Best Value review of the Strategic Management of Education

Summary

Challenge

The review team provided the framework for the main challenge, the main focus of which was around:

· what is strategic management?

· the debate on the future role and shape of the LEA

· leadership

· centralisation vs local activity

· should the strategic management of the Education Department be outsourced?

· linking planning and resourcing

· measuring the impact of strategic management

· working with other public bodies, business and the private sector.

Compare

Costs and structures of strategic management, planning and communications activities were compared with other education departments in the family of like LEAs. The processes and activities within the planning and communications functions were also compared with these LEAs.

Consult

The Audit Commission/Ofsted questionnaire to schools will provide vital information which will shape future decisions on the strategic management of the department. The MORI survey of staff is also providing useful information on which to base targets for improvement.

Compete

The Education Department Management Team must be vigilant about the options for delivery mechanisms in the future. There is no evidence yet that outsourcing would bring about an improvement.

Overviews of the Education Department's approach to Sustainability, Crime and Disorder, E-Government and Equalities, with notes on lessons learnt during the conduct of the review, complete the review.

The Service under review

The review focussed on the strategic management of education within Hampshire County Council. This included the general planning and communications functions within the department, which support strategic management. It does not include the planning activities carried out by every section of the department in formulating specialist policies and plans. These arrangements will be reviewed under separate Best Value reviews.

The review team

The review team was led by Andrew Seber, County Education Officer. Team members were:

Felicity Roe, Planning and Communications Manager, Hampshire Education Department

Elizabeth Wylie, LEA Support Division, DfEE

Richard Hubbard, Surrey County Council Education Department,

Nick Capon, Portsmouth University

Cllr David Kirk, Hampshire County Council

Cllr Bill Wheeler, Hampshire County Council

Ian Lawson, Union representative.

The focus of the review

The main challenges facing the strategic management of Education were identified as:

· ensuring the department responds effectively to new challenges whilst retaining the fundamental focus on teaching and learning

· proactively leading the Education Department

· anticipating future opportunities and threats

· influencing regional and national policy

· ensuring the department and corporate County Council work together to achieve strategic aims

· maintaining management partnership with headteachers, governors and other partners.

The responsibility for strategic management lies with the County Education Officer, and the four Assistant County Education Officers, who together comprise the Education Department Management Team (EDMT). They work together under the umbrella of the agreed direction and vision for the Education Department:

We aim to provide leadership to the educational community of Hampshire.

We will all make sure that we help to create the conditions in which self managing schools can flourish and achieve the highest possible standards for all their pupils.

The planning and communications function underpins much of the work above. Based within the Resources and Planning branch it consists of four posts:

· Planning and Communications Manager

· Planning and Communications Officer

· Planning and Development Officer

· Committee and Planning Co-ordinator

The main planning and communication activities are listed in Appendix 1.

The estimated cost of the activities of the CEO, 4 ACEOs, planning and communications function and support staff in 2000/1 is £753,000. The costs of the CEO, 4 ACEOS and their support staff alone is £575,000. The latter figure has been used for comparisons with the family of like LEAs as their figures were based on the members of their management team alone.

Stakeholders

As highlighted in the Best Value review of the school improvement service, it is difficult to provide a comprehensive list of stakeholders. The list could include every resident of Hampshire if it is taken to its widest extent, in that a school (or lack of one) impacts on a local community and therefore on society in general.

Strategic management, planning and communications activities are mostly indirect services - ie. they do not have a direct impact on the public. Obvious exceptions to this are public documents and press and other media activities. However their main target and impact are on departmental staff and a wide range of stakeholders.

The issue of involving parents and pupils was considered carefully prior to the project brief being agreed. In view of the decision to conduct a review that reports quickly and limits costs, it was decided not to include consultation with parents and pupils on this occasion. Instead, it was decided that evidence on the performance of the Education Service against national and local indicators, the absence of schools in special measures or in serious weaknesses over a large part of the County, and improvements in performance of statementing procedures and admission arrangements would form evidence on which to build a review.

The review process

Challenge

The members of the review team were asked to provide the framework for the main challenge. At the first review team meeting they discussed the role of strategic management and the way the function is exercised, and provided challenges within the framework of the six areas identified as strategic management for the purposes of this review.

By challenging strategic management, the review team was indirectly providing challenge to the planning and communications functions, which support the strategic management activities.

The following report is structured around the six key areas of strategic management.

What is strategic management?

The review team discussed the six areas identified as the main challenges facing strategic management. They agreed that they captured the main strands of strategic management and fitted well with outside perceptions of the purpose of the department. (See page 27 for slight amendments to the main strands of strategic management suggested in discussion with leading members.)

The group established that strategic management is about preparing for the future - five years or more from now. It is also an early warning system, identifying good and bad paths to travel. It has a major responsibility to co-ordinate rational and agreed responses to changes in the local and national environment and to work with schools to prepare for the impact of these changes.

Strategic management also has a wider community responsibility, linking across services and agencies and levering other funds. There is also a responsibility for school provision.

The most important task is to maintain the overview and vision of how the Education Service should be managed and delivered in the future.

Looking at the current position of strategic management was essentially reviewing past activities. Therefore any review needed to look at practice and process, asking whether the strategic management of the service is addressing the future as well as possible. Continuous improvement therefore would be achieved through constant re-evaluation and appraisal of the processes and structures being used to organise the future.

There is evidence that parts of the county that had previously worked on a `challenge and support' basis (the current strategic management approach within the focus of school improvement) were now doing well. There were no failing schools in these areas, nor schools with serious weaknesses. (See reports to Education Management Team from the Area School Improvement Managers.)

Outcome

The review team discussion refined, clarified and developed ideas within the specification of strategic management used at the beginning of the Best Value review. A clear specification of the role of strategic management, based around the concept of practice and process and the six key areas will be developed as an outcome of the review. Such a statement will be particularly useful in the performance management arrangements for senior staff involved in strategic management activities.

The debate on the future role and shape of the LEA

The review team challengedus to consider how Hampshire is looking at becoming involved in the debate about the `future role and shape' of the LEA. This is a vitally important debate - impacting on all six of the key areas of strategic management.

The evidence

What is the LEA for? (Simon Whitbourn et al July 2000, published by NFER) provides an excellent insight into the role of the LEA at the beginning of the 21st Century, tackling the big picture as well as looking at the most intricate workings of the system. That paper says that `a key part of the LEA's overall role is to manage the planning process for the locality and to relate that to wider regional and national agendas, both educational and otherwise'.

The County Council maintains a constructive dialogue with government bodies and other LEAs as far as possible given the slim organisation. There is a track record of being active in responding to consultation where we believe we can take the debate forward. Examples of this work are given below.

· Andrew Seber is a member of the national council of the Society of Education Officers, representing the shire counties.

· Andrew Seber co-ordinates the Hampshire and Portsmouth lifelong learning partnership, helping to define the links and relationships of the LEAs to the Learning and Skills Council

· Simon Whitbourn (Hampshire County Council legal department) is the author of What is the LEA for? - An analysis of the functions and roles of the local education authority (Published July 2000). This is referred to later, but in particular discusses the LEA within a corporate context.

· Roger Mead represents shire county LEAs on the Education Management Information Exchange (EMIE).

· The LEA works with the Local Government Association - in, for example, the County Treasurer advising the LGA on funding.

· Officers have done work with Ofsted on `Value Added' measures of school performance - part of a dialogue maintained with Ofsted and other bodies at a professional level.

· There has been considerable liaison with the DfEE during the introduction and development of the Fair Funding formula.

· We have worked extensively with the DfEE on SEN developments.

· We maintain links with the Government Office for the South East (GOSE), and Andrew Seber attends regular meetings with them.

· There are strong links with other South Eastern LEAs at Chairman, CEO and ACEO level.

· The LEA is part of a pilot for the new Connexions scheme.

· Hampshire is the lead authority for the south central sub-regional SEN group.

· The LEA is major contributor to the DfEE web site of LEA good practice.

· Simon Whitbourn has been invited by the DfEE to present a seminar to their Legal Advisers Office and Standards and Effectiveness Unit on what the LEA is for. This is part of the constructive dialogue the LEA enjoys with the DfEE.

Outcome

Education Department Management Team to ensure that, within available resources, Hampshire LEA officers participate in local, regional and national debate and activities defining the future roles of the LEA.

Leadership

The review team challenged whether strategic management of Education had a clear mandate to provide leadership to the Education community.

The evidence

The Education Department vision statement commits the department to a leadership role. The alternative is that the role of the LEA in the current national and local education framework and political environment, is about supporting schools, and challenging them, but not providing leadership.

On taking up the post of CEO in December 1998 Andrew Seber wrote to the chairs and secretaries of the three headteacher conferences in Hampshire. The letter was intended as a sharing of ideas and ethos. That the Education Department should provide leadership to the community of schools and other partners within the Education framework was one of the key messages in that letter (see Appendix 2.) This was used as the basis for discussion in various informal meetings and contacts, but also at the termly meeting of the chairs and secretaries of headteacher conferences with the Education Department Management Team (HEADO).

Extracts from the notes of HEADO for 5 February and 13 May 1999 are attached as Appendix 3. The May meeting is evidence of the ongoing dialogue that the document helped to develop. The letter forms a useful position statement of thinking within the strategic management of the department in December 1998. A review of the progress and changes since that letter could be undertaken.

Examples of clear progress on the issues in the letter are:

· Literacy and Numeracy - the national strategies have been implemented in Hampshire

· all schools have developed targets through the EDP process

· the corporate Early Years and Childcare Unit has been established, combining staff previously located in Education and Social Services Departments

· the adult and community learning unit has been established within the Education Department

· Lifelong Learning has moved to centre stage and the partnership is underway

· work on exclusion has yielded good results

· the Youth Service has made major contributions to achieving the Crime and Disorder Strategy and Connexions.

The thinking in the CEO's letter developed into the Hampshire Education Department Strategy 2000-2002, setting out the direction and vision of the department. This was agreed by the Education Committee following widespread consultation with all partners (including the headteachers and chairs of governors of all Hampshire schools). The response to the letter, and the subsequent adoption of the strategy following widespread consultation is evidence that headteachers and governing bodies in Hampshire accept that leadership is a role for the LEA.

We have found validations from external sources on the rightful leadership role of the Education Department or LEA these are set out below.

Audit commission and LEA leadership

The Audit Commission publication, Held in Trust, (1999) is unequivocal in its conviction that the LEA has a leadership role:

`The LEA's strategic management provides the foundations for success in the quality of the leadership that it offers, the clarity of its strategic direction and vision, the tone that it sets in its LEA-schools relationships, and the skilfulness with which information is disseminated and communication channels managed....This area of LEA activity is perhaps that most intangible and difficult to measure but its importance means that it cannot be overlooked'.

Held in Trust also articulates the role of the LEA as:

`Setting the direction of the local education system by establishing a consensus of view, articulating and communicating a vision for the Education Service and delivering its policies and practices.'

These statements support the role of strategic management as defined in this report. They emphasise the symbiosis of the principles of effective leadership and practice of effective partnership working and communications. This supports the importance that EDMT place on partnership working with schools.

Local democratic processes and leadership

David Blunkett, Secretary of State for Education and Employment made the link to local democratic processes:

`Councillors play a vital role in the success of Local Education Authorities. Good, strong and committed leadership in education is vital in raising standards in schools...'

The importance of strong commitment to Education within the local democratic process is also a feature of the Draft Grade Criteria for Ofsted Inspection Judgements (July 2000). This has among its criteria for scoring a 2 (1 = top marks) for strategic management:

· Elected members have a clear vision for education within the corporate plans of the Council. The vision is well expressed in published documentation, and is reflected in the strategic planning of the Education Directorate

· The leadership of the LEA is very effective, purposeful, visionary, seeking partnerships and challenging.

Leadership in Ofsted/Audit Commission LEA inspection reports

Work was also undertaken to review the 58 available Ofsted/Audit Commission LEA inspection reports. This was agreed by the review team as one means of comparing the performance of Hampshire in its strategic management function with a range of other LEAs. The full report is attached as Appendix 4. Some summary points are shown in the table below:

Outcome

The LEA has a clear mandate to provide leadership to the education community. The strategic management of the Education Department is focussed on this role and should continue to make it a priority. A review of progress since the CEO's letter in December 1998 could be undertaken.

Centralisation vs local activity

The Education Department is currently structured with a central HQ and five offices based across the county. Four of those offices are `local offices' providing bases for a range of services to schools in their area. The other, Fareham Parkway, forms the office accommodation for the department's administrative and curriculum IT and personnel services.

The challenge from the review team was that local offices and staffing appears more expensive than centralisation. What is the reasoning behind a local presence?

The evidence

Management theory suggests that centralisation is likely to be cheaper, and most effective and efficient where the activities of an organisation are uniform across the geographical area concerned. Local activity is used where there is a need to be responsive to the local environment, because there are clear differences in the pattern of need and demand. The most effective approach is to differentiate a service only where the local environment is too dissimilar to make a single service effective, or where there are other costs associated with centralisation.

When Hampshire reorganised to meet the challenge of Local Government Reorganisation (1997), the loss of some economies of scale meant that overall savings had to be higher than the official 25%. The structure of the Education Department was reviewed to ensure the best possible structure to serve the future role of the LEA, and this was organised along functional, not divisional, lines. Local offices continued, but with reduced functions within them. This followed extensive consultation with all partners.

This broke the tradition of departmental organisation on the basis of geographical divisions. The entire SEN statementing function, previously split on a geographical basis, was centralised to HQ at Winchester. The planning of information and school places was also relocated from divisional offices to Winchester followed by the school admissions service in 1998.

The report to Education Committee, 27 February 1996 (Appendix 6) contains full explanation of the decisions to centralise.

Further reorientation and restructuring of the department took place in December 1998. From that emerged the current branch arrangements, which closely mirror the functional groupings of Fair Funding and Section 52.

Since the centralisation there has been a marked increase in efficiency in some services. Although it is impossible to attribute a direct causal relationship between centralisation and efficiency improvements, the timing and nature of the improvement suggests strong links. For example:

· in SEN activities the efficiency in processing statements has risen from 40% completed in 18 weeks (statutory time limit) to 94% completed in 18 weeks. This is over a period of three years. There is also greater consistency in the SEN process. Statementing decisions and the allocation of resources is now moderated (by headteachers) across all SEN statements and judgements. This has led to greater clarity and perceived fairness within the SEN audit

· in admissions, clear and consistent county-wide policies have been developed. (Previously these had local variations which caused confusion.) An excellent countywide admissions brochure and extensive information for parents was published for the first time in September 1998, and improved in both 1999 and 2000. This has ensured that parents have ready access to high quality and timely information on admissions. Parents are more aware of their rights - the evidence is in the increasing level of appeals. This has been caused both by higher levels of parental awareness and two particular problems. The first - the offers by Kings School of more places than agreed as available, the second, a shortage of secondary school places in the south east of the county

· school improvement activities are organised and led on a countywide basis with strong leadership from the deputy county education officer. This has led to a growing consistency of approach and the rapid sharing and development of good practice and innovative solutions. This is demonstrated by the effectiveness with which the LEA has brought out of special measures schools across the county

· the planning of school places is now a centralised service. This makes much better use of time and has allowed integration of systems. The two elected member buildings panels have been abolished and replaced with one sub committee covering the whole county. This represents a considerable reduction in committee support requirements.

The efficiency gains have been both passed on to customers in tangible improvements to services (eg. through the improvements to the SEN and admissions processes) and contributed to the department's ability to absorb the 10% increase in workload caused by the return of Grant Maintained schools to the LEA establishment. The latter was achieved without any increase in staffing.

The functions now located at local office bases are functions whose staff serves local schools within 7 areas. These include business unit services such as finance and personnel, education welfare officers, education inspectors and educational psychologists. The main reason for locating these staff in local offices is to limit the journey times to the schools they serve. Many will also travel straight from home to schools and work effectively from home using modern communications and IT infrastructures.

Using the management theory of centralisation vs local presence, there might be a case for centralisation of the entire department. Centralisation would not necessarily diminish the contacts between officers serving the same clusters of schools (vital contacts), and could offer improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of communications between the strategic management core of the department and staff in the local office.

Against this scenario have to be laid considerations of sustainable development. Centralisation would involve moving a considerable number of staff to Winchester. (If the theory holds good then the County Education Officer and management team must be located near to the Chief Executive and other main County Council departments.) This would lead to appendix E payments, increased travel to the office for those staff with homes local to the current local bases, and a very much higher level of travel to schools from a Winchester office base (up to an hour for schools on the Hampshire borders). Winchester is overcrowded and its transport congested at peak times. Parking is restricted and expensive. Relocation of staff seems to be undesirable in these circumstances.

The schools in the more remote parts of the county may also be left with a sense of isolation if there are no local bases. As will parents who currently visit the local offices. This is less tangible than other considerations, but is known to be important to both schools and parents. On a pragmatic level, local bases can provide venues for meetings which would otherwise involve more travel.

Outcome

The last two restructurings of the department have led to greater centralisation (and associated efficiency gains). The scope for further major centralisation of the staff remaining in the local offices is more limited, on environmental and other grounds. The balance between local and central provision should, however, be kept under review.

Should the strategic management of the Education Department be outsourced?

The review team challenged whether the Education Department needed to be a part of Hampshire County Council. This can be split into two debates - the advantages, to the County Council and Education Department, of being part of the County Council, and the advantages to the Education Service of an outsourcing arrangement.

Evidence - being part of Hampshire County Council

Planning and collaboration

Appendix 7 shows an extract from What is the LEA for? which highlights at the bottom the national and council-wide initiatives or strategies in which the LEA is heavily involved. The LEA is expected, by national government, to deliver on each of these areas:

· Best Value

· Lifelong learning/Lifelong learning plan

· Community Safety

· Health and Safety

· Youth Offending teams

· Investing in children

· Child protection

· Community development

· Quality protects

· Human Rights Act.

While the Education Department is playing its part in each of these activities, they are being co-ordinated by other departments in the County Council. This is a considerable benefit to the Education Department, both through savings in strategic management time and costs and through the advantages of sharing skills and expertise across a range of departments, rather than having to develop those diverse skills within our own facility.

The department also benefits from corporate leads on major projects such as Investors in People, corporate training and development, corporate communications strategy, financial planning and strategies for the built estate. These are activities which would otherwise have to be fully staffed and funded within the structure of the department.

Appendix 8 shows an audit of involvement in corporate activities. Education Department staff are involved in total with 52 corporate groups. This is a considerable commitment of resources by the department and shows the extent of integration with the corporate body.

Finance

The management of the County Council budget is undertaken by the County Treasurer. County Treasurer's staff operate in units within departments offering valuable professional advice and managing budget preparation and control. In education the overhead cost of this service is £346,100. The devolved organisational structure was a decision taken some time ago in order to avoid duplication of management structures for finance activities across departments.

These savings (and the same principle applies to personnel services) have to be balanced against the overall corporate `overhead' paid by Education. This was approximately £8,789,100 for the 1999/2000 financial year. Other departments are aware of the need to keep their costs down.

Further research to establish the costs of private sector provision is beyond the scope of this review.

Time spent on committee activities

As part of the initial project brief, an analysis was undertaken of the time spend by EDMT members preparing for, and attending, Committee, sub-committees and panels. This analysis included time taken to write up reports and follow up the decision making process.

The analysis was as follows.

The CEO and EDMT produce reports for:

· Education Committee (7 or 8 meetings per year)

· Education Resources Sub-Committee (3 or 4 meetings per year)

· Schools Monitoring Sub Committee (3 meetings per year)

· Youth Service Sub Committee (3 meetings per year)

· Best Value Education Services Panel (5 meetings since April)

They are also involved in Social Services and Policy and Resources committee and sub committee reports.

The Education and Best Value Education Services work (the latter projected to a full year) amounted to 203 days in the past year (252 weekdays in a year). In addition to the committee work, the CEO estimates he receives a letter a day from an elected Member, MP or other person in a similar position. This represents approximately 10 hours work a week, 40 days in a year.

If annual leave is factored in, committee work and other support for Members is absorbing one fifth of the strategic management time in the Education Department each year.

This will be a useful benchmark figure against which to estimate and compare the workload that may be associated with the new committee structures the County Council will establish as part of the modernising government agenda. Indications from other councils are that the cabinet and scrutiny committee structure double the time commitment from senior officers.

Evidence - outsourcing arrangements

The review of Ofsted reports (Appendix 4) also included a review of the 15 consultants reports in LEAs where, on the advice of Ofsted, the Secretary of State considered that intervention under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, might be necessary. There are some interesting pointers.

The need for elected members to retain final responsibility for education is constantly stated even where structures are proposed which bring other stakeholders into partnership in major areas of policy making.

The reports reviewed provide no example of the whole of the strategic leadership and management activity being exposed to competition. The nearest example is of Islington, where all Education Service provision has been contracted out to Cambridge Education Associates and a partnership board established. There remains a Director of Education and elected members with statutory responsibilities. The Director of Education acts as client to the service contractor. This arrangement has been in place since April 2000. There is as yet no evidence to show its effectiveness or otherwise in bringing about improvements

The consultants' reports and subsequent outsourcing arrangements for weak LEAs are currently the only examples of market testing of the strategic management of LEAs - and Islington is the only LEA where this has occurred. The market will develop further in the next two to three years if the strategic management functions of other LEAs with weaknesses are outsourced. It is clear that the authority would need to retain at least a Director/County Education Officer to act as client and advise elected members.

The case for outsourcing is clearly not yet proven, and the market is very underdeveloped. Hampshire Education Department is currently on the DfEE function provider list to provide services, including strategic management to LEAs found by Ofsted to be weak.

The corporate Best Value guidelines on Competition ask that review teams make an initial judgement on whether further competition is required within the service under review. This judgement should be based on:

· relative cost and quality - with priority to competition in services which can be shown to have relatively high costs and low performance or poor quality

· specification and market development - services for which it is simple to specify the Council's requirements, or for which there is a well-developed external market.

On the former criteria, evidence suggests that the strategic management of the Education Department is very good, and is cost competitive in comparison with other authorities.

On the latter, the market for outsourcing strategic management is clearly underdeveloped. Hampshire, as a DfEE function provider, is well placed to help to develop that market and assess the strengths and weaknesses of outsourcing arrangements.

The scale of potential benefit to the County Council of outsourcing strategic management of education is unclear. The cost would almost certainly increase, with the need to retain the post of County Education Officer in house as client. The current provision compares favourably with national indicators and it is difficult to see how it could be significantly improved by alternative provision. Specification would be difficult and a very costly exercise -the cost of competition would be high.

There would be a significant impact on corporate objectives and cohesion as the strategic management of education makes a substantial contribution to corporate aims and the overall management of the Council. This could restrict existing initiatives.

Outcome

A responsibility for the Education Department Management Team is to be vigilant about the options for delivery mechanisms in the future. There is no evidence yet (from this review or from the experiences of weak LEAs on the national scale) that outsourcing would bring about improvement. Costs would almost definitely increase. Hampshire Education Department can best contribute to the debate and assess the advantages and disadvantages of outsourcing by actively participating as a DfEE function provider. The opportunity to bid for the provision of services to other LEAs should be assessed for its value to the LEA learning process as it arises.

The evidence from programme management (see page 16) is that the private sector does not outsource strategic management, but will look to outsource activities which have peaks of activity. The Education Department Management Team could use programme management techniques to identify areas of service provision that could be further assessed for their suitability for outsourcing. This would build best value and continuous assessment of alternatives into the day to day activities of the strategic management of the department.

Linking planning and resourcing

The review team discussed the role of strategic management in bringing together diverse activities to ensure they are all working efficiently and effectively towards the same goal. For example, SEN assessments cannot operate in isolation from school improvement and resourcing and needs. The review team challenged how effectively the Education Department is managing to link the different agendas and resourcing and planning activities.

Evidence

There are two main mechanisms for co-ordinations of the diverse activities of the department - the management team and committee.

Education Department management team operates a forward programme designed to dovetail with the committee cycle. This ensures that major policy developments or other initiatives that are due to go to committee are discussed by the management team first.

There are also effective formal mechanisms for ensuring that the key items for discussion with partners filter onto the termly agendas of HEADO and County Governor Forum. The officer who co-ordinates County Governor Forum also co-ordinates EDMT and ensures suitable agenda matching. HEADO is co-ordinated by the line manager to that officer.

The agendas for County Governor Forum and HEADO are also the subject of consultation with the relevant governor and headteacher groups. This ensures that items partners wish to discuss are given high priority on agendas, and where necessary are considered by EDMT.

Arrangements for cascading actions and information from corporate management team are simple and effective. EDMT meetings are scheduled for the day after CMT meetings. The CEO feeds back actions and information from CMT, and ACEOs assume responsibility for actions where appropriate. Branch management team meetings are scheduled to follow EDMT so that EDMT members can brief managers. Further cascade then follows through team meetings. CMT notes are sent to all senior managers in the department and cascaded to their staff.

The budget process is a particularly good example of these planning and agenda links working in practice. The timetable for the 2001/2002 budget planning process is attached as Appendix 9. This shows the progression of thinking and planning through EDMT, HEADO, CGF, committee and meetings with all partners. Prior to the commencement of this formal process, branch management teams considered budget pressures and opportunities for efficiency savings and these were considered at the EDMT awayday on 27 July.

These budget discussions link the questions of how to make the best use of limited resources with questions about the overall key priorities for the department and County Council. Working with partners, the LEA decides where resources will be best concentrated.

This integrated process for strategy development and resource allocation is carried out against a backdrop of prescription from central government offering very limited scope for local discretion in resource allocation. This makes the resourcing of local priorities much harder, and there can be conflicts. For example for the 2000/2001 budget year the LEA and headteachers felt that the funding of small schools in Hampshire was at an adequate level. Central government targeted these schools as a priority, and they received additional funding. In the same year, Hampshire schools and LEA wanted to focus more resources on years 7 and 8 but this had to be refocused to meet the government requirement to increase by 2.5% the age weighted pupil units for all age groups.

This obviously constrains the processes of consultation with partners.

Appendix 7 and pages 16 and 17 in the education strategy show the plethora of plans that the LEA is required to produce. The mechanisms for reporting and the collective and individual responsibilities of the members of the departmental management team are intended to ensure that all these plans are interlinked and `joined-up'. As the planning process has developed so has the level of joined-up thinking. However, there is still scope for improvement. The use of internet technologies should help to link these plans together and ensure appropriate cross- referencing. The Education Department strategy is already on the internet www.hants.gov.uk/educate/strategy). This incorporates hyperlinks to corporate best value documents, the corporate strategy, other corporate plans such as health and safety and equal opportunities, and to the range of LEA plans mentioned in the document.

The focus of the department on school improvement is built into the programme of EDMT work.

Outcomes

EDMT to develop a clear statement of purpose, highlighting the collective responsibility for the strategic management of the department and for the linking of diverse activities at a strategic planning and resourcing level.

As LEA plans are put onto the internet, the department could seek to make use of internet technologies to demonstrate the links to other plans and County Council activities.

Measuring the impact of strategic management

The current key performance indicators used at a `headline' level focus on exam results, exclusions, class size and early years education. These are part of the corporate strategy indicators and the exam results are obviously subject to widespread scrutiny in the press.

Exam results have become the headline indicator of the success of strategic management, however limited they are overall indicators of the quality of education for individual pupils. They will always be an important measure of the impact of polices and strategies pursued over the past few years.

Evidence

The department has a heavy burden of data collection for statutory purposes, some of which has to be provided by schools, some by officers within the department. Appendix 10 shows a list of the DfEE timetable of planned data collection and surveys for the academic year 2000/01.

The approach to performance indicators in the department has been to make best use of those we already collect, not to increase the burden by collecting others. Performance is assessed and monitored within services, with service heads responsible to the appropriate ACEO. Individual services will report on performance to EDMT and to committee through timetabled reports and on an ad hoc basis. The LEA PANDA has proved a rich source of indicators, both absolute and relative, on school improvement and offers the opportunity to benchmark against comparator authorities. The data are used extensively in preparation of the Education Development Plan.

The Ofsted Form 4 information will soon be available for comparative purposes with other LEAs. Form 4 is at Appendix 11 of this report. EDMT will work to draw out from this the key activities to benchmark.

Exam result indicators are reported to Education Committee on an annual basis. The Youth Service reports annually on spending and penetration patterns. There is ad hoc reporting of other indicators.

The Education Department also contributes the information to update the corporate performance indicator `basket' annually.

What is lacking in the management of performance indicators is an overall group of indicators that can be monitored by EDMT, and a further group that would be suitable for committee scrutiny. There is a need to establish a group of indicators which support the `headline' work, can be monitored at suitable intervals and used to support the picture of the overall health of the strategic management of the department.

Appendix 12 shows the main elements of performance of the `LEA of the Future' as defined in Held in Trust, and developed by Surrey County Council as a performance measurement tool. As part of this Best Value review a brief audit of Hampshire against these criteria was carried out. The Education Department is fulfilling all these functions well (this Best Value review covers a number of them in detail) with the exception of the `balanced scorecard of LEA indicators that incorporates a hierarchy of indicators for organisational health, service performance and benchmarking'.

In order to establish an overall picture of the performance of the department, discussions have also taken place about the possibility of conducting a full EFQM assessment of the department as a whole.

Outcomes

A suite of performance management indicators to support strategic management will be developed. Some will be monitored by EDMT, some by Committee and others at branch management team level. Work on this will establish a list of performance indicators and their monitoring and reporting arrangements. (Much of this information will be available once all Ofsted Forms 1 have been completed.)

The balanced business scorecard will be considered as the framework for these performance indicators. This offers a framework for measurement across a range of perspectives and is widely used in the private and public sectors. The balanced scorecard could also link to the EFQM model and its outcomes. Appendix 13 shows models of the balanced business scorecard, and the approached proposed by Portsmouth University, incorporating information provided by an EFQM audit.

Working with other public bodies, business and the private sector

The review group challenged for further evidence on the interface between the business and private sectors.

Evidence

The strategic aims of the County Council are not entirely fulfilled by the services provided directly by the County Council, much is done in partnership with a range of other providers. The Education Department has a vital facilitating role to play, particularly in the Early Years and post-16 sectors.

The County Council's Early Education and Childcare Unit works in partnership with other groups to provide a variety of services, eg. Pre-school Learning Alliance, National Childminding Association, borough, city and district councils and New Opportunities Fund consultancy. It also provides support to workers in the early years and childcare field.

The well-established mechanisms for dialogue through the Education Business Partnership are undergoing a period of immense change. The agenda is dominated by the development of the Learning and Skills Council and small business service. It is difficult to be clear about the future nature of these relationships and partnerships until there has been a period of settling. The CEO and Chair of Education Committee will be playing key roles in working with the new Learning and Skills Council.

Relationships with the post-16 sector are growing in importance as a result of the lifelong learning developments. Education Department links go beyond schools to partnership working with further education and 6^th form colleges on a range of issues, including adult education.

The Youth Service undertakes considerable amounts of work with the private and voluntary sectors. This will be further explored in the corporate best value review of Youth.

Property, Business and Regulatory Services act as agents for the majority of services to schools provided by outside contractors. Construction activities, consultants, cleaning, catering and building maintenance are all handled through PBRS. Home to school transport is supplied by the Environment Grouping. County Supplies has contacts with all the LEA schools.

The music service works with both private and state sector schools and music teachers and has links with the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra.

The Careers Service is provided by the private sector (VT Southern Careers Limited), but with the CEO representing the County Council as a shareholder and board member.

Hampshire Education has also made a bid to train and offer development opportunities to people able to work on school improvement (with VT Southern Careers Limited) under a government pilot to test out new ways of working.

Outcomes

Work to assist in the development of the Learning and Skills Council is ongoing. Work on other partnerships is developing all the time. The bid with VT Southern Careers Limited, if successful, will be a very useful learning experience.

Compare

Costs and structure of strategic management, planning and communications

Research was undertaken to compare the cost bases and management structures of the first and second tier of Hampshire LEA with that of other LEAs listed in the Ofsted family and with a sample of small (and therefore unitary) authorities. From the LEAs approached, information was received from:

· Cambridgeshire

· Cheshire

· Essex

· Kent

· Lancashire

· Oxfordshire

· Surrey

· Torbay

The management structures of these authorities are diverse, and it is difficult to draw any conclusions about the Hampshire approach.

Appendix 14 shows the comparison of the costs of the first and second tier `strategic management' structures. The two final columns compare the cost of strategic management per pupil and present the ratio of total revenue budget to the cost of strategic management.

Comparing the cost of strategic management per pupil, Hampshire is in the cluster between £2.24 and £2.73 per pupil - the lowest spenders. The Hampshire ratio of total revenue budget to cost of strategic management is £1161:1, second highest to Lancashire with £1277:1

The figures suggest considerable economies of scale for the larger authorities. The small unitary - Torbay - had a cost per pupil of strategic management of £14.86 and a ratio of revenue budget to cost of strategic management of £185:1.

It is difficult to draw more than general impressions from these figures as the initial data are subject to considerable variations in interpretation. However, there is sufficient pattern to suggest that Hampshire is a relatively low spender on strategic management compared to other authorities within its family cluster.

This is a quantitative comparison of the relative costs and people in post of strategic management. Qualitative information is constantly sourced as part of ongoing activities to ensure that Hampshire is offering high quality services to schools. The list of national, regional and local groups attended by officers, (page 5) is a small sample of the opportunities officers take to compare service provision and approaches and to seek new ideas. Part of the strategic management process is to actively encourage officers to attend relevant groups and conferences as part of their development.

The comparison of structures and staffing for planning and communications had similar problems created by the difficulty in analysing diverse structures and staffing arrangements. Four Education Departments responded to the questionnaire: Cheshire, Lancashire, Cambridge and Kent. A compilation of responses is included as Appendix 15.

Summary of responses

Structures

Each authority has some provision for planning and communications activities. The Cambridge structure is similar to the Hampshire one, with an assistant director with some percentage of time allocated to planning and communications, plus a planning manager with technical assistant and a post responsible for communications. Kent also has three staff - a planning manager and a policy officer plus a communications officer. In all the authorities the responsibility for individual plans, eg. Asset management and the EDP rests with staff in the relevant section.

Costs

Costs were impossible to compare as the information was not available. However, given that the posts dedicated to this work were similar, the costs of the service are probably similar as well.

Europe

Only Kent have a well-developed European unit, and this is located in their equivalent of the Chief Executive's Department. Individual officers in the department have a role in gaining European funding, with bids co-ordinated using a database. Cambridge, Cheshire and Lancashire have no fully developed European team.

It is clear that the Education Department could do more to attract funding from Europe. The planning and communications manager has been asked to fulfil this role. With the team short of one member of staff since April, Best Value and LEA Ofsted have had to take priority. However, in February, after the LEA Ofsted stage 3 has been completed, the planning and communications manager should have some time to devote to exploring the opportunities for European funding and raising the profile of the Education Department in Brussels and with MEPs. This will be valuable work as there are clearly funds that would be suitable for the department to bid for.

Communications with staff

Cambridge send a fortnightly news sheet to all departmental staff. They also run briefings through team meetings. Cheshire have monthly team briefings with a written corporate and departmental brief to work from. Kent has regular staff newsletters (both corporate and departmental). Team meetings are held at unit and divisional level. Decisions are cascaded through e-mail. The strategic director holds regular key staff briefings. Lancashire use team briefings.

The Education Department currently has no newsletter for staff. Newsline, which was the Education staff newsletter, has not been published since January 2000 because cuts to the communications and publications budget meant there was no money available to fund it. Statutory publications absorbed all of the budget for 2000/2001. Feedback from EDMT by assistant directors and the notes of that meeting are used to brief staff fortnightly in branch management team meetings. Managers are then expected to cascade information. The EDMT notes are displayed electronically on Hantsnet and placed on noticeboards, giving all staff access to them.

The absence of a staff newsletter is a clear omission in comparison with the other authorities. This is also upheld by the evidence from the MORI survey of staff (see page 28 below).

When the new planning and communications officer arrives in post in early December she will be asked to review the communications in the department, in particular to assess the need for a newsletter for staff. At the same time she will help the planning and communications manager assess the need for a newsletter for schools and review the quantity and quality of newsletters from individual services that are sent to schools (see below).

Communications and consultations with partners

Cambridgeshire send a regular newsletter to schools. Kent send fortnightly and termly newsletters. Governors in Kent receive a termly newsletter. Hampshire Education Department does not send any regular departmental newsletter to schools. Individual business units and other services produce their own newsletters. The area offices used to produce local newsletters for schools, but this practice was dropped when the department restructured.

The structure of briefings and meetings with partners appears similar to that of Hampshire in Cambridgeshire, Kent and Cheshire. We do not have enough information from Lancashire to make a judgement.

Hampshire Education Department does not co-ordinate the newsletters sent to schools, or provide schools with a printed update/briefing type newsletter. Information for schools is cascaded through primary and secondary conference structures from conferences and executive meetings attended by the CEO and other senior officers.

In the last few months it has become clear that too many surveys and questionnaires are being sent to schools. In addition there is currently no monitoring or co-ordination of the timing and frequency of newsletters and other information going into schools. EDMT have asked the planning and communications manager to undertake a full review of the consultation processes with schools, and to recommend a process for co-ordinating questionnaires and other means of gaining feedback from schools.

Resources for the CEO

In Cambridge the CEO has a `special assistant' who covers special projects. In Cheshire the CEO personally has a budget of £8,000 for specific projects. New initiatives in Kent are picked up within the policy unit, and in Lancashire they are handled in divisions.

In Hampshire the CEO has no `special' resources. Most new initiatives are handled by the relevant service or are picked up by the planning and communications team. However, the growing workload associated with lifelong learning and the Learning and Skills Council are placing an increasing burden on the CEO personally as senior officer time availability is limited for these areas. This is a resourcing issue that may need to be tackled in the future once the workload associated with post-16 developments becomes clearer.

Planning links

Cambridgeshire are working to ensure consistent links between service plans, departmental and corporate priorities. They are also developing a system of hot links to enable them to search all references to say `social inclusion' within departmental plans. This is similar to the approach taken with the Hampshire Education Department Strategy on the internet and the proposals (page 26) to undertake this work for all the departmental plans.

Complaints about schools

These seem to be dealt with in each authority in a similar way to Hampshire. Complaints are referred to the school in the first instance and then to specific officers in the department. There is no central complaints officer in any of these authorities.

Reviewing and monitoring plans

Cambridge acknowledges this as an underdeveloped feature in their systems. Cheshire has service plans, and a long term Education Strategy (reviewed every two years with partners). Kent have the best-developed monitoring and review system:

· budget information and `hot issues' are reported on a monthly basis to Cabinet/Corporate board

· unit plans are reviewed within units and divisions and progress is reported on a 6-monthly basis to the appropriate Member service board (Kent has implemented the modernising local government changes)

· the directorate plan is reviewed on a 6 monthly basis by the management team, and annually by Education and Libraries Committee

· any areas of concern from the plans go as exceptions reports to the management team

· a database containing all Education and Libraries performance indicators is used to track progress against the performance indicators from all business plans and to help draw links between the themes in different plans.

Progress against the Hampshire Education Department Strategy is reported to Education Committee annually. However, the strategy is by its nature an overarching document, drawing together all the plans in the department. It was not intended as a reporting document in its own right, but as a framework showing the monitoring and reporting arrangements for the individual plans within it. This approach may now be adopted by the DfEE as a future requirement on LEAs.

Evaluations of progress against targets in the department is best made at the level of the individual plans. These each have their own programme for reporting, many of them to a statutory timescale. Accountability of individual officers for delivery of the plan targets and outcomes is clear, and this is evaluated through personal performance review arrangements and regular meetings with assistant directors.

The Education Department Strategy would benefit from a strengthening of the detail on the monitoring and reporting arrangements for individual plans. Reporting arrangements will change with the implementation of the modernising local government changes. Therefore the revision of the strategy document towards the end of 2001/early 2002 will be timely. It will be able to incorporate new reporting arrangements and ensure that the details of monitoring and review are clearly set out within the document.

Outcomes

Continue to attend national and regional groups and conferences to ensure constant sharing of new ideas and to meet the development needs of officers.

Develop the European funding role.

Review the processes and systems for communications with staff, probably developing an education staff newsletter, either electronic or on paper.

Undertake a review of the County Council's consultation processes with schools, particularly the use of questionnaires. Research the resource implications and practicalities of establishing a central database of questionnaire and other survey results. Include in this review consideration of the frequency and timing of newsletters to schools.

Using internet technologies, develop hyperlinks between planning documents.

Consider strengthening the monitoring and evaluation detail for individual plans within the Education Department Strategy when it is revised in late 2001/2002.

Consult

Appendix 5 contains details of the nature and structure of the partnerships with headteachers, governors, dioceses, health authorities, etc. It was agreed as part of the preparations for this review that we would avoid overburdening those partners with requests for information and evidence. We invited the dioceses to give feedback on their experience of the partnership working. The letter from Rev Richard Lindley is attached as Appendix 16. This is an expression of satisfaction with the approach we are taking to partnership working.

The role and purpose of HEADO and the partnership with the Education Department at the strategic level was reviewed in May 2000. The terms of reference agreed then are attached as Appendix 17. This is the framework within which HEADO now operates.

As part of the process of the Ofsted Inspection a questionnaire has been sent to all headteachers asking for their views on a range of LEA activities. A copy of that questionnaire forms Appendix 19. The timing of that questionnaire (we will know the results by 24 November) meant that any further questionnaire to headteachers on the strategic management of the department was inappropriate.

The Ofsted questionnaire outcomes and the overall outcomes of the Ofsted inspection will provide vital information which will shape future decisions on the strategic management of the department.

The CEO met with Cllr Don Allen, the Chairman of Education Committee, and Cllr Tony Barron, the education spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. Cllr Tim Sullivan, education spokesman for the Labour group was unavoidably unable to attend. The general feedback from that meeting was that with some small exceptions, members were very happy with the strategic management of the department. The changes of direction in the last five years have been fully supported by Members. Through various changes in political power and therefore direction at both local and national level, the strategic function has been fulfilled professionally and the best interests of Hampshire pupils and their schools have clearly been paramount. The response to the plethora of plans imposed by government has been very good.

On some occasions members would appreciate more information and documentation of investigation of alternatives and options before members are asked to make decisions. It is clear that the department could do this better, but are restricted by a slim organisation and subsequent constraints on time and resources to devote to research.

The protocols on Member: officer relationships work well in Hampshire, with clear accountabilities and professional approaches. A new protocol was published in October 2000.

Members suggested slight revision to the `challenges facing strategic management' to form a framework for a definition of strategic management. The outcome would be:

· retaining the fundamental focus on teaching and learning and school improvement whilst leading the Education Department effectively to respond to new challenges

· anticipating future opportunities and threats

· influencing regional and national policy

· ensuring the department and corporate County Council work together to achieve strategic aims, particularly on cross -cutting issues and in partnerships with others

· maintaining strong partnerships with headteachers, governors and other key players in the education and welfare of children.

Relationships with other partners eg. the health authorities and police are best covered as part of the Best Value reviews of the services that have the most contact with those partners.

MORI survey of staff results

In January/February 2000 the County Council sent a questionnaire to all staff (excluding school staff). The survey asked questions about staff satisfaction with areas from pay and working conditions to communications and line management. The issues relating to communications form part of the `consult' element of this review. The main outcomes relating to communications were:

Outcomes

The Education Department has an overall action plan for responding to the MORI survey results. Some of the areas detailed above are included in that action list. However, when the new planning and communications officer takes up her post she will be tasked with looking in detail at the results outlined above, and devising ways of improving on all the percentages. Targets for improvement before the next MORI survey of staff will be set. This review will include consideration of a staff newsletter, whether on paper or electronic, and ways of working with the corporate communications team to improve lateral communications. The department as a whole will be supporting the corporate action plan, of which improved communications is a part.

Committee support in Education

This is the only place in this review where this is mentioned. Work on this has been kept to a minimum because of the impending changes as a result of the modernising government agenda. These changes will inevitably lead to a review of the way in which the committee support function in the department works. The current arrangements for committee support in Education were compared with those in the Environment Grouping. The full report is attached as Appendix 18. Their committee support structure is one section head and two assistants. This compares with the one post in Education. The Environment Grouping team chooses to undertake some tasks that are handled for the County Council by the Chief Executive's department. Due to the requirements of British Standards Institute Quality Assurance procedures, each and every step a report passes though is recorded. This is not something that could be undertaken within the current resources available in Education.

The section head also provides admin and secretarial support for the departmental management board and countywide meetings. This function is undertaken by another member of the planning and communications team within Education.

In a similar way to Education, their drafting and circulation is currently paper based, but they are developing the electronic circulation of reports. This is also under development in Education, but hindered by the lack of access to IT2000 in the local offices.

Outcome

The resourcing and planning of the committee support function be reviewed when the structure of the County Council in response to the modernising government changes is known. The circulation of draft reports electronically is developed within the geographical limitations of IT 2000.

Compete

The discussion on outsourcing strategic management (page 12) in the Challenge section of this review, explores the arguments for and against outsourcing the strategic management of education.

As a result of discussions at the review group meetings, it has been suggested that the Education Department consider using programme management techniques to establish any opportunities for outsourcing specific activities. Activities such as the MORI survey of staff, for which there is no in-house expertise or resource, are already outsourced as a matter of course. So is the management of the Education built estate, grounds maintenance, school meals, transport etc.

Programme management, by establishing peaks and troughs of similar workload and skill types across a range of projects, would help to establish any other areas that might benefit from market testing.

Outcome

The suitability of programme management techniques for this task will be explored further. Their value for use within particular sections and branches within the department will also be assessed.

Sustainability

At a strategic management level the Education Department contributes to the corporate strategy for Local Agenda 21. There is an education representative on the corporate sustainable development group who is contributing to the debate on how to take the County Council (and therefore the Education Department) from its current position to its desired outcomes.

The following paragraphs give an overview of education contributions to sustainable development under each aim of the corporate strategy.

Quality of life

`To achieve stable and sustainable growth we need a well-educated and adaptable labour force. Learning also has a wider contribution to make - it promotes active citizenship and helps to combat social exclusion'. (DETR strategy for sustainable development 1999).

The strategic management of education includes responsibility for the quality of learning in all schools. The adult and community service is based in the department. The County Education Officer and Chairman of the Education Committee are playing an active role in the development of the new Learning and Skills Councils. Learning and recreation through sports is encouraged in schools and supported by the Sports Development Officer.

Citizenship development in schools is encouraged and developed by a designated inspector within the curriculum and advisory service. Arts, design and technology have similar resources dedicated to them. The Hampshire Music Service is a national leader in its field. All these activities increase enjoyment of an participation in arts, local culture and heritage and encourage school children to develop a lifelong interest in these fields.

The County Education Officer chairs the corporate stress working group. The nutritional content of school meals is carefully planned to ensure school children, particularly those who are entitled to free school meals, receive a nutritious meal at lunchtime. The work of the Personal, Social and Health Education team in education undertake excellent work in schools on a range of health and safety issues. This includes the publication of Safety Zone a magazine for 7 -11 year olds.

The Education Department regularly monitors its position against its health and safety strategy and action plan.

The School Organisation Plan sets out criteria for assessing new school sites including ease of access by pedestrians and cyclists, and within walking distance of new housing developments.

Stewardship of the environment

The work on the capital programme is up to date in its compliance with regulations on air, noise, water and light pollution. Environmental considerations are taken into account in new school buildings. Partnerships with local conservation groups - British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, Learning through Landscapes Trust, Friends of the Earth - benefit new school landscape projects with advice and practical assistance to schools.

The four environmental study centres develop children's skills to be future stewards of the environment.

The development and maintenance of the school built environment encourages good practice in use of existing sites, maintaining the quality of existing buildings, and sound principles of design and building in new structures.

School transport plans encourage cycling and walking to schools. `Walking buses' have been trialled by some schools.

The Education Department has retained local offices which reduces the number of business miles travelled by staff (see page 10).

Economic prosperity

A vital part of the education strategy is the work on inclusion. This tackles issues of social exclusion across the full range of individual pupil's needs, but is `inclusive' by nature. The needs of children with special educational needs are met, and the education welfare service works to combat truancy and support children who have difficulties attending school eg. teenage pregnancy. The Youth Service Connexions project offers support to all children outside school, focussing on those most in danger of social exclusion, for whatever reason.

Community schools offer high quality venues for sports, leisure and other community activities, and are a valuable means of ensuring that schools are at the heart of the communities they serve. The work on post-16 developments, including Lifelong-learning partnerships makes a significant contribution to this.

The Education Department has been making extensive use of e-mail, through Profs, for many years. The department and schools are now moving to internet based e-mail systems with their increased functionality. (See e-strategy below).

The Education Department works in partnership with a wide range of organisations to ensure the best use is made of school buildings, but also to ensure that the teaching, and support for individual children, is of the highest possible quality.

The strategic management team has a strong commitment to staff training and development and encourages the use of public transport and car share where practical. Extensive use is made of home -working within the department, facilitated by effective use of electronic communications and laptop computers.

Strong communities

The strategic management team works in close partnership with the education community to ensure the highest quality of education for pupils in Hampshire schools. Policy and budget decisions are taken in consultation with partners.

A biennial audit of accessibility of schools for pupils who use wheelchairs provides input to the prioritisation of projects for funding under the Schools Access Initiative. That programme aims to improve the level of accessibility for such pupils and those with a sensory impairment, so that education is provided within the community in which they live.

Governing bodies form an important entry into community involvement for their members. They provide 8000 people working to serve the needs of the community within the school environment.

High quality services

The education capital programme is devoted to improving facilities and access for young people with a range of needs.

The Education Department organises its services in a way that minimises travel time.

Summary

This is of necessity only a brief overview of the contribution the Education Department makes to local Agenda 21 priorities. Individual services will give more detail in their Best Value reviews over the next three years. The department is committed to the County Council's Agenda 21 work. In particular the awareness of sustainable development issues and the education of the workforce in this area could improve.

Crime and disorder

The strategic management of the Education Department includes commitment to progressing the education contributions to the corporate crime and disorder and community safety strategy. LEA's education officers make a significant contribution to carrying out corporate Crime and Disorder Strategy responsibilities as link officers to locality groups.

Policy aim 1 - to minimise school exclusions, truancy and under-performance by measures including encouragement and support for learning

The majority of the work to progress this aim is carried out by officers within the Education Department. Targets for reducing the rate of exclusion were set at a high level as it was thought important to be challenging. The rate of progress has been good. Work is ongoing between secondary schools and senior officers, led by the County Education Officer. A new Behaviour Support Service is being piloted in the Basingstoke area. Discussions are ongoing with schools on ways to use the additional delegated budgets to support children with behaviour difficulties.

The Education Welfare Service supports schools in promoting regular attendance. Attendance in Hampshire generally is good and the work of the EWS is focused on the most difficult cases. Legal powers are used where persuasion, negotiation and conciliation do not yield the desired results.

Work with other agencies is extensive. Police, Social Services, district councils, voluntary organisations, the Health Service and other agencies are co-ordinated at chief officer level. The Education Service is clear that school improvement is of fundamental importance: ensuring that eleven year old boys can read well is considered to offer benefits at least as great as those as specific crime reduction schemes with older children. Such schemes are however, promoted and supported, but the important point is taking the long-term view. In the Education Action Zone in Havant, for example, resources are being used to support a `Confident Parents, Confident Kids' programme which is having great success in helping parents tackle problems which extend beyond their relationships with their children.

Policy aim 2 - to divert young people away from crime and the risk of crime

The work of the Youth Service through the Connexions pilot contributes extensively to this aim.

Policy aim 3 - to initiate and support community based projects in areas where there are special needs or which are recognised as being disadvantaged.

The work in the Education Action Zone (see above), the Andover project, the Andover project, and the extensive work of the Youth Service in liaison with district councils and voluntary organisations makes a very important contribution to actions under this aim.

Policy aim 4 - to refocus economic development to enhance local employment prospects

The Education Department follows good practice as an employer. Personnel work closely with departmental managers to ensure that good employment practice, from recruitment to appraisal, is followed and developed.

Our work in developing post 16 opportunities through the Southern Strategic Partnership, Education Business Partnership and growing links with the Learning and Skills Council make significant contributors.

Policy aim 5 - to provide for community safety and crime reduction measures through land use and transportation planning and environmental management schemes.

All new school developments are considered within the context of public transport and access for pedestrians and cyclists. The Best Value review of school crossing patrols is running concurrently with this review. The Education Department acts as client to the provider, Property, Business and Regulatory services for school buildings and landscaping. Community safety and crime reduction measures are considerations in the design of new capital projects.

The school curriculum and the four environmental study centres ensure a focus on environmental issues within schools.

Policy aim 6 - to deal effectively and speedily with young offenders

The Youth Service makes a significant contribution to the Wessex Youth Action Team.

E-government

The Education Department has used electronic mail via Profs for many years. This includes contact with schools and there are many standard distribution lists for different combinations of schools and staff in them. Use of electronic data exchange within SIMS and FMS is well developed. Electronic questionnaires and booking forms are widely used. The information on Hantsnet is considerable.

IT 2000 has enabled the department to make rapid progress on the transfer to internet technologies. Transfer of databases is underway. Most staff and schools have e-mail accounts. All schools are linked to the web for curriculum and administrative purposes following the National Grid for Learning funding.

Hampshire Grid for Learning is the internet curriculum site run by the Education Department. It is used extensively by schools. The department has also developed a significant quantity of information on the Education and Training web pages within Hantsweb. This includes information for parents, pupils, governors as well as schools. It is intended that this become a significant source of policy and guidance documents for schools, making a transition from hard copy to electronic versions.

These issues remain. Aspirations and planning are clear but there are significant issues about the pace, breadth and resourcing of implementation.

A paper on web issues was discussed at Education Department Management Team on 29 June 2000. A copy is attached as Appendix 20.

Member input

The scoping report went to Member Workshops. There were two Members on the review team

Lessons learnt during the conduct of the review

The review is time-consuming. This review was intended to be a `light touch' review. We estimate that resources included a minimum of 37 days of officer and review team time. That is a significant resource.

The presence of review team members external to the County Council was extremely helpful. Their contribution added fresh challenge and new ideas and solutions. Because their own work was in related fields they did not have to overcome a steep learning curve.

Information received from other County Councils on non-standard benchmarking areas is difficult to interpret with any great degree of confidence. A small focus group of two or three officers from other counties might have been a better forum for comparison and discussion.

Equalities

The Education Department follows the Hampshire County Council corporate guidance on equalities in all personnel matters. Employees are always appointed without respect to gender, ethnicity, religion, disabilities or age.

Conclusions

The strategic management of the Education Department is performing well. It is providing appropriate guidance and leadership to the education community of Hampshire.

Recommendations

1 Develop a clear specification of the role of strategic management, based around the concepts of practice and process and the key areas of activity identified in this review.

2 Education Department Management Team (EDMT) ensure that, within available resources, Hampshire LEA officers participate in local, regional and national debate and activities defining the future roles of the LEA.

3 EDMT continue to make the provision of leadership to the education community a priority.

4 A review of progress since the CEO's letter in March 1999 should be undertaken.

5 EDMT keep under review the balance between local and central provision of services.

6 That EDMT be vigilant about the options for delivery mechanisms for services in the future.

7 That EDMT explore the opportunities to actively participate as a DfEE function provider.

8 EDMT consider the use of programme management techniques to identify areas of service provision that could be further assessed for their suitability for market testing.

9 Assess the value and potential use of programme management techniques within particular sections and branches of the department.

10 That the Education Department makes use of internet technologies to demonstrate the links between plans and other County Council activities.

11 That EDMT develop a suite of performance management indicators to support strategic management, including the establishment of a list of performance indicators and their monitoring and reporting arrangements. Consider the balanced business scorecard as a framework for these performance indicators and a link to the EFQM model.

12 Continue to develop effective partnerships.

13 Develop the European funding role.

14 Review the processes and systems for communications with staff.

15 Work with the corporate communications team to improve lateral communications across the County Council.

16 Undertake a review of the County Council's consultation processes with schools, particularly the use of questionnaires.

17 Research the resource implications and practicalities of establishing a central database of questionnaire and other survey results.

18 Include in the above review consideration of the frequency and timing of newsletters to schools.

19 Consider strengthening the monitoring and evaluation detail for individual plans within the Education Department Strategy when it is revised in late 2001/2.

20 Progress the action plan arising from the results of the MORI survey of staff, setting targets for improvement.

21 Review the resourcing and planning of the committee support function when the impact of the modernising government changes are known.

22 Develop the circulation of draft committee reports electronically, within the geographical limitations of IT2000.

Action plan

An action plan will be prepared after the members' panel