Meeting documents

Children's Services and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Thursday 8 May 2008

Web Agenda/Minutes Summary Document

Meeting Name:
Children's Services and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Panel

Meeting Date:
05/08/2008 Pick

Meeting Time:


Location:


Sub Committee / User Forum etc (if required):




Members Present:

Non-Members Present:

Confidentiality: Part I


Document Type: Agenda


Document Status: Final




N O T I C E

O F

M E E T I N G

CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND LEISURE
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

will meet on

Thursday 8 may 2008

at

7.30 pm

in the

COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, MAIDENHEAD

TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND LEISURE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

COUNCILLOR LENTON (CHAIRMAN)
COUNCILLOR MRS PITTEWAY (VICE-CHAIRMAN)
COUNCILLORS MISS BARTON, BASKERVILLE, J EVANS, MRS LUXTON & MRS STOCK

MR GIBBONS (PORTSMOUTH DIOCESAN REPRESENTATIVE) AND MRS MINTERN (OXFORD DIOCESAN REPRESENTATIVE)

SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
COUNCILLORS BICKNELL, MRS BURSNALL, MRS HERDSON, MRS HUNT, MAJEED, MRS NAPIER & MRS NEWBOUND
Ian Hunt
Interim Head of Democratic Services

Issued: 2 May 2008

Members of the Press and Public are welcome to attend Part I of this meeting.

The agenda is available on the Council’s web site at www.rbwm.gov.uk or contact the
Panel Administrator Andrew Scott (01628) 796028
In the event of the fire alarm sounding or other emergency, please leave the building quickly and calmly by the nearest exit. Do not stop to collect personal belongings and do not use the lifts. Congregate in the Town Hall Car Park, Park Street, Maidenhead (immediately adjacent to the Town Hall) and do not re-enter the building until told to do so by a member of staff.
AGENDA

PART I

ITEMSUBJECT
WARD
PAGE
NO
1APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

To receive any apologies for absence.
2DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

To receive Declarations of Interests from Members of the Panel in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
3*PRIMARY SCHOOL PROVISION IN THE ROYAL BOROUGH

To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 22 May 2008 on Primary School Provision in the Royal Borough.
All
1
4*THE LEARNING FOR SUSTAINABILITY (LfS) STRATEGY AND ASSOSICATED LfS STANDARD FOR SCHOOLS

To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 22 May 2008 on the Learning for Sustainability (LfS) Standard for Schools.
All
41
5*CODE OF PRACTICE ON THE APPOINTMENT OF LOCAL AUTHORITY SCHOOL GOVERNORS

To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 22 May 2008 on the Code of Practice on the Appointment of Local Authority School Governors.
All
65
6VISITOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 22 May 2008 on the Visitor Management Strategy.
All
79
7*DEVELOPING PHASE 3 CHILDREN’S CENTRES IN THE ROYAL BOROUGH

To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 22 May 2008 on Developing Phase 3 Children’s Centres in the Royal Borough.
Various
119
8*BEHAVIOUR IN SCHOOLS

To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 22 May 2008 on Behaviour in Schools.
All
142
9LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

To consider passing the following resolution :-

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on items 10 and 11 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act"
-
* *Education Related Item

40
    PRIMARY SCHOOL PROVISION IN THE ROYAL BOROUGH

    CABINET: 22nd MAY 2008

    MEMBER REPORTING: COUNCILLOR MRS QUICK
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
    To seek approval (for submission to the DCSF) of the Royal Borough’s Primary Strategy for Change, endorsement of which also requires approval of proposals to (i) change the arrangements for first admission to school and (ii) expand X first(s) school in Windsor.
2. MEMBER’S RECOMMENDATIONS:
    On the Royal Borough’s arrangements for first admission to school, that:
(a) from September 2010, children being admitted for the first time to community and voluntary controlled schools in the borough should be admitted in line with Option X, relevant wording to follow; and that
(b) formal consultation on these arrangements should be carried out as part of the 2008 annual admissions arrangements consultation.

    On the rising numbers in Windsor First Schools, that:
(c) formal consultation, through the publication of statutory notices, be undertaken on the expansion of X school from Y to Z places per year group with effect from September 2009;
(d) formal consultation, through the publication of statutory notices, be undertaken on the expansion of X school from Y to Z places per year group with effect from September 2009; and
(e) authority is delegated to the Lead Member for Children’s Services and the Director for Learning and Care to determine these proposals following the end of the formal consultation period.

    On the Royal Borough’s Primary Strategy for Change, that:
(f) the priorities for investment for the first four years of the Primary Strategy for Change, listed in full at X, be approved;
(g) the specific projects required for the first two years of the Primary Strategy for Change, listed in full at Y, be approved;
(h) approval of the Primary Strategy for Change document for submission to the DCSF by 16th June 2008 be delegated to the Lead Member for Children’s Services and the Director for Learning and Care; and
(i) officers be required to submit an annual report to Cabinet on the Primary Strategy for Change;
(j) a full risk assessment is carried out on the capacity implications of implementing the Primary Strategy for Change.
3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION
3.1 Wards Affected
3.1.1 All wards.
3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation
3.2.1 This report brings together a number of issues relating to the future of primary school provision in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. Essentially, these topics are:

· the Primary Strategy for Change;
· the arrangements for first admission to school; and
· responding to rising demand for places in the Windsor First Schools.
3.2.2 The latter two issues were considered separately by Cabinet on 21st February 2008 and approval was given for the appropriate consultation with stakeholders. It was agreed that, given the implications of both for the future of primary school provision and in light of the requirement to develop a Primary Strategy for Change (PSfC), all three issues should be considered as one report at the May Cabinet meeting.
3.2.3 This report focuses, therefore, on the borough’s PSfC document, with the arrangements for first admissions to school and the rising demand in the Windsor First Schools addressed within that framework.

Background to the PSfC nationally
3.2.4 The DCSF first consulted with local authorities and other stakeholders about what is effectively a Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme for primary schools in Spring 2006. The final guidance was not issued, however, until November 2007.
3.2.5 The key aim of the programme is to rebuild, remodel or refurbish half of all schools nationally, taking out of use or rebuilding the worst 5% condition schools over the period to 2022. The intention is that the PSfC will enable local authorities to move away from the current ‘patch and mend’ to a more strategic, service-wide approach, equipping schools as learning environments for the 21st Century and as hubs of their local communities. Local authorities are expected to “think long-term and strategically about the transformation of teaching and learning in the primary sector. This is a unique opportunity to be bold, innovative and consider radical options” (extract from DCSF guidance on the PSfC).
3.2.6 The programme is also intended to support the national policy agenda of raising standards, having extended services and meeting the objectives of Every Child Matters. It is targeted to address deprivation both nationally and locally and covers all nursery, infant, first, primary and junior schools, together with primary Pupil Referral Units. Primary SEN schools are also covered, although SEN schools for primary and secondary age pupils are covered under the BSF programme. For the sake of clarity throughout the rest of this report, unless specifically noted otherwise, ‘primary schools’ is taken to include all maintained nursery, infant, first, primary and junior schools, and the Brocket PRU.
3.2.7 To this end, the government have made available ring-fenced funding of £650m in 2009/10 and £1.1 billion in 2010/11. Thereafter the funding level is expected to revert £650m per annum, for the subsequent eleven years, subject to future government spending plans. These monies, which for most authorities will be grants, are in addition to existing funding streams.
3.2.8 In order to access this money, each local authority has to prepare its own PSfC and have it agreed by the DCSF. The deadline for submission is 16th June 2008. The plan, which must be consulted upon and endorsed by the majority of primary schools, the diocesan authorities and the local authority, should be no longer than 15-20 sides of A4.
3.2.9 The format of the plan should be based upon five elements as follows:
(a) the local perspective – an overview of the local authority’s aims and objectives for primary education;
(b) baseline analysis – results of a thorough analysis of primary education in the borough;
(c) long-term aims – setting out the borough’s long-term aims, and how the borough intends to support national policy objectives;
(d) approach to change – should show how the borough will move from the baseline position to that described in the long-term aims;
(e) initial investment priorities – should identify (i) specific priorities for investment for the first four years and (ii) specific school projects for the first two years of the programme.
3.2.10 Once the plan has been submitted the DCSF can either approve it, approve it with modifications or reject it. The latter two decisions could delay investment, possibly into subsequent financial years. It is expected that the DCSF will inform local authorities of their decision in September 2008, with any required modifications being made in that month.

Background to the PSfC locally
3.2.11 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, as a small authority in a generally affluent area, has been allocated the floor amount of £3m for 2009/10 and £5.4m for 2010/11. Subsequent amounts are expected to be £3m per annum. All this funding is grant, rather than supported borrowing.
3.2.12 Once the PSfC guidance was published in November last year, the borough embarked on a series of informal discussions with headteachers and other stakeholders about the programme, including presentations to each of the Ascot, Maidenhead and Windsor Cluster meetings, the Schools Forum and the Admissions Forum.
3.2.13 A formal consultation exercise was then undertaken, from Monday 25th February to Friday 4th April, with the aim of establishing the principles that should underpin the borough’s PSfC and canvassing opinion on what the initial investment priorities should be. The borough’s views on these principles and priorities were given in the consultation document, although it was made clear that these could change following the consultation exercise. The consultation document, which can be viewed at Appendix X, was sent to all headteachers and Chairs of Governors (at all RBWM schools), the Portsmouth and Oxford Diocesan authorities and members of the Admissions Forum, the RBWM Children’s Trust Executive Board and the Children’s Trust Commissioning Group. The document stressed that a response was expected from all schools in the primary sector.
3.2.14 During the consultation period itself the PSfC was considered by meetings of the RBWM Children’s Trust Executive Board, the Children’s Trust Commissioning Group and by a specially convened workshop of headteachers and RBWM officers. In addition, a number of discussions took place with individual schools.
3.2.15 A full discussion of the outcome of the PSfC consultation process is given in Section 4 below, which includes analysis of the levels of support for each of the recommended principles.
3.2.16 The Primary Strategy for Change document for the Royal Borough has not, at this stage, been completed and so it is recommended that approval of the final plan, for submission to the DCSF by 16th June 2008, be delegated by Cabinet to X and Y. The priorities for investment for the first four years and the specific school projects for the first two years of the PSfC have, however, been identified and are included here as appendices X and Y. This report recommends that these are approved for inclusion in the borough’s PSfC.

The Royal Borough’s Primary Strategy for Change
3.2.17 Successful delivery of the PSfC over the lifetime of the programme will rest on recognition of three key points:

    · the PSfC is not simply a school building programme, it also needs to drive forward better outcomes for children under the Every Child Matters (ECM) agenda;
    · poor school buildings are a major barrier to ECM;
    · new school buildings by themselves are not, however, necessarily a panacea for problems with standards.
    3.2.18 The borough’s PSfC addresses, therefore, the capital implications for primary schools of a wide range of issues, ranging from the physical condition of the existing buildings to how schools can best become hubs of their local communities. These implications are discussed in more detail below.

    Sufficiency
    3.2.19 Sufficiency relates to (a) the match between demand for and availability of primary school places, and (b) whether or not there are sufficient spaces – such as classrooms – for a school based on the planned number of children on roll. Clearly, if there are insufficient school places then it is much more difficult for the borough to deliver better outcomes for all. The Royal Borough faces three immediate challenges on sufficiency:

      · rising numbers in the Windsor first schools (action required by September 2009);
      · insufficient classroom space at Lowbrook Primary School (action required by September 2009); and
      · capital implications of any changes to the arrangements for first admission to school (action required by September 2010).
      3.2.20 These three issues are dealt with in turn below.

      Addressing Rising Demand in the Windsor First Schools
      3.2.21 The borough’s School Organisation Plan, updated annually, contains the analysis relating to the likely future demand for primary school places. The major issues facing the borough with regard to sufficiency are identified there as:

        · rising numbers in the Windsor first schools;
        · rising demand in East Maidenhead primary schools;
        · possible longer-term shortages of places in South West and North West Maidenhead and in Ascot primary schools.
        3.2.22 The rising demand in East Maidenhead has been partially addressed by changes to the designated areas of two primary schools, agreed by Cabinet on 27th March 2008. It is likely, however, that further proposals for consultation will be brought forward in due course. The longer-term predicted shortages in other parts of the borough will also need careful consideration over the next three to five years.
        3.2.23 The rising demand for places in the Windsor First Schools will, however, require action for September 2009 and it is thought that an additional 30 places per year group will be required. This issue was considered by Cabinet on 21st February 2008 and that report, which contains more detail about the need for new places, can be viewed on the borough’s website at http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/meetings_080221_agenda_cabinet.htm (Rising Numbers in Windsor First Schools).

        Cabinet agreed that public consultation should be undertaken on a range of options to expand one or more of Alexander, Clewer Green, Dedworth Green and Oakfield First Schools from September 2009. It was also agreed that views should be sought from parents about any other schools in the town that could be expanded.
        3.2.25 The outcome of the consultation is explored in detail at paragraphs X to Y below. In short, there was strong support for the expansion of Alexander First School and weaker support for the expansion of Clewer Green. At Dedworth Green and Oakfield Schools the Headteacher and governing body supported expansion but parents didn’t, either because of a misconception that expansion would lead to larger classes (Dedworth Green), or concerns over congestion, parking and a potentially congested site (Oakfield). There was support for expansion of alternative schools, particularly Hilltop, Braywood and St Edwards. Support for expanding Homer school was focused on obtaining an additional classroom to allow the school to admit rising fives.
        3.2.26 Details on various options now on offer, including pros and cons, costings, timescales and so on, to follow.
        3.2.27 Any proposals to expand school provision where the physical capacity of the school will be enlarged by more than 30 pupils and by more than 25% or by 200 pupils (whichever is the lesser) require the publication of statutory proposals. The Royal Borough, as the local authority, can publish expansion proposals for any category (i.e. community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled) of school. More details on this can be found in the next steps section at paragraphs X to Y below.
        3.2.28 This report recommends, therefore, that formal consultation, through the publication of statutory notices be undertaken on:


          (a) the expansion of X school from Y to Z places per year group with effect from September 2009; and
          (b) the expansion of X school from Y to Z places per year group with effect from September 2009.
          Lowbrook Primary School
        3.2.29 Lowbrook Primary School, Maidenhead, has an admission number of 30, which implies that the school requires seven classrooms, one for each of year groups 1 to 6 plus the Reception year group. This would give the school a net capacity of 210, whereas in fact it only has six classrooms and a net capacity of 180. As the school has been heavily undersubscribed for many years this has not been an issue – there were, for example, just 116 children on roll in May 2005. It has, however, grown in popularity in recent years and was designated an ‘Outstanding’ school by Ofsted in February 2008. As a result, numbers on roll are expected to rise significantly over the next few years to the extent that there will be 185 children on roll in the 2009/10 academic year, and 197 in 2010/11. These numbers assume that the policy on first admissions to school is changed (see below).
        3.2.30 A further complication arises from the fact that, from September 2008, there are expected to be approximately 41 children in Year 1. This is 11 above the admission number and reflects a number of issues with first admission to school and the admission of rising fives at Lowbrook (which can only be addressed in the longer-term if the borough changes the arrangements for these as recommended elsewhere in this report). The number of children in this cohort is likely to change due to natural pupil mobility but even with an additional classroom (as referred to above) the school will again have a deficit of places in the 2011/12 academic year. The organisation of classes in the school is likely to be a problem from September 2009. The school currently mixes cohorts due to small year groups higher up in the school and would need to continue to do this, together with having several KS2 classes larger than 30 pupils, until Summer 2014 unless new accommodation is found (or the extra pupils leave).
        3.2.31 It is proposed, therefore, that one of the specific projects for the 2009/10 financial year under the PSfC should be the addition of a classroom to Lowbrook Primary School. This would increase the net capacity by 30 (which falls below the threshold required for the publication of statutory notices and thus public consultation).
        3.2.32 Costs and timescales to follow

        First Admission to School
        3.2.33 The main discussion about first admissions to school can be found in paragraphs X to Y, where reference is made to the need for new accommodation in schools. Three options, none of which are the status quo, are referred to:

          · Option 1 - admitting children full-time to mainstream school once a year, on the 1st September, at the beginning of the school year in which they turn five years old;
          · Option 2 - admitting children full-time to mainstream school twice a year, on 1st September (those who turn five during the autumn terms) and 1st January (those who turn five in the spring or summer terms);
          · Option 3 - admitting children full-time to mainstream education three times a year, on 1st September (those who turn five during the autumn terms); 1st January (those who turn five during the spring terms) and 1st April (those who turn five during the summer terms).
          3.2.34 The recommendation of this report is that X option is approved, as set out in paragraph Y. All three options would require schools to have sufficient accommodation for seven whole year groups (five for first and three for infant schools). At present, many schools only have enough physical capacity for the relevant whole year groups plus roughly two-thirds of a whole Reception year group, thus reflecting the borough’s current admissions policy. There is, therefore, no difference between the options on the amount of additional accommodation needed.
          3.2.35 The capital implications of a change to the first admissions to school policy were highlighted in the PSfC consultation with schools. 88% of schools agreed that additional accommodation should be put in place to support any change to the first admissions policy, and it was ranked as the highest priority for the borough by schools. In recognition of the fact that there was a need to prioritise projects it was suggested that new accommodation should first be provided at those schools that were expected to be full and that do not currently admit rising fives. Schools that already admit rising fives, or who would not be full, would be given less priority.
          3.2.36 Accordingly, nine schools have been identified as requiring additional accommodation in time for September 2010 if changes to the arrangements for first admissions go ahead. Two schools have been identified where a change in the admission number would be more appropriate. A further two schools will require accommodation for September 2011. Other schools will have small shortfalls in accommodation due to undersized classrooms, and there may be issues also with the number of toilets and so on in some schools. At present, it is not the intention of the borough to fund these from the PSfC programme directly and will be expecting schools to use their formula capital unless there are other equally high priorities. Discussions will be ongoing with these schools over the next few months.
          3.2.37 It may be possible to have later completion dates on this work depending on which option on first admissions is adopted. Options 2 and 3 above would only need the full accommodation in place for January 2011 and April 2011 respectively, although it may less disruptive for schools to have it completed by September 2010.
          3.2.38 The schools identified as needing additional accommodation, or other changes, in response to the adoption of new arrangements for first admissions to school are in the table below.

            Table X – Schools identified for additional ‘first admissions’ classrooms
            SchoolSolutionEstimated CostVA contribution required
            New accommodation for September 2010
            Alwyn Infant and Nursery SchoolTwo additional classrooms£300,000
            Braywood CE First SchoolExtension to undersized classroom£200,000
            Clewer Green CE SchoolOne additional classroom£200,000
            Furze Platt Infant SchoolOne additional classroom£200,000
            Homer First SchoolOne additional classroom£200,000
            Lowbrook Primary SchoolOne additional classroom£200,000
            Oakfield First SchoolOne additional classroom£200,000
            St Mary’s Catholic Primary SchoolOne additional classroom£200,000
            White Waltham CE SchoolOne additional classroom£200,000
            Change to admission number for September 2010
            Hilltop First SchoolFrom 32 to 30
            Boyne Hill CE Infant and NurseryFrom 78 to 60
            New accommodation for September 2011
            Holyport CE Primary SchoolOne additional classroom£200,000
            Kings Court First SchoolOne additional classroom£200,000
            £2,400,0003.2.39 Further details on classrooms to follow, and some implications for individual schools.

          Condition
          3.2.40 Condition refers to the state of repair of school buildings, and includes items such as the roof, structure, doors, windows, wiring, heating and floors. The condition of the borough’s primary schools is generally agreed to be reasonable, although there are serious issues at some individual schools (15% primary schools, for instance, consider their condition to be ‘poor’ or ‘bad’).
          3.2.41 The worst condition primary school is, according to the borough’s current information, Ellington Primary School in Maidenhead, which has significant problems with the roof, general structure, wiring, lighting, pipework and plaster.
          3.2.42 The borough’s proposed long-term aim on condition is that all primary school buildings should be in good condition, performing as intended and operating efficiently. To start to meet this objective it is proposed that Ellington Primary School should be either completely rebuilt or substantially refurbished in the second year of the borough’s PSfC, using the 2010/11 allocation.
          3.2.43 Details on Ellington rebuild/refurbishment
          3.2.44 It is the view of the borough that almost all schools can be brought up to a good standard of condition, cost-effectively, without the need for a substantial rebuilding programme. This is not to underplay the extent of the condition work required, but large rebuild/remodelling projects are nonetheless likely to be driven mainly by sufficiency or suitability. Where this is the case, any condition issues can be addressed at the same time.

          Suitability
          3.2.45 Suitability refers to how well school premises meet the needs of pupils, teachers and other users, and contribute to raising standards. The government sets out minimum standards for school buildings, covering both internal and external spaces. These standards have been re-written in the last few years and in general the space requirements were increased. A standard classroom, for instance, used to have a minimum size of 54m2 – this has now increased to 56m2.
          3.2.46 There are, therefore, suitability issues at many schools – 22 schools have a total of around 80 classrooms that are too small, whilst other schools have issues with undersized libraries or dining room spaces, insufficient storage space, cloakrooms or circulation space. It is important to note, however, that there are degrees of unsuitability. Many classrooms are below the standard size, but only by a couple of square metres, which does not automatically make them unusable.
          3.2.47 The suggested long-term aim of the borough with regard to suitability is that all primary school buildings should meet at the very least the minimum standards set by the government. Although no specific suitability projects are suggested for the first two years of the primary strategy, the sufficiency and condition related works (particularly at Ellington) will also improve suitability.
          3.2.48 It is the view of the borough that almost all schools can be brought up to a good standard of condition, cost-effectively, without the need for a substantial rebuilding programme. This is not to underplay the extent of the condition work required, but large rebuild/remodelling projects are nonetheless likely to be driven mainly by sufficiency or suitability. Where this is the case, any condition issues can be addressed at the same time.

          Priorities for investment and specific school projects
          3.2.49 As referred to at the beginning of this report, the PSfC has to identify priorities for investment over the first four years of the implementation period (2009/10 to 2012/13 [financial years]) and specific school projects for the first two years (2009/10 and 2010/11). The DCSF spreadsheet outlining the required information to be submitted to them on specific school projects and investment priorities has just become available. A version of this will be included here, or referred to as an appendix.

          Prioritising future projects
          3.2.50 Condition in schools is graded according to a methodology outlined in the borough’s Asset Management Plan Local Policy Statement, which is itself based on DCSF guidance. This has been in use in the borough for many years as a way of prioritising projects for the borough’s capital programme. Theoretically, suitability needs are also based on this methodology but, in practice, most funding for schools from the capital programme has gone to sufficiency or condition related projects.
          3.2.51 It will be necessary, therefore, to revisit the methodology and agree a model with schools that helps with the prioritisation of sufficiency, suitability and condition needs. Given the initial priorities established for the 2009/10 and 2010/11 financial years it will not be necessary to use a priority matrix for those years, but it will be required from 2011/12 onwards. Such a model should be developed and agreed within the next twelve months.

          Managing the Primary Strategy for Change
          3.2.52 In order to enable successful implementation of the PSfC in the Royal Borough it is recommended that a representative forum of headteachers and diocesan officers is convened. This would not have a decision-making role, would be in addition to the existing capital approval processes and its exact remit would need to be agreed, but it is likely that it would oversee the development of the priority matrix and, in due course, make recommendations on the prioritisation of projects in later years of the PSfC. It would also monitor the progress being made on the implementation of the PSfC and would report to Cabinet.
          3.2.53 An annual report on the PSfC will also be prepared for Cabinet, although as the DSCF monitoring arrangements for the PSfC are as yet unclear this report makes no recommendation on when exactly the report should be considered by Cabinet.
          3.2.54 The PSfC will be challenging for the borough to implement and the risk assessment, given in summary at paragraphs X and in detail at Appendix Y, identifies capacity in the Schools Accommodation Service and in Buildings Services as the biggest threats to successful execution.
          3.2.55 During the 2008/09 financial year, the Schools Capital Allocation for the Royal Borough (grant only) is £4.21m. In subsequent years it will, if the PSfC is approved, rise to £9.14m (2009/10) and £16.77m (2010/11). Clearly, this rise is only partly attributable to the PSfC – the borough will also be benefiting from substantial Modernisation and Targeted Capital Fund (for 14-19 Diplomas, SEN and disabilities work) allocations. Not all of these funds will directly involve the Schools Accommodation Service and/or Buildings Services, but the bulk will.
          3.2.56 In addition, implementation of the health and safety parts of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 in the Royal Borough could have major implications for workloads. Finally, the local authority will shortly need to begin the process of implementing the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme.
          3.2.57 As a result, the workloads of both the Schools Accommodation Service and Buildings Services will increase substantially over the next twelve months, to the extent that delivery of the PSfC and other key capital programmes will be severely compromised without additional staff.
          3.2.58 This report recommends, therefore, that a full risk assessment on the capacity implications for the borough of implementing the PSfC is undertaken immediately.

          First Admissions to School
          3.2.59 The current policy of the Royal Borough is that children are admitted to school for the first time at three points during the year, in September, January and April. Children turning:

            · five during the autumn terms are admitted on 1st January into ‘Reception’;
            · five during the spring terms are admitted on 1st April into ‘Reception’;
            · five during the summer terms are admitted on 1st September into Year 1
            3.2.60 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead is possibly the last authority in the country to admit pupils in this way. Although the borough is fully in line with national legislation on statutory school starting age, the most common practice for local authorities (58%) is for children to be admitted on 1st September at the beginning of the academic year in which they turn five. One third of authorities take children in twice a year, in September and January, and just 10% have an intake in April.
            3.2.61 The borough’s policy only applies to community and voluntary controlled schools – voluntary aided schools are responsible for their own admissions policies and frequently have arrangements to admit children that are more in line with national norms.
            3.2.62 The current policy of the borough means that some children, usually elder children in VA schools, get 18 terms in school on a full-time basis before starting Key Stage Two. Please note that in this report one term is equal to what used to be called a half term – thus six terms equals one whole year. 18 terms is three years. The youngest children, however, only get 12 terms (two years) in school on a full-time basis before starting Key Stage Two.
            3.2.63 This policy is unpopular with parents, who struggle with arrangements that are confusing and appear to be less generous than those of neighbouring local authorities. It is also unpopular with many community and voluntary controlled schools on the grounds that (a) they would prefer to have children in for longer prior to the start of Key Stage 1; (b) they feel they lose potential pupils to ‘competing’ VA or neighbouring authority schools offering earlier start dates, and (c) practical implementation of the policy means that some schools have significant mismatches between their admission numbers and the Year 1 intake This is due to a mismatch between two sets of national legislation governing statutory school age and admissions. Due to space restrictions this report does not cover this aspect in any detail.. Some schools have also been criticised in their Ofsted reports for not admitting children earlier.
            3.2.64 An increasing number of community and VC schools, therefore, have been ignoring the borough’s first admissions policy even though only voluntary aided schools have the legal right to set their own admissions policies. 18 out of 29 community/VC schools had children on roll in full-time education in January 2008 who were ‘rising fives’ – that is, younger than statutory school age. A further three VA schools also admitted rising fives although their published admissions policies were, on that point, in line with the borough’s. As at January 2008, therefore, 80% of the children on roll as rising fives in RBWM maintained schools were there in breach of published policies.
            3.2.65 Concerns over the first admissions policy have been recognised by the Royal Borough, which has since 1997 undertaken a number of consultations on the subject. More details about these are given in paragraphs X to Y below. In Spring 2007 a new working group was established, consisting of representatives from the pre-school maintained, private, voluntary and independent sector providers, mainstream schools and officers. The purpose of the working group was to make recommendations about first admission to school policy. Although there was no consensus, there was a majority view in favour of a single point of entry following a child’s fourth birthday.
            3.2.66 The Cabinet agreed, on 21st February 2008, a proposal to undertake wider consultation on the arrangements for first admission to school. As with the other consultations here, this exercise ran from Monday 25th February until Friday 4th April, and all maintained and non-maintained schools, together with all pre-school providers in the borough were included. The consultation document can be viewed at Appendix X and full details of the outcome are given in paragraphs X to Y below.
            3.2.67 The consultation did not suggest specific options for change, but asked for views on whether there should be one, two or three intake points per year and the minimum number of terms a child should have in school before starting in Year 1.
            3.2.68 There was a slim overall majority view in favour of a single intake point each year for children into mainstream school, although separately the PVI and maintained sectors favour three and one intake points respectively. There was also a two-thirds overall majority in favour of children having a minimum of two terms in mainstream school before starting Year 1. Again there was a split between the maintained sector, which was generally in favour of 6 terms, and the PVI sector, which was more evenly split between none, two and four terms.
            3.2.69 In light of this consultation, this report puts forward three options for consideration, none of which is the status quo:
              · Option 1 - admitting children full-time to mainstream school once a year, on the 1st September, at the beginning of the school year in which they turn five years old;
              · Option 2 - admitting children full-time to mainstream school twice a year, on 1st September (those who turn five during the autumn terms) and 1st January (those who turn five in the spring or summer terms);
              · Option 3 - admitting children full-time to mainstream education three times a year, on 1st September (those who turn five during the autumn terms); 1st January (those who turn five during the spring terms) and 1st April (those who turn five during the summer terms).
              3.2.70 Adopting any of these options will have wide implications, which are discussed below.

              Impact on maintained schools
              3.2.71 Many schools already take rising fives. Finance – discussed paras below, and presumably more of an impact for borough than schools? Tied up with the review on early years funding anyway. Accommodation – discussed as part of PSfC section. Most popular approach with schools appears to be to take all in in September, to give Foundation Units, though not with Nursery Schools. All three options solve admissions problem. Second two options do not solve issue of having separate intakes – inductions, staffing issues etc. Last option does not have advantage of having all reception children on roll in January, thereby complicating things as far as school funding is concerned (pupil led funding being based on January numbers).

              Impact on PVI sector
              3.2.72 Need to tie this in with conclusions of the childcare sufficiency report at Appendix F in Option 1 and least in Option 3.

              Financial implications
              3.2.73 The financial implications are fully discussed in paragraphs X to Y below. Summarize briefly.

              Admissions arrangements
              3.2.74 Detail impact on admissions, including changes to booklet, times at which people will need to apply and so on. Also strong re-iteration by Council that schools must abide by borough policy and by the Admissions Code.

              Next Steps
              3.2.75 Following the May 22nd Cabinet meeting there will be a number of further steps taken, as described below:

              Primary Strategy for Change
              3.2.76 The borough’s PSfC must be submitted to the DCSF by Monday 16th June 2008. The DCSF can then either approve it, approve it with modifications or reject it. The DCSF are expected to inform local authorities of their decision in September 2008, with any required modifications being made in that month.
              3.2.77 The first PSfC monies should then be available in the 2009/10 financial year.

              Addressing Rising Demand in the Windsor First Schools
              3.2.78 Should Cabinet decide to proceed with expansion of one or more schools, then statutory notices will need to be published for a four-week, formal consultation, period. This only applies to the expansion of Alexander, Dedworth Green or Hilltop to 45 or any of the schools to 60. Legally, these are known as ‘excepted expansions’. Expanding Clewer Green to 45 or Alexander to 30 will not require statutory notices.
              3.2.79 Publication of notices is likely to happen in June, with authority then delegated (by virtue of the May Cabinet) to the Lead Member for Children’s Services to determine the proposal within two months following the end of that consultation. The local authority will be able to either approve the proposal(s), approve them with modifications or reject the proposals. Before approving any proposals with modifications the Royal Borough will need to consult the governing body of the relevant school(s), unless they themselves propose modifications.
              3.2.80 The authority will also be able to approve the proposal(s) (with or without modifications) with implementation conditional on other events, such as obtaining planning permission.
              3.2.81 If no determination is made within two months then the proposal(s) fall to the Schools Adjudicator to be considered.
              3.2.82 As this will involve excepted expansions at community schools the Governing Bodies of those schools will then have the right to appeal to the Schools Adjudicator against the decision of the Royal Borough, as will the two Diocesan authorities. Any such appeal will need to be made within four weeks of the borough’s decision.
              3.2.83 If no appeal to the Schools Adjudicator is made then the statutory process should be completed by the end of July 2008, which would leave just over a year for construction of new accommodation on site(s).

              First Admissions to School
              3.2.84 Any decision made now by the Cabinet on changing the arrangements for first admissions to school will not, in itself, change the admissions rules. The borough will still need to undertake the annual consultation on admissions arrangements in order to formally amend them for the September 2010 intake. The admissions arrangements are usually considered by Cabinet in November, before being published for consultation over the Christmas period and then approved in the following March.
              3.3 Options Available and Risk Assessment

              Options

                Option
                Comments
                To follow
                1.
                2.

              Risk Assessment – top risks identified

              Risk
              Assessment of Risk
              Control Measures
              Assessment of Residual Risk
              ImpactLikelihoodRisk RatingImpactLikelihoodRisk Rating
              Primary Strategy for Change
              Insufficient staff resources/capacity. Increase in workload created by managing bulk of additional grant funding leads to lost funding, project failure, poor implementation or increased project delivery costs through use of consultants.
              Catastrophic

              4
              Very Likely
              4
              High

              16l Recruit additional staff for Schools Accommodation Service and Building ServicesModerate

              2
              Unlikely

              2Low

              4
              Failure to secure Govt funding. DCSF ‘approve with modifications’ the borough’s PSfC, requiring moderate to minor amendments and resubmission of plan. Potential for some delay.
              Major

              3
              Likely

              3
              Medium

              9l Internal assessment of PSfC document against guidance
              l Obtain final DCSF guidance (on investment priorities)
              l PSfC to explain local contextMajor

              3Unlikely

              2Medium

              6
              Insufficient Financial Resources. Some Church of England Voluntary Aided schools may not be able to find their 10% for PSfC capital projects, meaning that some projects are delayed or cancelled
              Major

              3
              Likely

              3
              Medium

              9l Communicate with VA CE schools
              l Use School Asset Management Forum to prioritise, plan and monitor deliveryModerate

              2Unlikely

              2Low

              4
              Insufficient Financial Resources. Modernisation Allocations and LCVAP capital grants are likely to be needed in order to implement the PSfC. This will reduce the monies available for secondary school projects and could lead to delays in improving accommodation at these schools.
              Moderate

              2
              Very Likely
              4
              Medium

              8l Develop priority matrix for capital programmesModerate

              2Likely

              3Medium

              6
              Govt policy/legislation changes. Future government abandons PSfC leading to local objectives unresourced.
              Catastrophic

              4
              Unlikely

              2
              Medium

              8l None possibleCatastrophic

              4Unlikely

              2Medium

              8

              Risk
              Assessment of Risk
              Control Measures
              Assessment of Residual Risk
              ImpactLikelihoodRisk RatingImpactLikelihoodRisk Rating
              Changing the Royal Borough’s policy on first admissions to school
              l
              l
              Addressing rising demand for places in the Windsor First Schools
              l
              l
              l
              l
                The full risk assessments for this report are included at Appendix D
              3.4 Relevant National/Regional Guidance
                The Primary Strategy for Change
              (i) Every Child Matters: Primary Capital Programme – DCSF Guidance December 2007
              (ii) Subsequent DCSF letters
                First Admissions to School and Rising Demand in Windsor First Schools
              (iii) School Admissions Code
              (iv) Education Act 1996
              (v) School Standards and Framework Act 1998
              (vi) Education and Inspections Act 2006
              (vii) Childcare Act 2006
              (viii) The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007
              (ix) DCSF guidance - Making changes to Mainstream Maintained School (other than expansion)
              (x) DCSF Building Bulletin 99
              3.5 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies
                To follow

                RBWM Local Plan – any proposed development would have to comply with policies in the Local Plan.

                The recommendations contained in this report also contribute to the Community Strategy in the following ways:

                Relevant?
                Yes / No
                Key Themes:
                getting about.
                Yes
                learning for life
                Yes
                being safe and secure
                Yes
                caring and health
                Yes
                living and working in a good place.
                Yes
                Guiding Principles:
                working together
                Yes
                leaving no one behind
                Yes
                involving people
                Yes
                safeguarding the young
                Yes
                4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

              4.1 Three Consultations
              4.1.1 The Royal Borough undertook three separate consultations exercises on the issues raised in this report. The consultations on the arrangements for first admissions to school and on a response to rising demand for places in the Windsor First Schools were both approved by Cabinet on 21st February 2008.
              4.1.2 Each of the three consultations is dealt in turn below, but all three were carried out between Monday 25th February and Friday 4th April 2008 (a period of 6 weeks coinciding with Term 4). The responses to all three consultations, anonymised where from private individuals, are available to view in the Member’s Room.
              4.2 Consultation on the Primary Strategy for Change
              4.2.1 The borough first held a series of informal discussions with headteachers and other stakeholders about the PSfC in January 2008, including presentations to each of the Ascot, Maidenhead and Windsor Cluster meetings, the Schools Forum and the Admissions Forum.
              4.2.2 A full day meeting was also held with the Head of Children and Young People, various other borough officers and headteachers (from both the primary and secondary sectors) to discuss the PSfC and its implications. A wide range of issues were discussed (which are picked up below), and a summary of the meeting’s conclusions can be found at appendix X.
              4.2.3 A more formal consultation exercise was then undertaken, from Monday 25th February to Friday 4th April, with the aim of establishing the principles that should underpin the borough’s PSfC and canvassing opinion on what the initial investment priorities should be. The borough’s views on these principles and priorities were given in the consultation document, although it was made clear that these could change following the consultation exercise. The consultation document, which can be viewed at Appendix X, was sent to all headteachers and Chairs of Governors (at all RBWM schools), the Portsmouth and Oxford Diocesan authorities and members of the Admissions Forum, the RBWM Children’s Trust Executive Board and the Children’s Trust Commissioning Group. The document stressed that a response was expected from all schools in the primary sector.
              4.2.4 Responses were received from 32 schools, out of 63, which is a slightly disappointing result. The responding schools were as follows:

              · Nursery Schools – The Lawns, South Ascot Village Nursery
              · Infant Schools – Boyne Hill, Burchett’s Green, Furze Platt Infant
              · Junior Schools – All Saints, Courthouse, Furze Platt Junior
              · First Schools – Alexander, Braywood, Eton Porny, Hilltop, Homer, Oakfield
              · Primary Schools – Cheapside, Cookham Rise, Ellington, Holy Trinity (Cookham), Holy Trinity (Sunningdale), Holyport, Knowl Hill, Lowbrook, Oldfield, South Ascot Village Primary, St Edmund Campion, St Luke’s, St Mary’s, Waltham St Lawrence, Wessex and White Waltham
              · Middle Schools – Dedworth Middle, St Edward’s RFE
              · Secondary Schools – Desborough
              · Upper Schools - none
              4.2.5 29 out of 49 (59%) primary sector schools (including nursery schools) responded.
              4.2.6 The responses to each of the topics discussed in the consultation document are addressed in the following paragraphs. Inevitably, there was crossover between the three consultation exercises. To avoid repetition points made, for example, in the PSfC consultation about the rising demand in Windsor first schools are dealt with in the Windsor first schools consultation section and so on. In the bulleted sections below, the text in bold is the comment from the respondent, whilst the normal text is the officer response.

              General issues: Funding
              4.2.7 The suggested approach on use of funding was supported by the majority of schools, with just one disagreeing (and four not indicated) from the total of 32. Nevertheless, there were a number of concerns and points raised:

              · finding the 10% contribution required from Voluntary Aided schools will be difficult for some schools. The Portsmouth Diocese has a fund paid into by Roman Catholic schools that should meet the 10% costs for any projects undertaken at St Mary’s Catholic, St Edmund Campion Catholic or St Francis Catholic Primary Schools. There is no such fund for the Oxford Diocese, so some of the eleven VA Church of England Schools may have difficulties. The widely differing circumstances at these schools will mean that each case will have to be looked at separately - where there are S106 funds available for a school, for example, these can be used as part of the 10% contribution. Some community and voluntary controlled schools in the borough do also have the ability to raise respectable sums from their local communities although clearly this is a limited resource.
              · schools’ formula capital should not be subsumed into the PSfC programme as it is used by schools for maintenance and improvements. Given the many competing demands on the PSfC programme there is an expectation that schools’ formula capital will be used in support of the aims of the PSfC. In some cases this will mean that the borough will expect projects to be part-funded through formula capital, and in others it will mean ensuring that monies aren’t spent on projects that are contrary to the aims and priorities of the PSfC. Schools will, however, retain their ultimate control of formula capital and, again, each case will have to be approached individually.
              · some schools would have to wait a long-time before receiving any funding, particularly if the borough undertook large projects. This is certainly a risk and it is likely that some schools will receive no PSfC funding – the DCSF expect local authorities to exceed the target of rebuilding, refurbishing or remodelling 50% of all primary schools under this programme by combining other funding sources with the PSfC. It is, however, highly unlikely that any authority will achieve 100% over the 14 years of the programme. In their guidance the DCSF write, however, that: “even primary schools that do not receive major investment through the programme will continue to be eligible for devolved formula capital at the higher (unmodernised rate). For example, a typical school of 250 pupils can expect to have around half a million pounds of capital investment over the 14 years covered by the programme. Much can be done to improve schools with this investment”. Nevertheless, it is likely that one of the tasks of the recommended Schools Asset Management Board will be to consider how resources can be distributed as widely as possible whilst still meeting the aims of the PSfC. One suggestion is that the PSfC should be divided into two pots, with one addressing large-scale refurbishments, and one funding much smaller projects. Whether or not this is accepted, there was support from a number of schools for undertaking larger scale projects as this would help minimise disruption and give a more strategic result.

                  General issues: Raising Standards
              4.2.8 The debate over raising standards hinged on the government’s focus in their PSfC guidance on addressing ‘weak’ schools. These were defined as schools consistently performing below the national floor target of 65% of pupils achieving Level 4 or above at KS2 in English, Maths or Science. No definition was given for first schools, and the consultation document suggested that, for the purposes of the PSfC, schools with performance 10% or more below the national average should be defined as ‘weak’. Where it could be shown that changes to school organisation locally or improvements to accommodation could help raise standards at these schools, then they would receive priority for PSfC funding.
              4.2.9 Unsurprisingly, this was one of the more contentious aspects of the consultation. Just over half (53%) of schools agreed with the suggested definition for ‘weak’ first schools, although in many cases this was an objection to the use of ‘weak’ or its definition in relation to any schools. The majority of schools (81%) agreed with the suggested approach to using the PSfC to raise standards, although rather fewer agreed (63%) that where raised standards could be achieved through improvements to accommodation/facilities or through re-organisation these should have priority under the PSfC.
              4.2.10 The main comments and points made were:

              · it is unfair to call certain schools weak on the basis of KS1 or KS2 results. The Every Child Matters outcomes should determine whether or not a school is weak, and, in many cases, the children on roll at these schools start off well below national averages in reading and writing. The definition of ‘weak’ is not a borough invention but an explicit part of the DCSF guidance. It is quite clear that the government are expecting a focus on schools they believe to have poor standards and it is highly unlikely that the borough’s PSfC will be approved without reference to improving standards at these schools. The borough is fully aware that the picture is much more complicated than is suggested by the definitions and reference to this is made in the PSfC (and indeed was made in the consultation document).
              · the suggestion that School Improvement Partners (SIPs) should have a role in determining whether or not accommodation is a barrier to standards needs to be re-examined. The consultation document suggested that SIPs should, as part of their support role for schools, assess whether the school buildings, facilities and/or site are specific barriers to improvement. It should be clarified that this is not intended as any replacement of the condition or suitability surveys that currently underpin the borough’s information on the school estate. It is, however, felt that input from the SIPs will be a helpful addition to these surveys and formalising this process will help ensure any issues are raised with the Schools Accommodation Service.
              · all schools should have access to the PSfC funds, rather than just those defined as having weaker standards. In addition, having poor accommodation is not an excuse for poor standards. The focus of the PSfC will be on improving outcomes for all children and while raising academic standards is a very important part of this, it is not the only one. Nevertheless, nationally there is a strong link between poor condition school buildings, deprivation and low standards of attainment and this, to a certain extent, is repeated in the borough. As a result this report recommends that the 2010/11 PSfC funding is directed towards rebuilding Ellington Primary School. Other schools considered to have weak performance by the DCSF have, however, already had substantial capital investment in recent years and at all of these schools other changes have been put into effect to help raise attainment. The borough fully accepts, therefore, that new or refurbished accommodation is not a panacea for problems with attainment. As is mentioned above, at least 50% of schools are expected to benefit from the PSfC over 14 years and much of the work will be prioritised on issues other than ‘weak’ performance.
                  General issues: Addressing deprivation
              4.2.11 Only a few comments made about the use of deprivation in the PSfC and these generally related to schools identifying sections of their communities that could be considered deprived. The long-term of the borough’s PSfC is to improve outcomes for all children.

              Sufficiency strand: Supply of school places
              4.2.12 The majority of schools (75% - 16% were ‘not indicated’) supported the long-term aim of maintaining around 5% surplus places (and no more than 10%) in the primary school sector. A higher number (84%) supported the suggested approach to change that would see proposals for change brought forward for discussion wherever either limit was set to be significantly breached, or where parental representations about the pattern of school provision are made. There was also support for the retention of school sites for community use where a school was closed, so that it could be taken back into school use when pupil numbers rise in the longer-term. The priorities for action - identified originally in the School Organisation Plan – were approved by the majority (81%) of schools.
              4.2.13 Nevertheless, there were a number of concerns and points raised, the main ones being:

              · a 10% ceiling on surplus places at individual schools would be unfair on small schools. High levels of pupil mobility can also leave schools vulnerable to having high levels of surplus places. The borough’s PSfC clarifies that the need to bring forward proposals for change where there are more than 10% surplus places refers to a wider area, rather than an individual school. It is correct that in very small schools a numerically low number of empty places will represent a high percentage of surplus places – in many cases (but not all) these will be rural schools. The issue of school sizes is addressed in more detail in paragraphs X to Y below.
              · a surplus is important to allow operation of parental choice and, in any case, schools are required to take up to their admission number if there are spaces. At the same time, some schools are clearly taking more pupils than this, even if there are spaces in neighbouring schools. The range of 5-10% surplus places is intended to balance the efficient use of resources with the operation of parental preference, although it seems inevitable that some schools will always be more popular than others. New proposals for first admissions to school are discussed elsewhere in this report and it is also recommended that the Royal Borough should become much more stringent in policing the application of the admissions rules and processes. Certainly the proposed further tightening up of the School Admissions Code will make it increasing important that schools do abide by the admissions arrangements or risk being taken to the Schools’ Adjudicator.

                  Sufficiency strand: Choice and diversity
              4.2.14 All but one school (and two ‘not indicated’) agreed that there was sufficient choice and diversity in the provision of school places in the borough. There was also agreement that should there ever be a competition for a new school, the Royal Borough should seek to publish a community school proposal.

              Sufficiency strand: School sizes
              4.2.15 The issue of school sizes in the Royal Borough relates largely to the number of small schools, which is partly a result of the number of village schools and partly because of first schools, which (currently) only have four full year groups as opposed to six in primary schools. There are concerns about the costs of running smaller schools but, at the same time, a recognition that village schools should be retained where there is a proven local need. Schools, by and large, agreed (78%) with the long term aims to achieve the best balance between value for money and parental choice, diversity of provision and ease of access to school provision; with preserving the benefits of small village schools (72%), and with improving the balance between open space and pupil numbers (72%). There was also support for the proposed approach to change (72%), although most agreed (75%) with the borough that addressing school size in isolation was not an immediate priority for investment.
              4.2.16 Unsurprisingly, however, there was a range of comments on school sizes:

              · quality of provision, rather than school size should be the determining factor in whether or not a school should remain open. Generally, this is true, although if a school is financially unviable due to very low pupil numbers then it will be difficult for it to remain open, however high the quality of provision on offer, unless given financial support that some would perceive as unfair.
              · all schools, not chose that are small or in a rural location, can be the hub of the local community. The wording in the borough’s draft PSfC has been amended to reflect this point that is, in any case, implicit within the aims relating to extended services and Childrens’ Centres.
              · there is a contradiction between having a presumption in favour of (small) retaining rural schools where there is a proven local need and a presumption in favour of proposals that result in schools with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 90 school places per year group (as suggested in the consultation). It is the intention of the borough that it will not (usually) put forward proposals for change that result in primary schools with fewer than 30 places per group. At the same time, however, it will seek to retain smaller village schools even though they may have fewer than 30 per year group although, of course, there can be no guarantee that a school won’t close if it becomes unviable or is not serving a proven local need.
              · some small rural schools are not, in fact, serving their local communities as many of the children on roll live outside the designated area. These schools are a drain on the resources of other primary schools in the borough. It should be clear that the borough is not intending to use the PSfC as a platform from which to review and close village schools generally. Nevertheless, some decisions about the future pattern of provision will need to be made over the course of the PSfC that may result in some school closures (whether rural or not). It must be emphasised, however, that beyond the specific projects recommended in this report, no decisions have been made.
              · there may be a need/desire to federate/amalgamate some small schools, particularly given difficulties in recruiting headteachers. This is the case, and the borough is always open to proposals for federations or amalgamations in such cases.

                  Sufficiency strand: Admission numbers
              4.2.17 Closely related to school sizes is the issue of admission numbers, with the consultation suggesting that, generally, they should be multiples of 15 or 30. There was a majority (69%) in favour of this approach but a much smaller one in favour of linked junior and infant schools becoming primary schools in the longer term (53%, although 28% were ‘don’t know’ or ‘not indicated’). Interestingly all but one of the junior or infant schools responding answered yes or don’t know (rather than no) to this question. The school saying no objected on the grounds that it would only work with significant improvements to the accommodation.
              4.2.18 Furze Platt Infant and Furze Platt Junior Schools have both submitted responses signalling an intention to federate at some point in the future, with the possibility of an amalgamation if issues around accommodation could be resolved. Both schools are keen that their admission numbers should be matched at either 75 or 90. Given the popularity of the schools it would seem appropriate for them to have an admission number of 90, although this would require substantial accommodation works.
              4.2.19 There was also support (72%) for the way in which changing admission numbers should be approached, which includes consideration of the impact on the school’s budget and accommodation as well as the effects on supply and demand of school places locally. It was also generally agreed (66%) that changing admission numbers were not an immediate priority under the PSfC.
              4.2.20 Issues raised by schools included:

              · there should not be an assumption that mixed year group teaching is unsuccessful. The borough believes, as did a number of schools responding, that mixed year group teaching can make it organisationally and educationally more difficult in schools, although there is also a recognition that many schools do successfully manage this. Accordingly, the borough is not necessarily against 45 (for example) as an admission number, but where it is not a multiple of 15 there can be difficulties with the implementation of the infant class size pledge.
              · reducing admission numbers can have implications for funding. Inevitably, pupil led funding means that a reduction in admission numbers will reduce the amount of money available for a school. The borough and governing bodies will need to think carefully about these implications, although it would be hoped that in many circumstances it would lead to less frequent need for an additional teacher in order to comply with the infant class size legislation.
              4.2.21 A number of schools made comments specifically relating to their own admission numbers. As suggested in the consultation, the borough will write to schools in the next six months asking whether or not they want to change their admission number. If there is agreement these could be included in the annual consultation on the admission arrangements.

              Sufficiency strand: First admission to school
              4.2.22 The PSfC consultation did not touch on the advantages or otherwise of changing the arrangements for first admission to school, but did suggest that accommodation would need to provided in accordance with the admissions policy. There was high support (88% - the remainder being ‘don’t know’ or ‘not indicated’) for this approach, and majorities also in favour of prioritising schools already full and not currently admitting rising fives (78%). There was less agreement (66% ‘yes’ - and 22% ‘no’) over the specific schools identified.
              4.2.23 Many of the points made by schools here did relate specifically to their own provision. The Schools Accommodation Service has revisited which schools will require new accommodation in light of the recommendation made in this report to change the arrangements for first admission to school. These schools are listed in paragraph X above. Although concern was expressed by some schools at the prioritisation methodology used here it is hoped that all schools requiring new or altered accommodation will receive it by the appropriate stage. This may be for September 2010 or in later years for those schools not expected to be full.

              Sufficiency strand: Early years education
              4.2.24 The PSfC consultation said relatively little about early years education, given concurrent processes on the future of early years, including the Childcare Sufficiency Assessment and changes to the funding arrangements for early years children. Five schools did, however, express support for introducing Foundation Units, whether these involved nursery schools and neighbouring primary schools, or combining existing Reception and Nursery classes.

              Condition strand: School condition
              4.2.25 Schools were asked whether or not they felt that the condition of schools generally was reasonable (50% did) and what condition they thought their own school was in. Just 22% schools responded that their school was in good condition, although 50% thought that it was satisfactory. 9% thought the condition of their school was poor, and 6% bad. All but one of the schools thought to be in poor or bad condition by their headteachers were identified by the borough’s Condition Surveys as having elements of their structure in bad condition.
              4.2.26 Virtually all schools agreed (94% - 6% ‘not indicated’), unsurprisingly, that all primary school buildings should be in good condition, performing as intended and operating efficiently. They also agreed (94%) with the suggestion that there should be a rolling programme of condition surveys, with condition issues addressed together with other improvements to increase cost-effectiveness and minimise disruption. 17 schools agreed with the suggested priority of rebuilding Ellington Primary School on grounds of bad condition, with 13 putting ‘don’t know’ or not ‘indicated’. Only two schools disagreed outright. In the comments section there was some concern that monies spent at Ellington would prevent addressing the accommodation needs arising from the proposed new admissions arrangements.
              4.2.27 As requested many schools indicated what difficulties they had with condition at their school and these have been examined by the Schools Accommodation Service.

              Condition strand: Sustainability
              4.2.28 There was almost total support (91%) for the suggested long-term aim that all school buildings/sites should contribute towards a sustainable future, with emissions reduced at least in line with the borough’s targets (a 25% cut by 2012/13 financial year). The suggested approach to change was also endorsed (94% in favour). There was a view expressed that schools building sustainability into their own projects should have assistance from the borough in obtaining funding via the appropriate grants. One school noted that it was probably more sustainable to remodel/refurbish existing buildings than build completely new ones.

              Condition strand: Kitchens
              4.2.29 Only a small proportion (13%) of schools indicated that they felt their kitchens to be in good condition. 47% said they were satisfactory, and 22% poor or bad. Certainly, the borough has identified that 32 of the 45 primary schools require kitchen related works. The majority of schools (78%, with 13% ‘no’) indicated that they supported the long-term aim that all schools should be able to provide a quality school lunch cooked on site, as well as being able to provide a welcome dining environment to be used by extended schools’ breakfast and after-school clubs. There was agreement (88%) that the provision of new kitchens at schools without them would need to consider the broader issues of day-to-day management as well as capital implications. Of the seven schools responding that do not currently have kitchens (although they may have serverys) four indicated that they would want a kitchen and three declined.
              4.2.30 Most comments made by schools related to their own kitchen facilities, but there was some concern at the prospect of spending up to £1.5m on kitchens, which would reduce the level of resources that could be spent on other things. It was also questioned whether or not kitchens onsite would necessarily increase take-up of meals.

              Suitability strand: School suitability
              4.2.31 56% of schools responding thought that the suitability of the borough’s school was satisfactory, although a significant number had no view. No school thought suitability in the borough’s schools was good. In relation to their own schools, 9% thought that suitability was bad and 22% poor, which is worse than figures for condition. There was high support (88%) for the long-term aim of ensuring that all primary school buildings are suitable, meeting at the very least the minimum standards set by government.
              4.2.32 There were a number of questions asking how suitability projects should be prioritised. A clear majority (84%) supported using the suggested A-D grading system but, conversely, half thought that prioritisation should not make reference to the numbers of pupils on roll. On the question of whether or not particular kinds of suitability should be given priority there was no real view expressed, with roughly a third indicating each of ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘don’t know’. There was, however, complete support for the suggested approach to dealing with suitability, which included regular updates to suitability data; inclusion of extended services considerations as a matter of course; tackling of suitability issues together with other needs and so on.
              4.2.33 A number of points were raised by schools, in addition to comments on their own suitability issues:
              · suitability is largely subjective and so prioritisation is likely to be controversial. This is undoubtedly the case. As described in paragraphs X to Y above, the borough does not intend to create a priority matrix immediately as recommendations are made in this report for the first two years’ worth of PSfC funding. Instead, it is suggested that a newly created Schools Asset Management Forum be given the role of considering that model, using the outcome of this consultation as their starting point.
              · prioritisation using pupil numbers will inevitably mean smaller schools are at the bottom of the list for suitability improvements. Yes, where pupil numbers alone are used (all other things being equal), but there may be ways to ameliorate this. These will need to be assessed before any priority matrix can be approved. It is likely that schools will be consulted on the matrix prior to final approval.

                  Suitability strand: Special Educational Needs
              4.2.34 Less than half of schools thought that the accessibility of schools in the borough was good or satisfactory, with a high proportion (25%) of don’t knows. For their own schools only 19% thought that accessibility to the curriculum was poor, although physical accessibility was ranked poor or bad by over a third. The long-term aim that all primary schools should be fully accessible (so that no child’s access to the delivery of the curriculum is disadvantaged by the school buildings or facilities) was supported by almost all schools (two ‘not indicated’). The approach to change, which included a presumption in favour of addressing the widest range of accessibility issues in all new build, remodelling and refurbishment projects, gained similar support.
              4.2.35 Issues raised by schools on SEN were almost exclusively about issues with their own buildings, but a question was asked on whether the improvements to accessibility would be directed only to those schools with children on roll with accessibility needs, or whether it would be widened out to all schools. In answer to this it is the intention of the borough that accessibility works should be incorporated into all future works rather than initiating a rolling programme of improvements. Thus new/refurbished classrooms could be painted in colours that are visually accessible.

              Suitability strand: ICT
              4.2.36 ICT provision in the borough’s schools was thought to be good or satisfactory by 66% of schools. Just 12% thought the provision was poor or bad in their school, although 25% thought the infrastructure supporting ICT provision in their school was poor. The long-term aim on ICT was supported by almost all schools, as was the suggested approach for achieving it.
              4.2.37 The comments made by schools reflected concerns about the costs of upgrading and supporting ICT provision, although some were clearly pleased with the improvements that they had been able to make.

              Schools in the community: Children’s Centres
              4.2.38 All schools (bar two ‘not indicated’) agreed that one long-term aim for the PSfC should be to assist the transformation of schools in community hubs, used and ‘owned’ by local people.

              Schools in the community: Extended schools
              4.2.39 Almost all schools (91%) felt that every school that wanted one should be provided with at least a space that could be used as a family room. There was less agreement (72%) about enabling schools to offer more extended services on their own sites, though still a clear majority in favour. Again, almost all schools agreed with the suggested approach to change (91%).
              4.2.40 Some schools expressed a view that extended service clusters were working well in their area and so there would be no need for an increase in those services on individual school sites. Others, however, questioned how well cluster arrangements were working and so were more in favour of increased and improved accommodation for extended services. There was, nevertheless, widespread enthusiasm both for extended services working and for further improvements to those services.

              Prioritisation of projects
              4.2.41 There are, clearly, many competing demands on the funding to be made available under the PSfC. Schools were asked, therefore, to consider each of the above topics and rank, on a scale of 1 to 6 (low to high priority respectively), how important it was for the borough and for their school to address these through the PSfC.


                Table X – PSfC priorities as ranked by schools
                RankIssueAverage Score (1 to 6)
                Priorities for the borough
                1Providing additional accommodation for Rising Fives5.47
                2Ensuring there are sufficient school places5.20
                3Improving accessibility to the curriculum5.14
                4Changing the way early years education is offered5.11
                5Making buildings flexible for future changes5.10
                6Addressing condition needs5.00
                7Improving ICT4.97
                8Assisting the transformation of every school into a community hub4.97
                9Improving sustainability4.87
                10Addressing suitability needs4.83
                11Providing at least a space for all schools for use as a family room4.72
                12Rebuilding the worst condition primary school, Ellington 4.41
                13Maintaining small, and particularly rural, schools4.40
                14Ensuring a surplus of 5% on school places4.27
                15Improving accommodation/facilities at schools in more deprived areas4.21
                16Addressing the mismatch between school size and team game playing fields4.17
                17Enabling schools to have admission numbers in multiples of 15 or 304.11
                17Improving kitchens4.00
                19Improving accommodation/facilities at ‘weak’ performing schools 3.76
                20Widening the type of primary schools on offer3.11
                21Reducing the number of small schools2.96
                Priorities for my school
                1Addressing suitability4.96
                2Changing the way early years education is offered4.92
                3Improving ICT4.77
                4Improving sustainability4.73
                5Providing at least a space for use as a family room4.62
                6Addressing condition needs4.57
                7Improving accessibility to the curriculum4.53
                8Providing additional accommodation for Rising Fives3.89
                9Improving kitchens3.33
                10Addressing the mismatch between school size and team game playing fields3.29
                11Enabling the school to have admission numbers in multiples of 15 or 303.00
                4.2.42 It can be seen that the borough’s top two priorities, according to schools, are (i) ensuring that there is sufficient accommodation for any changes to the arrangements for first admissions to school, and (ii) ensuring there are sufficient places overall. These match the recommended priorities for the 2009/10 financial year, but the recommended project for 2010/11 – rebuilding Ellington School – is only ranked 12th. Many of the intervening priorities, however, may be addressed for some schools as part of the projects for 2009/10. It is likely, for instance, that buildings will be designed flexibly, and accessibility needs will certainly be considered.

              4.2.43 Suitability issues are, as expected, considered to be the highest priority by individual schools, with amending admission numbers to multiples of 15 or 30 having little importance generally. Obviously, there are some differences between issues that schools see as a priority for a borough, but not for themselves.
              4.2.44 It is not intended that this prioritisation of issues should be used as a specific part of any priority model developed by the borough, but it will act as a guide to future action by the borough.

              Final points
              4.2.45 At the end of the consultation document schools were given the opportunity to firstly indicate whether they thought the future development of their school would be best served by a major rebuild. Seven schools said they did. They were also asked if they had other ideas for the future development of their school, and many ideas were put forward. The borough will be using this information to contribute to take the PSfC forward in future years.
              4.3 Consultation on Rising Demand in the Windsor First Schools
              4.3.1 The borough first held meetings with the Head and Chair of Governors at Alexander First School, Clewer Green First School, Dedworth First School, Oakfield First School and The Lawns Nursery School in January 2008. All five schools have agreed that consultation should proceed on expanding one or more of the first schools. A discussion was also held with the Windsor Cluster group. The issue was then considered by Cabinet at their meeting on 21st February 2008 and permission was given for public consultation.
              4.3.2 This wider public consultation exercise was undertaken from Monday 25th February to Friday 4th April, and explained, by way of the consultation document that can be viewed at Appendix X, the rising demand and need for new places in Windsor. It also outlined the four options considered most appropriate by the borough, with some advantages and disadvantages for each. Views were also invited on any other options for expansion and, in line with new government legislation, an invitation to parents to comment where there was parental dissatisfaction with the standards at local schools or with the current pattern of schooling.
              4.3.3 3600 copies of the consultation document were printed and distributed to parents at each first school and PVI in Windsor. Copies were also distributed to staff and governors at these schools, to headteachers at all other schools in the borough, the Portsmouth and Oxford Diocesan authorities and members of the Admissions Forum, the RBWM Children’s Trust Executive Board and the Children’s Trust Commissioning Group.
              4.3.4 An issue with distribution meant that Dedworth Green first school parents, staff and governors did not receive the consultation document until the last week of the consultation period. Accordingly, the deadline for responses to be returned from Dedworth Green was extended by 3 weeks until Friday 25th April 2008.
              4.3.5 The breakdown of responses received is as follows:


                Table X – Respondents by category Respondents had the opportunity to indicate whether they were a pupil, governor, member of staff, parent, local resident or other on the consultation form, and many selected more than one of these options. To avoid double-counting, therefore, in the analysis in this report respondents have been assigned the category to which they fall in first in the above list. and school
                Respondents
                Schools proposed for change
                Other schools
                AlexanderClewer GreenDedworth GreenOakfieldBraywoodHilltopHomerSt EdwardsThe LawnsOtherNot indicated or no school
                Parents
                130
                37122822110112331
                Governors
                14
                6111113
                Staff
                43
                11541856111
                Residents
                3
                3
                Other
                7
                7
                Not Indicated
                9
                126
                Total
                206
                5518342410161744717
                4.3.6 Overall, 206 responses to the consultation were received, the majority of which were from parents. A sizeable number of school staff also responded. The most responses were received from those connected with Alexander First School, with the fewest from Clewer Green.

              4.3.7 The table below identifies the level of support that each proposal got, both overall and from within the relevant school community. The numbers do not necessarily add up to the number of responses received, as some people will have indicated their support for more than one option at a particular school.

                Table X – Support for each expansion option
                Admission number should be:
                2630384560Don’t knowNot indicatedOption 1Option 2
                Alexander First School
                Overall
                284165141548
                School Community
                3540801
                Clewer Green First School
                Overall
                60444754213
                School Community
                8100009
                Dedworth Green First School
                Overall
                5327234558
                School Community
                1821033
                Oakfield First School
                Overall
                6928466311
                School Community
                1740310
                4.3.8 A wide range of comments were made, as summarised in the table below. The table also gives the number of respondents referring to that particular issue, both overall and by the respondents connected to the relevant school.

                Table X – Issues identified by respondents
                No. raising issue
                RankIssueOverall
                1Alexander - has plenty of room for expansion24
                2Places should be added at popular schools21
                3The three tier system should be changed to a two-tier system19
                4Places should be added at schools close to the expected demand11
                5Oakfield – parking difficulties will be made worse if the school expands10
                6The Royal Borough should admit rising fives to school10
                7Oakfield – congestion will worsen if school expands8
                8Clewer Green – congestion will worsen if school expands7
                9Alexander – the buildings could easily be expanded7
                10Alexander – expansion would bring stability to pupil numbers7
                11Smaller schools are better for children6
                12Dedworth Green – expansion would lead to larger classes6
                13Alexander – not centrally located, but easily accessible by road and foot6
                14Alexander – school is not popular with many parents5
                15Alexander – the school is in the wrong location5
                16There is a danger of creating ‘super’ schools, with all the facilities5
                17Clewer Green – expansion would leave the facilities overcrowded4
                18Schools should not have mixed year group teaching4
                19Oakfield – the school site is already overcrowded4
                20Alexander – new Foundation Unit good for school & community4
                21Dedworth Green – congestion will worsen if school expands3
                22Alexander – buildings need modernising3
                23Alexander – in a safe and attractive location2
                24Dedworth Green – room for expansion on site2
                25Clewer Green – expansive for gains achieved2
                26Dedworth Green – parking problems would worsen if expanded2
                27Oakfield – use of ‘Maestros’ classrooms would isolate pupils2
                28Expansion of schools must not mean more children in a class2
                29No choice of co-educational school in Windsor at secondary level2
                30There should be smaller increases at a wider range of schools2
                31Building work will be disruptive2
                32Clewer Green – already unsettled by changing Headteacher1
                33Dedworth Green – not located in the right area1
                34Dedworth Green – expansion here is the simplest option1
                4.3.9 The subsequent paragraphs give an analysis of the responses by number, together with a summary of the position of the relevant Headteacher and/or governing body (where received). The paragraphs then look at the comments made in reference to expansion at each school. In the bulleted sections the text in bold is the comment from the respondent, whilst the normal text is the officer response

              Alexander First School
              4.3.10 There was significant support for the expansion of Alexander First School to either 30 or 45 places per year group from outside the school, although by far the most popular option amongst those connected with the school was 45 places per year group. Overall, less than a fifth of those choosing an option thought the school should remain at 26 places per year group, and hardly any of these were connected with Alexander First.
              4.3.11 The Headteacher and Chair of Governors came out strongly in favour of a move to 45 places per year group, for the reasons given in paragraph X below. There was also support from representatives of army units based in Windsor.
              4.3.12 The comments made in relation to the possible expansion of Alexander First School were generally positive, particularly from respondents related to that school. The main points made were:
              · the school site is ideal for expansion, as it is very large. Having a higher number on roll would not compromise the amount of outside area available for the children. The site here is the largest of all the Windsor first school locations and could easily accommodate 60 pupils per year group whilst exceeding the minimum DCSF standards on space for a school of that size. It was also noted that the site was in an attractive location, overlooking countryside to the west of Windsor.
              · the school buildings could be easily adapted to accommodate more pupils, with new build on the site of the old swimming pool, for example. This could be achieved with relatively little disruption. To take the school to 45 pupils per year group there would need to be some internal remodelling/small extension to provide full-size classrooms, plus three further classrooms elsewhere on the site. A further two would be necessary to move to 60 per year group. This expansion would be relatively straightforward, although issues with some of the condition and suitability of the existing buildings would drive up costs if these were all to be addressed at the same time.
              · an increase in the number of civilian children on roll would help counterbalance the high mobility of the HMF (Her Majesty’s Forces) children, and bring greater stability in numbers. This would benefit both teaching /learning and the financial viability of the school. Alexander First School does have very high pupil mobility that can lead to significant difficulties with managing the budget. Having more ‘non-mobile’ children on roll would help reduce this.
              · expansion would enable the school to run both a full Foundation Unit and to more successfully offer extended services to the local community. As the school has a nursery class it would be possible for the accommodation to be remodelled to create a Foundation Unit.
              · the school already runs mixed year groups (which would be necessary if the school were to have 45 children per year group).
              4.3.13 Other respondents did, however, raise concerns about expansion at Alexander First School:
              · the school is not popular with parents in Windsor. It is certainly the case that Alexander First School has struggled with numbers over the past few years and has not had more than 90 pupils on roll (for 112 places overall) since the turn of the century. Although the school is undoubtedly popular with families whose children attend (as evidenced by the number of responses from them in favour of expansion) there is, as noted by the head and others, a wider feeling that the school is an army school. Whilst this is not the case at all, it will be a difficult perception to shift.
              · the school is not in the right location to address rising demand. Whilst there may be some rising demand locally to Alexander First, the main expansionary pressure is on the other side of Windsor. Respondents in favour of expansion of the school have noted that the school is accessible via a bus service from central Windsor to Dedworth and, more locally, by a network of footpaths through nearby housing areas. It was also noted that there would be no issues with congestion for parents driving children to the school due to the large car-park and turning circle in front of the school.

                  Clewer Green First School
              4.3.14 Of those selecting an option here there was, overall, a majority in favour of the status quo, although there was a slim majority in favour of moving to 45 places per year group amongst those directly connected with the school. A number of people used the comments section to indicate whether they preferred (i) to put any additional classrooms in a new, separate, block to the rear of the school or (ii) build a new hall and convert the existing one into two classrooms. There was a clear majority in favour of the second of these, should expansion go ahead.
              4.3.15 No response to the consultation was received from the Headteacher or Chair of Governors, although prior to the consultation the school had indicated a willingness to explore these options.
              4.3.16 There were relatively few comments made about the proposals for Clewer Green CE School:
              · expansion to 45 places per year group would leave the school overcrowded. The school could be expanded to 45 places per year group and still have sufficient site size. It would also have sufficient spaces within the school but some of those would be undersized. This would particularly be the case for the hall, which is already too small for the school at the current size. Clearly, a new hall (as suggested by option 2 in the consultation) would be a better long-term solution and it is possible that as part of this work other issues at the school could be addressed.
              · expansion would be expensive for the gain achieved. Expanding Clewer Green to 45 places per year group would give the borough less than a third of the numbers needed to meet the expected rise in demand for places. With implications also for the school in finding its 10% contribution as a VA school, then if option 2 were to be done this would clearly be a costly way of providing additional places. These would, however, be places in a school that is both successful and popular. The money spent would also contribute to the aims of the borough’s PSfC (as described elsewhere in the report) by replacing unsuitable accommodation with buildings that would meet DCSF standards.
              · expansion would bring increased congestion along Hatch Lane and would exacerbate the already difficult parking situation at the school. Any expansion proposal in Windsor is likely to have significant implications for traffic, although the increase proposed at Clewer Green CE School is relatively small. New accommodation will, of course, require planning permission and the impact on the local transport network would be properly assessed at that stage.
              4.3.17 There was also some concern about the impact of implementing a potentially complex expansion and building project immediately following the departure of a long-standing head.

              Dedworth Green First School
              4.3.18 Out of those indicating any preference for the size of the year groups at Dedworth Green first School there was a slight majority in favour of retaining 30 per year. Amongst those directly related to the school the preference for 30 was more pronounced. The majority of those at the school favouring expansion wanted 60 places per year group although across the town slightly more favoured 45 places per year group.
              4.3.19 The Headteacher and governors wrote in support of the proposal, favouring 60 per year group because this would avoid mixed year group teaching. It was stated, however, that if a decision to move to 45 places was taken the school would support it and seek advice from other first schools locally that already run on 45 per year group.
              4.3.20 There were few comments generally made in relation to the proposals for Dedworth Green First School:
              · expansion would result in larger classes at Dedworth. Unfortunately, a view has developed that an expansion to 45 or 60 places per year group would result in classes of that size, which would be difficult for staff to teach. It is, of course, the case that class sizes would still remain at around 30 – there would simply be more classes being taught in new classrooms. This point was picked up by the Headteacher as well, who stated in her response that “once this misconception was cleared up [parents] were supportive of the scheme as a whole”.
              · expansion would be bring increased congestion. Any expansion proposal in Windsor is likely to have significant implications for traffic, although the increase proposed at Clewer Green CE School is relatively small. New accommodation will, of course, require planning permission and the impact on the local transport network would be properly assessed at that stage.
              · expansion would be straightforward as the site is large enough. The school site could easily accommodate a school of up to 60 pupils per year group.

                  Oakfield First School
              4.3.21 There were clear majorities (amongst those indicating a preference for the size of the year groups at Oakfield) against expansion to 60 places, both overall and amongst the school community.
              4.3.22 The Governing Body of the school support the expansion of the school to 60 pupils per year group, but only if it can be achieved in a way that does not jeopardise the delivery of the five ECM outcomes for children at the school. A number of accommodation issues were highlighted that the school felt would need to be addressed if the school were to expand. The Governing Body noted that they did not support the use of the ‘Maestros’ classrooms for Oakfield children but would prefer to see new classrooms built elsewhere on site.
              4.3.23 The main comments from respondents relating to the proposed expansion of Oakfield First School were generally negative, as follows:
              · expansion to 60 places per year group would result in severe congestion and parking difficulties. This was the most significant concern of most respondents relating to Oakfield. The school is situated on one of the busiest roads in the town and there is only a relatively small amount of parking onsite. If the proposal were to go ahead, therefore, the borough would need to carefully consider how to address this problem. ikewise, the impact on the local transport network would be properly assessed as part of the planning application process. It was felt by some respondents that if these issues could be overcome – particularly with sufficient parking on-site - then the expansion could proceed without difficulty.
              · the Oakfield site is already crowded and any expansion would increase the pressure on the facilities there. Although Oakfield First School shares a site with The Lawns Nursery and Children’s Centre there is sufficient space to expand the school to 60 pupils per year group. The difficulty lies in achieving this in such a way that helps, rather than hinders, the delivery of better outcomes for all.
              · use of the two ‘Maestros ‘ classrooms above The Lawns would isolate any Oakfield children taught there. This was proposed as part of Option 2 for Oakfield and the borough recognises that it would cause difficulties with interaction between those pupils and the rest of the school. There would also be issues with access for Oakfield pupils to the two classrooms through the Children’s Centre.
                  Expansion of other first schools in Windsor
              4.3.24 Respondents were invited to indicate if they had suggestions for other first schools to expand, and there were four main suggestions – Braywood CE First, Hilltop First, Homer First and St Edward’s Catholic First. The actual practicalities of expansion at these schools are dealt with in paragraphs X to Y in Section Y of this report.
              4.3.25 Respondents felt that these schools should have been included in the proposals for expansion and it was noted that the borough should be adding places at popular schools. Neither of the two first schools judged to be ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted, for example, had been proposed for expansion, it was stated.
              4.3.26 The rationale for concentrating on four schools in the consultation document was that they had been identified as the most obvious choices for expansion based on the available site size. The options were described together with a number of pros and cons. Respondents were also invited to make the case for alternatives and many did so. Accordingly, the borough has had a number of discussions about potential expansion at these alternatives.
              4.3.27 It should be noted here that although a number of respondents were in favour of expansion at Homer First School the comments made suggest that this was not support for increasing the number of pupils admitted from 45 to 60 per year group. Instead it was felt that the borough should be enabling the school to admit rising fives by building another classroom at the school. The first admissions to school issue is dealt with elsewhere in this report, but this report does recommend that an additional ‘first admissions’ classroom is provided at Homer First School under the PSfC (see paragraph X).

              Some general points
              4.3.28 A number of wider points were made by respondents to the consultation as follows:
              · new places should be added close to the demand. To follow
              · the borough’s proposals would create a series of super-schools in Windsor, that were both very large and had a range of services on site that could not be matched by other, smaller schools. Linked to this was a feeling that smaller schools were generally better for children and that the borough should, instead, be pursuing smaller expansion proposals at a wider range of schools. To follow
              · schools should avoid mixed year group teaching. The Royal Borough is not generally in favour of mixed year group teaching, but there are many schools in the borough, including several in Windsor, that successfully operate along these lines.
              · smaller schools are better for children. The Royal Borough generally believes that schools should have between 30 and 90 places per year group, but school size is only one of a wide range of factors affecting the quality of provision at individual schools.
              · expansion work will lead to disruption for pupils and staff. As far as possible all building work will be carried out during holiday periods. For larger projects, however, working during term time is often unavoidable – the borough will be working closely with contractors and the schools to minimise possible disruption.
              · no expansion is needed – the expected numbers are either a blip, or fewer places should be offered to children from Slough. There is a risk that the forecasts for Windsor are incorrect and that significantly higher or lower numbers of children require places in September 2009. It is also correct that the rising numbers of children could be a temporary phenomenon. The Royal Borough is, however, acting on the best information available at present to avoid the risk that there will be insufficient places in the first schools for Windsor children. The number of children attending first schools from outside the area is very small and this is expected to decrease as pressure from local children grows. A fuller explanation of the expected increase in demand can be found in the 21st February 2008 Cabinet Report on the Windsor First Schools, which can be viewed online at http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/meetings_080221_agenda_cabinet.htm.
              · the Royal Borough should admit Rising Fives. These responses are dealt with in paragraphs X to Y, in the section on first admissions to school.
              · the Royal Borough should change the Windsor three-tier system into a two-tier system. This issue, which was also raised in the consultation on the Primary Strategy for Change, is dealt with in paragraphs X to Y below.
              4.4 Consultation on First Admissions to School
              4.4.1 There have, since the Royal Borough’s inception in 1997, been a number of consultations about the arrangements for first admission into primary schools. In 2003, for example, headteachers in the borough’s schools were consulted on three options:

              (a) maintaining the status quo;
              (b) providing all children with at least four terms in mainstream education by admitting half of the children who turn five in any one academic year in September and half in January;
              (c) offering all four year olds a place in mainstream education in September.
              4.4.2 Of the 32 that replied, five, including all four maintained nursery schools, favoured (a), whilst seven preferred option (b) and 19 favoured option (c). Three had no favoured option (or another alternative). Please note that in this report one term is equal to what used to be called a half term – thus six terms equals one whole year.
              4.4.3 Other consultations, related to the annual exercise on admissions arrangements were undertaken, but in Spring 2007 a new working group was established. This consisted of representatives from the pre-school maintained, private, voluntary and independent sector providers, mainstream schools and officers. The purpose of the working group was to make recommendations about first admission to school policy. Although there was no consensus, there was a majority view in favour of a single point of entry following a child’s fourth birthday.
              4.4.4 The Cabinet agreed, on 21st February 2008, a proposal to undertake wider consultation on the arrangements for first admission to school. As with the other consultations here, this exercise ran from Monday 25th February until Friday 4th April, and all maintained and non-maintained schools, together with all pre-school providers in the borough were included. The consultation document can be viewed at Appendix X.
              4.4.5 62 responses, all of which can be viewed in the Members’ Room, were received, including 24 from maintained schools and 38 from PVIs (19 from private providers, nine from voluntary providers and ten from independent providers).
              4.4.6 Respondents were asked whether, from an educational perspective, children should be admitted to school at one, two or three points during the school year. The borough’s current published policy dictates that children are admitted three times a year. Of those giving an answer, half (50%) favoured taking children once a year, including a clear majority of maintained schools (19 of 23 answering). Ten of the PVIs favoured this approach, although the majority (19 of 35 answering) favoured three intakes a year. Overall, having two intakes a year was the least preferred way forward.
              4.4.7 The main points made by respondents on the number of intake points were:

              · One point of entry:
              o minimises disruption for children and staff, caused by the arrival of a new group of children each. Induction and needs assessments would only need to be run once annually;
              o children are educated by one teacher through their foundation stage;
              o allows much better planning on staff numbers, as not continually re-appointing staff to teach two or four terms per year;
              o utilises all accommodation/facilities for the whole year, rather than for just two or four terms;
              o reduces the volatility in pupil numbers which arises from the chance pattern of birthdays over the year, so that the April intake may be much larger than the January one, for instance;
              o ensures that all children are educated in mainstream school for the same amount of time;
              o ends the current confusing system whereby summer-born children are admitted to Year 1 and all others to Reception.
              o there should be one point of entry, but at start of Year 1, so that Foundation Stage is offered exclusively in nursery schools/classes and PVIs.
              · Two points of entry:
              o would be better for those children who would be too young to start in September;
              · Three points of entry:
              o means that children go to school when they are ready. Children are already starting school too early. This is particularly important for summer born children who would not be academically or socially ready for school at the start of the September after their fourth birthday;
              o means that the needs of the child, rather than those of the school, are paramount.
              4.4.8 The consultation also asked what respondents felt was the minimum number of terms in full time education children should be offered before they start in Year 1. Overall, the most popular response was two terms minimum (21 out of 55 answering) in full time education. Maintained schools tended to favour a whole year in school before Year 1 (12 out of 18 answering), whilst the PVI sector had no clear majority in favour of any option. 11 wanted children to have no full-time education in school prior to Year 1, and nine wanted four terms or more. The remaining 15 (out of 34 answering) were in favour of a minimum of two terms.
              4.4.9 A number of points were made by respondents on the minimum number of terms as follows:

              · No terms:
              o not all children are ready for full-time school when they are four years old. A full day, for example, is still too long;
              o if foundation stage curriculum being properly delivered by PVIs and schools then there is no need for the children to be in school;
              o good quality, play-based, part-time education, or quality time at home is the best solution for many four year olds;
              o little or no research to show that children benefit academically from full-time attendance at this age, although there are social and emotional advantages;
              o foundation stage education should not be provided in schools and children should only start there are the beginning of Year 1.
              · Two terms:
              o minimum time in school should be two terms as summer born children are at a disadvantage when having no foundation stage provision.
              · four terms:
              o no comments
              · six terms:
              o six terms in school allows time for the child to play, develop their social skills and the early reading and numeracy skills required for successful future learning;
              o it also gives schools the time to identify where children may need extra support;
              o having children from fewer PVI settings, or at least earlier, would be better for schools as standardisation of phonics/reading education could happen sooner.
              4.4.10 Maintained schools were asked whether or not they had sufficient space to admit rising fives into their buildings. The results are in line with borough expectations and this topic is discussed further at paragraphs X to Y above.
              4.4.11 Maintained schools with nursery classes were then asked whether or not using an existing nursery class to provide full-time education for the older foundation stage children would have an adverse affect on the younger children admitted to the nursery class. Only five schools answered this question and all stated that it would not have an adverse impact. A very small number of comments were made, along the lines that:

              · it is hard to balance the activities that would be appropriate for such a wide age range; and, conversely, that:
              · the mix of ages in nursery is beneficial, allowing flexible approach to provision, regardless of actual ages.
              4.4.12 The final question concerned the impact changing the arrangements for first admission to school would have on all providers. Roughly half of the PVIs (15 of 29 answering) believed that a change to earlier admission to mainstream school would be a ‘significant problem’ for them (there were nine ‘don’t knows’). This view was not generally shared by the maintained sector, who on balance felt there would be no major impact (seven out of 12 responding).
              4.4.13 The main points raised, largely from respondents indicating that change would be a significant problem, were that admitting children to full-time education earlier than at present would:

              · lead to many PVIs becoming unviable through the loss of older children;
              · force PVIs to take children even earlier than at present. There was some concern that this was not appropriate but that it would be the only way that they could retain financial viability;
              · affect parental perceptions of pre-school provision, with more favouring full-time maintained education;
              · leave some children with no time in an early years setting, thereby damaging their confidence; and
              · change the character of PVIs, which would have children on roll for a shorter period of time.
              4.4.14 A number of other points, not picked up elsewhere, were also made in the final comments section:

              · admission of rising fives would put the authority in line with its neighbouring authorities, with whom many schools on the border compete for pupils;
              · children already admitted too early to school when compared with our continental neighbours;
              · admission of rising fives would finally solve the admission numbers issue, whereby the technically correct application of the admissions legislation can result in some schools admitting way above (or below) their admission number in Year 1;
              4.4.15 A small number of parents (10) responding to the Windsor First Schools consultation stated that they believed that either their school or the borough should admit rising fives to mainstream school. It was felt that such a change would allow all children some time in ‘reception’ education. These comments were made in response to the request that parents indicate if they had any concerns relating to school provision in their area.
              4.4.16 In conclusion, therefore, there is a slim overall majority view in favour of a single intake point each year for children into mainstream school, although separately the PVI and maintained sectors favour three and one intake points respectively. There is a perhaps surprising two-thirds majority in favour of children having a minimum of two terms in mainstream school before starting Year 1.
              4.5 Comments made in the various consultations concerning the three-tier system in Windsor
              4.5.1 A number of comments were made, both by parents responding to the Windsor First School consultation and headteachers responding to the PSfC consultation on the future of the three-tier system in Windsor. The issue was also raised at the meeting with the Head of Children and Young People and headteachers. It was felt that the borough should take the opportunity to create a two-tier system in Windsor, with comments that:

                · changing first schools into primary schools would give children more time in schools which are currently more popular than the middle schools;
                · matching school age ranges to the national curriculum would make strategies more cost-effective and avoid unnecessary duplications across KS2 and KS3 in different types of school;
                · transition points between schools would be at points suitable for a child’s development;
                · system should match those of the borough’s neighbours; and
                · middle schools feel they are currently in limbo.
                4.5.2 A related point made was that there was no choice of co-educational secondary/upper provision available in Windsor (with the implication that this could be solved by changing to a two-tier system).
                5. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL COMMENTS
                5.1.1 To follow after 8th May Scrutiny Panel meeting.
                6. IMPLICATIONS
                6.1 Financial

                Available Capital Funding
                6.1.1 The Royal Borough will receive from the government, in the 2009/10 financial year, £3m under the PSfC programme, which will rise to £5.378m in the following year. Beyond that it is the assumption that funding will continue at the lower level of £3m for the remaining 12 years of the programme. This is, of course, subject to future public spending decisions. It is important to note that this money is grant, not supported borrowing, so it is ‘real’ money for the borough. It is also on top of all of the existing funding streams for capital spending. The following table gives the various grant funding streams that may contribute to the borough’s PSfC. Supported borrowing approvals have not been included.


                  Table X – Capital funding streams that could be used in PSfC delivery
                  Fund2009/10 (£)2010/11 (£)Note
                  PRIMARY SCHOOL SPECIFIC FUNDS
                  Devolved Formula Capital – Non-VA schools
                  1,084,339
                  1,084,339
                  Devolved formula capital, given directly to schools. Currently all RBWM schools receive the higher ‘unmodernised’ rate. Schools receiving major investment from the PSfC will then receive a lower ‘modernised’ rate.
                  Devolved Formula Capital – VA schools
                  420,519
                  420,519
                  PSfC
                  3,000,000
                  5,378,000
                  Additional monies made available under the PSfC.
                  S106 – total currently available
                  537,584
                  Monies from developers targeted specifically at increasing school capacities at individual schools.
                  GENERAL SCHOOL CAPITAL FUNDS
                  The general school capital funds listed below may also be available, but it is unlikely that they will be available exclusively for the primary sector, as the secondary and SEN sectors will also have needs to be addressed under them.
                  Modernisation Allocation
                  0
                  1,345,894
                  For condition, suitability and sufficiency work for non-aided (i.e. community and controlled schools.
                  Extended Schools
                  171,078
                  88,422
                  Funds specifically targeted at enabling schools to offer extended services.
                  ICT Harnessing Technology Grant
                  452,965
                  439,424
                  Targeted at ICT improvements.
                  LCVAP Allocation
                  836,565
                  836,565
                  Capital for VA schools, allocated in consultation with Diocesan authorities.
                  The Royal Borough may also wish to allocate additional funding from within corporate resources.
                6.1.2 The S106 pot will, of course, vary as new housing developments are completed. Aside from S106/devolved capital, the above funding streams (including PSfC) are ‘use it or lose it’ funds to be spent within the financial year plus six months.
                6.1.3 The DCSF have specified that the PSfC should consider the needs of all schools of all types, including VA schools. This means that VA, VC and community schools (there are no foundation or trust schools in the borough) must all be considered equally for investment under the strategy. VA schools are, however, still required to find 10% of the cost of any project themselves, which cannot come from their formula capital or the LCVAP monies.
                6.1.4 The Portsmouth Diocese has a fund paid into by Roman Catholic schools that should meet the 10% costs for any projects undertaken at St Mary’s Catholic, St Edmund Campion Catholic or St Francis Catholic Primary Schools. There is no such fund for the Oxford Diocese, so some of the eleven VA Church of England Schools may have difficulties. The widely differing circumstances at these schools will mean that each case will have to be looked at separately - where there are S106 funds available for a school, for example, these can be used as part of the 10% contribution. Some community and voluntary controlled schools in the borough do also have the ability to raise respectable sums from their local communities although clearly this is a limited resource.
                6.1.5 The borough is likely, therefore to have a variety of capital funds to draw upon in order to achieve the PSfC objectives.

                Recommended Capital Spending
                6.1.6 To be completed, on basis of recommendations
                6.1.7 Annual reviewing. Reference to AMP Forum.

                Revenue implications
                6.1.8 The revenue implications of this report arise from the recommended changes to first admissions to school and from the addressing of capacity issues in the Schools Accommodation Service and Buildings Services.
                6.1.9 Pupils in maintained schools are funded from the ring-fenced Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) through schools’ individual budgets shares. The DSG also funds the free entitlement element (12.5 hours per week for 38 weeks moving to 15 hours per week in 2010-11) of 3 and 4 year olds in nursery settings in the private, voluntary and independent sector (PVI). The DSG is determined each year by the number of pupils on roll in the January school census and early years census. For 2008-09 the estimated DSG grant is £76.6 million. Any change in the allocation to schools as a result of changes to RBWM’s school admissions policy will need to be contained within the total amount of DSG funding available, resulting in a potential redistribution of resources between the delegated Schools Budget and the central Schools Budget. Any such changes will have no impact on RBWM’s LA funded Children’s Services budget.
                6.1.10 The amount of funding available through the DSG is also likely to increase by the proposed policy change as more four year olds move from home settings or part-time nursery education to full-time education in school. The exact level of increase is difficult to quantify without further detailed modelling work. The first year of operation of any new policy will pose short-term funding difficulties in light of the fact that some of the new four year olds starting full-time education in September would not have been recorded as full-time on the preceding January census on which the DSG is calculated.
                6.1.11 A number of schools already admit rising 5s to full-time education in reception in contradiction of the Borough’s current admissions policy. The funding formula only provides token funding for such pupils. If the admissions policy were to be changed ‘legitimising’ the admission of Rising 5s, we would need to review the level of funding provided through the formula for these pupils but it is likely that this would result in a higher allocation to schools than at present, leaving proportionately less DSG funding available for central Schools Budget services. Offsetting that, funding to schools for pupils in nursery classes and nursery schools could reduce as more 4 year olds move from nursery into full-time reception classes. Equally, nursery settings in the PVI sector could face difficulties as more 4 year olds move into full time school education. The extent to which these places would be filled by an influx of younger three and four year olds is a further unknown factor complicating the overall financial picture.
                6.1.12 More detailed modelling of the financial implications of the three options will be undertaken once a decision in principle is made. Such modelling depends on assumptions around a complicated set of scenarios. What is certain is that any increased costs resulting from the implementation of any changes to the admissions policy will fall on the DSG, not the LA budget funded from Council Tax, NNDR and other government grant.
                6.2 Legal

                First Admissions to School
                6.2.1 Section 14 of the Education Act 1996 places a general duty on LAs to secure sufficient schools for providing primary and secondary education for their area. Section 14 (3A) of the 1996 Act, as amended by the Education and Inspections Act 2006, also places a duty on local authorities to secure diversity in the provision of schools and increase the opportunities for parental choice.
                6.2.2 The expansion of a school is regarded as a prescribed alteration under Section 19 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Thus proposals for alteration must be published for the purposes of a consultation. This process is described fully in paragraphs X to Y above.


                  Rising Numbers in Windsor First Schools
                6.2.3 Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 provides that the parents of children of compulsory school age have a duty to ensure that their children receive efficient full time education suitable to their child’s age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs he or she may have, by securing regular attendance at school or otherwise.
                6.2.4 Section 8 Education Act 1996 in conjunction with Regulations there under provides that a child becomes of compulsory school age:

                  (a) if he or she is 5 years old on 31st August, 31st December or 31st March (the prescribed days), and
                  (b) otherwise on the next prescribed day following his or her 5th birthday
                6.2.5 Schools are not obliged to admit children as soon as they reach 5 years and can wait until the beginning of the term following the child’s 5th birthday. In the legislation ‘term’ refers to the old-style three-term year.
                6.3 Human Rights Act
                  1. The convention right under the Human Rights Act relevant to this report is Article 2 of the First Protocol – the right to education.

                  2. The convention right will not be affected by this decision.

                  3. This decision does not affect any victims as defined under the Act.

                  This decision does not contravene Article 14 of the Act (prohibition against discrimination).
                6.4 Planning
                  The construction of new school accommodation will require in Windsor will require planning permission, which will be sought in due course.
                6.5 Sustainable Development
                  If any of the proposed options go ahead, then the borough will need to take into account the latest local and national guidance on building to a sustainable standard.
                6.6 Diversity and Equality
                  There are no implications for the Diversity and Equality policies.
                44
                  DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF LEARNING FOR SUSTAINABILITY (LfS) – APPROVAL OF THE RBWM LEARNING FOR SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY

                  CABINET: 22 MAY 2008

                  MEMBER REPORTING: COUNCILLOR RAYNER
                1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

                  To consider the adoption and enactment of the RBWM Learning for Sustainability Strategy (Appendix 1) as an effective method of engaging organisations and their stakeholders (including our own) in learning how to manage practices and processes with sustainability in mind; and, as far as the Strategy relates to schools, to endorse and approve the LfS Standard for Schools (Appendix 2).
                2. MEMBER'S RECOMMENDATION: That the adoption and enactment of RBWM Learning for Sustainability Strategy (incorporating the Learning for Sustainability Standard for Schools) be approved.

                3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

                3.1 Wards Affected


                  All Wards
                3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation

                3.2.1 The LfS Strategy is a behaviour change strategy designed to bring about a culture of learning for sustainability within and between organisations and their stakeholders.
                3.2.2 Extensive consultation, identifying best practice elsewhere, developing a stakeholder network, and an internal LfS Action Group were key in forging a better understanding of the required process. In March 2007 a LfS workshop was held for Members in response to the new impetus for sustainability issues coming from central government and prominent figures, e.g. the climate change agenda.
                3.2.3 The attached LfS Strategy is the preferred option following a number of years of exploration around the principles underlying the Strategy. The initial LfS Action Group has a proven track record of working beneficially together in supporting organisations in effectively addressing the sustainability agenda. Further development of this work, within and beyond the Education Sector, will require more stringent levels of coordination, which will only be possible with the formal support of the LfS Strategy.
                3.2.4 The Strategy identifies three distinct sectors (Education, Community, and Business). The proposed LfS Standard for Schools is one of the delivery mechanisms for the LfS Strategy (as it relates to the Education sector) and is seen as an effective tool for encouraging whole school engagement with the sustainability agenda and for recording and developing good practice for the benefit of the schools and the officers and partners supporting them.
                3.2.5 The effectiveness of the Strategy will be monitored by the LfS Action Group reporting annually to Cabinet via the Sustainability panel.

                3.3 Options Available and Risk Assessment

                3.3.1 A full risk assessment has been carried out. There are a number of significant risks associated with the ‘Do not approve’ option. In summary, these are:
                · A lack of coordination leading to inefficiencies in targeting and delivery of services.
                · A lack of engagement with the community making it harder to deliver on the Community Strategy vision and themes and the Council’s strategic priorities and values.
                · A lack of a strategic approach to addressing sustainability issues leading to a lack of confidence in the future and a lack of support for mitigation and adaptation measures.
                · A lack of a learning framework within which actions can be carried out and monitored, options can be explored and creative thinking encouraged leading to a failure to progressing towards a more sustainable society.
                3.3.2 The risk assessment identifies a number of actions for mitigating the risks highlighted.

                3.3.3 The LfS Strategy (Appendix 1) contains within it the LfS Action Group Outcome Improvement Plan 1. The risk assessment for this OIP is listed as background paper to this report.

                  Option
                  Comments
                  1. Approve
                  Recommended option
                  Advantages:
                  · Enhanced ability to deliver the Community Strategy vision and themes and the council’s strategic priorities and values.
                  · Increased understanding of the risks associated with unsustainable practices.
                  · Engagement of stakeholders in taking responsibility for addressing unsustainable practices.
                  · Engagement of stakeholders in generating sustainable practice.
                  · Practice conducted within a learning framework.
                  · Informed decision making.
                  · Enhanced stakeholder creativity and performance.
                  · Improved coordination of council services.
                  · Greater efficiency in targeting and delivery of services.
                  · Transfer of skills to the wider community.
                  · Increased confidence amongst the wider community.
                  · Recognition gained for innovative response to the challenge of an unsustainable world reality.
                  2. Do not approveDisadvantages:
                  · Loss of opportunity to focus on sustainability issues and challenges in an informed way.
                  · Failure to adequately equip ourselves for the future.
                  · Reduced ability to deliver the Community Strategy vision and themes and the council’s strategic priorities and values in a formal, integrated and structured framework.
                3.4 Relevant National/Regional Guidance

                i) Relevant guidance or legislation (listed as background papers to this report).
                a. UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development
                b. UK Sustainable Development Strategy: ‘Securing The Future’
                c. Sustainable Communities Act 2007
                d. DCSF National Framework for Sustainable Schools
                e. National Indicators for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partnerships

                      A selection of National Indicators have been extracted from the GOSE publication, ‘Supporting Sustainable Schools in the South East’ and can be found in Appendix 3.
                ii) Examples of best practice (listed as background papers to this report).
                a. Hampshire County Council’s Sustainable Schools Forum.
                      See also an extract from the DCSF National Framework for Sustainable Schools relating to local government and regional institutions in Appendix 4.
                b. Worcestershire County Council’s ESD Strategy.
                c. Oxfordshire’s education for Sustainable Development Strategy.
                      The front cover of Oxfordshire’s ESD Strategy can be found in Appendix 5.
                  3.5 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies

                    It is the nature of the RBWM LfS Strategy that it relates to all council policies and strategies as these will fall under the overarching Community Strategy. The RBWM LfS Strategy can be viewed as running alongside other strategies and plans, providing a critical support mechanism. The following extract from the Children and Young People plan 2008-11 ably illustrates this point…

                    The Children’s Trust also recognises the importance of the environment and sustainable development as a factor in the long-term well-being of our children and young people. It will not be possible to deliver on ‘Every Child Matters’ without an understanding of how our actions today will affect the Borough and the planet that our children will inherit tomorrow. At the heart of this Plan is the need to equip all children and young people with the skills they will need to make a success of their future. It is therefore necessary to set alongside this Plan the RBWM Learning for Sustainability (LfS) Strategy. The LfS Strategy is designed to encourage a culture of Learning for Sustainability within and between organisations, their stakeholders and the communities they serve. It is important for everyone involved in the Plan to become aware of the need to change to more sustainable patterns of behaviour and how they may contribute to bringing that change about.

                    The recommendations contained in this report also contribute to the Community Strategy in the following ways:

                    Relevant?
                    Yes / No
                    Key Themes:
                    Supporting Children & Younger People
                    Yes
                    Supporting Adults & Older People
                    Yes
                    A Thriving, Cleaner, Greener Borough
                    Yes
                    Safer & Stronger Communities
                    Yes
                  4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

                  4.1 A public consultation was carried out between December 2005 and January 2006.

                    The following forums received presentations on the LfS Strategy and its implications and responded favourably:
                  · Children & Young People’s Policy Forum
                  · Head Teacher’s Policy Forum
                  · Education in Partnership Forum
                  · A good place to live work and visit Ambition Group
                  4.2 The consultation report is listed as a background paper to this report.
                    5. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

                    5.1 The Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel supported the proposal to develop a Culture of Learning for Sustainability.

                    5.2 This report will also be going to the Special Children's Services and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Panel. Any further comments resulting from this Panel will be added as appropriate.

                      6. IMPLICATIONS

                      6.1 Financial

                        There are no additional financial implications arising out of this report identified at the present time.
                      6.2 Legal

                        There are no identified legal implications arising out of this report at the present time
                      6.3 Human Rights Act

                        None of the Convention rights will be affected by this decision.
                      6.4 Planning

                        There are no planning implications arising directly out of this report.
                        6.5 Sustainable Development

                          The LfS Strategy is entirely in line with the Council’s Sustainable Development Policy and will encourage the knowledge, understanding and skills necessary for the development of sustainable communities.
                          6.6 Diversity and Equality

                            In terms of the councils equality impact assessment policy the recommendations in this report have no negative equality and diversity implications

                            Background Papers (Items 4, 5, 10 & 11 will be available in the Members room):

                          1. UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2. UK Sustainable Development Strategy
                              www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/
                          3. Sustainable Communities Act 2007
                              www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2007/ukpga_20070023_en_1
                          4. DCSF National Framework for Sustainable Schools
                              www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/framework/framework_detail.cfm
                          5. DCSF S3 (http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/s31.pdf )
                          6. National Indicators for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partnerships
                              www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/681480
                          7. Hampshire County Council’s Sustainable Schools Forum. www3.hants.gov.uk/sustainableschools/sustainable-schools-contacts.htm
                          8. Worcestershire County Council’s ESD Strategy. http://worcestershire.whub.org.uk/home/wccindex/wcc-sustainability/wcc-sustainability-educ2/wcc-sustainability-educ2-strategy.htm
                          9. Oxfordshire’s education for Sustainable Development Strategy. 10. LfS Strategy Consultation Report (the Strategy was referred to as a ‘Framework’ at the time of the consultation) . http://192.168.128.116/directorate_areas/Community-Services/Performance%20Management/learning-for-sustainability-action-group/consultation-report-v2.doc
                          11. LfS Strategy OIP 1 Risk Assessment.



                          meetings_080508_cslosp_learning_for_sustainability_appendix.pdf Meetings 080508 Cslosp Learning for Sustainability Appendix



                          71
                            CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF LEA REPRESENTATIVES TO GOVERNING BODIES OF SCHOOLS IN THE ROYAL BOROUGH

                            CABINET: 22 MAY 2008

                            MEMBER REPORTING: COUNCILLOR MRS QUICK
                          1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

                            To adopt the revised Code of Practice that is based on the School Governance Regulations (2007). The revisions made reflect changes to present a more comprehensive Code of Practice (Appendix A).
                          2. MEMBER'S RECOMMENDATIONS: That the revised Code of Practice is adopted to ensure greater robustness and transparency in the appointment process and to bring the Borough in line with the School Governance Regulations (2007).
                            3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

                            3.1 Wards Affected

                              All wards are affected.
                            3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation

                              The process of applying for an LEA governor role should be robust in identifying the skills and knowledge required of that role. The Code of Practice reflects the most recent guidance and will ensure that the whole process is transparent.
                            3.3 Options Available and Risk Assessment

                              It is recommended that the amended Code of Practice be adopted without modification. Members have the following options:

                              Option
                              Comments
                              1Adopt the Code of Practice as presentedThis will ensure that the recruitment process is transparent and matches the required skills and knowledge of the Governing Board with the applicants.
                              2Adopt with modification(s)The Code of Practice presented is based on national guidance and best practice. Local audit recommendations have also been introduced into the process to ensure that the brokering of Governor applications is objective, equitable and provides Members with the appropriate information for making recruitment decisions.
                              3Not to adopt the revised Code of PracticeIncreases risk of not adequately matching skills and knowledge requirements of the Governing Body with that of the applicants. This could lead to inadequate governance for schools which could be reported in public inspections, eg Ofsted.

                              A risk assessment of the introduction of the revised Code of Practice is attached as Appendix B. Two main risks are identified. When identified risk control measures are implemented, both risks score ‘low’.
                            3.4 Relevant National/Regional Guidance

                              The DCSF has now issued guidance on the governance constitution regulations mentioned in paragraph 6.2 below.
                              The appointment of school governors contributes to the Community Strategy by supporting its three guiding principles of: working together, leaving no one behind and involving people. Those appointed as school governors can support schools to address three of the five key themes, namely learning for life, being safe and secure and caring and health.
                            3.5 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies

                              The recommendations contained in this report also contribute to the Community Strategy in the following ways:

                              Relevant?
                              Yes / No
                              Key Themes:
                              Supporting Children & Younger People
                              Yes
                              Supporting Adults & Older People
                              No
                              A Thriving, Cleaner, Greener Borough
                              No
                              Safer & Stronger Communities
                              Yes

                            4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT
                              This document has been the subject of previous attention by both Overview and Scrutiny Committee and by Cabinet.

                            5. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

                            To follow after the special meeting of Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel on 8 May.

                            6. IMPLICATIONS

                            6.1 Financial

                              There are no financial implications in this report.
                            6.2 Legal

                              The composition of governing bodies is set out in the Education Act 2002, the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2007, School Governance (Federation) (England) Regulations 2007 and School Governance (New Schools) (England) Regulations 2007. If a school has concerns with the LEA governor appointment, which are not satisfied by the provision of Cabinet decision notes on the appointment, the school may:
                            1. Make a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman
                            2. Submit an application to judicially review the decision
                            3. Direct their concerns under Part IX Education Act 1996, i.e. the involvement of the Secretary of State to determine disputes. This provision allows for applications to be made to the Secretary of State for directions, etc., by governing bodies (and the local authority itself). The Secretary of State has power to
                            · determine any dispute directed to him
                            · prevent unreasonable exercise of functions and give directions
                            · declare that a body has acted in default and give directions
                            · secure proper performance of a local authority’s functions and give directions.
                              6.3 Human Rights Act
                                1. There are no Convention Rights under the Human Rights Act relevant to this Report.
                                2. None of the Convention Rights will be affected by this decision.
                                3. This decision does not affect any victims as defined under Human Rights Act.
                                  6.4 Planning

                                    There are no planning implications in this report.
                                  6.5 Sustainable Development

                                    LEA governors could seek to promote the Council’s sustainable development policies within their governing bodies.
                                    6.6 Diversity and Equality

                                      In terms of the Council’s Equality Impact Assessment Policy, the recommendations in this Report have no negative equality and diversity implications.
                                    APPENDIX A – PROPOSED NEW CODE OF PRACTICE

                                    The current Code of Practice is attached to the regular application cabinet report, which last went to Cabinet in April 2008. Copies are also available in the Members’ Room and Group Offices.

                                    CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY (LEA) GOVERNORS IN THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD.
                                    May 2007
                                      1. Introduction and Background

                                      This Code of Practice is written in accordance with the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2007 and the School Governance (Federation) (England) Regulations 2007 and the School Governance (New Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 (“The Constitution Regulations”).

                                      School governors are the largest volunteer force in the country. The role of school governors has changed significantly over the past decade. They now have three main areas of responsibilities that are judged through the school inspection process (OFSTED):
                                      · Strategic leadership of the school.
                                      · Providing support and challenge for school leadership and management teams.
                                      · Public accountability for all aspects of the school’s impact on pupils.

                                      LEA governors are appointed for a term of four years. The appointment of LEA governors is made by Cabinet. Cabinet will appoint LEA governors based on the contribution candidates are able to make to a specific school, informed by that school’s expressed needs in terms of experience and skills. Cabinet is committed to appoint high calibre governors, especially to those schools in need of most support, irrespective of candidates' political affiliations. Whilst encouragement to appoint high calibre governors is not given in the statutory guidance for federation schools, it is suggested this ethos is followed for federation schools. LEA governors, once appointed, fulfil the same duties as any other governor. As with all governors, they should be appointed with a view to their commitment to raising standards. They should keep in touch with those who appoint them, but should vote according to the best interests of the school. In making any appointment, the Cabinet will have regard to the skills and experience required by the school, and the candidates’ support for the school’s ethos and mission.

                                      Members will be kept abreast of current vacancies which will be posted monthly on the RBWM website, advertised in other RBWM publications and through direct emails. Information will also be available in the Customer Service Centre (CSC).

                                      Whilst LEA governors do not need to be serving Members of the Council, Members who feel they would make a positive contribution to the governance of schools and meet the selection criteria are encouraged to forward their applications to the Strategic School Leadership Team. Members may also wish to encourage members of the public to apply to be LEA governors if they meet the selection criteria. The Strategic School Leadership Team receives LEA Governor Application Forms from a variety of sources including:
                                      · Councillors, headteachers, and serving governors
                                      · Prospective candidates themselves
                                      · The School Governors’ One Stop Shop (SGOSS) – a charity that provides a school governor recruitment service

                                      2. Applying to become a LEA governor

                                      One of the significant changes within school governance that has occurred in recent years is that:
                                      ‘The governing body’s own contribution to the school’s leadership will be assessed through the inspection.’ (OFSTED & DfES 2006, A New Relationship with Schools: Next Steps)

                                      Governors’ skills will contribute to helping the school meet the Every Child Matters agenda which aims for every child, whatever their background or their circumstances, to have the support they need to:
                                      · Be healthy
                                      · Stay safe
                                      · Enjoy and achieve
                                      · Make a positive contribution
                                      · Achieve economic well-being
                                        As a result of these raised expectations and the assessment regime, it has become even more important that governors can demonstrate the following attributes:
                                        · An ability to respect confidentiality· An interest in education
                                        · Tact and diplomacy· An ability to work as part of a team
                                        · A commitment to dedicate time to the school· A commitment to equal opportunities
                                        · An open mind· A willingness to undertake training

                                        To comply with the national standards for school governors, this Code of Practice has been based upon guidance by The National Audit Office, in A Guide for School Governors (2006), which identifies the following list of skills and experience which governing bodies find useful in fulfilling their roles. These are important skills for consideration in the appointment of LEA appointed governors. These skills apply to all schools and types of governor.

                                        It is NOT necessary to have skills in more than one of the following areas:


                                        · Ensuring that plans fit with the vision and aims of the organisation/group/family - Strategic planning· Dealing with budgets - Financial Management
                                        · Making important decisions in a planned way using thinking skills and strategies to help the process - Decision making · Planning or maintenance of buildings
                                        · Making something happen in an orderly, timely and appropriate way - Project management· Analysis of data with a view to planning improvements
                                        · Experience of being a member of the team
                                        - Team working
                                        · Understanding about some of the different ways that children learn - Theories and methods of teaching
                                        · Recruitment and management of people - Human resources/personnel· Knowledge and understanding about different subjects that are taught - Key areas of the curriculum
                                        · Good communication or marketing skills to promote the school and its work - Marketing· Dealing with people/children who have special needs - SEN
                                        · An interest or experience in law and how this relates to the governance of schools - Law· An interest in the different approaches that are used to help children improve their behaviour - Behaviour management
                                        · Experience in using computers and other technology – ICT

                                        Potential governors can locate RBWM application forms through the Strategic School Leadership Team (governors@rbwm.gov.uk) or by following this link: http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/ed_gov_school_gov_home.htm

                                        3. Appointment process

                                        The Strategic School Leadership Team monitors all governing body vacancies, including LEA governors, and will update them on the RBWM’s website on the first Friday of each month (or next working day if a Bank Holiday), and email Members when a vacancy occurs in their ward to ensure that all interested parties are able to make their applications. Each vacancy will show the governing body and school’s needs in terms of experience and skills. Closing dates for application forms to reach the Strategic Leadership Team will also be posted on the RBWM’s website, and sent to members, with vacancy information. The closing date will be three weeks before the Scrutiny Panel meeting prior to the Cabinet meeting at which appointments will be considered. At this point all applications and any views from the school will need to have been received, in writing, by the Strategic School Leadership Team. Where a federation includes schools, which are maintained by more than one LEA, the LEAs must agree amongst themselves who shall appoint the LEA governors and in what proportion.


                                        The applicants must demonstrate that they fulfil the following criteria on their application form:
                                        1. A genuine interest in education and school improvement
                                        2. A good knowledge of the local community and its needs
                                        3. Ability to commit their time, skills and energy to the school
                                        4. Willingness to undertake training/development opportunities related to the ever changing nature of the governance of schools
                                          5. The candidate’s skills and experience against those listed for a particular vacancy.
                                          Applications will only be considered from individuals who have submitted a completed the RBWM LEA Governor Application Form to the Strategic School Leadership Team by the date specified on the RBWM’s website and notified to Members.

                                          The Strategic School Leadership Team will forward all applications to the relevant schools. The LEA wishes to work in partnership with the schools in appointing governors who will meet specific school’s needs analysis and have experience and skills relevant to the school. For all applications (whether or not a prospective governor has made a targeted application for a specific school), the Strategic School Leadership Team will offer a meeting with the school and each prospective governor.

                                          Chairs of governors (or their representatives) will submit their written comments on whether the prospective governors meet the needs of the school identified prior to the appointment, having first considered the person specification, the application form, preferences, and any meeting with the prospective governors. Chairs will indicate their preferred choice of governor matched to the needs of the school and the governing body in terms of experience and skills to Cabinet for their consideration. These recommendations will be sent in writing at least two weeks prior to Scrutiny Panel.

                                          Under no circumstances must either governing bodies or schools make an offer to a potential applicant, as they have no legal power to do this. Where this is found to have occurred formal letters will be issued by the Strategic School Leadership Team advising the school and the potential applicant of the correct process of appointment, in addition to withdrawing any offer. Further the matter will be reported to Cabinet in the bi-monthly Appointment of Prospective LEA Governors Report.


                                        4. The role of Cabinet in the appointment of LEA governors

                                        Applicant forms (Appendix C) will be completed by all applicants. The details of all applicants received, irrespective of how well they match the school's needs analysis, will be submitted to Cabinet accompanied by a completed skills analysis, showing the existing and required skills of the board (see Appendix D). Application forms will be passed to Council Members but in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 will not form part of the public information of Cabinet meetings.

                                        Applications to become a LEA governor will be assessed against the following criteria:
                                        1. Cabinet will take account of the applications for current vacancies for LEA governors with reference to the identified needs of the schools and the skills and experience of the applicants (Appendix A on the report contains a synopsis of skills and reasons for application for each prospective governor).
                                        2. Cabinet should not appoint where applicants cannot meet the identified needs of the school. Where a LEA governor is appointed and the respective school is not satisfied with that appointment, it is possible for the school to request reasons for the appointment from Cabinet.
                                          5. Removal from office of an LEA Governor

                                          Cabinet may remove an LEA appointed governor from office at any time if the following occurs:
                                          · Failure to attend meetings for a period of six consecutive months without the consent of the governing body will result in a notification of their removal from office. Apologies for absence only count towards attendance if the governing body formally accepts the apologies.
                                          Such cases of removal may also involve, but may not be limited to, any of the following:
                                          · Conduct or bias that is clearly not in the best interest of the school.
                                          · Serious failure to co-operate with the LEA, governors or the governing body as a whole.
                                          · An irretrievable breakdown in relationship between the governor and the governing body.
                                          · Disqualification, as provided in the Constitution Regulations

                                          Any LEA governor who is removed from office may not be appointed to a governing body as a LEA governor for a period of twelve months from removal (subject to the provisions as to disqualification in the Constitution Regulations). Should the governor concerned hold office on another governing body that position may or may not be affected by her/his removal from this governing body dependent on the reasons for removal.

                                          6. Summary of appointment process:

                                          1. Schools identify gaps in knowledge and skills of its existing Governing Board.
                                          2. Vacancies are posted on the RBWM Website and in other Borough publications, information is made available at the Customer Service Centre, and Members are contacted through email if vacancies occur in their wards.
                                          3. With reference to the school’s needs analysis for a particular vacancy and skill set, prospective governors must fill in the RBWM application form stating his or her relevant attributes and skills and send to the Strategic School Leadership Team.
                                          4. On receipt of the application form the Strategic School Leadership Team will send details to the school and offer to arrange a meeting with the prospective governors and school, and submit details for List 99 and/or CRB checks.
                                          5. The chair of governors (or representative, e.g. vice chair), will consider the application by reference to the vacant role in the context of the strategic running of the school. If meetings with the prospective governors take place, the prospective governors will then have the opportunity to discuss what they would bring to the school if appointed, in addition to the information already submitted. Based on this information, the chair of governors will then submit written recommendations to Cabinet.
                                          6. If prospective governors still wish to continue with the application process, the Strategic School Leadership Team will then add their details to the Cabinet report alongside any comments from the school for Cabinet to consider.
                                          7. Cabinet makes a decision to appoint by taking account of the school’s needs analysis (provided to the Strategic School Leadership Team in writing), the prospective governors’ skills and attributes, the existing skill set of the school’s governors and any comments from the school.
                                          8. The Strategic School Leadership Team will inform the successful governors and schools of the Cabinet decision in writing as soon as practicable, stating their appointment will begin seven days after Cabinet, subject to the five working day ‘call in’ period for Members. First Class access will be arranged to ensure new governors can access all school information (including the training programme) and send confirmation details for the Induction Training. Unsuccessful applicants will also be informed of the Cabinet decision in writing.
                                          9. The process will begin again for remaining vacancies.





                                          For further information please contact the Strategic School Leadership Team.
                                          Libby Dineley on 01628796960 or libby.Dineley@rbwm.gov.uk


                                          APPENDIX B – RISK ASSESSMENT

                                          Risk

                                          (Threat/Opportunity to achievement of business objective)
                                          Assessment of Risk
                                          [As it is now]
                                          Risk Control Measures Assessment of Residual Risk
                                          [With control measures implemented]
                                          Impact
                                          (Severity)
                                          [I]
                                          Likelihood
                                          (Probability)
                                          [L]
                                          Risk
                                          Score
                                          [IxL]Impact
                                          (Severity)Likelihood
                                          (Probability)Residual Risk Score
                                          RISK: A school receives a poor OFSTED inspection as a result of not having appropriate skills and knowledge on its governance board.248A transparent application process, which formally matches skills and knowledge of the applicant with the school’s needs.
                                          A clear view of the existing skills and knowledge of the governors on the board.133
                                          RISK: Trust in the Governor application process breaks down as a result of a lack of transparency in the process.248Process controls are put in place that ensures transparency of process from the point a vacancy becomes available through to selection and recruitment of an applicant.
                                          The Code of Practice is approved, reflecting the most up to date guidance and best practice.
                                          The Code of Practice is accessible and clear to all.
                                          122
                                          There are two significant risks associated with the Governor Code of Practice. The risks that exist and the actions being taken to reduce the likelihood and impact of them happening are shown below. The

                                          assessment scores are based on the current council criteria:


                                          APPENDIX C
                                          ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD
                                          APPLICATION FORM FOR EDUCATION AUTHORITY GOVERNOR APPOINTMENTS
                                          Please read the attached notes before completing this form. The completed form must be returned to the address overleaf before candidates can be considered for appointment.

                                          Name of School(s):
                                          (see notes)

                                          Is this application a re-appointment to an existing post? Y / N
                                          Do you, or will you, have a child attending the above school during the term of office?
                                          YES / NO

                                          If YES, when will your child (or youngest child, where there is more than one) leave the school?

                                          Title: First Name(s): Surname:
                                          Other names:
                                          Date of Birth (for List 99 / CRB check): Occupation:
                                          Address:
                                          Post Code: Tel No (Day):
                                          (Eve):
                                          Email:
                                          Previous service and current appointments

                                          Have you ever been or are you currently a school governor? YES / NO

                                          If YES, please give details of the school(s), type of governor and period of office:
                                          Name of school:
                                          Governor category:
                                          Term of office ends:
                                          Reasons for application: Please state briefly why you would like to become a governor.



                                          Training :
                                          Are you willing to attend training sessions to help with the development of your role?
                                          YES / NO
                                          N.B. It is NOT necessary to complete all areas - only those relevant to you.
                                          Relevant Experience/SkillsR If this applies to youPlease give an example of how this applies to you
                                          Ensuring that plans fit with the vision and aims of the organisation/group/family - Strategic planning
                                          Making important decisions in a planned way using thinking skills and strategies to help the process - Decision making
                                          Making something happen in an orderly, timely and appropriate way - Project management
                                          Experience of being a member of the team
                                          - Team working
                                          Recruitment and management of people - Human resources/personnel
                                          Good communication or marketing skills to promote the school and its work
                                          An interest or experience in law and how this relates to the governance of schools
                                          Experience in using computers and other technology – ICT
                                          Dealing with budgets - Financial management
                                          Planning or maintenance of buildings
                                          Analysis of data -with a view to planning improvements
                                          Understanding different ways that children learn -Theories and methods of teaching
                                          Knowledge and understanding about different subjects that are taught - Key areas of the curriculum
                                          Dealing with people/children who have special needs - SEN
                                          An understanding of different approaches used to help children improve their behaviour – Behaviour management
                                          Please note any other experiences or skills that you feel would be useful to a school and/or its governing body



                                          I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the information provided above is correct and complete. I am willing to accept the appointment if offered.


                                          Signed: Date:
                                          Return application to: Strategic School Leadership Team Room 210 Town Hall Maidenhead SL6 1RF

                                          Please note that the information supplied by you may be subject to electronic processing in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. If you have any queries relating to the computerising of personal data, please contact this office.

                                          RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

                                          SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE Tick you have Please give an example


                                          Strategic planning

                                          Decision making

                                          Project management

                                          Team working

                                          Human resources

                                          Communications and marketing

                                          Law

                                          Information and communication
                                          technology (ICT)

                                          Financial management

                                          Buildings and maintenance

                                          Basic understanding of statistics

                                          Theories and methods of teaching

                                          Key areas of the curriculum

                                          Special needs

                                          Behaviour management

                                          Other
                                          I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the information provided above is correct and complete. I am willing to accept the appointment if offered.

                                          Signed :
                                          Date :
                                          Referee :
                                          (This section is optional)
                                          I support this nomination and recommend ……………………………………………………
                                          for appointment as a school governor.
                                          Name of referee :
                                          Address :
                                          Tel :
                                          Signed :
                                          Date :
                                          Capacity in which known:



                                          Once completed, this form should be returned to :
                                          The Strategic School Leadership Team
                                          Room 210
                                          Town Hall
                                          St Ives Road
                                          Maidenhead
                                          Berkshire SL6 1RF Please note that the information supplied by you may be subject to electronic processing in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. If you have any queries relating to the computerising of personal data, please contact this office.

                                          APPENDIX D - SKILLS GAP ANALYSIS PRO-FORMA


                                          NAME OF PROSPECTIVE GOVERNOR
                                          NAME OF CHAIR OF GOVERNORS ………………………………………………

                                          The prospective governor meets the following criteria:
                                          An ability to respect confidentiality
                                          Tact and diplomacy
                                          A commitment to dedicate time to the school
                                          An open mind
                                          An interest in education
                                          An ability to work as part of a team
                                          A commitment to equal opportunities
                                          A willingness to undertake training
                                          Demonstration of where the prospective governor’s skills set will be utilised:
                                          Existing Governing Body strengths:
                                          R
                                          Governing Body requires:
                                          R
                                          Prospective Governor demonstrates R
                                          Strategic planning
                                          Decision making
                                          Project management
                                          Team working
                                          Human resources
                                          Communications and marketing
                                          Law
                                          Information and communication technology (ICT)
                                          Financial management
                                          Buildings and maintenance
                                          Basic understanding of statistics
                                          Theories and methods of teaching
                                          Key areas of the curriculum
                                          Special needs
                                          Behaviour management
                                          79
                                            VISITOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 2008-2016

                                            CABINET: 22 MAY 2008

                                            MEMBER REPORTING: COUNCILLOR Mrs QUICK
                                          1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

                                            To approve the contents of the proposed 2008-2016 Visitor Management Strategy.
                                          2. MEMBER'S RECOMMENDATION: That the 2008 – 2016 Visitor Management Strategy attached as Appendix A be approved.
                                            3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

                                            3.1 Wards Affected

                                              All
                                            3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation
                                              3.2.1 The first Royal Borough Visitor Management Strategy was approved in 1996 and updated in 2002 creating a sound partnership between the council and the local visitor industry. The Royal Borough is perceived as the ’glue’ that binds a highly fragmented industry, bringing together all businesses whether large or small to work as a single destination for the benefit of all.

                                              3.2.2 The visitor industry contributes £380M to our local economy and provides nearly 8,000 jobs. It is vital to the success of our economy that we manage visitors successfully so that they have an enjoyable experience whilst keeping the interests of our community at heart.
                                                3.3 Options Available and Risk Assessment
                                                  Option
                                                  Comments
                                                  1. To approve the adoption of the StrategyRecommended
                                                  2. To amend the proposed Strategy
                                                  3. To reject the proposed Strategy
                                                  Risk Assessment

                                                  If there were no Visitor Management Strategy in place it is unlikely that the destination would develop in a sustainable way and many of the partnerships already in place would suffer due to a lack of focus, guidance and support. Within the council there is a risk that tourism would be forgotten and needs of visitors and the visitor industry not considered in future borough plans.
                                                3.4 Relevant National / Regional Guidance
                                                  The government’s Tomorrow’s Tourism Today sets the agenda on key tourism issues such as marketing and e-tourism, product, skills and data.
                                                  The DCMS Tourism Strategy for 2012 and Beyond highlights the potential benefits of tourism to the local economy.
                                                  GOSE’s Regional Planning Guidance for the South East advises careful management to maximise the benefits of tourism to the local economy.
                                                  SEEDA’s Regional Economic Strategy 2006 – 2016 focuses on smart growth and supports new and growing businesses in the visitor economy sectors.

                                                3.5 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies

                                                3.5.1 Over 7 million people visit the Royal Borough every year. The aim of this strategy is to maximise the economic benefit of tourism to the borough whilst minimising the impact on the local community creating a place where the number of visitors is appropriate for the local infrastructure and does not detract from the visitor experience.

                                                3.5.2 SEEDA recognises the south-east as the most significant region after London. The Royal Borough is home to two of the UK’s top 20 visitor attractions, Windsor Castle and Legoland Windsor. These together with a multitude of other attractions, exceptional countryside including the River Thames, sporting events with a global appeal plus unique Royal events makes the borough a tourism leader in the region. The role of RBWM is to manage visitors in such a way to best meet the needs of all those who live, work and visit within our community.

                                                3.5.3 The Olympics and Paralympic is the biggest non-military event on the planet. London and the supporting destinations such as Dorney Lake, are getting ready for the world to shine the media spotlight on them. The publicity will be totally unique in terms of its scale and intensity. The Royal Borough is familiar with the spotlight, through Royal weddings, state visits and global sporting events; If handled correctly the positive impact on tourism will be felt in the two years before the Games and for as long as five years afterwards. The Council’s objective is to ensure a lasting legacy from the games and to develop the visitor economy faster than would normally be possible.

                                                3.5.4 The recommendations contained in this report also contribute to the Community Strategy in the following ways:
                                                  Relevant?
                                                  Yes / No
                                                  Key Themes:
                                                  Supporting Children & Younger People
                                                  Yes
                                                  Supporting Adults & Older People
                                                  yes
                                                  A Thriving, Cleaner, Greener Borough
                                                  Yes
                                                  Safer & Stronger Communities
                                                  Yes
                                                4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

                                                  The Strategy has been developed in consultation with the Royal Borough’s visitor industry, key stakeholders and relevant internal council departments.
                                                5. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

                                                To be added after the Children’s and Leisure Services O+S Panel meeting to be held 8th May 2008

                                                6. IMPLICATIONS

                                                6.1 Financial
                                                  The action plan to support the implementation of the Strategy will be managed within existing budgets and through revenue raised from industry partners. Currently all Visitor Management activities are managed within a net budget that has been increased for a considerable time.

                                                  All marketing initiatives are funded through advertising and participation fees from stakeholders and in some cases a substantial surplus is achieved which is used to off set other costs associated with the overall visitor management activities. In some areas external funding will be sought from government bodies and other actions will be achieved through influencing and encouraging external organisations to develop their own product and policies in line with the overall strategy’s aims and objectives.
                                                6.2 Legal,
                                                  There are no legal implication arising directly from this report.

                                                6.3 Human Rights Act,
                                                  Non of the Convention Rights will be affected by the decisions in this report, and the decisions do not affect any victims as defined under the Act.

                                                6.4 Planning,
                                                  There are no planning implication arising from this report.

                                                6.5 Sustainable Development
                                                  The strategy focuses on the job of managing visitors, managing their impact on the local community, developing the product, marketing it and developing local skills that support the tourism industry. The financial goal for sustainable growth is to increase visitor spend in the local economy by 12% or £45 million by 2016.


                                                6.6 Diversity and Equality

                                                  The strategy aims to create an accessible destination that will have a positive benefit for residents and visitors. It also encourages tourism businesses to take a flexible approach to product development according to the frequently changing visitor profile and social structures.


                                                  Background Papers:
                                                  Visitor Management Strategy – updated 2002


                                                  133
                                                  DEVELOPING PHASE 3 CHILDREN’S CENTRES IN THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD

                                                  CABINET: MAY 2008

                                                  MEMBER REPORTING: COUNCILLOR MRS QUICK
                                                1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

                                                  The purpose of this report is to present the proposed models and areas within the Borough for the development of Phase 3 Children’s Centre areas between April 2008 and March 2010.
                                                2. MEMBER'S RECOMMENDATION: To agree the models and areas for development as set out in section 3.2.9
                                                  3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

                                                  3.1 Wards Affected

                                                    Recommendations under 3.2.9 would involve the following wards:

                                                    Pinkneys Green, Furze Platt, Clewer South, Eton Wick, Old Windsor, Oldfield and Datchet
                                                  3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation

                                                  3.2.1 A children’s centre is a “one stop shop” for services for families who have young children. The Childcare Act 2006 placed a range of duties on local authorities in relation to Early Years and Childcare Services for children and their families. Part 1 Section 1 of the Act requires local authorities to reduce inequalities and improve the wellbeing of all young children in their area. Children’s Centres are the universal and mainstream front line service (alongside schools) providing accessible support to all families and their young children and will be one of the vehicles for meeting this duty.

                                                  3.2.2 Part 1 Section 2 of the Childcare Act 2006 says that integrated early childhood services must include early years provision, relevant social care functions, relevant health services and Jobcentre plus employment services. These will be delivered within the Phase 3 Children’s Centres depending on local need.
                                                    3.2.3 Part 1 Section 3 of the Childcare Act requires that local authorities take all reasonable steps to encourage early years providers engaged in activities to improve the well-being of young children in their area. Phase 3 Children’s Centres, like the existing Phase 2 Centres, do not have to incorporate childcare. It is envisaged that early years providers within the proposed Phase 3 areas will be consulted about partnership working regarding activities and venues. They will also be invited to participate in the advisory management structures of the Centres.

                                                    3.2.4 Part 1 Section 4 of the Childcare Act 2006 places local authorities, Primary Care Trusts, Strategic Health Authorities and Job Centre Plus under reciprocal duties to work together to deliver integrated early childhood services. Within the Phase 3 Children’s Centre development we will build on the strong partner relationships established in Phase 2 to develop existing sites (wherever possible) to satisfy this particular duty.
                                                      3.2.5 The government announced in 2007 the expansion of outreach services in Children’s Centres to ensure all families benefit. This will help to address some of the criticism that the Children’s Centre initiative has received nationally for not reaching the parts of the population it is designed to reach. The proposed Phase 3 developments will benefit from existing outreach services developed with our partners to support the current Phase 2 Centres. There will also be a new outreach offer to meet the needs of the proposed areas and models.
                                                        3.2.6 The current six Phase 2 Children’s Centres offer a distinct menu of services, which deliver over and above, that which was required. This has been achieved through effective partnership working both within children’s services and with our partner agencies.
                                                          3.2.7 Existing Phase 2 Children’s Centres

                                                          Local Authority Managed SitesPrimary Care Trust (PCT) Managed SiteSchool Based Sites
                                                          South Maidenhead – Woodlands Park Village Children’s CentreCentral Maidenhead St Mark’s Children’s CentreAscot and surrounding area – South Ascot Children’s Centre
                                                          North Maidenhead – Ellington Extended Services CentreEast Windsor – The Lawns Nursery School and Children's Centre
                                                          West Windsor – Xtend Extended Schools and Children’s Centre – Dedworth School’s site

                                                          3.2.8 The service levels of our Phase 2 Centres now allows us great flexibility when planning the service offer for the Phase 3 developments and their management structures. The local centrally negotiated service menu available to all Phase 2 Children’s Centres (subject to local need) are referred to in the Childcare Act 2006 and detailed below:
                                                            · Services of the Children’s Centre Programme Manager
                                                            Supports the development of Children’s Centres within the borough; commissions the central service offer through the development and management of Service Level Agreements (SLA’s); monitors and reports on the performance of Children’s Centres against Central Government key performance indicators.

                                                            · Services of the Children’s Information Service (CIS)
                                                            Under Section 12 of the Childcare Act 2006, local authorities have a duty to provide information, advice and assistance to parents and prospective parents.
                                                            Within Children’s Centres this is achieved through outreach, information displays, information sessions and focused events.

                                                            · Services of the Speech and Language Community Project
                                                            Four drop in clinics across the borough and a package of early intervention support.

                                                            · Health Services - Health Visitors
                                                            Baby clinics, nine-month development check, breast feeding clinics and other programmes around family health.

                                                            · Employment support - Job Centre Plus/Grow Our Own
                                                            Programmes supporting the commitment to reducing child poverty through training and supporting the return to work, benefits advice and family literacy, language and numeracy programmes.

                                                            · Services of and links to RBWM Parenting Strategy
                                                            Offer parenting programmes e.g. Webster Stratton Incredible years, Fives to Fifteens basic parenting programme- Family Caring Trust.

                                                            · Services of the Health Activists
                                                            A jointly funded post by the Borough and East Berkshire Primary Care Trust which supports the public health programme locally, e.g. smoking cessation or healthy walks to tackle obesity.

                                                            · Services of the Childminding Officer
                                                            Supporting Childminders locally by offering access to resource library, training and drop-in sessions.

                                                            · Services of a Senior Social Worker
                                                              Family support sessions around concerns parents might have e.g. around
                                                              behaviour
                                                            · Services and support - part of RBWM Domestic Violence Forum
                                                            Access to training and support e.g Freedom Programme.

                                                            · Services of the Teenage Parent Co-ordinator - part of RBWM Teenage Parenting Strategy
                                                            Support for Teenage and Young Parents through coffee mornings / drop-ins and working with housing partners to support young parents in temporary housing.




                                                          3.2.9 Phase 3 Model Rationale
                                                            a) A key message from the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) is that local authorities consolidate all plans to provide maximum coverage of relevant services. This can be achieved through consolidating the Phase 3 developments with the existing Phase 2 Centres: clustering opportunities for both the management structure and the service offer.

                                                            b) As we already deliver an enhanced service offer within our existing Phase 2 Centres, the Phase 3 developments will offer a less intensive level of support. They will signpost to and/or be clustered with an existing Phase 2 Centre as suggested in DCSF guidance.

                                                            c) When deciding where to propose new Children’s Centres, officers have taken into account the following indicators of need:
                                                              q Highest ranked Super Output Area (SOA)* Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) ranking 2007 (within the borough)
                                                              q Number of children aged 0-2 years
                                                              q Number of children aged 3-4 years
                                                              q Number of households with dependent children
                                                              q Number of lone parent households with dependent children
                                                              q Households where neither parent is working
                                                              q Number of working age persons receiving a benefit
                                                              q Children in families in work accessing Working Tax Credit (WTC) or Child Tax Credit (CTC)
                                                              q Children in families out of work accessing CTC
                                                              q Primary aged children with English as an additional language (EAL)
                                                              q Primary aged children on Special Educational Needs (SEN) register
                                                              q Conception rate per 1000 females aged 15-17

                                                              *A Super Output Area (SOA) is a small geographic area with a population of between 1,000 and 1,500. There are currently roughly five SOAs to a ward,
                                                              88 within the Royal Borough and 32,482 nationally.

                                                              The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is a national dataset that allows comparisons to be made between geographic areas on the basis of a range of factors, including income, employment, health, education, crime and geographical access to services. It is therefore a broader measure of deprivation than, for instance free school meal eligibility. The measure makes it possible to rank SOAs from 1 (most deprived) to 88 (least deprived) locally.
                                                              d) All SOAs in the Borough were considered in terms of the above indicators and where there are suitable existing premises these were noted. The following areas (shown in 3.2.10) are therefore proposed as Phase 3 areas for development based on their ranking.


                                                            e) Rather than adopt a one-size fits all approach, revenue funding for Phase 3 Centres will depend on local need and be directly linked to services specified within the SureStart Children Centres: Phase 3 Planning and Delivery guidance, published in November 2007. Consistent with this guidance we will be following the “area coordination model” for delivery where appropriate in all the Phase 3 Children’s Centre areas. Grouping services to areas and reducing management costs in this way, enables the Borough to maximize the number of areas served by the Phase 3 Children's Centre developments.
                                                              3.2.10 Proposed Phase 3 Children’s Centre areas
                                                                DatchetBroom Farm Maidenhead Cluster Rural Cluster
                                                                Datchet areaBroom Farm EstateMaidenhead Nursery SchoolOld Windsor area
                                                                Larchfield areaEton Wick area
                                                                Pinkneys Green area
                                                              a) It is proposed that both Datchet and the Broom Farm area are developed individually. The Broom Farm Estate presents room to develop on one central site. The development at Datchet, however, would be clustered in different community buildings that already exist e.g. the health centre, community hall and library.
                                                                  In November 2005 members approved officers to undertake feasibility studies that included developing a Phase 2 Children’s Centre jointly between Ellington and Maidenhead Nursery School. During the Phase 2 implementation period, it became evident that the demands of the areas served by these two schools are such that both would benefit from a Children’s Centre. Within existing SureStart Grant (that had to be used by March 2008), some building development was therefore undertaken at Maidenhead Nursery School in addition to more extensive investment at Ellington. It was also agreed that for revenue purposes Maidenhead Nursery School would be treated as a Phase 2 Centre, although it has not yet been formally designated as a Children’s Centre. Under Phase 3 therefore Maidenhead Nursery School will be designated and it is proposed that in addition two further Centres in Maidenhead will be developed: one at Larchfield and one at Pinkneys Green. There is a good case for formally re-designating the St Mark’s “reach area” (served by the Centre) to incorporate Pinkneys Green. Members will be aware of unmet needs in the Larchfield area, where the headteacher is keen to promote community involvement.
                                                                  A rural cluster is proposed to deliver services to both Old Windsor and Eton Wick. Both these areas present unique individual needs based on transport links and existing available services.

                                                                b) Appendix A. shows the data sets based on the above socio economic indicators for each of the areas identified. The indicators are ranked in relation to the other areas proposed for development (where 1 indicates the highest need within the seven proposed areas).


                                                              3.3 Options Available and Risk Assessment


                                                                Option
                                                                Risks
                                                                1
                                                                Seek approval for the development of the new phase 3 Children's Centre areas based on the recommended indicatorsThere is a risk that the Children's
                                                                Centre areas will not be managed within budget. This risk will be managed by ensuring that the funding model is transparent, fit for purpose and regularly monitored.
                                                                2
                                                                Develop alternative indicators Non compliance with Guidance exposes the
                                                                local authority to allegations of unfairness
                                                                3
                                                                Do nothingNon compliance could lead to punitive action from central government, as the Borough would be failing to meet delivery targets.

                                                                Resident dissatisfaction would also increase as they realise that they are not getting the same entitlements as residents in neighbouring boroughs.

                                                                To fail to implement the Phase 3 Centres would represent a lost opportunity to improve outcomes for children and families.

                                                              3.3.1 Abridged Risk Assessment Table**

                                                              No Risk
                                                              Risk
                                                              Score
                                                              Risk Control Measures Risk ScoreTimescale/
                                                              Review
                                                              Frequency
                                                              1
                                                              Failure to use the recommended indicators in the delivery of Phase 3 Children’s Centre areas leads to budget shortfalls
                                                              High
                                                              Ensure the funding model is transparent, fit for purpose and monitored quarterly
                                                              Medium
                                                              quarterly
                                                              2
                                                              Choose to develop alternative indicators than those proposed leads to a breach of Childcare Act 2006 and Audit Commission criticism
                                                              High
                                                              Unable to limit exposure as Central Government guidance is very specific in regards to the groups to be supported
                                                              High
                                                              3
                                                              Choose to develop alternative indicators than those proposed leads to punitive action from Central Government, as the Borough would be failing to meet delivery targets
                                                              High
                                                              Unable to limit exposure as Central Government guidance is very specific in regards to the groups to be supported
                                                              High
                                                              4
                                                              Failure to develop Phase 3 Children’s Centres exposes the Borough to resident dissatisfaction
                                                              High
                                                              Unable to limit exposure as residents would be aware of National programme, existing Phase 2 Centres and offer in neighbouring boroughs
                                                              High
                                                              5
                                                              Failure to develop Phase 3 Children’s Centres would represent a lost opportunity to improve outcomes for children and families
                                                              High
                                                              Unable to limit exposure as the development of an alternative would expose the Borough to unplanned financial commitment
                                                              High
                                                              ** Appendix C details the full assessment
                                                                3.4 Relevant National/Regional Guidance

                                                                  A Sure Start Children's Centre for every community : Phase 2 Planning Guidance (2005)
                                                                  Department for Education and Skills (DfES)

                                                                  Sure Start Children's Centres: Practice Guidance (2006)
                                                                  Department forEducation and Skills (DfES)

                                                                  Childcare Act, 2006
                                                                  HM Government

                                                                  Sure Start Children's Centres: Phase 3 Planning and delivery (2007)
                                                                  Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF)

                                                                  Raising Standards – Improving Outcomes : Early Years Outcomes Duty, Childcare Act
                                                                  2006 (2007)
                                                                  HM Government

                                                                3.5 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies

                                                                Relevant?
                                                                Yes / No
                                                                Key Themes:
                                                                Getting about
                                                                Yes
                                                                learning for life
                                                                Yes
                                                                being safe and secure
                                                                Yes
                                                                caring and health
                                                                Yes
                                                                living and working in a good place
                                                                Yes
                                                                Guiding Principles:
                                                                Working together
                                                                Yes
                                                                Leaving no one behind
                                                                Yes
                                                                Involving people
                                                                Yes
                                                                Safeguarding the young
                                                                Yes

                                                                  Children and Young People Plan (CYPP)
                                                                  Parenting Strategy
                                                                  Domestic Violence Strategy
                                                                  Teenage Parent Strategy
                                                                  Proposed or statutory LAA targets NI 92, NI 72, NI 56
                                                                4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT
                                                                  A community survey and baseline health assessment for Children’s Centres, was carried out by the Berkshire East Primary Care Trust during 2006 and report presented to partners in 2007.

                                                                  An audit of need was carried out by Family Friends on the parenting support needs of families within the Borough between June and December 2007, and will be presented to partners in May 2008.

                                                                  To meet the duty to secure sufficient childcare under the Childcare Act 2006, a Childcare Sufficiency Assessment was carried out between March 2007 and February 2008.
                                                                5. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL
                                                                  6. IMPLICATIONS
                                                                    6.1 Financial

                                                                      Children's Centres are fully funded by the Sure Start, Early Years and Childcare Grant and detailed below is the overall three-year funding allocation. For Phase 3 there are no additional financial implications for the Borough. Children's Centres from both phases will be delivered within budget.



                                                                      The Capital funding for example will be used for the refurbishment of premises and possible small extensions. The revenue funding as with Phase 2 will be used to purchase resources, appoint local coordinators, deliver services and meet all the relevant cost of premises overheads. Revenue figures include continuation funding for Phase 2 Centres and flexible revenue allocations for the target of the new Phase 3 Centres.
                                                                    6.1.1. Overall funding allocations for 2008-2011

                                                                    2008-9
                                                                    2009-10
                                                                    2010-11
                                                                    Total 2008-11
                                                                    Revenue allocations
                                                                    Children's Centres
                                                                    1,041,716
                                                                    1,429,082
                                                                    1,759,669
                                                                    4,230,467
                                                                    Total revenue
                                                                    **1,041,716
                                                                    **1,429,082
                                                                    **1,759,669
                                                                    4,230,467
                                                                    Capital allocations
                                                                    Children Centres Phase 3
                                                                    310,332
                                                                    664,997
                                                                    359,098
                                                                    1,334,427
                                                                    Children Centres Maintenance
                                                                    32,760
                                                                    56,585
                                                                    59,542
                                                                    148,887
                                                                    Total capital
                                                                    343,092
                                                                    721,582
                                                                    418,640
                                                                    1,483,314
                                                                    ** Appendix B details the revenue funding proposal for 2008 -2011

                                                                    6.2 Legal


                                                                      The Childcare Act 2006: Part 1 Sections 1-4 of the Act place duties on the local authorities in relation to integrated childhood services, how these are to be met in relation to Phase 3 Children's Centres is detailed in 3.2.

                                                                      Raising Standards – Improving Outcomes: Early Years Outcomes Duty,
                                                                      Childcare Act 2006 (2007) HM Government
                                                                    6.3 Human Rights Act
                                                                      a) The convention right under the Human Rights Act relevant to this report is article 2 of the first protocol – the right not to be denied an education;
                                                                      b) The convention right is not affected by this decision;
                                                                      c) This decision does not affect any victims as defined under the Act.
                                                                        6.4 Planning

                                                                          As Phase 3 Children’s Centres will offer a less intensive level of support than those developed in Phase 2, this will generally mean developing centres around existing provision. Only relatively small modifications of existing premises will be undertaken rather than extensive new build projects. For example where there is an existing community centre refurbishments could be made to offer a comfortable family friendly drop-in room or improvements made to kitchens to allow opportunities around healthy eating. The appropriate approvals and recommendations for any such work will be met.

                                                                        6.5 Sustainable Development
                                                                            In terms of the Council’s Sustainable Development Policy, the recommendations in this report have beneficial sustainable development implications, in that they support people back into work and training and are a part of the government agenda to reduce child poverty.

                                                                          6.6 Diversity and Equality
                                                                              In terms of the Council’s Equality Impact Assessment Policy, the recommendations in this report have no negative equality and diversity implications.

                                                                              Background Papers: Developing Children’s Centres in the Royal Borough: 24th November 2005



                                                                            Appendix A

                                                                            Larchfield area


                                                                              The Larchfield area presents the highest levels of need of the seven areas identified. The Phase 3 Children's Centre development would build on the school’s aspirations to host a community facility on site. Moreover, recent Area Team multi agency discussion showed significant commitment to the area from within children’s services.

                                                                              There will also be the opportunity to link with Buffer Bear (the Neighbourhood Nursery on site) that provides affordable childcare. Such a link would meet the DCSF guidance in relation to good partnership working with private, voluntary and independent (PVI) providers and meet the outcome duties set out in the Childcare Act, 2006.
                                                                            Larchfield area, Oldfield
                                                                            Number
                                                                            Rank
                                                                            Highest ranked SOA IMD ranking 2007 (borough)
                                                                            4
                                                                            Number of children aged 0-2
                                                                            298
                                                                            1
                                                                            Number of children aged 3-4
                                                                            193
                                                                            1
                                                                            Number of households with dependent children
                                                                            858
                                                                            2
                                                                            No. of lone parent households with dependent children
                                                                            191
                                                                            1
                                                                            Households where neither parent working
                                                                            6.43
                                                                            5
                                                                            No. of working age persons receiving a benefit
                                                                            525
                                                                            1
                                                                            Children in families in work accessing WTC/CTC
                                                                            300
                                                                            1
                                                                            Children in families out of work accessing CTC
                                                                            260
                                                                            2
                                                                            Primary aged children with EAL
                                                                            83
                                                                            2
                                                                            Primary aged children on SEN register
                                                                            120
                                                                            1
                                                                            Under age conception per 1000 females aged 15-17
                                                                            37.9
                                                                            1
                                                                              Maidenhead Nursery School

                                                                              Members have previously agreed that this site would be developed as a Phase 3 Children’s Centre and RBWM has agreed to match fund £74,000 of the school capital budget, to enable improvements to the existing building which includes an additional room. This work is has been completed and designation will follow as soon as possible.
                                                                              It is proposed that this site will have close links to both the Ellington Extended Services Centre and St. Mark's Children's Centre to ensure best service coverage.
                                                                            Maidenhead Nursery School, Furze Platt
                                                                            Number
                                                                            Rank
                                                                            Highest ranked SOA IMD ranking 2007 (borough)
                                                                            7
                                                                            Number of children aged 0-2
                                                                            236
                                                                            3
                                                                            Number of children aged 3-4
                                                                            156
                                                                            4
                                                                            Number of households with dependent children
                                                                            897
                                                                            1
                                                                            No. of lone parent households with dependent children
                                                                            148
                                                                            3
                                                                            Households where neither parent working
                                                                            7.1
                                                                            3
                                                                            No. of working age persons receiving a benefit
                                                                            390
                                                                            2
                                                                            Children in families in work accessing WTC/CTC
                                                                            260
                                                                            2
                                                                            Children in families out of work accessing CTC
                                                                            265
                                                                            1
                                                                            Primary aged children with EAL
                                                                            112
                                                                            1
                                                                            Primary aged children on SEN register
                                                                            119
                                                                            2
                                                                            Under age conception per 1000 females aged 15-17
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            2
                                                                              Pinkneys Green area
                                                                              It is proposed that this development will be linked to the Phase 2 Children’s Centre at St. Mark’s Hospital by re-designating the reach area of the St.Mark’s Children’s Centre after discussions with East Berkshire Primary Care Trust (PCT) who manage this site. The area will be served by some direct services and active outreach. There is a community centre in a prime position that could be utilised for the delivery of services.
                                                                            Pinkneys Green
                                                                            Number
                                                                            Rank
                                                                            Highest ranked SOA IMD ranking 2007 (borough)
                                                                            2
                                                                            Number of children aged 0-2
                                                                            209
                                                                            4
                                                                            Number of children aged 3-4
                                                                            174
                                                                            2
                                                                            Number of households with dependent children
                                                                            840
                                                                            3
                                                                            No. of lone parent households with dependent children
                                                                            134
                                                                            4
                                                                            Households where neither parent working
                                                                            6.61
                                                                            4
                                                                            No. of working age persons receiving a benefit
                                                                            325
                                                                            3
                                                                            Children in families in work accessing WTC/CTC
                                                                            215
                                                                            3
                                                                            Children in families out of work accessing CTC
                                                                            160
                                                                            4
                                                                            Primary aged children with EAL
                                                                            45
                                                                            3
                                                                            Primary aged children on SEN register
                                                                            82
                                                                            4
                                                                            Under age conception per 1000 females aged 15-17
                                                                            31.9
                                                                            4
                                                                              Broom Farm Estate

                                                                              Early discussions have taken place with the Army, who are prepared to offer use of their community premises in return for the delivery of services. They are committed to partnership working on this agenda. Developments would build upon current success, particularly around adult learning and again early discussions indicate favourable partnership working. We anticipate good links with Alexander First School.
                                                                            Broom Farm Estate, Clewer South
                                                                            Number
                                                                            Rank
                                                                            Highest ranked SOA IMD ranking 2007 (borough)
                                                                            20
                                                                            Number of children aged 0-2
                                                                            264
                                                                            2
                                                                            Number of children aged 3-4
                                                                            164
                                                                            3
                                                                            Number of households with dependent children
                                                                            717
                                                                            4
                                                                            No. of lone parent households with dependent children
                                                                            161
                                                                            2
                                                                            Households where neither parent working
                                                                            8.3
                                                                            2
                                                                            No. of working age persons receiving a benefit
                                                                            250
                                                                            5
                                                                            Children in families in work accessing WTC/CTC
                                                                            185
                                                                            4
                                                                            Children in families out of work accessing CTC
                                                                            185
                                                                            3
                                                                            Primary aged children with EAL
                                                                            19
                                                                            5
                                                                            Primary aged children on SEN register
                                                                            96
                                                                            3
                                                                            Under age conception per 1000 females aged 15-17
                                                                            40.2
                                                                            3

                                                                              Datchet area
                                                                              There is no Phase 2 Children's Centre in close proximity. It is proposed that this development have a more distinct menu of services and that a Phase 3 Centre be developed in partnership with health - East Berkshire PCT. Early discussions indicate favourable partnership working on this agenda.
                                                                              This could be achieved through building on the existing good work that the Health Visitors are undertaking particularly with the Traveller Community. We anticipate good links with Datchet St Mary’s CE Primary School.
                                                                            Datchet
                                                                            Number
                                                                            Rank
                                                                            Highest ranked SOA IMD ranking 2007 (borough)
                                                                            25
                                                                            Number of children aged 0-2
                                                                            199
                                                                            5
                                                                            Number of children aged 3-4
                                                                            105
                                                                            5
                                                                            Number of households with dependent children
                                                                            548
                                                                            5
                                                                            No. of lone parent households with dependent children
                                                                            97
                                                                            5
                                                                            Households where neither parent working
                                                                            8.44
                                                                            1
                                                                            No. of working age persons receiving a benefit
                                                                            260
                                                                            4
                                                                            Children in families in work accessing WTC/CTC
                                                                            90
                                                                            5
                                                                            Children in families out of work accessing CTC
                                                                            155
                                                                            5
                                                                            Primary aged children with EAL
                                                                            15
                                                                            6
                                                                            Primary aged children on SEN register
                                                                            69
                                                                            5
                                                                            Under age conception per 1000 females aged 15-17
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            5
                                                                            Old Windsor area
                                                                                There is no Phase 2 Children's Centre in close proximity. It is proposed that this development have a more distinct menu of services. There is a collection of buildings around a central hall that could be explored. There are also opportunities to work with partner agencies and Kings Court First School.
                                                                              Old Windsor
                                                                              Number
                                                                              Rank
                                                                              Highest ranked SOA IMD ranking 2007 (borough)
                                                                              21
                                                                              Number of children aged 0-2
                                                                              157
                                                                              6
                                                                              Number of children aged 3-4
                                                                              100
                                                                              6
                                                                              Number of households with dependent children
                                                                              528
                                                                              6
                                                                              No. of lone parent households with dependent children
                                                                              66
                                                                              6
                                                                              Households where neither parent working
                                                                              3.38
                                                                              7
                                                                              No. of working age persons receiving a benefit
                                                                              180
                                                                              6
                                                                              Children in families in work accessing WTC/CTC
                                                                              75
                                                                              6
                                                                              Children in families out of work accessing CTC
                                                                              55
                                                                              7
                                                                              Primary aged children with EAL
                                                                              30
                                                                              4
                                                                              Primary aged children on SEN register
                                                                              62
                                                                              6
                                                                              Under age conception per 1000 females aged 15-17
                                                                              n/a
                                                                              6
                                                                                Eton Wick area
                                                                                There is no Phase 2 Children's Centre in close proximity so a Phase 3 development would need to have a more distinct menu of services with some direct delivery based upon local need. There are opportunities for delivery at Eton Wick School, the Village Hall and the Scout Hall.

                                                                              Eton Wick
                                                                              Number
                                                                              Rank
                                                                              Highest ranked SOA IMD ranking 2007 (borough)
                                                                              27
                                                                              Number of children aged 0-2
                                                                              69
                                                                              7
                                                                              Number of children aged 3-4
                                                                              43
                                                                              7
                                                                              Number of households with dependent children
                                                                              253
                                                                              7
                                                                              No. of lone parent households with dependent children
                                                                              41
                                                                              7
                                                                              Households where neither parent working
                                                                              4.5
                                                                              6
                                                                              No. of working age persons receiving a benefit
                                                                              110
                                                                              7
                                                                              Children in families in work accessing WTC/CTC
                                                                              55
                                                                              7
                                                                              Children in families out of work accessing CTC
                                                                              70
                                                                              6
                                                                              Primary aged children with EAL
                                                                              7
                                                                              7
                                                                              Primary aged children on SEN register
                                                                              20
                                                                              7
                                                                              Under age conception per 1000 females aged 15-17
                                                                              n/a
                                                                              7
                                                                              Appendix B




                                                                              Revenue Funding 2008-9 Budget


                                                                              The budget for the Children’s Centre Revenue Allocation is divided into four main areas.

                                                                              Centrally negotiated services
                                                                              These are services that are negotiated centrally on behalf of the centres to achieve economies of scale. Each centre will be able to access these services as appropriate.

                                                                              1. Children’s Information Service Support
                                                                              This is to cover two part-time outreach officers (already employed) to deliver services through Children’s Centres. They will provide 75hrs per centre per annum of dedicated outreach to ensure a consistent level of information to parents (both verbal and written) to meet the children’s centre priorities and their community needs. In addition they will provide a universal role to deliver information across the Local Authority (LA) to meet the new statutory duties of the Childcare Act 2006.

                                                                              2. Speech and Language Community Project
                                                                              The LA has an agreed Service Level Agreement (SLA) with East Berkshire PCT (Health) to deliver drop in clinics and a package of intervention as appropriate across all centres.

                                                                              3. Centrally coordinated core health services
                                                                              To support a service to increase the number of mothers initiating breast-feeding for longer, in line with the UNICEF Baby Friendly best practice standards.

                                                                              4. Employment Support
                                                                              The LA has a Memorandum of Understanding with Job Centre Plus and working in partnership with Grow Our Own. This service is delivered at no cost.

                                                                              5. Shelter Advice Service
                                                                              To provide benefit and housing advise as appropriate. This service is delivered at no cost.

                                                                              6. Health Activist Project
                                                                              To support the delivery of the Public Health agenda by trained community workers.

                                                                              7. Services of and links to the Borough Parenting Strategy
                                                                              To support the delivery of universal parenting services in line with the Borough’s Parenting Strategy.

                                                                              8. Provision of a mobile crèche
                                                                              The provision of crèche facilities to deliver stay and play activities and support parents in accessing services delivered by Children’s Centre e.g. basic skills training.

                                                                              9. Childminder Resource Library
                                                                              To develop a resource library to assist childminders in delivering the Early Years Foundation Stage.

                                                                              10. Bookstart
                                                                              To work in partnership with Library Services to deliver the Bookstart Programme for the under 5’s.

                                                                              11. Early Years Home Liaison Officer
                                                                              To extend the range of Ethnic Minority Achievement (EMA) services to provide Early Years home liaison support.

                                                                              12. Father Support Worker
                                                                              To work with a local voluntary agency to provide a male worker to work with fathers.


                                                                              Direct allocation for Children's Centres approved as at 31/03/08
                                                                              Each Children’s Centre is allocated monies to develop a local programme of support for their community.

                                                                              13. Direct Allocation to the Centres
                                                                              Each of the approved centres will receive an annual allocation. For 2008/9 this is a fixed rate for all centres (£65K). Additional funding has been set aside as there may be increased costs on the larger sites. A review of expenditure on each centre will be undertaken in October 2008.

                                                                              Development of new centre sites
                                                                              The proposed sites will receive revenue funding to build capacity within their area for the new centre. This can include work on consultation, information gathering, taster events etc.

                                                                              14. Development of new Centre areas
                                                                              Each new area will be encouraged to undertake capacity building work prior to the centre being open. This will include information gathering and consultation with the local community to identify the locally delivered services.

                                                                              Support and Development Costs
                                                                              These support the delivery of services within the existing centres and the development of new centres in line with the national initiative and local requirements.

                                                                              15. Services from Strategy and Resources Unit
                                                                              To develop capacity within this unit with particular support for Information Technology (IT) and Schools Accommodation.

                                                                              16. Services from Early Years and Childcare Service
                                                                              To provide a Children’s Centre Programme Manager to manage the delivery of services and the development of the programme. To provide a Childminding Officer to work with each centre in meeting its core offer re childminding support. To cover the costs of other staff involved in developing the new centres.

                                                                              17. Service Level Agreements for corporate services
                                                                              To support the delivery of corporate services to all LA Children’s Centre sites e.g. Human Resources (HR), IT, Insurance etc.

                                                                              18. Administrative support including performance management monitoring
                                                                              To support the LA in processing and reporting the information required to evidence the outcomes of the centres.


                                                                              Revenue Funding 2009-11 Budget

                                                                              At this stage amounts given here are indicative and may change.

                                                                              19. Centrally negotiated services & Support and development costs 2009-11
                                                                              An assumed 3% uplift has been applied to each year to reflect costs of living increases. A more detailed budget will be undertaken closer to the time following a review of the service delivery.

                                                                              20. Direct Allocation and development costs
                                                                              For 2009-11 detailed budgets are not available for these areas. To ensure consistency of services all existing centres (approved as at 31/03/08) will receive a minimum of £65K (plus costs of living). It is envisaged that the remainder will be allocated according to community need. The amount allocated will depend upon formula factors such as reach area, workless households etc. The final formula will depend on advice from the Department for Children, Schools and Families and evidence gathered from the centres themselves.

                                                                              Capital Programme 2008-11

                                                                              As the Children’s Centres programme for 2008-11 is still at an early stage, a detailed capital budget has not been prepared. However, in line with areas proposed, the potential work has been identified as necessary to provide suitable accommodation for service delivery. Full feasibility studies of all identified sites will need to be undertaken by Building Services, prior to any final decisions being made.


                                                                              $meetings_080508_cslosp_developing_phase3_childrens_centres_appendix_c.doc.pdf Meetings 080508 Cslosp Developing Phase3 Childrens Centres Appendix C



                                                                              154
                                                                                BEHAVIOUR IN roYAL bOROUGH sCHOOLS

                                                                                CABINET: MAY 2008

                                                                                MEMBER REPORTING: CLLR MRS QUICK
                                                                              1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

                                                                                The purpose of this report is to provide Members with an overview of behaviour in Royal Borough schools, what is being done to improve behaviour, and plans to develop services designed to improve behaviour.
                                                                              2. MEMBER'S RECOMMENDATION: That Members approve and note the developments.

                                                                              3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

                                                                              3.1 Wards Affected
                                                                                All wards are affected.

                                                                              3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation

                                                                              Introduction

                                                                              3.2.1 Schools should be busy but safe places where all individuals are respected and students can make the most of learning opportunities. If students are not behaving well they cannot learn effectively and they are likely to have a negative affect on the learning of others. Moreover, how young people learn to conduct themselves in school is an important influence on how they will behave as adults in future. Tackling anti-social behaviour is a Council priority.

                                                                              3.2.2 Without being alarmist or complacent, this report aims to present data on current behaviour in schools. It summarises what schools, Children and Young People’s Services and our partners are doing to promote good behaviour and to tackle anti-social behaviour when it does occur. Finally, it reports on current plans to improve these services.

                                                                              Anti social behaviour

                                                                              3.2.3 Anti-social behaviour in this report is the phrase used to describe any action that disrupts the well-being or learning of others in schools. It covers a range of activities such as vandalism, abusive language, fighting, bullying, stealing and shouting out. The phrase pro social behaviour, although less familiar, is used to describe actions that promote the well being or learning of others in schools. Pro social behaviours include actions such as listening, being polite, taking turns, showing awareness of the emotional state of others, and offering help.

                                                                              3.2.4 Anti social behaviour covers a multitude of actions and has a multitude of causes. Typical hypotheses voiced by headteachers at a recent meeting with the Director include:
                                                                              · The narrowing of the curriculum and an excess of public assessment
                                                                              · Changes in patterns of family life
                                                                              · Lack of discipline at home
                                                                              · Changes in moral belief
                                                                              · Changes in diet
                                                                              · The prevalence of substance abuse
                                                                              · Increased violence in the media
                                                                              · Unmet special needs
                                                                              · Increased use of teaching assistants
                                                                                    Issues such as inadequate parenting over-authoritarian parenting, over-liberal parenting, parents with unmet, or inadequately met mental health needs, and unmet emotional needs (such as early attachment difficulties) are also seen as potential “explanations”.
                                                                              3.2.5 There are also issues about the varying abilities of school staff to manage behaviour in a clear and consistent manner. Clearly, there is also a well-established link between the quality of teaching and learning, and behaviour. Children who are not engaged in learning are more likely to misbehave and thus disrupt the learning of others

                                                                              3.2.6 It is unreasonable to suppose that only one of the above factors is responsible for anti-social behaviour. It is likely that several of the above factors are relevant. Furthermore that these factors impact differently upon individual children depending on their biology, family experiences and the situation in which they find themselves.

                                                                              3.2.7 Rather than try to find a single “cause” of anti-social behaviour, it is useful to analyse behaviour in terms of the functions that it serves. In other words, to ask “why do they do that?” Anti-social behaviour might serve to provide stimulation for a bored child (e.g. wandering round the classroom), to acquire material things (e.g. stealing from peers), to gain attention (e.g. shouting out), and to enhance self-esteem (e.g. putting others down). This approach does not excuse anti-social behaviour: children need clear boundaries. However, a functional analysis can lead to solutions that do not devalue children. Children who are not respected are more likely to disrespect others, leading to an exacerbation of anti-social behaviour. Concern has been raised with headteachers about the wording of some school exclusion letters for this reason.

                                                                              What do we know about behaviour in Royal Borough schools?

                                                                              3.2.8 Ofsted have not identified any schools in the Royal Borough that have either inadequate behaviour or persistent absence status as designated by the DCSF. Nationally, there are 49 schools targeted for inadequate behaviour and 652 schools targeted for persistent absence.
                                                                                3.2.9 The simplest indicator of anti-social behaviour is exclusion. Exclusion may be for a specific number of days (“fixed term”) or “permanent” (in which case an alternative placement has to be found for the child). Since September 2008 any school excluding for a fixed term for more than five days is required to provide properly structured alternative provision. In the case of a permanent exclusion, the Local Authority is required to make provision from day six.
                                                                                  3.2.10 Headteachers have a right to exclude students whose behaviour contravenes the standards of the school’s published behaviour or discipline policy. A governing body is required, in the case of permanent exclusion, to make the final decision on whether the headteacher’s decision is to be upheld, based on the evidence provided to them. Parents who are dissatisfied may take their case to an Independent Appeal Panel (i.e. independent of both the school and the local authority). Independent Appeal Panels are trained for the task and always include a serving headteacher.
                                                                                    3.2.11 Statistically, permanent exclusion is associated with poor outcomes for the child in terms of future education, employment, stability of relationships, mental health and crime. Avoiding unnecessary permanent exclusion is therefore highly desirable not only in terms of the well-being of the child but in terms of cost to society.
                                                                                      3.2.12 The number of days lost through fixed term exclusions in the Borough fell in the academic year 2006/7 to 2,420 from 2,542 in the academic year 2005/6. The effects of fixed term exclusion are not clear. This was despite an increase in the number of pupils excluded (up to 496 from 442) and the number of exclusions (up to 804 from 753) because in the previous year some pupils had very long fixed term exclusions. There is evidence that sometimes, short fixed-term exclusion can serve as a warning that leads to improved behaviour. For other children a first exclusion may be quickly followed by a second and a third, and without any noticeable improvement in behaviour, may foreshadow a permanent exclusion.

                                                                                      3.2.13 The number of permanent exclusions in the Royal Borough rose sharply from around the national average in 2005/6 to twice the national average in 2006/7. To what extent these 38 permanent exclusions represent a change in student behaviour or a change in headteacher expectations is not clear. Whatever the reason(s) a sharp rise in exclusions is not being reported by our statistical neighbours, our geographical neighbours, nor nationally. Without wishing to deny headteachers the right to exclude when necessary, the rise in exclusions is a widespread concern.

                                                                                      3.2.14 It is important not to make simplistic judgements based on exclusion statistics. Recently, for example, one school reported a high number of days lost through fixed term exclusion. To a naïve observer it may have appeared that behaviour was generally a problem in this school, but this was not the case. Behaviour in the school was generally good: indeed it enjoys a well-deserved reputation in the community for a very positive ethos. Most of the exclusions were of one particular child who had already been rejected by other schools because of his behaviour. His new headteacher was trying to give him another chance to succeed, but sadly, a permanent exclusion followed the string of fixed term exclusions. Sometimes a school may exclude several students for participating in a single serious incident. Such details may be hidden in a simple table of “exclusions”.

                                                                                        3.2.15 Similarly, just looking at the data for two years could be misleading. It is more constructive to look at the pattern of exclusions over several years. The table below indicates that the exclusion rate does seem to vary considerably from year to year. The most reliable and useful trend data is probably that provided by the DCSF on permanent exclusions:
                                                                                          3.2.16 Rate of all Permanent Exclusions - Percentage of school population
                                                                                          1999-02000-012001-22002-32003-42004-52005-6
                                                                                          England0.110.120.120.120.130.120.12
                                                                                          RBWM0.130.180.110.120.190.160.1
                                                                                            3.2.17 Another source of data about anti-social behaviour is the Tell us 2 survey that is now conducted annually to all children in years 6, 8 and 10. 85% of children say that they feel safe in school, but the most recent survey results demonstrate that pupils in the Royal Borough continue to be concerned about bullying. They are less satisfied, than national comparators about the effectiveness with which bullying incidents are resolved (51% locally compared to 57% nationally).

                                                                                            3.2.18 The Audit Commission also conducts an annual survey of headteachers. It asks headteachers to rate the effectiveness of behaviour support provided by the local authority. The most recent data (gathered during the academic year 2006-7) shows that headteachers in the Royal Borough were not satisfied with the effectiveness of current provision.

                                                                                            3.2.19 Given the widespread concern about anti-social behaviour shared by Members, headteachers, and some children, it is therefore useful to identify what is being done to prevent the problem.

                                                                                            Preventative approaches

                                                                                            3.2.20 Critical to the prevention of anti-social behaviour is parenting support. No one wishes to “nanny” parents, but it is a fact that parenting is a challenging task with which many people seek help from time to time. We are fortunate in Windsor and Maidenhead to have a local charity “Family Friends” (in part funded by the Royal Borough) that provides parenting support to both individual families and groups. The Royal Borough and its partners have a Parenting Strategy that is currently being revised and will be brought before Members for approval in due course.

                                                                                            3.2.21 Governors have a key role in shaping the ethos of a school. An ethos that raises expectations for all, reaches out into the community, and provides a range of support for learners, is more likely to shape pro social behaviour than is a more authoritarian regime. Governors are required set the framework for behaviour policy in a school which it is the headteacher’s responsibility to implement

                                                                                            3.2.22 Using central government grant the Royal Borough employs a Behaviour and Attendance Consultant whose task is to support secondary schools in implementing the national strategy to improve behaviour and attendance. Typically, this involves an audit of current performance in school, conducted in partnership with the senior leadership team leading to an action plan for the whole staff. Schools have engaged well with this programme as evidence by the high attendance at Behaviour and Attendance Network meetings to share good practice. Being an officer within the Learning and Achievement Service, the consultant is acutely aware of the link between behaviour and the quality of learning experience.

                                                                                            3.2.23 The effectiveness of the work of the Behaviour and Attendance Consultant is demonstrated by the fact that the one school that (in 2003/4) was identified by Ofsted as having inadequate behaviour has now been removed from this category. Royal Borough secondary schools have all achieved “satisfactory” or better judgements for personal development and well-being in their Ofsted inspections. One school received an “outstanding” judgement and eight schools achieved good”.

                                                                                            3.2.24 The Healthy Schools programme is an important initiative that helps to promote pro social behaviour. Thirty nine schools within the Borough have achieved National Healthy School Status. The programme is making a significant difference to the health, behaviour and achievement of pupils. The impact of the programme is based on a whole-school approach to physical and emotional well-being focused on four core themes:
                                                                                            · Personal, Social and Health Education
                                                                                            · Healthy Eating
                                                                                            · Physical Activity
                                                                                            · Emotional Health and Wellbeing
                                                                                              3.2.25 The Healthy Schools programme involves working with pupils, parents, school staff and the whole school community to provide a solid foundation from which developments and improvement are embedded in a systematic way. These processes contribute to the physical and emotional development of all members of the school community. In Healthy Schools there are effective school councils and a strong emphasis on rewarding good behaviour. Several schools train older pupils in buddying, peer mediation and peer mentoring to help solve friendship and learning difficulties. Healthy Schools adopt Circle Time and SEAL (Social Emotional Aspects of Learning) which are valuable tools for developing life skills. A reduction in food and drink additives and sugar has led to children and young people being calmer and better able to concentrate. An increase in the uptake of physical activities, breakfast, water, fruit and vegetables is also beneficial. Students in Healthy Schools tell us that they feel healthier, happier and safer. Their parents tell us that they feel more involved in their child’s health and learning. Schools tell us that the National Healthy Schools Programme has brought sustained improvement in health, behaviour and standards of work.
                                                                                                3.2.26 As mentioned above, Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) is an initiative produced by the DCSF designed to raise educational attainment through the development of pro social behaviour. The training programme and associated materials have been well received by schools nationally and within the Royal Borough. 38 of our primary phase schools have adopted the programme. The secondary school version was launched later. Six of our secondary and middle schools and Holyport Manor have now implemented the approach.

                                                                                                3.2.27 Some schools can demonstrate innovative interventions to reduce the risk of exclusion. The work of Windsor Boys School is of particular note as they have used a partnership with the (now ceased) Arts Centre in Windsor to work with boys disaffected by the conventional curriculum. Windsor Boys School have also set up the “Skill Centre” – a partnership with business that teaches construction skills. All but one secondary school within the Borough currently pays for students to access this provision.

                                                                                                3.2.28 There are 6.7 full time equivalent educational psychologists (EPs) employed by the Royal Borough. They work at a range of levels based firmly on the knowledge that preventing anti-social behaviour is better than trying to cure it. EPs have developed materials and strategies for children to support other children, e.g. the Peer Support Strategies folder for schools includes guidance on peer mediation and Circles of Friends. EP work starts at an early stage, e.g. supporting Early Years staff to manage young children’s behaviour. EP research skills and commitment to evidence based practice equips them to develop, monitor and evaluate effective, and protective, interventions, such as nurture groups. EPs also develop and contribute to the professional development of school staff, e.g. by using pastoral support plans to prevent exclusion, or teaching techniques like “positive handling” (when children need to be physically restrained). They also work with other agencies to improve outcomes for vulnerable youngsters (such as children in care, children with mental health needs, and young people known to the Youth Offending Team.

                                                                                                3.2.29 Children are the focus of EP work, but they often work with the adults who have concerns about children. Instead of, or as well as, working with an individual child or family, therefore, educational psychologists also:
                                                                                                · Consult with adults: having a link EP for schools, and a service delivery model that includes time for staff, means that a problem-solving or ‘solution focussed’ climate for discussions about concerns is created. Schools value this provision and tell us that it works.
                                                                                                · Provide tailored training for all or some staff in a school on specific areas (e.g. behaviour management, attachment, child development), or to develop skills (in structured observation or conciliation skills training).
                                                                                                · Support pre or post-inspection in relevant areas (e.g. behaviour audits or reviewing policy development)
                                                                                                · Work preventatively with parents e.g. running training events for foster carers or childminders on attachment, or behaviour workshops in schools, as well as specialist groups for the parents of young children who have been given a diagnosis of an Autistic Spectrum Disorder.
                                                                                                  3.2.30 The Community and Youth Service is another part of Children and Young People’s Services that aims to prevent anti-social behaviour There are 25.5fte (full time equivalent) professionally trained youth workers including supervisors, 3fte Connexions Intensive Personal Advisors and 1fte Youth Counselling Co-ordinator employed by the Royal Borough. There are also 11 youth or project centres. Youth work provides an informal social experience for young people who value the relationship that is based on mutual respect, is voluntary in nature and works with young people as individuals and/or groups in determining a set of learning goals for each young person to achieve. Though informally educative there is a curriculum which enables youth workers and young people to set short, medium and long term learning goals and review and evaluate progress along the way. The youth work curriculum is not the same as the formal school curriculum, as young people’s social needs and interests vary, and the voluntary nature of the relationship means that the youth worker must engage young people’s interest.
                                                                                                    3.2.31 Youth workers use a wide range of methods to assess the level of intervention required to engage young people, for example a session playing or observing pool reveals a vast amount of information about the young person that the youth worker will use to assess the ability of the young person to agree and reach a learning goal. In other cases such as detached work and outreach work, youth workers will undertake a period of reconnaissance in order to assess the potential needs of the individuals and group members. An activity programme (informal curriculum) will be agreed between the detached workers and the young person/people. An example of current work is a drug and relationship leaflet that young people are developing with detached drug workers to help keep young people safe.
                                                                                                      3.2.32 The Council is also developing a Targeted Youth Support strategy, which will set out what we intend to achieve for vulnerable young people over the next three years. Local authorities have a duty to provide Targeted Youth Support from 1st April 2008 as part of the Ten Year Youth Strategy. Targeted Youth Support identifies a range of opportunities which vulnerable young people can expect local authority and partner agencies to provide to keep them in mainstream settings. One of the aims of Targeted Youth Support is to understand the root causes of issues young people face rather than simply the presenting problem. The support packages are personalised to individual young people’s needs, and will also involve supporting parents or carers as appropriate. By providing early tailored support through swift referrals, young people at risk of fixed term exclusion are able to be supported and not have their learning, or that of their peers disrupted.
                                                                                                          Interventions to tackle anti-social behaviour
                                                                                                      3.2.33 With some young people particularly those who present very challenging behaviour, the initial youth work learning goal will be about keeping to ground rules, boundaries, behaviour in the youth club and then behaviour in public places. This is often described as a contract. These young people may be offered the opportunity to take part in activities such as residential activities, once they have met the agreed contract. Residential activities offer opportunities to build relationships, improve self-esteem, learn teamwork and taking responsibility for themselves and other members of the group and build on the early behaviour contract. Youth workers have often achieved success with young people that have been unable to sustain good behaviour in other settings. Youth workers often receive referrals from other services, Leaving Care, Safeguarding Services, Pupil Referral Units, etc. Very few young people have ever been banned or excluded from attending youth provision. Where there are sufficient trained youth workers good youth work takes place, this is based on mutually agreed ground rules, mutually agreed programme of activities and mutual respect.
                                                                                                        3.2.34 Educational Psychologists engage in direct intervention as well as preventative work too. They work with individual children who are challenging for schools (both within the Royal Borough and in special schools out-Borough,) by assessing and establishing their needs, difficulties and strengths, and supporting effective interventions. Sometimes they work with a young person over a period of time using particular approaches such as Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) to help them understand their difficulties and develop coping strategies. They usually work with pupils and their teachers at the same time to improve the chances of success. e.g. multi-family group work has been especially effective with hard to reach youngsters and their parent/carers). Working closely with parents helps to break down barriers and create real improvements. Schools and other agencies, as well as parents, value this highly. Sometimes they provide specialist group work (e.g. with hard to reach youngsters and their parent/carers, and Circles of Friends). Work with parents helps to break down barriers and create real improvements. Schools value this highly.
                                                                                                          3.2.35 The Behaviour Support Service consists of two teachers, two support staff, an Art Therapist, Key Stage 4 Project Worker and an Alternative Curriculum Co-ordinator. They are part of the Specialist Inclusion Services but work closely with the two Area Children and Young People’s Teams. The Behaviour Support Service provides intervention packages for students at risk of exclusion and re-integration support for those who have been excluded. They follow a “three wave” model:
                                                                                                          · Wave 1 – whole school training and intervention
                                                                                                          · Wave 2 - group or cohort intervention such as behaviour management strategies
                                                                                                          · Wave 3 – One-to-one support based on six week programme

                                                                                                          3.2.36 It is of concern to note that only 11 of the 38 permanently excluded children in 2006-7 suggesting that either the misdemeanours that led to their exclusion were unexpected and isolated incidents, and/or that schools chose not to refer for support.
                                                                                                            3.2.37 The Connexions Service is an advice, guidance and support agency provided for young people between the ages of 13-19 years (and up to 25 for disabled people). Two Connexions Personal Advisors specialise in deploying techniques that are designed to offer expert support to those at risk of social exclusion. There are three factors that determine the relevance and effectiveness of the service in tackling anti-social behaviour and promoting pro social behaviour:
                                                                                                            · Effective advice and guidance that helps young people to reconnect with community and reduce unemployment figures (which at 3.7% makes the Royal Borough a top performing authority).
                                                                                                            · Young people’s ability to make informed decisions. Personal Advisors offer support in a sympathetic and confidential manner – it’s often about “seizing the moment” to help young people re-engage with “normal” community life.
                                                                                                            · Thirdly, Personal Advisors meet with young people in accessible and neutral environments where positive relationships are developed and young people are responded to in ways that they think are important.
                                                                                                              3.2.38 For 2008-09 Specialist Inclusion Services are extending the Alternative Curriculum Package (ACE) to students in Year 11. Students will follow an alternative learning programme for part of the week in an institution other than their school base. The programme places an emphasis on collaboration between learning organisations and employers to support the statutory entitlement for work-related and work-based learning and enterprise skills. The aims of the programme are to promote equality and widen participation in education and deliver higher levels of success for students who are disengaged and/or at risk of exclusion. The students will follow the programme 3 days a week throughout Year 11:
                                                                                                              § One day a week students will participate in an extended work experience placement in one or two areas of interest to individual students.
                                                                                                              § During the other two days they will follow a predominantly vocational learning programme delivered at Brocket Pupil Referral Unit and Berkshire College of Agriculture offering them four accredited qualifications at Entry Level and/or Levels 1 and 2.
                                                                                                                3.2.39 The outcomes expected are that not only do students achieve recognised qualifications in vocational areas, but they will develop their knowledge and understanding at the work place enabling them to move forward into education, employment or training post 16.
                                                                                                                  3.2.40 Managed moves can be used by Headteachers as a way of giving a young person the chance of a fresh start away in a new school. The arrangement is made between Heads and the young person has an agreed period at the ‘new’ school before a decision is made as to whether the move is to be permanent.

                                                                                                                  3.2.41 The Royal Borough allocates £20,000 on an annual basis to the three Behaviour Partnerships between schools. In the past this money has been used to fund support assistant. Increasingly schools are choosing to target those children who are likely to find transition to secondary school difficult unless additional support and preparation are provided.

                                                                                                                  3.2.42 Specialist (“Tier 3”) Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) offer assessment, treatment and onward referral for specialist in-patient treatment for individual children and young people with significant mental health needs. They work with other services to provide consultation too (for children in care who have mental health needs, for example).

                                                                                                                  3.2.43 The Royal Borough has a dedicated Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) team. The main focus of the ASB team is to prevent ASB from occurring, whether through ensuring that positive diversionary activities are in place for the young people, or referring individuals to agencies who can provide them with tailor-made one-to-one support. The ASB team works very closely with the Police, Community and Youth Services, schools, the Youth Offending Team and community wardens. The team co-ordinates the information between agencies regarding individuals who are causing, or at risk of causing anti-social behaviour in the Royal Borough. In the case of young people who cause anti-social behaviour, they may be referred to Connexions (for intensive intervention, the Youth Service, the Youth Inclusion Support Panel (YISP) or other agencies. They may also be asked to sign a voluntary contract for a period of six months, known as an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC). This contract will contain a number of conditions such as “I will not intentionally cause damage to property which does not belong to me.” The young person will be praised half way through and at the end of successful completion of an ABC. However, if the young person fails to complete the ABC, they may be asked to sign another one; an ABC+, or they may be subjected to an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO). We currently have no ASBO’s for under 18’s in the Royal Borough. The ASB team’s policy is to only use this option as a last resort.
                                                                                                                    3.2.44 Jointly funded mental health promotion work includes various projects delivered to schools within the Royal Borough. One initiative involves creating, producing and implementing an insert for young people’s school planners or diaries. This includes telephone numbers and websites for most problems facing young people. In November 2007 an Anti-bullying Drama Workshop intervention was delivered to Dedworth Middle School for their year six pupils, consisting of three one-hour sessions, the aim of which was not only to reduce bullying but also to increase self esteem, respect for others and an understanding and the skills to deal with bullying. Through a successful lottery bid this type of work will continue, but far more extensively, as funding is now available over the next three years. A further six anti-bullying drama performances and workshops will be delivered to KS3 classes throughout the Royal Borough, each year.

                                                                                                                    Recent developments

                                                                                                                    3.2.45 The establishment of Area Teams in September 2007 provides an ideal opportunity to improve the co-ordination of both preventative and intervention work. The Area Team Leaders have implemented the practice of forming a “team around the child” for example when a child presents with complex anti-social behaviour. This is a network of relevant professionals co-ordinated by a lead professional to ensure that the family and school experience a joined up and timely response. Similarly, where particular challenges seem to exist at a school level, Area Team staff are convening a “team around the school” bringing together colleagues from different professional backgrounds to support the school.
                                                                                                                      3.2.46 Since September 2007 the headteachers and the Area Team Manager have been piloting a new initiative in Maidenhead called Rapid Response. There is an agreement that in cases of ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’ there will be an urgent round table discussion looking at alternatives to permanent exclusion in particular cases. This has proved to be effective in a number of instances and will now be rolled out to Windsor. At least 12 young people who may well have been excluded have been kept in some form of educational placement.
                                                                                                                        3.2.47 By definition, bullying is an example of anti-social behaviour. Schools are required to have anti-bullying policies. Bullying Strategy has enabled us to provide a co-ordinated lead for our schools, produce data by surveying pupils in schools, and raise awareness of new types of bullying such as “cyber bullying” (via mobile phones or the internet). Web-based software has recently been purchased that will enable individual schools to record and analyse information about bullying incidents. It will also enable children to report bullying using the internet. Royal Borough officers will be able to synthesise information across schools and thus identify “hot spots” for action.

                                                                                                                        Future Developments

                                                                                                                        3.2.48 This section sets out recommended actions that arise from the above information.
                                                                                                                          3.2.49 Despite the successful co-location of Area Teams, the Team Leaders are committed to capturing more benefits of well co-ordinated multi-professional work to prevent anti social behaviour and promote pro social behaviour. Greater use of the CAF (Common Assessment Framework) will facilitate this process. Action: the CAF should become the main way of accessing joined-up support from Area Team staff.
                                                                                                                            3.2.50 The work of the Youth Service has been noted above, but there is further scope for involving youth workers in schools to promote pro social behaviour. Action: Area Team Managers will work with senior youth workers to increase delivery in partnership with schools.
                                                                                                                              3.2.51 There is a need for a review of Specialist Inclusion Services to ensure that schools are supported to include children effectively. This will impact on the Behaviour Support Service and will provide an opportunity for all the Specialist Inclusion Services to become more closely aligned with the work of Area Teams. Action: the Head of Children’s Commissioning will lead a review of Specialist Inclusion Services.

                                                                                                                              3.2.52 There is a lack of staff in Area Teams who can undertake family based interventions in relation to anti-social behaviour. Closer partnership with Family Friends is particularly important. It may be that they can deliver this expertise. Action: the Children and Young People’s Management Team will identify colleagues who can be commissioned to deliver family based interventions.

                                                                                                                              3.2.53 As part of the new CAMHS commissioning arrangements it is intended to co-ordinate service provision more effectively through a new model for supporting schools and pupils. In part, this new approach involves the appointment of two primary mental health workers who will be able to work preventatively with children who are at risk, and to collaborate with more specialist CAMHS workers when the needs indicate that such intervention is necessary. In addition, under the comprehensive CAMHS umbrella, a joint project with Slough for babies at risk and their parents has recently begun through a partnership with health and services (called Watch, Wait and Wonder). Action: the Head of Children’s Commissioning will develop proposals to employ primary mental health workers using the CAMHS grant.

                                                                                                                              3.2.54 There are also some families whose children are at risk of developing anti-social behaviour because of a parental history of substance misuse, mental health issues and offending behaviour. It is hoped that a partnership with the Family Welfare Association, who specialise in this work, can be established to benefit such families living within the Royal Borough. Action: the Head of Children’s Commissioning and the Head of Specialist and Safeguarding Services will work with Family Welfare Association to deliver services to the most vulnerable families.

                                                                                                                              3.2.55 Schools Forum has a significant underspend of the Dedicated Schools Grant that now amounts to around £400,000. Rather than use it to fund a range of services suggested by some headteachers, the current plan is to develop three new projects to help prevent exclusion. Area Team Managers will develop proposals in partnership with headteachers for consideration by Schools Forum.

                                                                                                                              3.2.56 There are particular problems in supporting out-of-Borough children who attend our schools and exhibit anti-social behaviour. They form a disproportionate number of our excluded children. Action: the Head of Services for Children and Young People and the Area Team Managers will hold discussions notably with colleagues from Slough, to identify how improvements could be secured.








                                                                                                                              3.3 Options Available and Risk Assessment


                                                                                                                                OptionComments
                                                                                                                                1. To note the facts, current work and future developments in this reportIt is helpful for Members to have an overview of behaviour in schools as this is critical to reducing anti-social behaviour in our communities as well as raising achievements
                                                                                                                                2. To do nothingThis is not the recommended action
                                                                                                                                No further risk assessment has been undertaken as this report is for information.

                                                                                                                              3.4 Relevant National/Regional Guidance
                                                                                                                                Ofsted publishes summary reports on behaviour e.g. Managing Challenging Behaviour (2005). The last major national enquiry into behaviour in schools was commissioned by Rt Hon Ken Baker when he was Secretary of State for Education in March 1988. Running to almost 300 pages, the “Elton Report” (named after its author Lord Elton) remains an excellent overview of the issues and implications almost 20 years later.

                                                                                                                                Learning Behaviour was published in 2005 and gives updated recommendations based on the work of a “Practitioners’ Group chaired by Sir Alan Steer. In December 2007, the present Government asked Sir Alan Steer to undertake another major national review. His initial response was published in March 2008 and is appended to this report (Appendix A).
                                                                                                                              3.5 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies
                                                                                                                                · Anti-bullying strategy
                                                                                                                                · CAMHS Strategy
                                                                                                                                · Inclusion strategy
                                                                                                                                  Relevant?
                                                                                                                                  Yes / No
                                                                                                                                  Key Themes:
                                                                                                                                  getting aboutNo
                                                                                                                                  learning for life Yes
                                                                                                                                  being safe and secureYes
                                                                                                                                  caring and healthYes
                                                                                                                                  living and working in a good place.Yes
                                                                                                                                  Guiding Principles:
                                                                                                                                  working togetherYes
                                                                                                                                  leaving no one behind Yes
                                                                                                                                  involving people Yes
                                                                                                                                  safeguarding the young Yes






                                                                                                                                4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT
                                                                                                                                    In preparation for this report headteachers were consulted at the Director’s meeting in January. Appendix B summarises their responses.

                                                                                                                                5. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL
                                                                                                                                  6. IMPLICATIONS
                                                                                                                                    6.1 Financial

                                                                                                                                      There are no immediate financial implications arising from this report.
                                                                                                                                    6.2 Legal
                                                                                                                                      The services provided to support and improve pupil behaviour are permitted by the various Education Acts, as amended.
                                                                                                                                        6.3 Human Rights Act

                                                                                                                                          The Convention Right under the Human Rights Act relevant to this report is Article 2 of the First Protocol, i.e. The right to education

                                                                                                                                        6.4 Planning

                                                                                                                                          There are no immediate planning issues arising from this report.

                                                                                                                                        6.5 Sustainable Development
                                                                                                                                          In terms of the Council’s Sustainable Development Policy, the recommendations in this report have no significantly adverse or beneficial sustainable development implications
                                                                                                                                        6.6 Diversity and Equality
                                                                                                                                            In terms of the Council’s Equality Impact Assessment Policy, the recommendations in this report have no negative equality and diversity implications.

                                                                                                                                            Background Papers: None