Appendix 1
SERVICE
IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
Strategy
No
Recommendation
Outcomes with success criteria
Priority
High
Time
scales
Achieved
Resource
Implications
Consultant
fees and
Officer time
Responsible
Officer
Jill Baker
1
Define the future strategic direction of the service from
the key central government documents that drive the
service.
2
Review the name of the service in light of the national
agenda
A report that pulls together the central government
guidance and documents and gives an overview and
definition of the requirements of the government regarding
Inspection and Advisory Services and communicate this to
stakeholders.
The name of the service is agreed.
High
April 2003
None
Jill Baker
Priority
Time
scales
April 2003
Resource
Implications
Officer time
Responsible
Officer
Assistant
Director
Time
scales
April 2003
Resource
Implications
Officer time
Responsible
Officer
Assistant
Director
Purpose of the Service
No
3
Recommendation
Outcomes with success criteria
Redefine the common purpose of the service in view of A defined and agreed common purpose that reflects both
the government agenda for IAS and the requirements of the national agenda and local needs and is communicated
stakeholders.
to all stakeholders so that everyone has a shared
understanding.
High
Roles and Responsibilities
No
4
Recommendation
Determine specific roles, responsibilities, and
accountabilities of all stakeholders
Outcomes with success criteria
Priority
A document that sets out the roles and responsibilities and
accountabilities of each of the stakeholders is produced
and communicated.
High
Aims and Objectives
No
Recommendation
Outcomes with success criteria
Priority
5
Review and re-write the service aims and objectives to
ensure that they reflect the national agenda, local
requirements and the common purpose
A revised set of published service aims and objectives are
documented and communicated to all stakeholders.
High
Time
scales
April 2003
Resource
Implications
Officer time
Responsible
Officer
Assistant
Director
Time
scales
April 2003
Resource
Implications
Officer time
Responsible
Officer
Assistant
Director
Time
scales
August
2003
Resource
Implications
Officer time
Responsible
Officer
Assistant
Director
B McIntyre
March
2003
Officer time
Assistant
Director
B McIntyre
Core Functions
No
6
Recommendation
Outcomes with success criteria
Redefine what the core and non-core business is, in
A revised definition of core business, functions and
light of the national agenda, customer requirements, the activities, and which includes levels of entitlement, is
restated purpose and new service aims and objectives. communicated to all stakeholders.
Priority
High
Procurement and Service Level Agreements
No
Recommendation
7
Develop alternative arrangements, including SLAs, for
the activities and services no longer being offered by
the service through consultation with stakeholders to
establish how they would like to procure extra services.
Continue to offer the existing service level agreements
until the brokerage option for IAS is in place, and review
them for clarity, transparency, and appropriateness.
8
Outcomes with success criteria
Effective and efficient procurement arrangements are in
place for additional services.
SLAs are clear and transparent and comply with the
requirements of brokerage, which will be operational for the
IAS in 2004.
Priority
High
Medium
Service Provision, Organisation, and Processes
No
Recommendation
9
Re-organise the office layout to minimise interruptions.
10
Need to establish and communicate target setting
protocols
Review, in consultation with staff, the process for the
production of reports. Consider
- sending the lengthy reports to the type room to
make best use of staff time
- whether Inspector-Advisors should type up
their own short reports using the Education
Planning and Monitoring system.
- Whether the report production process can be
shortened.
Review processes to implement electronic monitoring
and reporting systems to replace paper-based systems
such as training administration, and report writing
11
12
Outcomes with success criteria
A reduction in the number of requests made of the
administrative team by people using the adjacent meeting
rooms
All targets are set using an agreed process and within
locally agreed target setting guidelines
Best use is made of staff time
The number of steps in the report producing process is
reduced.
A full record of visit of is held centrally on the Education
and Planning Management System and a process for
school access is implemented.
All systems and processes have been reviewed to assess
suitability for conversion to electronic means and
streamlines processes.
Priority
Low
Medium
Medium
Time
scales
August
2003
August
2003
Ongoing
Resource
Implications
Purchase of
screens
Responsible
Officer
Office
Manager
Officer time
Assistant
Director
Assistant
Director
Office
Manager
Officer time
Cost of
consultation
Training
requirements
Medium
Mar 2004
Outcomes with success criteria
Priority
Inset training is evaluated and the effectiveness and impact
of the training is evaluated in a structured way.
Medium
Time
scales
Sept 03
Officer time
IT costs
Assistant
Director
Officer
Manager
Resource
Implications
Officer time
Responsible
Officer
Assistant
Director
Inset
Co-ordinator
Inset Training
No
13
Recommendation
Devise an evaluation strategy and programme.
14
Redesign course evaluation forms using an established
model.
15
Build in quality standards, for external consultants and
course presenters, into the evaluation procedures.
16
Maintain a database of course statistics and
performance management information.
17
Utilise the existing SAP training administration module
to administer inset training.
Encourage people to book training electronically.
18
All course evaluation forms are in the same format and
feed into an established evaluation model to ensure that
meaningful information is obtained and acted on.
All course presenters work to the same quality standards to
ensure consistency, which is measured by stakeholders
through the evaluation process.
Medium
Sept 03
Officer time
Inset
Co-ordinator
Medium
Sept 03
Officer time
Performance Management information for all key
performance areas is recorded, easily obtainable, and
available electronically.
SAP being used to administer training and the amount of
time taken to process course applications is reduced.
All course information is available electronically and there
is an increase in the use of e-bookings
Medium
Sept 03
Officer time
IT costs
Assistant
Director
Inset
Co-ordinator
Inset
Co-ordinator
Medium
Sept 03
Officer time
Medium
Sept 03
Officer time
Priority
Time
scales
August
2003
Resource
Implications
Officer time
Responsible
Officer
Director of
Education and
Leisure
Director of
Education and
Leisure
Personnel
Assistant
Director
Inset
Co-ordinator
Inset
Co-ordinator
Service Structure and Staffing
No
Recommendation
19
Review the staffing structure and restructure the service
to enable the delivery of the national agenda and
ensure that it continues to meet its statutory obligations
and local needs
Review and revise the job descriptions of staff required
to deliver the service.
A revised staffing structure, which has been agreed by
head-teachers, is in place and both the national agenda
and local needs are being met and yet allows for a certain
amount of flexibility.
Agreed revised job descriptions, which are linked to the
NIACE national standards, are in place.
High
High
April 2003
Pay structure
Provide training for all staff in the new NIACE
professional national standards for Inspector-Advisors
All staff to have received training to meet the NIACE
standards.
Feedback from stakeholders shows that there has been an
improvement in the quality
Medium
Ongoing
Financial
Officer time
20
21
Outcomes with success criteria
22
23
24
Provide training to Inspectors -Advisors in the use of
ICT
Consider a range of recruitment and retention issues
and revise arrangements as appropriate.
All Inspector-Advisors are able to use IT to undertake basic
report writing and data interpretation.
The service is able to recruit and retain high calibre staff.
Implement the corporate attendance management
policy and ensure that monitoring arrangements are in
place.
Levels of absence continue to be low
Medium
Ongoing
Cost of
Training
Financial –
salary scales
High
April 2003
Low
Ongoing
None
Priority
Resource
Implications
Officer time
Office
Manager
Director of
Education and
Leisure
Personnel
Assistant
Director
Finance
No
Recommendation
Outcomes with success criteria
25
Consider whether it is necessary to review the decision
to hold the funds centrally and whether further funds
should be delegated
The level of funds delegated continues to increase
Medium
Time
scales
Ongoing
26
Review unit costs
Greater transparency is achieved in unit costs and schools
are fully aware of the true costs of discrete
functions/activities
Medium
Mar 2004
Officer time
Priority
Time
scales
December
2003
Resource
Implications
Officer time
Responsible
Officer
Director of
Education and
Leisure
Finance
Assistant
Director
Finance
Communication, Consultation and Involvement
No
27
Recommendation
Devise a communications strategy for the service to
improve communications
Outcomes with success criteria
A communications strategy, which fits with the corporate
communication model, is in place and feedback shows an
improvement in communications.
Medium
Responsible
Officer
Director of
Education and
Leisure
Assistant
Director
28
29
30
31
32
33
Implement a consultation strategy to regularly gain the
views of stakeholders and which includes a feedback
mechanism and a process to deal with concerns
outside of the service
Consultation takes place with schools to ensure that he
new agenda, structure of the service, and the
procurement to deal with unmet needs meet with
approval.
Review the arrangements for agenda setting for
meetings so that both schools and Inspector-Advisors
have ownership.
Consult with schools on the current mechanisms used
to involve them in planning and decision making
processes, gain their views on new or alternative
methods, and devise a strategy to promote joint
working and fully include service users in the decision
making and planning processes.
Investigate the best way (including a service web site
and e-based solutions) to facilitate the sharing of
learning and information between schools, the service
and the rest of the directorate and implement an agreed
strategy to work in partnership with others
Implement regular self-review sessions
The views of stakeholders are sought and used to improve
the service.
Medium
December
2003
Officer time
Assistant
Director
High
March
2004
Officer time
Assistant
Director
Feedback from stakeholders shows that they feel fully
involved in, and can influence, the agenda setting process.
Medium
Sept 2003
Officer time
Assistant
Director
Implement new/alternative/revised mechanisms and
monitor and evaluate the implementation of the
mechanisms.
Medium
Mar 2004
Officer time
Assistant
Director
Mechanisms are in place to share learning with all
stakeholders and stakeholders find them useful.
Medium
March 04
Officer time
and possibly IT
investment
Assistant
Director
Share service developments and improvements with
stakeholders
Medium
Officer time
Assistant
Director
Results of consultation show satisfaction with the new
service.
Performance Management
No
Recommendation
34
Produce a service plan for 2003/04, which covers all of
the functions and services and links the service
planning and performance management process to the
pledges.
Set local performance indicators to measure the
contribution the service makes to the achievement of
the Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI) and
measure service provision not covered by BVPI or the
EDP.
Implement the electronic Education Planning and
Monitoring system to monitor the achievement of the
EDP and record visits to schools
35
36
Outcomes with success criteria
Priority
The service Plan is produced in conjunction with staff and
is implemented in accordance with the directorate service
planning guidance and communicated to stakeholders.
High
Time
scales
Achieved
Resource
Implications
Officer time
Responsible
Officer
Assistant
Director
A range of robust outcome focused performance indicators
are in place
High
June 2003
Officer time
Assistant
Director
All visits are recorded and give details of agreed objectives
and the achievement of EDP can be measured.
High
Ongoing
Officer time
IT costs
Assistant
Director
Appendix 2
ACTIVITIES
OF
INSPECTOR-ADVISORS
ADMINISTRATIVE
TEAM
INSET CO-ORDINATOR
FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE SERVICE
Inspector and Advisors


















Support and challenge schools to raise attainment
Advise on specialist accommodation and building design
Take part in cross directorate working groups and committees
Monitor schools in relation to a rolling programme of issues e.g. SEN,
attendance, finance
Implement and contribute to the development of corporate strategies e.g. race
equality, pledges, and Directorate policies and strategies such as inclusion
and the Behaviour Improvement Plan, Information & Communication
Technology, Creative Forum, and Early Years
Provide Link Officer Support for Governing Bodies
Input to governing body agendas to inform on standards and support and
challenge to schools
Provide Governor Support and Training as required
Write bids for a range of initiatives from various Government and other agencies
Raise standards by organising and providing in-service training
Provide an “educational rationale” to planning and development processes
such as surplus places, Asset Management planning
Represent the Education and Leisure Director on Head teacher appointments
Recruitment and retention strategy
Advice and support for elected members
Use and interpret data, and co-working with the strategic information unit
which includes a range of initiatives which enable the EDP to be achieved
Facilitate joint management weekends
Attend in-service staff meetings on specific developments as requested by
the Head teacher
Enable self evaluation In-service brokerage as requested by Head teachers
Administration














Schedule diaries
Arrange and administer meetings
Keep appropriate records
Maintain a library and filing system
Provide administrative and clerical support including word processing,
photocopying, filing and mail.
Prepare reports including Ofsted and Termly reports
Deal with enquiries
Maintain statistical information and databases
Office management – sick, leave, pay
Collate and prepare budget information
Support consultant advisors
Provide secretarial support
Design, produce and issue resources and training materials
Respond to enquiries
Inset Training






Provide clerical support to the senior Inspector- Advisors
Carry out administrative functions related to the Ofsted contracts and their
delivery
Produce an annual course programme
Liaise with course providers/speakers
Process training applications
Arrange accommodation, facilities and catering
Appendix 3
BEST VALUE
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The Best Value Performance Indicators, which the work of the service relates to, are:
BVPI 37
Average GCSE points score of 15-year-old pupils in schools
maintained by the local education authority
BVPI 38
The % of 15 year of pupils in school maintained by the local education
authority achieving 5 or more GCSEs at grades A* - C or equivalent
BVPI 39
The % of 15 year old pupils in schools maintained by the local
education authority achieving 1 or more GCSEs at grades A* - G or
equivalent
BVPI 39x
The % of 15 year old pupils in schools maintained by the local
education authority achieving 5 GCSEs or equivalent at grades A* to
G including English and Maths
BVPI 40
The % of 15-year-old pupils in schools maintained by the local
education authority achieving level 4 or above in the key stage 2
Mathematics test
BVPI 41
The % of 15 year old pupils in schools maintained by the local
education authority achieving level 4 or above in the key stage 2
English test
BVPI 47
The % of schools maintained by the local education authority with
serious weaknesses
BVPI 48
The % of schools maintained by the local education authority subject
to special measures
BVPI 181a
Percentage of 14-year-old pupils in schools maintained by the local
education authority achieving Level 5 or above in the Key Stage 3 test
in English
BVPI 181b
Percentage of 14-year-old pupils in schools maintained by the local
education authority achieving Level 5 or above in the Key Stage 3 test
in Mathematics
BVPI 181c
Percentage of 14-year-old pupils in schools maintained by the local
education authority achieving Level 5 or above in the Key Stage 3 test
in Science
Appendix 4
KEY STAGE
ATTAINMENT
DATA
Key Stage 1
Reading
Writing
Spelling
Maths
99
00
01
02
99
00
01
02
99
00
01
02
99
00
01
02
Coventry
78
81
82
82
81
83
84
85
65
68
71
75
84
89
88
89
Halton
84
82
82
87
84
83
86
88
72
70
74
76
87
87
89
90
79
82
84
86
79
82
84
86
72
74
79
83
86
87
91
90
74
79
80
83
76
80
81
83
63
66
71
74
83
87
88
89
79
79
79
83
81
82
82
82
72
72
74
77
83
88
87
87
National
82
83
84
87
83
84
86
86
71
72
75
78
87
90
91
90
Oldham
79
81
80
84
82
83
84
84
71
71
74
76
84
89
89
88
Rochdale
78
78
79
84
80
80
81
84
69
65
70
75
84
86
86
87
Salford
83
83
84
83
84
85
85
83
74
72
76
76
89
89
90
88
Sandwell
74
77
77
82
73
77
77
78
60
63
66
69
82
86
85
85
82
83
85
86
83
86
87
86
74
77
79
81
86
90
92
90
77
82
83
83
80
83
85
84
71
74
77
79
83
89
90
89
Hartlepool
Kingston
Upon Hull
Middlesborough
South
Tyneside
Sunderland
Key Stage 2
English
Maths
Science
99
00
01
02
99
00
01
02
99
00
01
02
Coventry
67
72
71
72
64
68
65
71
75
82
85
85
Halton
67
74
76
77
65
71
71
75
76
85
86
88
Hartlepool
67
72
73
70
69
70
71
72
77
83
89
87
Kingston Upon
Hull
58
65
67
65
61
67
69
69
72
81
87
85
Middlesborough
64
69
72
70
64
67
67
70
75
80
87
85
National
70
75
75
75
69
72
71
73
78
85
87
86
Oldham
66
73
71
72
65
70
70
73
74
82
85
84
Rochdale
67
70
72
72
68
69
69
72
75
81
86
84
Salford
70
74
72
72
70
72
70
72
77
83
86
83
Sandwell
59
65
66
63
56
60
65
64
66
77
82
78
South Tyneside
67
72
74
73
69
74
72
75
76
83
87
84
Sunderland
68
72
73
71
68
70
70
73
77
84
88
86
Key Stage 3
English
Maths
Science
99
00
01
02
99
00
01
02
99
00
01
02
Coventry
60
60
61
61
57
61
62
63
47
53
61
61
Halton
62
57
63
61
54
60
61
61
47
54
60
61
Hartlepool
56
55
58
67
55
57
59
62
50
53
60
62
Kingston Upon
Hull
42
50
48
52
44
48
51
52
38
40
48
49
Middlesborough
50
58
56
61
48
50
55
55
39
44
52
55
National
64
63
64
66
62
65
66
67
55
59
66
66
Oldham
57
58
59
60
54
58
60
59
46
51
57
56
Rochdale
54
53
55
59
54
56
59
63
46
50
58
59
Salford
55
53
57
53
52
56
58
59
43
49
57
55
Sandwell
53
52
54
57
46
49
51
52
37
40
50
51
South Tyneside
60
63
64
64
58
62
63
63
53
57
62
61
Sunderland
60
61
64
61
55
58
61
61
49
53
61
61
GCSE
% 5+ A* - C
% 5+ A* - G
Average Point
99
00
01
99
00
01
99
00
01
Coventry
39.1
40.8
42.6
86.2
85.1
85.5
33.7
34.2
34.6
Halton
37.3
37.7
39.9
87.9
91.0
90.9
33.6
34.9
35.4
Hartlepool
38.8
35.7
40.4
86.5
86.1
87.5
35.5
33.8
35.5
Kingston Upon Hull
23.4
24.4
27.5
80.6
77.8
80.6
26.6
26.7
28.1
Middlesborough
31.0
34.6
35.0
80.8
83.4
85.5
30.1
31.9
32.5
National
47.9
49.2
50.0
88.5
88.9
88.9
38.1
38.9
39.3
Oldham
39.9
42.4
41.4
88.6
89.3
89.3
34.9
35.5
35.8
Rochdale
38.5
37.9
40.4
86.1
85.3
86.7
33.2
33.2
34.4
Salford
34.1
35.5
34.3
86.9
89.9
88.8
31.4
32.4
31.6
Sandwell
29.7
31.7
34.3
84.0
84.9
84.4
30.1
30.7
32.1
South Tyneside
39.9
39.3
39.1
89.8
89.3
90.4
34.8
35.5
35.7
Sunderland
34.6
38.4
39.2
87.8
89.6
89.7
33.5
35.4
35.6
Appendix 5
CHALLENGE
DOCUMENT
Strategic Issues and Service Aims and objectives
Issue
Purpose of the
service
Roles and
Responsibilities
Findings
Some stakeholders feel that there is
uncertainty around the future direction of
the service
Challenge Questions
What is the future strategic
direction of the service?
There is not a common sense of purpose
between the stakeholders and there is a
lack of clarity about the role of the service.
What should the common purpose
of the service be?
Stakeholders felt that the name of the
service would not adequately describe the
purpose and role of the service and two
alternatives of School Improvement Service
or School Effectiveness Service were put
forward. The IAS service is also called the
school improvement service and this
sometimes causes some confusion.
There is a lack of clarity amongst
stakeholders on roles, responsibilities, and
accountabilities around school improvement
including raising standards and achieving
results.
What should the name of the
service be?
What should be the spilt of roles,
responsibilities, and
accountabilities be?
Recommendation
Define the future strategic direction of the
service from the key central government
documents that drive the service and local
requirements
The common purpose of the service should
be redefined in view of the government
agenda for IAS and local requirements. The
redefined purpose and role of the service
should be communicated to all stakeholders
so that everyone has a shared understanding
of the sense of common purpose.
Consider the suggestions in light of the
national agenda and agree upon the name of
the service
Jointly determine the specific roles,
responsibilities, and accountabilities of each
party and publish them
Aims and
objectives of the
service
Links with other
plans and
strategies
There have been recent developments from
central government on the national agenda
for School Improvement
Do our service aims reflect what
central government expects us to
do? If not, what should they be?
Stakeholders feel that they are not fully
involved in decision-making or planning of
how the service is delivered.
Some IAS staff lack clarity and
understanding about how the service
practically implements the corporate
pledges.
How can we involve our
stakeholders in setting our aims
and objectives?
How can we ensure that all IAS
staff understand how the service
contributes to the corporate
pledges?
Both officers and head teachers saw IAS as
not yet working in a fully "joined up way"
with other sectors in the Directorate and not
always sharing information with other parts
of the Directorate
Do we cross -work/work in
partnership with others both
internally and externally as well as
we could to ensure joined up
services, avoiding duplication etc?
The service aims and objectives to be
examined and, if necessary, re-drafted to
ensure that they reflect the national agenda
and common purpose
Devise a strategy to involve service users the
decision making and planning processes
Link in the service planning and performance
management process to the pledges and
involve IAS staff in the service planning
process and fully communicate the final
agreed plan
Continue to work in partnership with others by
developing mechanisms to share learning
and information
Service Provision
Issue
Statutory
obligations
Government
agenda
Functions of
the service –
core business
Findings
The service is provided to meet statutory
obligations in relation to school improvement.
If the service no longer provided core
services some of the statutory obligations
would not be met. Schools would need to buy
in the support and challenge functions from
external providers. Other areas such as
managing the Standing Advisory Council on
Religious Education and monitoring of school
trips and visits would be un-co-ordinated
The service is not currently structured in a
way that allows it to fully deliver the national
agenda
IAS staff feel that the core business was set
out in the EDP, however, head teachers said
that they did not "own" the EDP
Question
Should the services continue to be
delivered?
Recommendation
The service should continue to ensure that
the service meets its statutory obligations.
What needs to be done to ensure
that the national agenda is
delivered?
Why do head teachers not own
the EDP?
The service to be restructured to reflect the
national agenda
Investigate why schools do not feel they own
the EDP and implement an appropriate
mechanism to ensure that schools feel fully
involved
Head teachers were very clear that the core
business should comprise generic school
improvement, support and challenge and that
additional support could be offered as an
optional extra to be bought in additionally to
core business. Other officers felt that IAS
should focus exclusively on school
improvement. Primary Head teachers felt that
the core business should include articulating
a vision for primary education and confirming
the elements of good practice.
Consultation with Head teachers and staff
concluded that both generic and subject
specialisms should be provided but not
necessarily in the same way. Some
stakeholders felt that there were not enough
subject specialisms.
Primary Head teachers were unclear about
their entitlement, uncertain about the
boundaries of what they could request. They
felt that the quantity of advice and support
was determined by the number of requests
made by different Head teachers
Officers felt that a lack of SLAs in place
meant that the IAS did not always know when
to say no.
What should be the core business
and activities of the IAS?
Redefine what is core and non core business,
in light of the national agenda, the restated
purpose and new service aims and objectives
and communicate this to stakeholders
Would the needs of schools be
met more effectively through
generic school improvement
advice rather than subject
specialisms?
Investigate a structure that comprises of
general school improvement advisors and
details how the current, and possibly an
extended, specialist role would be provided.
Should the IAS continue to
concentrate on the core business
of school improvement and
respond to routine requests for
support?
Clarify the core and non core tasks and
develop well defined SLAs and clear service
request mechanisms
Functions of
the Service –
Tasks and
Activities
There is a long list of activities, which the
service undertakes, which has grown over the
years to reflect the duties expected by the
directorate and the corporate centre.
However, this list is not consistent with the
national agenda.
Members and Officers felt that
Inspectors/advisers often get involved in
activities other than those relating to school
improvement.
Secondary Head teachers felt that the
generic school improvement/challenge was
not being delivered.
IAS staff were unable to identify significant
tasks that they should not do. However, one
group in IAS felt that they were too often
given tasks that were not directly connected
with school improvement such as
involvement in surplus place removal.
There is a lack of clarity amongst some
Head-teachers, especially in the primary
sector, regarding the difference between
support and challenge
Light touch schools visits in some cases do
exceed the entitlement of two
Do we provide the correct services
to achieve the revised purpose
and aims and objectives of the
service?
Review the list of activities and tasks
currently undertaken by IAS and refocus to
achieve the aims and objectives of the
service.
Put in place alternative arrangements for the
activities and services no longer being offered
by IAS by consulting with stakeholders to
establish how they would like to procure extra
services
How can we increase clarity and
understanding of the support and
challenge roles?
Communicate the national agenda and the
service purpose to stakeholders
Why do light touch schools
receive more than the stated two
visits and should they pay for any
extra visits over the entitlement of
two?
Restate the number of visits each
classification of school is entitled to and
communicate this to schools. Implement a
mechanism for dealing with requests outside
of this entitlement.
Service
volumes
Inset
Schools are not sure of what levels of support
they should receive. There is a lack of clarity
about the number of advisory visits schools
are entitled to.
Demands on the service vary, depending on:
the classification schools are given e.g. light
touch and how many schools are in special
measures or are deemed to have serious
weaknesses. These factors determine the
amount and level of support needed.
Why are schools unclear about
what their support entitlement is?
Clarify with schools what the entitlement/
level of support is following guidelines set out
in the national agenda.
How can the service best meet the
varying demands of the service?
Re-structure the service in a way that allows
for a certain amount of flexibility and extra
support to be bought in if necessary.
Some stakeholders feel that there is a lack of
variety in the courses offered, that they are
not always pitched at the correct level, and
not delivered at the right time
Inset training provision is offered under an
SLA and is to be included in the second
phase of the soon to be implemented
brokerage service to schools. Other
authorities have moved towards a trust.
How is the inset training provision
arrived at?
Consult with stakeholders to establish
requirements
Should training still be offered
through SLAs?
Continue with the Service level agreements
until the brokerage option is in place
Administration
The administrative role has developed to
include processing records of visits on behalf
of Inspector-Advisors. Approximately 1000
hours per year are spent on this activity (of
which 300 are for the longer reports).
However, some Inspector-Advisors type up
their own short reports. Word processing
staff from support services are paid on a
lower scale than administrative staff within
IAS.
What is the best way to process
the reports?
Review the process for the production of
reports. Consider:
- sending all of the lengthy reports to
the type room to make best use of
staff time.
- whether Inspector Advisors should
type up their own short reports using
the Education Planning and
Management System.
- Whether the quality assurance
process can be shortened
The open plan aspect of the office means that
people using the three meeting rooms that
lead off the office often interrupt
administrative staff.
What can be done to keep
interruptions to the minimum?
Re-organise the office layout to minimise
interruptions
IT
There is currently little use made of IT to
manage processes and facilitate
communication.
How could IT be used to
streamline activities?
Review processes to implement where
appropriate IT monitoring and reporting
systems to replace paper-based systems.
For example:
- Utilise the existing SAP training
administration module to administer inset
training and encourage Inset training booking
by e-mail.
- Set up a service web-site to provide
information and share learning
Service Level
Agreements
Alternative
service
provision
Extensive use is made of the administrative
team to process (type, follow up, QA etc)
short reports - a total of approximately 1000
administrative hours which are then subject to
a quality assurance process.
There are two service level agreements in
place which appear to be working
Some schools have chosen to "buy in" advice
from elsewhere and recognise that in the
present system this may mean paying twice
for some aspects of support and advice. This
is not a good use of public money.
Could the service level
agreements be improved?
How can we ensure that schools
do not effectively pay twice for
services?
Consider utilising the Education Planning and
Monitoring System to facilitate the sharing by
e-means of reports between the service and
schools and provide training to Inspectors
and Advisors in ICT.
Review the current service level agreements
and consider whether services no longer
provided by the service are offered under
service level agreements. Ensure that the
revised/new service level agreements comply
with the requirements of brokerage in 2004.
Consult with schools to ensure that the new
remit and structure of the service and the
proposals to deal with unmet needs meet with
approval.
Staffing
Issue
Roles of staff
Findings
The Salford structure has a higher than
average number of Inspector-Advisors than
other similar LEAs and is comprised of both
generic and specialist roles. Current
vacancies within the service bring the number
of Inspector-Advisors actually in post to
similar levels to that of other similar LEAs.
Consultation has revealed that stakeholders
would prefer to see fewer Inspector-Advisors
and to obtain specialist advice in a different
way. Primary heads said that it was
necessary to be clear about what the service
is expected to achieve and to devise and
implement a structure to achieve this. This
may need to involve change or removal of
posts.
Stakeholders have a lack of understanding
about what differences there are in the roles
of the Consultants and Inspector-Advisors
and the relationship between the two
Job descriptions are out of date
Question
Is the staffing structure
appropriate to deliver the new
agenda and achieve service aims
and objectives?
Possible Actions
When the service aims and objectives and
core functions have been established,
calculate the number of staff required to
deliver the new agenda and establish a
staffing structure that is flexible enough to
cope with emerging demands
What is the relationship between
consultants and advisors?
How can this relationship be
explained to schools to aid their
understanding?
What should the job descriptions
be to deliver school improvement
agenda?
Re-state the roles of consultants and
inspector-advisors to schools and other
stakeholders to ensure understanding of the
roles
Re-write job descriptions to reflect the new
requirements of the service
Staff Training
Some stakeholders feel that Inspectors and
advisors do not have the skills required for
the challenge role. Some members of IAS
disagreed with this position; others agreed
A majority of Head teachers felt that
Headship or senior management experience
is desirable but not necessary, though there
was recognition of the need for significant
personal credibility of the individuals carrying
out that role.
What skills, knowledge,
experience and personal qualities
make a credible Inspector-Advisor
and what training will InspectorAdvisors need to undertake their
new roles?
Use the NIACE professional standards as a
benchmark for Inspector-Advisors and ensure
that the job descriptions and person
specifications match the professional
standards and provide training for all staff in
the new national standards for InspectorAdvisors
How can we ensure that we get
sufficient applicant of a good
quality?
How can we ensure that this is
maintained?
Consider a range of recruitment and retention
issues and revise arrangements as
appropriate.
Continue to implement the corporate
attendance management policy and ensure
that monitoring arrangements are in place.
Members recognised that this might require
higher salaries for advisers
Turnover and
recruitment
Sickness
monitoring
IAS felt that they could undertake a training
and development programme in proposed
national standards for those engaged in
school improvement
Unable to appoint at last round of interviews
The IAS experience much lower rates of
sickness than other parts of the Directorate.
Finance
Issue
Delegated
funding
Findings
Funding for advice and support is held
centrally. This is the result of an earlier
political decision, which had not
subsequently been debated. During the
consultation with cabinet, facilitated by
Mouchel, members made it clear that there
is no political will to hold maximum funding
centrally.
The majority of stakeholders said that the
maximum amount of funds should be
delegated. All agreed that funds for generic
school improvement should be retained at
the centre. Head teachers were not
determined to have all available funds
without discussion. Rather, there was a
feeling that there should be greater
transparency about what funding is held at
the centre and subsequent agreement
about where this might sit in future. The
IAS agreed in principle.
Unit Costs
Stakeholders are unaware of the costs of
the service. However, there was a general
view that the service did not offer good
value for money
Although SLAs are in place unit costs can
not be produced for all areas
Question
Should further funds be
delegated?
Possible Actions
Consider the delegation of funds
How can we establish if the
service does or does not offer
value for money?
Inform stakeholders what the costs of the
service are and have clear SLAs
Can we calculate unit costs for
all aspects of the service?
Review unit costs
Consultation and Communication
Issue
Stakeholder
communication
Findings
Communication is not as good as it could
be between the service and stakeholders
Head-teachers feel that they do not have
influence on common foci of link adviser
visits and they feel that they are not
engaged in determining the agenda for the
visits which in many cases do not reflect
school priorities or their own school selfevaluations. IAS confirmed that there was a
similar agenda for link visits in all phases to
reflect the challenge requirements of the
target setting agenda: Special School
Head-teachers felt this to be particularly
inappropriate. However Primary Head
teachers felt that they could steer the
agendas within the framework
Learning is not shared in all areas and
stakeholders would like to learn from others
Feedback
Stakeholders feel that there is a lack of
opportunity to provide feedback to the
service on areas of concern or specific
issues.
Question
How can communication
between the stakeholders and
the IAS be improved?
Should Head teachers have
input into the agenda?
Possible Actions
Devise a communications strategy to
improve communications
How can the LEA facilitate the
sharing of learning and best
practice between schools?
Investigate the best way (including e-based
solutions) to facilitate the sharing of
learning between schools and implement
an agreed strategy
A feedback mechanism to be devised and
implemented which also includes a
mechanism to deal with concerns outside of
the service
What should the mechanism be
for schools to be able to
feedback issues and concerns
to the IAS?
Review the arrangements for agenda
setting so that the national agenda
requirements are met and all parties
understand agenda setting and have
ownership.
Consultation
The views of the stakeholders about the
Can consultation be improved?
service are varied. Some stakeholders feel
that the service is good, others feel that
there is room for improvement
Implement a consultation strategy to
regularly gain stakeholder views
Performance Management
Area
Service
Planning
Key
Performance
Indicators
Attainment
Findings
The main service-planning document used
by the service is the EDP, which does not
cover all of the current service functions
delivered.
The Key performance indicators used by
the service are the BVPI that relate to
attainment. However, the responsibility for
achieving the BVPI targets lies with schools
with support from the Inspection and
Advisory service. The EDP also contains
indicators, which are a measure of the
service’s performance. DfES also set
performance indicators
Schools feel that sometimes there is too
much pressure exerted when setting
performance targets in schools However,
there is a lack of consistency/improvement
in progress in pupils’ results
Question
Does the EDP cover all of the
functions and services?
Is the range of indicators
sufficient to measure
performance in key areas?
Who is responsible for achieving
the targets and improving
attainment?
Possible Actions
Produce a service plan for 2003/04, which
covers all of the functions and services in
accordance with the Directorate service
planning guidance.
Local performance indicators to be devised
for the service to measure the contribution
the service makes to achieving the BVPI
and cover any service provision areas not
covered by the BVPI and EDP
Devise and implement a strategy to raise
attainment and establish target setting
protocols
Performance
monitoring Quality
Performance
Monitoring –
Inset Training
Stakeholders feel that the quality of the
service is sometimes lacking
Some secondary Head-teachers do not feel
that the IAS is a critical self-learning
organisation, which identifies the lessons
learned and sharing learning.
Best use is not made of the course
evaluation forms, to validate the training
completed at the end of each course.
The same forms are not used for all
courses therefore comparisons cannot be
made across a range of courses.
The forms do not ask questions that fully
evaluate whether the course met objectives
and expectations or ask for suggestions
from users on how the course could be
improved.
Once completed, the individual forms are
not collated to provide summary information
on which to make management judgements
and improvements.
Evaluation beyond course evaluation is not
undertaken.
How is the quality of the service
measured?
Do we have written service
standards and do we need
them?
What does the IAS need to do to
become a learning organisation?
Define, publish and implement monitoring
and reporting systems, in partnership with
stakeholders, and taking in to account the
national agenda, quality and service
standards for the service
Implement regular self review, sessions and
review the current arrangements for sharing
and learning days/sessions
How should inset training be
monitored
Redesign course evaluation forms using an
established model.
Review the questions on the forms
Collate the forms to provide summary
information for management and quality
and performance management purposes
and maintain a database of course statistics
Devise an evaluation strategy and
programme. Set satisfaction targets for
course evaluation and build in the
evaluation process into the quality
standards for external consultants and
course presenter.
Performance
Monitoring –
Time
Recording
Procurement
Time recording is done manually and is
often incomplete. A large proportion of
administrative time is spent chasing time
sheets etc
Some members of IAS felt that EDP Priority
6 addressed the issue of whether the LEA
has helped schools to become intelligent
procurers of advisory services. Others felt
that that this had not been addressed.
Secondary Head teachers felt that this had
not happened; primary Head teachers are
expecting it to happen imminently.
Could time recording be done
better?
Implement an electronic monitoring system.
How could we ensure that our
responsibility to ensure that
stakeholders are mature
purchasers of advisory services
is fulfilled?
Need to restate the procurement policy,
consider the service level agreements and
amount of funding delegated.
Appendix 6
DECISION MATRIX
Decision Matrix
Question
Yes/
No
Reasons why
Should the authority be responsible
for this activity now and in the
foreseeable future?
Yes
Statutory responsibility
Changing central government
requirements for school improvement
Is there a policy reason why the
authority must perform this activity?
Yes
Statutory responsibility
Impact on achievement of pledges,
shared priorities and EDP
Is there convincing evidence that
the authority is successful or
comparative at this activity?
Some
Salford performs better in some areas
than other authorities and not as well in
other areas.
Can the authority make the
necessary changes in-house to
become successful?
Yes
The service is willing to implement
service improvements through the
service improvement plan and has
already implemented some
improvements identified through the
review
Appendix 7
COMPETITIVENESS
ASSESSMENT
COMPETITIVENESS ASSESSMENT
Is the function performed in the private or non-profit sectors?
External contractors as described in the external supply market report could
perform the function of the Inspection and Advisory service. An analysis of the
external supply market has been undertaken and the market briefly comprises large
national providers and some small, local providers. There is the option to
externalise the service to one of the large providers however, at present, there is
only one authority considering this option. A few other Local Authorities have
externalised the whole of the LEA function. This is not an option for Salford.
Clarity of service aims and goals
The role and function of the Inspection and Advisory service has changed in recent
years and there is a range of new and emerging guidance from central government
that directs the service provision.
Reasons for dissatisfaction with the current service
Consultation has shown the following reasons for dissatisfaction:
























Unsure of the role of IAS to my subject / many staff do not know what IAS
staff do to aid their areas
Not clear on the services offered – lack of communication
Too much emphasis on targets - Numeracy and Literacy
Targets set too high
Insufficient Inspector/Advisors
Insufficient time in schools due to workloads of advisors
Too few people to cover all areas
Don’t come into school as much as we’d like
Don’t always know how much support we can expect
Support needed on a more regular basis
Support not “hands on” enough
Quality of support
Balance and conflict of Inspector/Advisor roles
Knowledge of schools lacking
Credibility of some staff
Portfolios too broad
Assistance pre-Ofsted not available
Key Stage 4 support – support seems to be spread very thinly
Contact not initiated by IAS
Head of Department meetings are fine for communication but classroom
teachers do not attend these
IAS isolated from rank and file teaching staff
New teachers need more help
Repetitive nature of the Inset courses
Access to inset training restricted due to course timings
Activity identification and costing
Work has continued in the Inspection and Advisory Service to identify activities that
need to be carried out to deliver the national agenda for school improvement and
inspection and advisory services. Officer time as been allocated to the activities.
Improvement
It is believed by the service that, by undertaking the activity identification and costing,
taking on board the information arising out of the 4 Cs analysis, that improvements
can be made to the service provision to ensure that the service is competitive
Staff have been involved in the consultation process and will be involved in the
formulation and implementation of the service improvement plans
The cost of outsourcing or externalisation.
One of the larger national consultancy companies charges, per Inspector-Advisor day
£750 (this figure is specially negotiated for bulk purchase of days). This would give a
cost of externalising the work of the Inspector-Advisors, without associated
administrative support or contract management, is £1,425,000. This figure is more
than the current Inspection and Advisory budget. This figure is based on 10
inspector advisors working the available 190 days. Tupe rules would apply to the
transfer of work to the private sector.
Can the improved process solve the problems with the current arrangements?
It is felt that the revisions to the in-house provision can address the issues and
reasons for dissatisfaction raised by stakeholders. This, together with the new vision
for the service and a robust service improvement/implementation plan will help to
raise satisfaction with the service and ensure the competitiveness of the service.
Willingness of the managers and staff to implement the changes and become
more competitive
Managers are willing to implement the new revised vision, policy and strategy
together with the new management structure, which should lead to an immediate
improvement in competitiveness. This, together with the improvement plan, should
help all stakeholders to experience and measure the impact of the improvements.
Conclusion
The work of the Inspector-Advisors should be kept in-house and service
improvements implemented to deal satisfactorily with the issues raised.
Appendix 8
SUITABILITY AUDIT
Improved
In-house service
delivery
This option is more suitable if:

The existing internal service is, or is close to, meeting local targets and national standards /
targets
X

There is no supply market
X

Cost of externalisation are likely to be high

 High impact if service fails
This option is less suitable if:
 Poor existing internal services
Market Testing
Decision

Decision
X 

Need for external investment
X

Active, competitive, market with established suppliers

 Service is easy to specify and monitor
This option is more suitable if:
 The pressure of competition is necessary to ensure improvements in in-house performance
X
Decision
X

There is an active and competitive supply market


The service is easy to specify and monitor
X

A new service area is being developed and the authority has no preference between in-house
and external provision
X

In-house performance can be benchmarked against competition
X 
This option is less suitable if:
 Potential suppliers likely to suspect the authority is going through the motions’ and not bid
Externalisation
Decision
X

Staff are easy to specify and monitor


The costs of preparing for competition (both clients and contractor) outweigh benefit


The in-house team has no real chance of winning
X
 Market testing is suggested as a last ditch effort to avoid externalisation
This option is more suitable if:
 Poor existing internal services, or new services where internal supply is thought inappropriate
X
Decision
X 

There will be clear client – contractor relationship


There is an active, competitive market and established suppliers


Service is easy to specify and monitor
X

Benefits of using the market outweigh the costs
X
This option is less suitable if:
 Internal service provision is demonstrably best value
X 

Opportunists or monopolists dominate the market
X

The local authority’s service objectives go beyond a simple value for money calculation


Service is difficult to specify and monitor


Other methods of provision offer better value

Agreements with
other public
service
organisations
This option is more suitable if:
Decision

Services are provided from a single point (e.g. a one-stop-shop, or a call centre)
X

Participating organisations are willing to bury their separate identities in the interests of the joint
service
X

Financial and other risks can be shared on a basis that is acceptable to all parties


Participating organisations do not have the wide range of expertise or sufficient resources to
deal with all requests for service – but the volume of requests does not justify further investment
by each authority
X

Sharing resources, staff, etc will produce significant economies and improved quality


All participating organisations require the same, or very similar, service

 Clear lines of responsibility and accountability are necessary
This option is less suitable if:
 Organisation identities and imperatives are more important than a seamless service

Decision
X

There are no obvious and willing partners


Legal constraints cannot be overcome
X
Substitution
This option is more suitable if:
 The service is difficult to specify and monitor

The authority wants to work with an organisation it can ‘do business with’ rather than one that
just ‘does the business’.

It is possible to agree on a programme of future innovation

There is a high level of mutual trust between authority and suppliers

External suppliers can offer savings, innovation, or other benefits that cannot be found in-house


X
X
 The external organisation and the Authority have shared goals
This option is less suitable if:
 Opportunists dominate the market
Hybrid Options
Decision

X 
Decision
X

The service is easy to specify and monitor
X

In-house supply is more likely to deliver best value

 The authority’s main objective is to achieve savings
This option is more suitable if:
 A ‘service’ is made of discrete aspects that have different Best Value tests applied to them
(front desk staff and data processing, for example)
 X
Decision



Areas of excellence exist side-by-side with services that need considerable improvement

Different elements make clearly different contributions to overall service delivery and best value


There is a wide range of user needs which are best met in different ways


External resources can most effectively be used to support in-house services rather than
competing with them


Evidence from the review is equivocal

This option is less suitable if:
 The service is easy to specify and monitor
Cessation of the
service
Decision
X

The service is a clearly definable single service
X

The service is made up of so many separate elements that a hybrid approach could lead to an
unmanageable complexity of contracts, agreements, and inter-dependencies
X
 Economy and effectiveness are served best by a single service delivery organisation
This option is more suitable if:
X
Decision

Evidence of no need or demand for the service
X

Other providers can contribute without intervention or support from the local authority
X
 Service or activity makes no contribution to corporate objectives / priorities
This option is less suitable if:
 Doubts about the evidence
X
Decision
X

Uncertainty about whether the alternative provides do meet existing needs or demands


Potential for future service development
