EDUCATION COMMITTEE
22ND JANUARY 1991
ADULT CONTINUING EDUCATION SERVICE - FURTHER CONSULTATION ON REVIEW
OF MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES
REPORT OF THE COUNTY EDUCATION OFFICER
Responsible Officer - Andrew Seber, Deputy County Education Officer
Summary
1 This paper reports the outcome of the consultation carried out
by the four assistant county education officers with elected
members in their divisions, following the decision at the
meeting of the Education Policy Sub Committee held on 20th
November 1990 to defer discussion of the issue in order to
allow the ACEOs to review their respective proposals and for
further consultation with elected members to take place.
2 The Revenue Budget paper on this agenda contains proposals
which could fundamentally affect the resources available for
adult continuing education in 1991/92. Consideration of the
management structures put forward in this paper must,
therefore, be in the context of the budgetary decisions.
The Consultation Meetings
3 Detailed reports of the meetings held appear as appendices 1 to
4 to this report, but may be summarised as follows:
(i) Central Division : Members supported fully the Assistant County
Education Officer's original recommendation that Peter Symonds
Sixth Form College should assume responsibility for the
management of the Central Hampshire Institute
(ii) North East Division: Members supported strongly the proposal
for a divisional ACE structure comprising a Divisional Panel
forming a sub-committee of the Education Policy Sub-Committee.
This Panel, comprising elected members and providers, would
interpret county policy guidelines at local level. An
Implementation Group, headed by the ACEO, would be organised to
ensure that the agreed policy was implemented. The ACEO would
be responsible for the budget. These general proposals would
need to be developed by a working group but would, as currently
envisaged, allow for the retention of the North East Hampshire
Institute as a free-standing institute with its own management
committee. The present work of the Deane Institute would be
carried out by a small team of staff located at the Divisional
Office, accountable to the ACEO.
(iii)South East Division : Two consultation meetings were held,
because a number of members could not get to the first meeting.
There was no agreement about a specific proposal for the
management of ACE, but there were varying degrees of support
for the merger of the Institute with Highbury College, with
South Downs College, for the Institute to remain free-standing
(for a possible two-year trial period) and for the management
of ACE to remain within the City of Portsmouth boundary
whatever happens. Taking into account the different views
expressed, the assistant county education officer recommends
that in his professional judgement the Institute should be
merged with South Downs College.
(iv) South West Division : Members agreed to give their support to
the ACEO's proposal that a divisional structure, bearing some
similarities to that proposed in the North East Division,
should operate within the South West Division. Institute
structures would be retained for strategic purposes but ACE
delivery would be contracted out to providing institutions, and
some minority provision would be directly managed. The ACEO
would establish a working group to consider the detailed
implementation of these proposals.
Conclusions
4 The consultation meetings have produced a range of outcomes,
ranging from clear support for a particular proposal to a
failure to reach a consensus. They have, however, allowed
elected members a further opportunity to participate in a full
debate of the advantages and disadvantages of the
recommendations made by the ACEOs.
RECOMMENDATION
5 It is recommended that the Education Committee adopt the
proposals made by the Assistant County Education Officers for
the future management of Adult Continuing Education within
their respective areas.
APPENDIX
The future Management Arrangements for the Central Hampshire Community
Education Institute Report to Education Committee, 22 January 1991
Responsible Officer: John Charles
Assistant County Education Officer (Central)
Consultation with County Councillors
1 Following the decision of the Policy Sub Committee to defer
discussion of the issue of the future management of free standing
Institutes, the Assistant County Education Officer (Central
Division) invited all County Councillors, part or all of whose
area lies within the Division, to a meeting on 18th December
1990. The ACEO gave a similar presentation to those that had
taken place at Romsey, Winchester and Alresford, explaining the
`bids' that had been submitted by Cricklade College, Andover,
Eastleigh College and Peter Symonds' Sixth Form College,
Winchester, to assume management responsibility for the Central
Hampshire Community Education Institute (the only free-standing
Institute in the Division) and also the `bid' submitted by the
Institute to remain free-standing.
2 In addition to detailing these cases and referring to the
reactions at the public meetings and at the Institute Management
Group meetings, the ACEO drew Councillors' attention to
developments that had taken place since the Policy Sub Committee
meeting in November; including:-
a) The Institute Principal, writing to make clear
his conclusion and that of his colleagues that the
best way forward for the Institute, and for the
Adult Education Service, would be for Peter Symonds'
College to become responsible for the management of
the Institute.
b) The Principal of Peter Symonds' College clarifying a
number of the issues that had been of concern to the
Institute and its management group, such as the
place of the Institute within the College, its
representation on the governing body, the Principal
of the Institute's position as a member of the
College senior management team and the real savings
and benefits to both the Institute and the College
that should properly accrue from the College
managing the Institute.
c) Information that the Heads of the two Adult
Education Centres at Romsey and other local
interests now supported the Peter Symonds' `bid' as
likely to provide the most effective service for the
future.
3 The meeting recognised that as a consequence of these
developments there was a very substantial response in favour of
the Peter Symonds' case, when added to the support already
indicated at the various meetings as reported in the paper to the
Policy Sub Committee.
4 Detailed explanation of further issues - future budget
arrangements, staffing matters, resource sharing, and possible
development opportunities relating to the Peter Symonds'
submission - then took place.
RESOLUTION:
Members resolved to give their full support to the recommendation of
the Assistant County Education Officer that Peter Symonds' Sixth Form
College should be responsible for the management of the Central
Hampshire Community Education Institute.
Appendix 2
THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF ADULT AND CONTINUING EDUCATION IN THE NORTH
EAST DIVISION: REPORT OF THE COUNTY EDUCATION OFFICER
22ND JANUARY 1991
Responsible Officer : Eric Poppitt, Assistant County Education
Officer, North East Division
Summary
1 Present Position
Provision is made in Alton and Petersfield through Alton
College which has arrangements with the community schools. In
Basingstoke, the major brokerage and training is provided by
the Deane Institute but both Basingstoke College of Technology
and Queen Mary's College impact considerably on adult learning
in the area and have the internal networks to meet increased
demand. Both community schools and non community schools in
the area are used by the Institute to deliver adult classes.
In the old North East Area, provision is made through NEHI
which has arrangements with the community schools and an
understanding with the other major provider in the North East,
Farnborough College of Technology.
2 The Community College Proposal
In the course of debate and investigation on this proposal, it
is becoming clear that the community college concept would not
be acceptable to the five existing colleges in the North East
Division, that the title would be confusing and the proposal
might eventually require a scheme of delegation which might
have attendant difficulties. There is considerable doubt as to
whether the college would be economically viable.
Further, during the course of consultation, the Deane Institute
has increasingly begun to question whether the merger of the
two institutes would provide Basingstoke with what it needs.
Nevertheless, there is considerable merit in continuing to
maintain NEHI because of the networks already established
providing that it can be kept lean enough administratively to
ensure that it stays within budget and allows the maximum
amount of resources available to be spent in the provision of
classes at the grass roots.
3 The Alternative Proposal
Despite the fact that there are different methods of provision
within the North East Division, it is important that we have a
mechanism for providing a coherent approach to adult continuing
education. It is proposed there should be a Divisional Panel
for adult continuing education made up from representation of
the County Council, Borough and District Councils and the major
providers. This group of not more than nine people in total
would interpret County Council policy within the context of
local need and require an implementation group headed by the
ACEO to ensure delivery of that policy within the resources
available. The ACEO would then use the major colleges and
other institutes as contractors to deliver the services
required by the Divisional Panel and ordered by the
implementation group.
Within this framework, it would be perfectly feasible to retain
NEHI in a financially viable form to continue to deliver the
services that it currently controls in the North East area but
it would seem logical to treat Basingstoke in a different way.
4 Consultation Meeting
A consultation meeting was held with 16 County Councillors and
Members of the Education Committee on 18th December 1990. The
major considerations to emerge were:
(i) A recognition that the needs of particular areas of the
North East Division were different and that it was best to
find local solutions rather than have a uniform solution.
Despite concerns about the financial viability of NEHI,
there was very strong support for its retention in view of
the many networks that have been established.
(ii) There was a recognition that the Deane Institute was now
at risk because of the substantial reduction in funding
but a reluctance on the part of the Deane Institute to
merge with NEHI because it was believed that a different
solution was needed in Basingstoke.
(iii)There was quite definite opposition to the term "community
college" with all the implications about confusion of
title and the eventual requirement of a scheme of
delegation.
(iv) There was strong support for the alternative proposal for
a divisionally-based approach but it was recognised that
more detailed proposals needed to be produced.
5 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended:
(a) That the proposal for a community college be rejected.
(b) That NEHI be retained in a financially viable form.
(c) That a Divisional Panel for Adult Continuing Education be
established with an Implementation Group.
(d) That the major providers to be used by the ACEO and the
Implementation Group should be the five post 16 colleges
and NEHI. These major providers would have representation
on both the Divisional Panel and the Implementation Group
and would be responsible under annual contract for the
delivery of prescribed services. The Deane Institute
would, therefore, be replaced as far as Basingstoke was
concerned by a small team of people working directly to
the ACEO and located in the Divisional Office. This would
produce some saving both in administration and premises'
costs. It would be necessary, however, to fund an Adult
Continuing Education Inspector post to ensure quality of
provision but this could easily be achieved within the
savings made.
(e) That in order to ensure the quality of adult education in
Basingstoke, the colleges under the contract would have to
demonstrate that they had someone experienced in adult
education who would be the focal point for activity.
(f) That the funding mechanism would be that Alton College
would continue to be funded directly but would need to
have an approved service plan, and that the other
resources available would be allocated to the ACEO, who
would then fund the major providers to produce the
activities defined by the Implementation Group in response
to the policy guidelines laid down by the Panel.
(g) That the ACEO should establish a working group in order to
define the detailed structure and operation of the
Divisional Panel for Adult Continuing Education and of the
Implementation Group with a view to implementing the new
structure from 1st September 1991, when the Deane
Institute would close.
APPENDIX 3
ADULT CONTINUING EDUCATION IN PORTSMOUTH: REPORT TO EDUCATION
COMMITTEE
22ND JANUARY 1991
Responsible Officer: George Heller, Assistant County Education
Officer (South East Division)
SUMMARY
1 This report describes the consultation which the Assistant
County Education Officer (South East Division) carried out with
county councillors on the 19 December 1990 and 2 January 1991
regarding the future of the Portsmouth Institute. The report
reiterates the original recommendation of the Assistant County
Education Officer that the Portsmouth Institute be merged with
South Downs College.
2 Consultation meeting on 19 December 1990
This meeting was attended by Councillors Beer, Bellinger,
Drinkwater, Juniper, Knapp, Osborne, Starling and Walters.
Since a number of apologies were received for this meeting,
a second meeting was arranged for the 2 January 1991 to
give county councillors a further opportunity for
consultation. Both meetings were chaired by the Assistant
County Education Officer with Lionel Paris (Adult
Continuing Education Inspector) in attendance.
3 Review of original recommendation
The Assistant County Education Officer reported that he had
reviewed the basis of his original recommendation but that
his conclusion, that the Portsmouth Institute be merged
with South Downs College, still stood. Whilst appreciating
the strongly-held views of Portsmouth county councillors
that the management of the Institute should remain within
the city of Portsmouth, the Assistant County Education
Officer reiterated his view that, on balance, the
Portsmouth Institute should merge with South Downs College
on the basis of the following criteria: quality of "bid"
documentation, ACE track record, cross-college ACE ethos,
college and governing body commitment, community networking
experience and budgetary realism.
- 8 -
4 Consultation with county councillors
The following views were expressed by Members, attracting
varying degrees of support:
Reference was made to the 7 December presentation by
Portsmouth Institute to county councillors; clarification
was requested and given on specific issues such as unit
costs and the historical basis of budgetary provision,
especially with regard to vocational programmes.
Question as to whether South Downs was a sufficiently large
establishment to undertake the management of the
Institute's activities. Should the Institute, for
example, be broken down into two separate parts?
Would merger with South Downs require additional
staffing and accommodation?
Response: Size of South Downs was not a problem.
Networking on the ground was no less important than
management rigour at headquarters. Increase in
accommodation would not be required; many staff would be
based where the learning takes place. In any case, merger
with South Downs would in all likelihood result in some
rationalisation of staff.
It was important to reduce the number of staff in the
management tier. What were the implications?
Response: Current senior management in the Institute
comprised principal, vice-principal, special needs
co-ordinator, staff development tutor. South Downs was
currently holding at least one senior vacancy pending the
results of the consultation. Current Institute salary
levels reflected management needs when it encompassed youth
and community work in addition to adult.
Concern expressed about current finances of the Institute.
Response: Since the consultation exercise began last
spring, free-standing Institutes had been presented with
revised and rigorous financial targets for 1990/91.
Query as to where ACE would be delivered in Portsmouth
should the merger proceed.
Response: There would be no significant change in the
distribution of venues for ACE in Portsmouth; school
premises as well as centres would continue to be used as
part of community contracts between the LEA/governors and
schools/colleges.
View that South Downs was a relatively new college whereas
Highbury was old-estab-i9h-d and within the city boundary.
South Downs was at a geographical disadvantage vis-a-vis
obtaining knowledge of Portsmouth people's requirements.
Response: South Downs would capitalise on the local
knowledge of the staff currently working in the Institute
organisation and who would continue to do so following a
merger. Proper networking through centre managers would be
crucial. In this way, understanding and awareness of the
needs of part-time voluntary learners would continue.
View that in the context of the merger the customer would
see no change. Policies were not set in concrete; they
should be reviewed. It was incumbent on Members to examine
expenditure and reduce the costs of administration.
Policies should be reviewed to offer better and cheaper
services. ACEO recommendation supported.
Concern at the strong feelings within the Institute at
potential loss of independence. New financial targets were
extremely difficult to meet. Link with South Downs seen to
be detrimental to the needs of Portsmouth. Merger with
Highbury or continuation of free-standing status suggested
as the only ways forward. Reference made to the
Institute's recent presentation to county councillors; its
management has sharpened up over the last few months.
Strong feeling expressed within the Institute that it
should remain free-standing; this was supported.
While tutors and students strongly resent prospect of
merger Highbury would, nevertheless, be more acceptable.
Doubts about future structure of local government make
merger with Highbury more sensible than with South Downs.
While there was admiration for the work of South Downs
College, there was no evidence that the financial arguments
presented in the papers throw into question the future of
the Institute as a free-standing organisation.
Support for the view that the Institute should have two
years' trial period; currently too much stress for staff
and students. Portsmouth was not that much different from
Havant, both communities being in the Portsmouth
travel-to-work area. Jobs would be lost if amalgamation
goes ahead. Delivery to the client was the all-important
issue.
Support given to a two-year trial run to give the Institute
the opportunity to manage itself on the understanding that
it resolves its budget difficulties. Merger with South
Downs could produce feeling of alienation. If the two-year
trial period was unsuccessful, then support merger with
either South Downs or Highbury.
- 10 -
Highbury's track record in providing programmes for adult
learners was highlighted; the college would have no problem
in encompassing ACE work. Doubts expressed about two-year
trial period. Merger with Highbury supported.
Important to rationalise number of centres in Portsmouth to
save money.
5 Votes on proposals
A number of proposals were put to the vote. The results were as
follows:
Merger of Portsmouth Institute
with Highbury College 3 Members in favour
Merger of Portsmouth Institute
with South Downs College 2 Members in favour
Portsmouth Institute to remain
free-standing 3 Members in favour
Portsmouth Institute to remain
in Portsmouth under any circumstance 5 Members in favour
6 Consultation meeting on 2 January 1991
All County Councillors who were not able to come to the
first meeting were informed of this second opportunity;
Four apologies were received. This meeting was
attended by Councillors Chandler, Collett, Hancock, Jerrard
and Wheeler.
7 Review of original recommendation
The ACEO repeated the points made in section 3.
8 Views of Members
The following views were expressed by Members, attracting
varying degrees of support:
Query as to the rationale for this exercise. Was it to
improve the management of ACE or the services it provides?
Response: The focus was on the most appropriate management
arrangements for the future.
No convincing argument has yet been presented for changing
the current arrangements.
- 11 -
Response: There were doubts in some quarters about the
future viability of free-standing institutes under formula
funding. However, the Hampshire formula has yet to be
worked out. There was also the DES requirement laid upon
LEAs to develop strategic plans for the totality of post-16
services. There was a view, therefore, that this could be
more rationally managed by colleges rather than by a mixed
market of colleges and free-standing institutes.
Differing views expressed about duplication of effort in
current systems.
There was no evidence of a decline in the market for adult
education learning opportunities.
Support expressed for integration of ACE activities with a
college. However, could South Downs cope with managing the
Portsmouth Institute? Did Highbury have the necessary
flexibility?
Highbury could point to a very good record of training.
Query as to where the management of the Institute would be
based were a merger with South Downs to go ahead.
Response: Management would be centred at the college where
it would be vested within the management tier of principal
and senior colleagues. Learning provision would, as now,
remain where the work was currently undertaken. The
provision of these learning opportunities would be more
likely to be secure within a college context.
The current exercise was a cost-cutting one. There would
be some savings, for example on marketing, but no
information has been given about the protection of quality.
South Downs would have no difficulty in managing the
Institute but people generally prefer management to be
locally-based.
Concern that the current exercise did not focus on the
social aspects of ACE work. The principal focus is on
cutting costs. FE is entirely different from ACE. It was
important to bear in mind the unanimous decision of the
Portsmouth Institute management committee to remain
free-standing.
Support expressed for a merger with a college if
educational quality was maintained and there were cost
savings. Support expressed for a trial free-standing
period of two years.
Query as to the extent to which overall costs could be
reduced if the Institute were to merge with a college.
Redundancy costs might-h12e-to be taken into account.
Response: If the Institute merged with South Downs, all
the current senior management would be unlikely to be
retained. Highbury would probably retain all the senior
staff.
The wisdom of taking action at the present time is strongly
questioned. Demand for the Institute's activities was not
declining but formula funding could well present
difficulties.
Response: It was important to remove uncertainty.
However, the LEA has to plan strategically. People would
have to be re-trained since nationally there was and there
was likely to continue to be a skills shortage. There was
also a need to bring married women back into the workforce.
Bringing the Institute and a college together would
facilitate this dimension of strategic planning within the
LEA.
The Institute should be given the benefit of the doubt;
there was no evidence that a college would do the work
better. Highbury should be preferred to South Downs,
Highbury being in the city of Portsmouth.
It would be important to continue to monitor the quality of
ACE provision whatever future arrangements are entered
into.
Concern expressed as to the implications for ACE if the
Institute was merged with South Downs and local government
was re-organised.
9 Votes on proposals
A number of proposals were put to the vote. The results were as
follows:
Merger of Portsmouth Institute
with Highbury College 3 Members in favour
Merger of Portsmouth Institute
with South Downs College 2 Members in favour
Portsmouth Institute to remain
free-standing for two year's
trial period 3 Members in favour
- 13 -
10 CONCLUSION
The following issues emanating from the consultation meetings
need to be highlighted: the strongly-held views of Portsmouth
members that the Institute, if merged with a college, should be
managed from within the city (hence Highbury is preferred to
South Downs); a wish to give the Institute, notwithstanding its
serious financial position, a trial period to see how it
progresses; doubts as to the reasons for consulting about the
Institute's future at this time; concern as to the likely nature
and effect of the formula for ACE which still has to be
determined.
These concerns are appreciated by the ACEO. It is, however, his
view that the merger should go ahead since such a move is not
only more likely to secure the future financial viability of ACE
in the South East Division but will place the county council in
a far stronger position to plan and develop the totality of its
post-16 provision. Furthermore, South Downs is the preferred
candidate for the reasons outlined in section 3.
RECOMMENDATION that the Portsmouth Institute be merged with
South Downs college from 1 April 1991.
- 14 -
Appendix 4
FUTURE MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR SOUTHAMPTON AND TOTTON AND
WATERSIDE INSTITUTES: REPORT OF THE COUNTY EDUCATION OFFICER
22ND JANUARY 1991
Responsible Officer : Roy Jones, Assistant County Education Officer,
South West Division
1 Consultation with Councillors
A briefing meeting was held by the ACEO prior to the previous
consideration of the Adult Continuing Education report by
Education Policy Sub Committee. At this meeting, members
supported the ACEO recommendation. Following the policy sub
committee meeting, the ACEO wrote to all councillors to invite
written comments and to offer a further meeting if required. A
meeting with councillors was arranged for 9 January 1991 and
four councillors contacted the ACEO individually.
2 Feedback from Consultations
Detailed comments were made in the paper prepared by the ACEO
for the Policy Sub Committee. The following points were
stressed in the meetings with councillors:
(a) there was little desire for change on the part of workers
in or users of adult education in the area.
(b) there was a strong interest in and commitment to managing
aspects of adult education from Southampton Technical
College and Itchen College, and a desire for involvement
on the part of Totton College. Taunton's College reserved
its position. Neither SOTEC nor Itchen provided a
complete answer to the perceived needs of the Division.
(c) there was real concern for the management of specific
areas of ACE, for example, special needs, section 11,
adult basic education, outreach work, and for the Council
to articulate a policy on these areas of work.
(d) there was a view that institutes need to be more clearly
accountable in both management and financial terms.
3 Proposals
As a result of the consultations the ACEO proposed a structure
which:
-
(a) managed strategic issues across the area and, where
appropriate, involved colleges in the division
eg, development/business plans
needs identification
training
performance review
(b) over a period of time negotiated contracts for managing
parts of the service through local providers
(c) allowed for the direct management of some specific
minority provision.
The aim of the proposal is to strengthen the management of
adult education, give more involvement to colleges who wish it
without compromising the existing good work of institutes, and
to reduce bureacratic and capital overheads. An adult
education council would be set up to advise the ACEO and would
be representative of the community and local councillors.
4 The meetings with councillors endorsed these proposals in the
context of the consultations undertaken by the ACEO. The
following additional points were made:
(a) accountability, financially and managerially, should be
strengthened to the Division and the ACEO.
(b) there should be no changes for change's sake but
flexibility to improve provision was welcomed.
(c) the principle of local community involvement should be
retained.
(d) control and review of contracts should be retained within
the Division.
(e) County and divisional priorities for adult education
should be explicitly stated.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Assistant County Education Officer be authorised to set up
a working group to investigate the detailed implementation of the
structure described in Section 3 of this report, taking into
particular account the comments made in Section 4.
gp083.doc
- 16 -
Top of this page
Hantsweb Homepage