HAMPSHIRE BILINGUAL LEARNERS SUPPORT SERVICE
FINAL REPORT FOR BEST VALUE REVIEW
7 FEBRUARY 2001
1. Summary
1.1 Overview
This document reports the findings of the Review Group which
was established in
September 2000 to consider the role of the Bilingual Learners
Support Service - supporting ethnic minority achievement. The
service is a demand led service aiming to respond to the
language needs of minority ethnic pupils at risk of
underachievement with the key aim of raising the attainment of
minority ethnic pupils. The service provides support to
schools, parents and pupils to meet the needs of new arrivals.
The service offers schools support on ethnic minority
achievement policy and data collection and analysis. The
service is funded in 2000-2001 through Ethnic Minority and
Traveller Achievement Grant (EMTAG) within DfEE standards fund
(57%) and by Hampshire County Council (43%). DfEE funding is
not secure after April 2002.
1.2 Key outcomes
The key outcomes are that this non-statutory service should be
provided. The county council service should be continued. The
service is underfunded. However, the 'best service for pupils'
should be described. The inherent tension in service delivery
should be addressed.
On the one hand the service is expected by the DfEE to meet the
needs of all ethnic minority pupils at risk of underachievement
with a focus on policy, data analysis in schools alongside
innovative projects. See attached targets. (Appendix 1)
On the other hand the service has been requested by
headteachers to meet the needs of an increasing number of newly
arrived pupils for whom English is an additional language. The
action plan includes consideration of re-structuring of the
service to describe the 'best service for pupils' and to
address the tension within the potential re-structuring.
2. Service under review
2.1 Scope of the service
2.1.1 Introduction
The service provides support for schools with isolated pupils
for whom English is an additional language. The average number
per school is three. The service aims to provide two days
support per year for new arrivals. The service aims to provide
regular support for other pupils using available data to
establish needs of ethnic minority pupils at risk of
underachievement in the following order of priority:
1. pupils for whom English is an additional language (EAL) at
risk of underachievement in failing schools
2. EAL pupils at risk of underachievement in schools where the
authority is targeting literacy support
3. EAL pupils at risk of underachievement in schools other
than in categories 1 and 2
4. ethnic minority pupils (including those with special
educational needs) in schools in categories 1 and 2
5. ethnic minority pupils in schools other than in categories
1 and 2
In practice the service is generally unable to support ethnic
minority pupils other than pupils for whom English is an
additional language at risk of underachievement. Schools
request support for new arrivals and it is possible to meet the
two day allocation at the expense of regular support,
introduction of initiatives notified to DfEE in action plan and
whole school policy development. The service delivers a
home-school community project and an interagency project
through Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) grant with matched
funding from Hampshire County Council for Hampshire Education
Areas 3 and 4 (Fareham, Gosport, Havant and Waterlooville).
2.1.2 Expenditure
The service is funded from year to year with a Hampshire County
Council commitment for their contribution (43% in 2000-2001,
47% for 2001-2002) until 2002. The DfEE contribution for
2001-2002 will be £250,513 of which £150,000 will be for a
central service.
Resources budget for 1999-2000 was £6,938.
Training budget for 1999-2000 was £1,500.
From 1996 to 1999, the numbers of pupils notified doubled. The
number of pupils worked
with increased three times, the number of schools nearly
doubled and the number of schools new to receiving bilingual
learners in 1999 was nearly as many as the total number of
schools for 1996. See increase in need 1996-2000 (Appendix 2).
The number of new arrivals in September 2000 (105) constituted
a 30% increase over September 1999.
2.1.3 Staffing
In 1999-2000 there were 6.6 FTE specialist teachers, 6.6 FTE
bilingual assistants, .1 FTE cross-cultural counsellor. There
was also 1 FTE home-school-community project officer (in Areas
3 and 4 - Fareham, Gosport, Havant and Waterlooville only).
In 2000-2001 there are 7.4 FTE specialist teachers, 6.75 FTE
bilingual assistants, .3 FTE cross-cultural counsellor, 1 FTE
home-school-community project officer (Areas 3 and 4),
1 FTE interagency project officer (Areas 3 and 4).
See attached structure charts (Appendix 3)
2.1.4 Service Delivery Outputs
The service worked with 597 pupils speaking 51 languages in 203
schools in 1999-2000. The number of new arrivals given at least
two days support was 266. Work on policy development was
carried out in 39 schools. Home-school-community SRB funded
project worked with 26 pupils, 13 parents and 5 pilot schools.
There is a degree of turbulence in the pupil population
particularly in Aldershot and for asylum seekers in Fareham.
1
3. The Review Process
3.1 Goal
The review evaluates efficiency, effectiveness and economy of
the provision of the Bilingual Learners Support Service.
3.1.1 Objectives
The review aims to identify service improvements, explore
comparative costs and service delivery with other LEAs, consult
stakeholders on the current service delivery, challenge
existing practices and seek alternative methods of service
delivery.
3.1.2 Approach
The review used existing information and consultation
mechanisms already in place to evaluate current service
provision. The review consulted stakeholders and compared unit
costs and staffing structure with other authorities of a
similar size and nature as Hampshire. The review team were
provided with all the relevant information before two meetings
held in September and October 2000.
The review team consisted of
Councillor Allbright (attended first review meeting)
Councillor Carruthers (attended second review meeting)
Professor Jill Bourne, University of Southampton
Phil Hamill, Headteacher Talavera Junior School
John Heath, Principal Education Welfare Officer
Ian Massey, Hampshire County Council Intercultural inspector
Jebba Noor, parent representative
Liz Statham, BLSS team leader
Inspector David Western, Community safety, Hampshire
constabulary
3.1.3 Challenges
Should we be providing this non-statutory service?
Currently this service is being provided in line with the
authority's aims of supporting effective inclusive education
and raising achievement, school and parental wishes. The
authority would be challenged on equal opportunities grounds if
it did not provide this service as it is required to observe
statutory requirements of the Race Relations Act 1976 and Human
Rights
Act 2000.
Is the county council the best supplier and most appropriate
supplier?
For 1999-2000 the authority applied for DfEE Ethnic Minority
Achievement Grant (EMAG) funding and asked Hampshire schools
whether they wanted to buy back devolved funding for a service
over and above a central service (£150,000). Three Hampshire
schools opted not to buy back provision in 1999-2000.
For 2000-2001 the authority was able to retain a central
service as the DfEE stated in standards fund documentation that
money on top of £150,000 could be held back provided the
additional money was used for specialist teaching and refugee
support. (The DfEE Standards Fund 2000-2001)
Following consultation with headteachers BLSS has delivered a
'central service' for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.
Currently the DfEE encourages training and experience for staff
undertaking work with ethnic minority pupils in schools. There
are currently approximately six teachers working outside the
service team in Hampshire schools who have taken the
2-Certificates in Teaching English Across the Curriculum in
Multilingual Schools (formerly RSA Diploma) - the team's
baseline specialist qualification). There are currently no
bilingual assistants employed by Hampshire schools, to the
review team's knowledge. The team's baseline specialist
qualification is the Certificate of Higher Education in Ethnic
Minority Support (CHEEMS). The team has wanted to submit a
portfolio for the Investors in People Award (IIP) but has been
asked to wait until all the sections in the Education
Department apply for the Award at the same time.
Having a cross-cultural counsellor within an EMTAG team is, to
the best of the review team's knowledge, unique to Hampshire
and highly valued by schools.
Are partnerships with other providers possible and/or
desirable?
Currently the service has BLSS contacts in schools but these
contacts often take responsibility for EAL pupils as part of
another job, eg Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator or
deputy without additional recognition or payment. The service
has links with community languages service, educational
psychology service, social services, educational welfare
service, speech and language service, Vosper Thorneycroft
Southern careers service, Refugee Action, universities and
16-19 colleges. There are proposed links to Citizens Advice
Bureaux within the SRB funded interagency project for Areas 3
and 4. Neither the BLSS contacts in schools nor the other
educational agencies are able to meet the needs of ethnic
minority pupils at risk of underachievement on their own. BLSS
needs to work with and often needs to inform the other
specialist services about the needs of ethnic minority pupils
at risk of underachievement if the work of both services is to
be effective.
Are there service efficiencies that can be made?
Currently the service staff travel to schools, as needed, for
work with new arrivals, providing training, regular support,
and policy development. There are two bases, the main one at
Basingstoke and a local one in Havant. The Basingstoke base is
in a school. There are advantages in terms of access but
disadvantages in terms of face to face links with other staff
from other sectors of the education department. Contacts with
other educational services and office services usually have to
be made by phone, fax or Hampshire County Council Intranet
(Hantsnet). The Havant base is in the Havant local education
office which eases links with other services. Specialist
teachers have meetings once a week in Basingstoke and the whole
team meets there once a term. There are patch meetings for
bilingual assistants every half-term and parents meetings on an
annual basis, also in patches. Information for parents is
available but not yet in a systematic way when a new arrival is
admitted. Staff from schools visit the centres for meetings and
resources. The service has Hantsnet but not IT2000. It has
Internet Access through 1998-1999 National Grid for Learning
(NGfL) funding but no NGfL funding for 1999-2000 or 2000-2001.
The service is working towards a website which will provide
on-line access to guidance. The home-school-community project
has a database of interpreters and translators and currently
interpreting and translating is carried out face to face or on
paper. Other authorities are developing on-line systems.
Should additional resources be made available to enhance the
service?
The service cannot currently meet the demands made on it. The
service has struggled to provide 2 days per new arrival and as
a result has not been able to provide the amount of regular
support agreed with schools in 1999-2000 or to innovate as
requested by the DfEE,
eg to look at exclusions of ethnic minority pupils from special
schools, transition of
Afro-Caribbean pupils from Year 6 to Year 7 and intercultural
literacy at KS1.
The DfEE expects LEAs to:
_ keep under review the attainment and performance of all
ethnic groups, including EAL pupils;
_ support schools in the development and implementation of
their policies in relation to the grant; and in setting targets
which feed into the LEA's targets and its Education Development
Plan. Disseminate best practice reflecting innovation and
successful provision in the Authority and elsewhere;
_ in partnership with the LEA Inspectorate and Advisory
Service, as appropriate, monitor progress and provide schools
with regular reports about how minority ethnic groups are
achieving in relation to the LEA's targets;
_ support schools in providing continuing professional
development for staff supported by this grant; and ensure that
mainstream staff have access to in-service training, in
relation to equal opportunities, linguistic diversity; and to
implement strategies to raise minority ethnic pupils'
attainment;
_ satisfy themselves that EAL teachers supported by this
grant have received training in the National Literacy Strategy;
_ make provision, as appropriate, to secure improved access,
attendance and educational achievement for Travellers;
_ support schools in providing for the on-going education of
refugee pupils and co-ordinate support services across the LEA
to meet exceptional needs;
_ put in place effective arrangements for co-ordinating other
relevant LEA services and initiatives designed to meet the
particular needs of minority ethnic pupils.
Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Grant Standards Fund
(September 1999), DfEE
There is an expectation from the National Literacy Strategy
that there will be joint Hampshire Literacy/EMTAG training for
teachers in schools in 2000-2001. It has been possible for BLSS
staff to deliver training to Hampshire County Council literacy
consultants but further training needs to be considered in the
Education Development Plan for 2001-2002.
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) expects the
LEA to:
_ ensure that its Education Development Plan takes account of
the needs and skills of EAL learners in the community and sets
targets for these pupils which are challenging and attainable;
_ monitor and analyse the performance of EAL learners from
2
different ethnic and linguistic groups, based on evidence from
schools;
_ make available appropriate training for governors, for
senior and middle management, and for class, subject and
specialised teachers, to enable schools to fulfil their roles
and responsibilities for EAL learners;
_ work in partnership with all schools and governing bodies
to achieve best fit between the availability and allocation of
specialist resources and the needs of EAL learners;
_ monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of its specialist
support provision for EAL learners;
_ provide access to appropriate translation and
interpretation services, in particular to support effective
home-school communication and partnerships;
_ monitor and evaluate effective practice and use of
resources and disseminate the findings to schools
from ' A language in common': assessing English as an
additional language (2000) QCA
These expectations have not been fully met.
The Intercultural inspector has identified time through the
Education Development Plan (EDP) to pick up on an issue from
the key aspects of the service development plan - developing a
network of specialist staff in schools for
home-school-community links in one area of the county - and is
also looking at refugee issues within the EDP.
3.1.4 Compare
It has been possible to compare services with four other
services in Hampshire's comparable authorities but only in a
limited way - service costs divided by number of pupils and
pupil-teacher ratio (Appendix 4). Given the DfEE impetus to
devolving services to schools for this area of work for
1999-2000, all of the authorities have devolved at least some
of the service to schools, and all but Hampshire have devolved
at least some of the service to schools for 2000-2001.
There is no single authority with the same pattern of
devolution as any other within a sample of five authorities.
When you look at the DfEE's charts showing targets for ethnic
minority achievement from 1999-2002, (Appendix 1), there is no
baseline data and so it is impossible to assess the starting
points in the comparable authorities. In addition the very
small numbers involved from a statistical perspective make it
very difficult to make any meaningful comparisons. In
Hampshire's case for instance, schools were asked in 1999 to
predict end of KS2 results for 2002 on the basis of the pupils
who were currently in Year 3 in Spring 1999. In Hampshire's
case there was no authority analysis of data in Autumn 1999 and
therefore no analysis of actuals against targets and no
revision of predictions to take account of new arrivals. The
comparison chart shows that the cost per pupil (£460) is the
lowest and the pupil-teacher ratio (92) is the second lowest
compared with other authorities. (Appendix 4). There are
particular reasons, outside BLSS's control why schools have not
been asked for further data. Views on the role of attached
inspectors were sought in an additional authority with a high
number of asylum seekers. See comparison chart (Appendix 4).
It was established that attached inspectors in that authority
had not been monitoring regularly but that officers had been
monitoring on a regular basis.
3.1.5 Consult
Headteachers and governors have been consulted through the
headteachers' consultative group. Class teachers of classes
where bilingual pupils are educated have opportunities to
contribute through reviews of agreements made with schools and
as part of the Hampshire Inspection and Advisory Service (HIAS)
monitoring of a sample of schools. The findings of the HIAS
monitoring report for 1999-2000 are as follows:
Recommendations of HIAS monitoring
_ BLSS and the LEA continue to develop a system for recording
data by ethnicity in order to ensure that resources to support
underachievement are targeted appropriately.
_ Ensure that BLSS staff are supported in the use of targets
and learning outcomes for pupils.
_ Provide opportunities for dissemination of good practice to
mainstream colleagues to improve the quality of teaching and
provision for their EAL pupils. This could be through an annual
conference, networks of teachers, or INSET in schools.
_ In order to develop mainstream teachers' skills, their
attendance on accredited courses could be linked to an increase
in deployment of staff.
_ The role of attached inspector in supporting target setting
for ethnic minority pupils' needs to be clarified.
Hampshire BLSS Monitoring Report 1999-2000, HIAS
Parents of bilingual pupils have been consulted through
parents' meetings held in ten schools (11 - 15 September 2000).
33 parents attended (Appendix 5).
Bilingual Learners Support Service staff carried out an
analysis looking at strengths, area for improvement,
opportunities and challenges at the team day of 4 September
2000. The findings were that the team felt they had a range of
strengths which could be built. The staff were aware of the
challenges facing the team.
3.1.6 Compete
This is a non-statutory service, funded by Hampshire County
Council and DfEE standards fund grant. In relation to training,
there are also potential competitors from other authorities and
institutions, eg distance learning specialist courses at
Birmingham University. Where refugees are involved, because
they have such a high profile, English as a Foreign Language
teachers have advertised on Hantsnet and offered to provide an
intensive English induction for schools, undercutting BLSS.
Such intensive English is, in the team's view, inappropriate
for bilingual learners whether asylum seekers or not. Two of
the three schools who did not buy back with devolved money used
their own staff or bought in additional staff. Small amounts of
money are not necessarily directed at required needs. It has
been possible to consider private sector or other local
authority funding of a central service but only in a limited
way. It is not possible to establish whether any of the
comparable authorities (Appendix 4) could provide the service
currently provided by BLSS for a similar cost. It is unlikely.
There is no indication that private agencies have an interest
in running central EMTAG services.
3.1.7 Cost of review
The cost of the review is approximately 27 person days.
3.2 Council strategies
3.2.1 Sustainability
There are several challenges to the service: the service now
knows it has received DfEE funding for 2001-2002 but at 53% of
the total not 57% as for 2000-2001. This is a cut in effect.
Hampshire's contribution has to be confirmed in January 2001.
Any downturn in total budget would not affect the particular
year but would cause problems the following year. This
uncertainty means that good well trained staff may go
elsewhere. The review team commented that the service should be
enabled to get on with a job and that the authority needed to
consider the implications if the service was not sustained.
Matched funding is needed to maintain SRB funded projects -
home-school-community and interagency, beyond March 2002.
3.2.2 Crime and disorder
BLSS has had an impact on preventing crime and disorder and the
review team's view is that the service has a key role in
inclusion: ensuring that ethnic minority young people in
society do not feel marginalised and working with all young
people to facilitate integration. The review team made the
point that the service adds value in the long term by helping
to ensure that ethnic minority pupils secure further education,
training and employment.
3.2.3 E-government
The review team noted that NGfL funding was not currently
available for the service. The service has not yet been able to
develop a website. The service is not yet on IT2000. New
Opportunities Funding (NOF) should be allocated to BLSS staff
for computer training but is not yet available. Data collection
is being carried out on paper for 2000-2001 but it is hoped
that the BLSS specification will be included in the common
pupil record database. The issue of obtaining sponsorship was
discussed, eg for parents information booklet, possibly
on-line.
3.2.4 Equalities
The BLSS service exists to help ensure that ethnic minority
pupils at risk of underachievement have the chance to receive
an education not less than that received by the majority.
3.3 Implementation
Implementation of key local and national policies is part of
the Best Value process. The emphasis on data collection and
analysis as part of Best Value process is fundamental to being
able to implement DfEE requirements on ethnic minority
achievement.
4. Member input
The review group welcomed the positive contributions and
interest shown by Councillor Allbright and Councillor
3
Carruthers. Further involvement in the work of the service
would be warmly welcomed.
4
5. Lessons learnt
It was not easy to obtain quantitative and qualitative
benchmarking data because of the different directions that
authorities have taken with respect to devolution. This
highlights the need for a credible formula and availability of
national data on ethnic minority achievement. Nevertheless
discussions with staff from other authorities were helpful for
planning the future direction of the service. It was not
possible to consult with the large range of bodies suggested
for Hampshire and only the key bodies - team, parents,
headteachers were directly consulted. (Appendices 5).
Links with Southampton University were welcomed. Professor Jill
Bourne, co-author of 'Making the Difference', a report of a
research project on successful multi-ethnic schools joined the
review group. It was also particularly useful that Ms Jebba
Noor, a 'sister' in 'loco parentis', was on the review team as
she has represented her parents for her younger siblings and
has been through the school process in the UK herself.
Inspector David Western provided a valuable 'outside education
' perspective. All members of the review group provided a range
of fundamental challenges.
The findings of the HIAS monitoring report for 1999-2000,
comments from HMI in
March 2000, team analysis, parental comments, headteachers
representatives comments have been taken into account.
6. Conclusions
The non-statutory service should be provided. The county
council service should be continued. The 'best service for
pupils' should be described. The inherent tension in service
delivery should be addressed. The service is underfunded.
6.1 The outcomes of the review process
6.1.1 The non-statutory service should be provided. The
provision is essential
The review group considered that the added emphasis you get
from someone who can speak the same language as pupils is
essential. From consultation the majority of parents feel that
the service is very supportive and all support the service's
encouragement of bilingual development.
6.1.2 The county council service should be continued
The review group felt that there is a limited pool of expertise
outside the county council service. The amount of money that
would be devolved to schools would be so small that schools
cannot provide the same level of service that schools get at
the moment. If there was no support from the service pupils
would effectively be immersed into English and learning as per
the 1960s if schools did not address the issues. It is
currently difficult to obtain accurate data on progress and
attainment. Nevertheless the HIAS monitoring report for
1999-2000 states that 'all mainstream staff in the schools
visited were convinced of the value of BLSS staff and the
impact they made on pupils' progress'. The review group was
aware that schools would struggle with integration and baseline
assessment initially. If schools took the service tasks on
fully they could train staff but this would not be at the same
level as BLSS staff. Schools would be faced with the same
difficulty of finding a professional bilingual assistant, eg 30
miles away, as the service is.
6.1.3 The 'best value for pupils' should be described. The
inherent tension in service delivery should be addressed
Using the data available the review group highlighted the
tension between meeting requests from headteachers which are
primarily to support the needs of newly arrived pupils for whom
English is an additional language at risk of underachievement
and requirements of the DfEE which are to raise the achievement
of ethnic minority pupils at risk of underachievement across
the county.
6.1.4 The service is underfunded
Using feedback from stakeholders and data the review group
considered that the service was underfunded. The service is
unable to meet the needs of newly arrived pupils for whom
English is an additional language alongside meeting DfEE
requirements. The service also needs to involve other agencies,
eg schools, attached inspectors in meeting the needs of ethnic
minority pupils at risk of underachieving. To describe and
implement the 'best service for pupils' effectively requires
additional funding.
6.2 Options for service delivery and improvement
The service has undergone frequent reorganisation in recent
years: in 1997 at the time of single unitary authority
changeover with the incorporation of Area 6 into the remit; in
February 1999 with the incorporation into inclusion branch and
change of line manager; in April 1999 with the introduction of
the DfEE's Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant, and support for
early years for the first time; in September 1999 with the
incorporation of Areas 3 and 4; and in April 2000 with the
introduction of the DfEE's Ethnic Minority and Traveller
Achievement Grant. Staff have been consulted on all these
changes. Nevertheless the Best Value Review has highlighted the
tension between meeting the needs of new arrivals and working
towards long-term raising of achievement at the present level
of resourcing. Priorities have to be re-considered and staff
will be consulted again. The service strives to maintain
quality given the demands to widen from pupils for whom English
is an additional language to ethnic minority pupils, to work
with increased numbers, and to innovate as required by the
DfEE.
The roles of various parts of the authority's education service
need to be clarified. Until now BLSS has played a considerable
part in the following; assessing new arrivals; providing
regular support in classrooms; liaising between home and
school; informing agencies about ethnic minority pupils;
providing advice on policy - a DfEE requirement; providing
interpreters and translators if the service works with the
school; providing cross-cultural counselling; training
bilingual assistants, monolingual classroom assistants,
mainstream teachers and supporting school office staff or BLSS
contacts when there are queries about data. In addition, in
2000-2002, the service will collect and analyse ethnic minority
data for the authority. The service has also encouraged pupils
to attend community language classes and/or take GCSEs in
community languages, parents to attend English for speakers of
other languages (ESOL) classes, and acted as co-ordinator for
the anti-racist Heartstone project. The Standards Fund guidance
for 2001-2001 states that the Ethnic Minority Achievement grant
'will be allocated to LEAs by a formula based on the number of
EAL and ethnic minority pupils and the number of pupils
eligible for free school meals (with a guarantee that no LEA's
allocation will be less than in 2000-2001). Of the total, 15%
or £150,000, whichever is greater, may be retained to provide
central services. The balance must be devolved by a
needs-based, fair and transparent distribution mechanism which
may be varied at local discretion. (DfEE Standards Fund
Circular 2001-2002)
In a sense the move towards devolution of funding as required
by the DfEE is forcing BLSS's hand. A good deal of the
consultation and first review meeting was taken up discussing
this issue in isolation. In 1999-2000 the authority had to ask
schools if they wanted to buy back into a central service. For
2000-2001 it was possible to keep the whole team as a central
service and not devolve to schools. For 2001-2002 the authority
will be required to ask schools again if they wish to buy back.
The review group would like 'the best service for pupils' to be
described and proposed to headteachers. It is clear that in
other isolated authorities which have devolved their services
to schools there is a risk of schools not even taking up the
money to use themselves as it is too much trouble, thereby
leaving ethnic minority pupils to fend for themselves.
QCA's document 'A Language in Common' recommends that the
authority makes available appropriate training ....to enable
schools to fulfil their roles and responsibilities (See 3.1.3).
Currently the service offers training for school staff when the
school admits new arrivals, classroom assistants and mainstream
specialist staff but not governors and not explicitly senior
and middle management.
The review group has looked at proposed devolution models (see
Appendix 6) but it is the description of the 'best service for
pupils' with proposed allocations using Hampshire formula,
which will go to headteachers so that they can decide whether
to buy back or not for April 2001. In any event the
review group liked the option of asking possibly 10 schools
interested in devolution if they would be interested in working
5
with BLSS on a pilot basis. The service would not have to go
down the full devolution road after 2002 in an isolated
situation at which time it would be difficult to re-instate a
full service.
6.3 Overall target for future performance
The review group agreed that an overall target cannot be
established for the service until the 'best service for pupils'
is described, the formula for allocation of devolved money to
schools is planned and schools have decided whether or not to
buy back a central service. It should be able to establish
targets for the authority as soon as the data system is in
place.
6.4 Cross-cutting issues
The review group began to consider links with other corporate
services but these were not developed within the scope of the
review. There are potential links that could be developed,
eg with police but not at the current level of funding.
7. Summary Recommendations
7.1 This non-statutory service should be continued
7.2 The 'best service' for pupils should be described.
7.3 An increase in funding should be sought
The overall aim of the action plan must be to address the
complex demands on a service aiming to meet the needs of a very
diverse, transient group of pupils, their parents and schools
in a changing national climate to ensure equal opportunities.
Recommendation 7.1. Outcomes 6.1.1 and 6.1.2. The non-statutory
service should be provided. The county council service should
be continued
A system of collecting and analysing ethnic minority
achievement data needs to be in place to inform growth bid,
deployment of staff for best service for pupils.
7.1.1 Ensure that the authority is collecting and
analysing ethnic minority achievement data. Feed into the
common pupil record planning. Use formula and data for
prioritising service foci. Recommendation 7.1.1 relates to
3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.3
7.1.2 Involve attached inspectors in monitoring quality of
service. Recommendation 7.1.2 relates to 3.1.5
Recommendation 7.2. Outcome 6.1.3. The 'best service for
pupils' should be described. The inherent tension in service
delivery should be addressed
It is important that the action plan takes account of ways in
which schools can take more responsibility for ethnic minority
pupils achievement. The action plan needs to take account of
the key role of attached inspectors stressed by the review
group.
7.2.1 Consult with headteachers on the 'best service for
pupils' with a view to an April 2001 start. Recommendation
7.2.1 relates to 6.2
7.2.2 Incorporate ways of increasing responsibilities to
schools. Recommendation 7.2.2 relates to 3.1.5
7.2.3 Consult with staff about proposals for 2001-2002.
Recommendation 7.2.3 relates
to 6.2
7.2.4 Develop projects to meet the needs of ethnic minority
pupils at risk of underachievement. Recommendation 7.2.4
relates to 2.1.1
7.2.5 Work on innovative initiatives outlined in DfEE Action
Plan 1999-2000/2000-2001. Recommendation 7.2.5 relates to
3.1.3
7.2.6 Maintain support for new arrivals/early years/asylum
seekers. Recommendation 7.2.6 relates to 2.1.1. and 6.2
7.2.7 Provide service for asylum seekers in schools.
Recommendation 7.2.7 relates to 3.1.6
7.2.8 Maintain counselling service. Recommendation 7.2.8
relates to 3.1.3
7.2.9 Pursue NGfL funding to develop website. Recommendation
7.2.9 relates to 3.1.3, 3.2.3
7.2.10 Consider publicity needs particularly parents.
Recommendation 7.2.10 relates to 3.1.3, 3.2.3
7.2.11 Investigate on-line interpreting and translating.
Recommendation 7.2.11 relates to 3.1.3
7.2.12 Develop literacy training between the level of new
arrival conferencing and specialist qualifications in
schools. Recommendation 7.2.12 relates to 6.2
7.2.13 Develop networks for home-school issues. Recommendation
7.2.13 relates to 3.1.3
7.2.14 Pursue Investors in People (IIP). Recommendation
7.2.14 relates to 3.1.3
7.2.15 Consider a base within education department offices.
Recommendation 7.2.15 relates to 3.1.3
Recommendation 7.3. Outcome 6.1.4. An increase in funding
should be sought.
6
7.3.1 Put in growth bid to LEA and investigate DfEE funding.
Recommendation 7.3.1 relates to 6.1.4
7.3.2 Maintain matched finding for SRB projects.
Recommendation 7.3.2 relates to 3.2.1
7
8. Executive Summary
The Best Value review team have concluded that the
non-statutory service should be provided. The County Council
service should be continued. The Bilingual Learners Support
Service cannot currently meet the demands placed on it. It is
under-funded. The review group challenged the service to
address the tension between working with schools to meet the
needs of all ethnic minority pupils at risk of underachievement
and meeting the needs of an increasing number of newly arrived
pupils for whom English is an Additional Language
The key recommendations of the Best Value review group were:
7.1 This non-statutory service should be continued.
7.2 The 'best service' for pupils should be described.
73 An increase in funding should be sought.
The 'best service' for pupils will be described to headteachers
on 24 January 2001. The DfEE requires the authority to devolve
funding. Following the meeting with headteachers a letter will
go to schools outlining the amount (based on a formula
according to need) of money that each school would receive if
the service funding over and above £150,000 was devolved.
Schools will let the Education Department know by 9 March if
they are going to take devolved funding or if they are going to
buy back into a central service for April 2001 - March 2002.
A bid for growth of 25% has been submitted to the Education
Department for April 2001 -
2002.
The proposal that will be put to headteachers on 24 January is
that a majority of headteachers wanting to buy back would
secure a central service. This central service would consist of
three strands:
1. Projects for underachieving groups to increase achievement,
as requested by DfEE
2. Support for new arrivals as requested by headteachers
3. Training underpinning the projects and support for new
arrivals, schools would take responsibility for new arrivals
and increasing achievement of ethnic minority groups
Total current funding for staffing = £355,950 Total staffing funding with
potential growth = £449,938
Underachieving New Arrivals Training
groups
Minimum Project Minimum New Focus on Training -
Option for Arrivals 25% school
1 underachieving responsibility
groups 25%
50%
£88,988 current £88,988 current £ 177,975 current
£112,485 growth
£112,485 growth £224,969 growth
41 days x 12 1.5 days per 4 days per school
underachieving pupil for training
ethnic minority
group
Minimum Project Focus on New Minimum Focus on
Option for Arrivals Training-school
2 underachieving responsibility
groups 25% 50%
25%
£88,988 current £177,975 current £88,988 current
£112,485 growth
£224,969 growth £112,485 growth
41 days x 12 3 days per pupil 2 days per school
underachieving for training
ethnic minority
groups
Focus on Project Minimum New Minimum Training -
Option for Arrivals 25% school
3 underachieving responsibility
groups 25%
50%
£177,975 current £88,988 current £88,988 current
£224,969 growth £112,485 growth £112,485 growth
82 days x 12 1.5 days per 2 days per school
underachieving pupil for training
ethnic minority
groups
Focus on Project Focus on New Focus on Training -
Option for Arrivals school
4 underachieving 33% responsibility
groups 33% 33%
£117,464 current £117,464 current £117,464 current
£141,480 growth £141,480 growth £141,480 growth
54 days x 12 2 days per pupil 2.7 days per school
underachieving
ethnic minority
groups
Any of these options would meet Best Value recommendation 7.2
the 'best service for pupils' should be described. All the
options could be further analysed with differing ratios of
specialist teacher to bilingual assistants.
Appendices
1) Targets sheet from Hampshire BLSS DfEE Action Plan
1999-2000
2) Hampshire BLSS - Increase in Need 1996-2000
8
3) Hampshire BLSS structure chart
4) Local Education Authority comparison charts
5) BLSS parents meetings
6) Draft BLSS Action Plan
9
Top of this page
Hantsweb Homepage