|
|
BATH & NORTH EAST SOMERSET Education Service |
Education, Youth, Culture and Leisure
Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Terms of Reference
"That the Education, Youth, Culture and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Panel looks into the methodology employed in the `desktop' review and tests the principles with all stakeholders in B&NES with a view to recommending an agreed overall policy and approach in the light of future demographic trends in both the primary and secondary sectors."
25.11.02
|
|
BATH & NORTH EAST SOMERSET Education Service |
· Some consultees have commented that all schools should be treated equally but this is not possible to achieve. Aided schools and Foundation schools are not treated in the same way as community schools. The need to maintain the balance of denominational places seems to protect church schools and no such `protection' exists for community schools.
How do we treats schools equally in terms of review methodology and possible outcomes?
· The outcomes of school reviews should be informed by what is right for the majority of children in Bath & North East Somerset. Stakeholders would welcome a clear statement from Council Members that they are willing to sign up to this principle. Headteachers, Governing Bodies and Diocesan Boards should sign up to this principle too.
· All schools strive to provide the best for the children in their care, not just those under review.
· There should be a framework of maximum and minimum school sizes and it is useful that the School Organisation Committee has distinguished between rural and urban/suburban schools.
No major disagreement has emerged over the sizes already adopted.
· The range of acceptable levels of surplus places to facilitate parental preferences should be retained.
· The efficient use of resources is a crucial consideration. Thus the minimum/maximum school/class sizes should be applied in order to assess the efficient use of resources.
· Relevant and up-to-date information must inform the decision-making process.
· The aim is to make the process transparent and outcomes should be predictable.
· If the process developed is one with integrity, decisive action must result.
· Principles should be underpinned by a vision:
what is sustainable
targets in relation to surplus places
what provision should look like
the purposes and principles of learning
· Best practice from other LEAs should be researched and disseminated.
The Purpose of School Reviews
· To ensure that there are sufficient school places to meet local need.
· To maximise the number of parents achieving a place for their child at their first preference school.
· To reassure stakeholders and external scrutineers that resources are being used effectively.
· To remove surplus places.
· To add places where population growth in the locality requires this.
· To as great an extent as possible, ensure that children are learning and school staff are teaching in buildings which are in good condition and fit for purpose.
· To support school improvement by helping schools keep the number of pupils, and therefore the budget, as stable as possible so long term planning can take place.
Area School Organisation Plans
· There has been widespread (not unanimous) support for the proposal that there is a rolling programme of area reviews based on agreed school organisation planning areas.
· Officers would commit to preparing the draft Area School Organisation Plan (ASOP) within a specified time period. 12 school weeks has been proposed.
· The primary school planning areas could be covered in a five-year period.
· It would make sense to prepare an Area Asset Management Plan (AAMP) at the same time. This would mean that we could introduce a rolling programme of up-dating:
suitability data
net capacity
condition data
· Priorities for Planned Maintenance and capital projects would then emerge alongside conclusions about the long term future of each school in the area.
(Members are asked to note that this is Alison's idea and has not emerged from consultations. It's still a Good Idea though!).
Comments from consultees on the rolling programme approach:
excellent idea
good if used to support schools
it should remove the fear of reviews
outcomes must be acted upon
waste of resources
should encourage transparency and facilitate strategic planning
seems a more rigorous approach
Information to be Included in an Area School Organisation Plan
· Contextual data i.e. location, local amenities, distance from other schools.
· Contribution from Headteacher (one paragraph).
· Adult/pupil ratios.
· Performance data; proposed that, for the smallest schools, three years' data is combined.
· Current numbers on roll.
· Historical data on numbers on roll and levels of recruitment against standard number.
· Projected numbers on roll.
· Levels of surplus or deficit of places.
· Unit cost per pupil.
· Home addresses of pupils on roll and closest school.
· Outstanding planned maintenance (condition data).
· Suitability assessment.
· Levels of educational deprivation and multiple deprivation in the ward in which each school is located.
· That we describe the `average' primary school in terms of size, budget and performance. All schools can then be plotted against this. In relation to size it would probably be necessary to plot the average rural and the average urban/suburban school.
· LEA should consider passing the completed ASOP to an external evaluator who has no vested interests and knows nothing of the schools except the data available in the ASOP. Objective conclusions would then be more secure.
It would also serve as a useful test as to the information included i.e. is it relevant and sufficient for conclusions to be drawn?
This suggestion has financial implications (small - about 2 days work) but Members would then be able to consider the conclusions of their own officers and the conclusions of an objective observer.
Outcomes from an Area School Organisation Plan
· a new school is needed to meet local need
· existing schools expanded to meet local need
· surplus accommodation identified for removal
· two or more schools amalgamate
· a school closes
· admissions criteria are modified
· federated schools are proposed
· no change
The approach does not demand immediate action in all cases. Conclusion could be ...... within the next five years......
Outcomes from an Area Asset Management Plan
· each school provided with up-to-date suitability and condition data.
· net capacity adjusted if appropriate.
· assistance provided to each school in terms of reviewing the school AMP.
· priorities for capital investment identified.
Again, this year could be in the context of a five year plan.
Governors were largely supportive of the need for Governing Bodies to be more proactive and, on an annual basis, examine the robustness of the school in terms of its long term future. If this happened, schools would begin the ASOP process with a) a more realistic idea of likely outcomes; and b) some ideas of their own on possible developments. In this context, we have assumed that the Headteacher is part of the Governing Body.
Comments from Governors:
· As Chair of `X' School, I invited the LEA into the school at the end of 1999. Although this lead to significant upheaval, the school has improved and I would commend this process to anyone.
· This is the role of Governors.........
Note:
Where the ASOP concludes that significant change is needed (expansion/closure), the usual programme of formal consultation, publication of notices, period for representations etc follows.
Members should be aware that, at this stage, the LEA could well be focusing on a single school.
The Role of the School in the Community
Consultees really struggled with this one.
Some felt it was not relevant as the prime purpose of the school is to teach the children who attend. Others suggested there could be community surveys but this is probably not achievable in the proposed timescales. Still others said that the local community would never provide objective evidence.
We seem to be limited to obtaining information from schools on the use made of the buildings/facilities by community groups.
This would probably tell us more about best practice and what is possible, than inform decisions on school organisation issues.
Panel Members have already asked for more information on pupils' home addresses and this can be incorporated into the ASOP.
Exceptional Reviews
There was a broad consensus for the need to retain the Council's ability to review a single school in exceptional circumstances.
The reasons (or triggers) for such a review should be transparent.
· The school is in special measures, has serious weaknesses (no choice for the LEA) or is a cause of major concern in the LEA.
· Pupil numbers have changed dramatically over a three-year period.
· The school has 25% or more unfilled places1.
· A major housing development is proposed for the area.
· New roads or transport systems have made a school more or less accessible.
· The school is performing really well following a reorganisation and can be used as an example of best practice.
· The school is substantially, or totally, destroyed by, for example, fire.
· The Governing Body, or Bodies, request a review.
· A Diocesan Board of Education requests a review.
Secondary Schools
1. The work has focused on the management of primary school reviews and further work is required to provide a framework which is appropriate for secondary schools.
2. Area reviews are possible and the LEA could simply be divided into two areas: North East Somerset and Bath.
3. Officers do not believe there is any pressure to review the schools in North East Somerset.
4. There is considerable pressure to review the pattern of provision in Bath.
5. The starting point should be to set out some fundamental principles and describe explicitly the pattern of provision which would seem to best support those principles.
|
THIS COULD BE AN INTERESTING AND USEFUL MINI PROJECT FOR THE PANEL TO TAKE FORWARD DURING THE SPRING TERM |
6. The following notes record views expressed to date and could form the starting point for the Panel should it wish to accept the mission!
Background Notes
· A city has the advantage of being able to provide a diversity of provision. However, diversity must reflect parental preference.
· The first step is to decide whether diversity is to be retained and celebrated as a strength, or to pursue a course of action which results in a more uniform pattern of provision.
· The extent of diversity in Bath is out of balance with both pupil numbers and parental preferences.
· There is a willingness amongst Heads to confront the need for change.
· The consortium approach is valued and should be retained i.e. in a small city, parents do not need to be allocated a particular school place.
· Progress can only be made in liaison with the Learning Skills Council.
· Any new arrangements must be tested against the need for continuous improvement in children's achievements.
· Any new arrangements should take account of the need to reduce the seepage to the private sector.
Special Schools
1. Much of the work developed for the primary school reviews can be adapted to apply to the special schools.
2. The Bath Special Project should be completed. From that point, there should be a review of specialist provision in B&NES (special schools and resource centres) at least every five-year period.
1 It is proposed that the OSP and Executive Member receive an annual report which lists those schools which have 25% surplus places and reports any action taken/proposed.
