Cabinet Member: Cllr. Gareth Thomas
To consider
a report on the above.
(Copy
enclosed)
Minutes:
A report from the Cabinet Member for Education was submitted, outlining
the purpose of the development of the Area Offices.
(a) The Cabinet
Member provided the background for the proposal, noting that specialists in the
education field noted that leadership was important to uphold education
standards. It was noted that school leaders were under significant pressure by
having to manage staff, buildings, administration, lead the teaching within the
school and, on some occasions, teach. The main purpose of developing Area
Offices would be to be able to take some of the burden off school leaders in
order to enable teachers to teach and Headteachers to lead.
It was highlighted that the proposed area offices were different to the
area offices that existed in the past, and the main aim was to promote
collaboration between schools on a number of levels.
(b) The Head of
Education noted that there was more emphasis on regionalising the services
these days and as an education service they were not eager to distance the
service from the individuals. Due to the requirements in the three areas in
Gwynedd being very different, the importance of creating a procedure that would
be accountable locally and to ensure the correct kind of resources was
noted.
Over the years,
more pressure was put on the schools and, in establishing Area Offices, it was
foreseen that it would be possible to remove the elements of administration and
management through a procedure where teachers could share responsibilities over
more than one site. It was noted that Headteachers felt that the pressure was
high, especially in rural schools and in the smallest schools. As a result of
cuts of £4.3m in schools' budget, the proposed structure would be a foundation
in terms of support and enabling teachers and Headteachers to concentrate on
educating children.
(c) An outline of
the structure was received from the Area Education Manager that included
sub-groups, which was re-establishing a County Quality Board that would
supervise matters relating to well-being, safeguarding and improving education
quality. In addition, in order to ensure
local accountability, it was proposed to establish an Area Scrutiny Committee,
to create partners locally to include an Area Manager / Business and Services
Officer, School Challenge Advisor, Chair of Governors and two elected members
in order to be able to scrutinise on a specific theme locally.
It was noted that
governors were integral to the success of a school and, in order to promote
strategic collaboration, it was proposed to establish a Strategic Catchment
area Board to include Governing Body Chairs from the catchment area that would
meet twice every term to hold training, discuss catchment area development
plans in specific fields in order to remove the work burden from individuals in
separate establishments. It was trusted that this would strengthen a closer
relationship and local accountability to promote education standards in the
schools.
The above would be accountable to the Education Management Team.
During the ensuing discussion, the following main points were
highlighted by individual Members:
(a) That the structure appeared complicated and created another layer of administration.
(b)
While welcoming change,
it was asked how the new structure would be funded, especially in the current
climate of cuts
In response, it
was noted that funding had been approved for the first three years with a
one-off bid. After that, the central education system would be required to
shoulder the investment so that the model would be pushed forward. It was
highlighted that the Education Department's central capacity was too small and
if the situation was left as it was, the probability would be for the situation
to deteriorate. It had to be borne in mind that some primary schools were small
and they experienced staff recruitment difficulties. In terms of the above
model, it would create an opportunity for a series of schools to be able to work
together, hold discussions locally and offer solutions to move forward. This
provided the initial grounds to support teachers to educate and Headteachers to
lead.
(c) It was foreseen that it would be difficult to attract governors to
training sessions.
In response, the
Cabinet Member for Education noted that the pilot scheme was operational in the
Moelwyn and Blaenau Ffestiniog areas, with Chairs of Governors coming together
and, from their experience, saw it beneficial and an opportunity to discuss similar
matters.
The Head of
Education added that education standards in Gwynedd were good but that it was
required to consider the future. A message was coming from the schools that
they were buckling and that things were becoming increasingly difficult for
them with a number of changes in the curriculum, and that they felt increasing
pressure on the schools' Management Team. By attempting to improve conditions
in the above model, time could be freed for the Management Teams. Currently, it
was noted that Heads had to cope with the work of maintaining buildings,
dealing with health and safety matters etc., but as part of the model,
individuals in the area offices would be able to assist with this work for
them.
Good examples were
seen of regional services in terms of GwE but it reached a point where there
was tension between standards of different authorities. Through the above
model, it was possible to ensure on a regional level that the support and the
sustenance would reach the schools in good time. Currently in Gwynedd, it was
noted that no primary school was in a statutory category and it was hoped that
no secondary school would be in that category either in the future.
There would be an opportunity for the Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise
the model, giving an opinion to see if it would make a difference locally.
(ch) The Catholic
Church representative asked for any re-designing to
give attention to the principal of local management for schools that had been
delegated appropriately to schools to manage their budget, and over the last 20
years, that much had happened in that development. It was noted that governing
bodies took much more responsibilities, including dealing with budgets, buildings,
etc. It was asked for any re-designing, to give appropriate consideration to
changes that had already happened. It was specifically asked to acknowledge the
enormous requirements that already existed on schools to attend meetings
because headteachers were asked to spend much of their time in meetings already
and that this created concern. Therefore, it was asked to consider carefully
any structures that increased the number of meetings for Headteachers.
She
added that, whilst accepting that there were some tensions between GwE and
authorities, it was believed that they could be overcome. It had to be borne in
mind that an enormous investment was made between the schools and GwE and
re-structuring to implement the whole model to move education along.
(d) Concern that the Area Scrutiny Committee could include around 80
individuals.
In response, the
Head of Education noted that the Area Scrutiny Committee would priorotise
matters and, in turn, would invite a Chair / school staff to scrutinise them specifically
to ensure local direction e.g. in the Mathematics field.
It was added, for
broader clarity, that it would be required to formalise the sub-groups and
create a terms of reference for them.
(dd) While welcoming the principal of restoring the Area Education
Office and the need for support for schools, it would be sensible to establish
offices first before building on the model.
(e)
It was expressed that a failure to recruit Heads
had been a problem due to a restriction on the applicants who were able to
undertake the NPQH qualification. It was
also felt that the requirements of the Colleges' qualifications to be able to
undertake the teacher training course were too high.
In response, it
was acknowledged that attracting applicants to undertake the NPQH qualification
was a challenge, especially in the smallest schools because teachers did not
obtain enough experience in terms of managing people.
(f)
In terms of recruiting Heads, it was expressed that
advertisements for Heads were limited to Gwynedd schools only and could the
advertisement not be disseminated further.
In response, the Head of Education explained that it was the decision of
the individual governing body to advertise, and that there was a substantial
cost to advertise in the press.
(ff) The model could be analysed as a way to save money, namely to
appoint Area Scrutiny Committees, appoint one Head for more than one school
within the area and, as a result, teacher / headteacher posts would be
lost.
(g) In response to a query regarding a number of Heads that were on a
GwE secondment, the Head of Education said that the number of secondments had
decreased and added that one of the disadvantages in Gwynedd was that the
number of posts across the county asked for Welsh language ability and
therefore, Gwynedd had lost more Heads / teachers in terms of percentage than
other authorities.
(ng) In terms of
feedback from the Heads about the changes, the Head of Education explained that
it was not possible to maintain the provision as it was. While acknowledging
that some would welcome it and others would not, he emphasised that there was a
need to mature as a profession from the mindset of keeping everything separate
and to be prepared to share resources so that it would be possible to
collaborate locally.
(h) In response to an enquiry regarding the location of the Area
Offices, it was explained that there would be two elements to the work, which
was to be accountable locally but also they would be required to come together
regionally.
(i)
The Senior Corporate
Support Manager explained that members of the Education Support Services
Scrutiny Investigation had interviewed Heads of specific schools during the
summer term and had received a very clear message regarding lightening the
burden for schools in terms of decentralising work to release time. Therefore,
in light of this, it was suggested that it would be beneficial for the three
Area Officers to meet with the Scrutiny Investigation to discuss the details of
the area offices model.
Resolved: (a) To accept, note and give thanks for
the report.
(b) That the Scrutiny Committee supports
the principle of establishing Area Officers as a step forward but it is wished
for the Education Support Services Scrutiny Investigation to discuss with the
three Area Officers the details of the model proposed and what would be
decentralised to the area offices.
Supporting documents: