Q Was this review worth doing – why do you think that?

A Yes, the audit gave us a starting point to inform our thinking and raised the profile of the issues involved with schools.

Q What specific changes to the use of school premises that arose from the review can you identify? What tangible outcome did we (as a Scrutiny Review) produce?

A Not necessarily a great deal specifically as a result of this review, but it has helped to reinforce national policy drivers such as extended schools and school workforce remodelling

Q How have things improved? How do you know?

A The importance of community use of school premises is better understood, as it is now part of the wider Extended Schools agenda. Funding has been allocated for development of Primary Schools around this agenda (£1.5 m over 2 years).

Q Were the resources identified in paragraph 8 of the Director’s report forthcoming, and if so what has this enabled you to do; if not what alternative plans have you made to fund implementation of many of the reports’ 18 recommendations?

A Yes, the County Council received a total sum of £909k in 05/06 to support the development of extended schools within Oxfordshire. Further sums have been notified for 06/07 and 07/08 including capital allocations of £750k for each of the next two years.

Q What percentage of the action plan has actually happened?

A Updated guidance (Premises Management Guide) for schools on AMP intranet site.

Officer level guidance on subsidy included in Premises Management Guide.

Community use of facilities and community audit to be considered as part of briefing processes for new primary and secondary schools – requirement in standard briefs.

Q Where has there been the least satisfactory amount of progress?

A In the extent and quality of planning by partnerships in the time available. Other national initiatives, such as developing Teaching and Learning Responsibilities (TLR’s) and the changes to the Ofsted Framework have been time consuming and influenced the time and energy available at Partnership level for planning and development of extended services. Strategic planning is underway and the premises issues will be addressed as part of this.

Q What arrangements have you had in place to monitor progress in implementing the Cabinet’s wishes?

A Strategy Group meetings, Appointment of Extended Schools

Co-ordinator and Local Programme Managers, Childrens Centre Programme Board and Locality Teams. Premises staff are on the strategy group. National Remodelling Team ( NRT) and ContinYou representatives monitor progress.

Q Are there any outstanding things yet to be done? (or is it all finished)

A Extended Schools Remodelling Consultants appointed to train and support the roll out of extended schools/services training to all school partnerships and multi-agency partners

£10,000 agreed for a pilot project with Continyou around joint monitoring of outcomes of extended schools, Childrens Centres and locality teams.

Q How did we benefit the community as a result of this review?

A It clarified the position at a given point in time. Gave a good base for planning for the Extended Schools Strategy. Full benefits still to be realised. Local partnership training programmes will accelerate progress overtime.

Q Has the subsidy policy been developed, and any guidance on it issued?

A Officer level guidance included in Premises Management Guide and reproduced below:

(11.6 Subsidy

The Authority wishes to encourage and support greater use of school premises by the local community. In particular, it wishes to support those activities which directly contribute to curriculum, sporting and cultural opportunities for pupils and lifelong learning. These aspirations relate both to the Council’s strategic priorities of helping people to fulfill their potential, safeguarding our communities and raising our performance, and the Education Development Plan priority of Building Learning Communities, together with the wish to use property assets more effectively. Governing bodies are recommended to consider adopting a subsidy policy for hire charges which reflects these priorities and which helps hirers who may not be able to meet market costs. A tiered approach is supported, distinguishing between:

This will allow the cost of hire to groups supported by the policy to be more affordable and less than those charged a market rate, which would subsidise this use. The charge for Adult Learning use will be set at a unit rate on a per room/space basis agreed with schools.)

Q Was a guidance pack for schools that includes insurance/use of premises issues published by spring 2005?

A Yes It was - the Premises Management Guide

Q Have pooled caretaking arrangements been implemented?

A Pooled caretaking arrangements have been promoted in guidance given to partnerships of schools. A pilot scheme has taken place within the Isis partnership in Oxford City.

The Review of Property Assets has included a review of caretakers housing. It has been agreed that when a caretaker’s house becomes vacant then if it is integral to a school, the school should decide if it wants to use it for other school provision or for caretaker’s use. If the latter then either the school pays the rent subsidy or the caretaker pays the full rent. If the house can be separated from the school then it should be reviewed to see if it can be sold. If it is not part of a school site the house should be sold. In this way the LEA’s subsidy for caretakers housing will gradually be removed.

This is in line with the Review’s objectives (smaller portfolio, better working conditions, more sharing etc.) through ongoing work to achieve the Council’s priority of making better use of property.

It also means that there may be fewer caretakers’ houses in the future which may have a bearing on the pooling of caretaking in the future.

Q Has any kind of list been made available to potential hirers of premises to help them see what facilities are available in any given area?

A This will be written into forthcoming partnership action plans.

Q With regard to R9, has a central clearing scheme for premises bookings been set in place in each locality? If not, how have the needs of potential hirers for a more centralised booking system been addressed?

A Partnerships of schools are being encouraged to set up these systems, but the L.A cannot control them. Need to establish a criteria for agreeing partnership plans.

Q In regard to R3, how many Governing Bodies have submitted a plan to L & C as to how they will open up their premises? What plans do you have to encourage the remainder to do so by the deadline of Dec 2005?

A Expressions of Interest have been received from all but 2 school partnerships in Oxfordshire. Following this partnership plans are being developed and are due to be submitted by July 2006.

Q We spoke to a number of witnesses who complained about difficulties with insurance; in the past 12 months how effectively do you think the Cabinet has alleviated their concerns?

A Insurance arrangements have not changed. Insurance Sections have been extremely helpful in terms of giving information with regard to Community Facilities Powers. Insurance Section confirmed that the current insurance arrangements are the best value that can be achieved by the Council at the moment. It is an issue being looked at nationally through NRT.

Q How many more schools have enabled community use of their premises than had previously done so this time last year?

A It is difficult to say as there has not been a mechanism for routinely collecting this information, we intend to establish a method of doing this in future based on the NRT database.

Q With regard to the ‘one stop shop’ service for Governors referred to in the action plan against R4, what evidence is there that Governors are finding it easier to get appropriate information easily from Learning & Culture?

A Enquiries from Governors on Extended Schools are being quickly serviced. The Governor Service has received Charter Mark for Customer Services. Training has also been offered on Extended Schools and articles written within the Newsletter.

Q With regard to R12, what approaches were made to the Ambulance Trust?

A This was considered by the Capital Working Group which decided not to pursue this due to concerns about its feasibility and the health & safety of school premise users.

The Review highlighted issues which focussed on the design and

funding of schools.

Q In what ways has the Review of Property Assets taken into account the points raised by this Scrutiny Review?

A One of the major outcomes of the review of assets is the office reorganisation, but the other is to seek to achieve the objectives of the review of assets (smaller portfolio, better working conditions, more sharing etc.) through ongoing work to achieve the councils priority of making better use of property. Much of the work CPG does is aimed at making better use of property (as defined by those Review of Assets Objectives).

This includes things like the prudential R&M programme and the decisions we make about how to meet directorate and corporate property needs. We aim to make decisions that increase the use of under utilised property, or lead to its disposal and also try to encourage appropriate community use. It seems that there is good linkage between the aims of making better use of property and the aims of the Room at School report.

Q Can you provide any examples of a school that has successfully altered its heating system, alarm & security systems or installed new entrances, in order to increase use of its premises for community purposes?

A Collaboration with Childrens Centre’s and identification of centres for use of Primary Capital. We do not have direct evidence of schools which have carried out this type of work specifically to improve community use since the Room at School Report was completed. However, the attached list of works which we compiled mainly from self-financed project approvals shows schools which have carried out such types work using their own resources in this period and some specific investment from central funds. The Schools have used their Devolved Formula Capital (and other money) as per the DfES Guidance that this allocation can be used for "improvements to security, protecting both people and property". Schools can also use the allocation for the "development of community use of facilities and integrating education and other local authority services within the school. This can include investment in such areas as nurseries, childcare facilities, lifelong learning facilities". Improvements to increase or improve community use are within the scope of school funding if the School wishes or is able to make this a priority. However there are many other competing priorities and initiatives for the use of this money including contributions to access improvements and prudential borrowing repairs, improving staff accommodation, addressing structural condition needs, removing suitability problems, ICT provision, improvements to social play and recreation areas and address behavioural needs etc. Each school’s School Development Plan sets out the Schools priorities for capital investment.

Q With regard to R16, has the Cabinet received any advice from the County’s Capital Programme/Asset Management Steering Group?

A In the report to the Capital Programme & Asset Management Plan Steering Group (Now the Capital Working Group) and Capital Steering Group in November 2004, CYP&F undertook that every education client briefing document for every capital programme project would require evidence that consideration has been given to community and extended use which constitute a community use audit and involve talking to at least the school/establishment and relevant County Council/Directorate colleagues.

Agreed aims and objectives will be included in such plans or site development plans so that future community aspirations and developments will not be hindered even when appropriate funding is not immediately identified. In addition it will be a requirement for the design of all schools and extensions to promote extended use in terms of layout and location of appropriate areas/rooms of the school with reference to such issues as circulation, energy, water supply, zoning and security. Attention to this information has already been embedded in the Primary & Secondary school briefs. Room and data sheets also reflect the implications of community and extended use e.g. by the design of heating, metering etc. to allow parts of schools to be isolated in separate wings.

In addition, as part of school visits by CYP&F Officers in Strategy & Performance discussion of extended school or community initiatives takes place together with the potential for use of any surplus places.

The Review highlighted needs which focussed on the development of Extended Schools

Q What efforts have been made towards promoting the concept of extended schools within Oxfordshire?

A Awareness raising events were held around the County in Feb/March 2005 and an introductory guidance booklet was prepared and published. The County’s Extended Schools

Co-ordinator has made contact with all school partnerships, by post, telephone and e-mail and has attended both partnership and individual meetings with Headteachers or their nominated representatives.

Partnerships are being encouraged to appoint Local Extended Schools Programme Managers and to begin to plan extended schools activities in conjunction with multi-agency partners. Partnerships are expected to have a development plan in place by June 2006.

Multi-agency training is also planned for April 2006 onwards whereby all partnerships together with their strategic partners will be invited to take part in Extended Schools remodelling training. DfES funding will be directly targeted to schools from April 2006 for 2 years.

An Intranet site has been developed and a Conference facility to disseminate information and good practice.

Q With regard to R5, has an ‘Extended Schools Co-ordinator’ been appointed?

A Yes, Sandra Holmes commenced in post on April 18^th 2005. We also appointed a full-time co-ordinator for childcare in Extended Schools (Ally Bull) at the same time.

Q How does Oxfordshire compare to other authorities in the south East in terms of its progress around the Extended Schools agenda?

A Oxfordshire is represented at NRT and Continyou network meetings and also staffs regularly meet with South East Regional Development Officers and it is felt that we are in a similar position to some of the authorities and ahead of others within the South East. Around the country there are obviously many authorities, particularly in those seen to be the most disadvantaged areas where they have received extended schools funding for 2 or 3 years and therefore are further ahead in terms of their progress. However, Oxfordshire is making use of the case studies available and knowledge and experience of these authorities to develop its approach. Feedback from NRT and ContinYou is that we are well placed strategically for taking this agenda forward when compared to other LA’s in SouthEast and nationally.

Return to TOP