Annex A: Responses to Consultation
Cheylesmore
House, Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT
T
024 7682 3202, F 024 7682 3250 www.lsc.gov.uk
SFA.implementationteam@lsc.gov.uk
(Reference:
Circular 02/21,Consultation on Guidance to Support Local Learning and Skills
Councils and their Partners in Undertaking Strategic Area Reviews of Provision
Starting in 2003)
Please
photocopy, complete and return this proforma to the address above for the
attention of the Programme Manager/Goal 1 by 21 February 2003 at the latest.
Early
responses would be greatly appreciated.
|
Name of institution (please
print) Archdiocese
of Westminster |
|
|
|
Contact officer for queries Paul Barber |
|
|
|
Tel 020 7798 9005 |
Fax 020 7798
9013 |
|
|
Email (if
applicable) paulbarber@rcdow.org.uk |
|
|
|
Local LSC (if
applicable) London West London North London Central London East London South Hertfordshire Surrey |
|
|
General Comments:
The
Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Westminster provides education for over
21,000 pupils aged 14-19 through 51 institutions. In most LSC areas we cover
(together with our neighbouring dioceses where applicable) we are the largest
voluntary provider in the sixth-form sector.
This
diocese also provides a wide range of regular, non-statutory, adult education
courses through its 216 parishes (each parish containing, on average, about
1000 adults).
As
a major provider of 14-19 education, the Archdiocese of Westminster would first
of all like to register its extreme concern that it was omitted the formal
consultation process on this exercise. Unfortunately this approach does not
come as a surprise, but rather typifies the approach we have come to expect
from the LSC.
In
the list of consultees in the circular, our partner LEAs are included, along
with hundreds of other bodies, but dioceses were, once again, pointedly
omitted. Despite repeated assurances at a national level, this can no longer be
attributed to an occasional oversight, but seems to have become the invariable
rule. We consider that this consultation has fallen short of the expectations
contained in the government’s code of practice on consultations.
As
a result, we hope that you will understand that this has two effects on our
response. First of all, we have only had seven working days, rather than
several months, to consider this consultation. The documents involved stand
inches high and so you will understand that our response on the detail they
contain is more limited than we would wish. We have, nevertheless, attempted to
respond broadly at this stage in order to comply with your deadline. Accordingly,
we wish formally to request the following:
Following the DfES practice, we would expect to be consulted on any proposals where our partner LEAs are consulted. We request a response to these requests as a matter of urgency.
The
second effect on our response at this stage is that our lack of confidence in
the LSCs willingness to engage with us as partners has inevitably had the
effect of making our response more negative than we would like it to be. We
apologise for this and very much hope that the LSC will make moves to enable us
to work as true partners in developing the right solutions to 14-19 education
within our diocese.
We
have seen the draft response to this consultation from the Catholic Education
Service and wish to express our full support for the views it contains.
Before
attempting to answer the specific questions posed in the consultation document,
we wish to set forth our grave concerns of a more general nature concerning the
way in which the Learning and Skills Council consistently shows a complete lack
of understanding of the existence and nature of voluntary provision within the
14-19 sector.
The
very language used throughout the documents is, in itself, discriminatory. The
main legal difference between the statutory education providers and voluntary
ones is the (largely) single tier nature of the former and the double tier
nature of voluntary provision. So whereas a further education corporation is at
once both the provider of education AND the institution which delivers that
provision, an important distinction in voluntary provision is that the trustees
(the diocese or religious order) are the providers and the institutions
(whether schools or colleges) deliver that provision on their behalf. (this is
in some ways, though not entirely, analogous to the position of LEAs in
relation to community schools.)
We
can understand the temptation for the LSC to simply ignore what might
mistakenly be seen as a small technical difference form the sake of
bureaucratic convenience. The problem is that, far from being a minor
technicality, this is the fundamental defining feature of our sector and the
one which guarantees the ethos and mission which is fundamental to the nature
of our institutions. This has long been recognised and respected by the DfES
and our partners in the LEAs. By ignoring it, writing it out of the
documentation, and perhaps even wishing it away, the LSC unwittingly does great
violence Catholic provision across the whole of our diocese and wider. The
consequence is that, through no particular fault of their own, officials at
local level are given no reason or ability to understand the role of the
diocese or the fundamental nature of our voluntary provision and thereby to
collaborate with us appropriately. On the contrary, they are given licence to
ignore us completely.
The
document in this present consultation is a good example. We have failed to find
one single reference to the role of the diocese in the reams of paper
which we have struggled through. It was our understanding that local LSCs were
expected to engage us in some sort of partnership. How on earth are they
expected to do so when we are so comprehensively sidelined in documents as
fundamental as these ones? Any acceptable final document must contain very
clear guidance about the involvement of the diocese, as a partner in the
process, from the very outset. Our experience of other processes guided by the
LSC, such as area inspections, has not given us any cause for optimism.
For
now, two examples will suffice to illustrate how the LSC has sidelined and
discriminates against our provision. The first one relates to inspection. The
new framework for inspection of colleges not only fails to recognise the
distinctive nature of our provision, but actually inspects our colleges against
a set of requirements which are relevant only for secular further education
corporations. Despite the fact that the legal requirements in our colleges are
different in important respects, they are subject to inspection against a set
of requirements which do not, in fact, apply to them. In other words, the
inspection system is actually set up in such a way as to penalise our colleges
if they comply with their legal requirements, but to reward them if they ignore
their legal obligations, their ethos and their mission and act like secular
colleges. The fact that, despite this, our colleges still manage to preserve
their distinctive character and perform extremely well in such inspections is
only a testament to the quality of much of our provision.
The
second example is in the provision of governor training material. Much LSC
resources have produced extensive governor training material which was
published by the LSC for further education colleges in 2002. Yet, a year later,
no equivalent material for designated colleges has yet been produced, and our
colleges are once again left waiting for materials which are suitable for the
governance of voluntary institutions with no indication so far that any will be
forthcoming. Once again, our colleges are discriminated against.
Comments are invited
on the following consultation questions
|
Q1 How do you think the proposed Toolkit might help in
carrying out reviews? Are there ‘tools’ for this process you would particularly
recommend? Comments We consider that there are a number of fundamental flaws
in the proposed toolkit which make it woefully inadequate to address a proper
review of provision which takes fully into account the legitimate diversity
of the different characters of provision which currently exist. We are deeply
concerned that, used in its present form, the toolkit would result in that
diversity not being recognised or taken into account, and consequently at
risk of being eliminated completely. We hope that this is not the aim. We have already expressed our concern at the lack of any
mention of dioceses as strategic partners. In the toolkit that concern is
re-iterated along with a concern about the lack of almost any reference to
the distinctive character of denominational provision in any form. The
current toolkit therefore seems to give the following strong advice to local
LSCs:
We would very much like to see this position reversed, and
clear indications given to local LSCs that the character of provision is an
important factor to be considered as part of strategic area reviews, and that
dioceses can actually be positive partners if you bother to attempt to work
with them. Turning to the specific tools in turn, and noting that our comments are limited
by the time constraints already mentioned. Tool 1 The contents of this tool are alarming. The issues of
ethos, character and mission are fundamental to our provision, and a number
of factors relating to this subject need to be understood clearly by local
LSCs if they are to engage in this exercise in any effective way. First of all, the tool concentrates on the narrow area of
mission statements, without putting them into the wider context of how the
character, ethos and mission of institutions is determined. Secondly, the
studies quoted are largely based on secular experience which is quite alien
to our institutions (and in any case exists for a different purpose).
Thirdly, the proposed framework fails to recognise that, unlike secular
institutions, the legal responsibility for determining the educational character
and mission of our institutions rests with the trustees, and NOT with the
governing body of each individual institution. Therefore any review of
this area must involve the diocese and any other trustees from the very
outset. From what we have said, it can be seen that the model
contained in part two is flawed in that it sees the process essentially as an
iterative one between the LLSC and the individual institution (4.4). Yet
within the Catholic sector, the process is, in fact, already an iterative one
between the institution, the diocese and (where appropriate) any religious
order. LLSCs will have to engage effectively with dioceses if this review
process is to include Catholic institutions in any meaningful manner. The proposed tool certainly needs an enormous amount of
work before it is fit for the purpose.
Rather than struggling on with the “one size fits all” approach, it
might be sensible to develop a distinctive tool to cater for institutions
which fit into this distinctive category. Either way, we would be more than
willing to assist in the development of such a resource. Tool 9 There appears to be no provision for data to be collected
in a way which would allow distinguishing between provision of different
characters in the way data is analysed or presented. We suggest that dioceses
hold data which may not be available elsewhere, both about the pattern of its
existing provision and analysis of potential demand. We suggest that this is
included in any developed tool. Tool 10 We are worried that this tool may be too mechanical and may not be able to take into account
ways in which institutions provide good value for money in their contribution
to the development of the whole person. Tools 11, 12 & 14 There is no provision in any of these tools for the
analysis of either learners who desire education of a particular
denominational character of or institutions which provide it or might do so.
It is essential that this is rectified. Tool 15 We were very surprised to see that obligations of the LLSC
under the Human Rights Act only merit a single sentence in the legal advice
for SARs. We consider that the obligations imposed by Article 2 of the First
Protocol merit specific mention, particularly in relation to the rights of
parents within the context of 14-19 education. Tool 16 We find it particularly depressing that, even when
analysing some of our own provision within this document, you fail even to
mention the distinctive character of the education provided. However, on the positive side we note the exploration of
new models of institutional governance. We are well placed as a diocese to
explore new models of governance across our institutions and can see scope
for developing more efficient responses to demand than may exist in current
models. For example, we are the provider of the first federated (collegiate)
school in the country. We are keen to explore possibilities, even radical
ones, with LLSCs and others. |
|
Q2 Do you agree with the aims and scope of Strategic Area
Reviews? Are there other aspects of provision they should cover? Comments We are very unhappy that there is absolutely no mention of
the involvement of dioceses as major providers taking any part in the review.
This must be rectified. We would like to see the specific character of our
provision and its importance explicitly recognised. We disagree with Strategic Area Reviews building on the
many Area Inspections which have been been fundamentally flawed by the
exclusion of the diocese as a major provider from any part in the process. We welcome the fact that Strategic Area Reviews will cover
a wider area than Area Inspections, as this will be more likely to recognise
the more geographically diverse nature of Catholic provision. We would like
to see some explicit mention of this reflected in the final document. |
|
Q3 Do you agree with the values listed in section 2? Are
there other values that should underpin Strategic Area Reviews? Comments The principles sound fine enough. Unfortunately, unless they are
explicit about the identity of dioceses as major providers of education, and
the consequent need to involve them in the processes, our experience suggests
that they will simply remain fine sentiments. |
|
Q4 Does the process give local LSCs sufficient
flexibility? What aspects of the SAR process do you think should be managed
centrally? Comments We are extremely worried that the process will give some local LSCs the
flexibility to continue to exclude the diocese from any part in these
processes. |
|
Q5 The guidance proposes a seven stage process for
reviews. Does this provide the right framework? Are there other actions you
would like to see? Comments We are not happy with any framework unless the diocesan role as a major
provider is recognised and we are able to be fully engaged in the process
from its very start. |
|
Q6 Do you think the range of stakeholders to be involved
is comprehensive? How can stakeholders be encouraged to contribute
effectively? Comments It beggars belief that the
dioceses are not listed in the extensive list of “stakeholders” in this
section of the document. We fail to understand how we can be expected to have
any confidence at all in any LSC driven process if our very existence is not
even acknowledged. It is
absolutely essential that the diocese is included in this list. Stakeholders can be encouraged
to contribute effectively by the simple expedient of inviting them and
allowing them to do so rather than completely excluding them from the
process. In the instances where local
LSCs have done this, we have participated eagerly and constructively.
Unfortunately, this is far from a universal experience. We suggest that the
LSC and LLSCs should, as a minimum, adopt the protocols of the DfES by
copying the dioceses into consultations, and general communications to CEOs
and our institutions as a matter of routine. |
|
Q7 Does the section ‘building on previous work’ give
enough scope for use of previous review evidence? Comments No. As mentioned before, we consider that, where we have been excluded
from the previous reviews, the work undertaken is flawed. We are therefore
unhappy with this being used as a basis for future work. We would like to see
mechanisms so that this lack of co-operation can be rectified and built in
before any previous work is built upon. |
|
Q8 Are there ways in which the LSC should work
differently, either locally or nationally, to ensure that Strategic Area
Reviews are effective? Comments Yes. They should be explicit in their guidance to local LSCs about the
nature of diocese and the need for the local LSCs to engage us in partnership
from the beginning. Local LSCs need to build consultation and co-operation
with the diocese into their working systems. |
|
Q9 Are there approaches to information gathering and
analysis you would recommend, or particular sources of evidence? Comments The diocese can provide
additional data relating to the demand and supply of Catholic provision, as
well as inspection data relating to s.23 inspections and equivalent which
should form part of the evidence base for any Review. |
|
Q10 When developing strategic options, do the 4 points in
paragraph 101 provide the right framework for making choices about provision?
Are there other factors for the LSC to take into account? Comments We wish to be assured that
strategic options are to developed in a way that will preserve and develop
distinctive Catholic provision. If that is the case, the diocese, if involved
in the process fully, is willing to explore even the most radical options if
they are the ones which would most benefit learners overall. |
|
Q11 Does the approach outlined for local consultation meet
the requirements of learners, employers and the local community? Comments No. Once again, dioceses are
excluded from the organisations listed as major consultees. This is
unacceptable. We are pleased to see
recognition of the need for consultation across boundaries, but would like to
see explicit recognition that this is also necessary for the role of
distinctive denominational provision. We would also wish to be assured that
any wider consultation strategy would include consultation with the wider
Catholic community, amongst others. |
|
Q12 What do you think are the most important factors for
the LSC if it is to implement review outcomes successfully? Comments The most important factor is the willingness and ability
of the LSC to change its way of working to recognise and successfully engage
major providers in the review processes. The LSC will experience enormous
resistance from the Catholic Church to the implementation of any
unsatisfactory review outcomes where the diocese has not been fully engaged
as a partner in the review from the beginning. |
|
Other comments To try to end on a positive
note, this diocese is enthusiastic to become fully involved in Strategic Area
Reviews. We have experience of working in positive and successful partnership
with 19 LEAs and with the DfES, and we have experience of strategic planning
of education across LEA boundaries. We very much wish to work in partnership with
the LSCs. We are willing to take part constructively in any review of
provision, and have the capacity to assist the delivery of major change if
and when that is appropriate. However, in order to do that,
the first move must come from the LSC in explicitly recognising the
importance of our distinctive educational provision and the diocesan role in
the strategic planning of that provision. Parliament has recognised the
distinctive nature of Catholic provision and the role of dioceses as major
providers of education and partners in the strategic planning process. We
anticipate eagerly the day when the LSC will do the same. |
©LSC
November 2002
Published
by the Learning and Skills Council. Extracts from this publication may be
reproduced for non-commercial educational or training purposes on condition
that the source is acknowledged and the findings are not misrepresented.
This
publication is available in an electronic form on the Council’s ebsite: www.lsc.gov.uk
The
Learning and Skills Council offers an alerting service for any circular posted
to our website, to subscribe to this service visit
http://www.lsc.gov.uk/subscriptions.cfm
Publication
enquiries:0870 900 6800
Reference
CIRC/0572/02