Best Value Review Report

School Admissions Service

1. Summary

The Best Value review process began in January 2000 with the admissions team revising service objectives and values, and the establishment of the Service Review Team (SRT). The SRT met on five occasions for the equivalent of three days. The SRT was constituted to provide the necessary external challenge. Consultation with five main stakeholders, parents, headteachers, the Chief Executive's Department, Appeal Panel members and the admissions team itself, was undertaken in June/July. The outcomes of this consultation were reviewed by the SRT at their meeting on 24 July. Comparative performance data were collated via the South West Admissions and Appeals Benchmarking Group. This process proved very difficult and time consuming. The SRT commissioned research and a report on the competitive possibilities for the service, which was considered at their `challenge' meeting in September.

The broad conclusions of the final review were that, in general, the Hampshire service shows very high levels of client satisfaction, a high level of comparative cost effectiveness and very substantial progress towards achieving service objectives. Because of a very weak supply side to the potential market for out-sourcing the service, there appears to be no immediate competitive alternative.

The action plan is concerned mainly with detailed improvements to services highlighted by the consultation and benchmarking exercises.

2. The Service Under Review

2.1 Statutory Basis

The admissions service has a very substantial statutory basis. The details are set out in Appendix 1. Most important amongst these statutory obligations is the need to consult annually upon and publish admissions arrangements. Key to this is the Hampshire School Admission Policy (Appendix 2).

2.2 The objectives of the School Admissions Service are to:

· enable children, to the maximum extent possible, to attend their parents' preferred school;

· provide accurate, accessible information and guidance about admission arrangements;

· provide efficient and effective administration of the admissions process;

· work consistently to implement government guidance and LEA policies in compliance with legal requirements;

· contribute proactively to the development of clear, fair and objective admission criteria and the continuous improvement of co-ordinated admission arrangements;

· enable stakeholders to influence policy.

The Admissions Team provides the following Services:

· manages the school admissions process at year R, 3 and 7 (14,000-15,000 pupils in each cohort) in close partnership with schools:

· manages the admissions process outside the normal admission round, again in close partnership with schools;

· organises the production of the LEA schools brochure;

· advises and responds to parents, schools and any other enquirers, including DfEE, MPs and councillors, about admissions issues;

· deals with admission appeals including the preparation and presentation of the school case;

· manages the annual statutory policy consultation process;

· facilitates the work of the Local Admissions Forum;

· leads and participates in governor training on admissions;

· works with other admissions authorities on co-ordination issues;

· administers school uniform grants;

· collects and collates data about admissions.

There is no service level agreement.

The process maps included as Appendix 3 describe the main activities of the service over time.

3. The Review Process

3.1 The process was initiated at two staff development/training days in January and early February, 2000. The service had been centralized to the County Office from four separate local offices, with effect from September 1999. A review of the service after its first 12 months of operation as a central function was planned anyway. Best Value provided the structure and means to carry that out. As a result of these sessions, apart from briefing the team about the Best Value Review, the team was able to -

· Review and revise the service aims and objectives

· Review and revise the service statement of values

· Make an initial identification of stakeholders

· Make an initial identification of the main issues currently affecting the service

· Draft process maps of the service.

3.2 At the same time, possible members of the service review team (SRT) were canvassed from amongst service users and from external sources that could be reasonably expected to provide sufficient challenge. Those approached included parents, headteachers, other Hampshire County Council Departments, the admissions team itself and other Local Education Authorities (LEAs). The team finally put together included representatives of all these groups plus a County Councillor and a trade union representative.

The Review Team met as follows:

12 May 2000: Briefing on the admissions service and Best Value: to prepare detail of the scoping report and project plan in response to Best Value (Education) Panel Workshop held 5 May 2000.

5 June 2000: Preparation and planning of stakeholder consultation.

(9 June 2000: Best Value Panel (Education) - approval of Scoping Report)

24 July 2000: Analysis of outcomes of stakeholder consultation

7 Sept 2000: Challenge Meeting - minutes included as Appendix 4

13 Oct 2000: Comparison - review of performance and benchmarking data

Draft Report and Action Plan

All meetings were of half a day, except for the challenge Meeting, which lasted a full day.

The main constraints on the work of the SRT have been in compiling and collating data from internal sources where information has not been routinely collected and in collecting data from other admission authorities for the purposes of comparison. The South West Admissions and Appeals Benchmarking Group was established for exactly this latter purpose. Of the 19 LEAs involved, 14 have not been involved in reviewing admissions this year: the result has been a dearth of comparative information, which only began to be remedied in the later stages of the process (details in Appendix 8).

3.2 Stakeholder Consultation

A `long list' of stakeholders was identified by the admissions team at the very beginning of the process:

Parents, children, schools (headteachers, deputies, governors, admin. staff, caretakers, etc.) Chief Executive's Department, Appeal Panel Members, SEN, Strategic Planning, EPs, EWOs, Social Services, Information Services, Catering Contractors, HIAS, School Improvement, Youth Service, EOTAS, Councillors, MPs, DfEE, Secretary of State, pre-school providers, other LEAs, other admission authorities, the admissions team, other admission teams, transport contractors, publicity department.

There was no practical possibility of consulting with all these groups so the SRT identified the five most important:

· Parents (and, by association, children)

· Headteachers

· Chief Executive's Department

· Independent Appeal Panel members

· The Admissions Team

Essentially, this was dependant on the amount of direct contact with the service and the impact of the service on the group's particular interests. In addition, groups which had a strong interest in the statutory consultation process - school governors, for example - were not included in the Best Value Consultation.

Detailed consultation was carried out with all five stakeholders. Questionnaires were prepared for each: copies of the questionnaires are included as Appendix 5, except that for headteachers, which was sent electronically. The questions asked of headteachers appear in the details of their responses (see Appendix 6).

The detailed responses from each group are included as Appendix 6. The response from the Chief Executive's Department was focussed in that of the Principal Solicitor: the response to his comments is also included. The summary of responses from the Independent Appeal Panel members is provided in the letter to the members from the Principal Admissions Adviser, which also describes the changes put into place by the admissions team as a result.

The results of the consultation exercise are summarised in a separate document included as Appendix 6. A summary of the issues raised by the consultation process is included in this appendix.

The impact of the consultation process on the review was considered in detail by the SRT at its meetings on 24 July and 7 September. The minutes of the meeting of 7 September are included as Appendix 4 and summarise the conclusions of the SRT.

3.3 Competition

The SRT commissioned research into the out-sourcing of the admissions service either as a whole or in part. The report presented to the SRT is included as Appendix 7. The SRT spent a great deal of the `Challenge' meeting on 7 September examining the issues raised in the report and other questions brought forward at the meeting. The conclusions of the SRT are recorded in the minutes of that meeting (appendix 4) and summarised below in section 6.

3.4 Comparison

The field of school admissions is rich in data, but the collection, collation and interpretation of the data to provide useful information has been limited, in the past, to the specific requirements of the DfEE in relation to appeals. In order to change this situation a group of 19 LEAs was brought together - known as the South West Admissions and Appeals Benchmarking Group. This group has met termly since the autumn term of 1999. However, progress has been fitful and useful information is only now (October 2000) beginning to be produced. The Scoping Report for the admissions service includes (in section 9 of the report) a list of the information routinely provided for the DfEE and a list of performance indicators the South West Benchmarking Group identified as relevant. The information collected under these headings (included as Appendix 8) was presented to the benchmarking group at their meeting on 11 October 2000, and was considered by the SRT at its meeting on 13 October 2000. The conclusions drawn from this material are included in section 6 (below) and summarised in the minutes of the SRT meeting held on 13 October 2000. These are included as Appendix 9.

In addition, a much more rigorous collection and analysis of internal data was undertaken to allow for internal comparisons to be made and for the information to be broken down into geographical areas of the County. This too was considered by the SRT at its 13 October meeting. The information is included as part of Appendix 8 and the conclusions of the SRT are summarised in the minutes of the meeting (Appendix 9) and are further summarised in section 6 below.

3.5 Sustainability, Crime and Disorder, e-Government and Equalities

Following the issuing of additional guidance by the DETR on the four areas listed in the title of this section, the SRT commissioned a report on how the issues raised by the guidance impacted on the work of the admissions service. The report is included as Appendix 10 and was considered in detail by the SRT at its `Challenge' meeting on 7 September. The conclusions of the SRT are described in the minutes of the meeting (Appendix 4) and are incorporated in the conclusions set out in section 6 (below).

3.6 Challenge

The need to challenge both the rationale and the management of the service has been at the heart of the process since the first admission team meetings in January and February, 2000.

The challenge subsequently presented by the Best Value Panel (Education)

Workshop on 5 May and at the time of the formal approval of the scoping report on 9 June 2000 has been crucial to the process.

The focus for the `challenge' environment has been the SRT, which set aside an entire day for a `challenge' meeting on 7 September 2000. At the meeting it re-considered the out-comes of the stakeholder consultation and considered the reports commissioned previously, described above and included in the various appendices to this report. Their conclusions are recorded in the minutes of the meeting (Appendix 4).

The challenges were further explored at the meeting on 13 October, which considered both the internal and external performance data and the first draft of the Best Value Review Report and Action Plan.

In addition the draft report was also considered by the EDMT at its meeting on 30 October 2000.

4. Member Input

Member input has been at two levels:

· The Best Value Panel (Education) at its workshop on 5 May 2000 and the formal meeting on 9 June gave substantial input to the shaping of the scoping report.

· Councillors Mrs A E Allbright (5 June), D A Kirk (24 July) and W Blackett (7 September and 13 October) attended SRT meetings. Their contribution - in addition to providing a different and vigorous style of external challenge - brought both a `non-professional' strategic view and an attention to local detail that was exacting in its demands.

5. Lessons Learned

· The early involvement of the entire team providing the service and a consistent effort to keep them informed and involved is crucial to establishing a culture in which the Best Value Review can succeed.

· The consultation process must be managed not only with careful reference to timescales, but with proper consideration of the sensitivities of those being consulted, especially those likely to be involved in repeated consultations because of their close links with a number of related services.

· The systematic collection of comparative data from other LEAs is slow and time consuming and needs to begin very early in the process if it has not been part of the routine data recording by the service under review.

· It is self-evident that the role of the SRT is crucial. The training and proper support of the team throughout, but especially in the earlier stages of the exercise is a very worthwhile investment.

· The inclusion of someone involved in providing the same or similar services in another LEA is a very valuable catalyst to the challenge element of the process. It provides professional knowledge and understanding combined with a capacity to question without the constraint of evident self-interest.

· The SRT regretted the repeated absence of the parent `representative' on the team since it was felt this could have brought a particularly robust challenge. This absence came about as a result of changes in the person's circumstances that occurred after he had agreed to be a member of the team and over which he had no control. Most difficult to manage was the degree of uncertainty involved in his availablity for meetings. This is something which all reviews need to be aware of in creating a review team.

6. Conclusions

6.1 Conclusions based on the Stakeholder Surveys

a. The surveys revealed substantial strength in depth, most notably:

· high approval ratings for the day-to-day and strategic service provision from headteachers and parents;

· high approval ratings for the information about admissions provided for parents (the school brochure) - part of the LEA's statutory duty;

· high approval ratings for the statutory consultation process;

· high approval ratings for the service input into the appeal process.

b. The specific areas identified for improvement in relation to parents appear to be:

· to maintain the momentum for continuous improvement of the schools brochure and, particularly, to place more robust emphasis on -

- the LEA's role as the Admissions Authority

- `preference' rather than `choice';

· to improve the information available to parents about catchment areas;

· to improve the advice and guidance available to parents about appeals by -

- improving documentation using the SEN leaflets as a working model,

- reducing timescales for and improving timekeeping at appeals,

- providing additional support through Citizen's Advice Bureaus and, possibly, parent advocacy services and parent partnerships,

- informing the Chief Executive's Department about parental concerns about the documentation provided for appeals and the geographical location and meeting rooms for appeal hearings;

· to improve contacts with all year R parents, but especially the `hard-to-reach', prior to the year R admissions round;

· to attempt further work to reduce if possible the number of multiple applications, which will include further development of co-ordination between different admission authorities;

· to attempt further work to reduce the risk to parents involved in applying to a non-catchment school, which may involve a review of any possible guarantee of a catchment school place (which, in view of the Rotherham judgement, may be strictly illegal).

c. The specific areas identified for improvement in relation to headteachers were:

· to collate all dispersed guidance into a single volume of guidance on admissions;

· introduce admissions training for newly appointed heads.

d. In relation to Appeal Panel Members, the technical improvements requested have been implemented.

e. The management issues identified by the admission team must be tackled urgently, particularly those in relation to staffing levels, the planning of school places, IT support, workloads and team management

f. The stakeholder surveys also identified wider ranging general issues that need to be pursued on a cross-cutting basis. These are

· the planning of school places

· the impact of the implementation of class size limits in key stage one

· the staggered start to year R

· the inability of schools to reserve places for parents who do not wish their child to start school before the statutory date;

· the co-ordination of admission arrangements with other admission authorities.

6.2 Conclusions based in internal performance comparison data

a. The wealth of detail produced by the compilation of internal data leads to a single inescapable conclusion: the LEA's ability to meet expressed parental preference is crucially dependent at secondary level on the number of surplus places in the year group rather than overall, and their geographical distribution, when parental perception is that schools offer a different standard of education.

b. It is also evident that, combined with information from the parent survey, the priority of most parents is for a good local school.

c. Despite these riders, the overall percentages of first preferences met is relatively high (94%, 98% and 99% respectively for secondary, infant and junior admissions).

d. Because the percentage rates are at the very high end of the scale future performance indicators should aim to reduce actual numbers rather than simple proportions of first preferences not met since this would be more meaningful.

e. It is also important to be aware that as the percentage of `first preferences met' gets closer to the very high nineties, the expenditure of effort and resources involved in clearing the final few percentage points may be out of all proportion to the possible outcome.

f. Statistics descriptive of county-wide factors hide important geographical variations where disparities are much greater.

6.3 Conclusions based on external comparators

a. Appendix 8 gives details of the performance indicators collated by the South West Admissions and Appeals Benchmarking Group. It is clear that there is considerable variation in the completeness and quality of the information provided. The Benchmarking Group will continue to refine these indicators to ensure that the database is trustworthy so that valid conclusions can be drawn. As it stands the observations put forward below must be viewed, for the time being, as indicative rather than conclusive. These figures were considered by the SRT at their meeting on 13 October, the minutes of which are included as Appendix 9. In summary the figures indicate the following (the figures at the end of each `bullet point' indicate Hampshire County Council's rank position out of the 19 LEAs in the benchmarking group):

· Hampshire is by far the largest LEA in the group: 85% larger than the next nearest LEA - total NOR of 173071 compared with 93259.

· Lowest percentage of primary schools oversubscribed: 3/19

· Lowest percentage of secondary schools oversubscribed: 8/19

· Primary first preferences met: 1/19

· Secondary first preferences met: 5/19

· Lowest percentage of primary surplus places: 4/19

· Lowest percentage of secondary surplus places: 5/19

· Primary appeals lodged as % of year group (lowest): 7/19

· Primary appeals heard as % of year group (lowest): 5/19

· Secondary appeals lodged as % of year group (lowest): 3/19

· Secondary appeals heard as % of year group (lowest): 3/19

· Lowest cost per child (including Chief Executive's costs): 2/19

· Lowest cost per child (excluding Chief Executive's costs): 1/19

b. The larger LEAs benefit from clear economies of scale.

c. Overall measures of surplus places do not seem to affect the LEA's ability to match first preferences with places: the surplus places specific to the year group are much more important.

d. On one measure Hampshire is the second most cost-effective authority; on a second it is the most cost-effective.

e. The percentage of primary, infant and junior first preferences met is amongst the highest. For secondary first preferences the percentage is high in relation to the level of surplus places available in the year group.

f. The level of appeals as a proportion of pupils in the year group is not high in Hampshire. The reduction in the number of appeals heard as opposed to lodged is high, especially in view of the very small surplus of places in the year group. However, the size of Hampshire (85% larger than the next largest authority in the Group) means that even this relatively low proportion of appeals lodged means that the actual number being heard tends to be high. (1.02% of 13791 is more than 9.65% of 1222 - comparing Hampshire with Torbay).

6.4 Competition and Challenge

The three conclusions presented here are based firmly in the research produced for and the extensive discussions that took place in the SRT meeting of 7 September. The minutes (Appendix 4) record the issues raised, the discussion and the conclusions reached.

a. Co-ordination, effective strategic planning, fairness, transparency and accountability are overwhelming arguments in support of service provision in its present or similar form.

b. At present the service should remain a County Council provision because of the very poorly developed supply side of the market in service provision, but there must be a rigorous examination of the possibilities for further out-sourcing of discrete parts of the service.

c. The aims and objectives of the service are acceptable and appropriate in their present basic form. Revision is required only in detailed points relating to the equity value statement and a more specific reference to accountability, cost effectiveness and competitiveness.

6.5 Equalities

It was noted that although there were elements of the service that strongly engaged with and supported the Council's equalities strategy, there were important elements missing. In particular -

· the monitoring of service use by gender, ethnicity and disability;

· direct consultation with all the groups identified by the Council strategy;

· the monitoring of staff training in equality issues.

These should be reviewed in detail.

6.6 Sustainability

Although the admissions service makes only an indirect contribution to sustainability issues, those potential areas of action identified by the report to the SRT should be pursued. Essentially these are:

· continued monitoring of first preferences met;

· continued monitoring of out-catchment admissions;

· regular stakeholder survey to encourage active involvement;

· continued monitoring of the number of children without a school place in the September following the school admission round.

6.7 Crime and Disorder

Similarly, the admissions service contribution in this area is at best indirect. The possible actions identified in the report to the SRT should be implemented.

6.8 e-Government

The service already makes substantial use of electronic media in the provision of information to parents about schools and the admissions process, which is of great value to out-county and overseas enquirers. It does not appear to be extensively used by parents already in the system or those likely to use local infant/primary schools where they live. Better `low-tech' solutions would appear to have a more cost-effective role for these parents for the time being.

However, it is essential that electronic systems to monitor and track pupil placement are introduced rapidly and rigorously into the administrative processes of the service. This will maintain up-to-date information about the availability of school places and the progress of individual pupil applications through the admissions process at key stages of transfer.

7. Recommendations

7.1 The service improvements identified by the stakeholder surveys of parents and headteachers should be implemented.

· Continued improvement of the schools information brochure;

· Improvement of the catchment area information available to parents;

· Investigate ways of improving contacts with Year R parents prior to the admissions round taking place;

· Further research should be undertaken to reduce the number of multiple applications;

· Further research should be undertaken to reduce the risk to parents of applying to a non-catchment school;

· Office procedures must be reviewed so that the time between the lodging of an appeal and the hearing can be consistently maintained at 30 working days.

· The support for parents at appeal should be improved;

· There should be a single volume of comprehensive guidance about admissions for all headteachers;

· There should be training for newly appointed heads in admissions procedures;

7.2 The technical improvements in the LEAs statements to Appeal Panels identified by the appeal panel members should be implemented immediately.

7.3 The following actions should be implemented to maintain the LEA's position in the top quartile of performance indicators for admissions:

· performance indicators should be monitored on an annual basis;

· further research should be undertaken to establish if any other discrete elements of the service can be cost-effectively out-sourced;

· the service should continue its efforts to improve the quality of benchmarking information provided by the South West Admissions and Appeals Benchmarking Group;

7.4 The service improvements identified by the review group's consideration of Equalities, Sustainability and Crime and Disorder should be implemented.

7.5 The implementation of the Unique Pupil Record system to monitor and track admissions, pupil placements and school rolls is an urgent requirement to maintain and improve service provision to all stakeholders.

7.6 The team management issues identified by the review need to be resolved urgently, particularly to establish a viable staff structure and to recruit and retain suitable staff.

8. Action Plan

The action plan has been developed to embody all the conclusions and recommendations made by the Service Review Team. However, the major problem for the admissions service in describing an action plan is that many of the factors which directly impact on performance are beyond the responsibility of the team. For example, the provision of school places, particularly the geographical variation in the number of surplus places at secondary level, fundamentally affects how many first preferences can be met. Nothing the service can do will change that outcome. In the same way, decisions about the installation of costly IT systems is not one the service team itself can make, even though it is their belief that this is a fundamental requirement if service quality is to be maintained and improved.

Similarly, some `service improvements' will appear to affect performance indicators adversely. For example, improved information about schools and admissions procedures tends to increase the number of preferences for other than catchment schools; improved information about and support for parents at appeal will increase both the number of appeals lodged and the number likely to be carried through to a hearing. Equally, the nature of the LEA's admission policy has a direct bearing on its ability, for example, to reduce the number of appeals. LEAs which claim to `guarantee' a place in a catchment school (we believe this to be illegal since, to all intents and purposes, it allocates places ahead of the expression of a preference, contrary to a recent court ruling) show a significant reduction in number of appeals.

Perhaps one of the most important characteristics of the service revealed by the Best Value Review - apart from the high levels of client satisfaction - is that neither Hampshire County Council's school admission service, nor that of other LEAs, maintains, as a matter of routine, the systematic collation of relevant performance indicators. The experience of this service in trying to lead the development of such indicators suggests that it will be at least another year before fully reliable comparators will be agreed and possibly a further year before complete sets of data will be provided by all LEAs.

Timescales within the `annual' admissions round will also affect the target dates. It is essentially an overlapping, two-year cycle from consultation, through the preparation of information and advice to final implementation of the admissions to schools. It therefore means that changes in the procedures will, in certain circumstances take two years to work through the system.

The Action Plan detailed here therefore tries to take realistic account of these constraints.