School-Improvement-Partnership-briefing-January-2017

Shaping a new School Improvement Partnership for the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Headteachers and Governors 25th January 2017 STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL Agenda No Item Time Lead Welcome and Introductions 16.00 Jane Hargreaves Purpose of today 16.05 Anne Bristow Why change? National and local context 16.15 Tim Byles What we are we trying to achieve and our proposed approach 16.30 Gillian Cawley Discussion on tables 16.55 Facilitated by Headteacher Working Group reps Opportunity for questions 17.15 Tim Byles Next steps 17.25 Tim Byles / Jane Hargreaves Refreshments and Networking 17.30 All Close of session 18.00 Welcome and Introductions • Anne Bristow – Deputy Chief Executive & Strategic Director for Service Development and Integration • Jane Hargreaves – Commissioning Director Education • Tim Byles – Cornerstone • Gillian Cawley – Cornerstone • Headteacher Working Group Purpose of today Update on progress so far on the development of new School Improvement Partnership for LBBD Consultation with heads and governors in order to shape further developments Gain an agreement in principle to the proposed new company Agree next steps, including your participation in an online survey to anonymously collate your views on the current and future service offer which will contribute to the development of the business case Why change? • Reducing budgets for schools and local authorities and a context of high expectations of continued improvement in outcomes for all children and young people • Changing role of local authority and the growth of academisation – what happened to the White Paper? • Central Government policies continue to change – more focus now on maintaining the place based role of education and a continuing role for LAs including LA Multi Academy Trusts where appropriate • Growing importance of system leadership as the model for the future • Opportunity being taken across schools and councils nationally to shape the future of support for education locally through the development of new local authority traded vehicles How are others responding? Wide range of different structural and commercial approaches to delivering school improvement and other school support services to suit local needs and context Local Authority In house trading units EES for Schools (Essex), Hackney Learning Trust (was formerly a CLG but has gone back in house), Havering Education Services, Support Services for Education (Somerset), Integra Schools (South Glos) Unincorporated association / informal partnership forum Harrow School Improvement Partnership, Hounslow Learning Partnership, Leicestershire Education Excellence Partnership Company limited by guarantee trading as not for profit with either schools only or LA and schools as members Brent Schools Partnership, Camden Schools Learning Partnership, Newham Partnership Working, Learn Sheffield, Tower Hamlets Education Company limited by guarantee trading as not for profit with LA, head teachers and staff as members Octavo Partnership (Croydon) Registered Charity & company limited by guarantee not for profit Basildon Education Services Trust, Birmingham Education Partnership, Buckinghamshire Learning Trust, Liverpool Learning Partnership, Slough Learning Partnership Company limited by shares 100% owned by LA School Improvement Liverpool Limited, One Education (LATC) (Manchester), Schools’ Choice (Suffolk) How are others responding? Company limited by shares owned by LA and schools – not for profit Herts for Learning Community Interest Company limited by guarantee or Plymouth Learning Partnership, Achieving for shares and owned by schools and/or the LA Children (Kingston & Richmond), Edsential (Wirral & Cheshire West & Chester) Industrial and Provident Society – owned by schools and LA SIPS Education (Sandwell) Joint Venture Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) or private limited company Babcock LDP (Devon), Entrust Education (Staffordshire), Babcock 4S (Surrey) Mutual Joint Venture – Staff and private partner 3BM (K&C, Westminster, H&F)) Outsourcing/Joint Venture Partnership hybrid Barnet with Cambridge Education The local challenge London Borough of Barking and Dagenham in its 2020 strategic aims, Growth Strategy and Education Strategy 2014 – 2017 recognises: • The centrality of education to the council in meeting its ambitions for the children, young people and families of the borough • the importance of maintaining a family of schools working in partnership with the Council with a collective focus on the interests of children and young people • the solid improvements which have already been made in standards and quality across schools in the Borough and the context of the challenges which remain including… • reducing budgets to meet the needs of the most vulnerable children and young people • a rapidly increasing and increasingly diverse child population • growing difficulties of teacher and school leader recruitment and retention Local strengths and opportunities • Strong partnership history between schools and the council • Well established use of school partnerships and school to school support as part of current school improvement provision • Some elements of the service currently already trading successfully This enabled a joint approach to creating a proposed new model of school improvement for the authority through a joint officer and headteacher working group… Partnership Working Group • • • • • • • • • • • • • Paul Cambell – Monteagle Primary Scott Halliwell – Southwood Primary Barbara Turner – Five Elms Kerry Thomas – James Campbell Primary Roger Mitchell – Ripple Primary Michael Corcoran – St Teresa Catholic Primary and Parsloes Primary Gary Wilder – Warren Junior and Furze Infant Schools David Dickson – Eastbury Community School Roger Leighton – Partnership Learning Peter McPartland – Trinity School Jane Hargreaves – LBBD Ian Starling – LBBD Tim Byles – Cornerstone What we are NOT doing • This is not about the Council handing over all its responsibility and remit for school improvement to schools – this is about strengthening current partnerships and making sure we are resilient for the future • This is not about generating profit from commercial trading of school improvement services beyond LBBD in the first instance – this is about making sure we can collectively resource and invest in school improvement in LBBD on a sustainable basis However, ‘Not for Profit’ does not mean no profit The company will need to generate surplus to invest in improving and developing services, products and staff in order to be successful • This is not about maintaining the status quo in the face of diminishing budgets – this is about developing and delivering new services and ways of working that really make an impact And if we nothing? Pros Cons Limited disruption that would come with change Schools may choose not to buy back and buy elsewhere leaving the service at risk of being discontinued as central and local government budgets are reduced No set up or investment costs required Increased fragmentation of the system leaving vulnerable schools and young people more exposed and potentially with less support Lack of ownership by schools could reduce the effectiveness of the partnership between the Council and schools over time Recommended Option A company limited by guarantee (CLG) which would offer both statutory and traded school improvement services focussed on LBBD schools Advantages of this approach are: • Clear formal leadership and governance with accountability to both LBBD and schools as joint members of the company • Dedicated focus on school improvement in LBBD • An evolving approach allowing the partnership to develop and add further services in a phased way • Ability to operate independently from the council, enter into contracts, employ its own staff and develop flexible and new services in partnership with LBBD schools Why a company limited by guarantee? • A company limited by guarantee has many of the same characteristics as a private company limited by shares but they not have share capital and the members (equivalent to the shareholders in a company limited by shares) give a nominal guarantee to cover the company's liability, normally limited to £10 • Flexible & relatively easy to manage • All schools can be given the opportunity to become members of the proposed company with their rights and responsibilities set out in the articles of association and membership rules • It can trade but profits / surpluses are re-invested in the company rather than distributed to members • Commonly used for not for profits / social / community purposes What services will be delivered through the School Improvement Partnership Company at its launch? Move into a School Improvement Partnership Company School improvement (statutory* and traded) Governor services and training Professional development, including support for recruitment and retention Work experience, careers and Aim Higher Information Technology Support Attendance and inclusion (traded not statutory) * LBBD intends to commission the company to provide the school improvement services currently provided by the local authority The company will therefore have a role with all LBBD schools, not just those that are its members (although we would hope and encourage all schools to become members and active participants in system leadership in the borough) What services will be delivered by the Council or its proposed new Traded Services Company? *other services with the potential to move into the Partnership at a later date Stay in the Council’s Education Department Move into a Council Traded Services Company Corporate core and commissioning function including alternative provision Catering Children Missing Education Cleaning School Estates, Organisation & Admissions ParentPay 14-19 Participation& NEETs & Adult College Critical Incidents Attendance and Inclusion (statutory) Management Information System Support Parents in Partnership Information & Data Management Commissioned nurseries Education Psychology Community Music Service* Trewern Outdoor Education* Early Years* How will the company be governed and managed? The governance structure will be developed further in the business case, but it could look something like this… Members (equivalent of shareholders) • London Borough of Barking & Dagenham • Schools (membership open to any school, academy, 16-19 provider or other state funded provider of education in LBBD) Directors: • Non Executive Chair – elected by the members – could be a LBBD headteacher or someone from the community • Non Executive Director – elected by primary school members • Non Executive Director – elected by secondary school members • Non Executive Director – elected by special school members • LBBD Non Executive Director – Director of Children’s Services • Executive Director – CEO of the company How will the company be funded? Through a combination of: • Core council funding for statutory and priority requirements – this will be provided through an annual SLA or contract with the company • An element of Dedicated Schools Grant • Income from schools buying back services traded by the company • Membership subscriptions from LBBD schools who wish to be part of the company Funding Requirement – Current Baseline 2016/17 2016/17 Funding Source £ School buyback 1,541,723 DSG 380,000 Other income e.g grants 128,009 LBBD Council funding ( including a specific School Improvement element) 465,000 TOTAL INCOME/FUNDING 2,514,732 What annual membership fees could look like from April 2018 if based on a per pupil approach Primary phase 44 schools in LBBD Total of 24,346 pupils Average 553 pupils Secondary phase 13 schools in LBBD Total of 12,846 pupils Average 988 pupils Special schools in LBBD Total of 364 pupils Total Annual Fees Total no schools = 60 Average no pupils = 626 • • • • £1 per pupil £5 per pupil £10 per pupil Total £24,346 Total £121,730 Total £243,460 Average per school £553 Total £12,846 Average per school £2,766 Total £64,230 Average per school £5,532 Total £128,460 Average per school £988 Total £364 Average per school £4,941 Total £1,820 Average per school £9,882 Total £3,640 Total £37,556 Total £187,780 Total £375,560 Academies are included within the figures for each phase Secondary includes all through Pupil numbers used are Number on Roll using draft October 2016 Census data (except for special – data needs to be verified) This assumes 100% sign up to membership/subscriptions - would need to set a realistic target that represents likely sign up (higher % e.g 75%) and a viability threshold (e.g 50%) that represents the minimum sign up required for the Partnership to proceed Assumed charges to begin from April 2018 What are other local authorities charging? • Birmingham Education Partnership – £1 per pupil annual membership fee for non core Council funded work Membership provides substantial opportunities to work with and learn from leaders across the city, as well as support and highly rated training and resources for all leaders in all types of schools Member benefits are growing and fees remain the same for LA and Academy status schools, with negotiated rates for independent schools • Camden Learning - There are three levels of membership for schools Level – no cost This covers schools’ statutory health and safety duties as well as the Camden Council school improvement offer Level - £6k per annum Level - £11k per annum Level and Level subscriptions provide additional support including access to up to learning hubs and a school review involving school improvement professionals for one day every two years as well as a number of learning blocks to be used flexibly for the Camden Learning traded offer • Tower Hamlets – There will be two categories of membership: ‘full’ and ‘associate’ Initially, all publicly-funded schools within Tower Hamlets (including those within MATs) are eligible for full membership All full members of THE Partnership will be entitled to attend and vote at general meetings of all members – on a “one school, one vote” principle At the AGM, they will appoint (or re-appoint) the directors of THE Partnership Initially fees will be set at £5 per pupil and there will be £300k annual support from the Council for a three year period What might membership fees buy for schools? This is to be further developed through consultation with schools and in the business case but could include some or all of the following: • Link adviser visits (for all other than MATs who have their own QA system) • Additional support for RI schools and brokering of further support from Teaching School Alliance • Email and telephone support throughout the year • Link adviser available for cluster meetings, governing body meetings, peer reviews, pre and post Ofsted support • Network meetings for school leaders, curriculum support, data and assessment Discussion on tables Is the proposal to develop the School Improvement Partnership as a joint council/schools owned company, something you feel able to support? Do you agree in principle that this is the best way forward? For the School Improvement Partnership to be a success, what elements you think are vital to be considered and /or included? Are there any new services/approaches which you think the Partnership should deliver? (e.g Peer review, resources/guidance, data analysis, networking, training & meeting room facilities etc.) What are your views on the governance arrangements for the new organisation and how schools should be represented on the board? How we maximise engagement, sign up and enthusiasm for this new and different way of working? What other questions you have on your table about the proposal? Next Steps • Preparing an Outline Business Case by March 2017 • Engaging with stakeholders – – – – 25th January Chairs of Governors/Headteachers Online survey to test school views on current and future service offer – February 2017 Further engagement and consultation meetings during Spring and Summer Terms Ongoing engagement as we move into implementation • Developing a Full Business Case by May 2017 and, if approved, move to implementation which will involve: – Establishing a company – Summer 2017 – Appointing a shadow board of directors, Chair and Chief Executive – Summer 2017 – Confirming accommodation and other support requirements (HR, IT, finance etc.) – Summer 2017 – Confirming staffing – initially through secondments – Summer 2017 – Shadow launch – September 2017 – Securing formal membership of schools – September to December 2017 – Formal company launch – January 2018 Thank You Thank you for your time and engagement today Please join us for refreshments and an informal chat if you have any further questions