Agenda item

Education-Leadership and Management Structure

To consider the report of the Corporate Director Education.

Minutes:

Councillor J. Hill joined the meeting at this juncture.

 

Having regard to the views expressed by the Proper Officer regarding the public interest test, that on balance, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information and that the report should be exempt.

 

RESOLVED that the public be excluded whilst this item of business is transacted as it is likely there would be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 12, 14 & 15 Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972 (as amended).

 

Consideration was given to the report of the Corporate Director of Education.

 

The report sought Council approval to create a permanent structure and leadership arrangements for the Education Directorate following the appointment to the Corporate Director of Education role. 

 

The Corporate Director of Education advised that the principles of the report were underpinned by advocating a sustainable structure which had the capacity to support and deliver improved life chances for children and young people, in addition to considering the Education portfolio changes associated with the addition of the Leisure client function.

 

Further details of the proposed leadership structure were outlined in paragraphs 2.4, 2.6. 2.7 and 2.8 of the report and these included a new role of Head of School Improvement and Inclusion, who would act as the Deputy to the Corporate Director of Education and would provide additional school improvement capacity.  Details of the Service Manager roles were also provided.

 

In terms of consultation, there had been formal consultation undertaken with the Trade Unions and the staff directly involved in the restructure arrangements and the consultees views were considered within the report. The Trade Union were supportive of the strategic principles outlined within the report and staff had acknowledged the need to strengthen the leadership with the Education Directorate and were fully supportive of the proposed structure.

 

It was noted that the report had been considered by the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) and had gone through the ‘check and challenge’ review process.  In addition, the proposed structure had been benchmarked against similar neighbouring leadership and management arrangements and would return a net saving circa £88,000 over 5 years, should the proposed structure be approved.

 

The views of Members were, thereupon, sought (summarised below) and were responded to by the Corporate Director of Education/Manager Director and Executive Member for Education:

 

-      The Leader of the Labour Group commenced by stating that the following comments were not directed at any officer.  He continued by stating that he had grave misgivings regarding the proposed structure which appeared to be a similar structure that was operational prior to 2015/16 (the year that the Council came out of Special Measures).  He explained that too much emphasis was being put on the Corporate Director element, when the key focus should be on schools in terms of learning and leadership.  He added that Estyn had previously commended the Council for concentrating on core issues i.e. teaching and learning provision for children and said that he had also grave concerns regarding the Leisure client function being incorporated as part of the Education portfolio.

 

The Leader of the Labour Group concluded by stating that he was unable to support the report and advised that he would submit an alternative proposal at the appropriate time.

 

-      It was pointed out that a large proportion of the Council’s budget was allocated for Education purposes and concern was expressed that the report had not been deemed of sufficient importance to be considered by Scrutiny and that the scrutiny process had been by-passed.  The Member said he felt that this was an exercise in saving money and asked the Executive Member for Education how the proposed structure would benefit the self-evaluation process.

 

The Executive Member advised that there was a recognised need to stabilise and strengthen the school improvement role with the relevant expertise and Estyn had also recognised that this area needed to be developed further.  The Executive Member concluded by stating that she believed that the proposed structure would achieve this objective.

 

-      A Member pointed out that when the emergency response to COVID-19 was over, there would be a greater need for these posts and officers would have considerably more work to do (particularly the Service Manager - Young People and Partnerships) to help support children following the effects of the last 9 months.  He expressed his concern that these posts had not been graded at a higher scale and felt that this was disappointing – he pointed out that other local authorities used the Solbury Pay Agreement. 

 

The Corporate Director advised as part of the CLT ‘check and challenge’ process there had been a need to benchmark across similar roles within the authority and with neighbouring authorities.  With regard to the Service Manager – Young People and Partnerships role there were no other similar roles in the greater Gwent region, each local authority had its own bespoke arrangements and there were no other officers in that region that had additional responsibilities linked to the Leisure function.  The Corporate Director added that the salary grade that had been evaluated for the post was graded higher than that of a Youth Manager’s role in other neighbouring authorities.

 

In reply to a question regarding the reason why the report had not been considered the Education & Learning Scrutiny Committee in the first instance, the Corporate Director confirmed that the democratic reporting arrangements as outlined the Council Constitution, required any report requiring approval of major structural changes be considered by Council.  The same approach had been adopted for similar reports previously. The Head of Legal and Corporate Compliance added that departmental structural changes were not considered as part of the scrutiny process, they were submitted and considered by Council in order that Members had the opportunity to fully debate the proposals.

 

-      Another Member also expressed his concern that Scrutiny Members had not had the opportunity to consider the report and pose questions.  He said that the structure should be based on effective learning provision for pupils including an emphasis on Additional Learning Needs (ALN).  He complimented teaching staff for all the work they had undertaken over these last few very difficult months and pointed out that prior to the pandemic, the gap between free school meals and ALN provision was being bridged.  However, the feedback he was now receiving was that pupils were falling further behind and the gap was widening – some families were also struggling to home school.  He concluded by stating that he did not believe it was an appropriate time to undertake a restructure, further data should be provided in order that this proposal could be scrutinised correctly.

 

The Corporate Director acknowledged the comments made by the Member and said it was a priority to minimise the impact on learners during the current situation.  Currently the vast majority of learners were receiving remote learning, however, the comments regarding home schooling/ICT were acknowledged.  He continued by advising that discussions had recently taken place with the Education Achievement Service (EAS) in respect of the Council’s business plan priorities and confirmed the top priority was to maximise pupil progression.

 

The Corporate Director outlined that it was very timely to bring the report forward at this juncture to establish a permanent structure to create a sustainable focus on school improvement and inclusion with a designated lead officer. The alternative provision would be a non-permanent structure for up to a period of 18 months.

 

-      Another Member pointed out that he felt that the proposal was a proactive measure to support schools when normal business practice resumed.

 

 

-      The Leader of the Labour Group advised that the Estyn report 2015/2016 had advised that there was a clear need to focus on teaching and learning.  The current position with regard to schools causing concern was highlighted (i.e. two secondary schools had currently been place in Special Measures).  The Leader of Labour Group concluded by stating that an education specialist should have been appointed in the first instance and the remainder of structure developed thereafter.

 

The Corporate Director advised that the proposed structure did respond to comments received from the regulators and at the next local authority link inspector meeting, which was scheduled for early March an update on school improvement capacity had been included as part of that agenda.  It also responded to comments received at Headteacher meetings and since his appointment he had advocated that capacity for school improvement needed to be secured.  The importance of both school improvement and inclusion was not underestimated and the new Head of School Improvement and Inclusion role would have responsibility for both these elements.

 

In addition, because Estyn took a corporate view on how schools and young people were being supported across the board, this new post would play a key role in terms of the self-evaluation process across the Education Directorate and would contribute to the wider corporate aspects across the Council.  Whilst, there were currently 3 schools in the ‘schools causing concern’ category, compared to other neighbouring authorities this was quite a relatively low number and confirmed that he was satisfied with the progress currently being made to address the problems at these schools.  However, the amount of work that was required going forward was not under estimated.

 

-      The Leader of the Labour Group reiterated his concern that the specialist appointment should have been made first and then the remaining appointments including that of the Corporate Director should have been progressed. He pointed out that Estyn link visits focussed only on result based outcomes.  He also expressed concern that the incorporation of the Leisure Client function within the directorate was contrary to Estyn recommendation from the monitoring visit i.e. the portfolio should only deal with education functions.

 

The Corporate Director advised that previously on an interim basis school improvement capacity had been unable to be secured, however, he was confident that a permanent appointment would be secured if the proposed structure was approved.

 

-      Another Member said that this was a crucial report which reflected the performance of education and of the Council in general.  Concern was expressed regarding the salary of the Inclusion Officer – a new ALN Bill was anticipated in September and there was a magnitude of changes pending.

 

It was also pointed that the Head of School Improvement and Inclusion would be expected to work with headteachers who had a considerable amount of experience in the educational field.  However, the job description advised that experience at a senior level was ‘desirable’ when this was an ‘essential’ for this role.  Further concern was expressed that focus was being put on the potential savings of £88,000, when investment should be being made to recruit into this crucial high level quality post.

 

During the period when the Council was in Special Measures, Estyn had assessed school performance and how it was dealt with.  The Member said he felt that this was not the right structure for dealing with schools in a correct manner.  He concluded by stating this was crucial and would affect all Council departments and if the structure was not appropriate the Council could again be placed in Special Measures. Further detailed consideration was required in order that the structure was correct going forward.

 

The Managing Director commenced by confirming that the same process (i.e. Full Council consideration of reports) had been adopted previously, when there had been changes made to departmental structures as part of the Senior Management Review process. In addition, this proposed structure had gone through the same internal process as previous restructures in order to ensure a consistent approach was taken across the organisation in terms of assigned salary grades and responsibility levels.

 

The proposed structure was intended to address the issues that had been raised regarding increasing the school improvement capacity.  It was noted that the ALN provision would form part of the responsibilities of the Head of School Improvement and Inclusion. The Managing Director concluded by pointed out that Members had made it clear previously regarding the need to operate as a one Council corporate approach and advising that improving education was a key priority for the Corporate Leadership Team and Council going forward. 

 

The Leader of the Labour Group said that he supported the corporate approach but pointed out that because the Council would be judged by external regulators, the primary focus should be on the classroom.

 

-      Another Member said that Scrutiny was non-political and this report should have gone through the proper scrutiny process to address the concerns raised prior to consideration by Council.  Members wanted to do the best for the children of Blaenau Gwent and take this forward collectively.  He pointed out that the Leader of the Labour Group had previously experienced the level of unprecedented challenge when the Council had been placed in special measures, therefore, there was a need and urgency to focus the teaching and learning provision for children.

 

Following a lengthy discussion, the Leader of the Labour Group advised that for reasons expressed earlier in the debate, the Labour Group would not be supporting either of the published recommendations as the Group remained firm in its conviction that too much emphasis had been put onto the ‘Corporate Director’ element in the structure and not enough on the ‘School Improvement’ element. 

 

The addition of the Leisure client function as outlined in paragraph 2.4 of the report, also caused major concerns and was out of line with the last major Estyn inspection, which praised the Council for removing functions such as catering, school finance and school transport from the directorate to concentrate on teaching and learning.

 

Having been involved in a long fight to remove this Council out of special measures the Labour Group could not support the report, and proposed an alternative recommendation

 

The report be withdrawn, and that the Council engage in a root and branch overhaul of the structure by way of a cross-party working group, in conjunction with external expertise to develop a framework with school improvement first and foremost as its primary focus.

 

This amended proposal was seconded.

 

A recorded vote was, therefore, requested.

 

In Favour of the amendment – Councillors P. Baldwin, D. Bevan, M. Cross, P. Edwards, L. Elias, K. Hayden, H. McCarthy, J. Millard, J. C. Morgan, K. Pritchard, T. Sharrem, T. Smith, S. Thomas, H. Trollope, D. Wilkshire, B. Willis, L. Winnett.

 

Against the amendment – Councillors J. Collins, M. Cook, N. Daniels, D. Davies, G. A. Davies, G. L. Davies, M. Day, D. Hancock, S. Healy, J. Hill, W. Hodgins, J. Holt, J. Mason, C. Meredith, L. Parsons, G. Paulsen, K. Rowson, B. Summers, B. Thomas, G. Thomas, J. Wilkins.

 

The vote on the amendment was not carried.

 

It was, therefore, proposed and seconded that Option 1 (preferred option) be endorsed and approved.  As no Member who had voted against the proposed amended recommendation abstained from voting, a further recorded vote was not required and Option 1 was carried.

 

RESOLVED, subject to the foregoing, that the report which related to any individual, the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority) and information relating to any consultations or negotiations, or contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the authority or a Minister of the Crown and employees of, or office holders under, the authority be accepted and Option 1 be endorsed, namely that:

 

The following structure be approved:

 

·        A permanent structure for the Education Directorate as set out in appendix 2 of the report be established.

 

·        The new Head of School Improvement and Inclusion role be recruited to with immediate effect.

 

·        A short term arrangement be secured to support the duties of the Head of School Improvement role on a temporary basis via a ring fencing arrangement to Blaenau Gwent Headteachers.

 

·        The Service Manager posts for Education Transformation and Young People and Partnerships be ring fenced and subject to Member appointment procedures, in line with the principles for SMR 1 & 2. There would be a net revenue saving to the Education Portfolio budget circa £88,000.