Select Committee on Education and Employment Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


APPENDIX 4

Memorandum from the Local Government Association (RPS 09)

  1.  The Local Government Association (LGA) was formed from a merger of the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 1 April 1997. Currently the LGA has just under 500 members including 260 shire district councils; 36 metropolitan district councils; 35 county councils; 27 new unitary authorities; 33 London authorities and 20 Welsh authorities. In addition, the LGA represent Police authorities, Fire authorities and Passenger Transport authorities. The LGA provides a national voice for local communities in England and Wales; its members represent over 50 million people, employ more than 2 million staff and spend over £65 billion a year on local services.

  2.  The local authorities have a long history of trading services both within education and more generally. The LGA has drawn on this experience in developing this evidence.

  3.  Within local education authorities (LEAs) the term "externalisation" includes contracting out services to truly private companies, not-for-profit organisations, charities, and the voluntary sector. Each has merits but each contract issued or service level agreement agreed has been arrived at as a result of much work and considered debate at the local level. LEAs, and local authorities more generally, have been developing partnership models of working for a number of years and in contracting out education services LEAs have tried to build on this experience and work in partnership with external providers. This has often taken the form, for example, of negotiated contracts or jointly developed service specifications, particularly where services are to be provided by the voluntary sector. There has not, however, been any national evaluation of the effectiveness, either financially or in terms of raising standards, of externalisation of education services and therefore no guidance on how individual LEAs, or the DfEE in the context of intervention, should approach contracting out.

  4.  Contracting out education services has not been without difficulty. One LEA which felt it desirable to externalise its inspection and advisory service through developing funding for schools to purchase advice on the open market has now, after three years, re-established a central advisory service having discovered that private consultants employed by schools did not provide sufficient challenge to the schools. Another LEA who contracted with a not-for-profit organisation to provide education services to excluded and disaffected pupils did not renew the contract at its conclusion as pupils were not re-engaging with education. The contractor was not, in short, meeting targets. In contrast, however, is the experience of another authority who contract with a National Health Trust to provide education for non attending and disaffected pupils based on family learning principles. The LEA is satisfied that targets are met, schools appreciate the service and contracts have been renewed. Each of these cases is different and the LGA feels that if the successes are to be replicated an analysis of what leads to success should be undertaken and that decisions on contracting should be made at a local level.

  5.  The LGA believes the cost of contracting out of education services should be taken into account in any consideration of the value of private provision within state education services. Even if a contract is awarded to the voluntary sector there is still a cost. Voluntary organisations typically employ staff to run school based projects, using volunteers to deliver the service. There are overheads such as premises costs and the training of volunteers—an often costly business. The contract itself has to be drawn up and subsequently monitored, a cost in terms of LEA officer time. Where the contract is with a not for a profit organisation the LEA is typically paying not only for the direct provision, which it had previously provided in-house, but also the management costs of the organisation, typically 12 per cent. Contracts often lack flexibility; for example a contract for provision for excluded pupils would be for a specified number of places. If fewer places are required then the unit cost increases. LEA directly provided services are usually able to cope with fluctuations by being multi-purpose and thus more flexible.

  6.  Where a contract is with a profit making organisation costs inevitably increase. Where an individual LEA contracts individual education services it has done so in full knowledge of the impact, locally, on the education budget. It has taken account of all possible service delivery options and followed the local democratic process in making its decision. Where the Secretary of State has decided to intervene in LEAs following poor OFSTED reports, no such local process has been followed. The LGA is very concerned about the lack of democratic accountability of intervention in LEAs and the costs of intervention and the impact on local services and local synergies within and across services.

  7.  Interventions in Hackney, Liverpool, Islington and Leicester, albeit with local agreement, have been costly. The local authority has had to bear part of the cost of consultancy from resource which would otherwise be used on service delivery in the locality. The consultants' brief has largely been to prepare service specifications for contracting out. There has been little consideration of the synergies between services which might be undermined by contracting some of the services. This is particularly pertinent where Local Authorities are working to be "joined up". There appears to have been little distinction drawn between service delivery and strategic planning of services, thus undermining the democratic role of the local authority. The service specifications drawn up are based on current service provision with scant consideration of whether the service was, in any case appropriate to current needs within the locality or reflecting recent educational developments. In Liverpool, Islington and Hackney OFSTED identified inappropriate political leadership as one of the barriers to the LEA supporting schools as effectively as possible. Modernising Local Government is causing all local authorities to review political structures and processes. This process in itself might well have addressed many of the problems of the authorities identified by OFSTED as having problems. The emphasis on externalisation of services has not addressed the political issues identified by OFSTED in the cases referred to.

  8.  Letting contracts in education services is not like commercial contracting or, indeed, in other local authority areas such as waste management or even school meals. In most contracts there are service specifications which identify service levels or targets. If the service is not delivered there are default clauses and the possibility of termination. There is a ready market and replacement contractors are easy to find. None of this is the case with education services, with the exception of teacher supply. Take services for excluded pupils as an example. A contractor providing support to these pupils may fail to re-engage the pupils but a loss of income, the only realistic remedy within contract default, is unlikely to improve the company's ability to fulfil the contract. Equally, the LEA is unlikely to terminate even when the company is clearly failing to deliver, as there is no competitive market for services for excluded pupils and the LEA has a duty to provide education for these young people. The LEA cannot cease to provide education while it seeks to encourage a market interest or, indeed, create an in-house service. Once awarded an education service contract, therefore, a provider has greater security and less incentive to improve than she/he would in a purely commercial environment.

  9.  The LGA feels there should be some regulation of the private sector organisations which provide education services as there is potential conflict between commercial and public interest. In July this year "Select Education" advertised, through the Times Educations Supplement, for Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs). A newly qualified teacher, finishing their course in the summer of 1999, must complete three full terms work by December 2000 if he or she is to become fully qualified. It would be difficult to fulfil this requirement as a supply teacher. There is no certainty that a supply agency would point out to individual newly qualified teachers that they may be jeopardising their careers by not fulfilling the three terms work requirement. More importantly, from a wider perspective, is that public money spent on training teachers is lost if individuals do not complete the requirements to qualify and the potential supply of teachers is thus reduced. Further, supply teaching is not the best way to induct new members to the profession. Good induction is an important aspect of raising standards.

  10.  There is also a level of secrecy surrounding private sector companies which is not compatible with public accountablility but which, with a small amount of regulation, could be overcome. The careers service was contracted out some while ago but neither the DfEE nor the Careers Service Inspectorate knows how much profit the individual careers services are making. This information is not, apparently, collected because of commercial confidence. Whilst one can understand commercial confidence in respect of individual organisations it is nevertheless in the public interest for aggregate data to be available. Public money is spent on the careers service yet there is no information nationally not even in percentage terms, about how much is spent on service delivery, how much on profit and how much on monitoring and evaluating provision.

  11.  Finally, in the context of regulation, the LGA has a concern about the employment practices of commercial and not-for-profit organisations as it is not always easy for these organisations to carry out police and other checks on their employees who will work with young people.

Local Government Association

November 1999


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 29 June 2000