Are you reading this to find out about Beaufort’s Ofsted Inspection? For a subjective view of Surrey’s ongoing CA / JAR inspection process? From a party-political point of view, to see how any of it matters when it comes to winning votes? Or perhaps with a broader interest in how some social institutions are increasing their ’self-awareness’ and even ’self-control’?

This posting is long, but I’ve split it up with descriptive headings so that you can fillet out the bits you want. If you stay with me through the whole thing, I hope putting the two inspections together will make sense, but it is complicated. I apologise to any expert bureaucrat out there for mistakes - this whole thing is a journey of discovery for me … 

Beaufort’s Third Ofsted

As I mentioned in an earlier posting, Beaufort Community Primary School here in Goldsworth Park underwent its third-ever Ofsted on the 25th and 26th of March.

I have to declare an interest at the outset: I am Vice Chair of Governors, and have been a Governor at the school for more than ten years.

The result was uniformly ‘Satisfactory’ - which may not sound exciting, but for a school that has been undergoing considerable changes over the last few years was not unsatisfying. As our new Head says: ‘Onward and upward!’

The report is on the Ofsted website so that you can read it yourself on http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/index.cfm?fuseaction=summary&id=125118

The way the procedure has changed since last time around, when I was Chair of Governors, is remarkable. Instead of a team of five Inspectors descending on a school that had been preparing madly for weeks beforehand, we had just two Inspectors and The Telephone Call came two working days before the Inspectors arrived - though the Easter Bank Holiday let this become a crueller six actual days.

Preparation consisted of checking that all routinely required paperwork was in place - not a bad thing to have to check - and, through the whole of the last year and on-going from now on, having an up to date SEF.

The SEF is the Self Evaluation Form, which the school fills in as honestly and thoroughly as possible, analysing where the school is, what is being done, and giving itself grades. Just as the children are now asked to assess their own work, thus learning how to be self-critical and how to improve for themselves, so with Governing Body and Head.

The form is held on the Ofsted website and can be updated at any time until just before the Inspection, when it is locked. The Inspectors also have the statistics on the School’s SATS results, and can make comparisons with the performance of other schools both in Surrey and nationwide.

So when the Inspectors arrive, they are carrying out a ‘reality check’ - even if everything is not right with the school, is their understanding of the situation correct? If they start probing an area, they are looking for evidence. Airy assurances and good intentions will not do.

In our initial Ofsted Governors were not assessed, but in the second and in this most recent Ofsted we have been. Going with the Chair of Governors to talk to the Reporting Inspector felt a bit like being taken back to secondary school and being politely but determinedly carpeted by the Head. Definitely a directed chat, exploring certain lines, interested in assertions but even more in examples to back them.

Then it was over. Feedback given to Senior Management Team and Governors. Report published on Ofsted’s website. A letter written to the children themselves by the Reporting Inspector, saying they had enjoyed visiting the school and then giving a carefully phrased but full sumary of what was in the report.

There is no huge action plan to be drawn up after the Inspection. Inspection should now be what they call ‘embedded’, a process rather than a series of one-off events. The Head and Governors go on with the actions already identified in the SEF. In doing this, they’ll be helped by the SIP (School Improvement Partner). The SIP has taken on the cuddlier functions of the old HMI, acting as a ‘critical professional friend’ to the school, while Ofsted makes the hard judgements, when necessary. And they will be back.

CA  (Corporate Assessmanet) and JAR (Joint Area Review)

 -  Surrey Faces the Inspectors

This is Ofsted writ large, with bells and whistles. I can only tell you what I saw and heard - I am not an expert - and I can’t tell you all of that. For the Focus Group I was a part of the Inspector invoked the Chatham House Rule for meetings - you can use the information received, but not identify anyone, nor their affiliations. Apart from that, the guidance I have been given is that writing about process is fine; and there is also quite a lot of information in the public domain, because of wide publication to staff.

Making grades

The ‘Corporate Assessment’ is rather like a School’s Ofsted Inspection. Surrey’s last one was in 2002, when it scored 3 out of four. In February, County Council put in a self-assessment, supported by case studies and a number of other ‘key documents’. 

Instead of one visit by the Inspectors, there have been two: a week in February sussing out the situation, followed at the start of April by two weeks on ‘fieldwork’ with observations, visits, and focus groups set up following the first scoping visit.

There is some feedback to Surrey after that, but it remains confidential until the report is published on the 22nd of July - as it happens, the day of the last Full Council before the summer recess.

The Joint Area Review concentrateds on services for children and young people in Surrey, and looks wider than just the County Council. The process and timings match those of the CA precisely, with a self-assessment, casefiles, and key documents sent ahead and the same one week and then two-week visits, the second set up according to the Inspectors requests after the first visit. The final report again comes out on the 22nd of July.

There is a dentist-like element. It’s an uncomfortable proces in that the Inspectors will be looking specifically for areas of weakness to probe - but as with looking after your teeth, its best to be aware of weaknesses as soon as possible, and if nothing much is found you can congratulate yourself on being so healthy. 

The CA and the JAR then feed into the ‘Comprehensive Performance Assessment’, which happens once a year when the Audit Commission gives the Council a ’star’ rating, anywhere between 0 and 4, with 4 being the best. Surrey is currently rated a three-star authority, having been demoted from the 4-star achieved in 2005.

This all matters for staff, to recognise the good work being done and to identify where their efforts are not being used to the best, and for taxpayers, who can look to the Inspectors to give an expert, outsider’s view of whether they are getting the services they should, and whether these services are well-delivered.

In purely party political terms, this year’s CPA rating will be announced early in 2009, just in the lead-up to the County Council elections that Spring. All sides will be looking to use the result, intended to be as objective and fair as possible, in the most partisanly persuasive way they can in evidence for or against the wonderfulness / dreadfulness of the unarguably and overwhelmingly dominant Conservative administration.

The bits I’ve seen happen

  The CA / JAR has been on the horizon and influencing the work done by senior managers and committees for some time; years rather than months.  It has seemed to me that ’getting ready for the JAR’ has been both an excuse and a lever, as some pieces of work have been given priority over others.

I have been (still am) a member of the ‘Member Advisory Group’ that started meeting in December. Six County Councillors were matched by six and then five Officers.  There would have been two members from each political group, regardless of  proportionality, except that neither of members of the 2-man Labour group took part.

I felt that in spite of this, there was initially a certain jolly-hockey-sticks approach in the first couple of meetings, which was dispersed by a fairly robust scepticism from at least one member later on, and transmuted steadily into a reasonably healthy concern that as good a picture should be presented as was consistent with the truth. There was also discussion of arrangements: the Council’s self-assessments, the acual arrangements for the visits by the inspectors, how Councillors of all parties would be informed and might be involved and briefed. 

I can’t quote from these private meetings, but a couple of remarks in the open Children and Families Committee while discussing of the CA / JAR on 16th January were as follows:

‘If you talk to the members, you’re gonna talk to the members you want the JAR to hear’ - Yvonna Lay, the Conservative Chair of the Committee.

Sean Rafferty (Lead Manager Service and Performance Development) suggested SCC should be ‘truthful to the organisation, but [I] want to present the organisation in the best light that I can.’

Despite Yvonna’s appraisal, my impression was that the process overall was not unbalanced in a way that necessarily negated the purpose of the inspection. Yes, very early in their  ‘fieldwork’  the Inspectors, at their own request, only had a brief tour of a small segment of Surrey that could could showcase good developments. Who would see them, in terms of Staff, representatives of partner organisastions, and Councillors, was closely organised. There was a rehearsal, to check out the logistics and make sure everything could work to time.

From there, the Inspectors decided who they would meet. Committee Chairs and Party Leaders were in there, and also some Focus Groups. One of these was a mix of ‘back bench’ Councillors, and I was one of the Liberal Democrat participants. 

For this, so that we could give of our best, we were offered a briefing from an outside consultant from Solace Enterprises, according to their website ‘one of the most respected public service improvement companies in the UK ‘. He ran through some of the things they might be interested in when talking to Councillors about their work: how overview and scrutiny works, the balance between Committees and the Executive, Council members on training and how they see and perform their roles. He warned us that they would be nice, would engage us in discussion, and that we should regard this as our chance to contribute to the final report. We were to expect them to be note-taking on computer.

On the 8th of March a mixed bag of Councillors sat in a large semi-circle of a downstairs conference room, faced by two inspectors, including the Lead Inspector from the Audit Commission.  

There was a low-tech approach to note-taking: two boards for post-it style notes and not a computer or sound-recorder that I could see. The purpose of our being there was to help gain clarity, to talk about whether the Council had clear objectives and whether it was going about meeting them rationally and successfully. Three ground rules to start with: ‘Chatham House Rules’, no party politics, and respect for others’ opinions.

Our first task was to supply a one-word description of the Council. (Difficult, I know, but measure temperance seemed called for). All got put on one board and used as the basis for an open discussion. Then it was three good things and three less good things about the Council. Similar discussion.

And there my notes run out, because I was busy trying to do what our training had advised, and get in comments that I would like to see taken up in the final report.

Discussion was guided, but not very obtrusively. One area  of concern I remember was Looked After Children, and how well or otherwise Councillors are trained to be aware of their responsibilities. There was a certain amount about Transport, and more about Local Committees.

Afterwards I was asked if I would be willing to run through what had happened in the meeting, within the limits for confidentiality set down by the Inspectors, which I did.  

As with a School’s Ofsted inspection, there was immediate feedback to the senior team, which filtered down to the Task Group. No, my lips are sealed and my fingers frozen on that one - strictly confidential until the 22nd of July, when the final reports of the Audit Commission and Ofsted are published.  And as it happens, the last Full Council meeting before the summer recess has been moved to this date.

What happens after that, and what difference will it make? - I’ll hope to report back in later postings.

I don’t especially want to give UKIP ammunition, but EDF,  aka Electricite de France, is not giving Surrey, and in particular my corner of Surrey, Knaphill and Goldsworth West, the service that we should be able to expect. And it seems Surrey County Council cannot do anything about it. Privatisation, intended to increase competition and so reduce costs and improve services, has led to a monopoly situation in which control has been taken away from public services leaving them powerless - in this case literally! This is yet another of Mrs. Thatcher’s malign legacies.

To explain the situation further, here is the question I recently put at Full Council, with the answer given:

EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT

(12)     MRS DIANA SMITH (KNAPHILL) TO ASK:

 Light number 15 in Chobham Road, Knaphill, has not worked for at least four years, despite constant queries by myself and reassurances by Local Transport Officers. At the Woking Local Committee meeting in February Paul Fishwick, Local Highways Manager wrote in reply to my question on this subject: “This streetlight has somewhat of a potted history, in summary a new lamp column was installed after the original was found to have had power removed when the column had been vandalized. The original lamp column was in poor condition. EDF, the Regional Electricity Company were requested to connect an electric supply to the new lamp column from their low voltage mains. Unfortunately, EDF were initially unable to locate their mains cable, but found a cable that had been connected to the original lamp column, that was now deemed unsuitable by EDF.  EDF requested that the new lamp column needed to be relocated to the opposite side of the road where there was a suitable low voltage main. The County Council have relocated this column to the opposite side of the road, but are awaiting EDF to make the connection from their low voltage main.” The light remains unlit. Moreover I understand that the Toucan crossing of Redding Way in Knaphill has not been connected by EDF within the promised delivery time of six weeks, that this has put construction of the crossing on hold; also that four other facilities in the Borough of Woking face a similar delay. a) With regard to the Toucan crossing and other facilities, can the Executive Member confirm this is the case? b) What sanctions are available to Surrey County Council when delays by EDF prevent work being completed?  c) What action is the County proposing to take in response to this highly unsatisfactory situation? 

Reply:

 a) There are 4 schemes that have not been completed in Woking due to lack of electrical connections from EDF, these are at:-

• Brewery Road/Arthurs Bridge Road,
• A245 Sheerwater Road (Pedestrian Facilities)
• Redding Way J/W Tudor Way (Toucan Crossing)
• The Broadway, (Zebra crossing/beacons)

Ringway have placed the orders for these works with EDF and after much chasing were eventually given estimated dates for March, but nothing has happened since then.

 b) EDF is one of two Distribution Network Operators in Surrey and they cover the old Seeboard area  (the other DNO being Scottish and Southern Energy covering the Southern electricity board area) as a result of the Electricity Act 1989 which provided for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Great Britain.   The body set up to regulate these monopoly companies is Ofgem and they have set new performance standards in November 2007 that EDF have indicated that they intend to achieve.   Surrey County Council is a customer of the DNOs but has no flexibility to change DNO or seek alternative terms or conditions. c) In recognition of the poor performance of EDF, the Transportation Select Committee invited EDF to send a representative to their meeting of 9 April (Item 6).   The EDF representatives acknowledged that their performance had been poor and informed the Committee that Ofgem had set new performance standards that EDF were committed to achieve.   In the meantime officers are meeting with EDF to facilitate, as far as possible, improved performance. 

If performance does not improve significantly in the near future then we will need to consider at a Member and political level what this Council can do to spur EDF on.  As I have indicated, our legal powers are very limited, but we do have the option to publicise in a more aggressive way EDF’s shortcomings if the considerable efforts that the service is making to obtain a better service for our residents do not bear fruit in a very short time. 

I feel angry about this. Pedestrian crossings needed for children to get to school have been started but not finished, and there is a terrible sense of helplessness and muddle.

I’m not sure what the legal situation would be if I suggested sanctions that individual consumers might choose to bring to bear.  So I will play it safe and just say I really hope we get some better service soon. 

A lot has happened since the 10th of April and my last round-up of events. It’s not all been Thursday’s Local Elections - there have been quite a  number of meetings, and a fair bit of ‘casework’.

CA / JAR

 The Inspectors have been and gone, and there’s even been time for another meeting of the Member Advisory Group. (Are the Officers advising the Members? Or vice-versa? Or both? In practise I have experiened mainly the first.)

I am still trying to get to grips intellectually with the CA / CPA system of inspection well enough to write about it. The finished version will get published here Real Soon Now, but in the meantime the draft has been acting as a stumbling block each time I open up this web site’s admin area. However I will continue to work on a members-eye-view, because if you’re interested enough to have got past the acronyms and read this far, you probably want the gory details. In so far as I am allowed to give them.

Woking Youth Council

Woking Youth Council had its AGM on the 22nd April. It usually meets in the Council Chamber, but this time the sixteen or so youngsters taking part had to make do with a Committee Room.

You have to be 11-18 to take part; I was there as an observer on behalf of Surrey County Council’s Local Committee. While there is help from Woking Borough Council and Surrey’s Youth Development Service people, the young people themselves Chair meetings, take minutes, and have a Treasurer to keep track of the money.

There is real money for them to keep track of, and in quite reasonable quantities, coming from Woking Borough Council and from the Youth Opportunities Fund. The sorts of things they can use it for are to support activities for young people in the Borough - in the past, the Youth Council has run ‘Uproar’, a music event with young local bands.

There is also training available to them, for example in how to Chair meetings, and a residential team-building weekend was being finalised.

If you or someone you know is interested in taking part, there is some more information and an on-line application form on the Woking Borough Council website, at  http://www.woking.gov.uk/community/children/young/democracy/wokingyouthcouncil

The Woking Youth Council is now coming up to its fifth anniversary, and it is really good to see how there are now a body of experience within the group that allows its young members to take part constructively and also confidently; guided by adults but not, I think, dominated by them. 

The Children and Familes committee and the Schools and Learning Committee have had further meetings. One of the most interesting items was about ROCPA. Please excuse me if I drop in here the short section I’ve written about it for the GPCA news. (And also please excuse the lack of uniformity of font this causes. One day maybe I’ll work out how to make this software sing and dance. Perhaps.)

ROCPA: Raising of the Compulsory Participation Age 

ROSLA, in 1972, was the Raising of the School Leaving Age, so that it became sixteen. Now the Government is saying that from 2015 all 16 to 18 year olds will be required to participate in some form of education or training. In April’s Schools and Learning Committee we heard how Surrey County Council has started planning for this, since the responsibility for commissioning and funding 16 – 18 education is moving back to the Local Authority.It shouldn’t be a matter of keeping unwilling youngsters longer at school, but of widening the opportunities available, both in terms of college-based vocational training and helping employers provide worthwhile learning opportunities to young people while they work. Easy enough to say, but this will be an enormous challenge to carry out effectively. One committee member asked about ‘refusers’. How can you force youngsters of this age into school or training? Would dropping out in itself turn them into young offenders? The Officer presenting the report recognised that this would be a disaster, and ROCPA had to be developed in a way that would appeal to young people, ‘so that there are routes that mean young people are not forced out of the system.’

            As the Chairman said, ‘this is going to be enormous – it’s starting to bubble up.’ And we’ve none too much time to get it right, once you realise that the first children to be affected by it are already in Year Five.

The Friends of Knaphill Library met on April the 24th. We’ve got two of the group’s original target activities underway. These are a well attended Book Group, and Friday morning mother-and- toddler ‘Story Times’ and ‘Rhyme Times’ during term time. These are now so successful that if many more people come, there will have to be a (free) ticket system. I’ve been involved with both activities, as one of the reading group, and as a  ’stand-by’ person leading Rhyme or Story time when the (really super) regulars aren’t available. Friday 25 was my first Rhyme Time, which I thoroughly enjoyed preparing and presenting. It quite takes me back to my long-ago career with the BBC, and the glory days of once producing the legendary Listen with Mother!

Next on the agenda for the Friends is Local History, though we’re not sure what would be popular in terms of starting a group up. The hope is that this will brings in new, enthusiastic people to go on developing  the use of the library as a community resource.

Yesterday local politics had its Cup Final, with the Tories left holding the Woking Cup. The scores were two all: they lost two, we gained two. One of our gains was Knaphill, a three-Councillor ward, where the Conservative was standing down and Liberal Democrat Ollie Wells won the seat back from the new Conservative candidate.

Olly is a young, energetic teacher who is going to be a great asset to the Liberal Democrat team on the Council. It’s also going to be an enormous help to me as the County Councillor covering that area to have another Liberal Democrat colleague on the Borough, alongside Ric Sharp.

I have always consulted with and passed on information to all Borough Colleagues about local issues such as roads, regardless of party. This is clearly in the best interest of the residents. The Borough Councillors have been elected to represent the residents, regardless of their political colour.

But it’s easier when their underlying assumptions about the right course of action is more likely to be in line with mine, because they share the same political ideals. (Even when in practical terms these ideals don’t diverge very far from each other - we all want to see the potholes in our own area filled in.)

Olly has been incredibly determined in getting out to talk to people, and interested in what they have to say and how Councillors can ‘make a difference’. I’m positively looking forward to working with him.

Voters turned off politics

The turnout in Knaphill was 39.48%. Yesterday, while I was knocking on the doors of people who we thought would want to vote, to remind them that it was election day, two said they were so fed up with the bickering, opportunistic arguments between political parties that they found none of them credible. They would not vote.

Our first-past-the-post electoral system does not help. We end up with two parties ritualistically locking antlers, bellowing and grunting. But neither of them dares stop, because if they do they’ll risk ending up badly gored.

Where it does work 

There is nothing like standing for election to keep Councillors working. At the end of your four years there’s no appeal, no industrial tribunal to go to. Like Sir Alan Sugar, the electorate can say without any come-back ‘You’re Fired!’.

Even with low turn-outs and a (wrong but inevitable) tendency to rely on the party faithful, it’s the votes at the margin that make the difference. In Liberal Democrat held areas in Woking, a town which at parliamentary level is currently overwhelmingly Conservative, if as a Councillor you’ve answered the ’phone calls, been out in the rain looking at trees and litter, then ‘phoning the relevant Officer to get  the problem sorted out, you may get the extra votes you need to win.

(Need I say more than ‘Rosie Sharpley’, with 1261 votes in Goldsworth East with her nearest rival at 654?)