Plans for Surrey Education: Academies; restrained axe to School Support; SEN organisational changes plus ambitious plans; cheaper school places
January 27th, 2012 by Diana SmithComment?
There was an extra Education Committee meeting last week to discuss the ‘Public Value Review’ report on the Schools and Learning Service.
This isn’t as dry as it sounds – there was a mixture of interesting information for now, and important proposals for the future, far enough advanced to have an accompanying ‘action plan’.
The report was presented in the name of Cabinet member responsible for Education, Tim Hall, but had a lot of input from a working party of members of the Committee and the new Assistant Director responsible for Schools and Learning, Peter-John Wilkinson. (I’m impressed by PJ who, when you listen carefully, gives nuanced but clear answers to questions.)
The comments below are from my notes – get a full view of the PVR on the SCC website here
Update on Academies
P.J. Wilkinson reported these have been ‘very attractive to Secondaries’ so that by the end of the year half Surrey’s secondary schools may well have become Academies. In contrast, they’ve had ‘little appeal to primary schools’, which are smaller and have ‘felt discomforted by (the) relative isolation’ of being more fully independent of the Local Authority.
School Improvement – subtext, Surrey’s Coasting Schools
Most interesting, when absolutely everything is being looked at for cuts, is the ‘strong will from SCC to remain an important and influential education authority’ and not refuse to do any work that is not strictly required by statute. Tim Hall, the new Cabinet Member, said: ‘One of our axioms must be every Surrey school a good school. That has not always been our position.’
Examples of the sort of work at risk came out in discussion – Education welfare and specialist teaching services ‘are the most vulnerable’ though the detailed cuts haven’t been worked out yet.
Overall, a significant decision is whether to go on supporting schools that are not actually failing Ofsted inspections. On the surface children in Surrey schools do very well compared to the rest of the country; but some schools are unjustifiably ‘complacent’. (Just look at the ‘Value added’ scores for Surrey secondary schools, where well thought of schools like Woking High come in below the 1,000 point national average, and while Church schools are standardly above.)
Fortunately although Surrey County Council is deep-dyed Conservative, it’s not hard-line Tax-Payers-Alliance right-wing enough at present to want to wash its hands of responsibility. Peter-John Wilkinson said the following, but it seemed to meet approval from the Cabinet Member and the Committee:
‘[We] want to be [an] activist, not passive, local authority … not [go down the] path of retreat which many authorities of all political colours have taken over the last few months …’
Proposed Organisational changes
These may create economies, but are not solely/primarily for that purpose:
The development of four strong education teams, each led by an area education officer. They would manage the relationships with schools, the services to pupils and families and educational commissioning within their own quadrant
(PJW: ‘[This] has to be done economically, but we should not be paralysed in organisational terms …. I think we can do this without it costing an arm and a leg …)
The appointment of a single leader and leadership team for special and additional education leads giving greater coherence to this key area.
(PJW: ‘Not [currently] perceived as being especially effective … Led at Officer level by several people, decisions [made]by consensus …’)
The Holy Grail of Happily Saving Money …
… is to put fewer children with Special or Additional Educational Needs into very expensive specialist schools if it’s possible to meet their needs equally well closer to home, with the extra gain of making it easier for their families to keep in contact and for them to be part of their local community.
Surrey can’t legally say ‘no, the ideal school is too expensive’. Parents of ‘statemented’ children can appeal. If they win Surrey is obliged to pay for the school named on the statement.
Most parents don’t want to send their children away, but when it comes to looking at how they should be provided for, they know these schools offer much better access to speech therapists, OTs, and physiotherapists.
There are demonstrably better ways of working with the parents of disabled children, for example ‘Child development clinics in conjunction with the nhs … [Surrey] do it less well than some others authorities do it. In some areas [they] think together about what’s practical, not tell a parent to ask for a very great deal from somebody else. …’ (PJW)
As a result of this thinking, the PVR says:
It is recommended this is addressed urgently with consideration given to how to raise input from local agencies of the National Health Service and the possibility of commissioning an education-based speech and language therapy service.
Which will be remarkable if it happens. Commissioning new services has to cost money. But this is what a lot of people have been saying for years, and will save lots more in the slightly longer run, and be better for the children concerned.
It’s just sad that it takes budget cuts to shake up institutional thinking enough for things to happen.
Organisational trends that will upset some
The report says the move towards all-through primary schools ‘should be continued and, so far as is practical, be accelerated.’
There should be ‘a business case review of the future viability of each sixth form operating with fewer than 150 pupils.
And finally: Extra school places
As ‘any fule [now] kno’ we are in the grip of a slow crisis for school place planning, with rising pupil numbers. I won’t rehearse the story again, but the implications in terms of additional required capital funding are clearly giving the powers-that-be in County Hall a headache. Here’s a final quote from P.J. Wilkinson that you may – or may not – find encouraging:
‘[We’re] looking at standard building techniques and preconstructed schools … [this] probably mean you have uglier schools and more utilitarian schools … but you will have places.’
.

