We are extremely concerned at the high level of risk attached to the issue of raising standards through reorganisation. This risk coupled with the risks associated with the poor management capabilities makes for a very unpleasant cocktail that SNT considers to be wholly unacceptable. We have outlined the highest risks below.
There are 7 high risk, 6 medium risk and no low risk areas currently highlighted. Of the high risks, one is expected to remain high risk and three are expected to fall to medium risks when the project is fully implemented.
Project Management Capability – High Risk 12
“Lack of project management capacity - appointment of internal project team, and support requirements from other Directorates. There will be a stretch due to high volume of other projects.”
They cite the consequences as: “Failure to achieve DCSF deadlines, delays in funding, reputational impact.”
The solution to this appears to be funding additional support – we assume that this means consultants? Is the proposed independent panel the start of this? The 4S Report in 2005 outlined the lack of capability of the IWC to manage a full scale reorganisation. It is clear from the way that they have handled the consultation that the department is not up to the job.
The expected risk level to completion is medium 9 which to us indicates a real risk that they will fail to measure up to the job.
TUPE Provision – High Risk 12
“Risk of rejecting bid on lack of TUPE provision. If TUPE does not apply then IWC will have to fund any redundancy costs. There is a lack of precedence under current legislation (2006 Act) - Lack of case law
TUPE regulations ensure that where employees are transferred to an external contractor or provider in accordance with the terms of these regulations, the employment of the existing council workforce associated with the contract will be transferred to the new contractor along with existing conditions of service.
Management will identify employees undertaking relevant work and therefore whether TUPE applies. Legally, anyone who works a substantial part of his or her working week working on the particular service being transferred has to be transferred. This decision can be appealed against and the appeals process should be exhausted before the date of transfer takes effect.
As this is expected to remain a level 12 High risk item on completion, the Council are clearly anticipating serious problems: They cite the consequences as: “On going financial implications. Reputational impact. Delays in project and funding and use of additional capacity.”
Standards – High Risk 12
“Failure to achieve the project objective of Standards Improving across the transition. There is a risk of unacceptable disruption to cohort most affected by project time table.”
This has been our greatest fear and something the Council has been very keen to dismiss as a neutral factor. The SNT line has been consistent. Things have improved already and the improvement was significant. The council insist that reorganisation is the only way forward and the only way to raise standards. This risk assessment appears to support our view that the risk of disruption and the lack of guarantee to the outcome is a high risk strategy. Things are made even worse when the risk assessment for project management capability outlined above is taken into account. This seems to create an unacceptable mix that raises the risk profile for this project far beyond anything that most parents would feel is acceptable for their children.
What is extremely concerning is that their assessment is that the risk only falls to a Medium risk level 9 on completion of the project. They cite the consequences as “Poor OFSTED reports" and damage to their "reputation”.
We say that the true consequences could be serious damage to the educational chances of a generation of our children. This is UNACCEPTABLE!
Transport – High Risk 12
They say that there is a risk of “failure to adopt an integrated approach to build capacity to provide for increased school bus requirements - Time scales are very tight due to lead time to buy.” In other words there has not been time to sort this out because of the rush to implement the decision made in March.
We think that the consequences will be higher costs and Co2 emissions. The Council says the risk is to the “Safety of students traveling between learning locations, failing to meet DCSF requirements for transport and Co2 emissions.” Something we agree on then!
This is projected to fall to a medium level 9 risk on completion of the project. Not exactly encouraging. We wonder how it could be that appendices H is so blasé about the transport issues given that no work has been carried out on this issue and our findings show that this has the potential to blow a massive hole in the Council’s finances ignoring the environmental impact.
Risk of Judicial Review
This is currently given a medium risk rating of 9 and a projected low risk rating of 5.
We recommend the Council raise this to a high risk 15 and set a realistic target risk of a high 15 too.
The risk report for school organisation perhaps casts most light on the reality of what is being done to our education system on the