discussion with governing bodies along with the development of Option 2 may enable both parties to agree an acceptable way forward which brings benefits within a locality and island wide.

· Development of a faith based school which may eventually cover the age range of both middle and high schools. The Council will consider this proposal on its merits when the Dioceses and the schools bring forward specific proposals.

APPENDICES ATTACHED:

Appendix A – Responses to consultation by letter and e-mail.

Appendix B – Recorded responses from discussions at public meetings.

Appendix C – Electronic Talkback Panel results.

Appendix D – Independent consultation with parents and young people.

Appendix E – Other consultation feedback.

Appendix F – Summary of recorded responses from a stakeholder consultation meeting of education professionals.

CONTACT DETAILS: Steve Beynon, ' 823639 – e-mail [email protected]

STEVE BEYNON Director of Children’s Services

COUNCILLOR PATRICK JOYCE Cabinet Member for Education, Skills and Learning

Appendix A

Responses to consultation by letter and e-mail

There were 539 written responses. These were in the form of e-mails with 275 on the pre-printed cards. In terms of stakeholders:

13 were from young people

99 were from parents

22 were from governors of governing bodies

49 were from school based staff

21 were from members of the community

38 were not identifiable as to which stakeholder group they represented plus the 275 on the pre-printed reply cards where identification of stakeholder group was not required.

Particular responses were from:

Catholic and Anglican Dioceses of Portsmouth who express a commitment to raise standards and are supportive of the Y9 proposal; they express a desire to be involved in governorship of provision post 14 as well and wish to seek views at a later stage on aY5 to Y13 faith based provision.

Learning & Skills Council who restate that their priority is to improve the range and performance of sixth form provision on the Island; they express disappointment that the authority rejected their proposal; they support option 2 as it will support the embedding of collaborative arrangements between providers; they commitment themselves to working with the authority by aligning resources available to invest in provider quality improvement strategies and assurance systems.

IOW College who support option 2

12 of 16 middle school heads supporting the proposal regarding Year 9.

IOW Primary Heads Forum – expressing a desire for full range primary covering key stage 1 and 2 and a request for further dialogue and a commitment to improved liaison across all phases whatever proposal is adopted.

Gurnard Primary Governors do not have a collective view on the governance options and have therefore not made suggestions to parents or teachers; they ask for careful planning at the next stage and full engagement with stakeholders; teachers need to be valued and their views and options considered; they want a focus on transition at whatever age this takes place.

Haylands Primary Governors raise concerns about the primary nature of middle schools and the subsequent immaturity of pupils when they enter high school; they are concerned about the recruitment of specialist teachers; they ask why two tier is not being reconsidered and reject the current proposals.

St Helen’s Primary Governors who suggest whether primaries could become Foundation and Key stage 1 schools offering full extended services; they express worry about the LSC’s possible proposal regarding expansion of the sixth from provision; they support with reservations governance option 2; they want a workforce with improved skills; they are concerned about the maturity gap in middle schools and issue about GCSE guidance form within middle schools.

Shanklin CE Primary Governors who commented about frustration re timing and wanted more evidence and are unable to support any of the proposals.

Holy Cross Primary Governors support the Dioceses of Portsmouth’s response

IOW College offer option 2 as the most appropriate way forward and would want to be involved in the development of the implementation plans with the authority and the LSC.

Mayfield CE Middle Governors who want greater insight into the implications; want more consultation with stakeholders on the Y9 issue and are concerned about lack of evidence that the changes will necessarily raise standards; they point to recent positive Ofsted reports in middle and high schools; they remain committed to raising standards

Forelands Middle governors took views from staff and parents and do not support the Y9 proposal; they propose no change but the authority should re-look at the benefits of the cluster system; they want greater recognation for the improvement at KS2 and GCSE and want no decision until the current 2yr KS3 pilot has been evaluated; they want agreement by schools and the authority on the use of data.

Solent Middle Governors who are supportive of the Y9 proposal provided adequate resources are provided; they believe to delay by a year until 2010 may be preferable to avoid a bolt-on approach in middle schools; they want to explore further the issue around transfer at Y10 and are attracted by the vertical federation model.

Sandown High Governors reject the Y9 proposal and identify practice in their school which is building on the two year KS3 curriculum model and want to see further development of age not stage; they refer to their improving results and progress being made; they recognise the need for improved co-operation involved in 14-19 agenda and acknowledge that progress has been patchy; they feel options 1 and 2 may lead to a remoteness of leadership and have concerns about student travel; they feel option 3 is the least worst option but would prefer a vertical federation in the Bay area for 3-19.

Carisbrooke High Governors who object to all the proposals and wanted more options; they urge consideration of a vertical arrangement; they seek clarification on a number of issues relating to the proposals; they accept improvement at KS4 are required but ask for consideration of two tier; they point to their collaboration with Cowes and Medina and the wide curriculum access this provides; they suggest that collaboration with strong central leadership from the LA would achieve what is required.

Cowes High Governors who question the capacity of the authority to undertake the detailed planning an execution of the proposals and as such offer an alternative based on a vertical grouping of schools around a 0-19 continuum in the Cowes area; they focus on the individualised learning developments and see the vertical route as the way to respond to this and consider the Council’s 14-19 governance proposal as compromising this approach; they also refer to the collaboration with Medina and Carisbrooke; they recognise that there will need to be structural changes to governance in each locality as a result.

Cowes Cluster governors acknowledge the status quo is not an option; they identify some positives in the proposal but these are outweighed by the negatives; they felt the consultation document was too complicated for lay audience; they explore the possibility of all through primary provision and would like to explore further vertical federation.

Sandown Town Council who ask for reconsideration of the whole package.

Brading Town Council whilst having some reservations have expressed their faith in the Portfolio Holder to choose an option that will be in the best interest of children on the Island.

Chamber of Commerce, Tourism and Industry in their response offer an alternative model based on an area management within a High Schools trust. The area would be led by a Chief Educationalist who would lead in the vertical cluster and provide curriculum leadership for the whole island in a specialism. This would bring all schools together both vertically in areas and horizontally across the island.

Unison sent a detailed response which recognises the concerns expressed regarding the potential impact on their members; they want more discussion on possible alternatives; they raise issues about the proposed age range for middle schools and the impact of potential closure; they raise questions about the potential redundancy/redeployment issues; they identify that members are both suspicious and sceptical about the proposals but are keen to work with the authority to resolve any issue that might arise form Council’s decision.

National Union of Teachers record their opposition to the proposals raising concern about possible deleterious effect on teachers’ conditions of service; they want the council to enlist the expertise and support of teacher and parents before attempting to analyse and then address the need to rise standards.

Association of Teachers and Lecturers suggest governance option 3 as their desired choice; they raise issues about potential disharmony regarding pay and conditions; they do not support the Y9 proposal; they see a link between school effectiveness and the degree of socio-economic disadvantage in the school’s catchment and feel this impacts on teacher recruitment particularly at upper secondary level; they raise issue about teacher training and staff movement between sites; they request more information and clarification and will work with the authority to resolve these issues.

Association of School and College Leaders who state they are not opposed to change which drives up standards and enhances educational experience. They would want further consideration of locality clusters as a way forward. In terms of governance they opt for option 3.

The majority of responses (79%) do not express a view about the governance options. 9 support option 1; 29 support option 2; 57 support option 3.

A number expressed concerns about possible school closures (73 in total, 40 of which relate to Carisbrooke High School) and travel between sites (41) for students. Some rejected the notion of a ‘super head’ (4) and one respondent expressed support for this idea. 4 respondents felt more resources were needed to, for example, reduce class sizes and thereby improve results; 7 respondents felt school leadership was an issue and needed to be addressed and 5 respondents felt the major issues were of a social nature rather than an educational issue per se.

The overwhelming majority of respondents were against the year 9 proposal with their objections falling in to five main categories:

• 97 saying there would be insufficient time/expertise to offer guidance to young people on their post 14 options.
• 38 stating they felt there is a lack of expertise / resources within middle schools to deliver the whole Key Stage 3 curriculum.
• 34 expressing concern about the welfare of younger pupils (9 year olds) if there are 14 year olds in middle schools.
• 52 perceiving the proposal would have a negative impact on teacher recruitment and retention.
• 51 expressing concern about the loss of the ‘settling in time’ in high schools in preparation for GCSE.
• 37 were fully supportive of all the proposals.
• 17 respondents expressed a preference for a vertical locality based structure.
• 51 expressed a view that a two tier option should be considered.
• 23 wanted a no change/status quo option.
• 268 expressed view that the whole issue needed further examination or more research.
• 9 wanted more information prior to making a full response.
• 5 wanted more options discussed.

Appendix B

Recorded responses from discussions at public meetings

There were 1054 attendees at the consultation meetings held at six venues across the island. The notes taken at the meetings have been collated and summarised by an independent agency. The findings below are qualitative in nature and overall the data can be treated as reflective of those attending the meetings. A number of the participants were teachers who brought their experience to the group discussions.

Strong opinions were held by many who attended and their views were not in all cases compatible. There was no overall consensus on the right direction for the future education system. However, there were a number of similar concerns voiced at the consultation meetings. These can be themed as:

· Education for 14-19 year olds needs to improve

· The three governance options needed more information on how they would work

· Moving year 9 was deemed to be an unsuitable option and disruptive to schooling at an important stage

· Attendees were not convinced that there is enough evidence to suggest a change will improve standards

· A unique system on the island is perceived to make recruitment and retention of teachers more difficult

· Investment in the current system may work as well or better then a change to the system

· Possible school closures concern both teachers and parents

· Travelling across the island goes against the ‘green agenda’

· Some wanted the two tier option considered as a possibility

· Many would be unhappy if the status quo remained

· The resultant decision needs careful explanation and further evidence

· The opportunity for further consultation needs to be made clear

A full summary of the views and opinions expressed at each meeting is available at www.eduwight.iow.gov.uk

Appendix C

Electronic Talkback Panel results

The electronic Talkback Panels were available at each of the six public meetings and the meeting for school based staff. 149 attendees chose to record their views on the Talkback Panels – this equates to 14 % of attendees (based on the 1054 recorded attendees). It must be noted that some people attended more than one meeting and therefore their views may be recorded more than once. There was some resistance to using the panels as there was not a response “none of the three options” in relation to the governance options.

The low level of use of the Talkback Panels means that the following data can be used as a loose summary. The key themes listed below have been summarised based on the data collected electronically.

Taking all the responses into account overall the majority of responses (61%) were from people who recorded themselves as parents.

Of those who chose a governance option 48% chose option 1.

The majority of people (79%) strongly disagreed that retaining year 9 in middle schools would improve Key Stage 3 standards.

The majority of people (44%) tended to disagree that their views had been listened to.

A detailed analysis of the responses can be found at www.eduwight.iow.gov.uk

Appendix D

Independent Consultation with parents and young people

This research was commissioned by the Council from QA Research, an independent company.

The research was undertaken with a sample of 403 parents (mixed gender) and five in-depth focus groups with young people aged 10 – 13 years and one focus group of young people aged 17-20 who predominantly had not completed high school careers.

Parents’ views

There were few strong views on the quality of the Island’s high schools; 38% described the current high school provision as average. The positive elements of the high schools are their facilities, their location, the quality of teaching and the broad range of courses. The issues identified include bullying and bad behaviour along with low attainment. The main area for improvement identified is in the management structure of the schools, teacher training and discipline.

Nearly 40% of parents felt there would be no positive implications in retaining year 9 in middle schools. Parents were particularly worried about how such a move would impact on their children in terms of stability or inconsistency. Parents were also worried about younger pupils mixing with older ones. 30% of parents see this proposal as very negative overall.

With regard to the governance issue, parents were concerned about the travel implications related to options 1 and 2. With regard to the aspect of choice, opinions were divided amongst the options. However, option 3 was seen to impact positively on young people’s choices. Parents felt more information was required and it seems that many of those interviewed are either averse to or cautious towards change.

Young People’s views

Overall there was not a conclusive outcome either for or against the year 9 proposal. However, it is important to note that not all the young people fully understood the implications of the proposal.

The responses did provide an insight into what the young people see as the strengths of the current system (such as the transitional year) and its weaknesses (such as the lack of consistency). The young people acknowledged that leaving year 9 in middle schools would provide continuity and consistency. They also expressed concern about the loss of the transitional year which may impact negatively on their learning when they moved into year 10. They also expressed concern about costs, space and disruption to older pupils.

There were mixed levels of understanding regarding the governance proposals. This was due to their limited understanding of both the current arrangements and the proposed changes. There were concerns about the possible reduction in the number of high schools and related issues about travel, costs and over-crowding. Generally they wanted to retain the status quo. Suggestions from the young people included practical courses, flexible teaching and smaller class sizes.

The full report is to be found at www.eduwight.iow.gov.uk

Appendix E

Other consultation feedback

Youth Council

The Director of Children’s Services attended a Youth Council meeting at their invitation to discuss the proposals. The following are the notes of the meeting relating to this part of the agenda.

(Note: Names are indicated by initial only.)

Agenda item 2) 14 – 19 Education – Steve Beynon: Steve kicked off by asking the meeting if they were aware of the proposals to change the education system on the Island. Everybody present was aware of the proposals which allowed Steve to open up for questions. T started by asking Steve what his job was. Steve explained that, as Director of Children’s Services, he was responsible for the council’s role in all things to do with young people aged 0 – 19. He will be judged on how Children’s Services performs in regard to the 5 outcomes from the Every Child Matters Bill. (Be Healthy, Stay Safe, Enjoy and Achieve, Make a Positive Contribution and Achieve Economic Well being). L had attended one of the consultation meetings and asked how keeping year 9 in middle schools would improve Key Stage 3 results. Steve replied that as it stands there is some fluctuation with some students sitting KS3 SATs in year 8 and year 9. Keeping year 9 in middle schools will give the opportunity for students to do KS3 when they are ready or be pushed harder to get a better grade in year 9. KS3 is improving and moving closer to national standards whereas GCSE pass rates are falling further behind. L asked how year 9 in middle schools could improve GCSE grades, Steve said that it’s unacceptable that so many young people leave school without A – C grades, 3 years in middle school will give students a better grounding. In parts of Leicestershire people do 4 years in middle school and their GCSE grades are 10% points higher.

C asked how cutting the year 9 introduction year to the high schools would improve GCSE grades; Steve answered that many people see year 9 as introductory when it isn’t - adding that people do lose pace in year 9. Students can achieve grades of 5 or 6 at KS3 (equivalent to a C grade at GCSE) and then fall behind at GCSE, not getting the grades they should. L agreed that people do lose motivation in year 9 and Steve said this should never happen. S suggested that year 10 students might start their GCSE courses having difficulties settling in to a new school, Steve said that middle and high schools will have to work closer together, including some middle school students having lessons at a high school plus the last term of year 9 could be spent in high school. M thought that getting teachers to talk to each other about transferring students was unlikely to happen as it didn’t seem to work at his school which covers all key stages and has only 400 students. C had problems with being put in sets that weren’t right, F and others agreed that they’d also had problems with set placement when they moved up to high school. Steve thought that the IWC hasn’t put enough pressure on schools in the past and, if the proposals go through, high school teachers will go into the middle schools.

B said he has just moved up into year 9 and is starting GCSE courses in the last 2 months of the school year so perhaps people could move up after the KS3 SATs, N suggested doing KS3 in year 8 as SATs aren’t really important. Steve said we have to regularise when KS3 SATs take place and that the government now has the agenda to keep people in school or college until they’re 19 doing the new 14 -19

diploma alongside GCSEs. L said she’s more convinced than she was but that she’s more inclined to believe teachers and she’s not met one in favour of the proposal and they should be considered more strongly. Steve answered that professionals have a right to express their views but there are some aspects of the proposals that they haven’t had the opportunity to consider.

C asked Steve which he thought was better – a 3 tier system or a 2 tier one. Steve said that it’s a challenging issue, especially for an ex teacher but on the Island people want to keep village primary schools in their communities, whereas with a 2 tier system many would close. KS2 is the longest stage so it makes sense to move school after KS2. K said she used to live in an area where the 3 tiers were infant, primary and secondary and asked why couldn’t that work here. Steve replied that that would mean some infant schools would be too small to be viable and, also, it would mean that children as young as 7 and 8 would have to travel for their education.

I said that practical subjects aren’t taught very well in middle schools so that will cause problems in year 10 if year 9 stays in middle schools. Steve said that we need to improve facilities in middle schools and that the new diploma is strong on practical and creative courses. It’s possible that students may be able to sample creative and practical studies in 2 or 3 week blocks which will be better than taster sessions. If year 9 is kept in the middle schools all the taster sessions will happen in years 8 and 9 while, currently, some people have to make choices before they’ve had taster sessions.

The new diploma will offer modular blocks which will free up teachers to go into the middle schools to run taster sessions. B said that he is starting 5 GCSE courses in Year 9 and 5 in year 10 and that students felt daunted by 3 years of exams and tests. Steve answered that the new diploma has more of an emphasis on coursework and lines of learning, making it more like a college course than a school one. GCSEs have moved away from coursework due to plagiarism using the internet and too much help from e.g. parents; coursework will still be a factor and will take place in school.

Steve said that every young person on the Isle of Wight deserves the chance to study what they want to the best of their ability. He gave the example of a girl who was the only one in the school who wanted to do A level physics and she wasn’t allowed to do it – the school should have moved heaven and earth to enable her to do it.

L asked if SATs are to be taken when the student is ready what if a student in year 9 is ready to start their GCSEs. Steve replied that the middle school would have to organise that.

P asked for a vote and their was some discussion as Melanie Swan pointed out that the IWC will be voting on 2 issues; the governance of schools and what form a trust will take and the other was on year 9 taking place in middle schools. IWYC members decided only to vote on the year 9 question and the vote was;

7 for year 9 going to middle schools.

8 against

3 abstentions.

A general feeling amongst the group was that there hadn’t been enough consultation with young people in schools with the consultation meetings only being announced in assembly on the day they were due to take place. Melanie Swan was sorry that the group felt that way and pointed out that Steve Beynon had offered to go to all schools but some had not taken him up on the offer.

Young people Focus Group

Focus group meeting organised by Carisbrooke High Students (also representatives from all other high schools were present) facilitated by the South Central ConneXions Service.

The key questions were:

n What proof have you got that year nine in middle school will benefit the education system?

n How will taster sessions compare to the support and guidance from a specialist teacher who knows the student when deciding what options to take?

n How will children be expected to cope with the level of demand at GCSE when they have lost out on a year of valuable teaching experience?

n How will they settle into high school life without it affecting their work load as they try to find social groups etc?

n How will the teachers be able to make educated decisions when judging the child’s ability when they only have information from middle schools? This is often seen as unsuitable as the work at high school is different to middle school, therefore a middle school teacher could not make a good judgement as to where the child would be best suited at high school.

n Year nine is an opportunity for teachers to get to know the student individually instead of judging them on statistics. Therefore they are able to measure potential; this helps them concentrate on that pupil in years 10 and 11.

n This may improve year nine results, however, this may have a negative effect on GCSEs which are much more important.

n First GCSE modular can be sat with in 10 weeks of being at high school, meaning that they have hardly any time to settle in properly.

n Less chance to take modules early which many year nines currently do at high school.

Appendix F

Summary of recorded responses from a stakeholder consultation meeting of education professionals

The following summary was prepared independently following analysis of the paperwork compiled from the meeting and forms the executive summary of a full report including the views and opinions expressed at the meeting, which can be found at www.eduwight.iow.gov.uk

The consultation session provided the opportunity for education professionals to be engaged in the process of developing an education system for the Island. The Council realise that local people do not speak with one voice and have worked to ensure that a variety of consultation meetings across the Island have been held to engage with a wide range of local people. The findings are qualitative in nature, and give deep insight into feelings of residents and helps answer the question ‘why?’ education professionals feel as they do.

Overall the data should be interpreted as reflective of the range of opinions held

by those attending the meetings, with this report providing the context and analysis to assess how these opinions can be responded to by the Council.

Summary of findings

School reorganisation is a source of concern for education professionals. Within these concerns are a number of points related to individual schools, Key Stages (KS2-4) and the experience and opinions of education professionals. However, stepping back and looking at the overarching tone and content of the consultation session it is clear that there are some themes which run through their concerns:

• Some education professionals have not historically felt supported in the work they do. This includes a perception that they have not been listened to in the past, and that their professional expertise has been ignored.
• Consultation over a reorganisation of 14-19 education provision is seen by some in this context. There is a lack of trust in whether the council will truly listen to the points raised.
• There is recognition that the quality of 14-19 education provision needs to improve on the island, but there is scepticism that any plans the council produces will be well thought through or will actually work. There is limited trust in the council to deliver. Comments were made in the groups that Ofsted had criticised the LEA/council far more than it had criticised individual schools. Therefore it was seen by some to be the central organisation of the council that needed to change, not individual schools.

This presents a number of challenges to the council. It could be argued that any plan which the council puts forward would meet with some opposition. Strong opinions were held by many who attended the meetings with views that are not compatible. There was no consensus on the right direction for the education system to go in the future.

It is clear from the level of attendance at the meeting and the detail of the discussion that education professionals want to be involved, and want the council to recognise their importance and to address their concerns. They want this consultation to restore their faith in the council for providing good leadership over education provision on the island and for the final changes, whatever they might be, to be based on strong evidence and effective consultation with the education profession.

Education professionals also want to be part of a consultation process. Many felt that this consultation was the first time they were consulted, rather than a development of previous consultation and discussions. They want to be involved as early as possible in the development of any plans.

The discussions rarely focused on choosing between the three options as presented. Instead education professionals were keen to assess aspects of these proposals in detail. For each of these aspects education professionals were keen to see the evidence to back up any changes.

• One of the key discussions was to separate issues of governance from proposals to locate year 9 in middle schools. There was concern about the impact on GCSEs. It was felt by some that having year 9 in middle schools would mean that GCSE choices would not be well informed, and that the time taken to settle in to the school where GCSEs would be taken would be adversely shortened – impacting on results.
• Travel and environmental issues were discussed by many. Some felt that the proposals as they stand would lead to teachers and pupils traversing the island more than they currently do. Further it was felt by some that anecdotal evidence shows that pupils who need to travel to do courses are more likely to drop out.
• There was concern that changing the scale of high schools from 1,200 to 1,600 pupils will make them difficult to control. Pastoral care might become more difficult – especially if pupils and teachers are moving between institutions.
• There was concern about the impact on children with Special Education Needs (SEN) and a perception by some that any changes would be disruptive.
• Education professionals were also concerned about possible school closures and redundancies. These are issues will impact directly on their working lives, career and confidence. Any uncertainty leads to rumour and speculation. It is only natural that this will err on the side of assuming that the worse will happen – that their school will close, or that they will be made redundant. This insecurity can lead to a fear of change.

Overall, the education profession are asking for more details, more evidence and more information tackling their key concerns. They also want to ensure that this consultation is a true dialogue with the council, and to work with the council to improve education across the island.