*
* * Return to Homepage * Home * Index * Help * Enquiries *
*
*
*
* Login
* Return to Homepage *
*
* * *
* CES
*
*
*
*
* Latest News
*
* December 2008
*
* November 2008
*
* October 2008
*
* September 2008
*
* August 2008
*
* July 2008
*
* June 2008
*
* May 2008
*
* April 2008
*
* March 2008
*
* February 2008
*
* January 2008
*
* December 2007
*
* November 2007
*
* October 2007
*
* September 2007
*
* August 2007
*
* July 2007
*
* June 2007
*
* May 2007
*
* April 2007
*
* March 2007
*
* February 2007
*
* January 2007
*
* December 2006
*
* November 2006
*
* October 2006
*
* September 2006
*
* August 2006
*
* July 2006
*
* June 2006
*
* May 2006
*
* April 2006
*
* March 2006
*
* February 2006
*
* January 2006
*
* December 2005
*
* November 2005
*
* October 2005
*
* September 2005
*
* CES Parliamentary Reception 11th June 2008
*
* Community cohesion conference for faith school specialist sports colleges (16th July 2008)
*
* National Catholic Education Conference, 8th-9th May 2007
*
* Media Monitoring Bulletins 2007-2008
*
* Events Diary 2007-2008
*
* Consultation Responses
*
* Briefings
*
*
* *
Back to news

Oona Stannard's letter to the Welsh Assembly Government re 16-19 Provision Organisation Proposals to Local Authorities
*

 

Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills

Ty’r Afon,

Bedwas Road,

Caerphilly,

CF83 8WT

 

31st July 2006

 

Delegation of 16-19 provision organisation proposals to local authorities (LA’s) (consultation 2006)

 

I write to raise a number of matters which have been the subject of much correspondence between both secondary Headteachers in Wales and Diocesan colleagues on the proposals of the Assembly Government to transfer responsibilities for the consultation and publishing of proposals on 16-19 provision and organisation to LA’s.

 

I appreciate that ELWa will still determine proposals and, therefore, the consultation may look as though it is not going to result in something very fundamentally different. However, I suggest that what is proposed has the potential to be dramatically different for the voluntary aided sector in that it considerably extends LA’s powers over the VA sector. In Para 2.10 you state that

 

It is intended that delegation would only affect the process by which proposals for reorganisations were prepared, consulted upon and published’.

 

This may look as though there is little for the VA sector to worry about but, as ever, the devil may be in the detail. It is in this respect, that I therefore look for safeguards and reassurances from the Assembly Government so that the Catholic sector is able to work confidently within such proposals/fundamental change.

 

I fully appreciate the need for a strategic approach to the organisation of 16-19 provision, as is the aim of these proposals. Equally, I recognise that this must encompass opportunities to make proposals to open, close or alter sixth form provision (Para 2.6). I seek more clarity about what is meant by saying

‘where, in the authorities/authorities view this offered the best way of meeting the local needs’.

 

In the introduction to the consultation document for example,  reference is made to collaboration with local partners but there is no definition of what is meant by local partners nor to another widely used term in the document; stakeholders. The Catholic dioceses are both stakeholders and partners and this extends even to those LA’s where there may not actually be Catholic schools or sixth for provision but the pattern of local provision in that LA and neighbouring authorities is critical to the choice available to local Catholic children.

 

If this consultation is successful I would request that the guidance to LA’s specifically requires that they treat their Catholic Dioceses as strategic partners and providers and that they be named as such throughout the guidance and in models and instruments for how the LA’s will be required to bring forward proposals and to act. I would urge you to also check on the responsibilities and powers that rest with the dioceses as a provider with legal rights and responsibilities for voluntary aided schools. I am sure that the three diocesan directors for Catholic education in Wales would be only too happy to discuss these points further with you and I attach their names and contact details.

 

As a strategic partner I am keen that the Catholic Church should always work to fully explore and, wherever appropriate, support the education proposals brought forward by Government. To that end, I would therefore, also be helped to have your response and assurance on the following points:

 

In Para 1.2 there is reference to inviting LA’s to lead in building consensus – how is this to be developed and what safe guards are there to ensure that the Catholic Church will be given the necessary opportunities to participate in such consensus building?

 

Para 1.2 refers to ELWa providing support and monitoring for the process of review and development and determining proposals as part of the statutory process – It would be helpful to have more detail on the support and monitoring that ELWa will provide since this is where I expect that the Catholic Church will be able to know whether it can be confident in the equity of the proposed process vis-à-vis appreciating the Church as a strategic partner and a provider;

 

Para 2.11, I welcome the aim of putting in place an appropriate mechanism for improved planning of provision in the interest of learners and that Ministers would be unlikely to approve proposals that could not demonstrate appropriate collaborative working and  consensus and support. However, I would like to suggest that for the reassurance of all parties, it would be very helpful to have more details of an objective and transparent instrument for demonstrating such collaboration and consensus.

 

Para 3.2, again, I welcome the prospect of a concordat but would also seek assurances as to what this will require and the inclusion of the Church/ VA sector as  a named key stakeholder/partner irrespective of whether they have a school or sixth form provision in a particular LA.

 

Para 3.2, confidence building could be supported by wide dissemination of the guidance to be given to LA’s and details of what the Assembly Government will expect from statutory consultation. Additionally, assurances that all objections will be made public would be welcomed.

 

Section 4, if the proposed changes are made to CCET’s, I would expect to see a membership including Diocesan representation as key employers (through the Trust Deed and the requirements this puts on the Foundation Governors under VA regulations).

 

In conclusion, I welcome the Assembly Government’s continued commitment ‘to providing a wide range of learning opportunities’ and I simply ask that there should be clear recognition of the continued wish by many that this can be with a Catholic provider or in a Catholic context and that the Church’s role as a strategic provider and partner in such provision, and in consideration of any future changes, be well reflected in future structures and expectations.

 

Please would you arrange for a response to the points that I have made above and the queries that I have raised to be sent me so that I can ensure that it is shared across our schools diocesan officers and parishes and, very importantly, copied to Archbishop Peter Smith and to Bishop Edwin Regan and Bishop Mark Jabale, our Bishops in Wales.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Oona Stannard

Chief Executive and Director

 

Cc. Rita Price, Canon Peter Collins, Sr Angela Murray,

Elizabeth Taylor, Elizabeth Williams (Welsh Assembly)

 

 

 

*
*
*
*
* *Website by Baigent *Terms & Conditions*Privacy Policy*Page Top *
*
*