Memorandum submitted by Lancashire County
Council
THE NEW
ROLE FOR
LOCAL AUTHORITIES—SCHOOL
ORGANISATION ISSUES
1. There are some concerns about the practical
implications of aspects of the proposals to:
— abolish the School Organisation Committee;
— prohibit the establishment of new
community schools; and
— make the local authority the decision-maker
on school organisation proposals.
2. Lancashire is a large authority with
over 600 primary, secondary, special and nursery schools. Although
over 280 of the schools are voluntary aided or foundation schools,
and over 50 are voluntary controlled, this leaves a very significant
number of community primary and community secondary schools, as
well as community special schools and maintained nursery schools.
3. The White Paper proposals to make local
authorities commissioners rather than providers of schools and
champions of parents by abolishing the SOC, removing the right
for the local authority to publish their own proposals for the
establishment of new community schools, and transferring decision-making
powers from the SOC to the local authority are all very well.
However, there is scope for confusion and conflict from the proposals
for authorities to be both provider and commissioner, to be both
promoter and decision-maker and for procedural delay, as indicated
below:
(a) Unless existing community schools are
to be required to change category, the local authority will be
a provider for a very long time, based on the very limited interest
shown by schools in changing category under the current regulations.
This will hardly provide a clear role and focus for the authority
if it continues to be the employer of staff and owner of premises
in half the schools in Lancashire.
(b) An authority would appear potentially
to be both the promoter and decision-maker for a range of proposals
for existing community and in some cases other schools, including
proposals for:
— school closure (discontinuation/ceasing
to maintain);
— significant enlargement;
— closure of one site of a multi-site school
where sites are one mile or more apart;
— addition or removal of a sixth form;
— lowering the age range;
— adding or removing designated special
educational needs provision;
— changing from single-sex to mixed provision
or vice versa;
— transferring a school to a new site;
— introducing banding;
— introducing or ending boarding provision;
and
— establishing a new foundation school
if no promoters emerge from a provider competition.
(c) Subject to clarification of the White
Paper, which would be appreciated, the local authority will also
continue to be responsible for proposals to establish community
special schools and maintained nursery schools.
(d) If local authorities remain responsible
for special and nursery schools they may concentrate their resources
(in terms of capital funding and staff) on these areas.
(e) The timetable for implementation lacks
detail and could introduce planning blight in the interim. Uncertainty
over timescale and whether aspects of the proposals will appear
in final legislation could affect authorities currently undertaking
or planning reviews/reorganisations. A reasonable transitional
period is needed to prevent proposals emerging from such reviews
being affected by the proposed competition requirements and decision-making
processes. It is also questionable whether local authorities would
propose to use prudential borrowing to invest in new primary or
secondary schools that would transfer to the ownership of a trust
under the White Paper proposals.
(f) The White Paper proposals will add to
the length and complexity of reorganisation and thereby impair
the efficient use of resources by slowing down the removal of
surplus places. The competition requirements will add at least
six months to the process. The role of the Schools Commissioner
creates further scope for delays. Variations to capital funding,
rights of appeal and the decision-making processes further reduce
transparency.
(g) There are potential tensions between
the authority providing dedicated consultancy to help parents
develop proposals and subsequently being the decision-maker on
such proposals.
(h) The expectation that the authority will
identify a site may be problematic. Sites are very difficult to
find in some areas. Currently the site has to be identified before
proposals are published. At what stage in the process will the
dedicated capital funding (to support parental proposals) referred
to in the White Paper be agreed?
| 
