Gloucestershire education authority has “serious weaknesses”, an inspectors’ report says.
The Office for Standards in Education questions the authority’s ability to deal with its problems. It also blames political instability - until last summer the council had been hung for 16 years - for a lack of proper leadership of the education service. A LibLab coalition now controls the council.
Inspectors say there are “doubts about the capacity of the LEA to deal with its weaknesses and to act on the recommendations made by this report”, adding that it will be necessary to re-inspect the authority to check on progress.
The Department for Education and Skills said it did not plan to intervene. Instead it would be reviewing the LEA’s post-inspection action plan and monitoring its implementation.
The report does highlight strengths, including an effective advisory service, good support for vulnerable young people, and a constructive relationship between the education department and schools.
It says: “Despite the members’ previous indecision and strategic neglect of key aspects of education policy and provision, there has been improvement in the schools.”
The DFES agreed, saying: “The weaknesses related primarily to the previous failure by elected members to provide a strategic lead.”
The political structure has improved, says the report. In summer 2001 a LibLab pact was agreed and in September the council set up a leader and executive arrangement, with members responsible for lifelong learning and schools, and a scrutiny committee.
But the report said that changes had been made too recently to have total confidence in the new arrangements.
Stewart King, Gloucestershire’s acting head of education services, said:
“We can take a leap to be a top-performing LEA in a short space of time. In 12 months, if OFSTED re-inspect us, they will see a dramatic improvement on the strategic leadership front.”
KEY POINTS OF OFSTED REPORT Gloucestershire LEA
Strengths
* monitoring, challenging, intervening and supporting in schools
* support for vulnerable young people
* support for small schools and for early years
Weaknesses
* quality of leadership given by elected members
* strategy for special needs
* development of ICT strategy
* speed and effectiveness of decision-making
* planning of post-16 education
