Contact: Chris Holt, Telephone: 01962 845673, E-mail: [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1 This paper considers the role of federations and collaborations in raising standards in schools in the light of recent legislation and experience in Hampshire to date. It draws attention to the legal framework, with particular reference to personnel issues, and sets out circumstances in which the local authority (LA) might wish to encourage federation and collaboration between schools as part of a strategy to raise standards.

1.2 Appendix A, produced by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), shows the differences between various types of federation and collaboration. Appendix B considers key personnel issues.

2 Recommendations

2.1 That the County Council continues to support collaboration between schools and, where appropriate, promotes more formal federation in partnership with governing bodies where it can be shown that this is likely to raise standards.

2.2 That the Director of Children's Services be authorised to identify situations where federation or collaboration might be appropriate and to work with relevant governing bodies to assess the potential benefits.

3 Statutory requirements and Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) guidance

3.1 Appendix A sets out DCSF definitions of various types of federation/collaboration. A "hard federation" is where schools share a governing body and where the governing body and committees with delegated powers take decisions on behalf of both schools, even though each school retains its own budget share. The 2002 Education Act and 2007 governance regulations set out the statutory framework for such federations. It should be noted that this relatively new legislation is not applicable to federated schools in existence prior to the 2002 Education Act.

3.2 In a "soft governance federation" each school retains its own governing body but the federation establishes a joint governance/strategic committee with delegated powers. This form of federation must take account of the 2003 collaboration regulations within which it is referred to as "statutory collaboration". The DCSF guidance on these regulations explains why schools might wish to federate as "part of Ministers' drive to raise standards by encouraging schools to work together to share ideas and good practice".

3.3 The DCSF guidance also refers to "soft federation" and "informal, loose collaboration". The main difference between a soft governance federation/statutory collaboration and a soft federation is that, in a soft federation, any joint governance/strategic committee will not have delegated powers. It is difficult to see that a soft federation offers any advantages either over soft governance federations or informal collaboration given that the setting up of a committee or committees without delegated powers would simply add a further tier to governing body management but without executive powers.

3.4 It is important to note that, whatever arrangements are adopted, each school retains its individual identity and full budget share under local management, but in a hard federation any budget can be used for the purposes of the federation.

3.5 It is also important to note that hard federations can be dissolved, subject to statutory process. Arrangements pertaining to soft governance federations/statutory collaborations, soft federations and informal, loose collaborations must be reviewed by governing bodies annually.

4 Collaboration between schools and FE establishments

4.1 The Collaboration Arrangements (Maintained Schools and Further Education Bodies) (England) Regulations 2007 permit school governing bodies to make collaboration arrangements with one or more further education bodies. Similarly, further education bodies can make collaboration arrangements with other further education bodies. Regulations set out what may be delegated to a joint committee.

5 Why federate?

5.1 The DCSF guidance in the 2003 collaboration regulations referred to in paragraph 3.2 above hints at why schools might wish to consider federation. The DCSF website (July 2006) suggests that higher standards might be achieved through federation "within the groups of schools" by the following means:

· "improved teaching and learning

· a structured way for schools to collaborate, learn from each other and share best practice

· improved senior and middle management, joint appointment of staff and coherent training

· joint staffing opportunities including specialist teachers and wider career opportunities across the federation

· governance support and development

· a cost effective and coherent curriculum, increasing the opportunity to fulfil individual students' needs, extending curriculum entitlement

· models of good practice to improve teaching and learning and inclusion

· cost-effectiveness - economies of scale

· a basis for further partnerships, including cross-phase and with other providers (e.g. 14 - 19, community services etc.)

· saving on planning and administrative time

· strategic planning, e.g. through the sharing of complementary specialisms

· building capacity and coherence across the federation and the LEA."

5.2 Although helpful in directing attention to standards-focussed reasons for considering federation, the DCSF list does seem to reflect an assumption that federation will be between "groups of schools" rather than simply, as in Hampshire to date, a linking of two schools responding to specific circumstances.

5.3 A parallel approach can be found in the paper on Trust Schools recently (July 2007) considered by the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services (Education). The Lead Member was asked to delegate to the Director of Children's Services the authority to support schools' applications for Trust status where the following questions could be answered positively. They might equally apply when federation is under consideration.

· Will (federation) raise standards rather than just maintain them?

· Will (federation) improve the well-being of all children and young people in the community served by the school?

· Will (federation) improve community cohesion and collaboration without any loss of existing quality?

· Will (federation) improve the schools' potential to meet the objectives of the Children and Young People's Plan?

· (for secondary schools only) Will (federation) improve the school's potential to meet the objectives of the 14 - 19 strategy?

5.4 It cannot be stressed too highly that the hard federation of schools cannot be seen as a way of avoiding difficult issues associated with surplus places or low standards. There will be occasions where the closure of individual schools or the merging of separate schools will both help to raise standards and reduce surplus places.

6 Federation in Hampshire

6.1 Three "hard federations" have recently been established:

a) Belle Vue Infant School and Newport Junior School (Aldershot)

This federation has now been in operation for a year with one governing body and one headteacher. One of the prime reasons for implementing this federation was the difficulty in filling headship vacancies at both schools. The governors were open to LA advice as to possible ways forward and a substantial programme of governing body training and consultation was carried out in partnership with the authority. A key outcome of federation was the enabling of the appointment of a headteacher whose "very good leadership" of the two schools was recognised by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) inspection and subsequent report which also stated that "this has resulted in improving standards and achievement and pupils' personal development being good".

In November 2007 the federation achieved Investor in People accreditation. The assessor stated in his report that "...people are very positive about the federation and the benefits. People spoke about additional opportunities to share good practice and to work with colleagues."

b) The Crescent Primary School and Norwood Primary School (Eastleigh)

These schools were federated in April 2007 as two 5 - 11 schools under one governing body and headteacher. Prior to the federation, an Ofsted inspection of Norwood had resulted in the school being served with a notice to improve. A recent follow-up visit by Her Majesty's Inspectorate has resulted in the school being identified as making satisfactory progress and reported on the positive effect which the federation is having on the school.

c) Fawley Infant School and Blackfield Primary School (Waterside)

This federation has only recently been established. The governing body of the infant school instigated the federation and asked the LA to broker its establishment, considering the arrangement to be the best way to secure the long-term future of the school. This coincided with the infant school headteacher moving on to another headship.

It is too early to comment on the progress of this federation but it should be noted that concerns over standards were not a factor in its establishment. The Instrument of Government reflects the fact that Blackfield Primary School is a foundation school, whereas Fawley Infant School has retained its community status. Appendix B points out potential difficult employment issues when schools of a different status are federated. In cases such as this, there might be an argument in favour of changing status of one school from community to foundation. Regulations no longer permit a change of status in the other direction.

7 Collaboration in Hampshire

7.1 A number of groups of schools have already begun to use the Collaborative Regulations to meet their needs in particular areas. For example, schools on Hayling Island have established a joint committee to oversee the development of extended services and, more recently, potentially of the Children's Centre. Negotiations are beginning between schools with a view to enabling area-wide joint decision-making with the Hayling Island and Warblington Schools. Similarly, discussions are about to start with schools and, potentially, further education and other providers in the Fareham and Gosport area to develop a model for common decision-making in the area.

8 Framework for the future

8.1 There is already in Hampshire a long-standing tradition of partnership between schools. Although the LA has no power either to require federation or collaboration between schools (other than in exceptional circumstances)¹ or resist governors' proposals, it is clear that, in the right circumstances and with unequivocal local support, there are real benefits in the linking of two or more schools.

8.2 The DCSF makes clear that there is a range of possible partnership frameworks between schools. "Hard federation" and soft governance/statutory collaboration federations would seem to be the most likely to deliver measurable improvement through clear management structures, both at governor and professional levels. Appendix A suggests that a hard federation "allows for efficient, streamlined decision making in all areas". This is the pattern adopted thus far in Hampshire. However, it must be recognised that statutory collaboration/soft governance federation offers advantages over hard federation in some circumstances.

8.3 As far as collaboration between schools and further education bodies is concerned, similar considerations pertain. The extent of possible delegation is set out in the 2003 procedure regulations. Hard federation is not permitted but the equivalent of a soft governance federation/statutory collaboration is possible.

8.4 Whatever pattern of federation/collaboration is adopted, significant demands will be made on governing bodies and LA personnel at all stages of the process. This will be particularly significant if federation between more than two institutions is being considered.

9 Amalgamation and closure of schools

9.1 In some cases, particularly where rolls are falling with no likelihood of future increases, amalgamation may be the most appropriate response. This will involve school closure and, in some cases the setting up of a new school with a new governing body, albeit sometimes in the premises of one of the amalgamated schools. In other cases, one school may close and merge with another.

9.2 On occasion, school closure will be appropriate, often as a result of a wider review of school organisation, with children being admitted to other schools and staff redeployed.

10 Corporate priorities

10.1 The proposals in this report are expected to maximise well-being in support of the County Council's corporate priorities by ensuring that Hampshire schools capitalise on all opportunities to develop learners' understanding and appreciation of their role in society and their capacity to contribute.

10.2 The proposals support an aim of the Children Act, "enjoying and achieving" by allowing students to fulfil their potential through good academic progress and personal development

11 Consultation

11.1 Discussions have taken place with Hampshire headteacher representatives and with teacher union representatives in the preparation of this report.

12 Legal implications

12.1 The legal framework for federation and collaboration is clearly set out in the Education Act 2002 and associated regulations.

13 Financial implications

13.1 Even in a hard federation, the schools concerned retain their own budgets although it is likely that strategic budget decisions will be taken by a joint committee. If one headteacher is managing two schools, there might be some financial saving although this is unlikely to be significant given the potential need for each school to retain an assistant or deputy headteacher for day to day management.

14 Personnel implications

14.1 Personnel implications are considered in Appendix B. Before any federation proposals are implemented, full consultation with professional associations and unions is essential.

15 Impact assessment

15.1 Race and equality impact assessment has been considered in the development of this report and no adverse impact has been identified.

16 Crime prevention issues

16.1 None noted.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background documents

The following documents discuss facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and have 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.

None.