Schools of...

The last eighteen years of centralgovernment reforms havetransformed the role of the localauthority in promoting bettereducational outcomes.

As the dust clears after the Education andInspections Act, we need to re-imagine therole of the local authority. Schools of Thought:How local authorities drive improvedoutcomes in education identifies the coreskills that local authorities need to succeed inthis new environment and makesrecommendations about how to spread theseskills across the whole country.

Focusing on case studies from twelve localauthorities, the report assesses the role oflocal authorities under the new Act andargues that due to their democraticaccountability, they are well-placed to take aholistic and joined-up approach to promotingbetter educational outcomes, ensuring thatchildren arrive in the classroom in a fit stateto learn.

www.nlgn.org.ukPrice £12 · ISBN 1 903 447 58 5

Schools of ThoughtHow local authorities drive

improved outcomes in education

Kiran Dhillon

Scho

ols

of

Tho

ught

·How

localauthoritiesdrive

improved

outcomes

ineducation

·KiranD

hillon

SUPPORTED BY

The New Local Government Network (NLGN) is an independent think tank that seeks totransform public services, revitalise local political leadership and empower local communities.NLGN is publishing this collection as part of its programme of research and innovative policyprojects, which we hope will be of use to policy makers and practitioners. The views expressedare however those of the authors and not necessarily those of NLGN.

© NLGN October 2006All rights reservedPublished by NLGNISBN 1 903 447 58 5

Prepared and printed by NLGNFirst Floor · New City Court · 20 St. Thomas Street · London SE1 9RSTel 020 7357 0051 · Email [email protected] · www.nlgn.org.uk

Mayors making a difference Vix gulosus agricolaeinfeliciter

Acknowledgements Mayors making a difference 3Mayors making a difference Vix gulosus agricolaeinfeliciter

Schools of Thought Contents 3

Contents

About the author and ackowledgements 4

Foreword 5Phil Hope, MP

Executive summary 6

1 Introduction 10

2 Methodology 14

3 Policy context 15

4 Exploring the role of the local authority 25

5 Case studies 29

6 In practice – the role of local authorities in education 54

7 In practice – mechanisms of influence to promoteeducational outcomes 68

8 The future – after the Act 73

9 Conclusions and recommendations 76

Appendix 1 Bibliography and references 80

Appendix 2 Case study participants 83

Appendix 3 Steering group membersand expert seminar participants 84

Partners 86

Schools of Thought About the author and acknowledgements4

About the author and acknowledgements

Kiran Dhillon

Kiran Dhillon is a Senior Researcher at NLGN and has responsibility for workingacross the think tank’s research programme. Kiran joined in September 2004and was previously responsible for running NLGN’s Innovation Network andMayoral Forum. Prior to working at NLGN she worked for two years at a localauthority in London.

Kiran is co-author of the NLGN report Making Community Leadership Real(with Anna Randle, April 2005) and edited and contributed to a collection ofessays Mayors Making a Difference (March 2006).

Acknowledgements

A number of individuals from within and beyond local government havecontributed to the making of this report. I would like to thank all case studyinterviewees for giving up their valuable time. Thanks also to those at LancashireCounty Council. Whilst we have not reported a complete case study fromLancashire, their insights have influenced our conclusions.

NLGN extends its gratitude to the project sponsors – Amey, CambridgeEducation Services and Serco – for their financial and intellectual support withoutwhom the report would not have been possible. NLGN would particularly like tothank Tony Barry, Tony Smith and Elaine Simpson. Also thanks to Alan Dyson whobought his immense experience to bear in his role of consultant to the report.

I would also like to thank my colleague Dick Sorabji for his detailed andconstructive comments and for helping to bring this report together. Thanks alsoto Chris Butler, Tom Hunt and Lucy Mott for their research assistance at differentstages of the report.

Most importantly I would like to thank Madeleine Sumption for her work andresearch in the early stages of the report. Madeleine developed the researchbrief, designed the research methodology and undertook the first phase offieldwork. Her contribution underpins this report.

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought Foreword 5

Foreword

Having spent significant time in committee as a Minister during the passage ofthe Education and Inspection Bill during 2006, I appreciate the importance ofstriking the right balance between changing the management of our educationsystem, and keeping in tact those aspects which work and which need support. Itis now clear that the role of local democracy in overseeing schooling andeducation will be evolving in a new era. While the Government is keen for localauthorities to lead a strong and accountable commissioning process, we mustnow make sure that both elected members and officers are clear about theirpowers and confident in their new role.

The Government is keen for local authorities to play a part in shaping the wholearray of children’s services and educational provision for their communities. Asrepresentatives of parents and residents, local authorities will know theimportance of giving greater choice and flexibilities, of encouraging greaterparental involvement and of always ensuring that children’s best interests comeat the top of the policy agenda.

As this report emphasises, there remains a need for local authorities to workcollaboratively with parents, schools and other stakeholders across a communityto ensure that more key partners have a stake in the educational activities takingplace in their neighbourhood. These issues extend into wider questions of socialcohesion and democratic accountability.

In this report the New Local Government Network have thoroughly tested theviews of many and various local authorities, looking closely at attitudes towardsschool performance, collaboration between schools, weighing opinion aboutTrust schools and crucially exploring where the key players feel more work needsto be done. While this report and its conclusions do not represent Governmentpolicy, I am delighted that we are seeing here a clearer picture of the task athand, and I am keen to study the analysis and recommendations further.

Phil Hope MPParliamentary Under Secretary of State, DfES

Executive summary

The last eighteen years of central government reforms havetransformed the role of the local authority in promoting bettereducational outcomes. As the dust clears after the Education andInspections Act, we need to re-imagine the role of the localauthority. This report identifies the core skills that localauthorities need to succeed in this new environment and makesrecommendations about how to spread these skills across thewhole country.

Introduction

• The Government’s recent White Paper and Education and Inspections Bill2006 reignited the debate about the role of local government in education.

• Local government has a key role, in their work with and outside schools todrive better education outcomes. However, reforms since 1988 havetransformed the roles and responsibilities of the local authority.

• Today, local authorities’ role in education is less about having a monopoly ofpower and more about leadership, influence, challenge and co-ordination. Itinvolves the local authority setting the strategic framework for a range ofproviders; both internal and external

• This report explores the changing role of local authorities in education andhow they are responding to the challenges.

Policy context

• Policy developments since the late 1980s have increased the autonomy ofschools, promoted the diversity of school providers and enhanced choice andvoice of service users over education, as a means of driving up educationalstandards.

• Since 1997 the Labour Government has also extended national control,through centralised standards and target setting, audit and inspection.

Schools of Thought Executive summary6

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought Executive summary 7

• The limitations of top down management have prompted government to lookat the way that the school system is organised. There has been a move to‘choice and contestability’ as a way of driving up attainment.

• Alongside these developments in schools policy, there is also increasingemphasis on both ‘early years’ intervention and integrated services, to ensurethat children arrive at school in a fit state to learn.

• This wider responsibility for children and young people affects how localauthorities address and promote educational outcomes.

Exploring the role of the local authority

• What is the scope of their role in promoting outcomes in education?

• How do local authorities work with schools: do they take a directive orpersuasive approach towards schools?

• What is the role of local government in relation to national government: dothey implement or interpret national policy?

• What are the local factors that determine their style of approach?

• What is the unique role of a democratically elected local tier and how is localdemocracy important in promoting educational attainment?

• What new skills do local authorities need to deliver better outcomes throughinfluence – not instruction?

In practice – the role of local authorities in education

• Local authorities are promoting educational outcomes by:

- taking a ‘whole-child’ approach;

- joining-up a network of local partners;

- acting as a strategic commissioner;

- developing their market management skills;

- ensuring quality assurance, intervening when performance is under par; and

- acting as a parent or child ‘champion’.

• Local authorities see the advantages of school autonomy and take apersuasive approach to driving outcomes in education.

• Local authorities interpret national policy and tailor it to suit localcircumstances.

• Local authorities see a ‘family of schools’ approach as vital to securingoutcomes in education for all children.

• Their democratic mandate gives councils the unique credibility required totake difficult decisions affecting the entire area. It creates the mandate to playa joining-up role and to create a ‘family of schools’ approach to improvededucational outcomes.

In practice – mechanisms of influence to promote educationaloutcomes

• Local authorities look to create a ‘family’ approach to improved educationaloutcomes.

• Ten levers of influence are the core competence of local authorities in the neweducational environment.

The future – after the Act

• It is not yet clear how Trust schools will operate and how they will affect thecollaborative ‘family of schools’ approach.

Conclusion and recommendations

• Local authorities in this study have adapted to a pluralist environment, wherethey are comfortable with the fragmentation of responsibilities. They arediscovering a new role at the centre of a local network of partners, holding the‘family of schools’ together. This practice needs to be more wide spread.

• To drive improvement and spread the new competences across all localauthorities NLGN recommend that:

- the local government family should be given a time-limited task to raiseinfluencing skills, prior to more directive action by DfES;

Schools of Thought Executive summary8

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought Executive summary 9

- joint area reviews should assess the competence of local authorities tomanage a diversity of supply and to create shared goals across the family ofschools in their area;

- local authorities should proactively identify a pool of potential Trust schoolsponsors and build relationships with them to strengthen the ‘family ofschools’ approach, so reducing the risk of future cultural conflicts betweenschools;

- government should introduce a duty on local partners, including schools, toco-operate with the local authorities ‘duty’ of well-being; and

- individual school inspection by Ofsted should introduce a new assessment tomeasure and recognise individual schools’ contribution to the success ofschools in their area.

Schools of Thought Introduction10

1 Introduction

Despite the improvements in performance of the school systemover the past few years, it continues to fall short of thegovernment’s expectations. The last decade has seen apparentsolid improvements in standards, particularly numeracy andliteracy, yet this success is tempered by the concern that not allpupils are reaching their potential.1

The UK still has a significant number of schools where standards of achievementare low. Educational under-achievement continues to persist in certain groups ofsociety and the education system risks marginalising certain groups, for instance,the socio-economically disadvantaged and ethnic minority groups. Significantnumbers of children continue to leave school with no qualifications.2 A StrategyUnit report in 2001 suggested that ‘there will be 3.5 million adults with noqualifications – whilst employers will need 2 million more highly skilled workersthan today.’3 The UK economy faces competition not just from France andGermany but also from China and India. An adequately skilled workforce will becrucial. Yet according to a Department for Education and Skills (DfES) report in2006, the proportion of young people in the UK staying on in education andtraining post-16 is low: the UK currently ranks 24th out of 29 developednations.4

Schools are operating in a challenging social and cultural context: fragmentedfamily lives, high social mobility, a more diverse population and a shortage ofhead teachers.5 Against these challenges public expectation of services isincreasing. Citizens are more demanding and dissatisfaction may mean that theyopt out of state school provision for the independent sector. These trendstogether have created pressure to improve standards for all children in publicly-funded school provision.

1 Department for Education and Skills (2005) White Paper, Higher Standards, Better Schools For All:More choice for parents and pupils, London: HMSO2 Ibid3 Strategy Unit (2001) Education Strategy Review4 Department for Education and Skills (2006) Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances,London: HMSO see also CBI (2006) Working on the Three Rs, London: HMSO5 Hill R (2006) Leadership that Lasts, London

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought Introduction 11

Local government has a key role in their work with and outside schools to drivebetter education outcomes. However, a plethora of reforms over the last20 years has dramatically changed the roles and responsibilities of the localeducation authority. Since the 1988 Education Reform Act (ERA), councils havelost the power to manage schools directly. With many of their formal powersreduced, they have also lost the power to influence schools through inspectionand funding levers. The trend of national reforms since then further reduced localauthorities’ ability to direct schools. Most recently, the Education and InspectionsBill 2006 has challenged the role for local authorities in delivering education orcontrolling schools.

This does not, however, mean that the role of the local government is redundant.Their sense of place, overarching responsibilities and ability to bring localpartners together, means that local authorities are uniquely placed to addresseducational outcomes. Local authorities still have an important role to play ineducation but it is less about having a monopoly of power and more aboutleadership, vision, influence, challenge and co-ordination. It involves the localauthority setting the strategic framework for a range of providers, internal andexternal, to work within. This changing role for local authorities has created manychallenges as it is much more difficult to influence a pluralist system, wherepowers and responsibilities are diffused.

This report will explore the changing role of local authorities in driving up schooleducation outcomes in their areas, and how they are undertaking it in practice –both in the scope of their role and their style of approach.

The report is focused on local authorities and their relationship with schools. Itwill examine how effectively local authorities have adapted to an environmentwhere they no longer manage schools directly. The report investigates whatapproach they are taking to working with schools to drive up educationalattainment. We will explore whether there are any emerging models of how localauthorities are undertaking this role.

Local government has a duty to promote the economic, social and environmentalwell-being of their localities. Education of children and young people isinextricably linked to the other local public services and there is a need forgreater joined-up local governance. There is an increasing recognition that achild’s educational development is dependent on factors outside the classroom,

Schools of Thought Introduction12

as recognised by the ECM agenda.6 Education is now seen in the context of thisagenda, that is, as being concerned with a range of outcomes that cannot simplybe restricted to attainment as measured in national tests and examinations.

Schools cannot solve problems on their own. Local authorities, with theiroverarching and cross-cutting responsibilities, are well placed to influence allaspects of a child’s development, ensuring that children arrive in the classroomin a fit state to learn. Sometimes this will be through control of services but oftenthis too depends on influence and co-ordination of local partners. The widerstrategic role of local authorities to raise achievement of children and youngpeople will also be considered.

It is worth noting that the role of local government more generally is currentlyunder review. Alongside the 2006 Local Government White Paper, the LyonsInquiry has been commissioned to look at the function and funding of localgovernment.

It is now widely accepted that the role of local government has shifted from itstraditional service provider role to one of a community leader, articulating avision for an area, bringing local partners together and engaging citizens. TheLyons Inquiry’s interim report published in April 2006 articulated a place-shaping role for local authorities ‘as the voice of a whole community and as anagent of place.’ It goes on to say:

“...place-shaping reflects my view that the ultimate purpose of localgovernment should be to take responsibility for the well-being of anarea and its communities, reflecting its distinctive identity, andpromoting its interests and future prosperity. It involves a focus ondeveloping the economic, social and environmental well-being of thelocal community and the local area. It therefore requires councils totake responsibility for influencing and affecting things beyond theirmore narrowly defined service responsibilities...”7

The changing role of local authorities in education should therefore be seen inlight of the wider changes to their role: it is not only a provider but a strategiccommissioner, a leader and facilitator.

6 Department for Education (2004) Every Child Matters, London: HMSO 7 Lyons Inquiry (2006) National prosperity, local choice, and civic engagement: a new partnershipbetween central and local government for the 21st century, London: HMSO

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought Introduction 13

This report will highlight the role of local authorities and their importance indriving educational outcomes. It will provide some examples of best practice,show the managerial and political skills needed to adopt good practice and makewider recommendations for reform that will further support and encourage localauthorities to strengthen their support for educational attainment.

Project aims

• To identify the unique role of local authorities in promoting outcomes ineducation for children and young people

• To explore how they are approaching their role with regard to schools

• To identify successful models emerging from local authorities

• To identify political and managerial skills for best practice

• To apply these lessons to a post Education and Inspections Bill environment

• To make recommendations for reform to stakeholders

Schools of Thought Methodology14

2 Methodology

This report is based on a series of case study interviews in 12local authorities focused on interviews with practitioners anddecision-makers. Each case study included an interview with anofficer, a councillor and a school head teacher. Intervieweesincluded chief executives, directors of children’s services, leadofficers for school improvement, council leaders and lead portfolioholders for children and young people.

In addition at least one school head teacher was interviewed for each case studyauthority. A majority of the interviews were held in person and the remainderwere conducted over the telephone. The selection of case studies was guided bythe project’s steering group, expert policy seminars and desk research, toidentify emerging examples of good practice. Further details can be found in theappendices. The report draws directly on case study interviews, with quotesattributed where appropriate.

The case studies reflected a range of authority types (e.g. unitary, county,metropolitan, London borough), size of authority (e.g. small, medium, large),political control, economic status, region and rurality.

An ‘expert seminar’ held by NLGN was attended by local authority practitioners,private sector organisations and officials from the Department for Education andSkills (DfES). The involvement of these bodies helped inform the overall narrativeof the research.

A draft copy of this report was also reviewed and commented upon by thesteering group and the case study participants.

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought Policy context 15

3 Policy context

This chapter outlines the current context for education policy,particularly schools policy. We will examine the impetus behind theEducation and Inspections Bill 2006 and other key policydevelopments and the role that these developments delineate forlocal authorities.

The role of the local authorities in schools, as well as other areas of provision, ismoving away from delivery to strategy and oversight. The current policy contexthas been formed by recent legislation and government papers which have placedduties on local authorities which reflect their new role. In particular, Every ChildMatters (2004), the Childcare Bill (2005), 14-19 strategy (2005) and mostrecently the Education and Inspections Bill (2006).

History

Changes in the role of local authorities were set in motion over 20 years ago. It ishelpful to briefly chart the historical developments in school policy.

The education system was set up in the context of an assumption that the welfarestate is responsible for meeting the needs of citizens through democraticallyaccountable action, and that the market place was not an appropriate guarantorof the public interest.8 The quality of democratic state provision started to beseriously questioned following Jim Callaghan’s Ruskin College Speech in 1976.He warned that British schools were failing to prepare children for the modernworld:

“...complaints from industry that new recruits from the schoolsometimes do not have the basic tools to do the job... there is concernabout the standards of numeracy of school leavers... there is the uneasefelt by parents and others about the new, informal methods of teachingwhich seem to produce excellent results when they are in well-qualifiedhands but are more dubious when they are not...”9

8 Butler’s 1944 Education Act was an attempt to create the structure for the post-war British educationsystem. The act raised the school-leaving age to 15 and provided universal free schooling in threedifferent types of schools; grammar, secondary modern and technical. 9 Speech by former Prime Minister Jim Callaghan to Ruskin College, Oxford, on October 18 1976.

Schools of Thought Policy context16

The speech pushed education up the agenda in the UK. It started an open debateabout whether a publicly managed system was meeting the needs of users. Thisin turn led to consideration as to whether there was a place for market principlesof choice and competition in schools to help achieve this goal.

School autonomy, quasi-markets and competition

The 1980s and 90s saw the development of quasi-markets in the public sector.In essence this meant that government bureaucracies began to lose theirmonopoly on public services. These bureaucracies were broken up and replacedby state purchasers who contracted with independent providers to provideservices. The idea was to introduce an element of competition, a market in thesense of independent providers competing with one another for contracts frompurchasers. They operated in a quasi-market because the purchasing powerwould come from the state rather than directly from the customer.

The quasi-market reform in education was realised with the 1988 EducationReform Act (ERA), where Local Management of Schools (LMS) was introduced.Control of primary and secondary schools’ budgets and other important decision-making responsibilities were taken away from local education authorities andgiven to schools themselves. Choice was enhanced in a number of ways: byspelling out the rights of parents and students to choose their own schools, bygiving schools the right to ‘opt out’ of local authority control altogether andbecoming grant maintained (which meant that they were directly funded bycentral government), and by creating new kinds of schools for people to choosefrom e.g. city technology colleges. Alongside these decentralising reforms, theERA also introduced the national curriculum and key stage tests.

Quasi-markets were a controversial reform. Many feared that autonomy ofschools would lead to a breakdown in the public service ethos, fragmentation ofstrategy and greater inequality. The anticipated benefits of these market baseddisciplines were greater efficiency, an increase in the diversity of supply, greaterchoice of provider for the user and as a result, higher quality and moreresponsive services. There was a belief that standards of education could bedriven up by an element of competition, by parents expressing preferences forschools from a diversity of providers. There has been much analysis of LMS andwhilst it is difficult to show links between school management and the impact of achild’s attainment, many have tried. LMS is generally perceived to have had apositive impact of schools.10 However, some commentators have highlighted the


practice of ‘cream-skimming’, selecting out less able pupils in the admissionsprocess. They also showed that it was the middle classes that took advantage ofschools choice and deprived groups were left behind.11

A new role for local government

There is no doubt that local government’s role in education was altered. Manysaw that local authority’s role was reduced to that of an agent of centralgovernment rather than a democratic provider. Local government saw powertaken upwards to central government, downwards to schools and increased powerfor parents. The ERA did reduce the formal powers of the Local EducationAuthority (LEA) but as Ranson pointed out the ‘significance of the LEA role ineducation is possibly enhanced. The LEA would have to learn to share power in amore pluralist environment... old assumptions about power and authority have tobe set aside as new relationships form in a redesigned network.’12 The AuditCommission’s report Losing an Empire, Finding a Role articulated this significantnew role for the LEA:

‘...this new role could be as rewarding as the old, but only if the LEAredefines its strategy in a manner consistent with the Act...’ 13

They saw a new role for the local authority as leader, partner, planner, provider ofinformation, regulator and banker. They would be responsible for articulating avision for what the education service was trying to achieve, helping schools toachieve this vision, planning facilities for the future and monitoring standards inschools. The local authority was still essential to driving up educational outcomesbut its role relied more on influence than formal powers.

The code of practice further defined the role of local authorities with relation toschools, asserting that good schools should be self-managing and interventionshould be in inverse proportion to success. There were a number of key functionsthat should be discharged by the local authority:

10 Levacic R (1995) Local Management of Schools: analysis and practice, Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press. See also Bradley, S, Johnes, G and Millington, J (1999), School Choice, competition andthe efficiency of secondary schools in England, Lancaster: Centre for Research in the Economics ofEducation.11 Whitty G, Power S and Halpin D (1998) Devolution and Choice in Education, Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press12 Ranson (1992) The role of Local Government in Education, London: Longman13 Audit Commission (1989) Losing an Empire, Finding a Role: the LEA of the future, London: HMSO


‘...planning the supply of school places for a given area, taking accountof population trends and transport patterns across authorityboundaries – often involving contentious decisions about school closuresor mergers; making sure that every child has access to a suitable schoolplace, or has suitable provision made for him or her outside mainstreamschool; intervening in failing schools which have shown themselvesincapable of putting their own house in order; and taking decisions, inconsultation with schools, about the distribution of the schools budgetto take account of schools’ differing needs...”14

Strengthened central control

The trend of national initiatives since has continued this trend. However, therewas a shift in emphasis when the 1992 Act replaced the inspection duties of localeducation authorities and created Ofsted. There was a move towards the idea ofdriving standards through top-down inspection passporting money directly toschools.

The direction of New Labour was prefigured by 1976 and 1988: more diversityand choice, but it has also extended central control, through centralisedstandards and target setting, performance management and inspection.

“...since 1997, there have been two stages of reform. In the first, wecorrected the underinvestment and drove change from the centre. Thiswas necessary. For all the difficulty, without targets for waiting, for A&E,for school results, we would not have got the real and genuineimprovements in performance...”15

Le Grand believes that this approach worked in the short term – the improvementin numeracy and literacy for the under-11s for example. But he argues thattargets discourage innovation and distort priorities.16 And it is the limitations oftop-down management that has prompted the New Labour Government to lookat the way that the school system is organised. There has therefore been furtherreinforcement of quasi-market ‘choice and contestability’ principles as a way ofdriving up attainment.

14 Department for Education and Employment (1998) Code of Practice on Local Education Authorities,London: HMSO15 Speech on education by Prime Minister Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street, 24 October 200516 Le Grand, J article in Public Finance, 31 March 2006


“...in the second stage, essentially begun in 2001, we added anotherdimension. We started to open the system up to new influences andintroduced the beginnings of choice and contestability...”17

Autonomous schools versus collaboration between schools

The shift towards a focus on school organisation was supported by a number ofdevelopments. The Government made it easier for all schools to acquirefoundation status; they introduced academies and all schools were eligible toapply for specialist school status. In essence the aim of these changes was tocreate choice and diversity for families, and to encourage independent schools tocompete for pupils.

A number of policy developments since 1998 have also sought to encouragecollaboration between schools to drive up schools standards. Initiatives such asEducation Action Zones, Excellence in the Cities, Education ImprovementPartnerships, the extended schools and 14-19 agendas have all promotedpartnership between schools and further education colleges. Indeed, delivery onthese last two initiatives will depend on collaboration. So the drive towardsincreased independence and competition, is accompanied by an expectation thatschools should work together to improve outcomes for children and young people.

17 Speech on education by Prime Minister Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street, 24 October 2005

14-19 provision

Over the next few years a diploma system is to be phased in for 14-19year-olds. Students will be able to choose to take both academic andvocational courses to achieve certain levels of diploma. In order toincrease choice, the aim is that students will be able to take courses fromdifferent institutions, in order that minority interest subjects do not getdropped. Local authorities in conjunction with the Learning and SkillsCouncil (LSC) are responsible for co-ordinating these arrangements andintegrating services.

Each area should have set up a 14-19 partnership, led by the LSC and localauthority and have drawn up a full prospectus setting out in full courses


Education and Inspections Bill 2006

Developments since the late 1980s have therefore increased the autonomy ofschools, promoted the diversity of school providers, sought to enhance the choiceand voice of service users over education and strengthened centralised control.

The Education and Inspections Bill is in line with this general direction. It has alsoclarified the respective roles and responsibilities of local authorities and schools.In doing so it outlines the expected role of local authorities and schools in drivingup educational attainment, and the benefits for parents and children:

available to young people in the area. The role of the local authority is towork in tandem with the LSC to mastermind the provision for 14-19 year-old students, with the latter particularly responsible for the 16-19 agegroup. The role of local authority is essential since what is proposed couldnot be delivered by an individual school acting alone and nor could manycolleges offer it in full. The 14-19 strategy therefore articulates a strategicand co-ordination role for local authorities. They must work in partnershipwith the LSC and foster links with autonomous school to develop a coherentstrategy for 14-19 education provision in their local areas.

Local authorities

• Duty to promote choice, diversity and high standards for every child.They will be supported and challenged in this role by a national schoolscommissioner

• Duty as a parent champion, responding to parental concerns about thequality of local schools

• Strengthened powers to intervene earlier where performance of aschool is poor

• A decision-maker on all school organisation matters – they will be thecommissioner of school places, with the ability to propose expansion toall categories of school, setting the terms for school competitions


• Appoint school improvement partner for maintained schools

• Duty to secure recreational activities for 13-19 year-olds

• Ensure (together with LSC) that between schools and colleges in thearea, the full range of vocational diplomas is available to young people

Schools

• All schools to be able to – and encouraged to – acquire self governingtrust, giving freedom to work with partners and develop distinct ethos

• Trust schools will employ their own staff, control their own assets andbe their own admissions authority – subject to existing admissions code

• Good schools will more easily be able to expand or federate with otherschools, increasing available places

• Encouraged to establish own ethos (cf specialist schools)

Parents and children

• Better information for parents when their child enters primary andsecondary school. Access to more and clearer information about localschools, how to get involved and how to lever change

• Dedicated ‘choice advisers’ to help least well off parents exercisechoice and negotiate procedures

• Extend rights to free school transport to children from poorer familiesto nearest three secondary schools within a six mile radius

• Opportunity to form ‘parent councils’ to influence schools decisions of(e.g.) school meals, uniform and discipline

• Able to trigger setting up of new schools supported by a dedicatedcapital pot


The Bill therefore attempts to give local authorities a role as a strategic manageror commissioner for education. This involves identifying and defining the needsfor the area and commissioning a diversity of providers to ensure that the patternof local services matches this need. There is also a clear strategic role for localauthorities in relation to the 14-19 strategy. They also have a clear operationalrole in assuring quality and standards in schools as well as a role as parentchampion, responding to the voice of parents. Alongside this, the Bill hasencouraged the autonomy and independence of schools.

The Bill reflects a number of concessions that the Government made to theiroriginal White Paper, Higher Standards, Better Standards for All. In particular itforces schools to follow the admissions code and it enables local authorities toestablish community schools, albeit with approval from the Secretary of State.However, the Bill has still provoked mixed reactions. On the one hand somecommentators have welcomed the strengthened strategic role. But other aspectsof the Bill worry some sections of the local government community, in particular,the emphasis on Trust schools and diversity of provision could potentiallyundermine a coherent school policy and undermine collaboration. This willpresent a challenge for the local authorities’ relationship with their schools.

Children’s services – joined-up working

It is recognised that a child’s educational development is highly dependent onfactors outside of the classroom. School standards and improvement are onlypart of a local authority’s role. They are also in a position to influence areas of achild’s life that affect their development, through direct provision and byassessing the needs of the area and influencing and joining-up other serviceproviders to meet those needs. That is, they have a role in ensuring that childrenarrive at school in a fit state to learn. Part of this role is still dependent on theirrelationship with schools, i.e. extended schools. However, much of this activityextends beyond the local authority relationship with schools.

Beyond their traditional relationship with schools around school improvement,there have been a loosely-related series of initiatives that have outlined a role forlocal government in children’s services more generally. The educationaloutcomes for children and the general outcomes for children and young peopleare closely linked. This wider responsibility for children and young people is likelyto impact on how local authorities formulate their approach to promotingeducational outcomes. In assessing the role of the local authority in education we


therefore need to be mindful of its role in children’s services more generally.Recent policy developments have again outlined a strategy and oversight role forlocal authorities.

Green paper, ECM and the Children Act 2004 ECM introducedthe ‘five outcomes’: be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make apositive contribution and achieve economic well-being. It required localauthorities to create children’s trusts and directors of children’s services;introduce a duty for public sector agencies to cooperate with the localauthority. Through the children’s trust local authorities must work closelywith partners and listen to the views of young people to find out whatworks best for children and young people in the area. The overall aim is toencourage integrated planning, commissioning and delivery of services aswell as improve multi-disciplinary working

The Childcare Bill 2005 places responsibility on local authorities forchildcare provision, charging them with raising quality and improvingdelivery. The Act seeks to guarantee accessible, high-quality childcare andother services for under fives. Local authorities are required to managethe market for childcare (including providing an assessment of the marketat least every three years), consult with parents, close the gaps instandards of provision and provide information. It states that childcareshould generally not be provided by the local authority itself unlessabsolutely necessary. Local authorities are to provide better joined-up andaccessible early childhood services through children’s centres, whichbuilds on Sure Start to provide integrated services for families of pre-school age, particularly in disadvantaged areas.

Youth Matters proposes duties to manage the provision of recreationalfacilities for young people. Funds will be made available to localauthorities.


Conclusion

Recent policy developments aim to increase the autonomy and diversity ofproviders and cast the role of users as consumers. The Government believes thatthis will help to drive up standards. However, while encouraging moreindependent schools, it may undermine collaboration between schools which canin turn drive standards and is essential for delivery of the extended schoolagenda and 14-19 provision. Alongside these developments in schools policy,there is also increasing emphasis on both early years intervention and integratedservices, to ensure that children arrive at school in a fit state to learn.

These developments raise questions about the nature of local government’s rolein promoting educational outcome, both the scope of their involvement and theirstyle of action. It leads us to ask: how are local authorities undertaking their rolein this more complex setting and what lessons are there for the post Educationand Inspections Act environment?

18 www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ete/extendedschools/

Extended schools By 2010 all primary schools will offer core extendedservices. This core offer includes: high quality childcare 8am – 6pm allyear round; a varied menu of study support activities; parenting support;swift and easy referral to specialist support services; and wider communityaccess.18

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought Exploring the role 25

4 Exploring the role of the local authority

The wave of policy developments over the last couple of decades,and particularly the last few years present a number of challengesfor local authorities.

Their role in education is more nebulous than it was when they were provider andmanager of schools. In an environment where local authorities no longer controlschools we will seek to understand how local authorities have adapted to theirnew environment. How are they managing in a pluralist environment wherepowers and responsibilities are shared? The overarching aim when talking to ourcase study interviewees was to uncover the role of local authorities in promotingoutcomes from education. We will attempt to conceptualise the local authorityrole in terms of the scope and style of their approach.

What is the scope of the local authority role?

It is clear from the myriad of policy developments that local authorities currentlyhave a multitude of roles in relation to schools: monitoring performance andensuring standards, brokering collaboration on 14-19 provision and theextended schools agenda, facilitating sharing of best practice, responding toparental concerns. However, recent government policy and legislation such asECM, the Children’s Act and the Childcare Act has also highlighted theimportance of an integrated approach to children’s services. A child’s educationdevelopment is dependent on many factors outside of schools. These oftencomplex needs require a holistic and multi-agency approach. There is also a keyrole for local authorities to influence a child’s educational development byensuring they take a wider approach.

The local authority role in education has shifted considerably and keeping pacewith the changes presents a challenge. These roles and responsibilities are new,particularly for 14-19 provision and integrated services, and both the localauthority, schools and other providers are still maturing into their roles.

This task is made harder when national policies sometimes appear to pull indifferent directions – different policies imply different types of roles for localauthorities. For instance, the Education and Inspections Bill places much more

Schools of Thought Exploring the role26

emphasis on diversity and autonomy of provision, whilst the 14-19 agenda andECM place emphasis on local government’s core strategic role.

How, therefore, do a range of local authorities perceive their contribution todelivering educational outcomes? What is the scope of local authorities’ role incontributing to a child’s educational development?

What style of approach do local authorities adopt when carryingout these activities?

In order to carry out these roles local authorities can develop certain relationshipstyles. The activities can be carried out in different ways, which Professor AlanDyson suggests can be characterised as ‘co-ordination’ and ‘autonomy’.

In terms of co-ordination, how exactly are local authorities working with localpartners, particularly schools to ensure that there is co-ordinated and joined-upprovision? Policy developments have strengthened school autonomy and in thiscontext how have local authorities adapted: do they take a directive orpersuasive approach towards schools? What style of approach have theyadopted and see as most effective for influencing and promoting outcomes ineducation. Obviously this will depend to some extent on their formal powersand responsibilities.

In terms of autonomy, what is the local authority role in relation to nationalgovernment? Central government control has been strengthened throughstandard and target setting, inspection and the national curriculum. To a largeextent they set the rules within which schools work. This has raised the questionof whether there should be uniform and standardised education policy across thecountry or whether there is room for local variation to meet the needs oflocalities. Local authorities could choose either to implement or to interpretnational education policy.

Local authorities’ potential style of approach can therefore be represented in a4 by 4 matrix:

Persuasive Persuasive implementation interpretation

Directive Directive implementation interpretation

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought Exploring the role 27

These four ‘ideal types’ are used in our investigation to uncover the style ofapproach that local authorities are currently adopting with regard to schools. Inpractice they are unlikely to adopt these approaches in a ‘pure’ form, but arelikely to favour a particular approach. Are there any emerging models that arefavoured for promoting educational outcomes? There are likely to be differentchallenges in different local authority contexts. So do these local factors affectthe council’s approach?

Undermining of their role?

Some commentators argue that the direction of reforms has undermined the roleof a democratically elected local tier. The trend of centralisation and top downmanagement, coupled with the decentralisation to more autonomous schoolshas left some quarters of the local government community wondering what role ademocratically elected tier has to play in education. Despite the emphasis on thestrategic role of local authorities in government documents, some complain thatlocal authorities have simply become local mangers of education and agents ofcentral government.

The Government’s desire to introduce choice and contestability is seen by someas a further threat to their role. Not only are local authorities now required topromote diversity of school provision, but the management of the educationfunction themselves is open to private sector or not for profit involvement.Indeed in a number of our case study authorities such as Walsall and Hackney,the education department is managed by outside providers. Surrey CountyCouncil has a joint venture partnership.

It is worth unpicking the unique role of a democratically elected local tier and howlocal democracy is important in promoting educational attainment. What is therole of the council where management of the education department has beenoutsourced or is delivered through the means of commissioned services undercontract?

What are the mechanisms of influence that local authorities haveto promote educational outcomes in their local areas?

From the data about how local authorities relate to schools we will extractexamples of best practice. This will focus on ways in which local authorities seekto build up influence with schools in a pluralist environment to influence

Schools of Thought Exploring the role28

educational attainment. Do local authorities have the capacity to fulfil thesecomplex roles and what are the political and managerial skills that are needed?

How will local authorities need to adapt in a post Education andInspections Act environment?

Whilst many of elements of the Education and Inspections Bill, such as thesections on discipline passed without controversy, other aspects of the Billprovoked challenge. Firstly, local authorities will be required to promote adiversity of providers in order to provide choice for users. They will have toidentify the needs and priorities of their areas and develop a pattern of supplythat matches this identified need. Are local authorities equipped and ready toperform this commissioning role?

Secondly, the Education and Inspections Bill’s emphasis on choice means thatthere will be increased competition between schools. Does this competitionbetween autonomous schools fragment a coherent schools policy and underminecollaboration between schools? Collaboration between schools is essential toboth 14-19 provision and extended schools initiative. Robert Hill acknowledgesthis tension: ‘given that they are competing for parents and pupils and will bejudged by their results it is hard to see what the drivers for collaboration willbe.’19 He goes on to say that under the grant-maintained system collaborationproved difficult. This is therefore a tension that will need to be addressed in apost Education and Inspections Act environment. How will local authorities goabout resolving this dilemma?

The final challenge for local authorities will be in ensuring that all children benefitfrom increased choice. Some studies suggest that it is generally the middleclasses that profit from increased choice, whilst the disadvantaged groups getleft behind.

It will also be worth analysing what the key messages for stakeholders are in thisnew environment: for the private and not-for-profit sectors looking to provideservices, for schools and for central government.

19 Hill R. (2006) Leadership that lasts, London

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought Case studies 29

5 Case studies

This intention of this research is therefore to learn about the roleof local authorities in promoting outcomes in education: how theyare undertaking their role in practice and how this can inform usabout their role going forward.

It is worth noting that we asked interviewees about their role in the currentenvironment rather than their preferred or ideal role in education. We exploredthe approach of 12 local authorities, reflecting range of authority types whichhad emerging examples of good practice, to explore the questions outlined in theprevious chapter:

• What is the scope of the role of the local authority?

• What is the style of their approach – in relation to central government and toschools?

• What are the mechanisms of influence?

• Why is their democratic mandate important?

• How will they need to adapt in a post Education and Inspections Actenvironment?

What follows is a descriptive account of the role of each local authority ineducation. An analytical account of these case studies is undertaken in thefollowing chapter.

London Borough of Brent

Scope of their role

The role of the local authority is seen as identifying the needs of the area andaligning the services so that they meet those needs – ‘an enablingcommissioner’. They have a co-ordination and brokerage role in working withlocal agencies. They see that the local authority should have a clear focus oncustodian of standards and good practice. They have a clear understanding ofthe local needs and priorities for the area and how education is aligned to thisoverarching vision. Education is not seen as a separate part of the organisation

CASE STUDY

Schools of Thought Case studies30

but linked into several other agendas such as crime, health, employment,housing and regeneration. They recognise that educational improvement is alsodriven by creating the conditions in which children and young people thrive, andthe council believes that this is recognised by schools as well.

Local authority autonomy

They do not see themselves as agents of central government but instead seethemselves as driven by local demands and requirements. They see their role asunpicking national directives and trying to make it appropriate for the contextthey are working in. In this sense they are interpreters of national policy. Thechildren’s agenda is seen as creating an impulse for greater joined-up workingamongst other local agencies.

Relationship with schools

The London Borough of Brent has a history of autonomous schools. It has 14secondary schools, of which 12 were formerly grant-maintained and all are noweither foundation or voluntary-aided. They see themselves as a model authorityaccording to the Government’s definition and are proud of their partnership withschools. Despite a history of independent schools, the local authority believesthat the schools in Brent want to be part of the ‘family of schools’ (and this ishelped by the fact that they are a small authority). So whilst autonomy isaccepted an insular attitude is not. They have achieved a good balance betweenschool autonomy and school collaboration. The local authority believes that it hashelped to broker this collaboration.

Mechanisms of influence

Excellence in Cities was noted as a real vehicle for collaboration between theschools and local authority. The local authority was not the leader – the proposalwas written by one of the head teachers. They talk about creating a sharedendeavour or an ethos. This comes from the leadership at the top of the counciland they try to involve schools in genuine consultation and discussion at an earlystage to shape strategies. The quality of personnel is seen as important inmaintaining relationships as is transparency.

They advocate autonomy within a boundary of accountability. They try to create ajoint understanding, partnership and trust. They trust head teachers and try andgive them the tools to carry out their jobs. In situations where there are


disagreements or they feel that the school is not meeting their responsibilities,they try to identify those things that are non-negotiable. Where there is somelocal flexibility they talk about their options and how they fit into the council’soverall priorities. They do sometimes use their formal powers when they feel thata school isn’t meeting their responsibilities, but they are only used once allavenues have been explored. They do intervene in schools that are coasting.There is clear categorisation so that they can identify these schools and givethem an appropriate level of support.

Democratic mandate

The council’s democratic mandate was seen as enabling the authority to take awider view. Without it, there is a danger of compartmentalising things and nothaving a wider focus. They also suggest that democratic mandate adds credibilitywhen talking to partners.

Post Education and Inspections Act

The Education and Inspections Bill was not seen as changing their way of workingmuch as they already have autonomous schools. They saw themselves as thegovernment’s ‘model’ authority.

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

Scope of their role

The council is described as an ‘orchestrator’ and in many areas still a directprovider. The role of the local authority is to hold the education system to accountand to offer challenge and support. The council’s role through children’s services isto bring together and join-up different services cohesively to provide a service. Thelocal authority must identify why children are not achieving, and tailor servicesaccordingly. A local authority cannot just concentrate on how well children aredoing educationally – all aspects of their lives must be examined. They act as anindependent broker between partners with differing views, discussing with themdifficult issues such as falling pupil rolls. They have also worked hard with schoolson the 14-19 agenda through collaboration including schools, further educationsproviders and a consortium of work-based learning providers.


Education fits into the broader vision that the council has for Gateshead toimprove people’s lives through their environment, security, safety, attainment,

CASE STUDY


happiness and health. Raising standards is seen as going beyond the school andso education is strongly aligned with other strategies such as anti-socialbehaviour, regeneration and skills. They have strong links with work-basedlearning partners to get 14-16 year-olds into vocational training, they haveworked with parents on literacy, they arrange for police officers to visit schools totackle anti-social behaviour and the youth offending teams work very closely withschools. Schools are seen as only one component of delivering educationaloutcomes and the whole community must work together. Gateshead works toadapt national policy to fit local communities. They domesticate and localise thedirectives that come from Whitehall. The local authority works with schools totranslate initiatives that often seem incoherent. They encourage the schools towork with the local authority and each other so that initiatives can be fed into aholistic framework.


In the last five years the role of the council was described as changing fromcommand and control to that of partner. They have a high proportion ofcommunity schools. There is an emphasis on collaboration and partnership,of which Excellence in Cities is an example of partnership building, includingbetween primary and secondary schools. The local authority believes inschools working within the community, not as autonomous institutions. Schoolsare seen by the local authority as community centres to be able tooffer community-wide education. They seek to give schools independence andtry to be enabling.


There is termly contact between the Director of Childrens Services (DCS) and theheads and governors of the schools and given the size of the authority they areall able to meet together. They were one of the first authorities to developcompact agreement frameworks with schools. They have clear systems foridentifying when a school is in difficulty. When this is the case, they are proactivein providing advice and support, and statutory powers are only used as theultimate sanction. Where a difficult decision was taken the local authority madegreat efforts to explain the conclusion they reached. Where the relationships arepoor this is attributed to a clash in philosophies, and efforts are made to bridgegaps wherever possible.


Democratic mandate

The democratic mandate is seen as important in terms of achieving buy-in fromthe local community when difficult decisions need to be made. Councillors areseen as part of the community they represent and bring local knowledge. Thestability of the local political system is also seen as an advantage.


The Act will be tailored locally to suit Gateshead. There was a view from the localauthority that Gateshead schools do take a keen interest in all new opportunitiesthat will help them to further raise standards, but have yet to identify any realbenefit in going down the trust status route as one such opportunity. If they didsee potentially positive things coming out of trust status, the local authoritybelieves that it has a strong enough relationship with them that the schoolswould engage with them at the start of the process.

London Borough of Hackney

Background

In 2002 DfES directed Hackney to enter into a ten year contract with a not-for-profit limited company, The Learning Trust. The Learning Trust has a board ofdirectors – head teachers, governors, councillors, the chief executive, LSPrepresentative, LSC representative. The Trust has a chief executive officer but thecouncil retains the statutory function of chief education officer, which isdischarged by its chief executive. Day-to-day management of staff is carried outby The Learning Trust. As from January 2006, the chief executive of TheLearning Trust has been seconded to the council, for part of his time, toundertake the role of Interim DCS to lead the development and initialimplementation phase of the children and young people’s plan and theestablishment of children’s trust arrangements.

Scope of their role

The role of The Learning Trust was seen as securing equity of access, sufficiencyof provision, transparency, advocacy, quality assurance, regulation and outcomesfor children and young people. The role of The Learning Trust was to hold headteachers and governors to account for the delivery of services and to set thestrategic vision. They should also have a role in co-ordination and promotingcollaboration, for example, between primary and secondary schools. They also

CASE STUDY


mentioned their role in Building Schools for the Future and in 14-19 provision aspersuading schools to be more flexible. They have a complex and diversepopulation and understanding their needs is seen as very important.


They have a clearly defined vision for the area – ‘mind the gap’ – focused onnarrowing the gap between outcomes. Education fits into this vision as it is seenas being inextricably linked to other outcomes. They believe that they haveintroduced government initiatives in a way that makes sense for Hackney. Forexample, there are five academy schools planned for Hackney because of adesperate shortage of secondary school places and the authority does not havethe resources. They therefore look at their own needs and how they can useinitiatives locally.


Schools in Hackney are given a presumption of autonomy but within a context ofaccountability. They are given the support, tools and resources to carry out theirtasks. However, this autonomy should come with responsibility – of the educationof all children in the community not just their schools. Schools are therefore heldto account for outcomes. They intervene in lower performing schools. There hasbeen disagreement with schools about school reorganisation and in some casesstatutory powers have been used. They think very carefully before using themand would not want to be in a situation where they were reliant on formal powers.Their relationship in the first instance is discursive and persuasive. This is helpedby a shared understanding, evidence and agreed protocols.


When The Learning Trust was set about building new relationships with schoolsas relations between the local authority and schools had become dysfunctional.Roles were clarified and they became more transparent with schools about howmoney was spent and why certain schools received intervention. There was anopenness and engagement with head teachers about decision-making in order topromote climate of trust. They also brought in experienced and skilled peopleand the stability and credibility of the new organisation has led to greater trust ofthe education department. The Learning Trust is keen to promote collaborationand build a community around education. Schools should not work in isolationand resources have been pushed down to promote collaboration. They have clear


criteria of responsibility for their schools which the five new academies haveadhered to and they expect them to be part of the school family.

Democratic mandate

The council does have significant levers to shape the work of The Learning Trust.They have people on the board of directors, they agree (not approve) theeducation development plan, they are involved in scrutiny and they passresources to The Learning Trust. It is clear that elected members had a desire forgreater synergy between the council’s vision as a whole and education. However,they acknowledged the success of The Learning Trust and their workingrelationship. Elected members can help with heart and mind issues, i.e. withdifficult decisions.


Hackney are comfortable with the commissioning role in relation to educationand there was no indication that the Act would have a big impact on their role.

Hertfordshire County Council

Scope of their role

The role of the local authority in education is about providing strategic directionand trying to get more schools to work in partnership and to co-ordinate servicesacross trans-institutional boundaries. For instance, they believe that they shouldhave a focus on a child’s transition from primary to secondary education and themanagement of school places was seen as part of their role. The county has anover-provision of primary school places by 20 per cent and primary schoolreviews are currently taking place. They also see their role in 14-19 provision asimportant. They see that they should be a commissioner of services but there is aworry that there is a deficit of appropriate providers.

Local autonomy

Hertfordshire do believe that they have flexibility in implementing their own localpolicies rather than just implementing national policies. This is partly attributedto them being a successful authority. The local authority’s role is seen as bringingan element of local decision-making and to interpret national guidance to makesure it is applicable for Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire’s confidence is exemplified bythe fact that they were early entrants into integrated services in 2001. They do

CASE STUDY


have a wider approach to driving up educational outcomes than merely focusingon schools. For example, parenting support is given and is linked to thedevelopment of children’s centres and extended schools. The council hasaspirations for overall high achievement, with a particular focus on vulnerablegroups and ethnic minorities, as there is inequity across the county in terms ofeducational attainment.


Hertfordshire has over 500 schools and many foundation and voluntary schools.The relationship of the local authority with schools depends on the school itself.On the whole it is light-touch, they have devolved funding and given the schoolmaximum resources, but if the school is having serious difficulties then theyadopt a more directive approach. When there is difficulty between the school andlocal authority, influence and persuasion are used by the council to convinceschools who may be reluctant to agree to the council’s plans. SchoolEffectiveness Advisors are a key tool the local authorities use to convince schoolsand resolve conflict. Statutory powers are not often used and persuasion isalways preferred.

There is an emphasis on partnership working. An ongoing project is theChildren’s Trust partnership. There is also significant collaboration with furthereducation institutions and employers in school sixth forms, leading to highpost-16 participation rate in education. The 14-19 agenda is seen as a vehiclethat has promoted collaboration.


The council has in place a framework, the Hertfordshire Learning Partnership,that outlines how the schools and local authority should work together. All headteachers and governors were consulted on the document. Encapsulated in thisdocument is Monitor, Support, Challenge and Intervention (MSCI) framework.This framework also categorises schools and shows where schools are in terms ofachievement. This framework dictates how much attention the schools receive.However, in such a large authority this means that there is less contact with someof the better schools, which can mean that the local authority feels very distant.There is a ‘history of stakeholder engagement’ and consultation is takenseriously. They are also keen to promote collaboration and there are numerousforums for schools to meet.


Democratic mandate

The council’s democratic mandate was seen as enabling them to take difficultdecisions such as closing schools, which might not be accepted by a non-departmental body. This is because they provide an accountable link to thecommunity. A single party majority is seen to give stability.


Elected members had a view that the Bill did slightly undermine the role of thelocal authority. However, it was not felt that it would change their role as theyaccepted school autonomy. Even if schools opted for Trust school status thenthey would still maintain a key role, especially in quality assurance.

Kent County Council

Scope of their role

The local authority’s role is seen as providing vision and strategic leadership anddelivering value for money in addition to ensuring high standards in schools,monitoring and intervening where necessary. They have a commissioning role interms of defining provision against needs – not necessarily that the localauthority has to deliver all functions.


Kent County Council have an awareness of local needs and priorities and have aclearly defined vision for the area, which is communicated well. They wish to breakthe cycle of deprivation and make children aware of the opportunities that areavailable to them and develop their self-esteem and confidence. They believe thateducation has a huge impact on the regeneration of an area which is closely linkedwith other agendas such as the economy, employment and communitydevelopment. They exercise great local flexibility and independence. For example,they are very keen to promote vocational educational and to this end havedeveloped new 14-16 vocational centres across the county. They have developeda strategic document titled Towards 2010 which encourages apprenticeships andpilots alternative programmes such as work with the Army Cadet School. Theyhave produced a primary strategy in response to the surplus places in the county.They are also very committed to the grammar school system.

CASE STUDY



There is an acceptance of school autonomy and they have no problem with theidea of Trust schools.20 Whilst they encourage schools to be autonomous, theybelieve that schools benefit from collaborative arrangements, rather thanworking in isolation and consider that improvements can be generated throughthe sharing of best practice. Their approach is on the whole persuasive.Intervention and direction is used as a last resort. The county has had a longhistory of schools being inward looking and not collaborating. The historic dividebetween grant maintained and community schools used to be problematic butthey has been resolved through collaboration between schools, in the form offederations and cluster arrangements. There are sometimes tensions betweenthe authority and head teachers. There have been disagreements aroundadmissions policy and the authority does use its statutory powers of interventionwhen needed.


The cluster arrangement is seen as a way of dealing with the size of the authority.They looked at best practice in Scandinavia and Japan and 100 head teacherswere taken to America to look at the school system there. The county is dividedinto six areas with approximately 100 schools, within the areas there are three orfour clusters with approximately 25 schools. A local education officer is in chargeof the cluster. Devolution down to clusters will be accompanied by either by aservice level agreement or agreed outcomes through delivery plans. Funding isused as a way of incentivising collaboration. The cluster arrangements are seenas a way of achieving a better reporting line. The local authority were directive intheir approach towards cluster arrangements as they sometimes had to imposecluster arrangements on schools.

The local authority reported that they had clarity around frameworks i.e. thebasis on which decisions are made is clear to all parties. They also have excellentdata management systems (hard information) and knowledge about schoolsthrough school improvement officers (soft information) which enables them tomonitor schools and intervene where necessary. Personnel and theircommunication skills are seen as very important. Consultation is also aninfluencing mechanism.

20 Kent is piloting proposals for creating Trust structures which will be rolled out in 23 locality groupings


Democratic mandate

The democratic mandate of local authorities was seen as offering accountabilityand local knowledge. They are also able to create a sense of a shared mission.


The view from the local authority is that Education and Inspections Bill will nothave a massive impact on the way the authority works. They already seethemselves as broadly working in line with role outlined in the Bill.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

Scope of their role

Knowsley felt that it was clear that the role of the local authority was changingfrom provider to strategic commissioner. The DCS was clear that the localauthority did not have to deliver services itself but create a market which enablesservices to be delivered by other providers, including schools. So services wouldeventually have to be contestable. Commissioning is already happening in healthand social care, where a formal Section 31 arrangement is in place between thecouncil and the local Primary Care Trust. They have a role in 14-19 provision inensuring that the curriculum meets the needs of people in the borough. Theyalso have a quality assurance role to ensure that standards are met across allchildren’s services. This might involve bringing external brokered support forteaching and childcare. Local authorities must also play an advocacy role,holding services to account on behalf of the parents and children.


The council has a clear vision for Knowsley – ‘Concept Knowsley’ – which hastwo aims: narrowing the gap between people and place and a focus onacceptable liveability standards for all. Education is seen as forming a key part ofthis vision. The local authority has a clear understanding of its context andbelieves that it is needs led. There is a clear appreciation of the complexity ofinteraction between factors such as liveability and education. Ahead ofintegrated services they had introduced area partnerships, with multi-agencygroups focused around a child’s whole needs. Rather than looking at howinstitutions meet the needs of children, they sought to look at the needs ofchildren on a geographical basis. The local authority interprets national policy,asserting that you need to have an understanding of local circumstances and it is

CASE STUDY


the local authority that knows their area best. Knowsley try not to slavishly follownational prescription but instead make sense of often contradictory policy withreference to the Knowsley vision and through dialogue with Government at aregional and national level.


Knowlsey have a collaborative or co-leadership approach with schools and haveadopted a collegiate system. There are a high proportion of community schoolsand some voluntary aided. Being a small authority is seen as an advantage asthey can meet regularly and easily with schools at different levels and in differentforums. The local authority sees itself in the middle of stakeholders not at thetop. They operate on a principle of earned autonomy, intervening robustly inschools that are not performing.


This strong partnership working dates back to 2001, whereas prior to that therelationship was described as paternalistic. A barely satisfactory Oftsed report in1999 was the start of change. They created clear roles and responsibilities. It wasrecognised that schools improve schools and so the local authority encouragedthe sharing of best practice. The local authority role was to provide strategicconditions, leadership and challenge. Schools and local authorities are describedas having a shared endeavour, a moral purpose or vision – so culture rather thanstructures are seen as key. The head teachers were involved in thrashing out ashared vision. Changing relationships also entailed putting in place goodcommunication structures. Consultation is critically important at a very earlystage and where there is room for manoeuvre they do try and reach a collectiveview.

They have a clear protocol laid out for ‘schools in difficulty’ which all schoolsunderstand so there is clarity of context. They have robust data tracking systemsin place so they are bale to make good use of data. Areas of disagreement areseen as constructive conflict which must be managed with stakeholders. It isnotable that in September 2005 Knowsley proposed the closure of elevensecondary schools and opening eight learning centres as part of Building Schoolsfor the Future. This was not met with any overt opposition. They managed this byhaving a dialogue with head teachers to appeal to the issues wider than theirinstitutions and the need to transform the whole of the local secondary school


system. The high calibre of personnel was also mentioned as building goodrelationships with schools.

Democratic mandate

The democratic mandate was seen by the local authority as bringingaccountability and achieving buy-in from the community for decisions that weremade. It also gives clarity about governance. Officers see elected members asbeing very important. The strong political leadership was seen as havingcontributed to the success of education in the borough because of the clearvision that they have given. Also bring local knowledge, astuteness and act as a‘community champion’.


Whilst, the Education and Inspections Bill was seen as helping shape the futurerole of local authorities, Knowsley do believe some of its measures appeared notto take into account rural areas and northern metropolitan councils e.g. theexpansion of successful schools in areas of high surplus capacity. Also it did notget the balance right in making the links between agendas such as ECM andneighbourhood regeneration. The notion of Trust schools was not seen asappropriate for Knowsley’s current context. If they felt that it represented abetter solution they would be keen but they feel that they have goodrelationships already as they move towards local system-wide reform. Theinterviewer felt that if schools did seek Trust school status the local authoritywould want to remain in close partnership

London Borough of Newham

Scope of their role

The local authority is seen as having a role in providing leadership, vision and asense of common purpose for the area as a whole. They did not think they had a‘hands-on’ role in schools. There was no assumption that things would be donebest by the council and no attachment to the provider role. The local authorityalso has wider roles in the 14-19 agenda, including facilitating the co-ordinationof partners. It also provides a facilitative role between schools. Newham has avery transient population and putting systems in place to deal with this high levelof social mobility is important. Their wider responsibilities for the ECM agendawere seen as the context within which learning took place.

CASE STUDY



The council has developed a distinctive vision for the area, with which all councilpolicies are aligned. The vision is that Newham should be a place where people‘choose to live and work.’ Part of the vision is being aspirational and communicatingthis to head teachers and children. They adopt a very holistic approach where allareas of council policy such as housing, policing, regeneration and education areseen to impact on one another. Newham’s approach to driving up educationalattainment was therefore wider than simply its relationship with schools. Withineducation policy, there is focus on inclusivity – a very high proportion of specialneeds pupils attend mainstream schools. The Mayor believes that the council areable to create a locally distinctive vision because they act with authority rather thanwondering what it is they are – and are not – allowed to do. The local authority hasdeveloped many initiatives such as the Youth Parliament and a free swimprogramme which gives children free access to leisure centres. These activities aredesigned to reduce anti-social behaviour and improve attendance.


The local authority has a high proportion of community schools and have hadhistorically good relationships with their schools. They attribute their goodrelationships to a persuasive approach – they should work with schools ratherthan schools being the passive recipient of support. The relationship with schoolsis built around the principle of earned autonomy. They are comfortable withautonomous schools as long as they do not stray to far from the collective vision.There has to be clarity about what is not negotiable. The council has used itsstatutory powers of intervention in under-performing schools. In lowerperforming schools there is a more challenging school improvement partnership.


An officer remarked that there is a particular ethos in Newham which embracesdiversity and social inclusion; the few who find that ethos too challenging tend toseek posts elsewhere. There is felt to be a common sense of purpose betweencouncil and heads, due to a culture of co-operation and aspiration that hasbecome embedded in Newham. There needs to be a wider system of support forschools. The personal relationship with people leading the council teams is felt tobe important, as was consultation with heads. They also believed in havingsystems which encourage co-operation. If a school does not want to cooperate


with the local authority and there is no evidence that this would disadvantage thechild then they would not want to intervene or impose anything on the school. Allinterventions are based on evidence around attainment.

Democratic mandate

Locally elected representatives are seen to bring visibility and a sense ofownership to the local community. Councillors are seen to provide a reliablefeedback system. The council interviewees felt that schools are aware of thecouncil’s democratic mandate and see councillors as representative of parentsand the wider community.


The council interviewees thought that the local authority had a role in providingleadership rather than a hands-on role, as indicated by the Bill. They were happyfor schools to be autonomous provided that they used the autonomy responsiblyto promote the collective vision for all children in Newham.

Sheffield City Council

Scope of their role

The role of local authority in education is about strategic leadership and ensuringthat schools contribute and are part of the wider city as a whole. They are alsocommissioners. Their work with the voluntary sector is established through arobust commissioning framework which was set up to provide clarity for differentpartners about what they should be doing. They are broker and facilitatorbetween providers, and creator of links between the schools. The children’sservices agenda has also re-focused their role. In Sheffield, children’s services arefully integrated. They are implemented through Children’s Services Districts –seven area-based initiatives that have schools at their heart.


There is a clearly-defined vision – ‘Closing the Gap’. The city strategy also hasclear priorities focused on neighbourhoods, and the economy and education isintegral. In children’s policy, more generally, there is a process of identifying needand supporting early intervention. This is a far broader agenda than justattainment but it is recognised that the lowest achievers are often those who aredisengaged, so they have sought to bring services closer to a local level through

CASE STUDY


their new service district structure. Education and other services will becomemore accessible to those who are traditionally harder to reach through thisscheme. Sheffield also sees raising aspiration as a key issue. They see a keychallenge to be raising attainment in the most deprived areas of the city andwhere there is a high ethnic minority population.

Although implementation of national policy is seen as important, Sheffield hasalso been successful at developing their own independent policies around the14-19 agenda. They have a 14-19 scheme whereby the council puts in placearrangements that make available vocational work placements which the councilhas identified. Arrangements are in place with Meadow Hall Shopping Centreoffering retail courses, the local media and the construction industry thatprovides apprenticeship programmes. The schools undertook a city-wide needsassessment for skills and then sought to provide schemes that worked to providethe needed skills in certain areas. Also in targeting deprivation in certainneighbourhoods, the council has developed services best suited to the area.They see that there is flexibility in developing local targets and policies forSheffield within a national framework.


Sheffield’s relationship with schools (a high proportion of community schools) isdescribed as good and based on a strong sense of collaboration and mutualrespect. They accept school autonomy but do work to offer constructive challengeto their schools around performance. Sheffield has very high expectations and willuse their statutory powers when schools are not up to standard.


There is felt to be a shared mission, a high sense of alignment and a collectivesense of identity, which are to be formalised through the ‘excellence and equitystatements’. They also have good links with the academy and in choosing thesponsors it was seen as important to choose a partner with the right ethos. Thelocal authority has had a role in encouraging and facilitating collaboration ratherthan actually setting the networks up. Good relationships are attributed to theleadership provided by individuals in the local authority.

Democratic mandate

Elected members are seen as bringing a clear sense of values and have a strongsense of issues such as inclusion and deprivation. They can be the local political


drivers to do radical things. Party politics sometimes makes it difficult to getdecisions through, particularly if there is a small majority or when just before anelection.


In the last five years the role of the local authority has become much clearer andthe Education and Inspections Bill is not seen as changing their role but it mightgive it a sharper focus. Sheffield is happy to work with all types of schools.Increased diversity of school provision, in the way that the DfES envisages, couldbring benefits through introducing new partners and sharpening the distinctionbetween the role of the local authority and schools. However, they believe thatcare needs to be taken that the universal nature of the service is not forgottenand that vulnerable children and families are not further marginalised.

Shropshire County Council

Scope of their role

The role of the local authority in education was seen as one of developingstrategy, joining-up services and co-ordinating provision. Their aim was to deliveron the five outcomes of the Every Child Matters agenda and this was seen asintegral to their work in education. They recognised that there is a move towardsa greater volume of commissioning, and there is already a relatively high level ofvoluntary and community sector involvement that provide services e.g. familysupport workers on the multi-agency team are employed by Barnado’s.Shropshire County Council places a lot of emphasis on integrated services andmulti-agency working. Their approach is to link multi-agency working specificallyto educational outcomes so that the most vulnerable children are moreeffectively supported to raise their educational achievements.


In this sense their approach is to understand the complex needs of children intheir area and to develop policies to deal with them. They do see their role, tosome extent, as implementers of national policy, but that they are engineered tosuit the Shropshire context. Some strategies are therefore adapted to suit specificneeds. For example, in order to tackle sparsity, children’s centres are planned tomeet the needs of the local communities with delivery points spread out acrossthe county.

CASE STUDY



The council’s relationship with schools has been historically good and theirapproach continues to be persuasive. There are no problems with non-co-operative schools and the schools willingly work in partnership with the localauthority, so little is forced upon them. They have a light-touch approach andschools accept when the local authority intervenes, as they feel they know thatthe local authority knows their problems well. There were no real areas ofdisagreement mentioned.


They do not use formal mechanisms such as contracts. The local authoritymentioned that their data enabled them to have influence as it was extremelyvaluable to the schools. There is a strong emphasis on joint working with schoolsand consensual decision-making. For instance, the council spent time withschools on the ECM agenda by holding meetings with head teachers andgovernors and providing information. They also produced a ten-point ECM-based commitment statement to which all schools have committed voluntarily.They are very assiduous about getting schools on board. The schools were verypositive about the DCS’ enthusiasm and personal qualities as a leader.

Democratic mandate

The democratic mandate is seen as important when taking difficult decisionssuch as school closure and where to place new facilities. There is anacknowledgment that councillors bring local knowledge and representation.Party politics are not always seen as helpful particularly with so many smallschools.


There was a strong belief that the emphasis on choice was not applicable to asparsely populated rural community. In a geographically isolated county it wasalso difficult to encourage alternative providers. There is a concern frommembers about Trust schools and the possibility that the council’s influencewould diminish.


Surrey County Council

Background

In 2004 Surrey County Council entered into a unique public private partnershipin the form of a joint venture contract with the VT Group plc. This contractcovered six integrated services featuring school improvement and school supportservices. The new venture was called Four S (Surrey Schools Support Service)with the shareholder split as follows – Surrey County Council (19.9 per cent) andVT Group (80.1 per cent). With the support of the DfES New Models LEAinitiative, the council made the decision to voluntarily develop this innovativemodel of service delivery from a position of strength and in anticipation of futurefunding changes and increased autonomy of schools. The Four S Board has twoSurrey County Council directors and five VT Group directors. Additionally there isa Partnership Board on which representatives of all the stakeholders sit (schools,LSC, governors, children’s services, elected members and unions). The remit ofthe Director’s Board is one of accountability and ensuring financial and servicesustainability and growth to meet the needs of the schools. The remit of thePartnership Board is to help shape the development of services for Surrey schoolsand provide stakeholder feedback.

Scope of their role

The role of the local authority is to develop the strategy for education in its areaand then work to bring schools and partners together. Surrey is doing well atpresent at getting the schools to embrace 14-19 networking and adopt the newdiplomas. Surrey believes that schools need strong and visible leadership andtherefore the local authority needs to be explicit but not directive in themessages they communicate. They see themselves as policy leaders, enablers,integrators and regulators. They make sense of the system. In five years timethey see that they will still be commissioning or providing services because ofmarket conditions. They also have a role in managing school places to ensureequity and parental choice across the locality.


There is a view that education does form part of the overall 2020 vision for thearea. Education’s key role is providing skills for the future. Their focus shouldtherefore be to look across the curriculum (14-19) with schools, the LSC andConnexions to ensure that employer’s skills are met and that children do not

CASE STUDY


leave school early. They broker these discussions rather than lead them. They arealso trying to work with schools to get them to recognise the value of multi-agency working. Surrey has scope to develop their own independent policiestailored for the local area, rather than just delivering national policies. Forinstance, they have worked with universities in their area and students havedeveloped mentoring programmes for science and maths in secondary schools.They also see that they have a role in promoting anti-racism policies in schools. Alot of the guidance that comes from government is broken down and adapted tosuit local circumstances.


Surrey has traditionally been a light-touch authority. They believe that schools areautonomous institutions and have to become sustainable and self-managing. Theydo not see inserting lots of resources into failing schools as a solution. They believethat schools need to have ownership of their improvement. All schools includingfoundation schools are seen as part of the ‘family of schools’ in the community andthe head teachers of the foundation schools still use the local authority for adviceand provision. However, in such a large authority it is possible for some of theschools (particularly successful ones) may feel removed and distant from the localauthority unless they purchase additional support and services.

Over a number of years Surrey has had a drive on Confederations, a project thathas been pushing for collaborative clusters to work together in order to manageservices and take responsibility for the quality of provision in their geographicalcluster. Some of the earliest networks have become their own limited companieswith joint funding streams. Surrey believes that collaborative networks provide away to raise the achievement of their schools’ underachieving students. TheConfederations agenda has been steered politically and from officers centrally,but the configuration and focus of the Confederations has derived fromagreements within the school clusters themselves.


There is a differentiated approach to schools from persuasive to directivedepending on the performance of the school. However, in such a large and light-touch authority this can sometimes make the local authority appear remote tothose not receiving much support. The Additional Support and InterventionProgramme (ASIP) acts as a system of proportionate inspection for schools.


Schools are categorised from A-E, and accordingly the level of intervention/support is determined on their category. Surrey has not been reluctant to usetheir statutory powers when innovative and radical solutions are needed andmore established interventions have failed. On occasion, the council runs blue-sky thinking events to bring together all parties and agree new viable solutions inthe light of all of the data and evidence. A Compact agreement has also beendrawn up that outlines how the respective roles, responsibilities and behavioursof different parties can be clarified. The relationship with schools is described asharmonious due to a willingness to engage. This is attributed to engagementwith school staff at many levels.


Elected members saw that the Bill had the potential to break up the schoolsystem. On the whole, however, the authority is relaxed on Trust schools as theauthority would still have a responsibility for the quality of education. Theysuggested that they would rather have a level playing field, i.e. all schoolsbecame Trust schools rather than a few.

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

Background

Following an Ofsted Inspection in 2002, the Secretary of State for Education andSkills directed that an external provider should be brought into educationservices to address the weakness in the performance of the LEA. As such, thecouncil has entered into a contract with Serco Ltd which, as Education Walsall,serves as the council’s education department. Serco has a contract detailing thefunctions of their role. They have also established Walsall Education Board, agroup which includes councillors, the DCS, Education Walsall representatives,head teachers and other education partners and business groups. They performa function of monitoring, advising and supporting education policy in Walsall.

Scope of their role

The role of the local authority is to ensure the interests of all children are pursuedand enhanced. Education is seen as intrinsically linked to Children’s Services.They see influences outside the school and dealing with the ‘whole-child’, as veryimportant to a child’s educational development. For example, issues such assupporting vulnerable children, parenting, community cohesion, leisure,aspirations and expectations were cited as important factors. As such, driving

CASE STUDY


improvements in education should be less about the micro areas and more aboutlarge scale strategic change based on the priorities of the area. The inter-relationship between service areas is seen as very important and the localauthority should perform a function in looking across institutional andorganisational boundaries. They should co-ordinate service areas and providersand ‘get everybody to point in the same direction.’


Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council does seek to be flexible locally anddevelop policies to suit the local area. Central government has key targets but aslong as they are working towards those key targets they believe they have roomto be flexible. Education is part of an overall vision and is at the heart of otherstrategies. They consult widely and develop their vision for education togetherwith local partners. They have sought to identify needs and integrate services tomatch those needs through local neighbourhood boards.


They have tried to cultivate a Walsall ‘family of schools’ and school autonomy isaccepted. The relationship with schools is therefore unrelated to the type ofschool. There has been, on occasion, disagreement between Education Walsalland schools and on these occasions Education Walsall outlines the boundaries,making clear what is and is not negotiable. On occasion they have been directiveand used their statutory powers of intervention, but in the first instance theyhave a discussion with schools.


Trust has been rebuilt through opening a dialogue with head teachers, wherebyissues are raised, thrashed out and resolved together. There is regular contactbetween Education Walsall staff and head teachers, which is seen as important.The skills identified as neccessary were listening, discursive and persuasive. Theydo intervene in coasting schools and justify intervention with reference toinformation obtained through the school improvement partners, data and self-assessment.

Democratic mandate

Education Walsall are connected to the democratic framework. The council havea key scrutiny function and councillors sit on Walsall Education Board, which


provides policy advice. The council sets the strategic framework in whichEducation Walsall operates, taking difficult decisions when needed. Councillorsare seen as a conduit for local people and local communities to express theirviews and they are also believed to bring expert local knowledge. Party politics inWalsall was at one time seen as damaging but they have started to work togethernow.


They are relaxed about Trust school status as they believe that they wouldcontinue to have a close working relationship with schools. And they still see thatthey would have an influence due to their role as outlined in the Children’s Act.They do recognise that there is a risk that a Trust school might not want to have arelationship with the local authority.

City of York Council

Scope of their role

The local authority is seen as adding value to the education system. The role ofthe local authority in education is described as a conductor of an orchestra. Theyneed to enable schools to do their job well and get people to work together sothat the sum is greater than the parts. Whilst the authority sees itself as a criticalfriend to schools, it also acts as an advocate for parents and will challengeschools on their behalf. They have a role in promoting attainment throughsupport and intervention in schools that are under-achieving. They are involvedin the 14-19 strategy in terms of enabling, knitting together and networking.The ECM and children’s centres agenda are seen as very important.


The development of the new directorate of children’s services is having asignificant impact on the way in which education is integrated into the corporatecouncil agenda. There was recognition that education was integral to outcomesof the area more broadly and the services provided by the council are set within amuch more corporate strategic framework. Children’s services are seen as havinghad a big impact on their role and that the challenges for education arechallenges for the children’s services agenda more broadly. The direction ofnational and local policy has been broadly similar but there was a desire to havegreater flexibility to carry out local policies.

CASE STUDY



The council has excellent relationships with its schools. They do not have anyfoundation schools – either community or voluntary aided. There is a stronghistory of collaboration with schools, partly because of the size of the authority.School autonomy is accepted and celebrated, but the authority does not believethis precludes close working with the authority. York wanted to co-ordinate,develop, encourage and work with schools. York believes that it has helpedfashion a shared vision for all schools. With schools that are performing well alight-touch approach is adopted. Nonetheless, there is steel in their approachand the authority does not tolerate failure.


Before the current DCS had joined there had been a gap at the most senior levelfor over a year and relationships with the schools had begun to suffer. Theserelationships have been gradually rebuilt with a strong emphasis on partnershipworking and getting the schools to work as a collective. The relationship skills ofthe DCS and other personnel are seen as important – they need to be sensitiveand shrewd in the way schools are dealt with.

The relationship is described as open and transparent with trust on both sides.There is a careful approach to consultation. They engage with head teachersearly, when they are developing proposals. There are well planned timetables andinformative briefs so that schools can shape policy. It is also important that policyis clearly-written – which determines how decisions are made. If there isdisagreement at the end of the process then the schools can be taken backthrough the process and explain how and why decisions were made. There havebeen disagreements with schools and these are normally resolved throughnegotiation. These can be very difficult conversations but the local authority hasnot yet needed to use its statutory powers of intervention. If they do need tointervene schools generally accept this when evidence and data is presented.

Democratic mandate

Local democratic involvement in education was seen as the best option as itprovides accountability. Long-term resilience and buy-in requires a democraticmandate. There was a suggestion that in an authority where the council washung, there might be more tensions and difficulties.



There is a worry that DfES is undermining this valuable local government role.There is a definite concern about Trust schools as they believe it would be divisiveand they also worry about the loss of a collective endeavour.

Schools of Thought In practice – the role of local authorities in education54

6 In practice – the role oflocal authorities in education

The intention of this research was therefore to learn about howlocal authorities have responded to national policy developmentsand how the case study authorities were undertaking their role inpractice.

With reference to the case studies in the previous chapter, this section thereforeanswers three questions:

• What is the scope of the local authority role in promoting educationaloutcomes?

• What style of approach has been used in performing this role?

• What does this tell us about the importance of a locally elected tier in education?

What is the scope of the local authority role in promotingeducational outcomes?

Local authorities have been assigned a multitude of roles in relation to education:‘strategic commissioner’, ‘parent champion’ and a ‘custodian of standards’.Essentially they are required to play strategic, managerial and political roles. Themyriad of policy developments have raised questions about the exact nature oflocal government’s role in education. Research identified six roles that localauthorities played. These roles were not mutually exclusive and most localauthorities played more than one role.

A ‘whole-area’ approach

The term ‘Local Education Authority’ has become an outdated term. There is arecognition that a child’s educational development is influenced by a number offactors beyond the school. The emphasis on integrated children’s services andjoined-up working, means that promoting educational outcomes extends beyondthe sphere of the education department. There needs to be a wider localauthority view on education.

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought In practice – the role of local authorities in education 55

It is clear from our case studies that local authorities see promoting educationaloutcomes as wider than their work with schools. Whilst school improvement isseen as core, local authorities also saw that they needed to create theappropriate conditions for children to learn.

“...schools are just one component of delivering educational outcomes.We subscribe very strongly to the view that ‘it takes a village to educatea child’ - and it does, it takes a community working together...”

Local authority officer

There was an acute understanding of the challenges and needs of the area, andhow education was aligned with other strategies and the overall corporate vision.It was clear from a number of interviews that local authorities take a whole-authority approach to education, rather than seeing education as solely thepreserve of the education department. In interviewees with local authoritypersonnel, the term LEA was rarely used. Instead they talked about the localauthority.

“...we don’t use the phrase local education authority... we talk aboutthe council and we talk about the education service or the school servicebut we don’t see it as a separate policy or a separate part of theorganisation... there is a recognition that education plays in so manyother agendas...”


The local authority’s wider role in children’s services and, in particular, the ECMfive outcomes was seen as integral in promoting educational attainment. Ratherthan just focusing on what occurs in schools, many of the local authorities sawthat delivery on all the ‘five outcomes’ was essential to promoting outcomes ineducation. For example, some of the authorities had introduced areapartnerships focused on integrated services and multi-agency working to tacklethe ‘whole-child’ needs. This was also recognised by a number of the school headteachers. The extended schools agenda was referenced by local authorities andschools as being crucial to a ‘whole-child approach.’ Other service areas such ashousing, crime and anti-social behaviour, adult social services, regeneration andeconomic development were frequently mentioned as linked to educationaldevelopment. The council’s direct and indirect roles in these areas were seen as afurther way that they could influence a child’s educational development:


“...you can’t separate that [educational development] from what’shappening in the rest of their lives, so if there’s issues like domesticviolence or poverty in the home, poor housing, all of those issues all haveto be taken into consideration and I think it’s the local authority’s job torecognise that if you’re going to get children achieving well at school,being happy at school, then you’ve got to look at all aspects of theirlives...”Member for children and young people

Joining-up the local system

Local authorities can develop a locally-appropriate vision by taking a ‘whole-area’approach but they also have a role in bringing in other local partners. In anenvironment where roles and responsibilities are diffused there is an importantrole for local authorities in bringing coherence and co-ordination to educationpolicy. They have a function in bringing local partners together.

This joining-up role was frequently mentioned in interviews with local authorityofficers and elected members. It was described in various ways as ‘strategicleader’, ‘broker’, ‘coordinator’, ‘orchestrator’ and ‘facilitator.’ They see that theyhave a unique role in joining up the local system. Councils sit at the centre oftheir localities and are able to give coherence to the whole system.

“...the local authority works with schools to get them to see thatindividual initiatives – that can be very bitty and very boxed andfragmentary – can actually be, if they work together and with us, bestitched together in a way that makes holistic sense in the classroom orstaffroom. The local authority sees themselves as the glue in the systemand so do schools...”Local authority officer

Firstly, they can outline a shared endeavour for education and can determine theclimate of expectation within which partners are working. Local authorities talkabout wanting to enlist schools in their wider goals. Many local authorities talkedabout creating a ‘shared mission’, ‘shared endeavour’ of ‘shared vision’ within a‘family of schools’. This might also entail the local authority leading the process,communicating and selling the values:

“...firstly, we went out and asked people to support certain principles– we had a list. We had a number of meetings and everybody went


along with the idea that Building Schools for the Future would betransformational, that it would be at the heart of communities, that itwould involve communities. It was about the selling of ideas – it wasabout improving life chances of children...”Member for children and young people

Their understanding of local needs and wider responsibilities gives them thecredibility to join-up a network of partners. One local authority officer remarkedthat there had been an increased acceptance of working together since the ECMagenda and it had helped to promote multi-agency working.

The council’s wider role also gives them legitimacy to get involved and facilitatelinks between partners. In particular, their role is in cross-boundary issues, wherethere is no one agency responsible – frequently-mentioned issues were dealingwith falling school rolls and surplus places; primary to secondary schooltransition, extended schools and 14-19 provision. Their understanding of thelocal needs of the area and their overarching responsibilities means that they arewell equipped to deal with these trans-institutional issues.

Strategic commissioner

National policy, in particular the Education and Inspections Bill, has highlighted ashift in the role of local authorities from traditional service provider to strategiccommissioner. However, this is based on an assumption that this is a new role forlocal government.

All interviewees recognised this much-discussed shift in role. They accept thatthe local authority’s task is to define the needs of the area and ensure that thepattern of services matches this need. In some cases, particularly with electedmembers, this was merely an acceptance of the current climate rather than theirpreferred situation. All believed that their role had changed many years ago.

We would describe commissioning as the client-side process of firstly defining theneed for a particular service and then designing and buying the provision of suchservices from an array of existing suppliers, whether they are internal or externalto the client organisation.

Our interviewees appeared to understand the term commissioning in its mostobvious and basic sense, namely as defining the needs and priorities of an areaand ensuring that provision meets those needs.


Local authorities believe that they are well-placed to define and articulate a visionfor education in the local area. With their overarching responsibilities for thelocality they are best placed to understand the local challenges and how they areinterlinked – ‘knowing context well enables you to have confidence about howyou meet the needs’. As such, they can define the priorities based on theseneeds and, with partners, can develop a long-term vision by which educationprovision is guided.

They formulate local policies and ensure that their vision for education is alignedwith these strategies and with corporate vision – in many of the interviews therewas reference to this. There were also frequent references to policies that hadbeen aimed at tackling the issues that affect a child’s educational performance.For instance, some local authorities have worked with parents on literacy skillsand parenting classes or had arranged for police officers to visit schools todiscourage anti-social behaviour.

Looking at the commissioning of school places, local authorities understand andare undertaking their role in planning the school system. Many of the localauthorities demonstrated that they were planning the pattern of schools in theirarea. For instance Kent County Council has recently undertaken a primary schoolstrategy in light of falling school rolls which was prepared by a cross-countygroup of head teachers and officers. This strategy involves a programme ofclosure, school amalgamation and federation – which includes definitions of whatthey regard as the ‘correct’ size for a school. Knowsley Metropolitan BoroughCouncil had conducted a schools commission which looked at the whole schoolestate and the issue of surplus places.

There was, however, a lack of clarity amongst the local authorities about strategiccommissioning. The term commissioning was used by many interviewees todenote different things. There were varying views as to how provision should bemet. Very few of the local authorities mentioned that commissioning neccessarilymeant getting different providers to deliver services. Indeed some were resistantto the idea:

“...I think the idea of local government just being a service or anagency, to commission services that are provided by other people.I think that’s a sterile view of local government really... why wouldpeople bother going out to vote ultimately if council’s don’t control the


services? I think we need to do more than have an arm’s lengthrelationship sometimes...”


Some local authorities explicity recognised that commissioning meant there wasno assumption that services should be provided by the local authority. The casestudies provide evidence of confusion about the commissioning role and that it isopen to a number of interpretations. There needs to be greater clarity ofdefinition about what the commissioning role entails.

Market manager

Local authorities are increasingly expected to be market managers, providingincentives for new entrants to manage services. There are, arguably, differentskills needed to commission services successfully, and to ‘market manage’successfully. Acting as a commissioner is a neccessary but not sufficient rolewhen attempting to manage and shape an entire market.

As market managers, they should instead seek to commission services from bothinternal and external providers and as such manage and stimulate market supplyfor education services, functions for schools, school support services andchildcare services. Local authorities will also need to ensure that where new typesof support are needed, they are able to stimulate more entrants and ensure thatthere is a diverse supply of provision able to meet these demands. They will needto develop their market management skills across all areas of service.

Some of the case study local authorities demonstrated that they had experienceof commissioning services from the private and voluntary sectors. For example,at Shropshire County Council, the Family Support workers on the multi-agencyteam are employed by Barnado’s. There was no evidence that they were resistantto this role. In some of the local authorities there was a recognition that serviceswould need to create and manage a market:

“...it is a supra-organisation which sits above and across other partnerswhere you do not have to own the established staffing to deliver servicebecause we create a market which enables services. So things have tobe contestable...”



However, this view was not universal and was not articulated in all local authorityinterviews. This suggests that some local authorities will need to give furtherthought to developing their market management skills.

Quality assurance

Whilst there is an expectation that schools should be self-managing andautonomous, there is still an issue about what to do about schools that are notperforming to required standards. Local authorities are required to be a ‘backstop’for school standards. Most recently, the Education and Inspections Bill clarified thatlocal authorities have a role in intervening in schools that are under-performing.

Whilst local authorities are clear that they do not manage schools, officers andelected members do see that they have a clear role in quality assurance. This canbe an enabling role:

“...we are the conductor of an orchestra. We could not do what headteachers do – conductors don’t play instruments. It is a different skill –enabling experts to be able to do their job well...”Local authority officer

This was reinforced by the interviews with head teachers. All local authorityinterviewees recognised that autonomous and self-managing schools were bestplaced to improve educational attainment. However there was a key role for localauthorities when performance was below par to challenge schools by acting as acritical friend and offering additional support where necessary. Ultimately localauthorities felt that they had a duty to intervene in under-performing schoolsbecause they were responsible for the outcomes for children and young people inthe area.

“...we have been tough and relentless on standards. We will move headteachers out and head teachers in...”Local authority officer

“...I think it’s about ensuring that there’s quality across the board. Inthe schools who aren’t doing as well, to monitor them...”Member for children and young people

They also saw that they had a role in brokering relationships between schools toencourage the sharing of best practice. This might include brokering mentoringor setting up networks or forums where schools meet regularly or even


federations. Of course, this is not the sole preserve of the local authority – manyschools have done this themselves. But the local authority can be a helpfulfacilitator and broker. The drive towards collaboration between schools wastherefore seen as very important in promoting educational attainment.

Parent champion

As a locally elected body, local authorities are accountable to citizens for servicesin their locality. They are the body that can respond to parental concerns aboutschools and act as a parent or child ‘champion.’ Increasingly, part of the role oflocal authorities is about ensuring services are responsive to citizen demands, inthis case the needs of the child. As such, it is already widely agreed that usersatisfaction is to be a bigger part of inspection.

The parent champion role was embraced by some authorities who saw it as theirduty to follow up parental concerns:

“...we don’t always offer [schools] help and support. If we are gettingcomplaints from parents then we have a responsibility to investigatefurther. We were an advocate of parents before the Education andInspections Bill. We are not a friend of schools – we are a friend ofparents and child...”Local authority officer

The views and concerns of parents and the wider community were felt to beimportant. Many local authorities made reference to consultation andengagement with parents and the wider community. Although the role of ‘parentchampion’ was not always directly articulated, local authority interviewees clearlyfelt that they had a duty to ensure standards in schools. Indirectly, this indicatesthat local authorities have a responsibility to the children and parents in theirarea. Local authorities did see that they were accountable for education in theirarea and as such they have a role in representing parents and children.

What style of approach has been used in performing this role?

In undertaking these roles local authorities could choose a number of approachesto influence outcomes in education:

• firstly they have a choice to make about how closely they choose to follownational direction in education policy – they can either implement nationalpolicy or interpret it to suit their local areas; or


• secondly, they have a choice to make about how they conduct theirrelationships with schools – they can either seek to direct schools or work withthem in a more persuasive manner.

Whilst they could in theory choose to structure their relationship with schools indifferent ways, the case study authorities all seem to be working in broadly thesame way. In terms of the ideal-type approaches identified earlier, the role of localauthorities in terms of style of approach fit into the interpretative/persuasivecategory of the matrix:

Persuasive Persuasive interpretation implementation Chosen style of local authorities

Directive Directive implementation interpretation

There are obviously variations within this matrix of how the different localauthorities behave. This will be explored later. Local authorities themselves willalso adopt different approaches for different aspects of their work.


Local authorities generally accepted the main thrust of central governmenteducation policy and did see a role for themselves as implementing their agenda.There was no apparent desire (or indeed scope) for local authorities to reject themajor requirements of national policy. However, all local authoritiesdemonstrated an awareness of the needs and priorities of their local area, andhow education aligned with an overall corporate vision for the area. They did seethat they had some degree of flexibility to tailor and interpret national policies,and to also filter national policy:

“...we’re very strongly aware that at least part of our function is to bethe local agent of a national policy formation group, or department, orministry or whatever. What happens is that, you probably find that yougot this answer from any director that you asked anywhere in thecountry. It hits the ground in... and immediately it is changed. It is notthis glorious shiny silver thing that Whitehall decided fitted thisbeautiful box...”Local authority officer


Many also develop their own independent policies suited to their local area –‘acting with authority rather than wondering what it was they were – or were not– allowed to do’. So for example, some councils had developed clusters andconfederations before the Government had encouraged councils to do so.Sheffield and Kent County Council had also developed work focused practicallearning schemes to raise educational aspiration and to encourage vocationaleducation based on skills needs in their area. Local authorities were therefore notslavish in their acceptance of government policy and would interpret policies inlight of their local contexts. Despite this, many local authorities did howeverremark that there was an over dominance of central control and targets, and thatthey would like to have more flexibility and freedom from central government toapply locally appropriate solutions.

School autonomy

There was a universal acceptance of school autonomy across all case studyauthorities, with local authorities abandoning their command and control methodof working. Indeed many authorities mentioned that they had devolved downresources to schools or groups of schools. Local authorities tended to operate ona principle of ‘earned autonomy’.

“...I understand the argument for schools having a fair degree ofautonomy... I think it should be autonomy within a boundary ofaccountability...”Local authority officer

That is, if the school is performing to standards then the council’s approach willbe relatively light-touch. However, there is a bottom-line and if the school isunderperforming then local authorities will intervene to challenge and support.This is because local authorities see that they have a role in quality assurance.Formal statutory powers are used by some authorities but they are always usedreluctantly:

“...well ultimately our concern has to be for the well-being and progressof children and young people so if things become so serious that weneed to use our statutory powers then we will do so. But we don’t usethem lightly at all...”Local authority officer

The view that statutory powers were a last resort was one echoed in a number ofthe interviewees. Intervention is therefore in inverse proportion to success. This


was generally backed up by the schools. However, having the use of formalpowers can be useful, as even the threat of them can be a mechanism for gettingschools to act in accordance with the local authority.

There is constructive conflict between the schools and local authority and it isrecognised that good relationships need continuous work. Where there isdisagreement, local authorities often use techniques of negotiation, persuasionand cajolery to get schools on board.

Whilst school autonomy is embraced, an insular attitude tends not to beaccepted. Local authorities want to see schools operate in a ‘family of schools’.Even in some of the local authorities with more autonomous schools, officers andcouncillors would make reference to a ‘family’ or ‘community’ of schools. So whileschool autonomy is accepted, local authorities worry when schools are notinvolved in the shared endeavour. They want schools to be on board with thecollective aims and their values, otherwise there can be conflict. Whilst talkingabout a school where their relationship was fractured one local authorityinterviewee remarked:

“...their philosophy is very, very different from ours... but because of itsadmissions policy, because of its selection, because of its approach tosocial inclusion, because of its exclusion rate, our schools steer clear ofit. So you get the other schools saying, well why should we talk to thembecause they behave like this...”Local authority officer

Whilst this report had a focus on the ‘family of schools’ within authorityboundaries, many children travel across local authority boundaries to attendschool. It is important, therefore, in meeting the needs of the ‘whole-child’, thatlocal authorities should develop links and networks across boundaries.

In some of the larger authorities there is a risk that if the council is too light-touch, then they are in danger of becoming very distant from the schools:

“...they are not intrusive, not on my case all the time, they do not haulme to account, they are not on top of me... so I don’t know whether itsbecause they have confidence in what we are doing, and so they arefairly OK with us and check up now and again. Or whether they are sostretched at their end that they have no time to check up on us...” Head teacher


This can be a useful learning point for authorities. In cases where schools areperforming well, and the need for local authority intervention and interaction islower, there is a risk that schools can become disconnected from the localauthority. It is important that schools are not just connected with other schools,but that they are linked into the wider network.

Local variations in style of approach

As mentioned earlier, there are distinctions and variations within this overall styleof ‘persuasive interpretation’ in how local authorities structure their approach.There are differing models of approach emerging. This was mainly dependent onthe size and diversity of the authority.

Size of authority

It was evident from the case studies that there was a difference in approachbetween small and large authorities. Small authorities are able to cultivate a moreclose knit collaborative or collegiate network than larger authorities. This oftenmeans that they have a close working relationship and in some cases are able tobe more persuasive than larger authorities. The model that emerged in many ofthe smaller authorities, was one of a partnership, where schools were involved indeveloping proposals and vision. The council, in a smaller authority, is more ableto sit at the centre of the partnership rather than at the top. This is because theyhave more formal and informal contact with their schools and are more easilyable to develop a co-leadership approach with schools.

This is not to say that this cannot work in larger authorities, but that it is moredifficult. As is to be expected, a large local authority often has a more distantrelationship with its schools. There were also more examples of schools beingdirected to do things because of the sheer scale and size of the authority.Devolved arrangements such as clusters, where groups of schools work together,are a route to being less directive. They provide a way to manage the size of theauthority as they are a route through which the local authority can have arelationship with schools. These arrangements do need to be carefully thoughtthrough and structured. Rather than simply seeing these arrangements as a wayof controlling schools, they need to see these clusters as enabling dialoguebetween the schools and local authorities. Local authorities should developclusters in collaboration with schools, not impose arrangements onto schools.Nor should schools necessarily see clusters as their own ‘mini-LEA’ but instead as


a route through which to connect to the broader aims and goals of the localauthority.

Diversity of authority

It was also clear from the case studies that there was a difference in approachbetween authorities based on the diversity of the locality. In homogeneous localauthorities, where the issues in a local authority are felt to be broadly similar, it iseasier for the local authority to pull together all schools in the locality. It ispossible to get schools to face in the same direction as they generally face similarissues.

In an authority, often a larger authority, where there is considerable diversity,different areas and schools will face different problems. It will be more difficult forthe local authority to get schools on board with the same vision. They will have toemploy a differentiated strategy.

Complexity of social problems

The complexity of social problems of the authority also has an impact on theapproach that the council takes. In the authorities which have more complex socialand economic problems, there is a focus on education as tackling wider equalityoutcomes. In promoting educational outcomes they take more of a ‘whole-child’approach, where education is firmly integrated and aligned with all council policy.

In an authority where there is less social complexity amongst the population,there are less pressures on the local authority. Although these authorities willnecessarily need to understand the needs of the whole-child, they tend to have agreater focus on ensuring standards in education.

What does this tell us about the importance of a locally electedtier in education?

Given what we have discussed the role of the local authority in education, why istheir democratic mandate considered important? Why could these functions notbe undertaken by a non-departmental public body reporting to DfES?

The democratic mandate of the local authority is valued by all elected membersand by most officers that were interviewed. Many head teachers also saw theimportance of some form of accountability but responses were more varied. Thedemocratic mandate of local authorities is seen as important for the difficultchoices that the council has to make, for example around school closures. They


have the legitimacy and authority to make decisions that affect their local areathrough their representative role – this is what they have been elected to do.

Councillors are seen as providing a link to the community, which can help toachieve buy-in when difficult decisions need to be made. They provideaccountability, a route through which parents are able to raise their concerns.This key role for elected members in taking difficult decisions will becomeincreasingly important in the context of the forthcoming ComprehensiveSpending Review (CSR). The job of a locally elected representative will be to taketough decisions about limited resources and the downstream pressures that thiswill create on the expansionary places in schools.

Furthermore, the council’s wider responsibilities are also seen as giving the localauthority further leverage in their role in education. It gives them the credibilityto sit at the centre of local partners, to make sense of local needs and articulatethe policy goals and ethos that partners are working within. Their widerdemocratic responsibilities creates the authority to play a joining-up role and tocreate a ‘family’ approach to improved educational outcomes.

Amongst the case study samples, three authorities had non local authorityinvolvement in the management of their education services – London Borough ofHackney, Surrey County Council, Walsall Metropolital Borough Council. However,in these authorities there is still a democratic framework where the council have aview about education and stay engaged with the department. The outsourcing ofthe education department can therefore be successful and need not change therelationship with the council. Whilst the management is exercised by an externalprovider there is still a relationship with the democratically-electedrepresentatives, who can set priorities and scrutinise decisions. There is still aroute back to a democratic framework, where decisions can be held to account.Management leadership does not necessarily have to be exercised by the localauthority in order for them to have influence over education provision.

Party politics, however, was viewed as negative. In the instances where there hadbeen a hung council it was seen as sometimes creating blockages as the councilreached a deadlock. One school interviewee mentioned that in the six monthsbefore an election it was difficult to get decisions made. It was also telling thatlocal authorities that had a long history of a one-party system saw this as anadvantage because it bought stability. This suggests that inter-party conflict cansometimes create an unstable or unproductive context.

Schools of Thought In practice – mechanisms of influence68

7 In practice – mechanisms of influenceto promote educational outcomes

The case studies demonstrated several mechanisms of influencingeducational outcomes within the current pluralist environment,which can be applied to all local authorities. These mechanisms,taken together, can provide useful tools for local authorities toinfluence a child’s educational development.

Creating the right environment

It is important that partners are operating in a trusting environment. The localauthority must work hard to create open, honest and transparent relationships,where people understand why and how decisions are made. In Hackney, the localeducation department had lost the trust of schools. The relationship with schoolsbecame dysfunctional and the local authority lost its capacity to influence. Theyhave therefore worked on creating a more honest and open relationship with theschools:

“...there was clarity of roles and openness. We became much moretransparent with schools about how money was being spent, why certainschools received additional money and additional intervention...”

As in most relationships there will sometimes be conflict and disagreementbetween head teachers and the local authority, so it is important to constantlywork on these relationships. This requires flexibility and negotiation.

Building a collective moral purpose

An important step in adapting to a more pluralist environment where roles andresponsibilities are diffused is creating a sense of collective moral purpose or anethos. This links back to the idea of local authorities creating a ‘family of schools’,where all players within a local system feel like that they are part of a sharedendeavour. In order to create this, the goals, aims and rules of the system mustbe clearly defined. The local authority sits at the centre of the network of playersand with its overarching and wider responsibilities it can help foster this sharedendeavour. It can articulate the policy goals and the values which underpin thesystem. For example one local authority saw that part of its vision was ‘being

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought In practice – mechanisms of influence 69

aspirational and to communicate this to head teachers and children.’ Asdemonstrated by Knowsley, in having a collective purpose, everyone has someresponsibility for change and all head teachers should be concerned about thesuccess of all schools:

“...the schools and local authority have a shared endeavour – butdifferent responsibilities and different perspectives. We respect eachother’s discrete roles in that endeavour...”Local authority officer

It is clear to all the players what the rules of the system are and what there role iswithin this. Many of the case study authorities talked about having created a‘family of schools’ and having a shared mission or vision, accepted by the schoolsand local authority. The actions of the local authority (or the school) can then bejustified with reference to this shared vision.

Partners should be involved in developing the vision

It is important that this shared vision is developed in conjunction with the keyplayers as it will strengthen the vision, and that they are able to have input intodeveloping the goals and values. Many of the case study authorities emphasiseda shared vision rather than a local authority led vision. In York, for example, itwas seen as very important to engage head teachers and schools in theproposals:

“...now they engage very early on when they are developing proposals,so there are well-planned timescales, informative briefs, verystructured. Schools have opportunity to shape policy...”Local authority officer

The local authority should therefore actively consult with key players early in theprocess. This will ensure not just that they buy-in but that they are activelycommitted:

“...the skill is to identify an agenda, get people to see it as their agenda,get them to buy-in and relentlessly put resources into the agenda...”Local authority officer

They should also ensure that partners stay focused on these common goals andthat they are constantly communicated.

Encouraging collaboration

The case studies demonstrated the importance of local authorities fostering andbrokering collaboration between schools. Although schools do have informalmethods of collaborating with other schools, local authorities can reinforce thiscollaboration across the whole area. Connecting schools with other schools canhelp build up a ‘family of schools’ and a coherent schools policy. In order to dothis they already need to have a certain level of influence with schools. However,once a network of schools has been set up, the collegiate atmosphere canreinforce the values and policy aims of the entire local system:

“...then we moved from collaboration to co-leadership. We developed aconcept of devolving responsibility closest to where it would have affect.Also concept of mutual accountability...”Local authority officer

In Knowsley the collaboration between schools was seen as vital for creating acoherent educational policy.

Voluntary compacts

To formalise the shared endeavour of local authorities and schools it can be usefulto have a voluntary compact outlining the shared values and goals. For instance,Gateshead was early in developing voluntary compacts and Sheffield are to use‘Excellence and Equity’ statements, which detail their values and ambitions and acommitment to a way of working. Reference can therefore be made to theseagreements through the course of the relationship. The use of voluntaryagreements rather than compulsory contracts can be more beneficial as it meansthat it is seen as a shared agreement, rather than something that has beenimposed.

Communication channels

There need to be clear and robust communication channels between the localauthority and schools. Head teachers should be consulted early on whendeveloping policy. Forums and networks can be set up which provide anopportunity for contact between local authorities and schools. In smallerauthorities it is easier to hold meetings with all players around the table. In largeauthorities this may not be possible, but the council can still maintain contactthrough cluster arrangements, as Kent County Council has done, and through


Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought In practice – mechanisms of influence 71

the local authority personnel that work directly with the schools. There should bemechanisms for the local authority and schools to engage in a dialogue.

Credibility

The local authority does not have the automatic respect of schools: it firstly needsto be earned through competence. In the London Borough of Hackney andWalsall, the education departments were outsourced to external providers whohave helped to win back the trust of schools, whereas previously relationshipswere described as ‘dysfunctional.’ This is partly attributed to the fact that theireducation departments are now seen as more competent, as demonstratedthrough their performance. Credibility is also derived from the wider localauthority responsibilities in the area and from their democratic mandate –although this on its own does not necessarily earn respect.

Personnel

The quality of the personnel was seen as very important for good relationships andtherefore for influencing schools. In each of the interviewees reference was made tothe characteristics of key personnel, particularly the DCS and the head teacher.Where a school was praising the work of the local authority they often mademention of the style of approach of the DCS. A light-touch and consultativeapproach is appreciated by schools but they also wanted failure and under-performance to be dealt with. Personnel in the local authority were often criticisedfor either being too autocratic or for not being knowledgeable enough about schoolimprovement. Either way it can damage the credibility of the local authority.

Clear and robust agreed framework

The case studies also revealed that it was helpful to clarify the frameworks withinwhich all the players were working. As one local councillor remarked, there needsto be ‘clarity about what is not negotiable.’ To this end, it is helpful to have clearand detailed protocols so that schools can understand why a local authority isintervening and how they arrived at that decision.

“The important thing is to ensure that you don’t go into situations onthe basis of capricious decision-making by officers. So always make surethat there are clear policies and formulae. Written, explicit clear policywhich determine decisions that are made...”Local authority officer

Surrey County Council’s ASIP or Hertfordshire’s MSCI programme is a goodillustration of this type of framework. These detail, in agreement with schools,how schools are categorised. Both systems allow autonomy for the schools andsecurity for the local authority.

Robust data

Good quality data can be an important lever for local authorities who are trying tomake a school address under-performance. In Shropshire County Council, thelocal authority has robust data and management information systems, whichthey believe act as a mechanism of influence. This was cited by a number ofinterviewees who felt that if firm and robust evidence was put in front of schoolsthen they had no option but to accept support:

“...this is where the evidence and the data comes in. Because if you canput it in front of them, and say these are our concerns it’s here, it’shere, it’s here, it’s here and they say fair cop or they say no you’rewrong we say ‘OK, prove it’...”Local authority officer

There are therefore a number of ways in which local authorities are able to haveinfluence in the current environment. These case study authorities have adaptedwell to a pluralist environment and the lessons from these authorities can beapplied to local authorities who are struggling to come to terms with a situationin which they cannot control schools directly.

We therefore identified that these local authorities look to create a ‘family’approach to improved educational outcomes. These mechanisms of influencesuggest ways that this ‘family’ approach can be built up and sustained by localauthorities, as well as suggesting some practical ways that local authorities canseek to influence schools within this familial context. These mechanisms can beapplied more widely to all local authorities.


Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought The future – after the Act 73

8 The future – after the Act

The case studies we explored shed light on the likely impact of theEducation and Inspections Act for local authorities. On the whole,most respondents reported that the Act would not have a bigimmediate impact on the way that local authorities worked.

Many local authorities were already playing the kind of strategic role that the Billhad articulated. Local authorities had already seen the shift in their role fromprovider to strategic commissioner. Although as highlighted earlier, there aredifferent views about what this means in practice. It is also clear that localauthorities are already involved in supporting ‘coasting schools.’ Also, a numberof local authorities already worked with a high proportion of independent schoolsand were comfortable with their relationships with these schools. If anything theBill was believed to have clarified and sharpened the role of the local authority. Itwas welcomed but not felt to contain much that was new and that woulddramatically change their role.

Trust schools

There was, however, one area of contention and this was on the issue of Trustschools. There was one group of local authorities that felt Trust schools would belargely irrelevant. These authorities already tended to have a high proportion ofindependent schools and schools that had historically been grant-maintained. Astheir formal powers in these schools were already limited, they were not fazed bythe idea of having more independent schools as they had already adapted toworking with them. There was more concern from a few of these authorities thatthere was a level playing field. That is, they would not be concerned if schoolsbecame Trust schools, but if a few schools in their area did decide to seek Trustschool status, they would rather all the schools did. They would prefer thateveryone was operating by the same rules.

On the other hand, there was another group of authorities, usually with a highproportion of community schools, who were slightly more cautious about Trustschools. They were not necessarily welcoming of Trust schools and did not believethat they were necessarily the best solution for their area. In particular, some ofthe elected members expressed concern about the intentions of those involved in

Trust schools. If Trust schools have an ethos which is at odds with the localauthority, then they might not form part of the wider schools family.This concernstems from the fact that local authorities want to enlist schools in their widergoals and in order to have a coherent school policy want to have schools on-board with their vision. They do not want schools to step outside the ‘family ofschools’ or behave in an insular way.

This fear did not necessarily correlate with having lower skills of influence, butmore it was a function of not having had historical experience and confidence ofattempting to co-ordinate the contribution of a large number of autonomousschools. Despite some of the concerns that were expressed, nearly all localauthority officers were confident that even if their schools did seek Trust schoolstatus, they would want to stay in partnership with the local authorities. Theytherefore did not perceive the Education and Inspections Bill as having massiveimpact. Out of the twelve interviewed authorities, only one authority was entirelyopposed to Trust schools on the grounds that they would be more Independentand therefore more difficult to influence.

Fragmented schools policy

Increasing the diversity of providers is aimed at increasing parental choice andwill encourage competition between schools. Yet some fear that this competitionwill destroy the collaboration that local authorities and schools have worked hardat building. It will still be necessary for schools to work together on the extendedschools agenda and around 14-19 provision. So collaboration will continue to bevery important, not just for sharing best practice, but for strategically plannedservices.

Some of the mechanisms of influence that were highlighted in the previouschapter, such as creating a co-developed vision and offering incentives forcollaboration, may go some way to resolving this tension. But they also have anadditional form of influence. Local authorities will work with the SchoolsCommissioner to match up sponsors with schools. This will give them leverage toengage in an early dialogue and build relationships with potential sponsors(parents groups, education charities, business or community or voluntary sectorbodies) to involve them in the network of schools.

From the case studies, it does not seem that local authorities have given muchthought to increasing the diversity of providers. Only one of the local authorities

Schools of Thought The future – after the Act74

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought The future – after the Act 75

mentioned actively encouraging the diversity of providers. The Government hasrecently announced 50 Trust school pilots and this will perhaps be the start ofencouraging more authorities to plan their strategies.

Other than Trust schools there were a few other issues arising out of theEducation and Inspections Bill. Many of the authorities outside of Londonexpressed concern that the Bill was too London-centric and that it did not takeinto account rural areas and northern metropolitans. It was felt that the ‘choiceagenda’ was very much aimed at London and the surrounding areas and that itwould be difficult to offer choice in vast rural areas. A few interviewees alsoexpressed concern that the Bill was not properly aligned with the Every ChildMatters and complained about incoherent Government policy. They felt that localauthorities’ wider duty to promote the five outcomes for children and youngpeople was not properly recognised in the Bill and as such it had not properlyclarified or defined the role of the local authority in promoting a child’seducational development.

The situation that we found in these case study authorities is that local authoritiesdemonstrated considerable adaptability to national reforms, which they believehelped them to pursue quality of education provision in their localities. Howeverthere is some anxiety from some local authorities – in particular those who hadnot had a high degree of experience with autonomous schools – about whetherTrust schools represent the best solution in their local areas. In particular, it is notyet clear how Trust schools will operate and whether they will undermine the‘family of schools’, which is seen as integral to promoting outcomes in education.This will therefore need to be addressed in our recommendations to both localand national government.

9 Conclusion and recommendations

Local authorities in this study have adapted to a pluralistenvironment, where they are comfortable with the fragmentationof power and responsibilities. They have discovered a new role atthe centre of a local network of partners, holding the ‘family ofschools’ together. These case study authorities were identified asexamples of good practice and provide lessons from which all localauthorities can learn.

This report has highlighted the core components of local authorities’ role inpromoting improved educational outcomes. A number of common themes haveemerged:

• Local authorities are well-placed to take a holistic and joined-up approach topromoting better educational outcomes, ensuring that children arrive in theclassroom in a fit state to learn. They can do this by ensuring that education isaligned with the corporate vision and that there are strong internal linksbetween departments.

• Their democratic mandate gives councils unique credibility required to takedifficult decisions affecting the entire area. It creates the authority to play ajoining-up role and to create a ‘family’ approach to improved educationaloutcomes.

• Political leadership is also important in developing a vision or collectiveendeavour that is shared by the whole community, where there is a clearunderstanding of the values and ethos that underpins the policy goals.

• The capacity to hold this ‘family of schools’ together is a managerialfunction. Councils need to ensure that they have the capacity to meet thechallenge.

• The case study local authorities all see the advantages of school autonomy.They take a persuasive approach towards schools and their level ofintervention is in inverse proportion to the success of the school.

• The case study local authorities all interpret national policy and tailor it tosuit local circumstances.

Schools of Thought Conclusion and recommendations76

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought Conclusion and recommendations 77

• There are different models of school co-ordination emerging in small and largelocal authorities. Small local authorities tend to develop close-knitcollaborative arrangements. The ‘school family’ in larger authorities is morediffuse and often managed through cluster arrangements.

Recommendations

Encouraging local authorities to adapt to the new environment

• Joint area reviews should assess the competence of local authorities tomanage a diversity of supply and to create shared goals across the ‘family ofschools’ in their area.

- This should be built into the development of the area based andrationalised post-CPA performance regime.

• Rather than DfES issuing further guidance, we recommend that the localgovernment family, through the Local Government Association (LGA), shouldbe given a time limited opportunity to take the lead in raising competence incommissioning and market management to meet educational need. This willrequire greater clarity of definitions, an audit of core skills and support inraising capability.

- Local government improvement partnerships should deliver the resultantsupport programmes.

- DfES involvement would follow where sufficient improvement had notoccurred within the agreed timescale.

Cultivating a ‘family of schools’

• Individual school inspection by Ofsted should introduce a new assessment tomeasure and recognise individual schools contribution to the success ofschools in their area.

• Local authorities should proactively identify a pool of potential Trust schoolsponsors and build relationships with them to strengthen the ‘family of schools’approach; so reducing the risk of future cultural conflicts between schools.

• Collaboration between schools should be incentivised by local authorities, throughthe delegation of decision-making and resources to groups of schools.

• Local authorities should give priority to creating communication frameworksand forums through which they can engage with schools. In larger authoritiesthe school clusters may be the best model through which to organise andsupport schools.

Local skills

• Local authorities should audit their readiness against the ten point influencingmatrix described in chapter seven.

• Where a local authority lacks internal capacity to manage and deliver commonvalues across a diversity of providers, they should consider outsourcingmanagement to an external provider.

• Local authorities need to develop market management skills across all areas ofservice that impact on children’s ability to learn.

Local authority vision for education

• Local authorities should develop a locally appropriate vision for educationthrough creation of Partnership Boards (see chapter five: Walsall case study)

Recommendations to national government

• DfES should fund accelerated dissemination and implementation of best practiceacross local authorities through local government improvement partnerships.22

• DfES should include education portfolio holders in their pre-CSR deliberations.This should lead to agreement on ongoing support for leading councillors tobetter fulfil their role in taking hard political decisions about limited resources

- Where falling rolls create hard choices for school supply it is vital thatparents and citizens see decisions as legitimate. Political leadership is vitalin reaching collective decisions where resources are limited.

• We recommend that the Government should publish a list of bodies itconsiders appropriate to act as Trust sponsors.

Schools of Thought Conclusion and recommendations78

22 An improvement partnership is formed when a group of local authorities and/or fire and rescueauthorities work together to improve their internal capacity. There are currently a number ofimprovement partnerships underway, ranging from small scale co-operation by a handful of councils onspecific projects up to regional-wide co-operation on a much broader agenda.

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought Conclusion and recommendations 79

• DfES should fund pilot studies in local authorities to develop educationpartnership boards to include the input of business.

- This will gives local partners, schools, colleges, the LSC and businessgroups, an opportunity to contribute to a locally appropriate vision foreducation.

• Whitehall departments need to reconcile their differing views about thestrategic function of local authorities by ensuring that all future guidance isconsistent with the final report of the Lyons Inquiry.

• Government should introduce a duty on local partners, including schools, toco-operate with the local authorities ‘duty’ of well-being.

- Local authorities’ role in promoting educational outcomes can be furtherenhanced by the opportunities presented by the forthcoming LocalGovernment White Paper and Lyons Inquiry findings.

Appendix 1 Bibliography and references

Allen L (2004) Schools beyond the classroom: managing collaboration forsocial inclusion, London: NLGN

Atkinson R and Savage s (ed) (2001) Public Policy under Blair, London:Palgrave Macmillan

Audit Commission (1989) Losing an empire, finding a role: the LEA of thefuture, London: HMSO

Audit Commission (2006) Consultation response to Higher Standards,Better Schools for All: More Choice for parents and pupils London: AuditCommission

Ball S.J, Rowe R and Gerwiitz S. (1995), Markets, choice and equity ineducation, Buckingham: Open University Press

Bartlett W, Roberts J and LeGrand J (1998) A revolution in social policy:lessons from the developments of quasi markets in the 1990s, Bristol: Policy

Blair T (2005) Speech on education at Number 10 Downing Street, 24 October

CBI (2005) The Business of Education Improvement: Raising LEA performancethrough competition, London: CBI

CBI (2006) Working on the Three Rs, London: HMSO

Chubb and Moe (1992) A Lesson in School Reform, Washington: BrookingsInstitute

Corry D, Hatter W, Parker I, Randle A and Stoker G (2004) Joining-up LocalDemocracy: governance for new localism, London: New Local GovernmentNetwork

Department for Education and Skills (2004) Every Child Matters: Change forChildren, London: HMSO

Department for Education and Skills (2004) The Children’s Act, London: HMSO

Department for Education and Skills (2005) 14-19 Education and Skills,London: HMSO

Schools of Thought Appendix 180

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought Appendix 1 81

Department for Education and Skills (2005) Youth Matters: Green Paper,London: HMSO

Department for Education and Skills (2005), Higher Standards, Better SchoolsFor All: More Choice for parents and pupils, London: HMSO

Department for Education and Skills (2006), Education and Inspections Bill,London: HMOS

Department for Education and Skills (2006) Childcare Act, London: HMSO

Department for Education and Skills (2006) FE Reform: Raising Skills, ImprovingLife Chances, London: HMSO

Education and Skills Committee (2005) Minutes of select committee evidence onthe Schools White Paper,(30th November 2005) London: HMSO

Fletcher-Campbell F and Lee B (2003) A study of the changing role of localeducation authorities in raising standards of achievement in schools (Researchreport for DfES), London: Crown Printers

Hill R (2006), Leadership that Lasts, London

Kogan M (2002) ‘The Subordination of Local Government and the CompliantSociety’, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 28, Nos. 2 & 3

Le Grand J. (2001) The Quasi-Market Experiments in Public Service Delivery:Did they work? Paper for presentation at Pontigano conference 6-8 April

Lent A and Arend A (2004) Making Choices, London: New Local GovernmentNetwork

Levacic R. (1995) Local Management of Schools: analysis and practice,Buckingham: Open University Press

Local Government Association (2005), Champions of Local Learning, London:LGA

Lyons Inquiry (2006) National prosperity, local choice and civic engagement: anew partnership between central and local government for the 21st century,London: HMSO

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2006) DfES Children’s Services: Overarching Reporton Children’s Services Markets, London: PwC

Ranson S (1992) The Role of Local Government in Education, Harlow: Longmans

Ranson S, Martin J and Noxon J (1997) ‘A Learning Democracy for CooperativeAction’, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 23, No.1, Choice and Equity inSecondary Schooling

Riddell S, Tett L and Power S (2001) Education, social justice and inter-agencyworking, London, Routledge

Social Market Foundation (2001) An Authority in Education? The Future of LEAs,London: HMSO

Sorabji D (2006) Pacing Lyons: A route map to localism, London: New LocalGovernment Network

Strategy Unit (2001) Education Strategy Review, London

Tooley J (1997) ‘Choice and Diversity in Education: a defence’, Oxford Review ofEducation, Vol. 23, No.1, Choice, Diversity and Equity in Secondary Schooling,pp 103-116

Whitty G, Power S and Halpin D (1998) Devolution and Choice in Education,Buckingham: Open University Press

Wilkin A, Atkinson M, Halsey, K., Johnson A, White R and Kinder K. (2005)New Roles for Local Authorities in Education: Opportunities and Challenges(LGA Research Report 9/05). Slough: NFER.

Wilkin A, Kinder K and Schad D. (2004) The Local Authority Contribution toImproved Educational Outcomes: Phase One (LGA Research Report 25/04).Slough: NFER.

Wilkin A, White R, Kinder K (2003) Towards Extended Schools: A LiteratureReview (DfES Research Report RR432), Slough: NFER

Yin R (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, London: SagePublications



Appendix 2 Case study participants

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

Hertfordshire County Council

Kent County Council

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

London Borough of Brent

London Borough of Hackney

London Borough of Newham

Sheffield City Council

Shropshire County Council

Surrey County Council

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

City of York Council

Appendix 3 Steering group membersand expert seminar participants

Steering Group members are indicated in bold

Ray Auvray Group Chief Executive Prospectsof Prospects

Tony Barry Group Director, AmeyStrategic Development

Mary Blanche Head of Service Kent CC

Joanna Boyd Barret Manager PwC

Paul Brown Director HBS

Dan Corry Special Advisor DfES

Liam Duffy Director, Nord Anglia Nord Anglia PlcLifetime Development

Professor Alan Dyson Professor of Education University ofManchester

William East Policy Advisor CBI

Warren Hatter Head of Research NLGN

Robert Hill Consultant RoberthillConsulting

Chris Leslie Director NLGN

Karl Limbert Project Manager Kent CC

Mick Murray Development Officer Derbyshire CC

Chris Neill Policy Analyst Westminster CC

John Parkinson Head of Business Development BT

Valerie Senior Education Advisor KPMG



Steering Group members are indicated in bold

Elaine Simpson Managing Director Serco Learningand Children’sServices

Tony Smith Managing Director CambridgeEducation

Madeleine Sumption Research Assistant NLGN

John Turner Director of School Improvement Mouchel Parkman

Robin Wales Mayor LB Newham

Schools of Thought Partners86

Amey today is one of the leading integrated support serviceproviders in the country.

As part of Grupo Ferrovial, one of Europe’s largest services and constructiongroups, Amey specialises in the outsourcing of holistic business solutions in thelocal government, transport, education, health and defence sectors.

Amey is a major force in the provision of PPP and PFI investment and structuredfinance.

Ours is a business built on a passion for the very best service, delivered throughthe very best people, whether for strategic, management or operational services.

For more information, please visit www.amey.co.uk

Amey

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought Partners 87

Cambridge Education is a leading player in the children’s servicesmarket. It has always offered outstanding consultancy services,holds OFSTED inspection contracts, offers training for schools,works for governments across the world and runs an excellentinterim management service.

With a partner company it has a successful partnership with Plymouth CityCouncil for children’s social care and runs education services for IslingtonBorough Council.

Our style is to work with clients and to deliver to the highest possible standardsto ensure young peope have the best possible start in life.

For more information, please visit www.camb-ed.com

Cambridge Education

Schools of Thought Partners88

Our Education and Children’s Services strategic consultancy is oneof the leading providers of solutions that support the provision ofhigh quality, integrated services and opportunities for childrenand their families.

Serco works in partnership with Children’s Services Authorities across the countryto provide strategic support, increase organisational capacity and enhancecapability so that they can move ahead with this exciting agenda for change. Ourtwo major council partnerships are with Walsall and Bradford where we deliver allaspects of education services.

Whether on a large scale within a national DfES programme or on a much smallerscale with strategic consultancy work, we consistently bring our unrivalledexperience across the sector to the partnership.

For more information, please visit www.serco.com

Serco

Cutting the wires Vix gulosus agricolae infeliciterSchools of Thought Order form for other NLGN publications

Please complete both sides of this order form and return it with your payment toYork Publishing Services, 64 Hallfield Road, Layerthorpe, York YO31 7ZQ.Alternatively, you may email your order information to [email protected] or contactYork Publishing Services on T 01904 431213 or F 01904 430868

Your order £ per copy Quantity

Schools of Thought: How local authorities drive improved outcomes in education £12+p&p

Lib Dems and Localism:An NLGN series of party pamphlets £12+p&p

Labour and Localism:An NLGN series of party pamphlets £12+p&p

Views of the City:Can city-regions find their place? £12+p&p

Evolution and Devolution in EnglandHow regions strengthen our towns and cities £20+p&p

Pacing Lyons: A route map to localism £25+p&p

Mayors Making a Difference:An NLGN collection £12+p&p

Made to Measure: Understandinglocal public service productivity £12+p&p

Cutting the Wires: Mobile IT andthe transformation of local servicesand governance £12+p&p

Getting on with Gershon: Innovationstowards more efficient local government £20+p&p

Order subtotal £

Postage and packing (£1.25 x number of publications) £

Order total £

Deliver to (block capitals please)

Name

Job title

Organisation/company/institution

Address

Postcode County

Telephone Fax

Email

Invoice to if different from the delivery information above

Name

Job title

Organisation/company/institution

Address

Postcode County

Telephone Fax

Email

Method of payment

Please invoice my organisation/company/institution on account or

I enclose a cheque for £ payable to York Publishing Services Ltd or

Please charge my credit/debit card as follows

Visa Mastercard Switch/Maestro Delta

Card number

Amount £ Issue no (Debit cards only)

Expiry date Start date (Switch/Maestro only)

Name on card (CAPS) Signature x

Orders will normally be processed within five working days –if your order is very urgent, please state your delivery deadline below

The New Local Government Network (NLGN) is an independent think tank that seeks totransform public services, revitalise local political leadership and empower local communities.NLGN is publishing this collection as part of its programme of research and innovative policyprojects, which we hope will be of use to policy makers and practitioners. The views expressedare however those of the authors and not necessarily those of NLGN.

© NLGN October 2006All rights reservedPublished by NLGNISBN 1 903 447 58 5

Prepared and printed by NLGNFirst Floor · New City Court · 20 St. Thomas Street · London SE1 9RSTel 020 7357 0051 · Email [email protected] · www.nlgn.org.uk

The last eighteen years of centralgovernment reforms havetransformed the role of the localauthority in promoting bettereducational outcomes.

As the dust clears after the Education andInspections Act, we need to re-imagine therole of the local authority. Schools of Thought:How local authorities drive improvedoutcomes in education identifies the coreskills that local authorities need to succeed inthis new environment and makesrecommendations about how to spread theseskills across the whole country.

Focusing on case studies from twelve localauthorities, the report assesses the role oflocal authorities under the new Act andargues that due to their democraticaccountability, they are well-placed to take aholistic and joined-up approach to promotingbetter educational outcomes, ensuring thatchildren arrive in the classroom in a fit stateto learn.

www.nlgn.org.ukPrice £12 · ISBN 1 903 447 58 5

Schools of ThoughtHow local authorities drive

improved outcomes in education

Kiran Dhillon

Scho

ols

of

Tho

ught

·How

localauthoritiesdrive

improved

outcomes

ineducation

·KiranD

hillon

SUPPORTED BY

Date post:	25-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Schools of...

Documents