Maintaining and Building Relationships Between the Local Authority with Existing and Emerging Academies and Free Schools

Agenda Item: 5E

Wolverhampton City Council OPEN EXECUTIVE DECISION ITEM (AMBER)

CABINET Date 22 MAY 2013

Portfolio COUNCILLOR P PAGE (SCHOOLS, SKILLS AND LEARNING)

Originating Service Group(s) DELIVERY- GOVERNANCE

Contact Officer(s)/ CHERYL POWELL Key Decision: No Forward Plan: No Telephone Number(s) 01902 558653

Title/Subject Matter MAINTAINING AND BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WITH EXISTING AND EMERGING ACADEMIES AND FREE SCHOOLS.

1.0 Recommendations

1.1. That the report of the maintaining and building relationships between the local authority with existing and emerging academies and free schools scrutiny review group attached at Appendix 1 be received and the following recommendations from the review be agreed:-

R1 Collaborative working must continue to be a key focus. Wolverhampton City Council aspires that all academies, schools and free schools sign up to the Wolverhampton School Improvement Partnership (WSIP)

• The review recognises the value of collaborative working especially through the role of the WSIP. Appropriate budget provision must be allocated.

R2 Vulnerable schools which might be targeted to become academies should be identified earlier and interventions should be in place to address failings

R3 Consideration of new / alternative models of education should be undertaken (not to view the Academy model as the only model).

• Alternative organisational structures should be considered, for example when a Head Teacher’s post becomes vacant the school’s governing body should be advised that a Head Teacher (substantive) post is not the only model available.

R4 Wolverhampton City Council must encourage local, education specific, sponsors.

• Evidence shows that local solutions have been successful and should be sought before using external sponsors.

R5 Wolverhampton City Council will work towards all academies, schools and free schools signing up to the local authority’s admissions policy

Page | 1

R6 Wolverhampton City Council will work towards all schools including academies and free schools signing up to a local authority Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that seeks to cement a strong relationship between academies and the local authority.

• That the TUC’s Model Agreement for Academies be considered as an appendix to a MoU and that all academies, schools and free schools are signatories

R7 All academies, schools and free schools should have mechanisms in place to promote capacity building and staff development for the Senior Leadership Team and to promote continuity of good practice.

• Evidence shows that succession planning is a key element to maintaining school improvement.

R8 Service Level Agreements (SLAs) are reviewed to ensure they are appropriate to the needs of academies, schools and free schools.

• That the Scrutiny Board consider an evaluation of the current stream of SLAs as a stand-alone scrutiny review

R9 The Governor Support Service to produce separate documentation that details the factors that need to be considered when a school chooses to become an academy.

• Other models and options should be illustrated within a Governors’ handbook / information pack

1.2. That the Cabinet response to the review recommendations attached at Appendix 2 be approved.

1.3. That the Cabinet response be referred to Scrutiny Board to monitor the implementation of actions arising as a result of the recommendations

Page | 2

2.0. Purpose

2.1. To bring to the attention of Cabinet the findings and recommendations of the maintaining and building relationships between the local authority with existing and emerging academies and free schools scrutiny review (Appendix 1) and to agree the Cabinet response. (Appendix 2)

3.0. Background

3.1. An away day seminar was convened for all councillors in order to ascertain relevant scrutiny reviews and inquiries for the 2012/2013 municipal year. Following on from this meeting, the outcomes were used to inform a report presented to Scrutiny Board on 4 July, 2012 listing details of the revised scrutiny work programme for 2012/13.

3.2. The Scrutiny Board approved the revised scrutiny review and inquiry work programme and one of the areas councillors decided to focus their efforts on was maintaining and building relationships between the local authority with existing and emerging Academies and Free Schools.

4.0. Messages from the Review

4.1. The education environment nationally and in Wolverhampton has changed and is continuing to change. The review group believes strongly that the local authority still has an important role to play in education in the city. Ultimately the local authority has a responsibility for the welfare, education and opportunities of all children and young people in the city and the review strongly supports the local authority’s efforts to ensure all schools, regardless of the type of school, provide the education opportunities that we expect for Wolverhampton’s children.

4.2. From the evidence provided throughout the review, it became apparent that Councillors need to be encouraged and supported to build better relationships with their local schools as this is beneficial to both parties. Becoming a school governor is not the only way for councillors to become involved in local schools and guidance should be provided about other ways of becoming involved.

4.3. The review group champions the wellbeing and opportunities for all children and young people in the city, regardless of which school they attend, and therefore requests that the local authority keep an overview of educational standards in the city. As part of this work there is a need to build relationships with all types of school in Wolverhampton including academies, community schools, faith schools, independent schools, as well as any new free schools.

5.0. Financial Implications

5.1. There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. [DM/25032013/U]

6.0. Legal Implications

6.1. There are no direct legal implications arising from this report. [JH/26032013/K]

Page | 3

7.0. Equal Opportunities Implications

7.1. There are no direct equal opportunities implications arising from this report.

8.0. Environmental Implications

8.1. There will be no direct environmental implications arising from this report.

Background papers: Listed at Appendix 6: Background Papers

Page | 4

Appendix 1

Wolverhampton City Council

Scrutiny Review: Maintaining and building relationships between the Local Authority with existing and emerging Academies and Free Schools.

Final Report

Review Group Councillors: Contact Officers: Councillor P Bedi Scrutiny Officer Cheryl Powell Councillor A Bolshaw (Chairman) Telephone Number 01902 558653 Councillor J Hodgkiss E‐Mail [email protected] Councillor L McGregor Councillor N A Patten Scrutiny Link Officer Tim Westwood Councillor R Whitehouse Telephone Number 01902 554100 E‐Mail [email protected] Co‐opted Members of the Review Group: Miss S Atim‐Uma Democratic Support Officer Martin Fox Miss H Scragg Telephone Number 01902 555047 Mrs R Watkins E‐Mail [email protected]

10 April 2013

Page | 5

Table of Contents: Page No:

Chairman’s Foreword 7

1. Introduction: Academies – the local and national picture 8

Types of Academies: Old style sponsored academies 8 Types of Academies: New style sponsored academies 9 Free Schools 9 Academy Arrangements 11

2. Summary List of Recommendations 16

3. Background to the Review 18

4. Evidence to support the Recommendations 20

Collaborative Working 20 Maintaining School Improvement 21 Alternative Models of Education 22 Case Study 1: Hackney Learning Trust 23 Case Study 2: Camden Education Commission 24 Academy Sponsors 24 The Admissions Policy 25 Memorandum of Understanding 26 Staff Development and Capacity Building 27 Service Level Agreements 28 Governor Support Service 29

5. Conclusions 30

Appendix 1: Scrutiny Review Group Membership 31

Appendix 2: Witness List (verbal & written evidence) 32

Appendix 3: Partnership Working (Draft Proposal) 33

Appendix 4: Example Memorandum of Understanding 37

Appendix 5: Glossary of Terms 40

Appendix 6: Background papers 41

Page | 6

Chairman’s Foreword

The government sponsored academies and free schools movement is arguably the most important change to the education of the nation’s children since the compulsory education laws of the 1880s. In my opinion, only the move away from selection at age 11 and the tripartite system, in favour of comprehensive education, was of parallel importance.

The academies programme is controversial and has had a profound effect on the educational landscape. Detractors continue to attack the programme, which is said to be, damaging to the schools and communities around them, selective in nature, forced on parents who do not want it, and represents a move towards the privatisation of education by stealth.

Additionally, the movement of government grant from councils directly to academies and free schools has caused a fragmentation in local authority provision. Nevertheless, some important responsibilities continue to remain with the local authority such as monitoring special needs provision and other associated areas, for example, educational psychology. Additionally, local authorities have a duty to monitor standards but have to do this with diminishing staffing and support, with reduced rights of access to academies.

Proponents argue that the greater freedoms afforded to academies have driven up academic standards. However, comparing the performance of even a small number of academies is fraught with complexities. The scholarly report of the RSA Academies Commission1 considered by the Review Panel, provides expert commentary on the activities and performance of academies and finds that:

“There have been some stunning successes among individual sponsored academies ... But it is increasingly clear that academy status alone is not a panacea for improvement.”

This view is further reinforced:

“Results … for pupils in sponsored academies were broadly the same as in a group of similar, statistically matched, schools.”

Whatever arguments and counter‐arguments abound, educational provision is a changing tapestry and will continue to be so. The brief of the Review Panel was specific and pragmatic; the pros and cons of academies and free schools are therefore better debated elsewhere.

I believe that a sound education remains the strongest catalyst for improving the life chances of our children and young people, and breaking the cycle of deprivation, dependency and despondency experienced by some of our citizens.

In conclusion, it is clear from this review that however the educational landscape continues to develop, Wolverhampton City Council (WCC) will continue to strive and ensure that the children and young people of Wolverhampton have access to first‐class educational provision. WCC will continue to work with Wolverhampton’s family of schools to help them achieve this goal by seeking and responding to meet their changing needs.

Lastly, may I thank all the individuals, agencies and organisations that have contributed to the evidence base and may I also thank the members of the Review Panel for their hard work, diligence, patience and good humour during the review.

Councillor Alan Bolshaw

1Source: Unleashing Greatness: Getting the best from an academised system. Page | 7

1. Introduction: Academies – the local and national picture

1.1. The Department for Education (DfE) describes academies as publicly funded independent local schools that provide free education2. They are all‐ability schools established by sponsors from business, faith or voluntary groups working with partners from the local community. The DfE state that “academies provide a teaching and learning environment that is in line with the best in the maintained sector and offer a broad and balanced curriculum to pupils of all abilities, focusing especially on one or more subject areas”. The DfE further suggests that academies provide the best opportunities for the most able pupils and those needing additional support, academies can have a key part to play in the regeneration of disadvantaged communities. On Wednesday 26 May 20103 the Secretary of State (SoS) for Education, Michael Gove, announced legislation for the approval of schools to become academies through a simplified streamlined process. The legislation enabled the introduction of the academies programme allowing primary, secondary and special schools to apply to become academies. This was a key change in academies policy which previously focused on the worse performing secondary schools. Once legislation became law, schools rated as outstanding by OfSTED were able to open as academies as early as September 2010 subject to approval by the Secretary of State4.

1.2. Types of Academies: Old style sponsored academies.

1.2.1. Old style sponsored academies were introduced in March 2000 and could be set up by sponsors from a variety of backgrounds. They had the following freedoms:

• freedom from local authority control;

• ability to set pay and conditions for staff;

• freedom from following the national curriculum; and

• ability to change the length of terms and the school day.

1.2.2. Old style sponsored academies were targeted at under‐performing secondary schools, in deprived areas, requiring a ‘fresh start’. General characteristics were:

• the school would be given a new name;

• new management would run the school;

• the school would be externally sponsored (initially with capital donations and subsequently with £2m endowment – this ceased later); and

• the school would receive significant capital investment for new buildings and facilities.

2 Source: Department for Education

3 Source: Secretary of State for Education Open Letter

4 Source: Department for Education Page | 8

1.3. Types of Academies: New Style Sponsored Academies5

1.3.1 All under‐performing schools becoming an academy are required to have a sponsor who will bring added drive, expertise and capacity. Sponsors no longer need to make a financial contribution, as was the case with some of the original old style sponsored academies. The role of the sponsor is to challenge traditional ways of thinking about how schools are run and what they should be like for students. They seek to transform standards and raise aspirations so that schools and pupils succeed in the future. Sponsors are responsible for establishing the academy trust and the governing body, come from a wide range of backgrounds, including:

• businesses;

• the charitable sector;

• state maintained and existing independent schools;

• educational foundations;

• faith communities.

1.4. Free Schools6

1.4.1. Free schools are non‐profit making, independent, state‐funded schools. There is not a ‘one‐ size‐fits‐all’ approach, they are not defined by size or location, there is not a single type of free school or a single reason for setting them up. Free Schools could be primary or secondary schools and they could be located in traditional school buildings or appropriate community spaces such as office buildings or church halls. They could be set up by a wide range of proposers – including charities, universities, businesses, educational groups, visionary teachers or committed parents – who want to make a difference to the educational landscape.

1.4.2. Free schools are funded by the government but aren’t run by the local council. They have more control over how they do things. They are all‐ability schools, but can’t use academic selection processes like a grammar school. Free schools don’t have to follow the National Curriculum but they have:

• the ability to set their own pay and conditions for staff;

• freedom from following the National Curriculum;

• greater control of their budget;

• freedom to change the length of terms and school days; and

• freedom from local authority control.

5 Source: Kent County Council

6 Source: House of Commons Library Standard Note SN/SP/6058 Page | 9

1.4.3. The common thread uniting all free schools is that they are being set up in response to real demand within a local area for a greater variety of schools. They meet rigorous standards and are all absolutely committed to providing young people with the best possible chance to succeed. Free schools will have some additional freedoms, for example, teachers in free schools will not necessarily need to have Qualified Teacher Status.

1.4.4. The Coalition Government has introduced wide ranging changes to the education environment since 2010. These include:

• a further shift in funding from local authorities to schools;

• greater school autonomy and budgetary responsibility; and

• the expansion of the academies programme and the introduction of Free Schools.

1.4.5. A realignment of education funding from local authorities to schools means that many of the services previously provided by local authorities to schools at no direct cost will now become traded services. Schools could decide whether to buy in these services from their local authority, or other local authorities or providers. This has shifted the relationship between schools and local authorities. The education environment is also getting increasingly complicated. With the increase in the number of academies, in particular the introduction of free schools that are outside local authority control, the introduction of University Technical Colleges for 14 – 19 year olds, there has been an increase in the various types of schools in any geographical area. In addition, academy chains together with hard and soft school federations7 further complicate the education environment.

1.4.6. The process involved in becoming an Academy could be perceived to be driven by financial benefits, the wish for more autonomy, a potential school closure or sponsorship. Throughout this process the governing body would be required to be part of a consultation, although by registering an expression of interest with the DfE, the academisation process could be initiated. Following this the DfE would consider making an Academy Order, which is deemed to be an agreement in principle. Wolverhampton City Council does not try to persuade schools in any particular direction but an offer of collaborative working with the local authority to achieve academy status is always viewed as a way forward.

7 http://local authority.lancashire.gov.uk/documents/s18210/Appendix%20B1.pdf

Page | 10

1.5. Academy Arrangements

1.5.1. Although there are mechanisms for schools to transform to a stand‐alone or “converter” academy model, there are three other ways in which academies can be formed. These are:

(i) Multi‐Academy Trusts: (sometimes known as ‘brands’) Several academies are created using one funding agreement. There is one company and each academy might have a governing body, but with limited powers. This is the model used by ‘brands’ such as ULT, Oasis, Harris and Ark. Substantial benefits accrue from central control, but this model is not favoured by those who view academies as having autonomy.

Multi Academy Trust

Has two layers of governance: The Secretary of State has a 1. an overarching academy trust operating at a strategic level master funding agreement

2. a board of directors. with the multi academy trust

The multi academy trust is a single legal entity

Academy 1 Academy 2 Academy 3 Academy 4 Outstanding/good with (Special Academy) Good school Satisfactory school Inadequate/special measures outstanding features school school

The academy trust could establish The academy trust could establish The academy trust could establish The academy trust could establish a a local governing body for the a local governing body for the a local governing body for the local governing body for the Academy, appoint the members of Academy, appoint the members of Academy, appoint the members of Academy, appoint the members of it and decide what powers to it and decide what powers to it and decide what powers to it and decide what powers to delegate to it. It might decide, for delegate to it. It might, for example, delegate to it. It might, for delegate to it. Alternatively, the example a high level of delegation decide to give a good Academy's example; decide to give a academy trust might decide for for an outstanding Academy. local governing body the same, satisfactory Academy's local this Academy to set up an advisory However, control always remains different or fewer powers than an governing body the same, different body with no delegated powers, with the central academy trust. outstanding Academy, However; or fewer powers than an which reports to the academy control always remains with the outstanding or good Academy. trust's governing body. Control central academy trust. However, control always remains always remains with the central with the central academy trust. academy trust.

Page | 11

(ii) Umbrella Trust Model: (sometimes known as ‘chains’) Each academy has its own funding agreement, company and governors. There is then an umbrella trust (completely separate from the agreements with the SoS). It is established and populated by the member academies according to pre‐determined objectives and variations are in place as to who ‘controls’ the trust. This model is usually the preferred model for dioceses but is also used by secondaries to create a family of schools with local primaries.

Umbrella Trust

The umbrella trust will not be an academy Established and controlled at member trust. It will probably be (but does not have to The Secretary of State has an be) a charitable trust (a charitable company and governor level by the key staff from all individual funding agreement with limited by guarantee). of the predecessor schools. each academy trust.

Single academy trust for Single academy trust for Single academy trust for Single academy trust for Academy 1 Academy 2 Academy 3 Academy 4 (A Special Academy)

Is a single legal entity with an Is a single legal entity with an Is a single legal entity with an Is a single legal entity with an individual funding agreement with individual funding agreement with individual funding agreement individual funding agreement with the Secretary of State. Members the Secretary of State. Members with the Secretary of State. the Secretary of State. Members and governors appointed by and governors appointed by Members and governors and governors appointed by umbrella trust. umbrella trust. appointed by umbrella trust. umbrella trust.

As an outstanding/good with As a good school, Academy 2 As a satisfactory school. Academy 4 is inadequate/in outstanding features school could choose majority (2(A)) or Academy 3 The umbrella trust special measures. The umbrella Academy 1 could choose minority (2(B)) control by the would have majority control trust would have majority control majority (2(A)) or minority (2(B)) umbrella trust. (2(A)). An additional sponsor (2(A). An additional sponsor might control by the umbrella trust. might appoint some members appoint some members and/or and/or governors (2(C)). governors (2(C)).

Page | 12

(iii) Collaborative Partnership Model8: Each academy exists as a separate entity but there is a management agreement to bring the academies into working partnership for specific purposes. This is, in effect, a less formal variant of the umbrella trust model. It enables collaboration without control and is more easily reversed. In some circumstances, especially where Church and other schools wish to work together, it would be a good arrangement. The Secretary of State enters into a separate funding agreement for each academy. There are no shared governance arrangements between the academies. However, the academies have written agreements or a memorandum of understanding between them to collaborate on particular matters. There could be a mix of academies, maintained schools and fee‐paying independent schools in this model.

Collaborative Partnership Model The Secretary of State has an individual funding agreement with each academy trust and satisfies Agrees the governance model for each individual himself that there are written agreements in place Academy in the articles between the schools aimed at raising standards (the Academies do not share any governance link). across the partnership. Each Academy's funding agreement requires it to collaborate in line with these agreements.

Academy 1 Academy 2 Academy 3 Academy 4 Outstanding/good with Good Academy Good Academy Satisfactory Academy outstanding features (A Special Academy) Academy

Some examples of how the Some examples of how the Some examples of how the Some examples of how the Academies in partnership Academies in the partnership Academies in the partnership Academies in the partnership might collaborate: might collaborate; might collaborate: might collaborate:

With the other partner With the other partner With the other partner ensuring With the other partner Academies to ensure broad to ensure a broad range of post‐ a broad range of post‐16 options Academies to ensure a broad range of post‐16 options are 16 options are available for are available for students of all range of post‐16 options are available for students of all students of all four Academies. four Academies. available for students of all four Academies.

four Academies. English teacher provides Staff share expertise with the

training for staff at Academy 4 other three Academies on Academy 1 loans its physics on strategies for Inspiring boys raising standards among teacher to Academy 4 one day to read for pleasure. students with language and a week. communication difficulties

Principal 1 mentors the Principal 2 mentors the Shares its sports facilities with Shares it music recording Principal of Academy 3 Principal of Academy 4 Academy 2 studio with Academy 1 and 2.

8 Source: Academy Arrangements (Central Bedfordshire Council)

Page | 13

1.5.2. The education environment nationally and in Wolverhampton is changing and will continue to do so. The review aims to give councillors a voice in shaping how the local authority influences schools and the relationship between schools and local councillors in the new educational environment. The local authority still has an important role to play and ultimately the local authority has a responsibility for the welfare, quality of education and opportunities of all children and young people in the community. Councillors strongly support the local authority to ensure that schools, regardless of their type, continue to provide the quality of education and opportunities expected for Wolverhampton’s children. There are still many roles that cannot be fulfilled by academy chains, and need the authority ‐ wide oversight and long term planning that a local authority can provide such as admissions and special educational needs (SEN). Officers anticipate an increase in the number of schools that register an interest in becoming an academy. Currently Wolverhampton hosts six academies:‐

• Moseley Park Technology College;

o adopting the collaborative model shown at page 13

• Heath Park Business and Enterprise College;

o adopting the collaborative model shown at page 13

• South Wolverhampton and Bilston Academy;

o adopting a multi academy trust model shown at page 11

• North East Wolverhampton Academy; and

o adopting a multi academy trust model shown at page 11

• S. Peter’s Collegiate School – A Church of England Academy.

o adopting an umbrella trust model shown at page 12

• Aldersley High School9

There is a planned conversion for Woden Primary School10 to academy status as from 1 April 2013.

1.5.3. Twenty six out of a total sixty local councillors are school governors thereby demonstrating the local authority’s commitment to maintaining relationships with its (emerging) free schools, academies and maintained schools.

1.5.4. Wolverhampton’s first free school is due to open in September 2013 and has been named as Anand Primary School. Governed by the Wolverhampton Sangat Trust, Anand Primary School already secures a range of functions and services from the local authority. It can be said that a relationship is already established because of the communication involved

9 Academy conversion took place on 1 January 2013 10 Academy conversion took place on 1 April 2013 Page | 14

around the supply of services and functions to Anand. 1.5.5. In their written submission to the review, Anand Free School stated:

“We have a very good relationship with the LEA [sic], often sharing our thoughts with the Assistant Director…he and his fellow officers are always helpful and have helped guide us on many educational aspects.”

Page | 15

2. Summary List of Recommendations

Upon considering a breadth and depth of evidence the review members recommend that:‐ i. Collaborative working must continue to be a key focus. Wolverhampton City Council aspires that all academies, schools and free schools sign up to the Wolverhampton Schools’ Improvement Partnership (WSIP)11.

a) The review recognises the value of collaborative working especially through the role of the WSIP. Appropriate budget provision must be allocated. ii. Vulnerable schools which might be targeted to become academies should be identified earlier and interventions should be in place to address failings. iii. Consideration of new / alternative models of education should be undertaken (not to view the academy model as the only model).

a) Alternative organisational structures should be considered, for example when a head teacher’s post becomes vacant the school’s governing body should be advised that a head teacher (substantive) post is not the only model available. iv. Wolverhampton City Council must encourage local, education specific, sponsors.

a) Evidence shows that local solutions have been successful and should be sought before using external sponsors. v. Wolverhampton City Council will work towards all academies, schools and free schools signing up to the local authority’s admissions policy12. vi. Wolverhampton City Council will work towards all schools including academies and free schools signing up to a local authority Memorandum of Understanding (MoU13) that seeks to cement a strong relationship between academies and the local authority.

a) That the TUC’s Model Agreement for Academies be considered as an appendix to a MoU and that all academies, schools and free schools are signatories. vii. All academies, schools and free schools should have mechanisms in place to promote capacity building and staff development for the senior leadership team (SLT) and to promote continuity of good practice.

a) Evidence shows that succession planning is a key element in maintaining school

11 The focus of WSIP is to raise the standards of educational achievement for all children and young people in the city. Nevertheless Wolverhampton City Council can’t compel schools to become partners.

12 Changes to the admissions code may make the school admissions process simpler, fairer and more transparent for all parents. More information can be accessed here http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a0077550/new‐admissions‐code‐more‐places‐in‐good‐schools‐a‐fairer‐and‐simpler‐ system.

13 Wolverhampton City Council can’t compel schools to sign up to a MoU. If characterised as an accredited standard for achieving excellence in education, such as a Charter mark, to include accolades in areas such as Admissions, Safeguarding, Healthy Eating and Appropriate Governance Training then the MoU might carry more gravitas.

Page | 16

improvement. viii. Service level agreements (SLAs) are reviewed to ensure they are appropriate to the needs of academies, schools and free schools.

a) That the Scrutiny Board consider an evaluation of the current stream of SLAs as a stand‐ alone scrutiny review14. ix. The Governor Support Service to produce separate documentation that details the factors that need to be considered when a school chooses to become an academy.

a) Other models and options should be illustrated within a governors’ handbook / information pack.

14 The Review Group have requested further consideration and discussion takes place at the Annual Scrutiny Planning Day scheduled for 15th April 2013. Page | 17

3. Background to the Review

3.1. On the 11 June, 2012, an away day seminar was convened for all councillors in order to determine relevant scrutiny reviews and inquiries for the 2012/2013 municipal year. Following on from this meeting, the outcomes were used to inform a report presented to Scrutiny Board on 4 July, 2012 listing details of the revised scrutiny work programme for 2012/13.

3.3. Evidence for this review was collected over a period of three months on the following dates:‐

• 9 January 2013 Pre – scoping meeting

• 7 February 2013 Formal meeting (verbal evidence)

• 25 February 2013 Formal meeting (verbal evidence)

• 28 February 2013 Review of the written and verbal evidence

• 14 March 2013 Review of the draft report and recommendations

3.4. At its formal meetings the review heard from

• Wolverhampton City Council’s Assistant Director – Schools, Skills and Learning

• Wolverhampton City Council’s Head of Finance

• Wolverhampton City Council’s Acting Head of School Challenge, Support and Intervention

• General Secretary of Wolverhampton Teachers' Association (NUT)

• Head teacher at Heath Park Business and Enterprise College

• Executive head teacher for the Central Learning Partnership Trust (CLPT)

• Anand Free School

• Wolverhampton Schools’ Improvement Partnership (WSIP)

• Wolverhampton City Council’s School and Pupil Services

• West Walsall E‐ACT Academy

• Former President of ASPECT15

• Member of the National Executive of the Socialist Education Association

15 The Association of Professionals in Education and Children's Trust (ASPECT) is the only professional association and trade union exclusively representing professionals in education and children's trusts. The Association has a rich history, and now represents over 4,000 professionals in the field including advisory head teachers, directors and managers of children’s services, school improvement and early years advisers, education welfare officers, 14‐19 coordinators, heads of Sure Start, Ofsted inspectors, parent partnership staff and self‐employed consultants. Page | 18

3.5. The Importance of Teaching: Schools White Paper16 published in 2010 states that the key roles of local authorities in the new education environment will be:

• supporting parents and families through promoting a good supply of strong schools – as well as encouraging the development of academies and free schools that reflect the local community;

• ensuring fair access to all schools for every child;

• to use their democratic mandate to stand up for the interests of parents and children;

• to support vulnerable pupils – including looked after children, those outside mainstream education, and those with special educational needs;

• supporting maintained schools performing below the floor standards to improve quickly, or to convert to academy status with a strong sponsor; and

• to develop their own school improvement strategies that can then be marketed to all schools, not just those in the local authority’s immediate geographical area.

3.6. A recent London Councils report notes that “Local authorities could also consider using their scrutiny function to hold local schools to account to ensure that elected members have a voice in how local education provision is being delivered.”17 The Importance of Teaching: Schools White Paper also highlighted using the scrutiny function in relation to schools:

“Local authorities will continue both to challenge schools which are causing concern and to focus on issues needing attention which cut across more than one school. Alongside the key role of the Lead Member for Children and the Director of Children’s Services, other Councillors may be engaged through the scrutiny function by focusing on a particular issue of concern or inviting the head teacher and/or governors to attend a scrutiny committee to listen to concerns and to respond.”18

3.7. The final report for the Department for Education’s Ministerial Advisory Group19 on the action research into the evolving role of the local authority in education also included a reference to scrutiny in a list of key messages for local partners in education:

“…further develop the outward facing scrutiny role of members so that this becomes a powerful route for championing and advocating on behalf of children and young people…”

3.8. As part of this review Councillors also had an opportunity to consider their own current and future relationship with schools in the city. The review’s remit covers all areas of Children and Young People’s Services, education and promoting wellbeing and opportunities for children and young people in Wolverhampton. As such this review has prompted councillors to think about how they can further engage with different types of schools in the city, such as academies and future free

16 Source: The Importance of Teaching ‐ The Schools White Paper

17 London Councils, London local government role in education (paper to Leaders’ Committee – 10.07.12)

18 Department for Education(November 2010), The Importance of Teaching – The Schools White Paper (point 5.37, p.64)

19 Parish N., Baxter A. & Sandals L. (June 2012), Action research into the evolving role of the local authority in education – The final report for the Ministerial Advisory Group, Department for Education Page | 19

schools.

4. Evidence to support the Recommendations

4.1. During February 2013, the Review Group received evidence both verbally and in written form from a range of experts based within Wolverhampton City Council as well as officers, head teachers and individuals based externally to the local authority. The range of evidence received and considered assisted councillors to understand and work towards arrangements to maintain and build relationships between the local authority with existing and emerging academies and free schools.

4.1.1. This section of the report will explore the evidence in greater detail with a view to discussing the origins of each recommendation in turn.

4.2. Collaborative Working

4.2.1. At its first meeting, the review group received evidence about the unique partnership in Wolverhampton between the local authority and its schools. For the past 15 years a solid foundation has been built and this led to the current model, a partnership between all schools within the city. The importance and relevance of the WSIP was a recurring theme throughout the duration of this review. Councillors were keen to stress the importance of retaining the focus on partnership / collaborative working and felt this should not be limited to any particular type of school.

4.2.2. In their written submission to the review, the WSIP stated:

“WSIP is a partnership of all schools in the City including Academies…we are all working for the wellbeing of children and schools and for the wider support of education across the City…it is important for all educators to have a wider view than their own school / establishment…this premise is shared by all Wolverhampton Head teachers and is the foundation of our Partnership…”

4.2.3. WSIP followed the School Improvement Partnership Board which had been in existence for a number of years. WSIP was formed in 2012 and became a company limited by guarantee in July 2012. The partnership model is unique to Wolverhampton and was highlighted as an area of good practice during an OFSTED inspection held in 200020. Councillors were informed that as the partnership conduit, the WSIP partnership arrangement did not exist in other local authorities to the same effect. The review received further information from the Assistant Director, informing them that the individual relationship with schools is a valued one and the wish to maintain a relationship with the local authority is a constant one.

4.2.4. The executive Head teacher at Moseley Park School referred to the collaborative working arrangements between Heath Park and Moseley Park. Councillors were informed that the arrangements work well and are fully supported by the authority and the professional associations. When asked if this model could be as effective if replicated with three or four schools, councillors were advised that the governance arrangements within the Central Learning Partnership (CLPT)21 lend themselves well to further partnership proposals. Councillors were informed that due to its current success, the Governing Body requested that Heath Park sponsor Woden’s academy conversion. This was supported by the Local Authority but the final decision was taken by Woden's

20 Source: School Improvement Partnership Board – Annual Report 2000/2001

21 Source: Heath Park Central Learning Trust Page | 20

Governing Body. The Partnership also works with schools in Rotherham and Doncaster, which are areas of a similar size and with similar issues to those within Wolverhampton. Evidence presented to councillors informed their deliberations with the knowledge that the Government will continue to raise the bar for schools and that there is a need to work with and offer support to those schools which are perceived to be performing below floor standards.

4.2.5. In providing evidence to the review group members, the executive Head teacher of the CLPT reaffirmed that the relationship with the local authority is an effective one and considered that the presence of an external sponsor could affect the current relationship because an external sponsor would not have to be part of the schools’ improvement partnership. It was noted that should an increasing dependency on the academy chain model emerge throughout Wolverhampton, unique features such as general support, the current relationship with the local authority and features such as collaborative working would be lost. Councillors and officers acknowledged the system of schools working in isolation in Wolverhampton had not served the children of the city very well and that pupils should have the right to attend a good or outstanding school.

4.2.6. In light of the evidence provided, the review recommends that:

The review recognises the value of collaborative working especially through the role of the WSIP. Appropriate budget provision must be allocated.

4.3. Maintaining School Improvement

4.3.1. Whilst contemplating the need to build and maintain relationships with new and emerging academies and free schools, councillors were keen to explore areas of school improvement, in particular, what action should be taken if an academy is perceived or judged to be failing in its provision. Councillors enquired whether the school improvement team would become involved and if so, whether the academy should contribute to the cost or other means of intervention to pupils. The review group were informed that in the case of a maintained school, actions would be identified and the school would make a financial contribution as considered appropriate.

4.3.2. Councillors were informed of the importance of funding for the school improvement team as the local authority had invested £1.2 million to this team. Covering the salaries of the post of head of school challenge and intervention and 13 other posts, some of the finance has been allocated to respond to various pressures, for example support for special schools. The review group was informed that school improvement depends on attaining service arrangements ranging from human resources to financial matters and from the evidence received councillors were informed of the importance of understanding the strengths and weaknesses in each school. This would be acknowledged as one of the many key measures of success.

4.3.3. Having reviewed a range of evidence the Review recommends that:

Vulnerable schools which might be targeted to become academies should be identified earlier and interventions should be in place to address failings.

Page | 21

4.4. Alternative Models of Education

4.4.1. The Sunday Times top 500 primary schools league table22, published in 2012 ranked Manor Primary School in Bilston as the second most successful primary school for the third consecutive year. In some instances when schools have performed consistently well, over and above the government’s floor standards, the more vulnerable schools have been known to benefit from their success. The Assistant Director informed the Review Group that Manor Primary provides support to a range of schools within the city.

4.4.2. Manor Primary School provides support in a way that all primary schools are able to access through 2 programmes, the Outstanding Teacher Programme (OTP) and the Improving Teacher Programme (ITP). Both of these extended courses are designed to improve the skills of individual teachers the OTP moves teachers from good to outstanding and the ITP from satisfactory to good. Many schools in the city have taken advantage of these programmes. Manor Primary also supports schools directly and in the 2012‐13 academic year is supporting Bilston CE and St Alban's CE (2 schools). During the 2011‐12 academic year Manor Primary supported Graiseley Primary, Springdale Junior and Stow Heath Junior , Bushbury Hill Primary, Palmers Cross Primary( 5 schools).

4.4.3. In addition to the support provided directly Manor Primary also, in partnership with the Local Authority, have supervision of other school to school support programmes. In the 2012‐13 academic year Loxdale Primary provided support for Grove Primary and Merridale Primary provided support for St Andrew's CE. Rakegate Primary also benefited from this programme through receiving support from Elston Hall Primary during the 2011‐12 academic year. (1 school). Manor Primary also supported the Giffard Primary during the 2009 ‐ 10 academic year (1 school). In terms of direct support Manor Primary has assisted 8 schools as well as 3 schools through the supervision of school to school support programmes. Overall, 40+ schools have accessed programmes delivered by Manor Primary School.

4.4.4. An executive Head teacher referred the review group to other examples of schools working closely together to bolster support and promote shared learning. Councillors were encouraged by the local authority’s attempts to continue collaborative working throughout the review process and were passionate about the local authority’s role when working in this way. Councillors generally thought the local authority should explore any opportunities of this nature, particularly, to give serious consideration to any such arrangement.23

When considering the evidence, the Review recommends that:

Consideration of new / alternative models of education should be undertaken (not to view the Academy model as the only model).

Alternative organisational structures should be considered, for example when a head teacher’s post becomes vacant the school’s governing body should be advised that a head teacher (substantive)

22 Source: The Sunday Times' top 500 state primary schools

23 See page 13: Collaborative Partnership Model diagram

Page | 22

post is not the only model available.

4.4.5. Councillors explored the extent to which the local authority favoured a collaborative model and whether there were any other alternative structures that could be applied locally. The executive Head teacher stated that the existing model of teaching provision was not in keeping with the demand and shift of the educational landscape, suggesting the model shown below could prove to be a favoured way forward.

Example Trust Model24 (supporting School Improvement Hubs)

Chief Executive

Executive Executive Headteacher Headteacher

Associate Headteacher Associate Associate Headteacher Associate Headteacher Primary Headteacher Headteacher Secondary Headteacher Primary Academy Primary Secondary Academy Secondary Academy Academy Academy Academy

Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Leadership Leadership Leadership Leadership Leadership Leadership Team Team Team Team Team Team

4.4.6. Councillors acknowledged existing partnerships arrangements between schools (e.g. S.Peter’s / King’s and Heath Park / Moseley Park) and that they had proven to be extremely helpful in terms of sharing learning, pooling resource and offering support. Although it is always important to offer an assurance that any partnership is effective, meaningful and would continue to be fit for purpose, it is sometimes difficult to make an appropriate match.

4.4.7. Councillors were provided with an example of this way of working as the CLPT has been invited to sponsor Woden Primary school, primarily identified by the DFE as underperforming and to increase floor targets which had been a concern for the past two years. Visits to the school by the DFE resulted in the Governing Body agreeing to the school becoming a fast track sponsored academy. Councillors received evidence to substantiate the assertion that school improvement chains were the way forward, with the proviso that they work with the most vulnerable schools to assist their journey of improvement. The case studies discussed at paragraph 4.4.7. and 4.4.8. illustrate schools’ ambition to accept and work within alternative models of education.

4.4.8. Case Study 1: Hackney Learning Trust25

The Hackney Learning Trust (HLT) demands the highest expectations of achievement and self‐ discipline while providing a broad, dynamic curriculum designed to help students achieve the highest personal and academic standards. Personal advisers build strong relationships with students, and work with parents and carers to ensure that students can continue to focus on the next steps of their improvement pathway. The HLT is recognised as a national centre of excellence within the Academies network, attracting praise from the SoS in the Excellence in Education report for the 2012 Parliamentary Yearbook. The HLT works closely with local secondary and primary

24 See Appendix 3 for the full Draft Proposal Document 25 Hackney Learning Trust

Page | 23

schools. It is also developing links with other Academies and businesses on a national and international basis. Close links with other training and education providers, including local colleges, universities and private training providers have been forged as well as actively developing links with the local community. In 201126 Ofsted stated the students make ‘an increasingly positive contribution to the local community’. The HLT is also developing partnerships with other deliverers of children’s services, including the police; social services and Homerton Hospital, to ensure that students access the extra services and help they need in order to succeed.

4.4.9. Case Study 2: Camden Education Commission 27

Camden Education Commission was an independent commission jointly established by Camden schools and Camden Council to take a longer term look at strengthening education in the borough. The commission was tasked with taking a long‐term (five‐ to ten‐year) view of education in the borough. It looked at what is working well but also how current education provision can be improved particularly given the need to adapt to new government policies and to the changing economic picture as it affects young people, schools and the wider community. The commission published an interim report before starting phase two of its work. During that time the commissioners undertook further visits to Camden schools and education providers, and met with a wide range of people to discuss the findings and suggestions highlighted in its report.

4.4.9.1. Phase one

In phase one of its work, which ran from May to July 2011, the commission visited Camden’s schools, children's centres and training colleges and met with groups of teachers, parents, children and young people, including those without a job or college place, to understand the Camden education picture. The commissioners also met with local education officials, politicians and key partners, including local employers and community organisations, to discuss the issues identified. In addition, the commission reviewed a range of information about Camden’s education system, including its demographics, schools, the attainment of children and young people at different ages and attendance levels at our schools.

4.4.9.2. Phase two

In phase two of the commission's work it gathered information and comments from a range of individuals and organisations in relation to the proposals it made in its interim report. The commission had further meetings with head teachers in Camden, further education institutions, businesses, higher education and cultural organisations, governors, local education officials, and politicians

4.5. Academy Sponsors

4.5.1. Councillors received evidence to support their understanding of how sponsors work with Wolverhampton City Council. Sponsors make a huge contribution to academies, bringing drive, expertise and capacity as well as experience from a wide variety of backgrounds and sectors. Some can be existing academies, primary schools, grammar schools or further education institutions with experience in improving performance. Some can be organisations such as dioceses, universities,

26 Source: Hackney Learning Trust Inspection Report

27 Camden Education Commission Page | 24

businesses, charities, independent schools, educational foundations or faith communities. Some can be individual philanthropists with strong interests in improving education. All bring a record of success either in education or other enterprises and a diverse range of experience and expertise.

4.5.2. Wolverhampton City Council has a unique relationship with its academy sponsors because all sponsors are based within the city and they are held accountable for the improving the performance of their schools. They do this by challenging traditional thinking about how schools are run and what they should be like for students by attempting to make a complete break with cultures of low aspiration and achievement.

4.5.3. As part of their written submission, the WSIP stated that:

“… Internal sponsors should know the City and the positive and negative aspects or impact of education / enterprise. They may have knowledge of schools. If the sponsor is another school they would have a good track record for success and would already be a member of WSIP…”

4.5.4. The Review recommends that:

Wolverhampton City Council must encourage local, education specific, sponsors.

Evidence shows that local solutions have been successful and should be sought before using external sponsors

4.5.6. Councillors understood the importance of local sponsors, the relationships to the WSIP and partnership arrangements with other local schools as historically, the local authority, has always enjoyed a good relationship with voluntary aided, controlled and foundation schools. Councillors commended this arrangement and urged that any relationship with academies and free schools should not be seen as any different. The receipt of evidence had demonstrated to Councillors that the local authority had learned the strength of their relationships with schools would be key to the local authority fulfilling its role. In the past the local authority had used the formal federation of schools to solve issues of performance and lessons had been learned by bringing schools together and appointing executive Head teachers. The situation was, however, not as straightforward in terms of academies. Regarding external sponsors who did not want to work within the partnership arrangements, the local authority had developed strategies that were better able to cope with their resistance to adapt to this way of working, as the key issue has been and always will be, the ability to deliver timely and quality services. In this instance, the local authority would also need to be aware of the possibility of sponsors whose focus is not in keeping with the ethos of school improvement.

4.5.6 As part of their written submission, the WSIP also urged Councillors to consider:

“…[the WSIP is a] partnership of all schools in the City including Academies regardless of the lead or sponsor for the Academy. All schools subscribe to and share the values and principles set out in the Articles. We are all working for the wellbeing of children and schools and for the wider support of education across the City. WSIP would expect any sponsor to subscribe to the agreed ethos, values and principles. Input should be support where appropriate without interference in educational matters…”

Page | 25

4.6. The Admissions Policy

4.6.1 From the desk top research and analysis exercise conducted as part of this review secondary research defined academies (including those that are free schools), as state‐funded, non‐fee‐paying independent schools set up under a funding agreement with the SoS. The management team of an academy is required by their funding agreements to comply with the DfE’s school admission code28 and the law relating to admissions, although the SoS has the power to vary this requirement where there is demonstrable need. It is the responsibility of Wolverhampton City Council to ensure that its admission arrangements are compliant with the DfE’s school admission code but where a school is the admission authority, this responsibility falls to the governing body or academy trust. The research also demonstrated the number of requests for places at pupils’ preferred community or academy school does not exceed the school’s admission limit, a place could potentially be allocated. However, if the number of requests is greater than the school’s admission limit, applications will be prioritised in accordance with the Authority’s admission criteria for over‐ subscribed academy and community schools.

4.6.2. The Review recommends that:

Wolverhampton City Council will work towards all academies, schools and free schools signing up to the local authority’s admissions policy29.

4.7. Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)30

4.7.1. Councillors queried the decision taken by some schools, free schools and existing and emerging academies to resist the partnership arrangements offered through the WSIP, nevertheless it was noted that all schools opt into the partnership. Councillors were keen to understand if this type of decision compromised the collation and further analysis of intelligence which would provide effective strategic direction for school places, admissions and advice to the Secretary of State if necessary. Elizabeth Truss MP, the junior education minister, made it clear recently in a Commons question31 that:

“…It is not the role of local authorities (LAs) to intervene in underperforming academies. Academies are autonomous from LAs and their performance is a matter for the Department through the Office of the Schools Commissioner. If a local authority (LA) has concerns about an individual academy, we expect the LA to raise these concerns with the Academy Trust in first instance. If the LA feels that the Academy Trust is failing to take sufficient action concerns can be raised with Ofsted or the Secretary of State…”

4.7.2. Councillors received information concerning the failure of academies in other parts of the country32 and the subsequent methods of intervention the local authority could use. With no offer of

28 Source: DfE's School Admissions Code

29 Changes to the admissions code may make the school admissions process simpler, fairer and more transparent for all parents. More information can be accessed here.

30 Source: Brighton and Hove Council

31 Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130207/text/130207w0002.htm

32 Source: BBC News Website ‐ Lincolnshire academies trust criticised over financial affairs

Page | 26

assistance from their respective local authorities, the DfE and the SoS could decide to change the sponsor in cases where an academy was failing. Therefore a good relationship from the outset is critical and some authorities had relied on a prescribed MoU providing protection for local authority and schools. A draft MoU used by Surrey County Council can be seen at Appendix 4.

4.7.3. The Assistant Director commented that such relationships can only be achieved after considerable input from both parties. Councillors also referred to the “memorandum of understanding” which is in use sporadically in some authorities. The General Secretary of Wolverhampton Teachers' Association (NUT) indicated that trade unions and academy trusts had signed up to the TUC’s Model Agreement for Academies but suggested external sponsors should be encouraged to sign up to this way of working also. Councillors were informed that resistance from external sponsors to working collaboratively with the local authority should also to be treated with caution. This was partly due to the potential creation of a two tier system of employment whereby an external sponsor would be able to impose dual terms and conditions to members of staff. With a MoU there would be an element of protection from this occurring.

4.7.4. When considering the evidence, the Review recommends that:

That the TUC’s Model Agreement for Academies be considered as an appendix to a MoU and that all academies, schools and free schools are signatories.

4.7.5. As part of their written submission Wolverhampton City Council’s School and Pupil Services stated

“…we’re not sure how this [MoU] could be enforced if schools feel this will affect their ability to make choices with regards to services….what we do is encourage and up until now it has been successful with all the existing Academy Trusts there is an agreement to a model facilities agreement33, which ensures the recognition of trade unions and national and local terms and conditions of service…”

4.7.6. Councillors received evidence to suggest that any MoU must focus on the priorities the local authority would wish to promote and share with partners (for example, the local authority has a responsibility for the provision of a safe, healthy and prosperous community). The underlying principal of the academy movement understands effective community engagement to be essential for the sustainability of all academies, and as central to the partnership with its supporting local authority. Councillors heard the evidence and experiences of the Youth Council which seeks to promote a strong pupil voice with regard to academy conversion. Councillors were asked to consider and encourage emphasising the importance of a school council demonstrating that pupil voice is an important part of their education philosophy.

4.7.7. At their initial evidence session, Councillors were informed that in terms of communications, the academy and local authority aspire to share census and educational performance data to inform the strategic planning of Wolverhampton City Council. Councillors were also informed of the potential of working with elected members to ensure they are informed and engaged in the development and performance of each academy within the city. Councillors were also informed

33 Source: TUC Model Agreement for Academies in England 2010 Page | 27

that, in theory, the governance arrangements of the academy trust would provide councillors with genuine opportunities to contribute to the strategic planning of SEN and school admissions within the local authority in relation to meeting the needs of its pupils and the wider community.

4.8. Staff Development and Capacity Building

4.8.1. Nationally one of the most prolific developments in schools in recent years has been the growth of school‐to‐school improvement and collaboration34. School leaders across the country are recognising that by working with other schools, sharing their learning, good practice and innovative ideas, they and their school can continue to improve what they do, while supporting improvement in other schools at the same time. Initiatives such as National Leaders of Education35 and Local Leaders of Education36 have demonstrated a strong trend of mutual benefit, where both those schools receiving support and those providing it are achieving higher standards and improved outcomes for their children. This has much to do with the influence that school‐to‐ school partnerships have on staff’s continued professional development (CPD). In drawing upon high quality practice and thinking across schools, school‐to‐school partnerships are increasingly seen as the most effective context in which to grow and develop the next generation of leaders.

4.8.2. The review noted the increasing need to recognise the importance of nurturing and maintaining the excellence of the senior leadership team. Councillors were informed that when opportunities presented themselves for the possible revision of a senior /managerial structure consideration should be given to potential federation arrangements. This would enable additional associate Head teachers on each site dealing with operational matters whilst reporting to an executive Head teacher.

4.8.3. The review recommends that:

All academies, schools and free schools should have mechanisms in place to promote capacity building and staff development for the Senior Leadership Team and to promote continuity of good practice.

Evidence shows that succession planning is a key element in maintaining school improvement.

4.8.4. The review noted the initial stages of a similar type of arrangement in that Moseley Park is providing support to a primary school with the current senior leadership arrangements delivered through an executive Head teacher and associate Head teacher arrangement. Throughout this review, Councillors were informed that this model is a strategy used to retain the best Head teachers within any geographical area.

4.8.5. The General Secretary of Wolverhampton Teachers' Association (NUT) expressed his concern about the future support of schools within Wolverhampton, calling for, a need for local knowledge and local solutions, shaped by the idea of a “family of schools”. At an evidence session councillors

34 Source: National Teaching Schools Prospectus ‐ National College for School Leaders

35 National leaders of education (NLEs)) are outstanding head teachers or principals who, together with the staff in their schools (designated national support schools (NSS)), use their skills and experience to support schools in challenging circumstances. In addition to leading their own schools, NLEs work to increase the leadership capacity of other schools to help raise standards.

36 Local leaders of education (LLEs) are successful head teachers with a proven track record of supporting other schools, and with the capacity to work alongside other heads to drive forward improvements and build capacity to ensure that improvements can be sustained.

Page | 28

were informed that the partnership approach is vital in terms of recruitment and retention of high‐quality teaching staff. Councillors understood and appreciated the importance the role of education plays in line with the role and function enterprise is currently afforded within the city. It was noted that there was a requirement that the role of education should retain its significance for the benefit of the city’s young people.

4.9. Service Level Agreements (SLAs)

4.9.1. At a time of greater financial stringency more schools are seeking to compare SLA charges with those from other providers. In terms of service level agreements, Wolverhampton City Council has encouraged schools to sign up to this way of working, although this becomes more problematic when the SLA components bears little relationship to the market approaches and may be only loosely linked to the costs of providing the service to schools, free schools and academies in Wolverhampton. Councillors heard that it is also the case that schools outside the authority and academies may well need to be quoted and charged prices based on a market approach that covers the costs of the service provision.

4.9.2. Wolverhampton City Council’s School and Pupil Services written submission stated

“…Relationships are key to ensuring schools continue to purchase services from the City Council. Despite the difficulties and challenges over recent years there is still a strong loyalty and relationship with some services and schools across the City. So our relationship management strategies are key and shaping services around what the Schools needs are, rather than what the Councils are, will significantly help manage the risks here…there is the potential for a financial impact on the Council and the overall delivery of services, however the collaborative partnership approach between service providers and Wolverhampton schools helps manage this risk…”

4.9.3. The government has indicated its intention to consult on a national funding formula from 2012/13 onwards. Any national formula would not have distinct amounts for the services that are provided under SLAs and so an exact match would no longer be possible.

4.9.4. As part of their written submission Wolverhampton City Council’s School and Pupil Services stated:

“…there is certainly funding implications which will have an impact on Council Services. Funding is already delegated to schools through the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG)37and the local funding formula. Some of that funding from the DSG is top sliced and held centrally for central services and the Council gets an element of school funding through the Local Authority Central Spend Equivalent Grant (LACSEG)38. When schools become academies both elements of the centrally held funds go straight to the school as part of their new funding agreement. These funding streams are significant, for example a secondary school that recently converted had allocated an extra £800K from their elements of DSG and LACSEG…”

4.9.5. When considering the evidence, the Review recommends that:

Service level agreements (SLAs) are reviewed to ensure they are appropriate to the needs of academies, schools and free schools.

37 Dedicated Schools Grant

38 Local Authority Central Spend Equivalent Grant Page | 29

That the Scrutiny Board consider an evaluation of the current stream of SLAs as a stand‐alone scrutiny review

4.10. Governor Support Service

4.10.1. Wolverhampton City Council’s Governors’ Support and Advisory Service aims to enable Governing bodies (GBs) to work effectively to enhance the quality of governance in schools by providing high quality support that incorporates the key values of governing body self‐evaluation and improvement.

4.10.2. As required by its statutory obligations, it provides the following as a core service:

• advice on the approval and completion of constitutional instruments of government (maintained schools only)

• ensuring that every GB has a legally competent Instrument of Government (maintained schools only)

• managing the training of LA Governors at academies and maintained schools

4.10.3. As part of their written submission West Walsall E‐ACT Academy stated:

“…Individual academies or chains operate in different ways, however, we have invested time in both the recruitment and training of our revised governing body. Work has been undertaken by a respected school improvement consultant with a background in National Challenge schools which has re‐focussed governance on the key issues of school improvement. Operating a more corporate business requires greater financial understanding than was perhaps the case previously and this may be something that LAs may wish to develop for all school governors…”

4.10.4 When considering the evidence, the Review recommends that:

The Governor Support Service to produce separate documentation that details the factors that need to be considered when a school chooses to become an academy.

Other models and options should be illustrated within a governors’ handbook / information pack.

5. Conclusions

5.1. The education environment nationally and in Wolverhampton has changed and is continuing to change. The review group believes strongly that the local authority still has an important role to play in education in the city. Ultimately the local authority has a responsibility for the welfare, education and opportunities of all children and young people in the city and the review strongly supports the local authority’s efforts to ensure all schools, regardless of the type of school, provide the education opportunities that we expect for Wolverhampton’s children.

5.2. From the evidence provided throughout the review, it became apparent that Councillors need to be encouraged and supported to build better relationships with their local schools as this is beneficial to both parties. Becoming a school governor is not the only way for councillors to

Page | 30

become involved in local schools and guidance should be provided about other ways of becoming involved.

5.3. The review group champions the wellbeing and opportunities for all children and young people in the city, regardless of which school they attend, and therefore needs to continue to keep an overview of educational standards in the city. As part of this work it needs to build relationships with all types of school in Wolverhampton including academies, community schools, faith schools, independent schools, as well as any new free schools.

Page | 31

Appendix 1: Scrutiny Review Group Membership

Councillors of the Review Group Councillor P Bedi

Councillor A Bolshaw (Chairman)

Councillor J Hodgkiss

Councillor L McGregor

Councillor N A Patten

Councillor R Whitehouse

Co‐opted Members of the Review Miss S Atim‐Uma Wolverhampton Youth Council Group Miss H Scragg Wolverhampton Youth Council

Mrs R Watkins Representing the Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham (Diocesan Education Service)

Page | 32

Appendix 2: Witness List

Verbal Evidence

T Westwood Wolverhampton City Council: Assistant Director – Schools, Skills and Learning

J Jones Wolverhampton City Council: Head of Finance

K Martin Wolverhampton City Council: Acting Head of School Challenge, Support and Intervention

S Grant General Secretary – Wolverhampton Teachers' Association (NUT)

G Holloway Head teacher – Heath Park Business and Enterprise College

D Selkirk Executive Head teacher – Central Learning Partnership Trust (CLPT)

Written evidence

R Bains Anand Free School

A Bull Wolverhampton Schools’ Improvement Partnership (WSIP)

J Milner Wolverhampton City Council – Head of School and Pupil Services

A Hubble Principal: West Walsall E‐ACT Academy

M Hardacre Former President of the Association of Professionals in Education and Children's Trusts (ASPECT)

K Purchase Member of the National Executive of the Socialist Education Association

Page | 33

Appendix 3: The Central Learning Partnership Trust Partnership Working Model (Draft Proposal)

The Central Learning Partnership Trust (CLPT) came into being in order to address the short term needs of Moseley Park. On being invited to be the academy sponsor, Heath Park decided against a ‘done unto’ model and moved to develop a formal, sustainable partnership founded upon a collaborative approach to continuous school improvement. Heath Park’s role as an academy sponsor for Moseley Park was at the request of the LA and had the support of the Secretary of State. However from the outset it was envisaged that the partnership could grow; the involvement of additional schools being entirely at their own volition or, in the case of future sponsored academies, the volition of others.

The landscape of education has changed significantly over the past three years and continues to do so. The capacity of LAs to support schools and in particular school improvement has been significantly reduced. Additionally the new financial constraints under which we will all be working will impact negatively upon individual schools capacity to deliver in isolation. Alternative models of school leadership and governance could provide solutions for our future working; schools collaborating through formal ‘improvement partnership’ to establish economies of scale and develop capacity to support all students to fulfil their potential.

By how much or how little we change is solely dependent on the willingness of individual schools to embrace change. Wolverhampton and Rotherham are ideally placed to shape their own destinies as the above opportunities dovetail perfectly with their respective decisions to move the responsibility for school improvement to schools through the establishment of companies limited by guarantee. The structure of these emerging organisations needs to respond positively to the changing landscape outlined above and most importantly they need to adopt a proactive approach to change.

The role of and relationship with LAs has changed and will continue to change. It is imperative that the ownership of the shape and direction of new relationships must be with schools. The traditional model of school leadership and governance must come under scrutiny; schools cannot function as they have previously done if the environment in which they sit is not as it used to be. Models of system leadership and school to school support have been shown to be very effective in raising standards across schools, both in this country and abroad. The need to develop a new generation of school leaders from within our present teachers is something which cannot be left to chance and needs to be integral part of any emerging model. Succession planning, both at school and city level, is pivotal to the drive for continuous improvement.

The model adopted initially by CLPT was purposely hierarchical, structured and formal in order to guarantee collaborative working, shared aims and objectives. However, central to the proposal is the uniqueness of partner schools and their individual identities will be fiercely protected. Diversity is viewed as a major strength of the proposed partnership and there is no desire to adopt a cloning approach to school improvement. Each school will retain its autonomy but this will be directly proportional to their capacity to deliver; measured by Ofsted judgements and Floor Standards

The role of Executive Head teacher is one which works at present with a small number of schools and is a model that is optimized within a partnership of no more than three or four schools. Consequently if more schools were to join the partnership, either as converter or sponsored academies, one would look to replicate the Executive Head teacher model across partnerships within the Partnership. The strategic overview of the Trust in such a model would be the responsibility of a Chief Executive working directly with the Executive Head teachers, the Executive Board of the Trust and to the Members.

Page | 34

Getting the relationship right between the Chief Executive and the Executive Head teachers and in turn The Executive Head teachers and the Academy Principals is critical to the success of the proposed partnership. If it works, it will build capacity, improve standards, motivate staff and create new leadership responsibilities that are dynamic and visionary. If on the other hand it does not work, it simply creates another tier of bureaucracy that de‐motivates, frustrates and leads to uncertainty and confusion.

The present structure can support at best three local secondary schools, the need for a Chief Executive becomes necessary when the Trust grows beyond that point with either the introduction of other phases or other regions. It is then necessary to create support hubs functioning collaboratively one with another at a strategic level, overseen by the Chief Executive.

It would be logical for ‘good ‘ and ‘outstanding’ schools joining the partnership to sponsor a school either judged ‘satisfactory’, in an Ofsted category or deemed ‘at risk’ ‐ below Floor Standards. It would follow that the Head teacher of the converter academy become an LLE or NLE and in turn assume the role of Executive Head teacher of a ‘School Improvement Hub’, whilst retaining the substantive headship of their own school. A sponsored school would have an Associate Head teacher to run the school on a daily basis. This would remain the position until the school was judged ‘good ‘or better. At which point it could, if it was felt the right thing to do become a sponsoring academy within the Trust.

Now is the time to adopt a pro‐active response to the government’s academy programme, waiting for schools to be identified and hoping that the OSC will accept ‘internal’ solutions is not a viable strategy. Once the defences have been breached and an ‘external’ sponsor is imposed in one school the principles of partnership working which underpin both WSIP and Learners First will very quickly unravel to the detriment of the majority of the young people in our communities.

What is proposed is a reconfiguration of CLPT to make it the ‘go to’ solution for Rotherham and Wolverhampton regarding structural solutions. A ‘new’ umbrella Trust will have directors from WSIP and Learners First, and will in turn cease to be tied exclusively to Heath Park. This will enable the two companies limited by guarantee to assume ownership of the Trust. The Heath Park element will be ‘used’ in the short term to gain credibility with DfE and OSC. The benefits of such a model are many but specifically it provides a viable overarching structure for both Rotherham and Wolverhampton schools to take/retain control of their own destinies whilst enabling the cutting of the umbilical cord between the Trust and Heath Park. This, in turn, will ‘enable’ a more objective position to be adopted by all schools to the challenges ahead.

Core Aims of the Central Learning Partnership Trust

1. All Academies will be adding value to the results of their students.

2. All academies will be capable of outstanding judgements from OFSTED when next inspected after September 2015 (or within 3 years of becoming an academy partner within the Central Learning Partnership)

3. All academies to be oversubscribed or on a significant upward trend.

4. All academies are working closely together within CLPT, creating a sustainable model of education for the all students who attend them. This will be as a result of sharing ideas that work, co‐development, support provision, utilising teachers, leaders and support staff for the benefit of both academies.

Page | 35

5. CLPT is self‐sustaining and outward looking using its capacity to support those who are underprivileged, in difficulty, or in any other way in need.

6. An inclusive culture will be the norm in each academy, with permanent exclusions rare and every student leaving their school with a plan for the next stage of their career.

7. The Professional Development Programme will produce high quality committed professionals and future leaders for CLPT academies as well as schools beyond.

8. CLPT academies will be recognised nationally as organisations of high quality, producing outstanding results within a culture of innovation and achievement

9. All academies will continually develop their own unique characteristics and ethos maintaining their individual identities within their respective communities.

10. CLPT will build upon the diversity of its academies in order to broaden the experience of its students and communities and challenge discrimination and prejudice in all its forms.

Partnership Principles for an Academy

1. The Academy agrees to sign up to the Rotherham/Wolverhampton strategy for Inclusion

2. The Academy will follow both the national code for Admissions and comply with Wolverhampton co‐ordinated admission arrangements

3. Academy sponsors and trust must be fully engaged with the Council and its policies and principles

4. The Academy will be committed to and fully involved in Rotherham’s/Wolverhampton’s educational vision and to playing a full part in the further development of school improvement partnerships

5. The Academy will be committed to driving up standards, improving achievement and progression across all key stages for all children and using its capacity to support other schools

6. The Academy will be fully engaged with Rotherham’s/Wolverhampton’s Every Child Matters Agenda, especially working in partnership with the integrated locality based teams

7. The Academy will agree to collaborate with the LA and secondary schools on the operation of specialism; sharing its resources with others schools especially in the context of providing pathways for 14‐19 students through the operation of consortia arrangements

8. The Academy will commit to ensuring all staff benefit from the same terms and conditions they already enjoy in addition to further opportunities arising from innovative staffing structures

Page | 36

Trust Model (supporting School Improvement Hubs)

Chief Executive

Executive Executive Headteacher Headteacher

SLT SLT SLT SLT SLT SLT

Page | 37

Appendix 4: EXAMPLE Memorandum of Understanding

Surrey County Council DRAFT Memorandum of Understanding

Between: Surrey County Council and ………………..(insert name of Academy)

This Memorandum of Understanding signifies a statement of intent to collaborate and work in partnership to ensure the best possible outcomes for children and young people in Surrey.

1. Surrey County Council (SSC) remains responsible for ensuring that vulnerable pupils are appropriately supported in schools and that the achievement gap between them and non‐ vulnerable peers is reduced and the impact of any gap minimised. This duty sits alongside schools’ and the County Council’s duties to comply with the Equalities Act to ensure that CYPs within this group are not discriminated against on grounds of their vulnerable status. SCC services for vulnerable pupils remain committed to supporting all schools where Surrey pupils are educated.

2. As the corporate parent, the council retains responsibilities regarding Looked After Children resident in Surrey. It is important for the County Council to work collaboratively with maintained schools and academies to improve the educational attainment of looked after children.

3. Surrey County Council remain responsible for pupil place planning across the county. The council and academies have a shared interest in ensuring all pupils have access to good quality local provision. Where there is a need changes to school sizes, it may be appropriate to request that Academies expand or contract (and undergo their own consultation). Equally Surrey County Council should be involved in early discussions should an academy wish to consult on changes to the school size. Capital funding may be made available to academies in these circumstances, and both parties will work together to resolve local place planning issues and to maximise development and investment in Surrey.

4. Surrey County Council remain responsible for the planning of special education need pupil places. Where SEN resource centres are on academy sites, it is expected that this provision will continue and discussions with academies may be appropriate where there is an identified need for new or changed SEN resource base provision.

5. The council will continue to hold and administer the budget for pupils with a statement of over 10 hours and has a legal duty to ensure the statement is fulfilled through monitoring the provision. Funding for pupils on school action and school action plus will be included in the budget an academy receives from the Young People’s Learning Agency (YPLA), this is based on data submitted by schools, corroborated for the YPLA for the council. It is therefore important that all data submitted is timely and accurate

6. Surrey County Council retains its duty to conduct 139a assessments in relation to the progression from school of young people with Statements of Special Education Need. The council and academies will need to ensure timely review meetings and exchange of data to support transition. Academies and Surrey County Council will work together to support the Strategy for Learners with Learning Difficulties and Disabilities and the development of provision and progression pathways that reduce the need for expensive out‐County provision

Page | 38

Academies and the County Council will work together to support the SEN strategy and agree policies on SEN placements that reduce the need to direct monies into expensive non‐Surrey provision.

7. Surrey County Council and Surrey Academies will continue to work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and families. Surrey Academies will be responsible for ensuring all staff are appropriately trained and informed of the Academies safeguarding policy and procedures, including the process for the escalation of concerns about any registered pupil.

8. Surrey County Council and Academies will alert each other where complaints, incidents or other matters related to an Academy are likely to attract significant press interest or involve any enforcement agencies.

9. Surrey County Council will ensure that, where appropriate, any national Health and Safety advice, emergency planning information or incident information is communicated to maintained schools and academies at the same time and in the same manner, so long as academy contact details are up to date.

10. The council retains its role as the coordinator of admissions, including in‐year admissions and is committed to working with schools and academies to ensure the process is efficient, equitable and transparent and that the Fair Access Protocol works for the benefit of pupils. Both academies and the council will need to share data, as appropriate, in order for this function to be discharged.

11. The council, schools and academies are committed to working together to identify and support the best provision for those pupils for whom mainstream school is no longer appropriate on either a temporary or permanent basis. Schools and academies will need to notify the council of fixed term and permanent exclusions.

12. Surrey County Council retains its statutory duty to track and monitor all children within the county who are at risk of missing education. Surrey Academies will refer all pupils who leave the school without a confirmed education destination to the SCC CME tracking officer within 15 days of their off role date. In addition, it remains a statutory requirement for all schools, including Academies, to transfer data via CTF (Common Transfer Form), via the DfE school to school (s2s) website.

13. In terms of attendance, the County Council will continue to carry out the issuing of Penalty Notices and prosecution of parents where appropriate, where academies provide a complete and accurate set of case documentation which meets the legal standards required by the Court.

14. The council continues to have the legal responsibility for Home to School Transport for all Surrey resident entitled pupils. Academies will have freedoms to choose term dates, length of school days and inset days. These choices could have significant impact on other schools and drive up costs where there are, for example, shared transport arrangements. It is understood that any changes to the school days (term dates, length of days, use of weekend days) could necessitate a review of their contract, which could incur costs which would be the academies’ responsibility.

15. The Council retains its duty to secure provision for young people beyond the current compulsory age for school attendance i.e. provision for young people aged 16 to 18, and to

Page | 39

prepare for the Raising of the Participation Age to 17 in 2013 and to18 in 2015. The Council is committed to working with all schools, including academies, and other providers of education and training to ensure all young people have access to education and training opportunities and to secure their participation to meet the new requirements. The Council and Academies will need to work across the 14‐19 age range to support young people's progression, providing alternative pathways and targeted support. Both academies and the Council will need to share data for these opportunities to be realised. Additionally, the Raising of the Participation Age will require data to be shared on young people at risk of becoming NEET, in order that support can be targeted to meet requirements on the Local Authority to promote participation and the requirement for progression measures for schools as outlined in the White Paper.

16. In the interests of maintaining a strategic dialogue with all state‐funded schools, academy membership will continue to be invited at phase councils and schools forum and to all general meetings between the County Council and Surrey schools.

Signed: On behalf of SSC:

Date:

Signed: On behalf of “The Academy”:

Date:

1st draft, July 2011

Page | 40

Appendix 5: Glossary of Terms

ASPECT Association of Professionals in Education and Children's Trust

CLPT Central Learning Partnership Trust

CPD Continued Professional Development

CYP Children and Young People

DfE Department for Education

DSG Dedicated Schools Grant

GB Governing Body

HLT Hackney Learning Trust

LA Local Authority

LAC Looked After Children

LACSEG Local Authority Central Spend Equivalent Grant

LEA Local Education Authority

LLE Local Leader of Education

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MP Member of Parliament

NLE National Leader of Education

NUT National Union of Teachers

OfSTED Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills.

OSC Office of the Schools Commissioner

SCC Surrey County Council

SEN Special Educational Needs

SLA Service Level Agreement

SLT Senior Leadership Team

TUC Trade Union Congress

WSIP Wolverhampton Schools’ Improvement Partnership

YPLA Young People’s Learning Agency

Page | 41

Appendix 6: Background Papers

Wolverhampton City Council Scrutiny Panel Papers:

Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel – 17.10.2012 Use of the Pupil Premium by Wolverhampton Schools

Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel – 17.10.2012 Update on legislation affecting educational provision in the city.

Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel – 01.02.2012 The Education Act 2011

Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel – 08.09.2010 Coalition Government Key Announcements: Proposed Policies And Spending On Children And Young People.

Wolverhampton City Council Cabinet Papers:

Cabinet – 05.12.2012 Supporting the Improvement of Schools ‐ A New Model (Revised and Updated)

Cabinet – 05.12.2012 School Improvement Strategy

Cabinet – 07.12.2011 Appointment of Governors and Directors

Cabinet ‐ 07.12.2011 Supporting the Improvement of Schools ‐ A New Model

Cabinet ‐ 24.03.2010 School Improvement Strategy

Wolverhampton City Council Forum Papers:

Wolverhampton Schools Admissions Forum – 16.02.2011 Proposed schemes for co‐ordinated admission arrangements and proposed admission arrangements for academy, community and voluntary controlled schools – 2012/2013 and also the proposed scheme for co‐ordination of in‐year applications for 2011/2012

Wolverhampton Schools Admissions Forum – 07.11.2010 Proposed Admissions Arrangements 2012/2013 and proposed in year application scheme from September 2010

Government Documents:

McClean, D. and Hammond, E. (2012) Free Schools: Challenges and Opportunities for accountability. London. Centre for Public Scrutiny.

Great Britain. Department for Education (2012) Action Research into the evolving role of the local authority in education. Department for Education Research Report (DFE‐RR224) [Online]. Available from: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE‐RR224.pdf [Accessed 2 December 2012] Page | 42

Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts (2011) The Academies Programme Seventeenth Report of Session 2010‐11 House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts [Online]. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/552/552.pdf [Accessed 2 December 2012]

Great Britain. National Audit Office (2012) Managing the expansion of the Academies Programme Department for Education and Education Funding Agency [Online]. Available from: http://www.official‐documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc06/0682/0682.pdf [Accessed 2 December 2012]

Great Britain. Department for Children Schools and Families (2008) New Relationships with Schools Department for Children Schools and Families Evaluation Report (DCSF‐RR050) [Online]. Available from:https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DCSF‐RR050.pdf [Accessed 2 December 2012]

Miscellaneous:

Unleashing Greatness: Getting the best from an academised system. [Guidance] (2013) The report from the Academies Commission [Online]. Available from: http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/1008038/Unleashing‐greatness.pdf [Accessed 10 January 2013].

Unknown Author. (2012) “Wolverhampton to get first free school in the region”, The Wolverhampton Express and Star. 23 July 2012 [Online]. Available from: http://www.expressandstar.com/education/2012/07/23/wolverhampton‐to‐get‐first‐free‐school‐in‐ the‐region/ [Accessed 29 November 2012].

Unknown Author. (2012) “Wolverhampton's first Free School extends warm welcome to all”, The Wolverhampton Express and Star. 12 October 2012 [Online]. Available from: http://www.expressandstar.com/education/2012/07/23/wolverhampton‐to‐get‐first‐free‐school‐in‐ the‐region/ [Accessed 29 November 2012].

Academies Update 3a – Becoming an Academy. [Guidance] (2011) Church of England Archbishops Local authority Education Division [Online]. Available from: http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1263721/acdemies%20update%203a%20‐ %20becoming%20academy%20full.pdf [Accessed 7 December 2012].

Governance Matters. [Guidance] (2011) Diocesan Education Service [Online]. Available from: http://www.bdes.org.uk/Uploads/governance%20matters%20revised%20141112%20mm.pdf [Accessed 5 December 2012].

Millar, F. (2011) “Are profit–making academies the future for education”, The Guardian (Education Supplement), 4 July 2011 [Online]. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jul/04/profit‐making‐academies/print [Accessed 10 December 2012]

Page | 43

Appendix 2

EXECUTIVE RESPONSE: SCRUTINY REVIEW – MAINTAINING AND BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WITH EXISTING AND EMERGING ACADEMIES AND FREE SCHOOLS.

Recommendation 1 ‐ Collaborative Working

Upon considering a breadth and depth of evidence the review members recommend that:‐

Collaborative working must continue to be a key focus. Wolverhampton City Council aspires that all academies, schools and free schools sign up to the Wolverhampton School Improvement Partnership (WSIP) a. The review recognises the value of collaborative working especially through the role of the WSIP. Appropriate budget provision must be allocated.

Comment Timescale/progress so far Officer Responsible In providing evidence to the review group On‐going WSIP / Alison Bull members the relationship with the local authority is an effective one and considered that the presence of an external sponsor could affect the current relationship because an external sponsor would not have to be part of the schools’ improvement partnership. Councillors and officers acknowledged the system of schools working in isolation in Wolverhampton had not served the children of the city very well and that pupils should have the right to attend a good or outstanding school.

Page | 44

Recommendation 2 ‐ Maintaining School Improvement

Vulnerable schools which might be targeted to become academies should be identified earlier and interventions should be in place to address failings.

Comment Timescale/progress so far Officer Responsible Councillors were informed of the importance On‐going School Improvement Team of funding for the school improvement team as the local authority had invested £1.2 million to cover salaries of the post of head of school challenge and intervention and 13 other posts, some of the finance has been allocated to respond to various pressures, for example support for special schools. The School Improvement Team also offered support on issues ranging from human resources to financial matters and from the evidence received councillors were informed of the importance of understanding the strengths and weaknesses in each school. This would be acknowledged as one of the many key measures of success.

Page | 45

Recommendation 3 – Alternative Models of Education

Consideration of new / alternative models of education should be undertaken (not to view the Academy model as the only model). a. Alternative organisational structures should be considered, for example when a Head Teacher’s post becomes vacant the school’s governing body should be advised that a Head Teacher (substantive) post is not the only model available.

Comment Timescale/progress so far Officer Responsible An executive Head teacher referred the On‐going WSIP / Alison Bull review group to other examples of schools working closely together to bolster support and promote shared learning. Councillors were encouraged by the local authority’s attempts to continue collaborative working throughout the review process and were passionate about the local authority’s role when working in this way. Councillors generally thought the local authority should explore any opportunities of this nature, particularly, to give serious consideration to any such arrangement.

Page | 46

4 ‐ Academy Sponsors

Wolverhampton City Council must encourage local, education specific, sponsors. a. Evidence shows that local solutions have been successful and should be sought before using external sponsors.

Comment Timescale/progress so far Officer Responsible Wolverhampton City Council has a unique On‐going WSIP / Alison Bull relationship with its academy sponsors because all sponsors are based within the city and they are held accountable for the improving the performance of their schools. They do this by challenging traditional thinking about how schools are run and what they should be like for students by attempting to make a complete break with cultures of low aspiration and achievement. Councillors understood the importance of local sponsors, the relationships to the WSIP and partnership arrangements with other local schools as historically, the local authority, has always enjoyed a good relationship with voluntary aided, controlled and foundation schools. Councillors commended this arrangement and urged that any relationship with academies and free schools should not be seen as any different.

Page | 47

Recommendation 5 ‐ The Admission Policy

Wolverhampton City Council will work towards all academies, schools and free schools signing up to the local authority’s admissions policy

Comment Timescale/progress so far Officer Responsible It is the responsibility of Wolverhampton City On‐going Tim Westwood (Assistant Director – Schools, Council to ensure that its admission Skills and Learning) arrangements are compliant with the DfE’s school admission code but where a school is the admission authority, this responsibility falls to the governing body or academy trust. The research also demonstrated the number of requests for places at pupils’ preferred community or academy school does not exceed the school’s admission limit, a place could potentially be allocated. However, if the number of requests is greater than the school’s admission limit, applications will be prioritised in accordance with the Authority’s admission criteria for over‐subscribed academy and community schools.

Page | 48

Recommendation 6 ‐ Memorandum of Understanding

Wolverhampton City Council will work towards all schools including academies and free schools signing up to a local authority Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that seeks to cement a strong relationship between academies and the local authority. a. That the TUC’s Model Agreement for Academies be considered as an appendix to a MoU and that all academies, schools and free schools are signatories.

Comment Timescale/progress so far Officer Responsible Councillors were informed that resistance On‐going Tim Westwood (Assistant Director – Schools, from external sponsors to working Skills and Learning) collaboratively with the local authority should also to be treated with caution. This was mainly due to the potential creation of a two tier system of employment whereby an external sponsor would be able to impose dual terms and conditions to members of staff. With a MoU there would be an element of protection from this occurring.

Page | 49

Recommendation 7 ‐ Staff Development and Capacity Building

All academies, schools and free schools should have mechanisms in place to promote capacity building and staff development for the Senior Leadership Team and to promote continuity of good practice. a. Evidence shows that succession planning is a key element to maintaining school improvement.

Comment Timescale/progress so far Officer Responsible The review noted the increasing need to On‐going Tim Westwood (Assistant Director – Schools, recognise the importance of nurturing and Skills and Learning) maintaining the excellence of the senior leadership team. Councillors were informed that when opportunities presented themselves for the possible revision of a senior /managerial structure consideration should be given to potential federation arrangements. This would enable additional associate head teachers on each site dealing with operational matters whilst reporting to an executive head teacher.

Page | 50

Recommendation 8 ‐ Service Level Agreements

Service Level Agreements (SLAs) are reviewed to ensure they are appropriate to the needs of academies, schools and free schools. a. That the Scrutiny Board consider an evaluation of the current stream of SLAs as a stand‐alone scrutiny review

Comment Timescale/progress so far Officer Responsible At a time of greater financial stringency more On‐going with a view to further consideration at Jason Milner (Head of School and Pupil schools are seeking to compare SLA charges the Scrutiny Planning Session scheduled for 15th Services) with those from other providers. In terms of April 2013. service level agreements, Wolverhampton City Council has encouraged schools to sign up to this way of working, although this becomes more problematic when the SLA components bears little relationship to the market approaches and may be only loosely linked to the costs of providing the service to schools, free schools and academies in Wolverhampton. Councillors heard that it is also the case that schools outside the authority and academies may well need to be quoted and charged prices based on a market approach that covers the costs of the service provision.

Page | 51

Recommendation 9 ‐ Governor Support Service

The Governor Support Service to produce separate documentation that details the factors that need to be considered when a school chooses to become an academy.

a. Other models and options should be illustrated within a Governors’ handbook / information pack.

Comment Timescale/progress so far Officer Responsible Wolverhampton City Council’s Governors’ On‐going Jayne Pownall (Governor Services Manager) Support and Advisory Service aims to enable Governing bodies (GBs) to work effectively to enhance the quality of governance in schools by providing high quality support that incorporates the key values of governing body self‐evaluation and improvement.

Page | 52