Agenda item

[Report of the Interim Director for Children’s Services Report. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Children and Families.]Cabinet is asked to support the development of a new, not for profit school improvement company (Haringey Education Partnership) in partnership with schools in the borough and to commit to commissioning statutory and strategic school improvement functions through this vehicle.

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families introduced the report which set out proposals for a not for profit ‘schools company’, known as the Haringey Education Partnership (HEP), to drive school improvement from 1st September 2018. A Cabinet decision was required to confirm the Council’s support for establishing HEP; committing to commission ongoing statutory and strategic school improvement functions through HEP; to accept the one-off cost of transition and to provide technical and financial assistance to support the set-up of the new organisation.

RESOLVED

1. That future school improvement in Haringey should take place through a schools led school improvement company (known as Haringey Education Partnership) in collaboration with the Council

2. The Council, along with schools buying in as members, should establish Haringey Education Partnership in early 2018 as a not for profit schools company limited by guarantee

3. That the Council enter into a three-year contract with Haringey Education Partnership to deliver the Council’s ongoing statutory and strategic school improvement functions from September 2018

4. To provide technical and financial assistance to support the set-up of Haringey Education Partnership

5. To maintain the current school improvement service, offer until August 2018 and bear the cost of any redundancies

6. That the Council would encourage maintained and voluntary schools to be members of Haringey Education Partnership and challenge any schools that do not buy in as to how they are accessing appropriate challenge and support

7. To delegate to the Director of Children’s Services, after consultation with the Assistant Director of Corporate Governance, to finalise and enter into an agreement with Haringey Education Partnership and take any other necessary action to give effect to the recommendations set out in this report.

Reasons for decision

There are three key reasons for establishing Haringey Education Partnership:

a)    Moving to exceptional in Haringey: Haringey Education Partnership will facilitate a schools led school improvement model to develop. This will build on the existing strengths of schools in Haringey to develop an exceptional school system with a higher proportion of outstanding schools and continue to tackle the remaining attainment gaps within and across schools in the borough

b)    National policy: The Department or Education has set out its intention to reduce the role of local authorities in providing school improvement services and driving schools towards joining multi-academy trusts. Establishing Haringey Education Partnership will maintain the partnership working between our schools and the Council, while building a schools led model of improvement

c)    Schools funding: the loss of funding to the Council through the Education Services Grant and potentially the Dedicated Schools Grant means the current service is financially unsustainable. Haringey Education Partnership will allow school improvement services to continue, and the Council to commission its ongoing statutory and strategic functions, at no ongoing cost the General Fund. 

Alternative options considered

Three other options have been considered:

a)    Do nothing / maintain existing services: The Council could choose to maintain the current school improvement model, committing to maintain existing resources and ways of working. To date, the current model has served us well and maintained a strong partnership between the local authority and schools. However, given the reduction in funding to the local authority, this would require the Council to use the General Fund to meet the costs of school improvement. Maintaining the current model would also be counter to the direction of policy that schools will be empowered to take the lead in the system for continuing to drive up standards. And, as local authorities step back from running schools and school improvement, the ability to lead the system would be greatly diminished.

b)    Reduce or withdraw from school improvement: alternatively, the Council could choose to reduce the financial burden by providing a lower cost school improvement service or, as some local authorities have, withdraw from providing all but the minimum statutory functions. The former would not prevent the fragmentation of the school system in Haringey and would still require the Council to meet significant costs, while not delivering a school-led model. Withdrawing would reduce the costs to the Council but fundamentally weaken the ability of the local authority to influence and support schools in the borough in line with our vision for Priority 1: Best Start in Life. It would leave schools without support or challenge unless they joined a MAT (as is happening in Bromley, for example, where all schools are being encouraged to join a MAT). The local authority would also have such a limited relationship and knowledge of its schools that it would struggle to exercise its powers of intervention effectively.

c)    Trade or commission an external provider of school improvement: The Council could aim to trade school improvement services more broadly than it does currently. This would empower schools to make choices over how they use their resources for school improvement. However, purchasing services would become more transactional and choice would sit with individual schools rather than building a collaborative school led system. The Council could not trade services which are funded by schools via the DSG and would therefore either be small scale or merely substitute for DSG income. Similarly, commissioning an external provider of school improvement services would allow for transactional relationships but would not foster school collaboration and there would be no guarantee of universal coverage, leading to fragmentation.

A large majority of our schools (represented by their Head teachers and Chairs of Governors) have proposed progressing the future of school improvement via the HEP model. This conclusion was reached following extensive consultation and discussion on how best to develop the best possible school improvement service for the future.