SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Private Sector Organisations
1. We believe that private sector organisations
can play an important role in providing high quality education
services where there is clear evidence of long term under-performance
to provide these services to an acceptable standard (paragraph
12).
2. In our view, what matters most in each case of long-term under-performance
is that an approach should be found which benefits all children
in the area (paragraph 12).
What benefits do private sector organisations
bring?
3. We agree that a pragmatic approach
to raising education standards is necessary. Long-term under-performance
in the education sector cannot be ignored. Where more traditional
approaches have not raised standards or produced success, we should
make use of expertise wherever it is found in the public, private,
or voluntary sectors. A pragmatic approach to addressing long-term
under-performance should not always end with intervention or involvement
by a private sector organisation. Some public sector providers
have a good record of innovative, high quality education services,
often in the most challenging circumstances (paragraph 16).
4. We recommend that the Department for Education and Employment
and local authorities consider ways in which the involvement of
private sector organisations could support and enhance the quality
of education services (paragraph 17).
Principles underpinning private
sector involvement
5. Although we agree that a pragmatic
approach to raising standards of achievement is necessary, we
do not believe that the underlying principles of public accountability
should be disregarded by the DfEE, by local education authorities
or by school governors (paragraph 18).
6. We note above our support for the Government's intention
to intervene in under-performing local authorities. We accept
this approach is necessary, but it should be based on clear principles
that underpin intervention by private sector organisations. We
welcome the DfEE's three general principles, but we recommend
that the additional principles set out in the following paragraphs
should guide any involvement by private sector organisations in
public education (paragraph 19).
Capacity to improve
7. We consider that a long history
of under-performance should automatically trigger serious consideration
the contracting out of the management of an LEA's education service.
We recommend that a clear case should be established that the
LEA does not have necessary skills and commitment to address the
causes of under-performance. Only then should private sector or
alternative external involvement be seen as the only means of
addressing the LEA's weaknesses (paragraph 20).
Form of private sector involvement
8. We do not see that a single model
of involvement in under-performing authorities of schools can
be found which meets the varying needs of all authorities. We
support the Government's policy that a wide range of solutions
to the problem of under-performing local education authorities
should be developed (paragraph 22).
Public accountability
9. We recommend that the ultimate responsibility
for the quality of service provided to users of the education
services remain with locally elected representatives. This principle
is at the heart of public accountability, and should not be compromised
by the involvement of private sector organisations in service
delivery (paragraph 23).
Consultation with stake-holders
10. We recommend that potential contractors
should make a serious attempt to consult local parents and others
with an interest in education (paragraph 26).
Monitoring the effects of intervention
11. The involvement of the private
sector in the management of public education services can have
major effects on neighbouring schools and authorities. We therefore
recommend that the effects of such involvement on the LEA's or
school's immediate neighbours should be monitored (paragraph 28).
Promoting partnerships between public
and private sectors
12. We do not consider that private
sector organisations are inherently more skilled or are more likely
to achieve high standards than public sector organisations (paragraph
31).
13. We conclude that the most effective intervention and involvement
in local authorities will probably rely on external organisations
having both the management skills associated with the private
sector, as well as the experience of delivering educational services
in the public sector. We consider that organisations without any
direct experience of managing education services will need to
work in partnership with those possessing that expertise to regenerate
under-performing education services. We therefore recommend that
the DfEE should develop means by which exemplary public sector
organisations, particularly local education authorities, may work
more easily with other, less successful, parts of the state education
service and with private sector providers (paragraph 32).
Promoting partnerships within the public
sector
14. We recommend the Government should
consider establishing and funding adequately a scheme to 'twin'
under-performing local authorities with successful authorities
to help spread good practice and to develop solutions to common
problems. In this context, we note the addition of Camden LEA
to the Department for Education and Employment's list of approved
service providers to help turn around under-performing LEAs in
other areas (paragraph 34).
15. We are concerned that the most successful LEAs will not be
able to work with under-performing authorities because of the
nature of the contracts currently being developed for LEA intervention,
particularly the financial penalties which are applied if targets
are not met. We recommend that the DfEE should consider whether
different types of contract are required to allow successful local
authorities to work in partnership with private sector organisations
(paragraph 35).
16. We recommend that the Government should establish a scheme
to allow highly experienced LEA officers from successful authorities
to support the work in under-performing authorities (paragraph
36).
17. We recommend that the Government should establish mechanisms
to enhance the capabilities of a cadre of high quality public
sector education administrators who could support under-performing
LEAs. The National College for School Leadership might act as
a model for such a development (paragraph 37).
Experience in the USA
18. Members of the Education Sub-committee
were impressed by the way in which some charter schools in the
USA could promote both innovative partnerships and opportunities
for new and challenging experiment. We recommend that the Department
for Education and Employment should take careful note of such
international experience and progress using it to inform its own
work on City Academies and other similar initiatives (paragraph
42).
City Academies
19. We note the City Academies proposal
as evidence of the Government's willingness to study constructive
and imaginative solutions to existing problems in the education
system. Nevertheless we are concerned that the experience of City
Technology Colleges might suggest some difficulties in attracting
substantial contributions from the private sector. The Department
for Education and Employment should not rule out other private
sector options which are available through independent contractors
in relation to interventions in LEAs and in individual schools
such as King's College, Guildford. In light of this we urge the
Department to reconsider seriously their funding options for City
Academies (paragraph 46).
Involvement of locally elected representatives
20. We recommend that at least two
elected members of local authorities should be present for all
substantive meetings with private sector organisations bidding
for management contracts with the local authority, and that they
should continue to attend such meetings after the contractor has
been selected and during the contract negotiation. This will help
reinforce the direct link between the service provider and the
local community which it will serve (paragraph 49).
Accountability of contractors
21. We recommend that, where LEA services
have been transferred from public sector providers to an external
contractor, a report should be published annually by the locally
elected members. That report should include a description of the
activities undertaken by the external provider and a commentary
on the progress made towards agreed targets. The report should
be made available at a meeting open to the public (paragraph 52).
Mid-contract reviews
22. We recognise that contracts for
periods of up to seven years provide opportunities for significant
changes to the context in which the contract was initially signed.
We are not persuaded that it will be in the best interests of
pupils or the local community to be locked into a long term contract.
We therefore recommend that a formal opportunity should be built
into each contract for a mid-term review. Such a review would
focus on the performance of the contractor, the need to renegotiate
any aspects of the contract and, most importantly, end of contract
procedures (paragraph 54).
23. We recommend that contracts between local authorities and
private sector organisations should provide opportunities, if
both parties agree, for a reconsideration of the contract if there
are significant changes to the status of either the contractor
or the local authority (paragraph 55).
24. We recommend that the Government should establish a clear
picture of the role it sees for LEAs (paragraph 56).
External evaluation of contracts
25. We recommend that OFSTED with the
Audit Commission should review within every contract period the
performance of educational services in LEAs who have contracted
out some or all of their educational services, and that the contract
negotiated between the local authority and the external provider
is capable of delivering the required improvement in education
services. This will help to ensure there is public confidence
in the contracted out services. We also recommend that the Audit
Commission should examine the contracting process and individual
contracts to ensure that Best Value principles have been applied
to the tendering process. Publication of the reports of both these
evaluation processes will help develop guidance on best practice
(paragraph 59).
National evaluation of contracting
out
26. We recommend that the DfEE should
commission research on the strengths and weaknesses of LEAs contracting
out education services to private sector organisations. Such research
should be made publicly available to inform future debate at local
and national level (paragraph 60).
End of contract strategies
27. In many cases the objective of
contracting out local authority education services will be that
the authority should in due course resume delivery of the service.
This would depend on the authority choosing to resume this service
and being able to demonstrate it would have the capacity to do
so. Locally elected members could choose to renew the contract
with the external provider, or to seek other providers, if they
so wished. That need not always be the case. In our opinion it
could be appropriate for a further period of public consultation
before this happens (paragraph 68).
28. We are concerned that lengthy contracts might reduce a local
authority's capacity to provide high quality education services.
This may act against local authorities who wished to resume service
delivery at the end of the contract. We recommend that all contracts
should include the option for an orderly handover from the contractor
to the authority so that the standard of education services does
not decline. The success of such 'exit strategies' would then
determine part of the contractor's payment at completion of the
contract (paragraph 69).
Pension rights
29. We recommend that the DfEE should
ensure that each contract fully reflects changing practices in
employee terms and conditions when outsourcing education services
and regularly reviews the adequacy of such contracts in the light
of changes in TUPE interpretation (paragraph 74).
30. We recommend that the DfEE should consider the implications
for employees' terms and conditions of employment, and the applicability
of TUPE regulations, at the end of contracts between local authorities
and private sector organisations (paragraph 74).
|
