REPORT OF THE LEAD MEMBER FOR EDUCATION
To the CABINET on TUESDAY, 21 NOVEMBER 2000
THE ROLE OF THE LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY IN
SCHOOL EDUCATION
Background
1.
On 13 October 2000, the DfEE published a policy paper on the Role of the Local
Education Authority in School Education - this is attached. The paper seeks to clarify the
Government’s view of the role of a modern LEA and develop a number of agendas which
the DfEE have been promoting recently. Its publication was flagged in the Green Paper
‘Modernising Local Government Finance’. The purpose of this report is to advise Cabinet
of the publication of the document and some of its implications, given its very broad
potential corporate consequences.
Summary of the Paper
2.
The paper is in two parts, the first of which sets out the Government’s view on the role of a
modern LEA and the second part which raises four issues concerning the future pattern of
service delivery.
3.
The first part of the document is a re-statement of a range of recent policy announcements
concerning how the Government sees the role of the LEA. In many respects there is
nothing much new in this, although the recognition in particular of the extensive amount of
partnership working now required of LEAs, set out in paragraphs 8 and 9, is particularly
welcomed. These are becoming an increasingly important and resource intensive aspect of
the LEA’s work, particularly as regards the time of senior staff.
4.
The Government then go on to set out what they see as the LEA’s core role under the four
headings set out in the Fair Funding legislation together with the concept of strategic
management. The key areas continue to be:





5.
D:\219511329.doc
Special Educational Needs;
Access and School Transport;
School Improvement and Tackling Failure;
Educating Excluded Pupils and Pupil Welfare;
Strategic Management of the above.
Although there is very little new, in terms of the actual detail, the tone of this section very
much paints a minimalist picture of the role of the LEA in these areas. For example, the
section on School Improvement heavily stresses an approach built around dealing with
schools that have failed. This is of course an essential part of the LEA’s role, and one
which we exercise extremely effectively. It does not, however, envisage any substantial
role for the LEA working with schools to prevent failure in the first place. It also does not
paint a picture of LEAs having a strong role, as of right, in the development of all schools,
except where the schools choose to buy such a service in.
Page 2
6.
Later on in this section, the probability of introducing a new average target of 90%
delegation is identified. The current level of delegation in Salford is 86% and reaching a
90% figure would be a great challenge. It is, however, useful to note that this is seen as a
potential average level rather than an immutable target. Given the requirement to
participate in the partnership agenda previously discussed, and given levels of delegation
over the previous couple of years, reaching this target would be difficult.
7.
In terms of partnership working, it would suggest that this would need to be time budgeted
for senior staff and rationed according to overall priorities. This is likely to be very
problematic.
8.
Part two of the report looks at how LEAs can modernise their work. It touches on four
issues:




D:\219511329.doc
a more open market for school services;
sharing school improvement responsibilities with groups of schools;
new ways of discharging responsibilities in partnership;
national professional standards and recognition for school improvement services.
9.
In April 2000, a significant increase in delegation of resources was achieved as a
consequence of Fair Funding. In particular this led to the delegation to schools of
resources for support services such as Finance, ICT and Personnel, together with the offer
to schools to buy back into Authority’s services. This buy-back offer was very heavily
subscribed in Salford and most schools bought into most service packages.
10.
The proposals in this section suggest a number of steps will be taken to clarify this issue,
and in particular to prevent what the DfEE regard as an anti-competitive stance being
adopted by some Authorities.
11.
Of particular relevance is the notion of brokerage advanced in paragraph 24 of the Paper.
The picture being painted is one in which Authorities would buy into an independent
service to support schools in buying services which were more effective or more efficient
than those offered by the LEA.
12.
Although this is clearly in line with the philosophy of best value, it puts the education
sector somewhat in advance of the general position as far as this is concerned. The
suggestion, for example, that the Authority should support the development of the
separate, probably private sector agency, to assist schools in securing best value in support
services clearly represents a conflict of interest with an Authority who sees it role as
continuing to provide these services in house. It would also suggest a move to a more
hard-split type of organisation than has been developed in the Authority over recent years.
13.
The potential consequences of this are very significant and will need to be considered very
carefully. They do, for instance, potentially impact significantly on the current market
testing exercise for support services, as there could be no guarantee to any external partner
that the schools would choose to buy into the services it offered if it took on board the
range of support services currently offered by the Authority. In other areas, if the
Authority was successful in assisting schools to find alternative suppliers, it is unlikely that
existing Authority services would continue to be viable if they suffered a significant level
of attrition of their business base.
Page 3
14.
This issue will need to be kept under very careful review as the debate continues. It is,
however, important to note that the extent to which the Authority has proactively engaged
in this agenda will be a major issue the next time an Authority is inspected. The DfEE
have nationally shown no reluctance to use their intervention powers in Authorities where
they do not feel appropriate action has been taken.
15.
The section on sharing school improvement responsibilities with groups of schools is one
which is becoming increasingly important. Whilst the basic premise that schools can and
should have an important role in working collaboratively to secure school improvement is
both accepted and widely practiced in Salford, some of the mechanisms suggested take this
idea still further. This issue will be discussed with schools in coming months to see if
there are any potential possibilities for further enhancing current practice.
16.
The third initiative proposes to open up existing arrangements for Authorities to work
across Authority boundaries and with other providers. This is a welcome development if
the best value agenda is to be taken forward. Initial discussions have already taken place
with Manchester LEA and Trafford LEA about a possibility to create a collaboration and
there is felt to be much potential merit in continuing this dialogue. At this stage, however,
the private sector have not been involved and it is not entirely clear that they have a great
deal of value to add. This issue should, however, continue to be explored.
17.
The final section suggests a new quality benchmarking framework for school improvement
services. In general terms this is to be warmly welcomed given the strength of inspection
and advisory service in Salford. Given the increasing recruitment difficulties associated
with this group of staff, the notion of strong benchmarked services, possibly operating
over a range of LEA areas, would be very attractive. The one interesting issue is that the
obligation to buy into the services would only apply to LEA level functions, not to
individual schools. They would remain free to buy in whatever support they thought
appropriate to meet their needs.
CONCLUSION
18.
Whilst the clarification of the Government’s view of the LEA role set out in the report is
helpful, it is clear that a largely minimalist approach is being adopted. The overall picture
painted is of a lean and mean organisation largely comprising of a small number of highly
skilled staff working on strategic issues with the majority of support services delivered
through other means such as externalisation or partnership. It would represent a
significant change of both culture and practice in Salford to move the Authority into the
position suggested. It is clear that there are more significant changes ahead.
FURTHER DETAILS CAN BE OBTAINED FROM:
Mark Carriline (Director of Education and Leisure) – 0161 837 1700
D:\219511329.doc