Children and young people are included and actively participate in formal and informal learning. The attainment of children and young people at key stages in the primary and secondary sectors shows improving trends. Almost all learners make very good progress from their prior levels of attainment. Particular groups of learners, including those in the lowest performing 20%, looked after children, and pupils from black and ethnic minority groups, achieve or exceed attainment targets set against national education priorities. Participation rates and performance levels in sporting, cultural, citizenship and youthwork activities are high and include people with disabilities. Children and young people progress successfully to the next stage in their education such as from stage to stage with schools or from school to further education, higher education or employment. A high proportion of adult learners are engaged in community-based education and many progress to higher levels of education or into employment.

Learners express high levels of satisfaction with the service. They are positive about the help provided through formal and informal learning opportunities to achieve their full potential and to help keep themselves safe and healthy. Learners consistently feel that they are valued and have appropriate opportunities to express their views, and that these views influence planning for their future.

Some groups of children are unable to access the full range of learning opportunities and participation rates in some important areas are low. The attainment of children and young people at key stages in the primary and secondary sectors shows insufficient improvement. Overall, learners do not make sufficient progress from their prior levels of attainment. Particular groups of learners such as those in the lowest-performing 20%, looked after children and pupils from black and ethnic minority groups, do not achieve the attainment targets set against national education priorities. Learners with disabilities are under-represented in cultural activities. A significant number of children and young people experience difficulties when moving on to the next stage in their education. Few adults are engaged in community-based learning and there are insufficient opportunities for progression.

In some areas, learners express low levels of satisfaction with the service. They are not always positive about the support provided to help them achieve their full potential in some important areas. Learners are generally positive about their learning, but do not feel that sufficient account is taken of their views on decisions affecting their future.

Almost all parents, carers and families are fully satisfied with the quality and range of services provided by the authority. They are positive about their active involvement in the development of their children’s learning in both informal and formal contexts. Parents, carers and families express confidence in supporting their children’s learning and development. They are respected, treated equally and fairly, and involved in the development of their child(ren). Parents, carers and families are encouraged to contact the schools, central staff and other agencies about relevant issues and to become involved in the life and work of their school and the community. Parents, carers and families of vulnerable children and of those with additional support needs are very well supported, educationally and socially, by the authority. Parents, carers and families are able to access appropriate adult-learning opportunities when appropriate.

Parents, carers and families participate in their children’s education through attendance at appropriate meetings and forums. They take direct responsibility, where appropriate, for key aspects of their children’s learning as a result of the initiatives developed by the authority. Parents, carers and families engage with confidence in informal and formal surroundings through, for example, home-school activities and health initiatives. They respond positively to planned opportunities for multi-agency support such as attendance at family-group conferences and joint assessment team meetings. Parents, carers and families are kept well informed/up-to-date on the curriculum and learning and teaching. The authority is responsive to complaints and consistently achieves a satisfactory resolution.

There are important weaknesses in the level of satisfaction with the quality and range of services provided by the authority. Parents, carers and families are actively involved in the development of aspects of their children’s personal and social development but are less involved in their children’s learning. They do not feel sufficiently confident in supporting their children’s learning and development. Parents, carers and families are respected, treated equally and fairly, but are not sufficiently involved in the development of their child(ren). They are encouraged to contact the schools, central staff and other agencies about any issues but are less encouraged to become involved in the life and work of their school and the community. Parents, carers and families of vulnerable children and of those with additional support needs or disabilities are not supported well enough by the authority. Parents, carers and families often lack the confidence to access adult learning opportunities.

The participation of parents, carers and families in their children’s education through attendance at appropriate meetings and forums is low. Parents, carers and families take responsibility, where appropriate, for some aspects of their children’s learning but this seldom as a result of the initiatives developed by the authority. They do not engage consistently in informal and formal surroundings through, for example, home-school activities and health initiatives. Parents, carers and families are kept informed on their child’s progress and development but less so on the curriculum and learning and teaching. The authority is responsive to complaints but is inconsistent in achieving a satisfactory resolution.

Staff are highly motivated, meaningfully involved in the development of the service and professionally satisfied. They are prepared well for future leadership responsibilities by involvement in secondments, projects and programmes. They have good opportunities for career development and a clearly understood and accessible continuing professional development (CPD) programme. They consider that professional development supports their performance effectively and contributes to developing their competence. Staff report positively about the quality of support provided by central services and external agencies. Staff are confident in their ability to carry out their duties and teamwork at all levels is effective. They are appropriately deployed, engaged and valued across the authority.

Staff have a very well-developed sense of the council’s vision, values and aims and share its values. They are actively involved in a range of cross-departmental working groups. They are regularly consulted by managers and their participation results in a perception of corporate ownership and a positive impact on the retention of staff. Staff have low absence levels. They are willing to work in flexible arrangements aimed at meeting agreed targets. Staff interaction with children, young people, adult learners and families is very good and is based on an appropriate response to needs. Staff are enabled to deliver high-quality services, including learning and teaching, social, care and health-related aspects. They work effectively in providing well-targeted initiatives aimed at raising attainment and achievement, supporting the care and wellbeing of learners and enhancing their health and self-esteem. They are involved effectively in partnership working and decision-making through applying Best Value principles.

There are important weaknesses in levels of satisfaction with the service. Staff are motivated but are not always meaningfully involved in the development of the service. They feel that they have good opportunities for CPD but provision for leadership development is insufficient. Staff have positive perceptions of the quality of support provided by central services and external agencies but do not feel that the support is consistent or proactive. Staff work well in their own local teams but do not identify with the wider team across the authority. They do not feel that authority and establishment provision is making a consistent contribution to enhanced services for learners and their families. On the whole staff deployment is not matched sufficiently to service priorities.

Staff have only a general awareness of the vision, values and aims of the authority. They are aware of, and are involved in supporting the development and implementation of a narrow range of projects. Staff are consulted by managers but this is irregular and ad hoc resulting in an inconsistent response to these consultations and a lack of corporate ownership. Staff are willing to work in flexible arrangements but these are not consistently focused at meeting agreed targets. Staff strive to deliver high quality services, including learning and teaching, administrative support and care and health-related aspects. They are not always supported or challenged by managers to improve performance. Staff contribute to initiatives aimed at raising attainment and achievement, supporting the care and wellbeing of learners and in enhancing their health and self-esteem but these tend to lack focus and direction. Staff are not sufficiently involved in partnership working and decision-making.

Almost all members of the community have a consistently high level of satisfaction with the services provided by the authority and its partners. Community members have access to high-quality services. Community representatives, including those from the voluntary sector, are fully informed about and able to influence the activities and services being provided in schools, early years centres and other authority services in the community. The authority supports and engages with them in building capacity within the community and includes them appropriately in decision-making activities. The authority encourages stakeholders to engage in supporting children, young people, adult learners and community groups.

The authority engages with members of the community, including the voluntary sector, appropriately in improving local services. This includes, where appropriate, providing services directly to children, young people and their families and adult learners. The authority actively involves community members in the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of community planning objectives. The authority and its schools and services, work collaboratively with community organisations, further education colleges, social, health and care professionals to ensure priority needs are being met, particularly those of socially excluded groups. The authority is successful in achieving very high levels of engagement with them on issues of local concern and on wider policy issues. Members of the community consider that the provision offered by the authority has led to a positive impact on the motivation and engagement of children, young people, adult learners, families, disadvantaged groups and the community.

There are important weaknesses in levels of satisfaction with the service provided by the authority and its partners. Community representatives, including the voluntary sector, are informed about the activities and services being provided in schools, early years centres and in the community, but have insufficient opportunities to influence these activities and services. The authority’s support for and engagement with them in building capacity within the community is inconsistent and lacks focus. They are not always sufficiently included in decision-making activities. The authority provides insufficient opportunities for stakeholders to engage in supporting the learning and development of children, young people and adults.

The authority does not engage community members, including the voluntary sector, regularly and systematically in improving local services. Where it does engage them it may not do so appropriately. The authority involves a narrow range of community members in the development and implementation of community planning objectives. It offers insufficient opportunities for involvement in monitoring and evaluation. While the authority, and its schools and services, work collaboratively with community organisations, further education colleges, social, health and care professionals, they do not always ensure priority needs are being met, particularly those of socially excluded groups. The authority successfully engages with local stakeholders but it does not focus sufficiently on issues of local concern or on wider policy issues. Most members of the community consider that the provision offered by the authority has had insufficient impact on the motivation and engagement of children, young people, their families, disadvantaged groups and the general community.

The council has initiated a range of innovative programmes, many in partnership with other public, charitable and commercial organisations. These have led to major improvements in services for residents. Staff are actively encouraged to innovate and any associated risks are managed well. There are many examples of leading-edge practice from other councils and countries being adopted and adapted within the authority. Managers at all levels serve on a range of national advisory groups and committees. Some of these have had a major impact on national policy and practice. The council places great emphasis on forecasting change, assessing probable impacts and responding swiftly to provide appropriate service to meet changing needs. This ability to respond rapidly and creatively is keeping the council close to the leading edge of national and international development, and ensuring that children, young people, adult learners and other residents receive consistently good services.

The council provides educational services that broadly meet the needs of residents but is seldom innovative and rarely learns from good practice in other councils or from abroad. Creativity is not encouraged and change tends to be evolutionary. Few managers serve on national committees or advisory groups. Consequently, the council makes little impact beyond its own locality. The council responds slowly to change. It does not attempt to predict major changes or respond proactively to the changing needs or aspirations of children, young people, their families or other residents.

The council is successful in sustaining the quality of service delivery at a high level and can demonstrate that it has a clear strategy, based on its vision, values and aims, and planned approaches for improvement. The structure for the delivery of education and support services within individual teams, units and establishments is very well planned and includes aspects of innovative practice. The council provides clear guidance on the provision of appropriate curricula and programmes and on the management of learning and support for learners. It reviews and revises this guidance through systematic analysis of stakeholders’ views, reference to up-to-date national advice, analysis of best practice and evaluation of measurable outcomes and impact. Flexible provision of the curriculum and learning opportunities is very well planned and monitored. The council delivers statutory services in a highly effective way.

There are clear systems in place for implementing the authority’s policies. These provide clear lines of responsibility and accountability with timescales and measurable targets. They take account of resource implications and include procedures for evaluation/review. Central to the implementation of the authority’s policies is its clear focus on outcomes and the impact on children’s and adults’ learning, attainment and achievement.

The authority places the learning, care and development needs of children, young people and adult learners at the forefront of its work. It ensures the health and safety, security and well-being of learners and other key stakeholders. Service delivery provides effective support for transition between units and establishments at key stages. The council engages systematically with learners, parents, staff, external agencies and other key stakeholders to identify the specific needs of learners. Targeted and effective actions are taken to provide for these, and these actions are regularly monitored and reviewed.

The council provides a range of opportunities to promote and support achievements through participation in award schemes, voluntary work, environmental projects, the arts, sports and other creative pursuits. Suitable arrangements are in place to ensure that all community-based initiatives are recognised and celebrated within the council, for example, through special events, newsletters and award ceremonies.

The quality of service delivery is inconsistent across the council. While some good-quality and innovative practice exists, it is developed by individual teams, units and establishments rather than by means of a strategic approach. Individual improvements and innovations may be effective, but they are not always delivered as part of a planned approach across the council. While there are examples of good guidance on appropriate curricula and programmes and on managing learning, these are not developed as part of a coherent and comprehensive approach. Some of the guidance is out of date or developed without reference to stakeholders’ views, national advice, best practice and measurable outcomes and impact. While there are some effective arrangements for flexible delivery of the curriculum and learning opportunities, they do not form part of a coherent and well-planned approach.

The authority’s key policies on improving quality are not implemented consistently. Individual policies do not give a clear enough indication of their practical application. They are uneven in terms of specific elements such as roles, responsibilities, procedures, and expectations of quality or evaluation process. There is a lack of clear systems to drive the consistent implementation of the authority’s policies. While examples of good practice are evident in discrete areas of the service, there are no clear arrangements for routinely monitoring the effectiveness of policy implementation.

Insufficient attention is given to formally identifying and reviewing the learning, care and development needs of learners. Staff and other key stakeholders do not have a clear picture of priorities for meeting learners’ needs. Discussions involving learners, staff and support agencies do not lead to focused and targeted actions. There is insufficient consistency and rigour in the authority’s approach to measuring and analysing the impact of the action taken to meet learners’ needs.

The authority gives insufficient priority to promoting, supporting and celebrating the achievements of individuals and community groups.

A strong ethos and practice of inclusion permeates the work of the authority at all levels. Staff at all levels and other key stakeholders are clear on council policies and strategies and their own responsibilities. A range of clear and appropriate written guidance is readily available to all staff. The authority promotes learning opportunities for all learners and reaches out to potentially excluded individuals and groups. It provides effective services for vulnerable learners and learners in need, including arrangements for early intervention and support within universal services and targeted additional support where required. Managers use outcome and impact information to identify under-represented and under-performing groups, and take appropriate action to improve their participation and achievement. Managers also consult regularly with members of, and those that represent, minority groups. There are effective systems in place across the authority for tracking and supporting potentially vulnerable or under-performing learners including looked after children, traveller children and young people who are being supported through alternative curricular provision. Staff consistently demonstrate good practice in promoting equality and addressing areas of concern.

Staff and stakeholders are not always clear about the authority’s vision for, and approach to, inclusion, equality and fairness. Staff are aware of the existence of policy statements in these areas, but are less clear about how to translate them into practice. The authority does not place a sufficiently high priority on these areas. The key principles and values underpinning them have been subject to only limited consultation with a narrow range of key stakeholders. Stakeholders are generally positive about their relationship with the authority but some groups feel that their views are not fully recognised. Minority groups and those with specific interests, such as gender and race groups, disability forums and those representing the interests of children and adult learners with additional support needs, sometimes feel disenfranchised or excluded. Systems for tracking potentially vulnerable pupils are not fully effective in ensuring that their needs are being addressed. The authority receives a number of complaints from stakeholders about their lack of involvement in key decisions with regard to inclusion, equality and fairness issues. Many of these complaints are not addressed.

The authority provides clear advice to establishments and services on quality improvement, development planning, standards and quality reporting, and professional review and development. There is rigorous validation of establishment self-evaluation. The roles and responsibilities of key staff in ensuring quality improvement and monitoring and evaluating the work of establishments and services are clearly understood.

There is a well-developed culture of support and challenge across all services and establishments. Robust discussions on performance lead to the identification of strengths and areas of underperformance. The authority provides strong advice and support to staff in establishments to help them make improvements. Identified strengths are routinely celebrated and built upon by the authority and its establishments. Equally, identification of areas of underperformance or those requiring attention result in the development of detailed action plans that impact positively on the quality of provision. Officers provide strong support through direct input and targeted resources.

Effective procedures are in place for carrying out rigorous audits to inform the planning, design and delivery of services. These are based on a range of appropriate measurement and monitoring techniques. The council has developed systematic approaches to gathering and analysing stakeholders’ views. Results are used to identify issues for further investigation and action. Information is also gathered from regular visits to establishments and CLD provision, standards and quality reports and HMIE reports. Senior managers are confident and accurate in their use of and interpretation of a wide range of performance data.

Quality indicators and accreditation schemes are used as a sound basis for self-evaluation and planning for improvement. The information from performance data and stakeholders’ views are used to set priorities and targets for improvement. These targets are included in service and improvement plans and result in effective action. The authority rigorously evaluates the effectiveness of its improvement strategies in relation to their impact on the quality of the learning and achievements of children, young people and adult learners, and its services to children and families.

There is an overarching strategy to record and report publicly on performance standards. The information is provided to key stakeholders in a form that is accessible, evaluative and well presented. The timing of reports informs decision-making and leads to improvements in planning and provision. Reports are appropriately linked to agreed priorities. Strengths and areas for further improvement are clearly identified. There are many examples of significant improvements to learner outcomes and impact that have resulted from the authority’s arrangements for self-evaluation and quality improvement.

The authority’s advice on self-evaluation and quality improvement is insufficiently clear. As a result, the roles and responsibilities of key staff in monitoring and evaluating the work of the authority are not clear. There is too much variation in the quality of development planning, standards and quality reporting, and professional review and development.

Approaches for supporting and challenging establishments are not applied consistently. Discussions take place between senior managers, headteachers, CLD managers and other responsible officers but these do not always enable staff to identify strengths or result in well-targeted plans and action for improvement.

The authority has a range of systems for monitoring performance and seeking views from stakeholders but the information gathered does not sufficiently inform future planning. Staff make insufficient use of some sources of evidence such as benchmarking or comparative data when planning for improvement. The rationale for selection of Best Value service reviews is unclear. Managers have not fully involved stakeholders in contributing to a systematic approach to evaluating the quality of the service.

A few senior managers have a good understanding of the information available and how it contributes to planning but a majority have little awareness. The authority has not clearly identified what should be measured or set well-defined targets for improvement. Its effectiveness in assisting establishments and CLD services to identify and plan future improvements is limited. In evaluating the effectiveness of school and CLD improvement strategies, the authority does not focus sufficiently on the impact on the learning and achievements of children, young people and adult learners, and services to children and families.

Procedures for recording and reporting on performance standards are not rigorous or consistently in place. Reports are not fully linked to agreed improvement priorities. Information provided is insufficiently evaluative and not always presented in a suitable form for the range of stakeholders. Only a few improvements have been made to outcomes and impact for learners as a result of quality assurance activities.

The education service’s work is directed by a straightforward policy framework which covers all its main areas of activity and responsibility. This policy framework sets clear expectations for effective service delivery. Policies reflect national and local priorities and related improvement objectives. Policy advice is wide ranging and very well balanced in its coverage of strategic and operational matters. Individual policies are supported by specific information about roles, responsibilities and procedures, expectations of quality, outcomes and evaluation processes. The range of policies provides clear guidance to establishment and service staff and helps to ensure consistency in practice across the education service and achieve continuous improvement.

The education service’s policy framework is coherent with the community, corporate and integrated children’s services’ planning aspirations and outcomes. The links among cross-cutting policy initiatives, and the education service’s contribution to these, are indicated clearly and are reflected in policy and practice at establishment and service levels.

Key service objectives and key policies are based on the council’s vision, values and aims. These provide a very sound basis for policy making and service delivery and relate well to the national priorities for education and CLD. They are also directly reflected in establishment policies and have a significant impact on the development of integrated services for children across the council. The vision, values and aims serve as useful criteria against which structures, policies and practices are regularly reviewed and evaluated.

There is a clear procedure in place for the coherent development and review of individual policies. Policies are regularly reviewed and updated taking into account the views of stakeholders.

The education service has policies in most but not all, of its main areas of activity and responsibility. Areas of the service plan have been developed independently from these policies and the links are not always clear or explicit. Individual policies do not give a clear enough indication of their practical application and are uneven in terms of specific elements such as roles, responsibilities, procedures, and expectations of quality or the evaluation process. Operational practice occasionally develops separately from the policy itself, largely in response to individual situations, producing some inconsistency.

Education and CLD service policies do not sufficiently reflect corporate policy. The policy framework does not systematically inform the structure and content of the strategic service plan and children’s services plan and has little influence on outcomes and impacts. The links among cross-cutting policy initiatives, and education’s contribution to these, are unclear and have insufficient impact on policy and practice at establishment level.

The vision, values and aims of the council do not systematically inform the construction and development of policies. The links between aims and policies are not always clearly perceived. The authority and individual establishments develop their policies in isolation from each other. This results in a lack of coherence between authority and establishment policy development. Education and CLD managers do not display full commitment to the corporate vision or values and do not use these consistently as criteria against which policies and practices can be regularly reviewed and evaluated.

Policies are not implemented consistently across the education service and its establishments. The service does not review and amend policies on a sufficiently regular basis. Many policies are not updated to take account of changing circumstances and national and local priorities. The authority takes steps to monitor the implementation of its policies, but often the mechanisms are too informal and establishments do not always feel that the authority has a clear picture of the impact of its policies on continuous improvement. The engagement of stakeholders in the process of reviewing and updating is limited.

A broad range of cost-effective consultation processes, involving a wide range of stakeholders, shapes the education service’s policies and helps to drive planning for improvement. The education service has appropriate stakeholder and learner representation on groups undertaking policy development. Such arrangements result in a high level of ownership of changes to policy and services, and have a clear impact on establishing improvement in performance and service quality at establishment level.

The authority has a planned framework for communication and consultation. This provides clear strategic and operational advice and identifies key stakeholder groups. The authority is committed to effective communication and full consultation with all learners and interacts regularly with a wide range of consultative groups. There is a clear overall policy framework for communication and for public performance reporting. Where there is a legal requirement to consult, this is done effectively. Consultation services provide value for money and very good feedback to stakeholders on outcomes.

Senior managers encourage and enable the active participation of stakeholders and learners in the work of the authority. Effective structures and systems are in place to support and encourage participation. Staff at all levels engage with learners and stakeholders. The authority has effective procedures and processes to enable sharing of information within and across inter-agency teams.

Identification of stakeholders omits some important groups. The views of some of the education service’s stakeholders are sought but not on the full range of services. The process of involvement is not sustained beyond the early stages of a development or conversely is at too late a stage to have significant impact. It draws too heavily on the input of staff and does not sufficiently involve other stakeholders.

Information given to stakeholders about the outcomes of the authority is generally sound but not consistently systematic or comprehensive. There is no clear overall policy framework for communication and for public performance reporting. Only a limited range of communication methods is used. While a number of consultation mechanisms are used, some of them are not well matched to the context or differentiated sufficiently to the needs of groups. Those being consulted have only an incomplete understanding of the rationale, intended outcomes or processes of the exercise.

The active empowerment of participants does not feature strongly in the work of the authority. Participants do not always feel consulted about the nature of the activity in which they are participating. There are insufficient structures and systems in place to support and encourage participation. Although a majority of staff are committed to engaging with learners and stakeholders, staff attitudes towards learners and stakeholders are not consistently positive. There are insufficient procedures in place to enable effective communication and sharing of information within and across inter-agency teams.

The education service has a clear framework for quality development including advice on school development planning, standards and quality reporting, and professional review and development. Performance planning and service planning are integral to the work of the service. A very well-managed planning cycle matches corporate and establishment work cycles and meets national requirements. The service rigorously evaluates delivery options taking account of challenge and competition.

The children’s services plan fully reflects local and national priorities and covers the range of work of the education service. The presentation and structure of the plan, or different versions of the plan, are clear and precise and immediately accessible to the various users. The plan is informed by national and local priorities in education and CLD, and analysis of establishment development plans, Best Value reviews and quality audits. The service plan is taken forward very effectively through a series of action plans, drawn up by specific teams or individuals responsible for each major development. These action plans identify resources and indicate the links between planning and budget-setting procedures.

Senior officers demonstrate a commitment to joint planning with partner organisations and services. Education service planning is structured in a way that supports integrated working. There is an appropriate focus on a multi-disciplinary approach to achieving the seven outcomes for children and young people and the four capacities for learners. Operational planning for integrated services is well articulated and coordinated to ensure the involvement of all partners. Partners are fully involved in planning, and where appropriate, implementation. Inter-agency planning has a positive impact on the quality of provision within establishments.

The approach to service planning is well understood and there is a clear, succinct format for each service to report on progress in addressing priorities and achieving outcomes. The service plan clearly sets out objectives in precise terms, linked well to criteria for success and identifies the person with lead responsibility for performance measures. Staff are clear about their roles in the monitoring and evaluation process. Members of the Directorate and other senior officers make systematic use of the service-planning process to monitor and manage the work of the service as a whole through a regular cycle of evaluation and reporting. The education service fulfils its statutory requirement to report annually on its success in meeting its improvement objectives as laid out in the service plan or equivalent. This reporting process is consistent with the requirements for public performance reporting under Best Value. Operational planning is undertaken with a view to ensuring the sustainability of provision.

There is a process of performance management and planning but it has limited coherence. The planning cycle is unhelpful to some of the key users. Although supportive of quality development activities, the senior managers tend not to be actively involved. Performance management and service planning are not integral to the work of the department nor are they seen as key mechanisms to bring about continuous improvement. When planning, delivery options have not been fully considered.

The presentation and structure of the plan or different versions of the plan are not clear or sufficiently detailed. The plan includes too many or too few improvement objectives and is not central to the quality improvement work of the service. Education service planning is only partially linked to relevant plans and to local and national priorities. It is not sufficiently informed by appropriate and clear aims, priorities and statements of planned action.

The database of knowledge of the overall performance of the education service is accurate but some sources of evidence are not used or benchmarking is not always appropriate. Files are not up to date or knowledge is held too much in the head of an officer or with different aspects dispersed among too many officers. Officers’ evaluations of establishment performance are generally accurate but lack convincing detail, or knowledge of establishments is inconsistent. There is a range of systems for monitoring and measuring performance but they do not always combine together effectively to provide comprehensive audit information.

Partner organisations and agencies have limited input into decision-making processes and areas of joint actions are not always fully effective. Where education service objectives involve working with other departments or agencies, partners are not always fully aware of their respective roles in implementation. Education service planning does not have a significant influence on joint or integrated service delivery at a neighbourhood level. It has a limited focus on multi-disciplinary and partnership approaches to service provision. Operational planning is only partially successful in coordinating services and partner organisations and agencies, including working with key partners from the community and the voluntary sector. There is a lack of consistency in involving partners in identifying and addressing needs. There is insufficient activity to ensure the long-term viability of projects.

The council has sufficient staff to deliver its services. The education service has an overall human resource management framework, supported by a comprehensive range of clear policies covering all key areas. The service has established clear staffing standards for all areas including centrally-deployed staff, teachers and support staff in pre-school centres, schools and establishments, and staff in all other services under its management.

The education service has established effective recruitment procedures. All staff appointment procedures have been developed in partnership with the relevant trade unions/professional associations and are clearly stated and publicly available. In appointing members of staff to posts within the education department, due regard is paid to the skills, aptitudes and experience of all applicants and of the relationship of these to the stated selection criteria, job outlines and person specifications for each post. The service has an effective induction policy and procedures for all new staff.

The education service has clearly established a positive culture in which staff are aware of their rights and responsibilities. Every manager is aware of the service’s duty of care to its employees and an appreciation of what that entails. Within its human resources policy framework, the education service has a range of policies and procedures which set out clearly the standards of conduct, care and welfare which all staff in the service can expect and which are expected of them.

The council has a well-established equal opportunities policy relevant to the needs of those who work in and use the education service. There is a clearly defined set of principles and procedures which underpins the education service’s approach to recruitment and support of its staff. Issues of equality and fairness including race, religion, ethnicity, disability and gender are fully addressed and effectively monitored, including through statistical methods.

The education service has established an ethos of positive recognition and celebration of achievement, within which all staff are encouraged and supported to do their best. Senior managers regularly communicate with the workforce to identify staff successes, examples of best practice and innovative practice. Staff achievement and success are appropriately recognised by the council or the education service.

The council has not been successful in recruiting staff to several key posts. This has a negative impact on the quality of aspects of provision and creates excessive work loads for some staff. The education service has produced a number of personnel policies but there are important gaps in key policy areas. While staffing standards have been produced for the education service’s establishments, the council has not yet developed such standards for all areas of service provision or for all groups of staff. This leads to cases of confusion, misinterpretation or challenge.

The education service’s recruitment procedures generally operate satisfactorily but tend to be reactive rather than planned and proactive. Appointment procedures are inconsistent, open to interpretation or fail to recognise or align the skills, aptitudes and experience of applicants to clearly defined selection criteria. Staff induction courses are available but senior managers have not systematically customised these to support the induction and development needs of different groups of staff.

Staff are not always fully aware of their rights and responsibilities. Managers are sometimes uncertain about the parameters of the education service’s duty of care to its employees. Personnel policies do not adequately specify the standards of conduct, care and welfare which staff can expect or which are expected of them.

The council has produced a written policy on equality and fairness but this has not adequately influenced or been built into staff recruitment and appointment procedures nor has it been customised to meet the needs of those who work for or make use of the education service. The education service’s job advertisement, recruitment and appointment procedures contain clear statements about its commitment to equality and fairness but these procedures do not always meet the needs or expectations of minority groups, nor are relevant statistics routinely monitored. Staff with disabilities find it difficult to access and work in many venues operated by the authority.

Staff sometimes feel that senior managers are remote and that their own achievements frequently go unnoticed or feel that there is, within the department, a blame culture rather than an ethos of reward for success. Senior managers do not formally and systematically identify examples of best or innovative practice or are, in the main, not well aware of staff achievements across establishments and services.

All members of staff, including those deployed centrally by the education authority and those employed in pre-school centres, schools, establishments, and services, or by partner agencies, have been provided with clearly stated job descriptions and remits. Remits relate clearly to the improvement objectives of the authority. The council has developed clear lines of communication and accountability for its staff, in line with its scheme of delegation. Staff are appropriately empowered, challenged and supported.

The job remits and activities of all staff employed by the education authority articulate clearly with the authority’s statement of improvement objectives. Staff are generally well aware of the authority’s service plan or equivalent and have a good understanding of the role they play in the organisation.

An ethos of teamworking has been established within the education service. Each team has a clear structure, composition and task-focused approach. Clear remits, lines of communication and accountability define the education service’s approach to teamworking. Each team within the education service has produced a development plan/improvement plan. This plan relates the team’s activities clearly to the stated priorities of the education service. Each team leader regularly monitors team and individual performance against achievement of agreed priorities, outcomes or targets. Senior managers meet regularly with team leaders to monitor and evaluate team performance.

Staff deployed centrally and those located in schools, establishments and services across the education authority are very positive about the frequency, sufficiency and quality of information they receive. In general, they feel well consulted on major issues which affect their working practices. Staff feel that they have good opportunities to raise concerns or constructive suggestions with senior managers and that such are considered seriously. Staff generally consider senior managers to be visible and accessible. To take forward a range of developments, initiatives and innovations, the department has established a systematic network of working groups (or equivalent).

Most staff have detailed job descriptions and remits but there are important gaps or they do not always relate clearly to the improvement objectives of the authority. As a consequence, some staff do not always carry out their duties in an appropriately focused fashion. While the education service has established clear lines of communication and accountability for most staff, some feel isolated or uncertain about their roles and responsibilities. Senior managers lack confidence or demonstrate a reluctance to empower their staff to take decisions, and generally take such decisions themselves.

Staff remits and job activities do not always align with the education service’s improvement objectives. Staff do not always understand the main improvement objectives of the education service, the context of its work and the importance of their contribution to achieving priorities, outcomes and targets.

While staff are, in the main, employed in teams, some individuals do not relate to a specific team, or teamworking is generally not well developed across the education service. Deployment of teams and of individual team members is not always linked to agreed priorities. Not all departmental teams have produced a development plan/improvement plan or, where these are in place, staff and stakeholders have not been suitably engaged. Performance monitoring within some teams, and of teams by senior management, is lacking in focus, consistency and rigour.

Ineffective communication or inadequate consultation on major issues sometimes give rise to complaints from staff. Senior managers can seem to be distant or remote. There are few opportunities to raise concerns or put forward constructive suggestions for service improvement. The education service has established a good range of working groups (or equivalent). However, staff sometimes feel that few opportunities exist to become involved in the work of these groups. Selection criteria for being invited to join a working group are sometimes unclear.

The education service has a formal CPD/PRD framework for all staff deployed centrally and in its schools and services. Senior managers have translated the framework into clear and user-friendly procedures and processes, all of which are well supported by relevant documentation and initial training for staff at all levels. The review process leads to the identification of strengths, skills and development needs.

The education service demonstrates a clear commitment to developing its entire staff. Training and development programmes arise from formal identification of staff development needs through the PRD/CPD processes, and from authority-driven developments aimed at achieving national or local priorities. The education service has a comprehensive catalogue of staff development opportunities, based on an audit of development needs arising from the staff review process and the education service’s key priorities.

Senior managers from the education service and relevant partner agencies have a joint forum which meets on a regular basis to discuss the provision of joint/inter-agency training. Senior education officers and their partner agency colleagues create opportunities to bring their respective staff together, on a regular and planned basis, to provide joint training and development on shared priorities and inter-agency practices. Evidence is available to demonstrate that joint training and development for education service and partner agency staff has led to quantifiable improvements in identified, stated and measurable aspects of children’s services.

Most staff employed by the education service participate in a PRD/CPD programme, but an overall framework does not exist across the service as a whole. A significant number of staff are not reviewed on a regular basis. The PRD/CPD process can sometimes be open to misinterpretation and its application varies in quality and rigour across the education service. Associated documentation is not always clear or user-friendly and some staff may not have received initial PRD training. The review process does not clearly identify individuals’ strengths, skills and development needs.

The education service provides a good range of in-service courses and development opportunities for staff, but they do not always derive from or relate clearly to identified staff development needs or education service priorities. Provision is patchy and groups of staff have needs which are sometimes omitted. Senior officers have produced an in-service catalogue which many headteachers and other managers use, but the catalogue does not systematically take account of identified staff development needs or education service priorities. As such, it is limited in its use or usefulness.

Meetings take place involving senior staff from the education service and its partner agencies, but these are neither programmed regularly nor characterised by shared agendas. Joint training is seldom discussed or viewed as a priority. The education service and its partners have created few opportunities to bring their respective staff together for training and development purposes. There is no evidence to demonstrate that inter-agency training and development has led to quantifiable improvements in the provision of children’s services.

The education service establishes a strategic framework with all key partners within which joint working can be established and can flourish. To achieve sustainability and measurable impact, meaningful partnership working is built into strategic planning at the highest levels. It is monitored rigorously through the service’s structures for accountability. A culture is established which encourages all education staff, learners and partners to be involved. Service level agreements are established at strategic level and are monitored and evaluated at operational levels, within the education service and all partner agencies, to ensure that each has a positive impact. Consultation and communication with partners and agencies is regular, structured, supportive and efficient.

The education service works effectively in a range of multi-disciplinary partnerships. Productive partnerships exist with key services, voluntary and community organisations and other public and private sector bodies. The education service encourages, develops and secures the commitment of key partners to multi-disciplinary working. It engages partner agencies in the planning, delivery, monitoring and evaluation of joint projects and multi-disciplinary working. Multi-disciplinary working contributes effectively to the achievement of the vision, values and aims of the education service and to meeting the needs and aspirations of learners, stakeholders and partners.

Staff from the education service and partner agencies are very effective in a wide range of partnerships. They demonstrate or support leadership within the context of partnership working. They consistently seek opportunities for improvement and development in all partnerships. Education managers plan their engagement with partners to ensure the active participation of all relevant people and agencies. Staff are clear about their roles and responsibilities, what matters most and how their time will be best spent.

The education service has made little progress in establishing a strategic framework with all key partners within which joint working can be established and can flourish. Partnership projects are frequently built into operational rather than strategic planning and often lack the necessary focus. Although a range of monitoring and evaluation techniques is used, methods are not applied rigorously nor are they part of the service’s structures for accountability. Insufficient effort is made to encourage partners and stakeholders to be involved in meaningful joint working. Service level agreements tend to be established at operational level and are not part of strategic planning. There is little evidence of a systematic approach to monitoring and evaluation of the impact and outcomes. Consultation and communication with partners and agencies is not always efficient or supportive in nature.

Partnerships with key services, voluntary and community organisations and other public and private sector agencies produce limited results. The education service has not yet secured the commitment of key partners to multi-disciplinary working. The education service is inconsistent in its approach to the engagement of partner agencies in the planning, delivery, monitoring and evaluation of joint projects and multi-disciplinary working. Multi-disciplinary working has an insufficient impact on the achievement of the vision, values and aims of the education service and does not have a clear focus on meeting the needs and aspirations of learners, stakeholders and partners.

Education staff are not key members of partnerships or those representing education are not at the appropriate level of seniority. They are engaged in a small range of partnerships. Their leadership of partnerships, or support to those leading partnerships, is indecisive and lacks focus. They are insufficiently proactive in seeking opportunities for involvement and development in partnerships. They may not have allocated sufficient time for the tasks involved. Education managers undertake insufficient planning for engaging with partners to ensure the active participation of relevant people and agencies. Within partnership working senior education managers are unfocused in their day-to-day practice and management of time. There is little evidence of a commitment to continuous improvement through partnership working. There is a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities, what matters most and how to make the best use of available time.

The council’s budget construction process is corporately driven by elected members and the chief executive and is based on a three-year budget cycle which has the delivery of national and local priorities at its core. This budgeting process demonstrates clear links to the service planning process. Budgets and financial matters are discussed regularly and rigorously at all management levels including, where appropriate, corporate level. There are clear procedures in place to deal rigorously with budgetary variances. Elected members are kept well informed of budgetary matters. The council and its committees routinely receive from officers, both financial reports and reports with a financial implication, in line with the scheme of delegation.

The council regularly receives high quality financial reports from senior finance and education service staff and actively monitors budgetary performance across all service areas, making well-informed decisions as appropriate. The education committee (or equivalent) regularly receives and considers high quality financial reports from senior officers and makes clear financial decisions in line with its delegated powers. There is a systematic and well-organised approach to budgetary administration which provides senior education staff with easily interpreted, accurate and reliable data to allow well-informed decisions to be taken. This process is routinely supported by the production of regular budget reports which are designed to monitor committed expenditure. Arrangements for financial planning and expenditure are transparent, dynamic in nature and fully utilise a wide range of management and performance information. Financial procedures are well known to budget holders and all other staff with financial responsibilities, all of whom are supported by clear and comprehensive procedures. The authority has established a fully effective scheme of devolved school management (DSM).

Senior managers in the education service have established fully effective working practices with their colleagues in the finance department. This results in a two-way flow of reliable, accurate financial information to enable key decisions to be taken where appropriate. Fully effective financial and administrative procedures have been developed to plan and manage both mainline and non-mainline (specific grant and external funding) budgets. These procedures allow both planned and committed expenditure to be tracked.

The council has established a clear policy on Best Value which informs all departments generally and the education service specifically of its expectations. The education service has set out a comprehensive programme of Best Value reviews (or equivalent) covering all aspects of educational and support services. The education service’s financial planning and management regime is characterised by efficiency, effectiveness, elimination of duplication and the provision of high quality services and value for money. All aspects are governed by the principles of Best Value. Likewise, all education service budgets, systems and procedures are formally reviewed on a regular basis, with the aim of securing continuous improvement and Best Value. Financial planning and decision making are characterised by the principles of option appraisal and Best Value.

The council’s budget construction process is almost exclusively driven by the current financial year’s budget and makes only marginal provision for the delivery of national and local priorities. Links to the service planning process are tenuous. There is regular discussion of financial matters by senior management but such discussions lack a clear focus and do not necessarily form a basis for well-informed financial decisions to be taken. Elected members receive reports containing financial information but these are often general in nature and frequently lack reliable, issue-specific information on which to base decisions. They are not always presented in a user-friendly format which is easily interpreted and understood by members.

The council receives reports of a financial nature, but these are limited in frequency, detail, specificity or reliability. As a result elected members are not always well enough briefed to make informed decisions. Likewise, the education committee (or equivalent) receives financial reports which sometimes lack the quality of information and advice required by elected members in arriving at informed decisions. The education service has established financial procedures. Although sound in themselves, they have neither been fully integrated with the council’s and the finance department’s corporate financial systems nor well supported by user-friendly, clear and accurate documentation, staff development and training. Arrangements for financial planning lack rigour and are not flexible enough to accommodate financial trends or a range of management and performance information. There is no formal system in place rigorously and systematically to monitor, review and improve financial management and performance within the education service. The education service has established a DSM scheme but its terms are not always clear to central and establishment-based staff. These are open to interpretation and inconsistent application, or the scheme is limited in its range and implementation across the education service.

Although liaison takes place between education and finance staff on financial matters no clear and consistent working practices have been agreed. The transfer of information is reactive and issue-specific rather than planned and proactive or it lacks reliability, accuracy and rigour. The education service’s financial and administrative procedures do not make sufficient provision for the planning and management of non-mainline budgets with the result that expenditure in this area is reactive, creating potential for underspends or overspends.

The council has established a Best Value policy but this has only minimal relevance to the education service which has not yet set out clearly its plans to review all services. While a number of specific service reviews have been carried out within the education service, these have not emerged formally from a rigorous self-evaluation of its performance. Such reviews are therefore reactive and do not necessarily relate to those services in most need of examination or they lack rigour and focus. Financial planning and management within the education service is well organised in itself but lacks any means routinely to assess its efficiency and effectiveness. As a result inefficiencies, including over/under provision and over/underspends, sometimes occur. There are no formal systems in place routinely to review departmental, establishment and service budgets and financial procedures. The education service does not routinely employ the principles of option appraisal and Best Value in its financial planning and management.

The council has developed, in line with national guidance, a comprehensive asset management strategy/plan which makes provision for the management and development of its school building estate. There are clear links at corporate and education service level between resource management/development and both the service planning and budget processes. Elected members and senior officers have assessed and made provision for resource allocation in the short, medium and long term. Resource planning, development and management operate on the principles of option appraisal and Best Value. This approach has yielded significant service improvements.

The education service’s approach to resource management ensures that resources are allocated to meet national and local improvement objectives and priorities. The education service’s performance is routinely reported to elected members. The principles of Best Value underpin the education service’s approach to resource management and it has developed a clear programme of Best Value reviews (or similar). These use performance information linked to benchmarking and other relevant parameters, to deliver continuous improvement in efficiency and effectiveness. Senior managers regularly review resource management information, performance and proposals for performance improvement.

There is no clear corporate rationale for allocation of resources to education or, alternatively, it does not match closely the national guidance on resource allocation. Senior managers have a generalised view, lacking in detail and specificity, of the resources which are at the disposal of the education service. This partial view may derive from incomplete or unreliable information or from informal systems and sources. The council has developed an asset management strategy/plan but it is neither comprehensive in its coverage of the education service’s school estate nor sufficiently detailed, for example on proposed rationalisation or planned capital investment plans relative to schools and other building stock. Links between resource allocation and the service planning and budget processes are tenuous at best. Elected members and senior officers have only made provision for resource allocation in the short term. The education service’s management of resources provides only limited evidence of adherence to the principles of option appraisal and Best Value. As a result enhanced efficiency and effectiveness cannot be delivered consistently. There is limited evidence of the education service’s approach to resource management yielding discernible service improvements. Many of the authority’s buildings are insufficiently accessible to people with disabilities.

Resource management and allocation are not linked closely enough to national and local improvement objectives. Management information on resources is incomplete or variable in quality, accuracy and reliability. The education service has initiated some Best Value reviews (or similar) but its approach is one of reacting to prevailing circumstances rather than being planned and comprehensive. The range of management techniques and tools used in such reviews is limited. The education service’s approach to monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of its resource management is inconsistent and unplanned.

A structured and rigorously observed system is in place for central and coordinated collection, analysis and evaluation of educational data. The MIS provides the education service and establishments with access to robust information to inform planning for improvement and to target support and resources more effectively. The education service promotes the effective use of the MIS through agreeing and defining core sets of data and providing training in the use of the system as a management tool. The use of the MIS is a major contributor to the effective delivery of services and the achievement of improvement objectives.

The council has in place an information and communication technology (ICT) strategy for education. Good links and working relationships are maintained with the corporate ICT section. The MIS is part of the council ICT strategy which allows the education service to communicate electronically information such as budgets directly to establishment MIS systems. The system gives managers a comprehensive overview of the work of establishments. It also enables the education service and establishments to focus on the outcomes for individual learners and groups of learners. The education service provides very effective support to establishments and services in the systematic collection, collation and analysis of data on budgets, staffing, attainment, attendance and exclusions.

The system of access controls is tailored to the needs of the users, allowing quick access to address needs. The education service and establishments use information generated for administration, planning and monitoring. The storage, filing and retrieval of information complies with the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts. There are clear agreements and protocols shared with staff, partner agencies and stakeholders regarding the confidentiality of data and the requirements of legislation. Protocols have been agreed with establishments, partner agencies and other services for data exchanges.

The education service provides effective central coordination and interpretation of data. It collates and analyses a range of data to monitor and demonstrate improvements in performance. The MIS is used to identify trends, and provide benchmark and comparative information for establishments and officers to use in planning for improvement. Well-established and very effective report formats facilitate identification of high and low performing aspects of the work of establishments and departments so that support and challenge can be targeted. Effective systems are in place to track learners’ attainment, including that of vulnerable children and young people, such as looked after children. The system enables high performance to be recognised and under-performance to be quickly identified and addressed. Headteachers and officers have access to effective training in the analysis of attainment data.

A MIS is in place for central collection of educational data but it is not coordinated and as yet provides limited data for analysis. It provides the education service and establishments with access to information but this has limited impact on planning for improvement or in assisting in targeting support and resources more effectively. The education service has not yet reached agreement on the core sets of data nor has there been sufficient training of key staff. The range of data which is maintained is limited and this prevents the use of the MIS from impacting positively on the achievement of improvement objectives.

The council has in place an ICT strategy for education. However, the links and working relationships with the corporate ICT section are ineffective. This leads in some cases to frustrations and delays for central staff and establishments in the electronic communication of information such as budgets and administrative returns. The system is not yet sufficiently developed to give managers a comprehensive overview of the work of establishments. The education service’s support to establishments and services in the collection, collation and analysis of data is not sufficiently focused to engender confidence in working practices.

The system of access controls is cumbersome and does not always meet the needs of the users. The education service and establishments make limited use of the information generated for administration, planning and monitoring. The data held does not meet the full range of information requested nor is this information always readily available in an appropriate form. Written protocols on the exchange and confidentiality of data and the requirements of legislation are not generally well understood by staff, stakeholders or partners.

There is limited evidence of the education service providing the necessary central coordination and interpretation of data. The education service collates and analyses a range of data but this is insufficient for staff to monitor and demonstrate improvements in performance. Some important information is not included in the collation and analysis. The MIS does not play a major role in identifying trends, and providing benchmark and comparative information for establishments and officers to use in planning for improvement. Systems are in place to track pupils’ attainment, but these tend to be paper based or depend on software packages developed in establishments in isolation from the education authority. The system does not provide reliable enough evidence to identify high or under-performance. Analysis and evaluation of statistical data held within the MIS does not play a significant role in self-evaluation and continuous improvement. Headteachers and officers have access to limited training in the analysis of attainment data.

The aims convey a distinctive picture of the aspirations for, and expectations of the service. There are clear links between the vision, values and aims contained within the community plan, the council’s corporate plan and the education authority’s strategic, improvement and operational plans. Clear and comprehensive statements of this vision, along with values and expectations, direct the work of the local authority, the education service and its partner agencies. These statements encompass the purposes of education, as well as national priorities and national expectations for children, young people and adult learners.

Leaders have established a shared vision for the authority. The council’s vision, values and aims for the education service provide a widely recognised and shared set of aspirations and expectations for all stakeholders. Establishments, services and partners have a very good awareness of the authority’s vision, values and aims and of their own specific roles in their delivery. The aims have been developed through involving a wide range of stakeholders and clearly set out the authority’s commitment to a culture of empowerment, improvement, innovation and service excellence. The vision, values and aims are continually revisited and reinforced in events and activities which result in a strong sense of common purpose.

The aims and vision set out clear expectations for equality and social justice. Elected members and senior officers demonstrate commitment to and provide a clear lead in emphasising equality issues. Education managers and all heads of establishments and services are strongly committed to the aims and vision for equality and promote social and cultural diversity. Plans at all levels address the promotion of equality, diversity and inclusion.

Leaders in the authority have established a vision which directs the work of the education authority but does not significantly impact on processes or outcomes of the authority and its partner agencies. The respective aims within community, corporate and departmental plans are insufficiently linked. Education managers do not always demonstrate the same level of commitment to corporate priorities. The purposes of education and national expectations and aspirations are insufficiently emphasised or explained. The vision, values and aims of the authority have only limited relevance to the main activities of the department and to its establishments and services.

Leaders have established a vision which directs the work of the authority but it has not been communicated sufficiently well to stakeholders. The authority’s aims convey only a partial picture of the aspirations of local elected members for the authority. In developing the authority’s aims, involvement of stakeholders has been insufficient and, consequently, understanding and ownership of the aims is limited. The aims are not sufficiently embedded in the work of the authority and do not emphasise a commitment to a culture of improvement, service excellence and innovation.

The aims and vision set out expectations for equality and social justice. These are not yet fully embedded in an appropriate range of operational policies and procedures. Education managers and heads of establishment are committed to promoting social and cultural diversity but this commitment is not always translated into action.

Senior elected members provide officers with strong political leadership and direction and demonstrate a commitment to continuous improvement. Together, they communicate and demonstrate a very clear view of what the council is aiming to achieve. Senior officers develop effective and strategic business plans and identify key actions, intended outcomes and major targets. Planning documents are accessible, succinct and set out key priorities within a well-managed planning cycle. Planning leads to sustainable change. Channels of communication are effective. There is strong leadership and direction on corporate priorities. Staff take full account of the need for succession planning, securing accountability, making appropriate use of data for informed decision-making and evaluating impact and outcomes. Strong leadership helps to steer individuals and teams successfully through the difficulties and challenges associated with strategic planning.

Senior elected members make transparent and evidence-based decisions on the allocation of resources to education from the local authority budget. Senior managers provide strong leadership in targeting resources at key agreed objectives and achieving Best Value. They have developed a clear Best Value approach to deliver continuous improvement. The authority has in place a very clear strategic planning framework which takes account of finances, asset management and human resources and which articulates well with its service planning cycle. The culture is one that is aware of risks. Risks are balanced against the benefits that may arise from taking these risks. Systems are in place to consult relevant partners and stakeholders in relation to risk management.

Senior elected members and senior officers of the education service do not have a consistently clear view of the strategic role of the education service in planning for improvement. As a result the work of the authority is taken forward mainly at an operational level and change is often not sustainable. Elected members and officers do not always demonstrate a clear or mutual understanding of the national context or local priorities. Officers are sometimes unclear about political priorities while members feel that they are not always provided with consistently high-quality advice and support. The service director does not systematically inform the department’s senior management team of identified community and corporate priorities. The department operates in isolation from the corporate team. Insufficient account is taken of the need for careful succession planning, securing accountability, making appropriate use of data for informed decision-making and evaluating impact and outcomes.

Resource allocation is not closely enough linked to key agreed objectives. The rationale for the strategic deployment of resources to education is not transparent nor does it match closely national guidance. The department has initiated some Best Value reviews but its approach is one of reacting to prevailing circumstances rather than being planned and comprehensive. While it has in place a strategic planning framework, this does not take full account of finances, asset management and human resources and it only articulates to a limited extent with its service planning cycle. Financial decision-making pays insufficient attention to sustainability. The department secures improvement through effective project management and resource management but does not consistently manage financial risk effectively and efficiently.

Leaders model a wide range of effective leadership skills and motivate others to give of their best. The range and balance of skills, personal qualities and experience make for a very effective senior management team. The service director and the senior management team exemplify the authority’s approach to quality improvement through active leadership and personal involvement in improvement strategies and activities. There is an empowering culture of improvement and an understanding that all staff, at whatever level, have a key role to play in taking forward the work of the authority. Staff feel able and confident to exercise initiative, share responsibility and adopt lead roles in their own areas. They understand their own leadership roles and those of others. The structures in place draw upon the collective knowledge, experience and personal interests of a wide range of staff and create opportunities for staff to lead projects. Effective systems are in place to promote and evaluate the impact of leadership programmes, sustainable developments and succession planning.

Leaders have developed a supportive work environment in which people share a sense of responsibility to improve the quality of services. Talents are identified and promoted. Working relationships are built on trust and reflect a genuine concern for staff and relevant partners. Systems are in place to help people tackle challenging problems, share information and deal with difficulties. Staff and partners have regular opportunities to share ideas, review their work and learn from each other. There are regular opportunities to give and receive constructive feedback. Staff are encouraged and supported to do their personal best. Their achievements are recognised.

There is a high level of commitment to partnership working and team development. Leaders are proactive in establishing strong links with establishments, stakeholders, partners, agencies and other council services and lead joint improvement activities. They are successful in mobilising and focusing the commitment and enthusiasm of staff in establishments and services and of key partners and stakeholders to secure continuous improvement. There is effective multi-disciplinary working and a positive impact on service users.

An ethos of teamwork and collegiality is evident at all levels of the organisation. There is a high level of participation and engagement by relevant partners. Team performance is regularly evaluated against agreed objectives and targets. Staff at all levels have developed and participate in a range of teams throughout the service each having a clearly focused role and remit.

Individual members of the senior team demonstrate leadership skills in a few areas but there are important weaknesses in others which are key to the effective leadership of the authority. There are some important gaps or weaknesses in the range and balance of the skills, abilities and experience within the senior management team, impacting on the overall effectiveness of the team. The culture of the department, although positive, does not convey a full sense of challenge, change or progress. Senior elected members and senior officers of the education service do not have a consistently clear view of their own leadership roles and those of others. The service director and his/her management team are not always successful in gaining the commitment of key staff in establishments and services or external agencies and other key stakeholders. As a result there is confusion about who is leading what, and a lack of ownership of key initiatives. There is a dependency culture where staff feel inhibited about taking the initiative and are overly-dependent upon others. Insufficient account is taken of the need for leadership training and development and succession planning.

The quality of relationships and the culture of the work environment are too variable across the authority and within departments and/or establishments. Staff in some departments are not fully supported in their work and their contributions go unrecognised. Relationships with senior staff are inconsistent and interactions with other staff and/or partners inhibit the delivery of quality services. Staff have opportunities to meet and discuss programmes of work but these are insufficiently frequent. Systems are in place for giving and receiving feedback but the atmosphere is not conducive to open and honest dialogue. As a result, the outcomes of such meetings are not well focused and have little impact. The achievements of staff and partners are not regularly recognised or celebrated.

Managers have built and sustain effective working relationships with a narrow range of key partners but other relevant potential partnerships are under developed. There are some examples of effective partnership working but the overall picture is inconsistent. Senior staff do not systematically demonstrate a commitment to partnership working nor focus strongly enough on collaborative working and shared responsibility. They do not sufficiently evaluate their own performance individually or as a team. They maintain effective communication with a narrow range of interested partners, agencies and stakeholders. They undertake insufficient planning with partners to ensure effective multi-agency working. Relationships and interaction with colleagues, service users, partner organisations and the public can be inconsistent and punctuated by misunderstandings, lack of clarity and tensions. Departmental teams may work well as individual units. In general, teamwork is not well established and, where teams are in operation, objectives and targets lack specificity or team performance is not routinely evaluated against agreed criteria.

Senior managers actively and systematically take leading roles in ensuring appropriate support and challenge. They set demanding performance targets for the service. They challenge staff and teams to improve their performance, including their own team, monitor performance and outcomes and support continuous improvement and the pursuit of excellence. They align people, structures and systems to secure improvement.

Senior managers have a very good strategic overview of what constitutes best practice within the organisation and regularly explore, research and adopt innovative practice being taken forward in other organisations. They routinely use the results of self-evaluation exercises, Best Value and other service reviews to consider new methods of service delivery and innovative approaches aimed at enhancing the quality of provision. Senior managers welcome and support innovation. They lead and challenge staff at all levels in schools and services. They encourage staff to contribute suggestions to enhance the quality of learning and teaching and of service provision. Senior managers and heads of establishment apply the principles and practices of risk management to proposed changes and innovations. Examples of excellence and innovative practice are celebrated widely. Innovative practice has led to qualitative improvements in learning and teaching and in service delivery. Senior managers lead and manage change effectively and strategically by prioritising and focusing on a manageable number of high priority initiatives and communicating them to staff at all levels.

The service director plays a very strong and focused leading role in leading the authority’s commitment to continuously improving performance, service quality, impact and outcomes. He or she is well supported by the senior management team, all of whom have clearly focused quality improvement roles and responsibilities. Heads of establishments and other key managers replicate such leadership in the authority’s drive towards continuous improvement across schools and services. The authority constantly explores ways to create more capacity for improvement. It builds capacity through developing talents and skills providing opportunities for shared and distributed leadership and nurturing expertise in its staff. Heads of establishments act as a collective collaborative group in support of the authority’s vision values and aims and work constructively with senior managers thereby increasing its capacity for improvement.

The senior management team does not consistently support and challenge its schools and services. Roles and responsibilities for senior managers do not focus sufficiently on setting performance targets and challenging staff and learners to improve their performance. Senior managers do not place sufficient emphasis on monitoring performance and outcomes and supporting continuous improvement. There is insufficient emphasis on achieving excellence.

Senior managers are aware of a range of examples of good practice within schools and services but have not yet established a strategic overview. They seldom look externally to identify or consider new approaches. The department has conducted a number of self-evaluation exercises and service reviews but these lead to improvements in only a few instances. Innovative practice is not systematically identified, supported, evaluated or disseminated across the authority. Senior managers do not consistently celebrate examples of excellence or innovative practice. Senior managers do not consistently manage change effectively and strategically and as a result the focus tends to be on often unrelated initiatives which are of varying degrees of importance and priority. Communication on change to staff is often insufficient to enable them to understand the reasons for or the anticipated benefits from implementing change.

The senior management team discusses quality and continuous improvement on a fairly regular basis, but senior managers do not consistently drive these forward. In the implementation of their remits they tend to focus on systems, functions and processes rather than on quality development or improved outcomes and impact. While the authority has a plan for improvement and supports its implementation, it does not have a strategic approach to develop capacity for improvement. Key staff and partners generally work hard, but their talents and skills are not recognised and developed. Senior managers meet regularly with heads of establishment as a group but this has little impact on cooperative working. Some heads of establishment do not consistently operate as officers of the authority.