School Organisation in the Borough of Poole

AGENDA ITEM 4

BOROUGH OF POOLE

REPORT TO CABINET

TUESDAY 5 OCTOBER 2004

SCHOOL ORGANISATION IN THE BOROUGH OF POOLE

PART OF PUBLISHED FORWARD PLAN: YES

STATUS:STRATEGIC

1.PURPOSE AND POLICY CONTEXT

1.1This report sets out the results of the consultation with schools, parents and other partners on possible changes to the role and organisation of schools in the Borough. It follows extensive discussion at Learning Overview Group.

1.2The report goes on to point the way forward for the next steps in the XL project ‘Schools For the Future’ in line with the Council’s strategic plan “Striving for Excellence”.

2.DECISIONS REQUIRED

2.1(i)That sufficient resources (costs appear at annexe 1) are allocated to the review of schools to appoint a project manager and a planning officer to develop school by school proposals and costs for changes.

(ii)That future proposals for change are in line with the outcomes of the first round of consultation:

(a)To explore fully the costs of a single system of school organisation for the Borough;

(b)The single system to include the options of the primary/ secondary model (two tier), or the three tier system;

(c)To plan the next round of consultation on the basis of these detailed fully costed options.

(iii)That a project board and a steering group be set up to oversee the project.

3.BACKGROUND/INFORMATION

3.15On 14th September 2004 Learning Overview Group (LOG) decided, with only one vote against, to recommend that Cabinet allocate sufficient resources to create a project team to carry forward the XL Project , Schools For the Future.

3.16The LOG were able to consider the full outcomes of the extensive consultation process. Full reports of each of the elements of the consultation were published with the LOG papers.

Consultation Process

3.3At the request of Cabinet, with the support of Learning Overview Group, officers have carried out a widespread consultation with partners on the role and organisation of schools. The process comprised:

• Four evening meetings for school governors.
• Commissioning of the Market Research Group (MRG) at Bournemouth University to carry out a sample survey of parents and to lead four focus groups.
• Written consultation with a wide range of partners.
• Two “open stall” sessions in the Dolphin Centre.
• Ten presentations to school staff and governors.
• An open invitation to parents to give their written views to officers.

Outcome of the Consultation

3.4The outcome of the consultation might be summarised as consistent with consensus on many issues. However, there is a clear split between those favouring the two tier system (two thirds) and those supporting three tier (one third).

3.5There is a consensus for change. Feedback from all of the consultation processes shows:

• A great majority of parents and partners want a single system of school organisation, 82% of those responding to the survey.
• Most wish to see transfer to secondary schools at 11 but a significant minority, especially those with children in schools in Broadstone, prefer the three tier system. The survey showed 68% favoured two tier structures while 33% favoured three tier.
• The single structure should be in line with key principles.

The survey findings were supported by all other feedback:

• 94% agree that the organisation should make best use of resources.
• 93% agree that schools should be organised to play an important part in their local community.
• 89% agree that there should be sufficient numbers of children in schools to provide a full range of subjects and work effectively.
• 84% agree that there should be a sufficient number of schools so that parents can express a preference.
• 82% want schools sufficiently local for children up to 12 to walk.
• 82% want a single system for the Borough.
• 65% agree that transfer should be in line with the National Curriculum stages.

3.6Comments made by parents in focus groups developed these themes. The ability to walk to school with young children is seen as a key feature of community cohesion. The commitment to change in line with stages of the National Curriculum reflected commitment or otherwise to transfer at age 11. The desire for a single system is strong but discussion revealed a strong feeling for consistency across the whole of Dorset. Schools have a key role to play in the community especially through greater use of their premises.

3.7The meetings with governors offered other principles to guide change:

• Children’s progress and welfare should be at the heart of proposals for change.
• Change should be based on sound educational principles.

3.8The consultation with governors produced outcomes in line with those from the market research. Notes from the meetings and written responses show slightly stronger support for the two tier option than the research. Feedback from Dorset schools and other partner organisations again favoured a single system, most supporting two tier.

3.9The full findings from each of the consultation processes are available on record as published in the LOG papers appended to the report on school organisation.

Conclusions

3.10There is a consensus for change. There is a high level of agreement that the present amalgamation of systems is neither desirable nor sustainable. The principles to guide change also emerge with a good deal of support especially the need to develop the community role of our schools and achieve the best use of limited resources.

3.15The consultation explored four options for future organisation.

Option 1 – Move to a two tier system (transfer at age 11)

Option 2 – Move to a three tier system (transfer at ages 9 and 13)

Option 3 – Move to two tier except in the Corfe Hills pyramid

Option 4 – Retain the current organisation.

3.12Two of these received little support:

• Retain the current structure.
• Change all areas except the Corfe Hills pyramid.

The first of these should be discarded as an option at this stage. The second can also be discarded but there is a strong view among parents that the Council should co-ordinate provision that borders Dorset with that in the neighbouring area. This may lead to a staggering of the change process to ensure that there is full consultation with Dorset County Council on their plans.

3.13The other two options for change need full costing and full supporting pupil number projections. The proposals will need to incorporate plans to adjust catchment areas, proposals for the development of extended schools and links with the proposed re-organisation of special schools. Changes in the curriculum for 14-19 year olds will have implications for the capital costs of both options. When this detailed analysis has been completed a further round of consultation on the detailed proposals will be necessary. This is an extensive piece of work that cannot be managed within the current capacity of the Education Service Units. Given the complexity of the project and the risks attached to inadequate preparation, additional resources are required.

Proposal

3.14That Cabinet be requested to allocate sufficient funds to create a project team to develop proposals to re-organise schools in Poole. In the first instance the team will comprise a project manager, a planning officer and appropriate administrative support. When the project moves to implementation there will be a need to commission specialist support from Personnel and Training and Property Services as well as other specialists.

3.15A full costing for the initial project posts appears as Annexe 1. The full annual cost of the project ream including funds for the purchase of specialist support is rises to just under £200,000 in the three peak years. The project will operate for a fixed term of five years calendar years.

Project Governance

3.16The project will require a formal governance structure to hold the project team to account and to take account of the views of key interested parties as the project proceeds. Discussions with all parties supports the following proposal:

(i)A project Board comprising five Councillors and the Policy Director (Education) in an advisory capacity. The political balance to be three from the Administration and two from the Opposition.

(ii)A project reference or steering group being representative group of headteachers and governors. This group to comprise five headteachers and five governors representing all phases and types of school. The steering group will also be informed by the exisiting groups, Parents’ Voice group and the Young People’s Forum.

(iii)The key functions of these bodies will be ensure that the project is proceeding in line with the project brief, plan and budget. To consider variations to brief in the light of circumstance and budgets, and to agree processes for further rounds of consultations. The Board is a decision making body while the steering group is advisory.

Thus:

John Nash

Policy Director (Education)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Report to Special Learning Overview Group on 21 April 2004.

Report to Learning Overview Group on 14 September 2004.

Contact Officer:John Nash, Policy Director (Education)

Telephone No:01202 633202

Date:20 September 2004

Annexe 1

Project Costs:

Core costs

Salaries

Project Manager (MP4)£39,351

Planning Officer (MP2)£33,009

Administrative Assistant (Gen 2)£14,244

On costs at 18%£15,588

Accommodation, services, travel etc.

£10,000

Set up costs

– furniture, computers etc.:£10,000

Consultants

The need for ‘expert support’ varies during the life of the project. Two areas will require substantial consultant support:

Property Services

Personnel Services

In the initial stages when bids and plans are drafted for capital works there will be a call on property services expertise, this cannot be met from within current arrangements. Estimated additional funding required: £30,000 for property consultancy.

During the last two years of the project there will be a heavy call on Personnel expertise initially one rising to two consultants. By this stage the need for property support will be met from the capital programme. Estimated additional cost: £60,000 (at the peak demand)

There will also be a need for additional support in financial planning, marketing, and transportation engineers. Estimated costs rising to £15,000 per year.

This provides the following financial profile for the project.

Projected costs over life of project.

Financial Year / 2004-5* / 2005-6 / 2006-7 / 2007-8 / 2008-9 / 2009-10*
Core Costs:
Salaries / 25,548 / 102,193 / 102,193 / 102,193 / 102,193 / 68,128
Acc, Ser, etc / 2,500 / 10,000 / 10,000 / 10,000 / 10,000 / 6,600
Consultant costs:
Property / 7,500 / 30,000 / 30,000
Personnel / 30,000 / 60,000 / 60,000 / 15,000
Finance,
Inc procurement / 2,000 / 5,000 / 5,000 / 10,000
Marketing / 2,000 / 5,000
Transportation / 5,000
Set up / 10,000
Total / 49,548 / 157,193 / 177,193 / 182,193 / 172,193 / 89,728

* Project starts and ends part way through the financial year.

1