Archived decisions
Hampshire County Council | |||
Education Policy Review Committee |
Item 9 | ||
Date |
|||
Options Report of the Education Welfare Service Best Value Review | |||
Report of the County Education Officer | |||
Contact: Terry Rath, Education Officer, ext 6457
John Heath, Principal Education Welfare Officer, ext 5770
1. Introduction
1.1. This is the options report of the Hampshire County Council Education Welfare Service's Best Value review.
1.2. At its meeting on 19 March 2002, the Education Policy Review Committee approved a Year 3 Best Value review of Hampshire Education Welfare Service. The remit of the review was that it should focus on three specific areas.
School attendance as an area for improvement as identified in the OfSTED Report (2001) |
Consideration of the option of the devolvement of the funding of the Education Welfare Service to schools |
How to improve links in supporting children `Looked After' by the local authority Social Services Department |
1.3. The project brief was subsequently approved by the Education Policy Review Committee at its meeting on 21 May 2002.
2. Progress in Phase Two
2.1 Phase two of this best value review has been based on the collection and analysis of information arising from events and exercises undertaken to address the `4Cs' of consultation, comparison, challenge and competition. Consideration has also been given in this phase of the review to the `devolved strategies' of e-government, sustainable development, equalities and crime & disorder.
2.2 Issues arising from the OFSTED report of 2001 including the need to further develop schemes to recruit and retain high quality Education Welfare Officers, the need to ensure the updating of guidance to schools so that there are consistent effective procedures for early identification, referral and follow up of absence and the need to improve planning to detail how schools with the greatest need are identified, supported, monitored, challenged and provided with feedback on the effectiveness of their procedures were also explored in this phase of the Best Value Review.
3. Consultation
3.1 During the course of the review the views of a number of stakeholders have been obtained.
3.2 The views of the Headteachers of all Hampshire schools were sought through questionnaires which invited comments on their perceptions of the support for attendance, proposed strategies for improving attendance, the allocation of Education Welfare Service resources and improving links for supporting children `Looked After' by the local authority.
3.3 The views of a random sample of parents/carers with whom the Education Welfare Service was/had been involved were obtained via a telephone questionnaire undertaken by the Parent Partnership Service. Of the 56 parents contacted 29 responses were received.
3.4 A sample of year 6 pupils' perceptions about main reasons/causes for non attendance was obtained through the use of a questionnaire conducted by the headteachers of four volunteer schools. 112 responses were received.
3.5 31 Education Welfare Service staff responded to a survey undertaken by the staff representative on the review group.
3.6 Consultation with Hampshire County Council Social Services Department took place using a questionnaire. This was specifically targeted at area office team managers and sought views about how they saw their working relationship with the Education Welfare Service. 20 responses were received.
3.7 At the request of the Review Group, consultation was undertaken with Fareham Magistrates in order to obtain their views on the way the County Council's Education Welfare Service makes use of Magistrates' Courts in cases of non-attendance.
3.8 Consultation with Hampshire's statistical neighbours and other authorities took place in respect of the number of parental prosecutions and their outcomes for the academic year 2001/2002.
3 Comparison
4.1 The latest data available from the South & South West Regional Benchmarking Group for the Education Welfare Service were provided to the Review Group. This enabled comparisons to be made on pupil data, overall costs per pupil, Education Welfare Service staffing as well as salary and additional costs.
4.2 Information used by OfSTED and the Audit Commission on absence data also allowed a comparison to be made with Hampshire's statistical neighbours.
4.3 At the request of the Review Group the OfSTED reports of other authorities within Hampshire's statistical neighbour group were considered in order to help identify Education Welfare Services with good practices and management. Visits were made to Bedfordshire and West Sussex County Councils by Review Group members to look in more depth at their processes to improve attendance.
4.4 The Review Group considered the breakdown of attendance/absence data as well as the allocation of Education Welfare Services resources into Hampshire team areas in order to show how levels of attendance and staff deployment are balanced.
4 Challenge
5.1 The Review Group included representatives from key stakeholders and elected members in order to inject rigorous challenge into the review.
5.2 In March 2002 the Review Group participated in a workshop designed to develop a vision for the Education Welfare Service, including indicators for `success' and key changes which would be required in order to achieve this `vision'.
5.3 At a subsequent meeting, the Review Group completed a self-evaluation exercise against a checklist developed by the Audit Commission in order to identify how support for attendance by the local education authority could be improved.
5.4 There are clear indications that pupil attendance is an important factor in pupil achievement which supports the case that action taken to reduce absence will enhance pupil achievement. In Hampshire pupil level absence data are collected for value added analysis which looks at pupil progress from Baseline to Key Stage 1 and from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2. The work has consistently shown that pupil absence is a significant factor, even when free school meals, special educational needs and pupils' prior achievements are taken into account.
6. Competition
6.1 Questions about possible devolvement of funding and/or management to schools were included in the questionnaire to headteachers. They were consulted on the following options:
· retaining the funding and management of the Education Welfare Service centrally by providing support to schools within an agreed service level statement
· retaining the funding but delegating the day to day management of the Education Welfare Service to schools/clusters of schools
· devolving the funding and full responsibility for, as well as the day to day management of, the Education Welfare Service to schools/clusters of schools
6.2 The possible benefits of basing Education Welfare Officers in schools was also considered and a visit to an authority which has adopted this system was arranged.
6.3 An analysis was made of two major reports relating to the issue of devolving funding of the Education Welfare Service to schools:
· `Tackling Truancy Together' - a strategy document published by the DfES
· `An Evaluation of the Devolution of Education Welfare Services to Secondary Schools: The First Year' - an evaluation of a twelve month study commissioned by the DfES into a pilot devolution of education welfare services to secondary schools involving 16 local education authorities. The report summarises the implications of having a school based service, a school managed service and a service in which funding is fully devolved to secondary schools.
7. Devolved Strategies
7.1 Regarding equalities, the Review Group received advice from Hampshire County Council's Equalities Officer and commissioned a full equalities assessment to examine equalities issues within the Education Welfare Service.
7.2 Two facilitated sessions were held: one with a consultant from IT Services in which a number of options for improving education welfare services through the use of technology were explored; the second with an officer of the environmental performance team - in which sustainable development issues were considered
7.3. Due to the strong links between non-attendance at school and crime, the devolved strategy of `crime & disorder' was central to the review. David Western - an Inspector within the Hampshire Constabulary Community Safety Team was a member of the Best Value Review Core Team.
7. Summary of the Review Findings
8.1 A folder containing copies of the questionnaire results and other supporting review documents has been placed in the Members room, for member information.
8.2 Findings in relation to the Option of Devolvement of the Funding of the Education Welfare Service to Schools were as follows:-
· The publication `An Evaluation of the Devolution of Education Welfare Services to Secondary Schools: the first year' by the NFER concluded that
the pilot study had not demonstrated that devolution of funding and management of Education Welfare Services to Secondary Schools brought about higher levels of school attendance.
devolution of funding and management of Education Welfare Services to Secondary Schools brought about improved communication between school staff and the education welfare officer and improved relationships between education welfare officers, school staff, pupils and families
support to primary schools needs to be considered carefully when part of the funding is devolved to secondary schools.
· Headteachers strongly support the retention of the present arrangements with the funding and management of the Education Welfare Service retained centrally.
The questionnaire to schools included a section on the devolvement of the funding and management of the Education Welfare Service to schools. 297 schools out of 540 responded, of which 239 were primary, 36 secondary and 22 special. The outcomes of the possible options regarding the future funding of the Education Welfare Service were as follows:
- delegate management to clusters of schools 5%
- delegate management to primary schools 8%
- delegate management to secondary schools 1%
- devolve funding to clusters of schools 1%
- devolve funding to primary schools 6%
- devolved funding to secondary schools 6%
- retain funding and management centrally 73%
· In the relevant section of the questionnaire to education welfare service staff, none of the respondents indicated that they were in favour of devolvement with 87% indicating that they would prefer the funding for the service to be retained centrally.
8.3 Findings in relation to school attendance as an area for improvement as identified in the OfSTED Report (2001) were as follows:-
· The National Context:
There are a number of reports and initiatives which outline the government's current focus on social inclusion, emphasising the importance of how local education authorities manage school attendance. These include `Missing Out - LEA management of school attendance and exclusion (Audit Commission Publication, 1999)', `Tackling Truancy Together - a strategy document (Department for Education and Employment publication, 1999)', ` An Evaluation of the Devolution of Education Welfare Services to Secondary Schools: the first year (National Foundation for Educational Research publication, 2002)'. The review team also notes that the government has announced its intention to introduce the power to impose fixed penalty fines for school non attendance by the introduction of an Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.
The publications highlight:
_ the government's strategy requiring LEAs to set targets for reducing unauthorised absence
_ the core role for LEAs in tackling attendance issues
the need for LEAs to spread good practice on how to reduce truancy
the raising of the penalties imposed by courts on parents /carers who have failed to ensure their child's regular attendance
the impact of the devolution of education welfare services to secondary schools on levels of attendance
· The local framework:
Hampshire Education Welfare Service (the Service) takes the lead role for the County Council in promoting attendance and continues to improve practice by working in partnership with schools, families and other agencies
the Service provides support and intervention by suitably qualified and skilled staff who work within a service level agreement in partnership with schools
the Service takes the appropriate legal action in a number of cases where parents/carers fail to ensure the regular school attendance of their child
the Service supports schools with attendance planning and target setting in order to reduce levels of unauthorised absence
the Service provides advice and guidance to schools in respect of school attendance and registration
the Service adopts a systematic approach to support schools in dealing with unauthorised absence
the Service monitors and supports the attendance of young people `Looked After' by the local authority
the Service works with Hampshire Constabulary and schools in Truancy Scheme initiatives
local public service agreement funding has been provided to appoint 8 (0.5 fte) education welfare assistants in targeted schools to reduce unauthorised absence rates.
· Strengths
high levels of satisfaction by headteachers of schools in all phases for the support for attendance provided by the education welfare service.
favourable comparison on cost of service with south and south west regional local education authorities.
· Areas for development/consideration
both the surveys of headteachers and parents revealed a need for further information and guidance on school attendance for parents
visits to other local authorities showed:-
the effectiveness of basing education welfare officers in schools
banding of schools by the levels of attendance can be a useful tool for enabling resources to be directed where most needed
reporting by Education Welfare Service to schools on performance
clear cross education department priority on raising of level of pupil attendance
not all education welfare officer's in these authorities were qualified social workers which limits the range of work they could undertake.
8.4 Findings in relation to improving links in supporting children `looked after' by the local authority social services department were as follows:-
· The National Context:
To assist local authorities in their role as corporate parents to safeguard and promote the education of children and young people in public care and bring their educational attainment closer into line with those of their peers, the Department for Education and Employment and Department of Health produced guidance entitled `Education of Young People in Public Care'.
This guidance emphasises the collective responsibility of a local authority as a corporate parent and places a duty on it to ensure that children in public care get the education they need and deserve by:
_ prioritising education
_ changing and challenging negative attitudes
_ having high expectations
_ maintaining stability of school
_ early intervention and priority action
_ stability of care
listening to children and young people
· The local framework:
the current allocation of education welfare service officer time (2 days per week) to the corporate `looked after' children team
all young people have access to a designated teacher in school who acts as a resource and advocate on their behalf
all young people have a personal education plan initiated by the social worker in partnership with the designated teacher
the county council has a joint development plan agreed between the education and social services departments which sets out Hampshire's commitment to improve the educational experiences and outcomes for all young people
the county council has a protocol for sharing relevant information between schools the education and social services departments
the county council has a database which includes information on the school placement, attendance, attainment and achievement of all young people
the county council has, with the help of young people themselves, provided training for social services personnel, carers, school staff and education officers to improve educational outcomes for young people
all Hampshire children's homes are expected to have a clear written education policy which sets the requirements for regular attendance and liaison arrangements with schools
attendance is closely monitored for this particular group of young people
a children `looked after' support panel (CLASP) is supported by the Education Welfare Service. Its purpose is to `problem solve' difficult cases involving this group of young people
· Strengths
the education welfare service has been instrumental in responding comprehensively to the county council's shared commitment to improving the education and achievement of young people through the establishment of the above local framework during the last 12 months
the education welfare service has had a key role in establishing the education corporate team for `looked after' children from January 2003
the attendance of children in foster care is at least as good as children who are not `looked after'
education welfare service team managers are responsible for leading local support groups for designated teachers
the county council has an up to date record of designated teachers all of whom already have had or will be offered a suitable training programme. This training is delivered jointly by staff from the Social Services and The Education Welfare Service
· Areas for Development:
there is low attendance of looked after children in some children's homes
there is a need to improve liaison with family support teams to help them provide better support to vulnerable young people on attendance matters.
there is a need to provide detailed attendance data for service managers in social services on a regular basis.
The key findings from the review in relation to the four devolved strategies were as follows:-
· Equalities
The EWS has a strong ethos in terms of equalities but needs to ensure that this has been converted into practice.
· E-government
Long term need for collaboration and cooperation with other services and agencies to develop a central database.
· Sustainable development
Consider ways to minimise the use of scarce resources by operating as close as possible to clients. The review team was also aware that the County Council is currently undertaking a review of the pay and benefits of all it's staff, and that Social Services are implementing recruitment and retention allowances in some parts of the county.
· Crime & disorder
There is a clear link between school non attendance and crime.
· Identified Review Options
The Education Policy Review Committee (PRC) asked the BV Review Team to consider the delegation or devolution of Education Welfare Service budget to schools. Under Local Schools Management (LMS) delegation of the budget would mean that it is allocated to schools by formula and added to the schools general budget to be spent on the priorities determined by the governors. A devolved budget is allocated to a school to be spent on a particular service area. The school governors can supplement the devolved budget from their general budget but not withdraw money from it to supplement the general budget. The service is then provided and managed by the school.
The delegation/devolution of the EWS budget was the subject of consultation with schools, staff and service users. Information was also gathered from the NFER report in the DfES pilot on delegated EWS budgets to secondary schools, visits to other LEAs and knowledge of the result of delegation in one other county LEA. Any recommendation by the PRC to change existing financial arrangements will need to be the subject of normal consultation.
A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis of the various options for the future organisation of the service is set out below.
· Option 1: Maximum Delegation of the EWS to Schools
Strengths:
Greater focus and responsibility for school attendance at school management level
Potential for growth in service where school budgets/priorities allow
Creating closer working relationships between EWS staff and school staff
Enhancing the potential for creation of alternative service providers
Enhancing the opportunity for new partnerships and co-operation between schools
Weaknesses (if no buy back into a central service):
Service could be fragmented
Resources devoted to attendance could be reduced or disappear entirely
Working with other agencies could be damaged
Service could become insular and reactive within schools
Loss of professional support and supervision
Few secondary schools would be able to appoint a full-time EWO from the delegated amount
Most primary schools would be unable to make any more than a token EWO provision
Recruitment, training and retention of skilled staff could be more difficult
Schools would pick up additional management costs
Opportunities:
Opportunities for existing school staff to support some education welfare work
Opportunities for expansion of education welfare work
Opportunities to develop and combine the role within schools with existing pastoral care arrangements
Opportunities for better communication and knowledge of local area
Threats:
LEA could lose its capacity to mount countywide/area wide initiatives
Education Welfare Service could decline in competing with other school priorities
LEA would need to rely on schools to resource the EWS in order to fulfil its statutory duties
Experience and qualifications requirements of staff could be reduced to save costs
Development of staff skills could be reduced
· Option 2 : Maximum Devolution of EWS to schools
Strengths:
Closer working between education welfare staff and school staff
Greater focus and responsibility for the management of school attendance at school level
Potential for service growth through additional involvement from schools budgets
Potential to open up competition between service providers
Potential for new partnerships and collaboration between schools
Weaknesses (if no buy back into a central service)
Services could be fragmented
Inter-agency work could be disrupted due to other priorities
Service could become insular or reactive within schools
Few secondary schools would be able to appoint a full-time education welfare officer from devolved budget
Most primary schools would be unable to make any more than a token education welfare officer provision
Recruitment, training and retention of skilled staff could be more difficult schools would pick up additional management costs and responsibilities
Opportunities:
Opportunities for existing school staff to support some education welfare service work
Opportunities for expansion of education welfare service work
Opportunities to develop and combine the role within schools with existing pastoral care arrangements
Opportunities for better communication and knowledge of local area
Threats:
Schools and LEA will incur additional management costs in service split
Schools with limited budget flexibility will be unable to add additional resources
Experience and qualification requirements of staff could be reduced to save costs
Development of staff skills could be reduced
· Option 3: Retain a central service with resources allocated to schools
Strengths:
Enable staff resources to be deployed more flexibly to meet changing demand
Effective links to other agencies, in particular those working with `looked after' children and those in need of protection
Effective and consistent policies and standards for staff recruitment
Professional development of staff more readily managed
Consistent approach to working with children and families
Secure a structure for sharing and developing good practice and advice
Integrate LEA initiatives/policy on school improvement/inclusion
Enable education welfare staff to retain neutral role in respect of schools and families
Enable education welfare service staff to offer a challenge to schools on attendance issues
Weaknesses:
Less frequent contact between education welfare officer and school staff
Potential to be more remote and less sensitive to the needs of schools and pupils
Service rather than school customer led
Reduces opportunities for alternative providers and/or increased competition
Focus on working with schools on attendance could be diminished.
Outside the local communication loop with school staff and parents
Opportunities:
Well managed consistent approach to schools, parents and pupils across the County
Contribute to raising issues about attendance across the education service and community
Opportunity to move staff to cover long term illnesses and vacancies
Develop high standards of professional practice
Threats:
Service alienated and in conflict with schools about priorities
Lack of clarity about the role of schools and the service and how they interrelate in respect of attendance.
More difficulties to raise the profile of attendance with schools as it is seen as EWO responsibility
· Option 4 - Retain Centrally Controlled Service but locate EWOs in Schools as a Pilot Study
Strengths
Effective and consistent standards for staff recruitment
Professional development of staff readily managed
Consistent approach for working with children and families
Secures a structure for retaining and developing good practice and advice
Integrates LEA policy/initiatives on school improvement and inclusion
Effective links to other agencies, particularly those working locally
Develop close communications with school staff
Available to support school on attendance matters
Closer to schools and families and hence less time spent travelling
Weaknesses
Less flexibility in staff deployment across the county
Conflict between service and school needs
Possible isolation from other education welfare officers
Service standards and approaches are diluted
Opportunities
Opportunities to work more effectively with school staff
Opportunity to develop local networks with other agencies
Opportunity to develop local communications and informed information sources
Opportunity to raise profile of attendance within local schools
Threats
Staff could feel professionally isolated and leave the EWS
Conflict between school management and service management
Unreasonable demands made on EWO staff
Conflict between the school in which the EWO is based and the other schools which the EWO supports, over time allocated to each school
Officer less effective because seen as part of the school staff by families and others
8 Service Improvements
9.1 The following service improvements were identified in the course of the review :
Service Improvements to raise attendance levels
ensure that all the services of the county council work to improve school attendance
promote the role of governing bodies in helping to improve school attendance
publish updated guidance for schools on achieving high attendance, including advice on bullying and discouraging parents from taking children on family holidays during term time
establish a culture within school of target setting for levels of attendance.
issue further advise to schools on how to maintain registers and categorise absence.
help schools with the earlier identification and referral of pupils whose attendance gives cause for concern
ensure suitable systems are in place in order to enable effective management of caseloads
establish a rigorous and consistent system for dealing with persistent non-attendance
colour code and band schools according to levels of attendance and unauthorised absence in order to target Education Welfare Service resources to those schools who need most help.
provide routine summative feedback as requested to schools on referrals and using existing monitoring and tracking procedures as well as an annual report for each school
provide updated guidance on the importance of school attendance and contact telephone numbers for parents and other agencies
promote with magistrates Hampshire County Council's policy and procedures for achieving high attendance
work with schools to identify effective ways of using ICT to monitor and analyse attendance patterns including the facility for first day contact with parents.
establish a county database to enable attendance information to be collected by ICT.
continue to address the recruitment and retention of suitably qualified Education Welfare Service staff.
The following service improvements were identified for supporting children `looked after' by the local authority social services department
education welfare service to assist in the establishment of a single database that provides up to date information on `looked after' children.
education welfare service to contribute to the development of the principles and implications of corporate parenting.
education welfare service to provide training and advice on attendance matters to staff of children's homes.
education welfare service to work in partnership and collaborate with the corporate looked after children team to support individual children on attendance and other educational matters.
each children's home to have a link education welfare officer who will have allocated time to meet with the education lead person in the home in order to facilitate improved school attendance.
education welfare service to contribute to the development of children's homes education development plans.
improving life chances for young people through challenging the Social Services department on issues of school non attendance.
9 Conclusion
10.1 Extensive work has been undertaken during this phase of the best value review which has led to the identification of a range of options for service delivery and a number of proposed service improvements - as detailed in this report - for member consideration.
Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background Documents
The following documents disclose facts 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.
NB The list excludes:
1. Published works
2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.
TITLE FILE