MANAGING EXPECTATIONS ON FREE SCHOOLS

MANAGING EXPECTATIONS ON FREE SCHOOLS

Slow take- up hampered by shortages of capital and sites

Comment

Its been apparent for some time that the Government is managing expectations down on Free schools. For a combination of reasons the Free schools initiative (as opposed to the Academies initiative) is not taking off in the way that was anticipated. There are two main problems. Shortage of capital, and shortage of sites. As the Times Educational Supplement reported last week , around half free school bidders are still seeking sites.  Katherine Birbalsingh is just one of many who has failed to find a site for her south London bid, and has had to delay opening until next year. Gove once spoke of a “superb new school in every community”. But last year, the department for education – approved just 79.  DFE briefed journalists that this was because they had tight vetting procedures, to ensure that only strong bids that could be justified were getting approved. For example before entering into a funding agreement, each proposal for a new free school is subject to an analysis of what the likely impact of establishing the additional school would be on maintained schools, academies, etc in the area in which the additional school is (or is proposed to be) situated. And ,of course, there have been some wacky organisations making bids who have to be vetted out.  But this is only part of the story. A more prosaic reason was that there was just not enough capital around  and some of the first Free schools were rather expensive to set up. Lisa Nandy the Labour MP and Select Committee member, says that the West London Free School, for example, received £12,416 per pupil in its first year, compared to an average of £7,064. The WLFS, among the most high profile of the institutions, and the first   Free school to sign a funding agreement, has cost the DfE £15m.  Setting up free schools requires upfront capital expenditure, but the education department has taken a 60 per cent cut to its capital budget. The DfE expected building costs for the first 24 schools to come to £124m. But as Chris Cook pointed out in the FT ‘this is a poor guide to the costs of further free schools. For example, many of the first wave have been subsidised by local authorities. Furthermore, several are private schools that have become state schools, so have only small building requirements.’ Cook  added, probably correctly that ‘ Insiders believe the only way to achieve significant numbers of new schools is to find a way to increase the capital budget using private finance – perhaps by letting free schools borrow to pay for their buildings or permitting profit-making companies to enter the market.’  This low number anticipated for opening this year was even less impressive than it first seemed – as the department counted 16 University Technical Colleges towards the total. It appears that the department is planning for around 50 openings of free schools this September. And this is when there is a shortfall of Primary places in London and many other areas of the country, so the demand for new school places is clearly  there, if not the capital and sites. So the funding shortage is not just about Free schools but  has become a major issue for the  Primary sector  too. The £600m extra set aside this year to help local authorities deal with the shortfall  in Primary places will need topping up sooner rather than later, and it looks as if the Government will have to turn to the private sector for help here too.

SOCIAL MOBILITY-WHAT’S THE GOVERNMENT UP TO?

SOCIAL MOBILITY

What is the Government up to on this?

Comment

Both Coalition parties are heavily committed to improving social mobility. David Cameron has said that Social mobility is the main aim of this government’s social policy. Simon Hughes has been appointed access Czar to Higher Education. Alan Milburn is building on the work he undertook in the last government to help advance this agenda. Sir Peter Lampl has easy access to NO 10 . And the Sutton Trust, which he heads, continuously feeds in research to show that social mobility is , well,almost non- existent. Michael Gove rarely misses the opportunity to say his main priority is to improve the opportunities of the most disadvantaged pupils in schools, so they can get the right qualifications for the best universities and the job market.  This Government have set out an education reform programme in order to drive up attainment for children, regardless of their background, and to keep pace with the highest-performing systems in the world.  Some specific measures to improve social mobility are set out in the Government’s “Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers: A Strategy for Social Mobility”. These measures aim to ensure life chances are more equal at critical points such as the early years of development; school readiness at age five; GCSE attainment and the choice of options at 16. Most agree that evidence shows that investment in the early years of a child’s life makes a difference to their future attainment and can affect mobility.  The Government has extended the free entitlement to early education to 15 hours per week for all three and four-year-olds, and have committed to extend free early education to all disadvantaged two-year-olds by 2013. Funding for places for disadvantaged two-year-olds will rise from £64 million in the current financial year to £380 million by the end of the spending review period and will mean that around 140,000 two-year-olds will in the future benefit from free places.

Then there is the pupil premium. This aims to provide additional resources to schools to help raise the attainment of pupils from low income families. Total funding for the pupil premium is £625 million in 2011-12, £1.25 billion in 2012-13 and will rise to £2.5 billion a year by 2014-15. It is hoped that schools invest this money wisely.  The pupil premium sits alongside a range of reforms that will help to ensure that more pupils achieve higher standards. These include allowing schools greater freedoms and flexibility to use their budgets as they think best, introducing a more rigorous emphasis on phonics in the early years of primary education and reviewing the national curriculum and assessment arrangements. The Government also introduced a new £50 million pupil premium summer school programme which aims to provide two weeks of teaching and activities to help the most disadvantaged pupils make the transition from primary to secondary school. In so doing the Government rather compromised the idea of schools autonomy, suggesting perhaps that it doesn’t necessarily trust schools to use this money wisely.

The Government has also, recently, appeared to concede that disadvantaged pupils really do need access to   independent , face to face careers advice early,  to help them make the right choices about education, training and employment. It will ensure ,it says ,rather belatedly,  that statutory guidance  will ensure that schools are expected to give face to face professional advice to disadvantaged and disabled pupils.  But, then again, guidance is guidance and, well,   it is sometimes simply  ignored .

 

ARE MIDDLE CLASS PARENTS LOSING CONFIDENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION?

Comment

The publication of Lord Browne’s Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance marked the beginning of an intense period of policy debate about higher education which is not yet concluded. The Government is shortly to launch its delayed White Paper (probably  this week ) amid concerns that the current funding model, with most universities charging the top rate for tuition fees, is unsustainable and cannot be covered by the Treasury .

The introduction, then raising of Tuition fees was always going to bring a spotlight onto the educational offer at our universities. Middle Class parents often support their children financially, either fully or in part, at university to stop them getting into debt and therefore take more interest in what their children actually do at these institutions.  Recent research from Edge, the charity dedicated to raising the status of practical education,   found that Britain’s middle income parents of children aged 11-18 years old have changed their education aspirations for their child, with many saying university doesn’t provide the best return on investment.   Short terms, ‘reading weeks’, (a modern trend that sees Departments effectively closing for a week mid-term) reduced teaching time ,less  one to one tuition,  along with   fewer seminars , assignments   and lectures leave the impression of  a poorer overall offer and  some parents and students  clearly perceive declining standards .  Certainly parents who have been to university  compare their experiences with those of their children and can spot the  glaring  differences.The focus on research and the funding tied to research has meant that most universities see teaching students as a second order priority. Liberal Arts and other more flexible courses in US universities are attracting   more of our best home grown students. Yale has seen UK student enrolments double in five years, with other Ivy League colleges seeing similar increases.  Rapid Expansion in university places in the 1980s and 1990s has not been matched over time by funding, the effects of which cannot be concealed.   Some students have demonstrated against this perceived decline and the quality of their courses. Student complaints against universities in England and Wales have reached record levels according to the higher education ombudsman’s (Office of the Independent Adjudicator) annual report. The independent adjudicator’s office says complaints rose by 33 % last year. The OIA received more than 2,000 enquiries last year and a record 1,341 complaints . Around half were found not be justified, although there has been a small increase in justified complaints. The OIA found that two universities-Southampton and Westminster were non-compliant ie they failed to comply with  the adjudicators rulings.

It is clear that   the some universities are finding it difficult to adjust to a changing environment and pay too  little attention  to the  teaching and support they give to their students. The goal posts have shifted. and they are  now operating in a world that requires greater transparency and accountability, both in terms of admissions policy , the quality of teaching and course content and the employability of their  students.

http://www.oiahe.org.uk/downloads/OIA_annual_report_2010.pdf

THE JAMES REVIEW ON CAPITAL FUNDING

Seeks to rationalise and streamline Capital

School Planning system too complex  and hostile

Comment

Sebastian James of Dixons has just completed the Review of Capital Funding for the Government

In July 2010, the Government launched a comprehensive review of all capital  investment funded by the Department for Education (the James Review). The purpose of the Review was to consider, in the context of the Government’s fiscal consolidation plans and emerging policy, the Department for Education’s existing capital expenditure and make recommendations on the future delivery models for capital investment for 2011-12 onwards. The overall aim of the Review was to ensure that future capital investment will provide good value for money and strongly support the Government’s ambitions to reduce the deficit, raise standards, tackle disadvantage, address building condition and meet the requirement for school places resulting from an increase in the birth rate.

The main issues identified are:

i. The capital allocation process is complex, time consuming, expensive and opaque.  In most cases, decisions are not based on objective criteria   which are consistently applied and do not succeed in targeting money   efficiently to where it is needed. There are too many different approaches across the various programmes and keynote programmes such as Building Schools for the Future had an approach that, with hindsight, was expensive and did not get to schools with the greatest need fast enough.

ii. The design and procurement process for the Building Schools for the Future programme (and other strategic programmes) was not designed to create either high and consistent quality or low cost. Procurement starts with a sum of money rather than with a specification, designs are far too bespoke, and there is no evidence of an effective way of learning from mistakes (or successes).

iii. A lack of expertise on the client side meant that there was little opportunity to improve building methods in order to lower costs over time, especially for very large and complex Building Schools for the  Future projects. The main clients for contracting companies were Local Authorities and head teachers. As a result, despite many hundreds of schools being addressed by the Building Schools for the Future programme, central mechanisms to engineer better solutions were too weak and Partnerships for Schools did not have enough authority to make this happen effectively.

iv. Devolved funding processes did not deliver efficiently the objectives that they were established to achieve. Multiple funding streams diverted funds to those most adept at winning bids rather than necessarily to those in most need. There was little tracking of how money was spent and wide variations in outcome for the same money invested in similar projects.

v. Maintenance is critical to controlling the lifetime cost of schools and the quality of maintenance across the estate is extremely variable. This is exacerbated by the fact that no good quality data is collected on the condition of the estate.

vi. The regulatory and planning environment is far too complex and hostile for building schools. The individual nature of the buildings that have been built historically also meant that every project had to run the gauntlet of these regulations.

The report highlighted five key points

i. There should be a clear and agreed goal for capital expenditure in England: to create enough fit-for-purpose school places to meet the needs of every child. Currently there is considerable ambiguity as to the goals of capital spend.

ii. Capital allocation should be determined using objective information on need for pupil places and on the condition of the local estate. At a local level this notional budget should be turned into a light-touch local plan to achieve the overall goals of the investment. Currently, there is no information held centrally on the condition of the estate and different Responsible Bodies receive capital in different ways.

iii. New buildings should be based on a clear set of standardised drawings and specifications that will incorporate the latest thinking on educational requirements and the bulk of regulatory needs. This will allow for continuous learning to improve quality and reduce cost. Currently the bulk of new schools are designed from scratch with significant negative consequences on time, cost and quality.

iv. There must be a single, strong, expert, intelligent ‘client’ acting for the public sector in its relationships with the construction industry and responsible for both the design and the delivery of larger projects. This body must be accountable for the delivery of buildings on time and to the right budget and quality standards. This is a philosophical shift in approach as it would mean that the Department for Education will deliver not money, but rather a building to meet local needs. Currently, the Department for Education supplies money to the Responsible Body and the principal accountability for delivery lies with them.

v. Responsible Bodies should be accountable for the maintenance of the  facilities they own and manage, as these facilities are their tools to use in support of education and the provision of services. That means they  have a long-term responsibility to maintain their own facilities as well as  to work together in a local area to ensure the education estate meets or  exceeds the needs of local children. Currently there is no explicit  obligation to maintain buildings and no agreed standard. Funds are wholly devolved to school level making it impossible for Responsible  Bodies to prioritise their needs at a local level.

A Summary of the reports main recommendations are included in Appendix A of the report

 

Among its Recommendations

The review suggests that savings in both time and money of up to 30 per cent could be made in the schools capital funding process.

The review calls for a centralised approach to capital funding and an end to multiple funding streams of investment. It says that allocations should be based on objective facts and data, and that a single capital budget be allocated to local authorities on the basis of local need. These priorities should be agreed on the basis of a Local Investment Plan, which should be based on a template supplied by the Government. It also recommends that the process be significantly flexible to allow several local authorities to work together to create a Local Investment Plan.

Capital funding may be allocated directly to academy chains rather than to the local authority. It is recommended that devolved formula capital allocations are aggregated and given to local authorities or academy chains rather than individual schools, however, for individual academies (converting or not in a chain) funding would be devolved directly to the school.

If this recommendation was to be approved it would probably encourage even more schools to seek academy status as a way of ensuring future capital funding. For Free Schools, the review recommends that they are funded from the centre and that a centrally retained budget should be set aside for them. So funding will be handed out at the government’s discretion. It is unclear how much of the total DFE capital building budget will be allocated,  for Free schools or indeed how the decisions to spend it will be taken.. A shortage of funding for Free schools is acting as a significant obstacle to their expansion.

For future new build programmes the review recommends that a set of standardised drawings and specifications is used as a way of reducing costs, stating that it is their belief that best practice can be codified. It is recommended that these specifications are continuously improved through post occupancy evaluation. (not supported by RIBA)

The review also calls for the establishment of a Central Body for school procurement, who would be responsible for negotiating and monitoring contracts. The model would allow for other bodies, such as local authorities and academy chains to earn the ability to procure independently.

For ICT the review recommends that the Government ensures a clear broadband service for schools and says that their needs to be a clear ICT funding allocation model for new build or refurbishment projects. It suggests the use of an ICT Services Framework, the introduction of a web-based price comparison catalogue to enable “virtual aggregation” (which sounds similar to the former Government’s OPEN system) and that the Government should procure a central framework for school MIS.

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/Journals/1/Files/2011/4/8/110408%20Capital%20Review%20-%20Final%20Repor1.pdf

GOVERNMENT REFORMS ON CAREERS GUIDANCE CLOSE TO CRISIS POINT

Funding cuts, lack of investment and unrealistic timescales are  all damaging prospects for reform

Comment

Careers England commissioned Professor Tony Watts, an international authority on Careers Education Information Advice and Guidance, to deliver a Policy Commentary ‘The Coalition’s Emerging Policies on Career Guidance’ which was published on 18 April

Careers England   has expressed   the professions  deep  concern  ‘that over the past few months very  little progress has been made in  turning the Government’s vision for  a world-class  all-age strategic careers service into reality’ and  there has been a failure to address  ‘ the urgent issues of transition from current arrangements and statutory duties to the new  proposals for careers services for all age groups, alongside the need for absolute  clarity about the support to be available to young people in schools in the future.’

Recent Government announcements, in CEs view, have served to clarify some issues, but raised alarm on others. There has also been, despite Ministers claims, very little substantive consultation on the future of Careers guidance with professional bodies and indeed no discussion of detailed plans.

The views in this commentary are those of the author. However, the Careers England Board ‘commends this careful and thorough analysis to all who care for the future of careers services for all age groups in England.’

Summary:

The current Government has affirmed its intention to strengthen career guidance services in England. Its main rationales are two-fold: promoting social mobility; and moving towards a user-led skills system. In pursuit of this intention, the Government has made three commitments, all of which have been widely welcomed: to establish  an all-age  National Careers  Service (NCS); to revitalise the professional status of  career guidance; and, in respect of support for young people, to safeguard the  partnership model between schools and external career guidance providers.

The main sources of significant tensions lie between these policies and the  Government’s policies relating to school autonomy. Schools will in future have a  statutory duty to secure careers guidance services either from the NCS or from other  providers (a contractor-supplier relationship);  but  they may also appoint their own  ,careers adviser, so long as they  provide, at a minimum, access to online resources  (which they  could not realistically deny). This undermines the partnership model; it raises issues about how quality is to be assured; and the minimalist option offered as fulfilling the new requirements effectively renders the statutory duty meaningless.

Veiled by these changes and confusions, there are also fears that much or all of the existing funding for face-to-face career guidance services for young people may well  be allowed to vanish without trace, without any public announcement to this effect.

Such a dramatic erosion of services for young people would seriously undermine the  potential to build better services for adults as well.

 

There are many issues on which clarification is urgently needed. These include:

The DfE funding contribution to the new all-age National Careers Service.

The structure of the NCS, and the extent to which it is viewed as a strategic  body.

The quality standards to be applied to the NCS, and also to other providers within the market in career guidance provision (including suppliers from whom schools can purchase such services).

The proposed new kite-mark and other quality arrangements to encourage and  help schools to develop high-quality careers programmes.

How the data for the proposed destinations measure in schools are to be collected; how   “added value‟ is to be demonstrated; and what other accountability measures and procedures are to be introduced alongside it.

The role of and relationships between current consultative mechanisms on the emerging policies.

Meanwhile, amidst these uncertainties, many existing Connexions career guidance services for young people are being eroded or dismantled by Local Authority cuts.

If the main elements of the Government’s policies are to be implemented as planned, in a way which improves rather than damages services, there are a number of steps  that need to be taken. These include not only establishing the NCS, but also persuading schools to pay for services they have previously received free of charge.

There are grave doubts about whether these steps are achievable within the timetable Ministers have set.

 

There are also concerns that:

By the time the new market is established, much of the expertise for its professional base will have disappeared.

In the meantime, there will have been a widespread collapse of careers help for young people.

The original BIS vision for the all-age service will have been fatally eroded by lack of serious engagement from DfE, with adverse impact on the services for adults too

Comment:

There is a real danger that a combination of funding cuts, lack of investment for the future, policy contradictions and a lack of detail, aswell as  a lack of consultation and unrealistic timetables will  leave this policy in tatters damaging the interests and opportunities of our  young people   while undermining the governments   social  mobility agenda. Urgent intervention is required by senior Ministers to address this crisis.

http://www.careersengland.org.uk/documents/Public/Policy%20Commentary%2015%20approved%2018.4.11.pdf

HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY-WHAT A SHAMBLES

HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY-WHAT  MESS!

White paper will need to retrieve the situation

Comment

The delayed Higher Education White Paper has taken on a new importance.

The Government is in some disarray over its HE policy and needs to find a way out of its self- inflicted problems. The first problem is that the Government has cut the teaching budget by far too much at the same time as allowing higher fees. Universities might have been expected to bear a 15 or 20% cut, says Conor Ryan in his blog, but an 80% cut is absurd, and it makes it inevitable that most will seek to compensate by increasing fees as far as they have. So why is there any surprise that a majority of universities are opting to charge £9,000 in fees given that cuts in Government funding mean that universities will have to charge around £7,500 just to maintain current levels of income?

For top universities to compete globally they were always going to go for the £ 9,000 fees anyway, for to go for anything less would have suggested a signal lack of ambition. For lesser universities to go for a low fee might make them look too cheap and, well, second tier.  But the Treasury has been calculating all along on an average fees hike of around £7,500. Like most Treasury forecasts though it transpires it was wildly off beam. Analysis by the consultancy London Economics suggests that the additional cost to the exchequer of an average £8,000 fee is £181.2m in 2010 prices. At £8,500 it is £360m. With many more students going for higher loans to cover the increased fees the Government has not actually budgeted for the increase so a big funding gap has emerged, which needs to be filled, and   which will probably mean even less places available in HE, as if our young people don’t have enough on their plates already.

Ministers made two wrong  calls.  First they assumed that only a few universities would opt for the £9,000 fees. Then they assumed that they, or OFFA, had  powers to force universities or at least intimidate them  into line.  Both mistakes were entirely avoidable.

Conor Ryan, (Blunkett’s former Education Adviser when he was Secretary of State), has come up with three suggestions as to how they might dig themselves out of this hole.  He says on his blog: First- on access, it should actively encourage merit-based access programmes, including those that offer places conditional on slightly lower grades to the ablest students in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. The focus needs to be on access for the poorest, not state school students who don’t need an extra leg up. Secondly, on overseas students, while continuing to clamp down on bogus colleges, it needs to craft an attractive package for genuine students that tells them they are welcome rather than tolerated – and that includes access to skilled jobs in the two years after graduation. The Home Office should not be allowed to kill this vital export industry.  And finally, the Government should require universities that wish to charge £9000 a year to bear some of the liability for the loans that this will lead to, rather than trying to micromanage the market any further. By all means, auction some funded places to the lowest bidder and encourage FE and private alternatives, but do so by allowing more rather than less of a competitive environment to develop, where students can make informed choices. Getting this right is vital for students and universities says Ryan (Ryan is listened to by Tories because he supports Academies and Free schools and is Blairite Labour- more Adonis than Burnham)

There are fears that the government may use the delayed White Paper on university funding to limit costs such as limiting student numbers or redistributing students to cheaper FE College. One way out presumably is to have no fees cap at all, but cap loans instead. It’s not clear which policy (two brains) Willetts will go for – indeed it’s not clear at all, as one wag has clocked, that his left-hand brain knows what his right-hand brain is doing. (Ok, so its  a bit below the belt but when Willetts took PPE at University maybe he should have been more attentive when studying the E module).  Meanwhile, Willetts, Simon Hughes et al are desperately trying to encourage greater access for poor students to universities . Central to this Governments education agenda is improving the lot of the most disadvantaged pupils (they hugely respect the work of the Sutton Trust by the way), getting more disadvantaged pupils into university. This is not, incidentally, because universities are an impediment to  social mobility,  (they have been investing in outreach programmes for years) which they  demonstrably are not but because the standards of too many state schools, and particularly those in the most  disadvantaged neighbourhoods are not even close to ensuring that pupils have the right level of  qualifications or indeed, in far too many cases, the right qualifications,  to enter university. Too many schools, of course, are failing to prepare  pupils for university. Pupils have neither good enough GCSEs nor acceptable  A levels. Just half of pupils at State schools get five good GCSE grades.   And, of course, many   schools (including, it has to be said, many Academies) have been ‘ gaming’ -in other words  entering pupils for soft qualifications that are not rated either by universities or employers.  There has long  been controversy about these “GCSE equivalent” courses, with  critics arguing that some schools put pupils in for them to gain credit under Labour’s league table measures. There is wide acceptance now that the existing equivalence formula overvalued some of these courses. And at A level too many pupils are sitting exams that are not rated by admission tutors.

There is no evidence, by the way, that Government interventions assist social mobility. Structural changes in the economy, ie demand for  more managerial posts, is much more of an influence on social mobility than anything else. And  if Universities are so important as  drivers for social mobility can anyone explain why the rapid expansion in university places in the last generation  from 10% to 42% has had no effect on social mobility, as  all recent reports confirm  that social mobility has stalled since the early 1970s.

Then  there is the issue of guidance. Too many pupils haven’t been given the right advice by their schools on what options to choose, if Higher Education is their aim,  or haven’t been given advice early enough ie  aged 13 and 14. The Russell groups view is that ‘ The most effective way of getting ‘disadvantaged’ students into the best universities is to help them to improve their academic performance and provide better advice and guidance at an early stage. Universities can and do help but we simply cannot solve these problems alone.’ Quite. The RG is also pretty fed up with the Government continuing to churn out figures relating to access and their members that are either   wrong or misleading.

It is also strange that the government , so keen  for  universities  to  improve  access, have not made funds available to do this. Instead, in effect it is left to debt laden students to subsidise improved access -is that fair?

None of this inspires much confidence, it has to be said , so there is growing pressure on the Government to sort the mess out, and it’s the main reason, surely, why the White Paper on HE has been delayed.

CIVIL SERVICE UNDER PRESSURE

CIVIL SERVICE UNDER PRESSURE

Ministers frustrated at pace of reform

Comment

Michael Gove was ,on 21 March, according to the Evening Standard, urged to take control of his “shambolic and chaotic” department after MPs complained their letters and questions were going unanswered. Labour went on the attack as ministers admitted that more than 4,500 letters from MPs in nine months had not had a reply within a three-week target. Figures also showed that only 10 per cent of parliamentary questions were answered on time. Shadow education minister Iain Wright complained to Commons Speaker John Bercow saying: “It is not good enough. A school child who had done only 10 per cent of their homework would get detention.” He said the issue, coming after controversies around funding for school buildings and sports partnerships, showed the Department for Education was in chaos. He told the Standard: “Michael Gove is not in charge of his department. He needs to get a grip.” Mr Bercow called for the matter to be addressed. A spokeswoman for the department put the delays down to an avalanche of letters and a computer glitch. “The department has received a much higher volume of correspondence than usual in the last few months and we apologise for not reaching our usual three-week target for responses.  The problems unfortunately extend to other Government Departments. A letter sent to a Cabinet Office Minister in December last year by five senior Executives of Education support companies, making recommendations concerning the education market has yet to receive a reply-with Departmental  guidelines recommending a response to correspondence within 20 working  days. These delays are worrying not least because such feedback from practitioners is designed to assist the reform process and highlight areas that require the Governments attention, and to help Ministers avoid pitfalls.

There is a broader concern too about how the pace of change and shortage of funding is impacting on the reform agenda. David Cameron has suggested much to the annoyance  of the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, that the civil service is the enemy of enterprise. O Donnell believes such frustrations should never surface in public. But it is a clear reflection of Ministers frustration at apparent obstruction and bureaucratic inertia and reminds one of Tony Blairs admission that he bore the scars on his back following confrontations with civil servants over his reform programme.  James Forsyth of the Spectator says that ‘ it is difficult to understate the depth of ministerial frustration. One secretary of state is so fed up with his department’s refusal to answer his questions that he has asked a friend of his, an MP, to put in a Freedom of Information request. In all departments, the civil service is refusing, point blank, to discuss details about what the Labour government did — so Tory and Lib Dem ministers cannot even find out which mistakes they should avoid. The most common complaint, according to Forsyth,  from ministers is that they feel outnumbered: one reformer in a department set against change.’ Ministers also fear the legal consequences of their actions. Whether its the Equalities Act, the Human Rights Act or other laws  it seems, at times, that all reforms can be challenged in the courts, so lawyers are on constant call and civil servants lean towards extreme caution.  Having promised to cut down on special advisers Cameron now feels that they are needed in abundance to force through changes, as the Government fears that Reforms are simply taking too long to enact and they may simply run out of time, with too little to show for their efforts.

At DFE Gove has been somewhat frustrated. It took him a while to realise that managing a Department at the cutting edge of reform is a big ask, made even bigger if some senior civil servants are not that keen on what you are trying to  achieve.   Dominic Cummings  has   been brought in as a special adviser to   help him drive through the reforms. The blue riband reform is the Academies scheme simply because it is one initiative in which progress can actually be measured (although some critics suggest that  some Academy schools relative progress  owes more to  spin than substance). Rumours that Michael Barber was to replace David Bell as Permanent Secretary at DfE were quickly scotched although they are symptomatic of a deep frustration among some Tory insiders at the Departments perceived underperformance and lack of reforming zeal.

In the meantime the Free schools initiative is making gradual progress with some forty   credible bids identified,  and  a few will be  ready by September.  But  the scheme is constrained by a lack of funding and some other technical difficulties including a failure to fully engage the private sector. Everyone in the meantime is awaiting the results of the James review on capital funding.

FREE SCHOOLS AND PROFIT

FREE SCHOOLS AND PROFIT

Mixed messages

Comment

It was rumoured that Gove’s education team may be looking again at whether the profit motive could be allowed to give new impetus to the Free schools initiative. However when pressed at the Spectator Free schools  conference last week on the issue he gave three reasons why he  wants  to keep profit out of the equation. First, to ensure maximum acceptance that the policy is socially motivated.  Secondly, to give the idealists rather than the capitalists a chance. And thirdly because other countries have had trouble with allowing profit making in state education. The Gove team have also long been admirers of  the Knowledge is Power Programme ‘Charter Chain’ in the States, which happens to be not for profit.    It has been suggested too that  for-profit Charter schools, like Edison, may be less innovative than KIPP-though Edison would challenge this claim. However, we know, from those behind the Swedish Free schools programme, launched in the early 1990s, that it relied on the profit motive to get it off the ground.   Charities’ also seek, of course, to make a surplus (no margin no mission!) and need to invest that surplus to create chains of schools.  There is however  growing pressure to introduce private sector management nous  and capital into the programme if it is not to run into ground, as the process of setting up these schools is very demanding and time consuming (ask Toby Young whose group includes many top professionals willing to roll their sleeves up).  This, at a time when, according to the FT, the DfE plans procedural changes which will make it more difficult for smaller parent groups to set up free schools by denying them funding until their plans are well advanced.  The proposed rules were revealed  this month at a meeting hosted by the New Schools Network, a  grant -funded charity to help free school groups make initial applications to government.  Groups will need to present detailed marketing, financial and curriculum proposals as part of their first application to the DfE. Until now, school groups needed to set out only broad plans before being eligible for up to £200,000 with which to commission specialist project managers and consultants.

The new rules – meant to make it easier to distinguish between the capability of the groups backing different school proposals – caused “shock and panic” apparently  among free school founders present, said people at the meeting. School groups present report fearing that it would mean that they have little choice but to become partners with existing school providers and charities. They worry the new policy will limit their ability to innovate.  Under the old system, parent groups could get to a certain point – stage 3 – and then procure a Project Management Company via the DfE’s Project Management framework. That PMC then helped the group prepare its Outline Business Case and, once that was approved, ushered the group through the rest of the process – ie Funding Agreement, recruitment, admissions, opening.  However, under the new system, groups can only get to stage three once they’ve prepared their own OBCs. After their OBCs have been approved, they can then procure a PMC and be ushered through the final stages.

What this tightening up means in practice is that it will be difficult for parent groups to set up schools without the support of a company, whether for profit or not for profit, almost from the start of the process.  The reality of course is that Free school groups have  already been seeking advice and support from specialist companies most of whom seem to be giving pro bono support. But free advice and support goes only so far particularly in a relatively hostile economic environment and at some point in the process companies are going to want a return.  The Government has   done little to incentivise companies   to engage more, and on a sustainable basis, while continuing to resist profit taking. Companies are operating in a difficult environment. Budgets are tight and new revenue streams are hard to come by which is why companies are looking abroad for new business as public sector  contracts are in short supply.  If they can’t make a surplus from such engagement you won’t see much evidence of a longer term commitment and, don’t expect  the  quick development of chains of Free schools-like KIPP-  any time soon.  These changes and the current lack of a sound enabling environment have the   potential to de-rail the whole free schools enterprise, although we know that the big supporters of Academies have been in talks with the DfE to see a way around this.  The other big elephant in the room is the lack of funding-not much public money is currently available to support the FS scheme (just £50m inititially) which is acting as a fundamental constraint on its expansion and with private investment not part of equation the Government has set itself a big challenge with no obvious solution although the ‘James’ Review on capital funding is on-going.

Note:  As at 15 February 2011, there are 97 people employed in the Free Schools Group at DFE.  As at 3 February 2011, the Department has received 10 proposals to establish free schools specifically for 16 to 19-year-olds. Six of these proposals are currently being considered by officials and four have been informed that their proposals have been unsuccessful. A trouble shooter has been recruited by DfE to   vet early bids to help flush out   those who do not have the capacity to deliver, or have dodgy backgrounds.

BIG SOCIETY DEBATE HOTS UP

BIG SOCIETY DEBATE HOTS UP

Many still struggling to get a handle on what it means for them

Comment

The Times front page on Monday 24 January splashed  ‘Big Society in crisis as economy weakens’. The article suggests a build-up of pressure on David Cameron and his Government amid confusion over the Big Society and what it actually means.  On 7 February Dame Elisabeth Holdness,   who is stepping down as Director of Community Service Volunteers , told the Times that the Government had failed to provide tangible opportunities for people to do more in their communities. In some cases, “massive cuts” imposed on local councils had actually taken them away. “Does one hand know what the other hand is doing?” she said. “We know we need to save money, but there are other ways of saving money without destroying the volunteer army.”

The Sun conducted a poll  a couple of  weeks ago  on the Big Society -68% of respondents thought it would  probably not work and  63% said that they didn’t really understand the concept. There are a number of on-going problems with the Big Society, mainly practical. The idea of local communities taking more ownership  of  public services seems on the face of it pretty  sound. The trouble is that there are far too many views out there among its supporters  of what  it  means in practice at a time when local budgets are being cut. Many local authorities don’t seem to get it and they are supposed to let it inform their commissioning policy  . And ,as the Times pointed  out many government Departments don’t seem to have bought in to the idea either  partly because there is no clear template. Policy wonks in think tanks who dreamed up the idea tend to be thinkers rather than doers and change managers. The Times piece contains many quotes from Phillip Blond, head of the think tank ResPublica . Blond sees the promotion of mutualism as the key issue but there is a real sense that this is all being rushed in, based on the assumption,  which may be flawed, that  mutual organisations, social enterprises and charities will  react as one to the great call for a sense of  community engagement, in a short time frame and  against the backdrop of shrinking public finances. And  what about the lack of  capacity and funds  in disadvantaged areas? It does seem that many of the organisations who are supposed to lead on this are  finding that government grants are being cut. The highly regarded charity Fairbridge that works with disadvantaged youngsters, anticipating large cuts to its budget, is now merging with the Princes Trust, because its funding was haemorrhaging. So many of those organisations who should be taking the lead here, are struggling to survive in a hostile environment.

The Big Society approach involves changing peoples mindsets. They have been used to central government calling the shots. They cant change their attitudes and outlook  overnight, which seems to be the expectation.   And the initiative can only really work if these groups have access to funding streams within some form of local  accountability framework. How will this work?  As  Matthew Taylor, former adviser to Blair and now at   the RSA  and  a supporter in principle of the Big Society,  says  “The ideas of the Big Society can’t change the world overnight, and anyone with any sense recognises the challenges of taking the idea forward in a time of public sector austerity. But as long as the Big Society continues to be everything, it is in danger of becoming nothing.”  He continues  the Big society “ relies too much on assertion and anecdote and too little on testable hypotheses on the one hand, and a clear headed recognition of dilemmas and trade-offs on the other.” In short, it needs more meat and clearer articulation, combined with working models- ie  now here is an example of the Big Society in operation-see how it can work. Liverpool’s decision to opt out of the pilot scheme to promote the Big Society is a  set back  for those championing the idea. Its supporters need to regroup  and get key stakeholders on board otherwise it will  meet the fate of Blairs  ’ third way’  which never quite  caught the public’s imagination..

GIFTED AND TALENTED CHILDREN-A RAW DEAL?

GIFTED   AND TALENTED CHILDREN

A raw deal

Comment

The previous government, having made support for Gifted and Talented (G and T) pupils a priority decided, towards the end of its term to ‘ mainstream’ support. In other words it  is largely left  up to schools now to fund G and T support   from their central pots , despite the fact that  rather a lot of schools historically  haven’t  regarded support, or indeed identification, of gifted children as much of a priority.  As the developing world begins to take support for gifted students seriously   and to  understand its importance ,not just for the individuals concerned but for their economies, we seem to be taking an opposite trajectory.

However, for this year at least, there is  still  around £9m specialist  funding support available  for  gifted pupils, which may sound a lot, but is spread very thin.  Other support comes through The Dedicated Support Grant (DSG) which the Government points out ‘supports a universal offer of personalised education to all pupils, including gifted and talented (G&T) pupils.’  But we know that the quality of support offered between schools varies, even within  the same local authority. During the current financial year 2010-11 the various other support schemes include:

A strand of the PE and Sport Strategy for Young People, managed by Youth Sport Trust (£2.3m)

Regional Partnerships, to facilitate collaboration between schools, local authorities and higher education institutions (HEIs) to share good practice and deliver out-of-school enrichment opportunities (e.g. summer schools)        (£1.7m)

National Association for Gifted Children, to provide support and guidance for the parents of G&T pupils          (£170,00)

G&T network of high performing specialist schools with good G&T practices, providing support to other schools, managed by specialist schools and academies trust (£210,00)

Teach First advocates providing mentoring to over 250 disadvantaged learners in City Challenge areas (£412,000)

Funding to local authorities for gifted pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in receipt of free school meals (including City GATES funding and Targeted Support) ( £4.0m)

Are we confident,  particularly in these straitened times,  that our most Gifted children will  receive the support in schools that they deserve  to fulfil their potential? Or do  our policymakers (which seems more likely) think its up to the parents to  fill the gaps and provide  the necessary support and, if so, what about gifted children  in our  most disadvantaged communities?