BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET COUNCIL

EDUCATION, YOUTH, CULTURE & LEISURE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

REVIEW OF SECONDARY EDUCATION IN THE GREATER BATH AREA - PRESENTATION OF PANEL FINDINGS

Wednesday 24th May 2006

PRESENT:- Chair 2006-2007: Councillor Andy Furse

Councillors: Sally Davis, Leila Wishart, Hilary Fraser

Also in attendance:

Co-opted members (voting) - Mike Brownbill (Bath & Wells Diocese), Tess Daly (Clifton Diocese), Colin Hitchin (Parent Governor). Co-opted Members (non-voting) and Trades union observers - Rob Henderson (special school governor), Paul Grant (primary school governor), Chris Batten (ATL)

Officers: Gail Quinton , Tony Parker , Bruce Austen, Georgina Jackman, Ann Swabey (Democratic Services).

Executive Member for Children's Services - Councillor Jonathan Gay

Maureen Bollard - Director of Education for the Bath & Wells Diocese

Libby Lee - Headteacher , Ralph Allen school

Erica Draisey - Headteacher, Hayesfield School

Cherril Pope - Headteacher, St Mark;s School

Apologies: Cllrs Marian McNeir, Dine Romero, Shirley Steel, Peter Jovcic-Sas (parent governor), Marian Miller (NAHT), Avril Connelly (BANESH)

The Chair introduced the item and explained that the objective of the meeting was to ensure that the report is a correct and acceptable record of the Panel's findings in this review.

Cherril Pope then read a statement and distributed a handout to the Members. This consisted of a table of comparisons between the schools in various categories including Ofsted gradings and attendance levels. Miss Pope pointed out that she felt that the comparisons were neither consistent nor fair and that it was important that the process be honest and objective. She highlighted what she saw as inconsistencies in the report and objected to examples of negative and emotive language used when describing some schools. She requested that, in the light of these observations, the report be revised.

The Chair conceded that the report fell short in some areas and apologised. He said that it would need more work. Members agreed that the factual errors needed correcting and that Miss Pope's comments on other issues should be taken on board. Above all, there should be consistency in this report when compared with those from previous reviews. The Acting Head of Children's Services commented that it would be possible to standardise the reports so that the final report is consistent and also up-to-date with the recent Ofsted results. Tony Parker suggested that the final report need only contain the identified key factors and it was not necessary to include a lot of background information. The factual data sets would obviously have to be up-to-date and accurate and would inform a prime part of the recommendations.

Erica Draisey endorsed Cherril Pope's statement and asked what data there was on the impact of the private sector schooling in Bath. Tony Parker replied that it was difficult to obtain accurate figures, but that there were no discernible trends which would have a major impact on the authority.

Libby Lee also endorsed Cherril Pope's statement and said she was reassured by the agreement on consistency. She asked that only objective language be used in the report and that there is consistency in the numerical data. She also commented that that was no mention of Special Educational Needs within the report.

A Member expressed concern that, in altering the report, it was important that the Panel's vision of future education provision was not lost and that, for instance, socio-economic factors did have some bearing in the equation.

Mike Brownbill proposed a motion, seconded by Councillor Hilary Fraser that:

`The Panel notes the lack of consistency and objectivity in the report before it and will revise this and the previous reports in the light of this. It intends to ensure that it will be fair and objective in future reports while continuing to pursue actively its vision for secondary schools in the authority `

The proposal was put to the vote and was carried by a majority.

Mr Wallis, vice-chair of governors at Culverhay School asked what the target dates were for the implementation of changes to the secondary education structure. The Chair informed him that the Panel intended to present its vision to the Executive by January 2007 and the implantation dates would be in the final report. Bruce Austen added that any specific proposals for change would be subject to the normal process of consultation, statutory notices and eventual decision. Following the Overview and Scrutiny process, the report would be considered by the Council Executive. Once the government funding position becomes clear, the Council would then be in a position to indicate how it wishes to proceed. The review of provision and unfilled places had to take place and the Building Schools for the Future programme forces the issue and allows us to move forward and implement change.

Tess Daly pointed out that there was a misleading statement in the report with regard to St Gregory's, concerning the percentage of children that the school was able to select for its specialism. The Panel commented that they seemed to have been misinformed on this issue and accepted that the position would need to be clarified in the revised report. Mrs Daly made further comment about the issue of a joint faith school and the problems that this would cause given that St Gregory's is consistently oversubscribed and is on a small site. She also wished the Panel to note that it is the Diocese who have the right to retain the faith provision and not the Local Authority and that the proportion of faith school places has to be kept the same as when the first School Organisation Plan was drawn up. The Chair pointed out that in fact the School's Adjudicator has the final say on school places, not the Dioceses or the Local Education Authority.

The Chair drew the debate to a close and asked for any further comments. It was suggested and agreed that post-16 provision needed to be added to the list of objectives and that mention should be made of the Learning and Skills Council and further education colleges.

The Chair informed the meeting that the revised report, incorporating the agreed changes, would be circulated to the Panel Members and then sent to the schools for their approval. 

For the future, Mike Brownbill suggested that, after the third secondary review in the autumn, the Panel have a full-day private session to discuss the issues before formulating their final report. This proposal was met with wide approval by Members.

Chair(person)

Date Confirmed and Signed