Shaping a new School Improvement

Partnership for the London Borough of

Barking and Dagenham

Headteachers and Governors

25th January 2017

STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

Agenda

No. Item Time Lead

1 Welcome and Introductions 16.00 Jane Hargreaves

2 Purpose of today 16.05 Anne Bristow

3 Why change? National and local context 16.15 Tim Byles

4 What we are we trying to achieve and our

proposed approach

16.30 Gillian Cawley

5 Discussion on tables 16.55 Facilitated by Headteacher

Working Group reps

6 Opportunity for questions 17.15 Tim Byles

7 Next steps 17.25 Tim Byles / Jane

Hargreaves

8 Refreshments and Networking 17.30 All

9 Close of session 18.00

Welcome and Introductions

• Anne Bristow – Deputy Chief Executive & Strategic Director for

Service Development and Integration

• Jane Hargreaves – Commissioning Director Education

• Tim Byles – Cornerstone

• Gillian Cawley – Cornerstone

• Headteacher Working Group

Purpose of today

1. Update on progress so far on the development of new School

Improvement Partnership for LBBD

2. Consultation with heads and governors in order to shape further

developments

3. Gain an agreement in principle to the proposed new company

4. Agree next steps, including your participation in an online survey

to anonymously collate your views on the current and future service

offer which will contribute to the development of the business case

Why change?

• Reducing budgets for schools and local authorities and a context of

high expectations of continued improvement in outcomes for all

children and young people

• Changing role of local authority and the growth of academisation – what

happened to the White Paper?

• Central Government policies continue to change – more focus now on

maintaining the place based role of education and a continuing role for

LAs including LA Multi Academy Trusts where appropriate

• Growing importance of system leadership as the model for the future

• Opportunity being taken across schools and councils nationally to shape

the future of support for education locally through the development of new

local authority traded vehicles

How are others responding?

Local Authority In house trading units EES for Schools (Essex), Hackney Learning Trust (was

formerly a CLG but has gone back in house), Havering

Education Services, Support Services for Education

(Somerset), Integra Schools (South Glos)

Unincorporated association / informalpartnership forum

Harrow School Improvement Partnership, Hounslow

Learning Partnership, Leicestershire Education Excellence

Partnership

Company limited by guarantee trading as not for profit with either schools only or LA and schools as members

Brent Schools Partnership, Camden Schools Learning

Partnership, Newham Partnership Working, Learn Sheffield,

Tower Hamlets Education

Company limited by guarantee trading as not for profit with LA, head teachers and staff as members

Octavo Partnership (Croydon)

Registered Charity & company limited by guarantee not for profit

Basildon Education Services Trust, Birmingham Education

Partnership, Buckinghamshire Learning Trust, Liverpool

Learning Partnership, Slough Learning Partnership

Company limited by shares 100% owned by LA (LATC)

School Improvement Liverpool Limited, One Education

(Manchester), Schools’ Choice (Suffolk)

Wide range of different structural and commercial approaches to delivering school

improvement and other school support services to suit local needs and context

How are others responding?

Company limited by shares owned by LA and schools – not for profit

Herts for Learning

Community Interest Company limited by guarantee or shares and owned by schools and/or the LA

Plymouth Learning Partnership, Achieving for

Children (Kingston & Richmond), Edsential (Wirral

& Cheshire West & Chester)

Industrial and Provident Society – owned by schools and LA

SIPS Education (Sandwell)

Joint Venture Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) or private limited company

Babcock LDP (Devon), Entrust Education

(Staffordshire), Babcock 4S (Surrey)

Mutual Joint Venture – Staff and private partner 3BM (K&C, Westminster, H&F))

Outsourcing/Joint Venture Partnership hybrid Barnet with Cambridge Education

The local challenge

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham in its 2020 strategic aims,

Growth Strategy and Education Strategy 2014 – 2017 recognises:

• The centrality of education to the council in meeting its ambitions for

the children, young people and families of the borough

• the importance of maintaining a family of schools working in

partnership with the Council with a collective focus on the interests of

children and young people

• the solid improvements which have already been made in

standards and quality across schools in the Borough and the context

of the challenges which remain including….

• reducing budgets to meet the needs of the most vulnerable children

and young people

• a rapidly increasing and increasingly diverse child population

• growing difficulties of teacher and school leader recruitment and

retention

Local strengths and opportunities

• Strong partnership history between schools and the council

• Well established use of school partnerships and school to

school support as part of current school improvement provision

• Some elements of the service currently already trading

successfully

This enabled a joint approach to creating a proposed new model of

school improvement for the authority through a joint officer and

headteacher working group…

Partnership Working Group

• Paul Cambell – Monteagle Primary

• Scott Halliwell – Southwood Primary

• Barbara Turner – Five Elms

• Kerry Thomas – James Campbell Primary

• Roger Mitchell – Ripple Primary

• Michael Corcoran – St Teresa Catholic Primary and Parsloes Primary

• Gary Wilder – Warren Junior and Furze Infant Schools

• David Dickson – Eastbury Community School

• Roger Leighton – Partnership Learning

• Peter McPartland – Trinity School

• Jane Hargreaves – LBBD

• Ian Starling – LBBD

• Tim Byles – Cornerstone

Our work so far

Supported by Cornerstone, and drawing on experience and expertise

nationally, the Partnership Working Group reviewed the options for the

future including:

• what do we want the partnership to be….and not to be

• a full range of possible company and governance structures

• funding requirements and potential income generation sources

• the services which would be included in the first instance and those

which would remain with the council

It also considered the option of doing nothing….

What do we want the Partnership to be?1. A very different way of working fit for the future and reflecting the

changing relationship between schools and council

2. A jointly owned school and council company inclusive of all local

schools with the collective moral purpose of achieving the best

possible outcomes for all children and young people in Barking and

Dagenham

3. A single point of access or ‘front door’ for schools to high quality,

best value, local education support services

4. An opportunity for schools to purchase services from a not for profit

company that they own, which will re-invest surplus to support

further improvement

5. A strategic forum for the further development of system leadership

and to increase school improvement capacity across the whole

borough

6. A financially viable, self managing and sustainable organisation

What we are NOT doing

• This is not about the Council handing over all its responsibility

and remit for school improvement to schools – this is about

strengthening current partnerships and making sure we are resilient

for the future

• This is not about generating profit from commercial trading of

school improvement services beyond LBBD in the first instance –

this is about making sure we can collectively resource and invest in

school improvement in LBBD on a sustainable basis. However, ‘Not

for Profit’ does not mean no profit. The company will need to

generate surplus to invest in improving and developing services,

products and staff in order to be successful

• This is not about maintaining the status quo in the face of

diminishing budgets – this is about developing and delivering new

services and ways of working that really make an impact

And if we do nothing?

Pros Cons

Limited disruption that would

come with change

Schools may choose not to buy back

and buy elsewhere leaving the service

at risk of being discontinued as central

and local government budgets are

reduced

No set up or investment costs

required

Increased fragmentation of the

system leaving vulnerable schools

and young people more exposed

and potentially with less support

Lack of ownership by schools could

reduce the effectiveness of the

partnership between the Council and

schools over time

Recommended Option

A company limited by guarantee (CLG) which would offer both

statutory and traded school improvement services focussed on LBBD

schools. Advantages of this approach are:

• Clear formal leadership and governance with accountability to

both LBBD and schools as joint members of the company

• Dedicated focus on school improvement in LBBD

• An evolving approach allowing the partnership to develop and add

further services in a phased way

• Ability to operate independently from the council, enter into

contracts, employ its own staff and develop flexible and new

services in partnership with LBBD schools

Why a company limited by guarantee?

• A company limited by guarantee has many of the same

characteristics as a private company limited by shares but they do

not have share capital and the members (equivalent to the

shareholders in a company limited by shares) give a nominal

guarantee to cover the company's liability, normally limited to £10

• Flexible & relatively easy to manage

• All schools can be given the opportunity to become members of the

proposed company with their rights and responsibilities set out in the

articles of association and membership rules

• It can trade but profits / surpluses are re-invested in the company

rather than distributed to members

• Commonly used for not for profits / social / community purposes

What services will be delivered through the School

Improvement Partnership Company at its launch?

Move into a School Improvement Partnership Company

School improvement (statutory* and traded)

Governor services and training

Professional development, including support for recruitment and retention

Work experience, careers and Aim Higher

Information Technology Support

Attendance and inclusion (traded not statutory)

* LBBD intends to commission the company to provide the school improvement services currently

provided by the local authority. The company will therefore have a role with all LBBD schools, not

just those that are its members (although we would hope and encourage all schools to become members and active participants in system leadership in the borough)

What services will be delivered by the Council or

its proposed new Traded Services Company?*other services with the potential to move into the Partnership at a later date

Stay in the Council’s Education Department Move into a Council Traded Services

Company

Corporate core and commissioning function

including alternative provision

Catering

Children Missing Education Cleaning

School Estates, Organisation & Admissions ParentPay

14-19 Participation& NEETs & Adult College Critical Incidents

Attendance and Inclusion (statutory) Management Information System Support

Parents in Partnership Information & Data Management

Commissioned nurseries

Education Psychology

Community Music Service*

Trewern Outdoor Education*

Early Years*

How will the company be governed and managed?

The governance structure will be developed further in the business case, but it could look something like this…

Members (equivalent of shareholders)

• London Borough of Barking & Dagenham

• Schools (membership open to any school, academy, 16-19 provider or other state funded provider of education in LBBD)

Directors:

• Non Executive Chair – elected by the members – could be a LBBD headteacher or someone from the community

• Non Executive Director – elected by primary school members

• Non Executive Director – elected by secondary school members

• Non Executive Director – elected by special school members

• LBBD Non Executive Director – Director of Children’s Services

• Executive Director – CEO of the company

How will the company be funded?

Through a combination of:

• Core council funding for statutory and priority requirements – this will

be provided through an annual SLA or contract with the company

• An element of Dedicated Schools Grant

• Income from schools buying back services traded by the company

• Membership subscriptions from LBBD schools who wish to be part

of the company

Funding Requirement – Current Baseline 2016/17

2016/17 Funding Source £

School buyback 1,541,723

DSG 380,000

Other income e.g. grants 128,009

LBBD Council funding ( including a specific

School Improvement element)

465,000

TOTAL INCOME/FUNDING 2,514,732

What annual membership fees could look like from

April 2018 if based on a per pupil approach£1 per pupil £5 per pupil £10 per pupil

Primary phase

44 schools in LBBD

Total of 24,346 pupils

Average 553 pupils

Total

£24,346

Average per school

£553

Total

£121,730

Average per school

£2,766

Total

£243,460

Average per school

£5,532

Secondary phase

13 schools in LBBD

Total of 12,846 pupils

Average 988 pupils

Total

£12,846

Average per school

£988

Total

£64,230

Average per school

£4,941

Total

£128,460

Average per school

£9,882

Special

3 schools in LBBD

Total of 364 pupils

Total

£364

Total

£1,820

Total

£3,640

Total Annual Fees

Total no. schools = 60

Average no. pupils = 626

Total £37,556 Total £187,780 Total £375,560

• Academies are included within the figures for each phase. Secondary includes all through

• Pupil numbers used are Number on Roll using draft October 2016 Census data (except for special –

data needs to be verified)

• This assumes 100% sign up to membership/subscriptions - would need to set a realistic target that

represents likely sign up (higher % e.g. 75%) and a viability threshold (e.g. 50%) that represents the

minimum sign up required for the Partnership to proceed

• Assumed charges to begin from April 2018

What are other local authorities charging?

• Birmingham Education Partnership – £1 per pupil annual membership fee for non core Council funded work. Membership provides substantial opportunities to work with and learn from leaders across the city, as well as support and highly rated training and resources for all leaders in all types of schools. Member benefits are growing and fees remain the same for LA and Academy status schools, with negotiated rates for independent schools

• Camden Learning - There are three levels of membership for schools. Level 1 – no cost. This covers schools’ statutory health and safety duties as well as the Camden Council school improvement offer. Level 2 - £6k per annum. Level 3 - £11k per annum. Level 2 and Level 3 subscriptions provide additional support including access to up to 4 learning hubs and a school review involving 2 school improvement professionals for one day every two years as well as a number of learning blocks to be used flexibly for the Camden Learning traded offer.

• Tower Hamlets – There will be two categories of membership: ‘full’ and ‘associate’. Initially, all publicly-funded schools within Tower Hamlets (including those within MATs) are eligible for full membership. All full members of THE Partnership will be entitled to attend and vote at general meetings of all members – on a “one school, one vote” principle. At the AGM, they will appoint (or re-appoint) the directors of THE Partnership. Initially fees will be set at £5 per pupil and there will be £300k annual support from the Council for a three year period.

What might membership fees buy for schools?

This is to be further developed through consultation with schools and in the business case but could include some or all of the following:

• Link adviser visits (for all other than MATs who have their own QA system)

• Additional support for RI schools and brokering of further support from Teaching School Alliance

• Email and telephone support throughout the year

• Link adviser available for cluster meetings, governing body meetings, peer reviews, pre and post Ofsted support

• Network meetings for school leaders, curriculum support, data and assessment

Discussion on tables

1. Is the proposal to develop the School Improvement Partnership as a joint

council/schools owned company, something you feel able to support? Do you agree in

principle that this is the best way forward?

2. For the School Improvement Partnership to be a success, what elements do you think

are vital to be considered and /or included?

3. Are there any new services/approaches which you think the Partnership should deliver?

(e.g. Peer review, resources/guidance, data analysis, networking, training & meeting

room facilities etc.)

4. What are your views on the governance arrangements for the new organisation and

how schools should be represented on the board?

5. How do we maximise engagement, sign up and enthusiasm for this new and different

way of working?

6. What other questions do you have on your table about the proposal?

Next Steps

• Preparing an Outline Business Case by March 2017

• Engaging with stakeholders

– 25th January Chairs of Governors/Headteachers

– Online survey to test school views on current and future service offer – February 2017

– Further engagement and consultation meetings during Spring and Summer Terms

– Ongoing engagement as we move into implementation

• Developing a Full Business Case by May 2017 and, if approved, move

to implementation which will involve:

– Establishing a company – Summer 2017

– Appointing a shadow board of directors, Chair and Chief Executive – Summer 2017

– Confirming accommodation and other support requirements (HR, IT, finance etc.) –

Summer 2017

– Confirming staffing – initially through secondments – Summer 2017

– Shadow launch – September 2017

– Securing formal membership of schools – September to December 2017

– Formal company launch – January 2018

Thank You

Thank you for your time and engagement today. Please join us for

refreshments and an informal chat if you have any further questions