BOROUGH OF POOLE
LEARNING OVERVIEW GROUP
1 JULY 2003
POST-OFSTED ACTION PLAN - UPDATE
1 PURPOSE
1.1 To update Members on progress in implementing the Post-Ofsted Action Plan.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 The Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) and the Audit Commission inspected Poole’s educational provision in the Autumn of 2001 and published a report in January 2002.
2.2 The report identified 3 key issues, plus a further 22 recommendations on specific areas which could be improved. An action plan to address these issues was drawn-up in March 2002 and circulated to all Members of the Council and other partners (including DfES).
2.3 The action plan is directly linked to the Council’s Education Development Plan 2002 - 2007 and other education related plans.
2.4 The attached appendix sets out the progress made on the action plan between January 2002 and June 2003. Work is also underway on those issues which have a later completion timescale. The full implementation of the plan is currently programmed to be completed by December 2003. Members may wish to note, however, that significant staff absence in key personnel in the last year has meant that some actions have not been completed within the timescale originally established.
2.5 In September 2002 the Council received feedback (addressed to the Leader of the Council) from the DfES on the Action Plan in the following terms -
“I am pleased that the Action Plan addresses all of the recommendations made in OfSTED’s original report. I note that the Authority’s strengths outweigh weaknesses, and the continued support and scrutiny by you and your fellow Council members will no doubt build upon this success when implementing the items addressed in the action plan. However, the action plans do not state measurable success criteria. Where simple implementation of a process or structure is required in order to respond to a recommendation then the statement of timescale suffices. However, where the required actions are intended to lead to improvements then success criteria are necessary in order to evaluate their effectiveness. Your officers will need to address this issue.”
2.6 Officers accepted that the feedback reflects good practice in framing action plans and have included ‘success criteria’ against those key issues/ recommendations where appropriate. The plan has also been revised to reflect slippage in areas referred to in paragraph 2.4 above.
2.7 On 5th November 2002, the Acting Chief Education Officer submitted a progress report to Executive on the action plan, in particular on the 3 key issues and more specifically on school organisation/Key Stage 2. The Executive agreed that Headteachers should be consulted on the school organisation/Key Stage 2 issue and that the Learning Policy Advisory Group should oversee the process. A report on the outcome of the consultation was submitted to the Learning PAG on 18th March and Executive on 8th April 2003.
2.8 As the Post-Ofsted action plan is due to be completed by December 2003, a summary report will be submitted to the Group’s 2nd December meeting setting out which actions have been completed/are on-going and which, if any, are outstanding.
JANE PORTMAN, CHIEF ADVISER/HEAD OF SCHOOL ADVICE AND SUPPORT SERVICES
Contact Officer: Brian Davy
Tel: 01202 633091
e-mail:
Date: 12.6.03
SASS/Civic Centre/Post Ofsted Inspection Action Plan/Report – LOC – 1 July 2003 – Post-Ofsted Action Plan – Update
1
ACTION PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR KEY ISSUES: A
When devising its Education Development Plan for 2002-2007, the LEA should pay particular attention to local issues including:
· strategies to improve continuity and progression in pupils’ learning when transferring schools
· analyse the impact of school organisational features and consider ways of rationalising the present complex system.
· raising standards at Key Stage 2.
Objectives/Purpose: To ensure the three key issues of underperformance at Key Stage 2, the Borough’s complex school organisation and data analysis of its impact are addressed in EDP2
Activities / Lead / Involving / Target Group / Success Criteria / Timescale / Progress1. Address these three key local issues in EDP2 / Head of School Advice and Support / Advisers/Officers / Senior Management / EDP 2 approved by DfES / 31 January 2003 / EDP approved by DfES and currently being implemented.
Resources: £67,000 (see EDP2, Priority 8)
Monitoring: Policy Director (Education)
Evaluation: Learning Policy Advisory Group, Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Executive
RECOMMENDATION FOR KEY ISSUES: B
Collect and analyse comprehensive data to assess the effectiveness of school organisation and to inform a review of current arrangements
Objectives/Purpose: To provide the Executive with a well-informed analysis on the effectiveness of the current school
organisation in order that it can make a decision on whether to consult on alternatives
Activities / Lead / Involving / Target Group / Success Criteria / Timescale / Progress1. To collect data to support a review of the current school organisation, and set up a working group to consider the findings / Head of School Advice and Support / Officers/Advisers
Headteachers
Governors / Working Group / · Data analysed
· Review of current school organisation complete
· Working group report fundings / Report on findings finalised by working group in January 2003 / Consultation with schools concluded on 21 February. A report was submitted to Learning PAG on 18 March and Executive on 8 April 2003.
2. Executive considers report from Working Group and reaches a decision on whether to consult on alternatives to the current school organisation / Head of School Advice and Support / Officers/Advisers
Headteachers
Governors / Executive / Decision made by Executive. / February/March 2003 / Report was considered by Executive on 8 April 2003 on the outcome of consultation with schools and the recommendations from the Learning PAG.
Resources: £15,500 (see EDP2, Priority 8, Activity 4)
Monitoring: Schools Management Team and Schools Group
Evaluation: Learning Policy Advisory Group and Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR KEY ISSUES: C
For Literacy and Numeracy:
· raise teachers’ expectations particularly in Key Stage 2 and
· improve the rigour of analysis to target additional support effectively, raise the level of challenge and evaluate the effectiveness of support
Objectives/Purpose: To address underperformance in literacy and numeracy particularly at Key Stage 2
Insert success criteria for first, second and third actions in Activity 3 for underperformance plan
Clear, brief improvement plans developed and publicised - initially for KS2 but extending to other Key Stages in spring term
Schools understand that LEA’s view of their performance in terms of a shared analysis of strengths and weaknesses, and the level of resources the LEA will commit to securing further improvement
Targeted schools:
(a) review targets to ensure that both 2003 and 2004 targets are realistically challenging
(b) develop complementary strategies to take advantage of LEA support
(c) achieve at, or close to, adjusted targets in 2003 and 2004
(d) realistic yet challenging targets set for 2005
Activities / Lead / Involving / Target Group / Success Criteria / Timescale / Progress1. Devise and implement literacy and numeracy action plans, including the school specific plans for Key Stage 2 / Chief Adviser / Literacy and Numeracy
Strategy Managers
Advisers / Schools / · Literacy and numeracy action plans in place
· All actions on plans carried out successfully
· School plans in place
· School actions completed / January - May for school specific plans for Key Stage 2
See EDP2
Priority 1B
for other timescales / Target setting has been completed for Autumn 2003. New targets set for 2004. A more robust and challenging procedure is in place.
2. Support schools in target-setting at pupil, teacher, subject area and whole school level, tracking pupil progress and devising appropriate interventions with LEA/ advice/ additional
resources as necessary / Chief Adviser / Assessment Adviser
Literacy and Numeracy team
Assigned Advisers / Schools / · Literacy and numeracy target setting and action planning days challenge some Headteacher perceptions
· Allocation of intensive support (in inverse proportion)
· Impact of additional support evaluated / See EDP2
Priority 5
Activity 6 / This has been completed. Data analysis training has been provided for all schools. The Spring AA visit audited progress on Literacy and Numeracy targets.
Resources: £149,190 (see EDP2, Priority 1B, Activities 1 to 5)
£26,700 (see EDP2, Priority 5, Activity 6)
Monitoring: SASS Headteachers’ Advisory Group
Evaluation: Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee
RECOMMENDATION 1
Increase the rigour for scrutiny of policies, independent questioning of cabinet decisions and the accountability of individual services by elected Members
Objectives/Purpose: to improve the scrutiny functions of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for Learning
to clarify the lines of communication between the Scrutiny Committee, the Learning Policy Advisory Group and the Executive
to ensure the planning/ implementation/ review cycle is coherent and cohesive.
Outcomes/Success
Criteria: a clear annual programme for the Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee which enables a timely review of policies and services, and is clearly linked in to the cycle of planning and implementation
a set of agreed strategies and structures for performing the scrutiny function
clear evidence in committee reports, minutes and recommendations that there has been rigorous questioning of policy decisions, service statements and service delivery
Activities / Lead / Involving / Target Group / Success Criteria / Timescale / Progress1. Annual programme for the Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee / Policy Director (Education) / Learning Development Group
Members of the Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Democratic Services / Members of the Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee / Members exercise the opportunity to ask for items to be included that are not in the programme. / March 2002 / A forward programme has been produced which is updated and circulated to Members on a monthly basis.
2. Formulating with Members different strategies and structures for meetings in order to improve their scrutiny function / Policy Director
(Education) / Learning Development Group
Members of the Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Democratic Services / Members of the Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee / Members adopt appropriate strategies to scrutinise issues. / March - July 2002 / Report submitted to Committee on 25 June 2002. 4 Members attended a ‘TEN’ seminar - Getting the Most from Education Scrutiny - on 15 July. Executive on 2 July agreed to invite District Audit, as part of its continuing work on democratic renewal to focus (inter alia) on overview and scrutiny. District Audit presented to a special meeting of Learning Overview and Scrutiny on 20 January 2003.
3. Trialing different strategies and structures for improving the scrutiny function in meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee / Policy Director
(Education) / Learning Development Group
Members of the Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Democratic Services / Members of the Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee / Members adopt appropriate strategies to scrutinise issues. / September 2002 - July 2003 / The Scrutiny Committee is considering its mode of operation in the light of feedback from TEN Seminar and contributions from District Audit consultancy. (see Activity 2 above)
4. Setting out the agreed strategies and structures for performing the scrutiny function / Policy Director (Education) / Learning Development Group
Members of the Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Democratic Services / Members of the Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee / Members adopt appropriate strategies to scrutinise issues. / October 2003
Resources: Officer time already budgeted for.
Monitoring: Learning Development Group; Chair of Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Evaluation: Learning Development Group; Management Team; Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee; CISS Overview and Scrutiny Committee
RECOMMENDATION 2
Strengthen and prioritise the strategy for challenging high school balances
Objectives and Purpose: To ensure schools’ financial planning is based on the school’s development plan priorities and does not lead to contingencies higher than £20,000 or up to 5% of the school’s annual budget share, whichever is the greater.
Outcomes/Success
Criteria: Schools’ financial/business plans are clearly linked to their school development plan priorities
Aggregate school contingencies do not exceed £2.5 million by 2003/04 and individual school contingencies do not exceed £20,000 or up to 5% of the school’s annual budget share, whichever is the greater.
Activities / Lead / Involving / Target Group / Success Criteria / Timescale / Progress1. Schools’ financial plans for 2001/2002 analysed in relation to their school development plan priorities and planned use of surpluses / Head of School Advice and Support / Assigned Advisers
Education Financial Accountant
Headteachers / Headteachers / a) Clear link between priorities in SDP and financial planning
b) Surpluses clearly accounted for by the end of July and predictions made for March 2003 / February - May 2002 / Financial assessments have been done for all schools.
a) Patchy progress.
b) Complete.
Many schools have used up considerable amounts of reserves and are facing budget difficulties in 2003/4
2. Meetings with headteachers and Chairman of Governors of schools where schools’ financial plans are a cause for concern in order to agree action plans to remedy the schools’ business planning / Head of School Advice and Support / Assigned Advisers
Education Financial Accountant
Headteachers
Chairmen of Governors / Headteachers
Chairmen of Governors / · Financial plans monitored by AAs during year
· Evaluation of effectiveness of financial planning by Dec 31st 2002
· Intervention results in improved planning by July 2003 / May - July 2002 / Arrangements to meet with headteachers and governing bodies are being finalised. This is is being implemented during Summer term 2003.
3. Training for headteachers, governors and school finance officers on business planning, and financial monitoring, including use of Audit Commission website / Education Financial Accountant / Assigned Advisers
Head of Governors’ Support / Headteachers
Chairmen of Governors
Other Governors
School Finance Officers / · Governors, especially Finance Committee members have attended joint Governing Body and Finance training on budget/finance monitoring
· Governing Bodies with specific/targeted requirements have had SLAs run jointly by Finance and Governor Training / April - July 2002 / A training programme is being developed to be delivered before the end of the financial year. Headteachers are completing business plans.
Central Governor training with Head of Financial Services took place in March 2003 and identified planning and monitoring principles for attendees. It is anticipated that more of such training will be provided in Autumn 2003 and Spring term 2004, supported by the new Education Finance Manager.
Business planning training was provided in October 2002.
4. Analysis of schools’ financial plans for 2002/2003 to ensure improved business planning / Education Financial Accountant / Assigned Advisers / Headteachers / · Monitoring programme complete
· Analysis reveals improvements so all plans firmly underpin SDP / October - December 2002 / Monitoring of plans (desktop) complete.
Analysis of financial plans and SDP patchy.
Report considered by Joint Scrutiny and Learning PAG on 15 October. New Senior Education Finance Manager developing guidance for improved business planning
Resources: £11,000 (Assigned Adviser)