Archived decisions

Contact: Review Team Leader, Jack Cawthra, Education Officer (EOTAS). Telephone 01962 846537
Departmental Lead Officer for Best Value; Terry Rath, Education Officer. Telephone 01962 846457

1. Original Scope of the review

1.1. This review is a cross cutting review to test the effectiveness of services provided by the County Council for children educated out of school, children at risk of exclusion and the monitoring arrangement for children educated by their parents. It will explore the links and effectiveness of partnerships with other County Council departments and, amongst others, the health service.

2. Team

2.1. The team has been set out and is comprised as follows:

Jack Cawthra, Education Department, Review Leader
Cllr M Cartwright, Education PRC
Stephanie Durrant, Education Department, Behaviour Support
Howard Firth, Social Services Department
Cllr Mrs J Frankum, Education PRC
Sally Garrett, Portsmouth City Council
Brian Gravenor, Hampshire Constabulary, Inspector
Cllr Mrs K Heron, Education PRC
Jane Hitchman, Woodside Pupil Referral Unit and Staff rep.
Cllr Mrs P Peskett, Education PRC
Pete Marsh, Education Department
Terry Rath, Education Department BV, Lead Officer
Chris Sheehan, County Treasurer's Department
Sue Sylvester, Chief Executive's Department, Performance Management Team
DanTaylor, Education Department, Psychologist

A nomination from the Secondary Headteacher Conference is still awaited.

3. Visioning

3.1. This review will follow the revised streamlined Best Value process and focus on areas where there is potential for achieving improvement in providing the service in partnership with others and avoiding duplication of work already carried out within normal service planning.

3.2. A visioning exercise has already been carried out to look at what needs to change to reach a position where EOTAS services are excellent. The following points have already been identified.

· Improve management information systems and analyses

· Greater emphasis on reintegration

· Earlier involvement to tackle behaviour problems

· Minimise the gap between exclusion or inability to attend school due to illness and the availability of EOTAS provision

· Clearer focus on the needs of individual children

· Seeking view of children and parents and listening to them

· More effective monitoring of "home education"

4. Approach to the Review

4.1. The review team will apply the 4Cs

4.2. Compare - The performance of the EOTAS service will be compared using data provided by the South and West Region Education Benchmarking Group. Data will also be used to compare Hampshire services with our OFSTED statistical neighbours. The OFSTED inspection reports for our statistical neighbours will be reviewed to see if there is good practice that might be adopted.

4.3. Consultation - This is a key point of the best value process and also links into the commitment of the County Council to involve users and other stakeholders in developing and planning services. Key groups for consultation will be; schools, staff, young people and other professionals working with EOTAS. Questionnaires will be sent to these groups in the spring term 2003.

4.4. Challenge - The review team includes representatives from key stakeholders and elected members to provide rigorous challenge throughout the course of the review. A wider group of stakeholders and users was involved in the visioning exercise. As the review progresses, this approach will be used to test the analyses and the conclusion of the group. The other consultation exercises will also contribute to challenging how well EOTAS is undertaking its role.

4.5. Compete- The review team will look at the current arrangements in Hampshire for delivering the service to children educated out of school, children at risk of exclusion and those educated at home and consider, in the light of the evidence gathered by the review, whether changes need to be made. The review team will also consider how other similar local authorities provide the service. The review will consider the potential for out-sourcing some of the ways the EOTAS service is provided.

4.6. The issues of sustainability, equality, crime and disorder and Government will be an intrinsic part of the review.

4.7. It is anticipated that the main bulk of the work on the 4Cs will take place between January and April 2003 with the analysis of findings and development of options taking place between April and July. It is anticipated that an options report will be submitted to the PRC in September/October 2003.

5. Factors to take into account

5.1. The EOTAS service has recently been restructured to bring together the Behaviour Support and the Education Other than at School Services. This is intended to enhance the focus on preventative work in schools.

5.2. From September 2002, Government expects that all pupils excluded from school will receive full-time education. The restructuring mentioned in paragraph 5.1 was also intended to enhance the services' capacity to deliver this expectation.

5.3. After several years when exclusions from school declined sharply, there are some indications that the level of exclusions in Hampshire, as in the rest of the country, is rising. This trend will put additional pressure on all aspects of the EOTAS services work, preventative, reintegration and provision.

6. Resource Requirements

6.1. It is estimated that the direct costs of the review for activities such as the visioning day, consultation and challenge meetings will be no more than £4,000.

6.2. The officer time for this review is estimated at 50 days.

7. Outputs from the review

7.1. After the submission of the options report in September/October PRC, an improvement plan will go to the November PRC.

Recommendations

1. That this project brief for the Best Value Review of the Education Other
than at School (EOTAS) Service, be agreed.

Section 100D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background Papers

The following documents disclose factors or matters on which this report, or an
important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

N.B: the list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in
the Act.

Nil.