Portsmouth City Council
Draft ‘School Vision and Strategy’
Consultation period until 31 July 2011
1. / Vision1.1 / The educational vision for the city is that:
· All institutions will take collective responsibility for all the improved outcomes of all the children in the city
· The best collective interests of young people in the city are more important than that of any institution
· 0 – 19 education in the city will be inclusive and organised to enable young people to avoid transition dips
· All schools have a common intent to work together to share good practice, actively address under-performance and support schools in challenging circumstances
This vision will drive the strategy, the use of resources and underpin all key decisions.
2. / Improvement Trajectory
2.1 / The proposed improvement trajectory for raising standards for academic years 2011/12 and 2012/13 will be based on the premise that all schools can and should be able to match the performance of the best schools in Portsmouth in terms of adding value or progress at KS2 & KS4.
This added value has been measured by looking at the “starting” APS of students in each school at Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 and comparing this to each school’s percentage achieving expected outcomes at either Key Stage 2 or Key Stage 4 as appropriate. This information is plotted on a graph and a line of best performance can be drawn between high performing schools with different intakes.
This becomes the “line of aspiration” which all schools are required to reach or exceed in the next two years. This will ensure that Portsmouth students should all make progress in line with students in the best-performing schools in the city.
The advantages of this approach are that:
· It is Portsmouth based and reflects local issues and achievements
· It is progress rather than an attainment based so reflecting the measured ability of the actual students in the year groups
· It will provide a short term challenge to all schools to match up to the best performing local schools
· It will provide time to investigate and embed a more strategic cluster based approach to future target setting
2.2 / The proposed targets for 2011/12 and 2012/13 based on the “line of aspiration” are:
KS4
2011/12 53% 2012/13 57% (2010 National average 53%)
KS2
2011/12 72.4% 2012/13 72.7% (2010 National Average 73%)
2.3 / The proposed associated school by school KS2 and KS4 expectations are being consulted with schools.
2.4 / Further future work is required to set targets for the City’s Special Schools.
3. / Roles and Responsibilities of Schools and LA
3.1 / As a result of the White Paper, Comprehensive Spending Review and School/LA discussions the following respective future revised roles and responsibilities are as follows:
· Schools have prime responsibility for improving:
o Attainment
o Teaching and learning
o Behaviour
o Attendance
In line with the above improvement trajectory for Portsmouth
· LA has prime responsibility for challenging and where necessary intervening re school:
o Governance
o Leadership and management
If any school does not improve in line with the improvement trajectory for Portsmouth.
4. / Schools Partnership Working
4.1 / The achievement of the above improvement trajectory will be supported by the following range of partnership working:-
· 7 Primary /Secondary Clusters i.e.:
o ALNS, Copnor Infant / Junior, Gatcombe Park Primary, Westover Primary
o Charter Academy, City of Portsmouth Girls’, St Jude’s Primary, Cottage Grove Primary, Arundel Court Infant /Junior, Flying Bull Primary, Charles Dickens Infant /Junior, Somers Park Primary, St George’s Primary, St John’s Primary
o King Richard, Medina Primary, Paulsgrove Primary, Portsdown Primary, Victory Primary, St Paul’s Primary
o Mayfield, City of Portsmouth Boys’, College Park Infant, Isambard Brunel Junior, Meredith Infant, Lyndhurst Junior, Manor Infant, Newbridge Junior, Penhale Infant, Stamshaw Infant /Junior, Northern Parade Infant /Junior, Corpus Christi Primary
o Miltoncross, Langstone Infant /Junior, Meon Infant /Junior, Milton Park Infant /Junior, Moorings Way Infant
o Priory, Craneswater Junior, Cumberland Infant, Southsea Infant, Devonshire Infant, Fernhurst Junior, Goldsmith Infant, Brambles Nursery, Wimborne Infant /Junior, St Swithun’s Primary
o Springfield, Court Lane Infant /Junior, Highbury Primary, Solent Infant /Junior
· Secondary collaboration:
ALNS, City of Portsmouth Boys’, City of Portsmouth Girls’, Mayfield, Miltoncross, Priory and Portsmouth College
· Roman Catholic Schools:
Corpus Christi Primary, St John’s Primary, St Paul’s Primary, St Swithun’s Primary and St Edmund’s
· Special Schools:
Mary Rose, Redwood, Harbour, Cliffdale and Willows Nursery
· Extensive focussed school partnership working
· Cross cluster initiatives
· Working with schools outside of the City
4.2 / In addition the Primary/Secondary Clusters have agreed to give targeted support to their schools who:-
- are likely to be below the 2011 Floor Targets
- have been judged by Ofsted to need ‘special measures’
- have been given a ‘notice to improve’ by Ofsted
- have been judged making ‘inadequate progress’ by Ofsted
- have been categorised 3 (b) or 4 by the Local Authority
5. / School Organisation
5.1 / The two proposed bases for considering the future amalgamation of infant, junior primary and secondary schools are:
- to address/improve education under performance
- to improve efficient value for money delivery of education in the City
6. / Academy Framework
6.1 / The City recognises that many schools in the City are actively considering becoming Academies.
The City would wish to avoid a large number of different academy providers within the City (with increased risk of reduced collaborative working, higher exclusions etc.) but instead seek to actively develop links with 2 or 3 “preferred” Academy sponsors/providers who:
· Share Portsmouth’s vision to improve standards and significantly raise attainment
· Can demonstrate a good track record for staff and pupils alike
· Are committed to delivering the Schools Strategy
· Will take responsibility for a Primary/Secondary cluster, as described above.
· Have a track record of delivering improvements in Schools serving the most deprived wards (i.e. poorest 10% of wards) in England.
· Can demonstrate through their plans that they have the local capacity to support schools in Portsmouth.
6.2 / The City believes that this incremental ‘cluster based’ development of academies in the City will better support the drive to improve standards, rather than imposed isolated single school academies.
7. / Pupil Place Planning
7.1 / To address the short term ‘dip’ in secondary school pupil numbers, with the following planned reduction in Published Admission Limits from September 2012 to September 2016.
Consultation will start shortly for changes to PAL for September 2012, 2013 and 2014.
Secondary School / Current
PAL / Sept 2012
PAL / Sept 2013/14/15/16
PAL / Sept 2017 and thereafter PAL
ALNS / 200 / 180 / 180 / 200
CofPB / 197 / 150 / 150 / 197
CofPG / 200 / 180 / 180 / 200
King Richard / 216 / 180 / 180 / 216
Mayfield / 240 / 220 / 200 / 240
Miltoncross / 200 / 180 / 180 / 200
Priory / 250 / 220 / 220 / 250
Springfield / 220 / 220 / 220 / 220
St Edmunds / 189 / 189 / 189 / 189
Charter / 120 / 120 / 120 / 120
TOTAL PAL / 2032 / 1839 / 1819 / 2032
Overall net capacity / 10,160 / 9,195 / 9,095 / 10,160
7.2 / Whilst in the short /medium term there are sufficient school places across the City, there will be a need to:
· Regularly monitor local changes in demographics, school popularity.
· Undertake a strategic review of school places and catchment areas in light of the known timing, scale and nature of proposed major developments within the City e.g. Tipner
· Monitor the impact of any significant new provision e.g. University Technical College
8. / Improving Support to Pupils with SEN
8.1 / There are 5 work areas currently in progress to improve support to pupils with SEN both in mainstream and special school settings i.e.:
8.1.1. / There is a comprehensive citywide training plan being developed to enable all schools to meet the behavioural needs of pupils.
8.1.2. / There is a strong concentrated action to meet the needs of pupils with BESD increasingly in mainstream settings.
8.1.3. / A proposal is being developed to establish a provision for pupils with severe autism in the city. The group will than review the needs for ASD mainstream /unit /special school practise across the city.
8.1.4. / Better early identification, planning and placement of SEN needs within the city including the statement of process.
8.1.5. / To develop a comprehensive pupil support outreach service from the 5 special schools and resourced provision to ensure effective inclusion of pupils with SEN and mainstream schools.
8.2 / The detailed action plans for each of these work areas are attached as appendices 1-5.
8.3 / During 2011/12 there is the need to review the adequacy of the City’s resourced units in schools, to meet the spectrum of SEN needs across all age ranges.
9 / Capital Strategy
9.1 / The current position re Capital Resources is as follows:-
9.1.1 / Department for Education
· Are yet to make a response to the James Review into Education Capital Funding and spending (see Appendix 6)
· are advising the future capital priorities will be:
o Basic Need (i.e. insufficient school places in the area)
o Major Condition issues
· Advising Academies that:
o Building Bulletin 98 requirements are being removed with the assumption that schools can be 10 – 20 % smaller
o PfS Framework Contractors are being expected to significantly reduce their unit constraints
· Continuing 2011/12 funding to LA’s at similar level to 2010/11, but schools devolved capital funding has reduced by some 80%.
9.1.2 / Portsmouth City Council
· 2011/12 DfE capital funding has been used to support Primary Capital Programme, and £2.5m Modernisation Programme to address issues likely to cause school closures.
· The previous BSF capital programmes funds, whilst remaining, is not funded within the revenue budget. Moreover in PCCs projected financial position of needing a further £25m revenue savings over the next three years, it will be difficult to sustain the argument to use prudential borrowing to find major capital expenditure as previously envisaged.
9.1.3 / Schools
· As stated above 2011/12 school developed capital is some 20% of the 2010/11 level and could not generate or contribute the £3m previously envisaged under BSF.
· The Schools Forum have indicated that given the significant pressure on the Dedicated Schools Grant /schools budgets over the next few years then any savings should be redistributed to Schools rather than being used to underwrite capital expenditure.
· In April 2011 the Schools Forum agreed to return to schools all of their BSF capital funding being retained by PCC to enable urgent repair works in summer 2011.
9.1.4 / Summary
· At present therefore there is no funding available to support estate strategy as previously envisaged and set out below
· It is likely that PCC will have to consider how best to manage the suggested condition issues at King Richard and Arundel Court sites, in the absence of significant additional Government funding.
10. / Citywide School ICT Provision
10.1
10.2 / As part of the BSF process there was extensive discussions with both Primary and Secondary schools re the development of a City wide school ICT system, which would integrate:
· Learning resources
· Basic functions – email, diary etc
· Management Information systems I including attendance, attainment etc.
The estimated cost of developing and implementing such a City wide provision is £4m.
Given the above it is increasingly unlikely that PCC/Schools will have the necessary funding to develop such a system, on 16 February 2011 the ICT Steering Group agreed that the workstream 5 should undertake a soft market test exercise to determine the likely costs to schools if such a private company were to fund the development/ implementation and charge schools each year.
In April 2011 the ICT Steering group based on initial indicative prices from a leading provider decided that this would not be an affordable or value for money way forward for schools.
APPENDIX 1
Report from School Strategy Work Package 4 (SSWP4) Subgroup 1: To further develop a city wide plan for training school staff to meet the BESD Needs of pupils in Portsmouth.
Introduction
SSWP4 Subgroup 1 was given the aim to recommend the way forward on how to further develop a city wide plan for training school staff to meet the BESD Needs of pupils in Portsmouth. A priority which was identified by schools at the Behaviour and Attendance Group (BAG) Conference in Oct 2010.
The subgroup reported to SSWP4 which has the overall aim of recommending how the needs of a larger number of pupils with SEN will better be met within mainstream settings and how the special school sector can provide an improved range of outreach support to mainstream schools.
The members of the subgroup have been Deamonn Hewitt-Dale, Roberta Kirby, Jan Hobson, Moira Howarth and Ian Hunkin.
The recommendations from the group are presented in this report in the following 5 areas:
1. Improved communication to schools regarding the training available for staff regarding meeting the needs of pupils with BESD Needs.
2. Quality control of training to take account of research evidence of the factors which lead to effective training.
3. Promoting school self-review leading to action planning.
4. Sharing best practice with regard to transition support.
5. Further develop staff training in identified key areas.
Recommended Ways Forward:
1. Improved communication to schools regarding the training available for staff regarding meeting the needs of pupils with BESD Needs. By July 2011
Schools will receive a single document summarising the training available in Portsmouth with regard to meeting the needs of pupils with BESD Needs. This document includes information for each of the training areas available on the learning outcomes for staff, the time commitment, cost (if any), evidence base and the how to book training places (ACTION: MABS to produce a booklet of information and circulate to schools by the end of the summer term 2011).