Meeting documents

Review Topic

(name of Review)

"The Impact of Planning, Preparation and Assessment Time (PPA)".

Review Reference Code

CH013

Parent Scrutiny Committee

Children’s Services

Lead Member Review Group

(Cllrs involved)

Cllr Sue Haffenden (Cllr Mrs Anda Fitzgerald O’Connor as substitute), Sue Matthew, Brenda Williams.

Member responsible for tracking

(nominate one Cllr)

Cllr Haffenden.

Officer Support

(Scrutiny Review Officer lead)

Julian Hehir.

Rationale

(key issues and/ or reason for doing the Review)

The Review must be seen in the context of the County Council’s aim to raise standards of educational attainment.

Key issues and reasons include:

• It is timely to undertake this review. The end of the third and final phase of the National Agreement for raising standards and tackling workload has been in place for more than one year.
• More precisely, the impact on Headteachers, teachers, TA’s and other support staff will be a central focus.
• The main area is PPA – but, the impact on work/life balance will be also be an allied but peripheral area, currently being explored more fully by the Local Authority Workforce Remodelling Steering Group.
• The Review Group wishes to explore the effectiveness and sustainability of solutions and costs of implementing the changes required for PPA.
• A key issue to explore is how the Cabinet's policies are supporting the changes in schools – what training, advice and guidance is offered to HT’s and governors by the LA, including the question of "What training has been made available to staff taking on new duties in schools?
• The Review wishes to explore how the LA works in partnerships.  (Ie, how work with other partners developing out of the "Every Child Matters", CYPP agenda has assisted in the development of good models adopted by schools. This is not a major issue for the Review).

(Refer also to detailed research brief).

Purpose of Review/Objective

(specify exactly what the Review should achieve)

The Review will aim to highlight which approaches or models appear to be contributing positively to the drive for higher standards.

The Review should aim to: ‘undertake a wide-ranging and systematic examination of the impact on Headteachers, teachers, other relevant staff and pupils in Oxfordshire primary schools of the introduction of guaranteed professional time for Planning, Preparation and Assessment (PPA) and make recommendations.’

The four main areas of enquiry will be to establish:

1. In what ways PPA time has been introduced, including the personnel and financial implications;
2. the benefits and the disadvantages for staff of different models adopted;
3. the impact on pupils’ progress and learning of the introduction of PPA time;
4. how strategic approaches have helped, and continue, to support staff and to disseminate good practice to enable schools to develop effective and sustainable models.

• Underlying the first three of these, in particular, is how factors such as school size, catchment area and budgetary position affects effective and sustainable models of implementation.
• More specific questions arise from these as outlined in the detailed research brief.
• Supplemented by documentation from other agencies and authorities, such as the audit prepared by West Sussex, answers to these should provide a strong evidence base of what good practice in relation to PPA time ‘looks like’ on which to base recommendations, recognising that appropriate models are likely to vary considerably according to context.

Indicators of Success

(what factors would tell you what a good Review should look like)

• The review ought to demonstrate that it successfully "dovetails" into the Local Authority’s work on workforce remodelling.
• It should avoid duplication, but complement the LA’s work.
• Achievement of the objectives set out for the review.
• Identifying solutions around PPA time from appropriate case studies.
• Engagement with stakeholders including Cabinet Member and officers to ensure that the outcome is useful and well received.
• Analysis and conclusions following logically from the evidence.
• Recommendations are practical and achievable.
• Timely reporting of conclusions and recommendations (July 2007).

Methodology/ Approach

(what types of enquiry will be used to gather evidence and why)

• Secondary document research and scrutiny.
• Primary research: the Review Group has engaged Dr Tony Eaude as an expert advisor to the Review.
• "Schools News" and the website will alert schools to the review, with responses/ participation to be invited from anyone interested in the Review.
• A paper questionnaire to be prepared to be sent out to schools and/or taken on visits to schools. The questionnaire will also be available via the Intranet.
• Request each school to provide written copy of models which they have used to ensure guaranteed PPA time.
• School visits to be undertaken by the Review Group (and Dr Eaude).
• Interviews and focus groups to be undertaken in schools and some at a central point, with staff - including Headteachers or their representatives, class teachers, teaching assistants - Governors and children if possible.
• Involve/interview County Council officers as appropriate, including via Workforce Remodelling Steering Group.
• Involve/interview Cabinet portfolio holder, Cllr Michael Waine.
• Interview other interested parties, e.g. Union representatives.
• Comparison/benchmarking with area(s) to be considered (e.g. another Shire County).

(For further details, see detailed research brief).

Specify Witnesses/ Experts

(who to see and when)

• Cabinet Member (Cllr Michael Waine).
• Officers (incl Anne Carter, Roger Fell, Jane Watret).
• Workforce Remodelling Steering Group.
• Headteachers or their representatives, teachers, TA’s, governors, pupils.
• Union representatives.
• Representatives of groups involved in supporting new initiatives, eg music, sport, modern languages.

Specify Evidence Sources for Documents

(which to look at)

• West Sussex CC computerised workforce remodelling survey material.
• "Raising Standards and Tackling Workload; A National Agreement".
• Remodelling process and "tools and techniques" documentation available via TDA website.

Specify Site Visits

(where and when)

Schools for interviews and focus groups - exemplars, arising from questionnaire analysis during March 2007.

Specify Evidence Sources for Views of Stakeholders

(consultation/ workshops/ focus groups/ public meetings)

• Documents.
• Inter/Intranet.
• Consultation.
• Questionnaire.
• Site visits.
• Interviews.
• Focus Groups

Publicity requirements

(what is needed – fliers, leaflets, radio broadcast, press-release, etc.)

All schools to be alerted to the review via "Schools News" and the County and Schools website.

Resource requirements

• Person-days
• Expenditure

• 30-35 days.
• Based on:

1. the need to budget for cover for schools if teachers are to be asked to come out during the school day;
2. the cost of calling witnesses if they are not County Council employees;
3. the cost and logistics of printing and distributing the questionnaire;
4. consultant’s time.

• £16,000 (for consultant’s work; interviewees/visit expenses, supply cover, research documentation, production, distribution and return of questionnaire, etc.

Barriers/ dangers/ risks

(identify any weaknesses and potential pitfalls)

• Duplication of Local Authority’s work.
• Achieving appropriate and agreed timing for reporting recommendations.
• Questionnaire and consultation overload.
• Insufficient responses to initial review questionnaire to make it reliable evidence/statistically viable.

Projected start date

January 2007 – first formal meeting 4^th January

Draft Report Deadline

22^nd May 2007

Meeting Frequency

Approximately a dozen meetings/visits/

focus groups between Jan and late July 2007

Projected completion date

Late July/August 2007

When to evaluate impact and response

July 2008

Methods for tracking and evaluating

Lead member and officer tracking using 12 months on evaluation format agreed by the Co-ordinating Group in November 2006.