Education best value review. Service specification
Hampshire Bilingual Learners Support Service (BLSS), from September 2000- Service for Hampshire Ethnic Minority Achievement (SHEMA).
1. Aims of the service and statutory basis.
The aims of the service are to assist schools in:-
· Meeting the language needs of minority ethnic pupils
· Promoting links with parents and communities
Legislative Context
Although there is not statutory obligation for the service to be provided 57% of the funding is provided through the DfEE's Standards Fund under category 17 entitled 'Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Grant'. This funding is statutory. Whilst an LEA is not obliged to take up Standards Funding, it must not be seen as discriminating against ethnic minority pupils, by not doing so. The service works to DfEE guidance through the Standards Fund.
The LEA is also required to observe the following legislation.
Legislation |
Statutory responsibility for the LEA |
Race Relations Act 1976 |
The LEA must not discriminate against any pupil or employee on grounds of race. |
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 |
The LEA must not discriminate against any pupil or employee on grounds of sex. |
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 |
The LEA must provide all pupils with special educational needs, including disabled pupils, with an education and school place appropriate for their needs. The LEA must not discriminate against a disabled person in employment and in the provision of goods and services. |
Children's Act 1989 |
The LEA is required to recognise and respect a child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background. |
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 |
Makes intentional racial harassment a criminal offence. Schools are required to deal with complaints of racial harassment and to have clear policy and procedures in place for dealing with such incidents. |
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 |
As for Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. |
OFSTED |
The framework requires Inspectors to assess the extent to which a school complies with the Race Relations Act and subsequent case law and other race related legislation. |
2. Objectives of the Service.
Key objectives 2000-2001. Please see attached Service Development Plan. Appendix 1.
1. To establish a website and consolidate and extend existing information on refugees and asylum seekers. In 20% training and management time including 5. -To develop intercultural awareness through literacy at KS1.
2. To establish a network of mainstream specialist teachers in schools and to work with them on home-school community links in schools. HIAS days and in 16% assessment, regular support and advisory support.
3. To maintain support available for new arrivals/early years/refugees at 2 days per pupil. To maintain Bilingual Learners New Arrival Conferencing take-up in schools. 24% of BLSS staff time.
4. To work with schools to raise multicultural awareness and minority ethnic achievement. Including data support for schools 12%.
5. To develop intercultural awareness through literacy at KS1.
6. To develop joint service planning with social services, eg on development of trained interpreter/translator network.
Regular support including resources development 28%.
3. Links to the corporate aims.
Key objectives 1 - 4 of the BLSS service development plan are included in authority's Education Development Plan for 2000-2001. Key objective 5 is included in action plan submitted to Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) for Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Grant (EMTAG) funding - work on ethnic minority achievement at Key Stage 1 (KS1) expected by DfEE. Key objective 6 is an additional objective stemming from support for asylum seekers and single regeneration budget funded home-school-community and interagency project briefs in Areas 3 and 4.
1. Developing the quality of life in Hampshire
All bilingual children of Hampshire residents have the chance to gain supported access to education when they first arrive. This contributes to an enhanced quality of life for an increasing proportion of Hampshire residents. The cross-cultural counselling service is a much needed and highly valued part of our work.
2. Stewardship of the environment
The service is very conscious of the need to adopt a green approach. Currently considerable travel is unavoidable but the planned website will contribute to reduction in travel. Ideally we would like to find sponsorship for video conferencing to cut down on the need for travel. The service recycles. The service was privileged to be able to use The Great Hall for an international Heartstone exhibition and Community Language Award ceremony in July 1999.
3. Achieving economic prosperity in balance with Hampshire's environmental needs
The service maximises jobs for ethnic minorities. Currently the service employs 42 ethnic minority staff on a part-time basis. The service develops partnerships between parents and school and makes links with community through involvement in management and development of community language classes. The service is part of a southern region association of services and has developed links with Greece and Sweden with a view to obtaining project funding through Comenius. This application was not successful. The service also applied for a Portuguese speaking assistant through the Lingua programme. This was also unsuccessful. The service encourages skills and qualifications. Please see Aim 5.
4. Promoting involvement, participation and partnership to achieve the development of strong communities in Hampshire
The service works with schools to involve parents in the life and work of 213 Hampshire schools. Parent participation is a key objective in the service development plan and the focus of the current Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) funded project in Areas 3 and 4. Interagency work will be the focus of the proposed SRB funded project in Areas 3 and 4 from September 2000. Please see section 4 - Other links. The service offers work experience placements to Year 10 and 11 pupils. The service demonstrates how the bilingual skills of young people can be valued on work experience.
5. Providing high quality services to the public through well trained, managed and motivated staff and through third parties where the County Council acts as an enabler
The service has a baseline specialist qualification for teachers of English as an Additional Language - 2 Certificates of Advanced Educational Studies (CAES) in Teaching English Across the Curriculum in Multilingual Schools within the University of Southampton MA framework. The service has also developed a 1-CAES in 'Race' Equality in Schools also at University of Southampton. Both courses are run on a consortium basis with Southampton City Council and Portsmouth City Council.
The service has a specialist qualification for bilingual assistants - Bilingual Assistants Certificate currently within University of Portsmouth Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree framework. The Hampshire County Council, Southampton City Council and Portsmouth City Council consortium is about to take over the running of this Certificate as a Certificate of Higher Education. Bilingual Assistants will still be able to complete their degrees at Portsmouth. The first cohort will graduate after six years of study in July 2000.
Three team members are trained National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ) assessors (D32/33) and one team member is trained as an internal verifier (D34)
The service has been ready to submit for Investors in People for the last few years but has had to wait for the rest of the education department to submit. Service staff are willing to act as assessors. Staff are well motivated. We have only lost one full-time teacher since 1992 despite the funding uncertainties - the service is currently funded in effect from year to year. We have moved bilingual assistants on to youth work, SRB projects, cross-cultural counselling, nursing, teacher training.
The service aims to become more accessible through use of new technology eg, the website.
4. Other links.
Your own departmental service/business plan.
The BLSS Service Development Plan is linked to the authority's Education Development Plan.
Other departments and their service plans.
Currently there are no formal links to other departments and service development plans but the service has working relationships with social services. BLSS has an SRB funded Home-School-Community Project within the Portsmouth and South East 'Access and Achievement' Project in Areas 3 and 4. The service will obtain confirmation in mid-May 2000 about SRB funding for an interagency project in Areas 3 and 4 which will begin to develop more formal links with other departments.
Statutory plans.
There are no statutory plans. Please see 1. Legislative context.
Other public bodies/services.
There are proposed links with Citizen Advice Bureaus in planned SRB interagency project in Areas 3 and 4.
Other stakeholders/partners.
DfEE contributes 57% of the EMTAG funding. HCC provides 50% matched funding for SRB `Access and Achievement' SRB projects in Areas 3 and 4.
5. Service Policies.
Service Development Plan shows key objectives.
Staff Development Plan shows planning for staff development to meet key objectives.
Guidelines outline principles on which service is based and give guidance to schools.
Handbook gives operational guidance for service.
Service Level Agreement outlines purposes, responsibilities, delivery and complaints procedures for schools.
6. Summary of existing services and delivery methods.
Mandatory elements.
There are no mandatory elements.
Activity statistics.
Languages spoken by pupils in Hampshire April 1999 - March 2000. Please see Appendix 2.
Hampshire BLSS deployment chart. Please see Appendix 3.
Hampshire BLSS increase in need 1996 - 2000. Please see Appendix 4.
Service Development Plan outcomes:
· Number of new arrivals, early years, refugees given at least two days support = 266
· Number of schools worked with on policy = 39
· SRB project outputs attached. Please see Appendix 5.
Resource information.
Budgets. 1999-2000.
Staffing. £245,856 13.2 Full time Equivalent (FTE).
Staff development. £1,025 for 57 staff
School funded top-up income. £5,382
Resources - There is a Hampshire County Council resource budget of £2,000 currently to cover books and materials for use in schools. There is a Hampshire County Council budget of £3,700 currently for office supplies, equipment and telephone charges. Rent of £2,750 is paid to Richard Aldworth School for a base of two rooms. Please see Appendix 6.
SRB expenditure. Please see Appendix 7.
Budgets 2000 - 2001
Staffing £308,900
Staff development. Not yet available.
School funded top-up income. Not yet possible
Resources. £3,500.
SRB expenditure.
Home-school-community project total £46,417 (Hampshire County Council matched funding element £22,929)
Interagency project total £44,000(Hampshire County Council matched funding element £22,000)
People management.
There are regular work reviews and appraisal for all staff. There is a performance review for the team leader. There are termly whole team meetings (approx 57 staff). There are half-termly meetings for bilingual assistants. There are weekly meetings for teachers. See chart in handbook for lines of responsibility, Appendix 8.
Recent consultation.
There was consultation with parents for DfEE action plan submission Autumn 1999. A sample of parents was contacted and 14 parents replied. Their comments are attached. Please see Appendix 9.
There was consultation with schools through the headteachers consultative group on the issue of devolution to schools. The DfEE stated clearly
" qualified teaching staff employed by the LEA to fulfil its central strategic role of providing specific support and advice to schools for the purposes of the grant, including accountability; in-service training, peripatetic support to schools; and monitoring and intervention....costs specifically related to the education of refugees" (DfEE Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Grant The Standards Fund 2000-20001 16./99 1999)
There was consensus in Hampshire to hold back the money to provide a central service.
There are planned parents' meetings for July 00 in 6-7 patches. Previous foci for whole county meetings have been literacy and numeracy development. Planned meetings need to focus on increased home-school-community liaison in conjunction with mainstream specialist teachers as per service development plan.
Performance data.
National performance indicators.
Please see Home Office and DfEE action plans, Appendices 10 and 11.
Financial results.
Available through authority.
Management ratio/local performance indicators.
Please see staff chart, Appendix 12.
Customer satisfaction measures.
No formal complaints 1999 - 2000.
Benchmarking.
Currently the DfEE holds comparisons amongst authorities. HMI on post EMTAG survey visit in February 2000 noted variability in teaching and need to collect and analyse ethnic minority achievement data. The service needs to compare eg, targets, form 7 data, refugee data and staff ratios with the authorities is being compared with nationally and also East Sussex and Portsmouth.
Actions resulting from consultancy/service/audit reviews.
It was not possible to implement the website during 1999-2000. Key objective rolled over to 2000-2001.
It was not possible to implement network of mainstream specialist teachers 1999-2000. Rolled over to 2000-2001.
The numbers of new arrivals, early years, refugees doubled in 1999-2000. 2 days per pupil achieved, this took priority over first two key objectives. To be maintained 2000-2001.
39 schools worked with on policy. Target achieved. Request for information on policy development currently with schools - return date 12th May. 50 more schools to be worked with 2000-2001.
Competition and other providers.
Impact of compulsory competitive tendering (CCT).
There is no information available.
Current use of external providers.
None.
Market conditions - the availability of other potential providers/partners.
Where refugees are involved, because they are such high profile, English as a Foreign Language teachers have advertised on Hantsnet and offered to provide an intensive English induction for schools, undercutting BLSS. Such intensive English is inappropriate for bilingual learners whether asylum seekers or not.
Current challenges facing the service.
Securing funding, maintaining and developing the service in an uncertain national climate (proposed devolution of funding to schools) given doubling of numbers of bilingual learners requiring support in a year, particularly new arrivals, refugees, increase of languages to 51.
Enabling team (13.2 FTE but at least 57 team members, many new) to cope with new challenges.
Maintenance and development of SRB initiatives in Areas 3 and 4.
Maintenance and development of high quality accredited training using network of trained staff in schools without adequate training budget (eg no GEST funding in this area since 1997).
Response to new initiatives which would benefit ethnic minorities eg, Home Office Race Equality Grants, New Opportunities Funding.
Keeping up with advances in communication eg developing website to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the service.
Key outcome.
Data issues to enable pupil tracking.
BEST VALUE REVIEW - PROJECT BRIEF
Service Review Title: Bilingual Support Service
Review Team Leader: John Heath Date: 14th June 2000
Departmental Lead Officer for Best Value: Nigel Hill
1. Goal
The review will evaluate efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the provision of the Bilingual Support Service. A report will be produced for the Best Value Review Panel (Education). A particular focus will be data issues to enable pupil tracking.
2. Objectives
To achieve the aim, the review will focus on:
· Seek to identify service improvements
· Exploring comparative costs and service delivery with other LEAs
· Consulting stakeholders on the current service delivery
· Challenge existing practices and seek alternative methods of service delivery
· Explore improvements to joint planning arrangements with Social Services
3. Approach
The review team will exploit the existing information and consultation mechanisms already in place to evaluate current service provision. Elements of the EFQM model will be used where appropriate to assist in the evaluation.
The results of consultation and comparisons will be used to evaluate options for service improvements.
The review team will present a challenging approach to the project.
Service Review Team Members
A small service review team will be set up to provide challenge to the review and achieve the aim.
The service review team proposed is:
John Heath, County Education Welfare Officer
Liz Statham, Bilingual Support Services Manager
Inspector Walton, Community Police Service, Hampshire Police
Ian Massey, Intercultural Inspector
A parent representative
Cllr Mrs Sue Allbright, Best Value Panel (Education)
A union representative
This team represents the key stakeholders in the provision of the service and will invite specialists to attend for specific items.
3.1 Challenge
The main method of providing challenge will be through the service review team members. The existing Service Consultative Group, which includes headteacher representatives from all phases, will also be asked to contribute to the Best Value review challenge.
The analysis of consultation and comparisons with other LEAs will feed the challenge process.
The main challenges to the service are:
· Should we be providing this non-statutory service?
· Is the County Council the best supplier and most appropriate supplier?
· Are partnerships with other providers possible and/or desirable?
· Are there service efficiencies that can be made?
· Should additional resource be made available to enhance the service?
· How should the service cope with increasing numbers and demand for the service?
3.2 Compare
The review will compare the service with the service delivered in similar LEAs. It is particularly important to ensure that comparator LEAs have a similar profile of traveller, refugee and minority ethnic pupils. Most smaller and unitary LEAs have solely urban catchment areas with higher percentages of the population from minority ethnic groups in a smaller geographical area. In Hampshire and similar LEAs, the distribution of pupils is wider and at lower concentrations, and these issues are significant for delivering the service.
The service review team will seek to gather:
· Comparative funding - available from the DfEE bids for Standards Fund
· Comparative educational targets
· Staffing levels
· Service delivery policies and plans
· Comparative pupil numbers for traveller, refugee and minority ethnic groups
· Compare the number of home languages supported by the service
· Historical trends in the number of pupils supported.
· Information on transience and turbulence
3.3 Consult
The key stakeholders in the service are:
· Headteachers and governors
· Class teachers of classes where bilingual pupils are educated
· Bilingual support service staff
· Parents of bilingual pupils
· Bilingual Pupils
· Communities where there is an issue for minority ethnic groups
· Social services
· Housing services
· Health services
· Traveller Education Service
· Education Welfare Service
· Special Education Needs service
There is already some evidence from previous consultation with parents of bilingual pupils. Consultation will be carried out through existing groups, setting up focus groups and questionnaires.
Evidence may also be sought on home-school-community projects funded by the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB), and the homework club at Oak Meadow school in Fareham to support the community language unit.
3.4 Compete
This is a non-statutory service, funded by Standards Fund grant. There are competitors from the private sector in providing English as a foreign language teaching, and it would be possible to see other LEAs as potential competitors, or to seek alliances and partnerships for these very specialist services.
The review will explore these issues.
4. Scope
The scope of the review is limited to the Bilingual Support Service.
5. Constraints
The information available from other LEAs may constrain the review.
6. Dependencies
None known.
7. Resource Requirements
The review will require:
· Staff time from Bilingual Support Service and review team members
· Payment for hours and travel of review team members where no reciprocal arrangement can be made
· Costs of questionnaire design, printing, distribution, collection, collation and analysis
· Cost of focus group venues if necessary
· Costs of benchmarking data collection, collation and analysis
· Costs of printing reports
Appendices
1. Service Development Plan
2. Languages spoken by pupils in Hampshire April 1999 - March 2000
3. Deployment chart April 1999 - April 2000
4. Increase in need 1996 - 2000
5. SRB project outputs
6. Hampshire BLSS resources and office budgets
7. SRB expenditure
8. Hampshire BLSS structure chart
9. Parents responses - Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant action plan 1999
10. Home Office Section 11 action plan 1997-1998
11. Targets from DfEE Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant action plan 1999
12. Hampshire BLSS staff chart