photographs of staffordshire’s student engagement...

2

Photographs of Staffordshire’s student engagement programme

3

Page

1. Executive summary 1.1 Background………………………………………………………………………………………4 1.2 The project……………………………………………………………………………………….4 1.3 Value for money…………………………………………………………………………………4 1.4 Affordability……………………………………………………………………………………….5 1.5 Readiness to deliver…………………………………………………………………………….5 1.6 Leading and managing change………………………………………………………………..5

2. Background 2.1 The corporate vision…………………………………………………………………………….7 2.2 Strategic overview……………………………………………………………………………….8 2.3 Key estate priorities……………………………………………………………………………..9 3. The projects 3.1 Option analysis and feasibility……………………………………………………………….11 3.2 Sample schools………………………………………………………………………………..25 3.3 Sample schools – Delivery of Strategy for Change………………………………………..28 3.4 ICT service provision………………………………………………………………………….43 4. Value for money 4.1 Summary of procurement route for wave.....………………………………………………55 4.2 The PFI projects……………………………………………………………………………....56 4.3 The conventional D&B projects………………………………………………………......…62 4.4 The ICT projects………………………………………………………………………………62 5 Affordability 5.1 The PFI projects………………………………………………………………………………..64 5.2 The conventional D&B projects……………………………………………………………....68 5.3 ICT projects…………………………………………………………………………………….72 5.4 LEA investment in the LEP……………………………………………………………………74 5.5 Affordability – concluding summary………………………………………………………….75 5.6 Accounting treatment………………………………………………………………………….76 6 Readiness to deliver 6.1 Project management…………………………………………………………………………..77 6.2 Procurement process………………………………………………………………………….82 6.3 Consultation and statutory approvals………………………………………………………..89 6.4 Sponsor and school commitment…………………………………………………………….91 7 Leading and managing change 7.0 Leading and managing change……………………………………………………………...95 8 Appendices Details at the end of the document……………………………………………………………....106

Contents

4

1.1 Background 1.1.1 Staffordshire County Council remains determined to use the opportunity afforded by BSF to make a step change in the way that secondary aged pupils receive and engage in education by providing learning environments that will inspire and engage students in order to maximise their life chances. 1.1.2 While the overall scope of Staffordshire Wave 6a remains unchanged, we have decided since submission of SfC2 to base our sample school Design & Build (D&B) project in Tamworth at Belgrave High School rather than as originally proposed at Queen Elizabeth’s Mercian School (QEMS). The county council has agreed this with both PfS and OBC. It is not anticipated that this minor change will have any capital implication or other considerations that may affect the capital contributions agreed through the FAM. 1.2 The project 1.2.1 As set out in SfC2 it is the intention of the county council to form a Local Education Partnership (LEP) to deliver Staffordshire’s BSF programme. The county council will procure a LEP partner from private sector consortia. The LEP partner will be offered the following partnering services:

• Multi-Disciplinary Design Team services for all schools procured through the BSF Programme

• PFI provider for the operation of any new build schools, including the provision of an Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)

• Design and Build of schools, where not PFI • Facilities Management services – hard and soft for both PFI and D&B schools • The provision of an ICT Managed Service.

1.2.2 The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) will be utilised where the new build is over 70%, currently this only applies to the two school replacement project in Rugeley (Sample school 1). Governors have agreed to a hard federation of the schools and the project will be a single building replacement for the two schools based on a school within a school model and will be our PFI sample project. 1.2.3 The remainder of the estate, for the county council’s Wave 6a Project will be delivered as design and build schemes, namely:

• Queen Elizabeth’s Mercian School • Rawlett Community Sports College • Belgrave High School (Sample school 2) • Wilnecote High School • Two Rivers Secondary Special School • Kettlebrook Short Stay Unit

1.3 Value for money 1.3.1 Our approach to value for money and affordability has been rigorous and robust. The county council will exercise total control over the programme to ensure that the project remains affordable within an agreed financial commitment and can be proven as providing good value for money using

1.0 Executive summary

5

both explicit HM Treasury protocols and more traditional assessments of value and resource commitment. Treasury models have been used to test PFI procurement VfM, whilst the other elements of the project will be tested using competitive procurement and benchmarking. 1.4 Affordability 1.4.1 The county council, along with its financial advisors Deloitte have undertaken an affordability assessment of Wave 6a of the Staffordshire BSF programme. Our assessment is in line with the PfS guidance and confirms that the scheme is affordable on both a capital and a revenue basis in terms of the proposed expenditure and associated funding available. 1.4.2 Staffordshire County Council has agreed to provide additional funding, both capital and revenue, over and above the PfS FAM and school allocations, recognising the critical importance of its educational transformation agenda which anticipates a quality of educational facility that requires additional investment. 1.4.3 Full details of the funding assumptions and modelling is provided in Section 5.0 Affordability which identifies a commitment by the county council to provide circa £11.4m capital, which together with PFI and FM affordability shortfalls equates to a total revenue of up to £1.75m in order for the delivery of Wave 6a projects. 1.5 Readiness to deliver 1.5.1 The county council has a reputation for delivering good value for money projects. 1.5.2 The BSF Core Team, based in Stafford, blend their skills and competencies with commissioned expert consultants and a wide ranging and diverse workstream membership. The team work under the direction of the Project Director and day to day management provided by the Project Manager. Details of our consultants are set out in Section 6.1. 1.5.3 ICT is such a fundamental part of our overall BSF proposals, this workstream team operates across many others and with special interest groups and stakeholders. The ICT workstream and the outputs are shared with the Wave 6a schools and their ICT champions continue to shape the manner in which ICT will be delivered under the programme. Furthermore the Transformational Learning Manager jointly reports to the Schools Improvement Division (SID) Director to ensure continuity and the link to education, learning, teaching and standards. 1.5.4 Staffordshire’s BSF Project Board is chaired by the Deputy County Council Leader and supported by the Cabinet Member for Schools. All of the county council’s Corporate Management Team (CMT) attends Project Board to ensure that there is good communication across all senior officers and Directors within the council in order to maximise the benefits from the programme. The Director of Children’s Services (Project Owner) together with the Deputy Corporate Director for Education also attend. 1.6 Leading and managing change 1.6.1 Staffordshire has developed a comprehensive strategy for leading and managing change. The change management programme deriving from this strategy is already well under way and is being developed continually according to need and the mitigation of risks as they are identified. It is designed to deliver the fundamental strategic aims, as defined in the SfC, which are to:

• Ensure that every child matters by making certain that the change for children programme touches everyone who works with children and young people

6

• Put learners first by ensuring that we meet the needs of all learners and make sure that their parents and carers are fully engaged

• Re-energize and regenerate local communities so that they can live up to the ambitions of young people

• Help to make a vibrant and inclusive economy 1.6.2 Significant extra funding for leading and managing change has already been provided, both in terms of the extra capacity needed to prepare for the research and development of the various stages of the BSF process (SfC1, SfC2, OBC et. al) and the specific demands of the individual school SfCs and change management programmes. We recognise that whilst it is necessary to utilise existing school capacity, resources and training budgets, it is by no means sufficient. The capacity of the county council has been augmented by a dedicated BSF transformation team, supported by external consultants, to ensure that education transformation leads the design process. The full time appointment of a dedicated Transformational Learning Manager is central to this, both to ensure that education needs are at the forefront of every step of the process and that schools are fully engaged. He is supported by the county council’s Workforce Development Manager and senior advisers and consultants from the SID. The full integration of the SID team aligns the BSF with ECM, personalisation, 14-19, Integrated Youth Support Services, SEN, community, technology and sport and culture strategies. Indeed, it is adding a new sense of purpose, urgency and coherence to leading and managing change across the county. 1.6.3 Headteachers and leadership teams recognise the change needed to achieve the ambitious KPIs they have collectively agreed. These are derived from school improvement and raising achievement plans but are much more long term and ambitious. There is a collective acceptance that transformational learning needs to be embedded but also go beyond the implementation of existing national strategies if we are going to achieve a genuine step change in improving the life chances of young people and communities in Tamworth and Rugeley. Therefore, leading and managing change must both be pragmatic, in anticipating the steps of the BSF process, and forensic, in exploring new and innovative ideas for transformational learning. Whilst we can prepare for the extra demands of the design and building process, we recognise that there are no simple and easy answers to transforming learning and that new buildings will only facilitate educational transformation; they won’t create it. Educational transformation will come from an exciting and motivational CPD programme that draws on the best ideas effectively implemented. 1.6.4 We recognise that the change management process is informed by the comprehensive identification and categorisation of risks and their mitigation. We are aware that the greatest risk to the success of the BSF programme is that the schools will be refurbished, remodelled and rebuilt but without educational transformation. We are determined to ensure that learning in Tamworth and Rugeley schools and educational achievement are truly transformed.

7

2.1 The corporate vision 2.1.1 Staffordshire’s corporate priorities remain as per our SfC2, with no major changes or variations. The county council’s overall corporate vision for the future is set out in numerous documents, however the Strategic Plan summarises the priorities and key activities it will employ to improve as a county council for Staffordshire residents and business for the period between 2010 and 2015. 2.1.2 BSF remains a fundamental priority for Staffordshire to transform education, teaching and learning, not just for our Wave 6a schools, but county wide. We are ambitious and proud of what we have achieved by gaining early access into the national BSF programme; our Strategic and Children, Young People and Families Improvement Plans recognise the cross cutting themes and priorities that will be addressed by BSF for our schools, learners and communities. 2.1.3 The BSF initiative will contribute towards this improvement, being the catalyst for changing our new learning environments made possible through the capital investment received - community wide change initiatives that will lead to sustainable structures through learning within our schools, post implementation of BSF. 2.1.4 The community and school offering embedded within our SfC2 will enable the achievement of the Children’s Plan outcomes and ultimately the delivery of Every Child Matters. This strategy for school based community activities will offer diversity and choice for all learners and their families and is at the heart of our proposed estate and built into each school vision. 2.1.5 The transformation delivered throughout the county council, schools, colleges and community facilities on school sites will help our learners achieve and fulfil their potential. The roll out of our ICT Technology for Learning will meet the aspiration for learning, media and culture to be accessed anytime and anywhere. It will narrow both the digital divide and the gap between our most vulnerable learners, those achieving the lowest grades, and their respective peers. 2.1.6 Collaboration features within all of the county council’s improvement plans, a model of learning already available and implemented partly within Tamworth through the commissioning of Torc Campus. The success of Torc is seen as a vital foundation on which to build and improve life chances and a key component of our BSF programme. 2.1.7 Circa £8m in funding is earmarked within our Medium Term Financial Strategy to provide for the core BSF team and consultant support. This has enabled us to commence with change management in advance of appointing the LEP partner, through:

• enabling our senior colleagues, heads and chairs of governors to work exclusively on BSF as and when required, so knowledge is shared, and

• the growth of BSF ideas can be built into our plans for the future as they emerge recognisant of the future and not the past, and emerging plans and policies not just those of today

• the BSF Core Team can work through procurement and financial close to ensure that the county council is ready for change and the LEP is welcomed as our strategic partner having an integral interest in building our community reputation through a focus on assisting with improving the county council’s Comprehensive Area Assessment proposals to better a sense of ‘place’.

2.0 Background

8

2.1.8 The National Indicator Set context is set as cross cutting themes for districts corporately throughout the county, but developed locally as outlined below. Local economy 2.1.9 The economic and educational investment made through BSF will enable communities to access services more readily, in new or refurbished facilities, purpose designed for lifelong learning. 2.1.10 The impact on opportunities will be significant. The development of high quality BSF schools, with individual identities working in informal collaborations means that learning will enable access to greater opportunity, having a direct affect and a sense of well being that will raise expectations and aspirations. LEP opportunities 2.1.11 We have indentified the potential influence that BSF consortia working throughout Tamworth and Rugeley could have on the local economy. The opportunity for national contractors with regional supply chains and local employees will without question improve skills, provide employment and raise commercial awareness of our communities as the LEP establishes itself as an integral part of each community. 2.1.12 Through mature supply chains and strategic contracts, we will embrace the opportunity to transfer knowledge through such activities as employee skills exchanges and mentoring getting the most from this public-private initiative. Safer communities 2.1.13 The BSF programme will contribute to making communities safer through carefully considered, well lit, vibrant, bright school buildings and grounds assessed, by using ‘secure by design’, Staffordshire Police initiatives. 2.1.14 We will be adopting a proactive approach to make schools fully accessible to the local community. We will promote, sports, culture and increased participation across all of our BSF school sites in line with our Strategic Improvement Plan. Affordable corporate project 2.1.15 During the competitive dialogue process we will ensure the LEP offers Staffordshire value for money on the BSF capital programme that will be procured. In addition to purely financial considerations, the benefits of mature, reliable supply chains, an effective partnering ethos and the stability of a long term commercial relationship offers, we will help to ensure that our assets will be better used and reduce our carbon footprint. The modernisation of schools allows change to happen in a number of ways: sustainability, low energy buildings, reduced energy usage, and arguably the most important, the ability to bring energy into the curriculum in a practical demonstrable way through monitoring how the school day serves as a measure for carbon calculations in science and maths. 2.2 Strategic overview 2.2.1 The strategic objectives in the Strategy for Change remain valid and are fully reflected in the OBC proposals. However a change has been made in the choice of sample schools. Belgrave High School will become the D&B sample school. This will not change any aspect of SfC. All of the BSF schools have been fully involved in the preparation process. Indeed the Headteacher of Belgrave is the chair of the Tamworth District Heads’ Forum and has utilised this leadership role to be the

9

central point of liaison and communication with the Transformational Learning Manager. His school was judged ‘good’ by OFSTED earlier in the year and he has reconfigured his leadership team to create the capacity to take on the extra pressures. No team has been more enthusiastic in engaging in developing its school SfC and working with the architects. Belgrave is very well prepared and keen to become the sample school and is in an excellent position to share the lessons it learns with other schools. 2.3 Key estate priorities 2.3.1 The estate options that were approved as part of our SfC2 remain largely unchanged. The county council is committed to the strategy of, wherever possible, not investing in any building, block or structure:

• that is fundamentally life expired • has multiple, complex, suitability, sufficiency or building condition and life expectancy

impacts • that is cellular in type, constrained and will impinge on the flexible learning spaces needed

for our learners • that is system built, whereby the construction standards are of a poor quality, poorly

ventilated, have insufficient structural frames and the horizontal setting out of their column members will prohibit the needs of modern learning spaces.

2.3.2 The proposed scope of works for each of our Wave 6a projects have also remained consistent with that outlined in SfC2. The table below summarises these proposals, with a further explanation of why they were selected included in Section 3.1 (Options analysis and feasibility). Proposed scope of works for Wave 6a School Proposed scope of works Belgrave High School(4156) Remodel and refurbishment on existing site Kettlebrook PRU (1109) Light refurbishment Queen Elizabeth Mercian High School (4115)

Remodel and refurbishment on existing site Rawlett Community Sports College (4156)

Remodel and refurbishment on existing site Rugeley Learning Campus –

- Hagley Park sports College (4172)

- Fair Oak Business & Enterprise College (4171)

Rebuild and co-location of Fair Oak Business and Enterprise College, Hagley Park Sports College, Aelfgar Sixth Form College and a new Vocational Centre.

Two Rivers Special School (7030) Minimal light refurbishment Wilnecote High School (4123) Remodel and refurbishment on existing site 2.3.3 As a result of detailed analysis leading up to the OBC stage considerations were made on the following issues were considered:

• Design and Build Sample School

o This will now be Belgrave High School rather than QEMS.

• Land Acquisition

o An analysis of net loss/gain of playing fields has been carried out as part of the development of the design proposals for Wave 6a schools in Tamworth, Lichfield

10

and Rugeley. This analysis takes into considerations the findings of Tamworth Borough Council’s Joint Indoor and outdoor Strategy, Cannock District Council’s Core Strategy document (preferred options April 2009) and involved lengthy consultation with Sport England centred around paragraphs 15 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG17), the outcome of this analysis has identified that compensatory land would be required to address potential net loss of playing fields in Tamworth and in Rugeley. Potential compensatory sites have been identified in both Districts and discussions regarding ‘Change of Use’ have taken place with District planners. The county council is in discussions with land owner in respect of securing the compensatory provision as acquired with Sport England. Sport England have responded formally to the planning consultation by way of not objecting to the proposals in both Tamworth and Rugeley; however imposing a Grampian condition whereby the compensatory land will need to be in place before construction begins on site.

• Net Capacity

o As a result of developing designs to a more detailed level beyond that of SfC2, we have been able to consider ways to maximise net-to-gross floor areas. This has allowed the design proposals to move closer to the floor areas funded through the FAM, positively impacting upon the anticipated capital expenditure affordability gap identified in SfC2.

2.3.4 The Funding Allocation Model has been updated following these developments and is shown in Appendix 6.

11

3.1 Option analysis and feasibility Approach to feasibility work 3.1.1 This section describes the process by which the feasibility studies were carried out for the sample and non-sample schools. It section evidences the design development to a robust level of detail to prove affordability across the wave. The feasibility studies ensured the schools within the wave were engaged, committed and understood what BSF involved and could achieve. 3.1.2 To maximise the potential life changing opportunities that BSF could bring to the young people of Staffordshire, the county council’s approach was to balance the objectives of our education strategy against the deliverability and affordability of the proposals. At the earliest stages a clear methodology was drafted to provide a robust framework that could be followed to achieve this balance. 3.1.3 To begin with there was a detailed review of the significant amount of work carried out at the SfC2 stage to produce school specific strategies for change, and an analysis of the existing school estate through site visits and data collection. 3.1.4 The county council put each school at the centre of the design development process. Consultation was planned to ensure the appropriate level of engagement. Design options were explored and defined giving a clear brief to the design and technical team. With the brief established and school visions understood, the design team was able to undertake detailed consultation with schools through regular sessions. 3.1.5 Another key aspiration was to bring all the design options for each school to the same level. This was to have parity across the wave and not disregard options prematurely. These options were developed to maximise the net-to-gross floor areas, thereby minimising space that was only for circulation and maximising flexibility. 3.1.6 The extensive BSF workstreams that are in operation had a cyclical input and feedback process. This was to ensure key programme discussions and design development did not happen in isolation. 3.1.7 Qualitative and quantitative options appraisals considered the emerging designs and identified those which delivered best value to the county council and schools. All the preferred options were taken forward as outline planning applications, again looking to ensure parity across the wave. 3.1.8 This section will go into further detail of the process that the county council and its stakeholders has undertaken to produce appraised feasibility studies for the Wave 6a schools. Design process protocol and design templates 3.1.9 The development of feasibility studies for Wave 6a schools has been carried out in accordance with the PfS guidance ‘Finding the Right Solution’. The PfS Design Process Protocol has been rigorously followed in developing our schemes utilising PfS design templates for site analysis, phasing and control options. This has contributed to a consistent approach to our design development for Wave 6a, which can be seen in Appendix 1A.

3.0 The project

12

Development of the school visions 3.1.10 Following public consultation in 2008, the county council approved the implementation of its BSF proposals in Tamworth in April 2009. In June 2009, PfS approved the entry of Hagley Park and Fair Oak schools in Rugeley into Wave 6a. Since then the county council’s Transformational Learning Manager has worked very closely with the schools to develop their school strategies for change. The school headteachers and the Transformational Learning Manager now form the Educational Transformation BSF workstream, having a direct input to the project organisational structure. 3.1.11 Each school has developed a school strategy for change: a vision that has been developed in consultation with the county council, the PfS Education Director and key BSF team members, which can be seen in Appendix 13. The schools have used these visions to test the designs being developed at OBC stage. 3.1.12 Additional revenue funding to the sum of £10,000 has been made available to each school in 2009/10 to provide resource and support to the process of developing an education strategy, ensuring that school contribution has been consistent throughout. 3.1.13 All schools now have a nominated Transforming Learning Leader to work with the county council on developing their vision and working to ensure the control options align appropriately to deliver transformational learning. 3.1.14 All school strategies for change highlight the same key themes with regards to the built estate:

• open, flexible and multi-functional spaces • buildings that can empower their community • integrated ICT throughout the school • external spaces that are inviting, educational and useable • well thought-out spaces with users’ needs at the heart of their design.

Development of feasibility studies 3.1.15 Four options have been considered for Belgrave High School, Rawlett Community Sports college, Wilnecote High School, Queen Elizabeth Mercian School and Rugeley Learning Campus in line with the PfS guidance and the OBC checklist. These options are defined as: Options Details Do nothing An option where new build and refurbishment wouldn’t be

considered; instead the focus would be on the use of its current facilities and buildings to achieve educational transformation. This option is effectively a benchmark for the others listed. It would not meet our agreed educational outcomes as defined in SfC2.

Minimal approach An option where new build and refurbishment would be considered only to the level that bringing the school estate to BB98, DDA and HSE requirements was considered complete.

Part new build / part refurbishment An option that would take on the BB98 requirements for the school estate and the school Strategies for Change and

13

educational drivers. This would include the reconfiguration of internal spaces, new ICT infrastructure, improved external presence.

New build An option that allows for extensive new build of the entire estate for each school.

3.1.16 The definition of these options formed part of the brief to the design team to facilitate the development of feasibility studies that could be appraised from the perspective of delivering educational transformation and affordability. Options Appraisal 3.1.17 A high level options appraisal exercise took place for SfC2, the outcome being a control option for the school estate for Wave 6a. A further and more detailed options appraisal exercise was then carried out with a wider stakeholder group of headteachers and school governors. Methodology 3.1.18 The control option for each school, defined at SfC2 stage, was appraised using the following objectives and scored on a 1-10 rating with a weighting between 1 and 5:

• Education – Weighting 5

- Facilitation of the education vision - Inspiration - Accessibility - Inclusion - Integration - Specialism

• Design and Sustainability – Weighting 3

- Design Quality - Comfort - Safety and Security - Flexibility/ adaptability and expandability - Innovation - Environmental performance and impact on sustainability

• Anticipated 50/35/15 Funding – Weighting 2

- Funding Availability

• Programme and Risk – Weighting 1

- Anticipated disruption to interim delivery of curriculum - Risk assessment

3.1.19 We then further developed those criteria at OBC through consultation with a wider stakeholder group including educationalists, technical advisors and design team members. There was an initial meeting held in November 2009 to establish the options appraisal methodology ahead

14

of the actual appraisal being undertaken. 3.1.20 The criteria were then shared, discussed and amended appropriately with the school communities to ensure each option could be scored using criteria agreed upon by all involved. The options developed met our desired educational and strategic outcomes, using these three categories; Transforming Education, Design and Sustainability, and Programme and Risk. 3.1.21 An all day workshop was then held in December 2009 to appraise each of the three ‘drawn’ options for each scheme. The workshop was attended by: core project team members; school representatives; the Client Design Advisor (CDA); design team; Transformational Learning Manager; and Technical Advisors. 3.1.22 The workshops tested the school visions and strategies for change against each emerging option. This enabled the designs to be refined to reflect the schools’ visions and also allowed for these to be tailored to the possible and practical. The workshops challenged the headteachers and curriculum staff to think about how they would teach in the future and how they could use space differently to maximise the potential of BSF for their school and community. The final workshop then scored each option based on the agreed qualitative criteria described below. Qualitative assessment 3.1.23 The qualitative criteria used to evaluate all options for each school for the OBC stage have been based on the School strategies for change headings, the CABE 10 good design principles and PfS OBC guidance documents. The qualitative criteria are as follows: Objective 1: Transforming Education Choice and Diversity Does the design accommodate further enhancement of

specific facilities in line with the school’s current and aspirational specialisms? Will the design inspire and encourage enhanced community use? Does the design support enhanced cultural use through exhibition and performance space?

Addressing underachievement Does the design maximise learning space to enable flexible and agile teaching and learning styles? Will the design inspire and motivate both students and staff?

Personalised Learning Does the design support a sufficient variety of learning space, both specialist and general, for large group teaching, small group project work and independent research and learning? Does the design support the integration of e-learning solutions?

14 – 19 Does the design support different learning pathways including practical and vocational options?

SEN and Inclusion Is the design welcoming and, as a minimum, able to comply with the current legislation relating to DDA/SEN requirements?

Integration of children’s services and extended services.

Does the design afford sufficient flexibility to integrate multi-agency working and dedicated community use of the facilities in a harmonious, yet appropriately secure manner?

15

Objective 2: Design & Sustainability CABE 1 – Identity and context Will the design deliver a school that the students, staff and

community can be proud of? CABE 2 – Site Plan Does the design make the best use of the site? CABE 3 – School Grounds Does the design make a useful asset of outdoor spaces? CABE 4 – Organisation Does the design support a clear organisation for the

structure? CABE 5 – Buildings Does the design harmonise the form, massing and

appearance of the buildings? CABE 6 – Interiors Do the designs create excellent spaces for teaching and

learning? CABE 7 – Resources Does the design encourage the deployment of convincing

environmental strategies? CABE 8 – Feeling Safe Does the design create a secure and welcoming place? CABE 9 – Long Life, Loose Fit Can the design adapt and evolve to meet changing future

needs? CABE 10 – Successful Synthesis

Does the design work holistically? School specific considerations. As appropriate for each school.

Objective 3: Programme and Risk Can the design be delivered within a reasonable time frame? Can the scheme be delivered safely, securely and effectively? Can the design be phased to ensure minimal disruption to the school and the delivery of the curriculum? Can the design be phased to ensure minimal disruption to community users? Can the design be phased to ensure minimal disruption to the ICT provision? Can the design be phased to ensure minimal disruption to sports provision? Can the design be phased to ensure minimal disruption to hard play surfaces? Can the design be phased to ensure minimal disruption to any major school or community productions the school may be planning? Can the design be phased to ensure continuity of access for essential servicing of the current facilities? Can the design be phased to such that any delays in construction can be accommodated within any retained facilities so as not to disrupt curriculum delivery? Is there sufficient space on the site to accommodate any temporary accommodation that may be required without impacting upon curriculum delivery and sports provision? Can the design be delivered without any compromise to existing security arrangements? 3.1.24 Each option has been scored using the same criteria in accordance with PfS guidelines. The criteria could be scored on a 1 – 10 basis and to focus the scoring, the following guidelines were given to the schools: 1 out of 10 – The criteria is not met Between 2 and 3 out of 10 – The criteria is partially met Between 4 and 6 out of 10 – The criteria is substantially met Between 9 and 10 out of 10 – The criteria is wholly met. 3.1.25 The scoring was also given a weighting to align with those used at SfC2 stage and to ensure the educational drivers were the key to the options appraisal.

16

3.1.26 It was agreed that if any criteria scored lower than 4 out of 10, the option would be automatically discounted for its inability to achieve educational transformation in the built estate. The evaluation teams comprised of the CDA, school headteachers, lead curriculum personnel in each school, design team members and technical advisors. 3.1.27 Throughout the development of the options and the preferred option, the criteria and school visions were used to test the designs to their full potential and the preferred option has been agreed by the schools and confirmed that it meets their educational objectives for the programme. 3.1.28 The outputs of the workshop were circulated to the attendees following the event giving an opportunity for final commentary to be added. It was confirmed that the attendees were satisfied with the report as issued, (Appendix 1A). 3.1.29 The options appraisal workshop qualitative scores (out of a maximum 80) are summarised below:

17

46 3 138 69 3 207 73 3 21932 1 32 72 1 72 75 1 7558 2 116 69 2 138 76 2 152

38 56 59

Score Weighting Weighted Score



44 3 132 68 3 204 71 3 21346 1 46 67 1 67 74 1 7458 2 116 62 2 124 70 2 140

39 53 57




39 3 117 68 3 204 72 3 21644 1 44 66 1 66 69 1 6958 2 116 66 2 132 75 2 150

37 54 58




30 3 90 71 3 213 72 3 21636 1 36 69 1 69 69 1 6958 2 116 63 2 126 55 2 110

32 54 53




30 3 90 64 3 192 77 3 23130 1 30 51 1 51 70 1 7039 2 78 51 2 102 87 2 174

26 46 63




62 3 186 71 3 21329 1 29 31 1 3170 2 140 80 2 160

47 54




69 3 207 72 3 21628 1 28 28 1 2868 2 136 67 2 134

49 50TOTAL SCORE FOR OBJECTIVE 3Qualitative Score out of 80

QUALITATIVE REVIEW - WEIGHTED SCORES FOR KETTLEBROOK

OPTION EVALUATIONOption 1 Option 2 Option 3

TOTAL SCORE FOR OBJECTIVE 1TOTAL SCORE FOR OBJECTIVE 2

TOTAL SCORE FOR OBJECTIVE 2TOTAL SCORE FOR OBJECTIVE 3Qualitative Score out of 80

QUALITATIVE REVIEW - WEIGHTED SCORES FOR TWO RIVERS

OPTION EVALUATIONOption 1 Option 2 Option 3

TOTAL SCORE FOR OBJECTIVE 1


QUALITATIVE REVIEW - WEIGHTED SCORES FOR RUGELEY

OPTION EVALUATIONOption 1: Refurb Option 2: New Build #1 Option 3: New Build #2



QUALITATIVE REVIEW - WEIGHTED SCORES FOR QUEEN ELIZABETH'S MERCIAN SCHOOL

OPTION EVALUATIONRefurb 1 Refurb 2 New Build



QUALITATIVE REVIEW - WEIGHTED SCORES FOR WILNECOTE

OPTION EVALUATIONOption 1: Refurb #1 Option 2: Refurb #2 Option 3: New build



QUALITATIVE REVIEW - WEIGHTED SCORES FOR RAWLETT

OPTION EVALUATIONRefurb 1 R.efurb 2 New Build




* In the case of Rugeley Learning Campus Option 2 was an additional new build option, for the remaining schools Option 2 was a refurbishment/remodel option. 3.1.30 Belgrave, QEMS and Wilnecote all delivered results where the new build option was preferred from a qualitative perspective. However, when taking into account the quantitative assessment, the new build options for these schools were found to be unaffordable. For QEMS the option that delivered a mix of new build and refurbishment was preferred following the qualitative appraisal. This position was enhanced when the quantitative assessment was carried out. Rugeley Learning Campus was shown to have a clear preferred new build option qualitatively (option 3).

18

Quantitative Appraisal 3.1.31 The financial assessment of each option has considered the whole life costs, including the capex investment, lifecycle costs and FM costs over a 25 year period of operation. 3.1.32 The following financial considerations have been made, and a standard approach applied, to the financial assessment and to the selection of the preferred option, based upon the Net Present Value (NPV) of the following items. Capital Costs 3.1.33 All capital costs included in the cost estimates are based on 4th Q 2011 for sample schemes and 4th Q 2012 for non sample schemes, excluding Kettlebrook and Two Rivers which are based upon 3rd Q 2013. External cost allowances include for 12% of construction cost as PfS Capital cost Assumptions indicate. Capital costs have been prepared by our technical advisors, Turner and Townsend, and can be found in Appendix 1, Annex 2. Value Added Tax (VAT) 3.1.34 All calculations are exclusive of VAT. FM Costs 3.1.35 Rates of FM costs of £45.90/m2 and £33.00/m2 have been applied for combined hard and soft FM in relation to PFI and D&B solutions respectively. Hard FM is Building Fabric Planned Maintenance, Building Fabric Reactive Maintenance, Building Services Planned Maintenance, Building Services Reactive Maintenance, Grounds Maintenance, Contract Management & Helpdesk. Soft FM is Cleaning, Security, Caretaking, Waste Management & Waste Disposal. Costs for the provision of utilities and catering are not included. Lifecycle 3.1.36 An estimated annual rate over a 25 year period of £14.50/m2 has been used, utilising our technical advisor’s benchmarked data for both PFI and D&B solutions. Lifecycle costs have been prepared by our technical advisors, Turner and Townsend, and can be seen in Appendix 1, Annex 2. Fixtures, Furniture and Equipment (FF&E) 3.1.37 Allowance based on circa £125/m2 of teaching space; teaching space allowance at 75% of GIA; assumption that all ICT loose plug-in equipment is a revenue funded item. Abnormals 3.1.38 The abnormals costs were assessed through a workshop format, lead by the technical advisor team with the core project team and design team in attendance. The workshop featured a detailed analysis of each Wave 6a site, reviewing the abnormals using the survey data collected during the course of the BSF programme in addition to existing AMP data. The existing site specific risk registers provided further information. 3.1.39 Key data was recorded from the workshop discussion and was used to populate the standard PfS Abnormals pro forma giving an elemental cost breakdown for each abnormal item. Upon completion, the pro formas were shared with PfS ahead of the eventual agreement to fund an

19

additional £ for abnormals at each school. [DN – Awaiting confirmation of figures from Paul Middleton at PfS] Scoring rationale of the Quantitative Appraisal 3.1.40 Following a comprehensive analysis of the Net Present Value of CAPEX, FM and Lifecycle costs the results were scored utilising the following criteria and rationale: Lowest NPV scores 20<5% increase in NPV scores 186-10% increase in NPV scores 1611-20% increase in NPV scores 1421-30% increase in NPV scores 1231-40% increase in NPV scores 1041-50% increase in NPV scores 851-60% increase in NPV scores 661-70% increase in NPV scores 471-80% increase in NPV scores 381-90% increase in NPV scores 291-100% increase in NPV scores 1> 100% increase in NPV scores 0 3.1.41 When applied to the NPVs modelled by Deloitte, the results are as tabled below:

NPV

Deviation from lowest

option

Quantiative Score out of

20 NPV


option


20 NPV


option


20

£39,716,361 0% 20 £49,849,600 25.51% 12 £53,013,145 33.48% 10

£18,546,432 0% 20 £19,053,180 2.73% 18 £24,381,355 31.46% 10

£17,535,275 0% 20 £17,619,952 0.48% 18 £41,538,548 136.89% 0

£19,384,427 2.33% 18 £18,943,597 0% 20 £24,260,444 28.07% 12

£15,455,841 0% 20 £18,101,412 17.12% 14 £23,460,556 51.79% 6

£4,353,742 0% 20 £5,071,688 16.49% 14

£825,198 0% 20 £1,330,286 61.21% 4

SchemeOption 1 Option 2 Option 3

Rugeley (Hagley Park & Fair Oak)

Refurb #1 New Build #1 New Build #2

Belgrave Refurb #1 Refurb #2 New Build

Rawlett Refurb #1 Refurb #2 New Build

Wilnecote Refurb #1 Refurb #2 New Build

QEMs Refurb #1 Refurb #2 New Build

Two Rivers Option 1 Option 2

Kettlebrook Option 1 Option 2

Development of control options 3.1.42 Throughout the process the schools have been consulted on a regular basis. They have been asked to make difficult and challenging decisions about the future of teaching and learning and how a flexible building can be designed to meet the needs of learners today and in the future. An iterative design process was undertaken whereby schools and the CDA had frequent opportunity to appraise and critique design options. The design team was therefore able to produce amended designs that addressed both the county council’s and the schools’ aspirations and objectives. 3.1.43 Options were presented to school communities at individual meetings with headteachers, architects, the Client Design Advisor, technical advisors and the Transforming Learning Manager.

20

The challenging topics discussed at those design meetings with the schools consisted of: • the BSF programme, its associated timeframe and requirements • school involvement in the design and OBC process • the challenges each individual school faces with educational delivery • the challenges each individual school faces from constrained buildings and sites • the school’s Strategy for Change and vision • the objectives by which each school would measure its success.

3.1.44 Design options were developed through a series of individual school workshops where visions could be incorporated. The workshops were supported by the following attendees:

• Transformational Learning Manager • Client Design Advisor • Architect • Headteacher • Curriculum staff

3.1.45 Appendix 14 details the dates when the CDA has liaised with schools and stakeholders to achieve the required outputs. Options appraisal methodology for Kettlebrook and Two Rivers 3.1.46 The methodology used differs from the one used for the sample and non-sample schools as the options appraisal at SfC2 stage identified the requirement for light refurbishment, as opposed to remodel or new build, due to the recent investment the schools have both received. 3.1.47 After further detailed analysis at OBC stage it has become apparent that, to meet the changing educational needs of the school, further refurbishment and remodelling will be needed. 3.1.48 Both schools will be D&B contracts and sequenced in the third phase of our Wave 6a project. The development of the control option at each school began with the following steps:

• a total area derived from the formulae on the projected numbers of pupils in 2018, without any curriculum visits

• a visit to the existing school to assess the condition and suitability of the estate • development to minimise disruption to operation of the existing school. • an assessment of current AMP data.

3.1.49 The Transformational Learning Manager worked with the schools to ensure their educational vision tested the design options being developed. 3.1.50 The schools were then presented with the two options and scored them based on their ability to meet their educational visions and their design merits. 3.1.51 With specific needs, each school was keen to ensure that the development of the design options prioritised the educational drivers at the heart of our BSF programme. The Client Design Advisor, technical advisor, architect, Transformational Learning Manager and school headteacher ensured this was possible. 3.1.52 Appropriate surveys for each school will be commissioned and substantial AMP and asbestos information within the Authority’s databases has enabled the detailed options appraisal to take place.

21

3.1.53 The commissioned surveys with appropriate collateral warranties will be as follows:

• Building Condition Survey • Asbestos Type 2 Survey • Measured Building Survey • Drainage and CCTV • Topographical survey.

3.1.54 ‘Letters of comfort’ have been sought from the county council’s planning department for the two schools, as the level of refurbishment/minor new build was on existing school sites within the same already built upon the existing footprint. Control options investment proposals 3.1.55 Following amalgamation of the Qualitative and Quantitative analyses, the overall preferred solutions for each site are as illustrated below:

Qualitative Quantitative Overall Qualitative Quantitative Overall Qualitative Quantitative Overall

26 20 46 46 12 58 63 10 73

38 20 58 56 18 74 59 10 69

39 20 59 53 18 71 57 0 57

37 18 55 54 20 74 58 12 70

32 20 52 54 14 68 53 6 59

47 20 67 54 14 68

50 20 70 50 4 54

Rugeley (Hagley Park & Fair Oak)

Refurb #1 New build #1 New build #2

Scheme Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Rawlett Refurb #1 Refurb #2 New build

Belgrave Refurb #1 Refurb #2 New build

QEMs Refurb #1 Refurb #2 New build

Wilnecote Refurb #1 Refurb #2 New build

Two Rivers

Kettlebrook

Option 1 Option 2

Option 1 Option 2

3.1.56 The control options selected, as highlighted in green, comprise of the following works: Control options investment proposals 3.1.57 The control options selected as a consequence of the options appraisal produced the following investment proposals (in percentage terms):

22

School New Build

Remodel / Refurbishment

Light Refurbishment

Existing estate retained

Belgrave 46 36 15 3 Kettlebrook 5 13 82 0 QEMS 57 31 12 0 Rawlett 48 31 14 7 Rugeley Learning Campus (Fair Oak) 100 0 0 0

Rugeley Learning Campus (Hagley Park) 100 0 0 0

Two Rivers 2 12 1 84 Wilnecote 48 39 10 3 Achieving quality in design 3.1.58 The Building Schools for the Future programme is a once in a lifetime investment opportunity for Tamworth and Rugeley. An opportunity that no matter the level of new build and/or refurbishment at each school within the Wave, must deliver a building that can facilitate 21st Century learning. The county council intends to follow the CABE 10 Good Design Principles when assessing the bidder’s designs and did so in appraising our control options to ensure school estates are being pushed to their ultimate potential for transformation. 3.1.59 The DCSF Exemplar designs have been used by the Transformational Learning Manager to provoke discussion amongst the schools and their appointed transforming learning leaders. A series of visits to existing and completed BSF projects has been conducted to demonstrate what capital investment can deliver and to inform stakeholders’ aspirations for what BSF can achieve in their schools. This will in turn inform the competitive dialogue process with bidders in the next stage of the project. 3.1.60 These visits have given the schools a benchmark for design, costs and quality and a vision into the possible - vital to the options appraisal phase of the OBC process in ensuring the designs are pushed to their ultimate potential for delivery of educational transformation. Continuous engagement and consultation with the schools and their senior leadership teams has been a vital part of the OBC design process. 3.1.61 The county council hosted an engagement programme for all primary schools in Tamworth and Rugeley, with over 35 schools participating in December 2009. Primary aged students will receive the maximum benefit from the programme and therefore their views are extremely important in this process, ensuring quality and longevity in our designs. 3.1.62 Today’s learners have strong views on school premises and where and how improvements can be moved. These end user views have been vital to informing our design process. To that end the Sorrell Foundation have been engaged since early November 2009 in running a series of workshops, all outside normal school environments, with a number of students from each school in the programme looking at key design issues.

23

3.1.63 The county council is corporately committed to reducing its carbon impact on the environment and is therefore serious about its commitment that all schools will attain a BREEAM ‘Very Good’ rating for the BSF estate, with ‘Excellent’ expected on complete new build PFI schemes. The schools will be assessed at both design and construction stage. As part of our commitment to environmental issues, our BSF programme is using PfS’s sustainability targets as a minimum standard to be achieved. An estimate for demonstrating the possible carbon reductions has been included as part of Appendix 15. 3.1.64 Our Client Design Advisor, Larry Priest from Bryant PriestNewman Ltd, is a vital and integral part of our team, providing the critical friend role for the county council and the schools, challenging and encouraging further detail where necessary. Larry has been involved in all areas of the design process at OBC stage; attending school design meetings with the architects and design team, attending strategic discussions within the core BSF team and hosting the county council’s primary engagement programme. 3.1.65 All schools have been encouraged to look for examples of good design, in both educational and non-educational establishments and work alongside their appointed transforming learning leaders to inject that vision into the process and programme. Design Quality Indicators (DQIs) 3.1.66 The county council is using the Design Quality Indicator (DQI) for schools tool developed by the Construction Industry Council and DCSF to assist in creating buildings of quality and aiding it to identify these during the evaluation process. The DQI process enables the design teams to check their solutions against the agreed criteria at key stages of the project to assist in evaluation. The DQI process is based on three measurable sections:

• functionality – addressing the way the building is designed to match the uses required • build Quality – addressing the materials, different systems and conditions inside the building • impact – addressing the buildings effect on the local community and environment.

3.1.67 The DQI questionnaire encompasses all success factors applicable to the design of school buildings and invokes discussion and identifies issues that can be rectified through early intervention. The questionnaire provides a common terminology for the design team and school stakeholders. The DQIs for the Sample Schemes will form part of the IPD documentation. 3.1.68 Nola Birkett of Turner and Townsend has been appointed as the county council’s DQI facilitator, acting as an independent chairperson to manage the DQI process and expectations for the project. The county council’s technical advisors and members of the design team will work with the DQI facilitator to ensure the process is followed and all stakeholders are appropriately engaged. 3.1.69 The first stage of the DQI process, the briefing, was completed in November 2009 in two phases. The first phase was a facilitated briefing to establish the values for each criteria on the DQI questionnaire, which the design team, transformational learning manager, ICT workstream leader, technical advisor and commercial officer attended. The questionnaire and associated values were then shared, explained and discussed with schools to ensure they understood their purpose and agreed to the criteria. 3.1.70 The second stage will take place in Autumn 2010. The county council will apply the DQI tool at the output specification stage to create a value profile for the school building.

24

Swimming pools 3.1.71 In Tamworth, three high schools in the BSF programme have swimming pools. These pools are at Belgrave, QEMS and Wilnecote. In Rugeley, Fair Oak High School has a small swimming pool. 3.1.72 The pools at these schools have been provided over a number of years. Each of them has maintenance and condition issues which will be costly to bring up to modern standards and meet sustainability and carbon emission targets in the future. 3.1.73 Whilst it is desirable for secondary school students to participate in swimming as part of PE and Sports, there is no national curriculum requirement to include swimming in the curriculum 3.1.74 Each of these schools was consulted about the future of the school pool in the context of the BSF programme. A copy of the consultation paper, and the individual responses is at Appendix 34. 3.1.75 In Tamworth, Belgrave and WIlnecote have expressed a preference to retain the pool. There is a joint use agreement with Tamworth Borough Council at Belgrave High School. Wilnecote High school would be willing to enter discussion with the Borough Council regarding funding for the pool. In preparation designs for both schools, there is no allowance for the retention of pools at these schools, furthermore our capital modelling hasn’t captured this aspect of finance. Discussions with the Headteachers and Governing Bodies of both schools will continue. 3.1.76 In Tamworth, Queen Elizabeth Mercian School do not wish to continue with the use of the pool. Fair Oak High School have also confirmed that a school pool will not be part of the new school buildings. Planning approvals 3.1.77 The county council has undertaken to seek the required planning status for all schemes in Wave 6a project over and above the recommendation stated in the PfS OBC guidance. Currently outline planning applications are pending for:

• Queen Elizabeth Mercian School, Tamworth (non-sample) • Rawlett Community Sports College, Tamworth (non-sample) • Wilnecote High School, Tamworth (non-sample) • Belgrave High School, Tamworth (sample – D&B) • Rugeley Learning Campus;

Hagley Park and Fair Oak, Rugeley (sample - PFI) 3.1.78 ‘Letters of comfort’ have been sought from the county council’s planning department for the two schools, as the level of refurbishment/minor new build was on existing school sites within the same already built upon footprint. 3.1.79 The planning applications will be considered by the county council’s planning committee on 4 February 2010. In order to facilitate the planning applications, the following steps have been taken for all schemes:

• public information session with residents, schools, governors and staff of each school (2 November 2009 in Tamworth, 4 November in Rugeley). Discussions have also taken place with Tamworth Borough Council and Cannock Chase District Council prior to the application being submitted

25

• site surveys, with appropriate collateral warranties (Appendix 9, Annex 8), for all schemes including: structural condition, ground investigation, topographical, asbestos, flood risk assessments, ecological surveys including protected species, tree surveys, acoustic, transport assessments, coal mining and utilities

• sequential testing to demonstrate the need to develop on green belt land, visual landscape impact assessment and level 2 flood risk assessment at the Rugeley Learning Campus

• 3D graphical representation of the proposals for all schemes. 3.1.80 The design team has held regular meetings with the county council’s planners, consulting on planning requirements, maintaining support for the schemes and minimising the risk of the applications being rejected. 3.1.81 The design team also sought expert advice from an external planning consultant, Richard Gough from Gough Planning Services. Richard acted as a critical friend to the planning process for the design team and helped ensure the applications were acceptable for validation. His role has continued following validation, to work with the planning authority and statutory consultees to minimise the risk of planning objections in the lead up to the Planning Committee meeting. Abnormals 3.1.82 The abnormals costs were assessed through a workshop format, lead by the technical advisor team with the core project team and design team in attendance. The workshop featured a detailed analysis of each Wave 6a site, reviewing the abnormals using the survey data collected during the course of the BSF programme in addition to existing AMP data. The existing site specific risk registers provided further input of information. 3.1.83 Key data was recorded from the workshop discussion and was used to populate the standard PfS Abnormals pro forma giving an elemental cost breakdown for each abnormal item. Upon completion, the pro formas were shared with PfS ahead of the eventual agreement to fund an additional £ for abnormals at each school. [DN – YD to update figures, awaiting PfS agreement] 3.2 Sample schools 3.2.1 This section details the specific design development work and feasibility studies that were carried out for the Sample schools. 3.2.2 In line with PfS guidance for the procurement of the LEP, the county council has two sample schools:

• Rugeley Learning Campus – 100% new build – a school within a school model. PFI procurement with PFI services.

• Belgrave High School, Tamworth – Broadly 50% New Build, 35% remodel and 15% refurbishment. A design and build contract.

3.2.3 The change in D&B sample school from Queen Elizabeth Mercian school, Tamworth as identified in SFC2 has been approved by PfS and the Corporate Director for Children and Lifelong Learning and the BSF Project Director. 3.2.4 All schools within the wave have been designed to the same level of detail as outlined in earlier sections. The following outlines the development of the control option for each of the sample schools.

26

Rugeley Learning Campus – Control option development 3.2.5 The control option development began with the following steps:

• a total area derived from the formulae on the projected numbers of pupils at both schools (Fair Oak and Hagley Park) in 2018 without any curriculum analysis at this point.

• a visit to the two existing schools and the overall site available for development. • development to seek to minimise any disruption to the existing schools and to take

advantage of the full site available.

3.2.6 Options were then presented at the facilitated workshop and a preferred option was then selected based on the following criteria:

• Option 1 (separate refurbishment - Hagley Park and Fair Oak) - the vision for Rugeley Learning Campus clearly expresses an aspiration for the two schools to operate on a single campus. This option focuses on the refurbishment of the two schools on their separate sites and does not therefore assist in the educational transformational aspired to in Rugeley. The current building condition of both of the schools and the constrained nature of the sites, are not conducive to delivering a satisfactory design solution that was both affordable and transformational.

• Option 2 (New Build on Hagley Park) - this option was located on the former Hagley Park

site and was not thought to take full account of the sensitivities that exist when locating two schools on a single site, as it could be considered as a rebuild of the former Hagley Park school. In addition the Fair Oak Business and Enterprise specialism is not benefited by being located further from Rugeley town centre. The location also has potential to cause issues with access via the adjacent residential road and does not promote a positive interface with the community.

• Option 3 (New Build) Preferred - the locating of the campus with good links to the playing

fields on one side and the town centre on another was considered beneficial to both of the schools' specialisms, while being likely to promote community use. The space afforded to the campus through this location enabled the potential for learning spaces that could be flexible and suited to a range of teaching and learning styles.

• Option 4 (New Build) - while the location of the campus would deliver the same benefits as

option 3, the design was not thought to have fully interpreted the schools' vision. The 'school-within-a-school' philosophy was not fully explored and the potential for the two schools to be able utilise shared learning and activity spaces was not provided.

3.2.7 The preferred option was then presented to the Executive Headteacher of the two schools through a series of workshops to discuss the educational impact and vision of the design. The option was tested against the draft school Strategy for Change, identified site constraints, adjacency diagrams and the school accommodation schedule. 3.2.8 The option was also subsequently tested against the funding model and highlighted the need to review the design to make it more efficient in terms of area. This process also highlighted areas that could be taken advantage of to reduce the impact of the design on site constraints identified in the Level 2 Flood risk assessment on the site; therefore further reducing the effect on the funding allocation model. 3.2.9 The revised option was presented to the school after a number of further workshops/design meetings to understand how the school within a school model would work educationally, and its subsequent effect on the design. A number of iterations were developed with the school until a final

27

option was produced that the school felt confident would meet all criteria and objectives. The preferred option was agreed by the school and therefore included as Appendix 1A. Capital costs 3.2.10 Capital costs are presented below for the final preferred option (excluding CIT equipment) [DN – MC to complete by 31/01/10] Belgrave High School – Control Option Development 3.2.11 Although the school was initially earmarked in SfC2 as a non-sample school, the control option development for OBC has been developed to the same level as the original sample school in Tamworth. The development began by using the following criteria:

• a total area derived from the formulae on the projected numbers of pupils in 2018 without any curriculum analysis at this stage

• a visit to the existing school • development to minimise disruption to the existing school.

3.2.12 The options were then appraised by the core BSF project team. A preferred option was then selected using the criteria below:

• Option 1 (Refurb) - it was not felt that the design enhanced maths and science learning spaces adequately and did little to encourage community use, which is a strong feature of the school's vision. The design was not considered to be sufficient to impact positively on pupils and staff' levels of motivation and did not facilitate a range of teaching and learning styles through flexible spaces.

• Option 2 (Refurb) Preferred - the new exhibition space at the heart of the school and the

delivery of new build facilities linking the buildings that currently occupy different areas of the site strongly represented the school's vision. The reconfiguration of the entrance was thought to encourage community use and address health and safety concerns regarding pedestrian and vehicle separation. Demolition of the teaching block at the front of the school was considered the correct option due to building condition, natural light and air quality issues.

• Option 3 (New Build) - this option was thought to be the best for promoting transformed

education and deliverability from a programme and risk perspective. However, it was shown to be an unaffordable option and was not therefore selected as the control.

3.2.13 The preferred option was then presented to the headteacher through a series of individual workshops with the architect and CDA testing the design against the developing school Strategy for Change and examining how it could deliver educational transformation. The option was also value engineered against the funding model which resulted in further iterations to explore the use of flexible spaces more creatively and maximise the potential of the BB98 calculations. 3.2.14 Those workshops enabled the architect, CDA and school to address the site constraints of the school, for example the significant level changes on site, to design in a new theatre space and increase the circulation space within the school. A number of iterations were developed with the school to develop a final option that the school felt confident would meet all criteria and objectives. The agreed preferred control option can be seen in Appendix 1A.

28

Capital costs 3.2.15 The indicative capital costs for the sample schemes’ preferred design options, not including ICT hardware, are detailed below: School Indicative Capital Cost Belgrave £13, 647, 000 Rugeley Learning Campus £38, 177, 000 3.3 Sample schools – delivery of Strategy for Change objectives Introduction 3.3.1 The SfC1 sets out the county council’s strategic overview. The SfC2 built on this strategic overview, outlining how the strategic vision will be implemented in the BSF schools in Tamworth and Rugeley. The OBC sets out how the individual school plans for the sample schools support the county council’s strategic objectives and the requirements of the remit. This analysis is developed in detail to show how the plans support the delivery of the different aspects of the key policy areas. Finally we detail the improved educational outcomes the schools will realise through improvements to the facilities, especially relating to underperformance. All quotations are from the county council’s SfC. Sample School 1 - Rugeley Federation for Learning 3.3.2 Fair Oak and Hagley Park schools are the only two secondary schools in Rugeley, which is part of the Cannock district. They are in the final stages of creating a hard federation with a single governing body. Consultation has been completed and the federation will be formally constituted on 5 April 2010. The governors of the two schools have appointed an Executive Headteacher. He has led the governors and leadership teams in putting together a joint vision and SfC for the two schools. Educational outcomes, diversity of provision, fair access and choice 3.3.3 Although attainment has improved over the last three years, especially at KS4, outcomes need to be transformed. Rugeley’s performance is below both Staffordshire and national averages, both in terms of 5+A*-Cs including maths and English and post 16. The unvalidated CVAs for 2009 at KS4 and post 16 range from below average to about average. OFSTED inspection judgements for both schools are ‘satisfactory’. Therefore the Rugeley secondary schools fit well the need expressed in the county council’s SfC to ‘improve further, particularly at post 16’. Rugeley would also be characterised as a locality ‘where improvement has not been as strong’ and one which shows ‘limited pupil ambition, low expectations of parents, lack of aspiration in communities and low levels of literacy and numeracy’. This is especially true post 16, where Rugeley epitomises the SfC description of ‘relatively easy access to low paid, unskilled jobs, low take-up of post 16 education, poor levels of staying in education at age 17, high numbers of young people who are NEET and low participation in higher education’. Transformation of educational outcomes is therefore crucial to the regeneration of Rugeley. 3.3.4 The SfC encourages the federation of schools. The federation of Fair Oak and Hagley Park will be the first secondary federation in the county council. Diversity will be preserved by implementing the ‘schools within schools’ concept, with Fair Oak and Hagley each divided into smaller schools to create family units with their own identities, especially at KS3. The Federation is

29

part of the Cannock 14-19 partnership and is committed to working with South Staffordshire College to deliver aspects of vocational education. There will be sufficient places to meet the projected numbers in the locality. By retaining the two schools within a federation, choice will be maintained and collaboration greatly improved. The strengthening of post 16 provision, by replacing the inadequate, separate accommodation with 21st century facilities, including vocational facilities, will also give young people in Rugeley much greater choice. There has been full consultation with parents and other stakeholders on the formation of the federation and full support from the governing bodies. 3.3.5 Although Fair Oak has been traditionally perceived as the stronger school of the two, recent developments, particularly in vocational education, mean that the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two schools are complementary. The support of another local, strong school and a Gaining Ground partner (as explained in SfC2) further reinforces the capacity to improve. 3.3.6 The Federation hopes to build on the existing choice of specialisms (Sports and Business & Enterprise) by earning the right to take on a second specialism in vocational education. 3.3.7 These plans will help to meet the requirements of the remit as set out in the letter of 23.02.09. Added Value 3.3.8 The KPIs in the SfC1 have been developed in a lot more detail by the BSF schools and are now even more aspirational and wide ranging. The Rugeley Federation has adopted the format of the new KPIs as outlined in the SfC2 and has personalised the targets to aim for transformational improvement by 2018 (see Appendix 2). SfC2 was itself derived from the 10 commitments of the ‘Putting Learners First’ action plan referred to in SfC1 and from the school SfCs. Targets in the School Chart are reflected in the school SfC. Monitoring and evaluation strategies are outlined for all KPIs. 3.3.9 The Federation is committed to realising the highest standards of achievement and is determined to improve OFSTED judgements from satisfactory to outstanding. It will raise KS4 5+A*-C (incl. english & maths) performance from an average 40% to above 70% and KS2-4 CVAs to at least 1020. All students are expected to aim for aspirational targets based on FFTD estimates, placing them in the top quartile for comparable schools. Raising standards of literacy and numeracy are priorities in both schools’ strategic plans. The Federation has set transformational targets to increase the proportion of students making 3 and 4 levels of progress KS2-4 and gaining 3+A*/As. 3.3.10 Both schools have engaged in the Narrowing the Gap initiative. The top priority is to “narrow the gap” between achievers and vulnerable children who have a limited educational background, addressed by providing one-to-one tuition to support students not on track to achieve national expectations. Targets are set to ensure students eligible for free school meals, children in care and other vulnerable children achieve at least FFT D expectations. 3.3.11 The Federation is determined to improve the performance of students at 19. KPIs project average point scores per entry to improve to well above the national average and to increase the % of student achieving level 2 and 3 qualifications from 73% and 45% respectively to 85% and 57%. 3.3.12 These plans will help to meet the requirements of the remit as set out in the letter of 23.02.09. Choice, Diversity and Access 3.3.13 When the Federation is fully established, it will actively explore the benefits of Trust status. Senior staff and governors have attended awareness raising training on Trusts led by the SSAT and

30

are looking to build on the Business & Enterprise specialism to create a Trust supported by health care, further education, university, county council and Chamber of Commerce and industry organisations, as well as local businesses. 3.3.14 Co-locating the 2 existing schools and the strengthened partnership that will ensue will greatly improve secondary provision in Rugeley. Choice and diversity will be retained as described in paragraph 3.3.4. 3.3.15 The new Federation will also re-locate the sixth-form and the PRU annex provision on the same campus. Currently the Rugeley (Aelfgar Sixth Form Centre) post 16 provision is in dilapidated buildings with limited facilities. This has led to many students choosing post 16 education elsewhere or not continuing in education. The new post 16 facilities will include specialist vocational facilities to broaden curriculum choice, working with a local FE college. This is consistent with the SfC strategy to raise post 16 ambitions and participation and to provide district based specialist 14-19 skills centres. 3.3.16 These plans will help to meet the requirements of the remit as set out in the letter of 23.02.09. Challenge and Intervention 3.3.17 Although the Federation will bring obvious benefits in cost effectiveness and collaboration, it will not in itself bring in extra capacity for improvement. Therefore it has agreed to work with another local, successful school, which is also a PFI school and a “Gaining Ground” partner school, to help to add that capacity long-term. This work will be reinforced by the support to the governors of a County council senior officer to ensure that improvement is maintained. 3.3.18 Fair Oak is itself currently participating in the Gaining Ground initiative and with the SIP has developed a detailed Raising Achievement Plan (RAP), focusing on an academic study support programme, developing student leadership and assessing pupils’ progress (APP). The school is partnered with Outwood Grange School which is supporting the RAP and assisting in developing a ‘stage not age’ KS4 curriculum. 3.3.19 The joint sixth-form will also be part of a county wide post 16 improvement initiative. Extra time has been allocated to SIPs to focus on the analysis of post 16 outcomes and to put together action plans. Personalised Learning 3.3.20 The school SfC reflects all of the strategies in the SfC Part 1 Personalised Learning section (3.5). It includes learning to learn, learner-centred learning, Assessment for Learning (AfL) and APP. It asserts that learning and teaching will be broadly based, focusing on student well-being, creativity, communication, participation, team working, research, analysis, leadership, problem-solving, presentation, performance and community work as well as traditional academic knowledge and skills. 3.3.21 The curriculum will be personalised so that different pathways are offered to suit different needs and interests, including vocational areas of learning. 3.3.22 Students will be able to learn in a variety of groupings, including multi-class lectures/demonstrations, small working groups, in pairs and individually as appropriate. These will all be part of a single learning experience and therefore will require flexible, agile and spacious settings and break-out facilities. All areas of the school will become learning spaces with e-learning capability. Groupings may also be mixed age, depending on ability. Gifted and talented students will

31

be fully challenged through the personalisation programme e.g. through “stage not age” provision, listening to their needs and providing challenging project-based and independent learning tasks, especially utilising ICT resources. 3.3.23 Students will be encouraged to be creative and explore, experiment and trial new forms of learning, with managed risk-taking in safe environments. One-to-one tuition, mentoring (including e-mentoring) and coaching will be powerful alternative approaches, supported by adults other than teachers and underpinned by timely information, advice and guidance. Project-based and independent learning will be an important medium, requiring easy and individual access to e-learning devices for research, analysis and presentation. This may require different lengths of lessons. Active learning will be crucial, utilising a variety of media to present outcomes. 3.3.24 The SfC makes clear that new technologies will be central to personalisation in order to enhance different learning styles, including CAD/CAM, digital recording equipment, video analysis equipment, video conferencing, IWBs and visualisers. All students will have wireless enabled hand held digital devices. e-Learning, with universal access to the internet and digital media, will underpin personalisation, will take learning outside the classroom and into the home and will encourage collaboration and teamwork, including between schools in connected learning communities. A large percentage of families have no home broadband connection, so would be left behind as technology advanced unless they were supported. An aspiration is to facilitate a wireless umbrella, outside of BSF funding, covering the town to enable anytime anywhere e-learning and real-time information sharing between home and school. 3.3.25 Extended school activities will give opportunities to learn outside the school day and outside term times. Students will have individual learning plans and a personal tutor to enable them to shape their own learning programme. Student voice will inform these and have a powerful influence. 14-19 3.3.26 The Federation is part of the Cannock 14-19 partnership and has worked with partners to develop the local 14-19 offer. It fully supports the county council’s 14-19 entitlement as described in the SfC1. The school SfC also reflects that entitlement. 3.3.27 It has been decided to transform the 14-19 partnership further so that the full range of diplomas and other curriculum pathways are offered across the district, taking a lead in the level 1, 2 and 3 Sport & Active Leisure, Business, Administration & Finance, ICT and Retail lines – reflecting the schools’ specialisms. Through BSF and the local District Partnership, including South Staffordshire College, it will re-locate and further develop the Rugeley Vocational Centre on the new campus and thus significantly enhance the range of learning and employment opportunities for young people and adults in the Rugeley area and beyond. 3.3.28 The new co-located sixth-form centre will increase the proportion of Rugeley students continuing in appropriate, full-time education by providing the full range of learning pathways in Rugeley. It will overcome the “travel to learn” barrier which is significant in Rugeley, particularly for vulnerable young learners and young people who may become disengaged from learning. It will reduce travel costs for young people and low income families. 3.3.29 It will provide curriculum breadth, depth and opportunity to meet demand as a result of the increasing proportion of students achieving Level 2 threshold at KS4 by offering a wider range of appropriate Level 2 and Level 3 courses, particularly in vocational learning. It will develop effective personalised learning programmes matched to the needs, aspirations and abilities of students through high quality information, advice and guidance (IAG) and will utilise the Local Area Prospectus, Individual Learning Plans and the Common Application process

32

3.3.30 The quality of ICT provision will greatly enhance teaching and promote creative, interactive and collaborative learning, enabling learners to use technology to develop their skills as independent learners. 3.3.31 The new buildings will include a dynamic, world-class vocational centre which will provide a range of outstanding learning experiences for 14-19 year olds, who undertake diplomas and other vocational progression routes. This will better meet the needs of males seeking vocational progression routes, especially by offering Entry and Level 1 provision through the Foundation Learning Tier in order to re-engage hard to reach young people who are not in education or employment with training. 3.3.32 The Federation will address the needs of the local and regional labour market, including the skills gaps in the construction industry. It will provide realistic working environments for learners in areas such as in hair and beauty and motor vehicle maintenance, to develop skills for working life, including personal, learning thinking skills, in order to enhance the employability of local young people. 3.3.33 The intention is to provide progression opportunities to Level 3 and Level 4 courses and Foundation Degrees in partnership with Staffordshire University, as well as to enable gifted and talented students to pursue on-site pre-degree courses. 3.3.34 The needs of the community will also be served by supporting adult learning through a range of learning programmes and providing appropriate facilities and accommodation for local employers. Integration of Every Child Matters 3.3.35 The imperative for multi-agency working and joined up delivery through Integrated Youth Support Services (IYSS), as defined in the SfC, is recognised throughout the Rugeley plans. KPIs cover all aspects of the ECM agenda. Being Healthy and Staying Safe targets aim to reduce obesity, substance misuse and teenage pregnancy through increasing participation rates in sport and achieving Healthy School status and Sportsmark awards, as well as through enhanced extended schools programmes, ‘one stop shop’ multi-agency support and improving attendance. Making a Positive Contribution includes cuts in exclusions, increased stakeholder involvement and student leadership challenges. The Rugeley Community and Learning Partnership is central to these ambitions, offering a full range of services at times of day, week and year when they are needed and providing increased access to school facilities outside normal school hours. Economic Well-Being includes all those eligible to take advantage of opportunities, and thus abolish the status of NEET in the area. 3.3.36 The Rugeley Community & Learning Partnership is already the base for Parent Support Workers and third sector counselling services. This will be extended to co-locate a multi-agency base for integrated delivery of children’s services on the campus, to include health professionals, police, Connexions, Education Welfare Service (EWS), Educational Psychology Service (EPS), and other children’s workers as required. 3.3.37 Both schools have full extended school status and will further develop collaboration with and utilisation of the Community and Learning Partnerships (C&LP) partners, particularly CAMHS, Parent Support Workers, alcohol and drug abuse workers, Youth Offender professionals, Education Psychologists and Children’s Trust partners, again through co-location, especially to ensure that there is joined up working through CAFs. This will be led by the Joint Assessment Co-ordinator to facilitate early intervention when required. 3.3.38 School inclusion and pastoral teams will be able to work much more closely with partner children’s services to support the most vulnerable students, especially children in care, children on

33

the Child Protection Register, persistent absentees and children with mental health problems. The focus will be on all vulnerable groups, working together in a fully integrated team in order to provide stability and care and narrow the achievement gap. 3.3.39 The Federation will also be able to work more closely and effectively with the Integrated Youth Support Services to engage hard to reach children who are in danger of becoming demotivated and disengaging with education. The C&LP Coordinator will support the children’s workers so that vulnerable students are encouraged to participate in the extended schools programme, especially in out of hours and holiday activities. Health programmes will be a particular focus, e.g. sexual health, and drugs and smoking cessation programmes. 3.3.40 Sport, leisure and cultural activities are essential parts of the Federation’s drive to transform children’s lives in partnership with Cannock Chase District Council (CCDC) and to ensure joined up provision. The CCDC operated Leisure Centre and Swimming Pool forms part of the plans for the campus and, through shared user agreements, offers first class sport and leisure facilities for both students and the local community. The Sports College and School Sports Partnership will work together to provide a wide range of activities, including provision for vulnerable groups. The Partnership Development Manager will continue to develop the PESSYP strategy and the five hours of sport offer. 3.3.41 Adult and family learning will be actively promoted through the C&LP, and a community zone within the new campus will provide a modern and secure environment that will engage local people in lifelong learning and promote community cohesion. The Federation campus will transform the attitudes of parts of the community by becoming a welcoming place for all children and parents/carers and for the community so that they are confident in utilising the services described. It will become the community service hub, reaching out to parents of vulnerable children and providing support and education to help them support their children at school, particularly through parenting and family literacy and numeracy schemes. It will be crucial that parents/carers of the most vulnerable children have access to the ‘one-stop shop’. 3.3.42 The partner primary schools are also an integral part of the C&LP, working with children’s services and providing part of the extended school offer. The co-location concept will help to integrate the work of the Children’s Centres and Children’s Trust to deliver the Staffordshire Children’s and Young Person’s Plan. Championing Pupils’ Needs (including those with SEN) 3.3.43 The Rugeley Federation ‘shared vision’, expressed in its SfC, highlights the need to ‘develop an inclusive and high quality curriculum provision’ and reflects the county council’s assertion in the SfC that ‘inclusion is at the heart of education’ and an ‘entitlement’. BSF will provide the capacity, resources and expertise for the schools to be fully inclusive and accessible and to provide a place to every student who wants to attend the Federation Learning Campus. 3.3.44 Consultation is progressing to facilitate the inclusion of bases for a small number of autism spectrum disorder children from across the district, and for outreach work with children with severe learning difficulties who could not otherwise cope with mainstream education. 3.3.45 The Rugeley vision confirms the principle that students with SEN have full access to all personalisation opportunities so that there are no barriers to learning as a result of school constraints. The schools will maximise the integration of students with SEN, utilising digital resources and support staff to remove barriers to learning. ICT will enable access to supportive technology to ensure that students with complex and additional needs can access the full range of opportunities outside the school day and during holidays, including specialised technology for those with physical, sensory and learning difficulties.

34

3.3.46 The Federation will work closely with the local Special School (Hednesford Valley High) and the Cannock Short Stay School (PRU), taking advantage of their expertise and encouraging shared provision. It will provide personalised support for students who experience social, emotional and behavioural barriers to learning, and for those at risk of exclusion, creating layers of extra provision in an inclusion/learning support unit and in the school based PRU annex. This role will be central to the success of the Cannock District Inclusion Partnership. 3.3.47 Having achieved full Dyslexia friendly status, Fair Oak will share best practice with Hagley Park in supporting those students with Specific Learning Difficulties so that Hagley Park progresses from its Level 1 Dyslexia Friendly status. 3.3.48 The transition to secondary school is a particular point of concern. The schools will develop learning skills as a foundation for accessing a broad, balanced and relevant curriculum. This will be integral to the INSPIRE or Rich Tasks skills curriculum designed for Year 7. 3.3.49 The schools will develop a new PSHE programme, focusing on personalising relationships and ensuring that all students feel safe and enjoy their education. This will reduce bullying and non-attendance and promote community cohesion. They will work with on-site multi-agency children’s services to support families and promote healthy lifestyles, both physical and mental, and will utilise ICT to track progress and ensure effective communication. 3.3.50 High quality IAG and work with other 14-19 stakeholders will open opportunities to a wide range of alternatives post 16, including Apprenticeships, Foundation Learning Tier and Diplomas, as well as GCSEs. This will focus on successful progression and social inclusion to ensure 100% engagement in RPA. 3.3.51 These plans will help to meet the requirements of the remit as set out in the letter of 23.2.09. Change Management (see also section 7) 3.3.52 Senior staff and governors have participated in the two major county wide conferences to develop the BSF initiative. They have also been involved in lengthy and detailed discussions with officers to negotiate the inclusion of the two schools into the Wave 6a plans. The governors’ determination to form a federation with a single governing body was a major incentive to their inclusion, reflecting the county council’s encouragement to establish ‘new forms of governance’ in order to accelerate improvement. Community stakeholders have been fully consulted and are supportive. 3.3.53 The appointment of an Executive Headteacher with overall responsibility across the two schools has created the capacity to develop the BSF plans. This capacity, along with the united vision of the governors of the 2 schools, is essential, both because the Federation will be the two sample schools benefiting from 100% rebuild and because of the late entry into the wave. The governors are aware of the change management needs that will come with PFI and the importance of ensuring the continuing progress of the school during the preparation for and implementation of the rebuild programme. 3.3.54 The Executive Headteacher has been meeting at least weekly with colleague Headteachers from Tamworth as part of the Education Transformation Workstream. Representatives from other workstreams have been invited to the meetings to ensure alignment, especially across ICT, sport/culture, community and SEN. He has also become the secondary Headteacher representative on the county council BSF Project Board. Two Associate Headteachers have been appointed to be responsible for the day to day running of the schools in order to assure change management capacity.

35

3.3.55 The Executive Head has taken on the Transformational Learning Leader (TLL) role, a one day a week secondment funded by the county council, and meets regularly with the Tamworth TLLs to develop school SfCs and the joint change management programme. They are organising a one day conference on transformational learning for all staff involved across all secondary providers in Tamworth and Rugeley, over 700 staff in total (see section 7). 3.3.56 Senior staff have been working with architects and the county council Estates Workstream representatives to prepare different options based on the school education transformation plans and to host community consultation on the outline planning submission. The Executive Head was engaged in training on DQIs and options appraisal before participating in scoring the different alternative plans that had been developed. 3.3.57 Consultation and engagement with stakeholders across the educational and local community has been extensive. Several staff meetings have been held to discuss the implications of the Strategy. Statutory consultation on the formation of a Federation was held during October and November and included formal meetings for school staff, parents and the community. 3.3.58 Senior staff and governors have taken part in a visioning away day. They have been involved in many meetings with peers in other schools and LA representatives. Several have participated in visits to other new and remodelled schools, in the NCSL BSF programme and in SSAT Trust status training. 3.3.59 The schools have utilised their existing meeting and working party structures. Curriculum leaders have participated in LA subject meetings in which educational transformation has been a focus and have been participating in the school improvement programme associated with the Gaining Ground and Narrowing the Gap initiatives. 3.3.60 ICT e-champions have been appointed in each school. They are developing school ICT visions and have utilised the Becta framework to work with County council advisers and consultants to prepare output specifications. 3.3.61 A cross section of student representatives from each school are engaged in the Sorrell Foundation programme and have been cascading what they do and have learnt to other students through assemblies, lessons and student councils, as well as across the county via the school council network. Partner primary school student representatives are also engaged in a similar programme, derived from the Sorrell experience. Improved Educational Outcomes through Improved Facilities 3.3.62 The latest iteration of the school Strategy for Change is reproduced in Appendix 2. This includes a detailed summary of the KPIs showing the improved educational outcomes the school will realise through improvements to facilities as a result of BSF investment. Change management and training are clearly crucial to the KPIs but close monitoring and evaluation is also essential. The Federation has agreed to a senior officer of the county council supporting the Executive Head, the governors and the SIP to oversee the monitoring and evaluation outlined in the table and to ensure that progress towards the achievement of the KPIs is being sustained. 3.3.63 The design brief for the Federation has been through several iterations and options before settling on the new build of both schools on a single campus and in a single building. This innovative, imaginative and cost effective option is transformational in concept. The County council’s SfC required BSF to ‘create physical and virtual learning environments in schools and the community to support personalised learning – flexible spaces that can support whole class, individual and group work and dedicated community based spaces where learning can take place,

36

including the promotion of secondary nurture provision’. 3.3.64 The Federation’s own Strategy for Change outlines the design features required to realise the Education Transformation vision. These include:

a) An inspirational design that will raise the profile and aspirations of Rugeley b) Clear and distinct zones with identified social spaces to provide a choice of schools on

transition, yet integrated provision at Key Stages 4 & 5. The cohorts of each of the two schools will be divided into two further populations with distinct identities and different learning spaces for non-specialist subjects at KS3 but with an increasing number of shared lessons in KS4. This will create smaller educational communities and therefore greater choice at transition.

c) A vibrant sixth form base for specialist post-16 learning and teaching to raise further standards and achievement

d) A world class vocational centre through which the Federation will lead in the delivery of Diplomas and provide realistic work based learning environments

e) Enhanced sports and business facilities to become centres of excellence in sport and enterprise development

f) Facilities for a learning support and inclusion, including a PRU and an Autism Resource Base

g) Inspiring facilities for the music and the arts, science, design & technology h) A STEM centre to allow for the practical application of Science, Technology, Engineering

and Maths i) Generic learning spaces that are flexible, agile and multi-functional to cater for both large

and small groups and particularly active approaches to learning j) Pervasive ICT access k) Large and flexible ICT teaching rooms to enable multiple activities to take place

simultaneously l) Universal application of a biometric recognition system that will facilitate efficient

administration systems m) A visually stunning library resource centre at the hub of the campus with micro-

environments and break out spaces for different activities n) A large hall capable of partitioning, with racked, collapsible seating to maximise flexibility

of use for a range of functions o) Sport, leisure and cultural facilities that are adaptable and inviting for extended

community use p) External areas that are attractively landscaped and inviting spaces for learning, playing

and socialising q) Sustainable buildings and facilities that will enable students to learn about sustainable

education Sample School 2 - Belgrave High School, Tamworth 3.3.65 Belgrave High School in Tamworth is the Design and Build sample school and will benefit from a balance of new build, remodelling and light refurbishment as part of the Design and Build programme. It will be the sample school for the other three Tamworth projects, all of which are D&B. Educational Outcomes, Diversity of Provision, Fair Access and Choice 3.3.66 Although GCSE 5+A*-C attainment has improved from 39% in 2005 to 67% in 2009 and from 31% to 39% including maths and English, the school is determined to transform outcomes further over the next 10 years. The latest OFSTED inspection in June 2009 judged the school to be ‘good’. Therefore Belgrave’s trajectory is very clearly upwards. Nevertheless it still fits well the need expressed in the County council’s SfC to ‘improve further’. The Belgrave catchment area is also

37

characterised as a locality which shows ‘limited pupil ambition, low expectations of parents, lack of aspiration in communities and low levels of literacy and numeracy’ and epitomises the SfC description of “relatively easy access to low paid, unskilled jobs, low take-up of post 16 education, poor levels of staying in education at age 17, high numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training and low participation in higher education”. Belgrave students are mainly drawn from wards with the highest deprivation in Tamworth and in the county as a whole. Transformation of educational outcomes is therefore crucial to the regeneration of both the Belgrave and the Tamworth community. 3.3.67 Diversity in Tamworth will be extended by the creation of an academy sponsored by Landau Forte and a National Challenge Trust school sponsored by the County Council and Staffordshire University. Belgrave is also exploring the benefits of Trust status. It is part of the Tamworth 14-19 partnership and is committed to working with South Staffordshire College and the Torc Vocational Centre to deliver vocational education. Student number projections show that there will be sufficient places to meet the projected numbers in the locality. Overall, these changes mean that choice will be extended and collaboration improved. 3.3.68 All of the schools in Tamworth have specialisms and Belgrave is keen to take on a second one in Performing Arts in order to improve the cultural offer in the locality. This would complement its existing specialism in Science. 3.3.69 These plans will help to meet the requirements of the remit as set out in the letter of 23.2.09. Added Value 3.3.70 The KPIs in the SfC1 have been developed in more detail by the BSF schools and are now even more aspirational and wide ranging. Belgrave has adopted the format of the new KPIs as outlined in the SfC2 and has personalised the targets to aim for transformational improvement by 2018 (see Appendix 2). The SfC2 was itself derived from the 10 commitments of the “Putting Learners First” action plan referred to in the SfC1 and from the school SfCs. Targets in the School Chart are reflected in the school SfC. Monitoring and evaluation strategies are outlined for all KPIs. 3.3.71 Belgrave is committed to realising the highest standards of achievement and is looking to improve its OFSTED judgement from good to outstanding. It aims to raise KS4 5+A*-C (incl. english & maths) performance from 28% in 2008 to above 58% by 2018 and the KS2-4 CVA to at least 1020. All students are expected to aim for aspirational targets based on FFT D estimates, placing them in the top quartile for comparable schools. It is already achieving above FFT D estimates and is determined to continue to do so. Raising standards of literacy and numeracy are priorities in the school’s strategic plans. Attainment on entry is well below national averages in most years so the school has set transformational targets to increase the proportion of students making 3 and 4 levels of progress KS2-4 and gaining 3+A*/As. 3.3.72 Belgrave is part of the National Challenge initiative and has a robust Raising Achievement Plan closely monitored by its School Improvement Partner. 5+A*-Cs in 2009 reached 39%, the best ever for the school. The top priority is to “narrow the gap” between achievers and vulnerable children who have a limited educational background. One strategy is to provide one-to-one tuition to support students not on track to achieve national expectations. Targets are set to ensure students eligible for free school meals, children in care and other vulnerable children achieve at least FFT D expectations. The Belgrave Community Literacy Project is central to narrowing the gap and to achieve long term transformation. The school is working with the University of Derby to develop an on-line literacy programme for use across the Belgrave pyramid of schools. 3.3.73 These plans will help to meet the requirements of the remit as set out in the letter of 23.02.09.

38

Choice, diversity and access 3.3.74 Belgrave High School is actively exploring the benefits of Trust status. Senior staff and governors have attended awareness raising training on Trusts led by the SSAT and are developing a vision is to create a Trust supported by health care, further education, university, local county council and Chamber of Commerce and industry organisations, as well as local businesses, possibly in collaboration with other local schools. 3.3.75 Choice and diversity will be extended as described in paragraph 3.3.66. 3.3.76 These plans will help to meet the requirements of the remit as set out in the letter of 23.2.09. Challenge and intervention 3.3.77 Belgrave has agreed to work with another local, successful school to help to add improvement capacity long-term. This work will be reinforced by the support to the governors of a county council senior officer to ensure that improvement is maintained. 3.3.78 Belgrave is currently participating in the National Challenge initiative and with the SIP has developed a detailed Raising Achievement Plan, focusing on Assessment for Learning strategies, supported by the use of APP and literacy and vocational programmes. The use of the Core Underachievement File will also target underachievement earlier and help to personalise learning plans. Personalised learning 3.3.79 The school SfC reflects all of the strategies in the SfC Part 1 Personalised Learning section (3.5). It includes learning to learn, learner-centred learning, AfL and APP. The Belgrave strategic intent is to raise standards of achievement and levels of engagement for all learners through the personalisation of their curriculum built around key core elements, making the important measurable and promoting interactive, participatory and enjoyable learning tailored to individual needs. 3.3.80 Learning pathways will enable learners to make informed choices from a challenging and diverse curriculum. 3.3.81 Students will be able to learn in a variety of groupings, including multi-class lectures/demonstrations, small working groups, in pairs and individually as appropriate. These will all be part of a single learning experience and therefore will require flexible, agile and spacious settings and break-out facilities. All areas of the school will become learning spaces with e-learning capability. Groupings may also be mixed age, depending on ability. Gifted and talented students will be fully challenged through the personalisation programme e.g. through “stage not age” provision, listening to their needs and providing challenging project-based and independent learning tasks, especially utilising ICT resources. 3.3.82 Students will be encouraged to be creative and explore, experiment and trial new forms of learning, with managed risk-taking in safe environments. One-to-one tuition, mentoring (including e-mentoring), coaching and tutoring will be powerful alternative approaches, supported by adults other than teachers and underpinned by timely information, advice and guidance. Project-based and independent learning will be an important medium, requiring easy and individual access to e-learning devices for research, analysis and presentation. This may require different lengths of lessons. Active learning will be crucial, utilising a variety of media to present outcomes. 3.3.83 The SfC makes clear that technology will be central to personalisation. New technologies will

39

enhance different learning styles, including CAD/CAM, digital recording equipment, video analysis equipment, video conferencing, IWBs and visualisers. All students will have wireless enabled hand held digital devices and e-learning with universal access to the internet. Digital media will underpin personalisation, will take learning outside the classroom and into the home and will encourage collaboration and teamwork, including between schools in connected learning communities. Belgrave will develop technologies to promote personalised holistic, e-learning confidence. It will focus on the maturity, safety and skills to establish a technologically based curriculum that reflects the fluidity and innovative demands of the 21st century e-learners. A large percentage of families have no home broadband connection, so we would look for this to be mitigated through initiatives such as the national Home Access Programme. An aspiration is to have a personalised learning plan accessible through the learning platform. 3.3.84 Extended school activities will give opportunities to learn outside the school day and outside term times. Students will have individual learning plans and a personal tutor to enable them to shape their own learning programme. Student voice will inform these and have a powerful influence. 14-19 3.3.85 Belgrave is part of the Tamworth 14-19 partnership and has worked with other local schools to develop the local 14-19 offer. It fully supports the County council 14-19 entitlement as described in SfC Part 1. The school SfC reflects that entitlement. 3.3.86 It is determined to transform its 4-19 offer so that the full range of diplomas and other curriculum pathways are accessible across the district. It is committed to develop vocational programmes, through both its own curriculum and through the Torc Vocational Centre. Belgrave helps to lead and manage the Vocational centre, which is situated close to the school. The Level 2 Diploma programme is well utilised and will be extended. 3.3.87 The development of the Torc Vocational Centre, in partnership with South Staffordshire FE College, will address the needs of the local and regional labour market. It provides realistic working environments for learners in areas such as engineering, hair and beauty, construction and motor vehicle maintenance and develops skills for working life, including personal, learning thinking skills, in order to enhance the employability of local young people. 3.3.88 The quality of the new ICT provision will greatly enhance teaching and promote creative, interactive and collaborative learning, enabling learners to use technology to develop their skills as independent learners. 3.3.89 The needs of the community will also be served by supporting adult learning through a range of learning programmes and providing appropriate facilities and accommodation for local employers. Integration of Every Child Matters 3.3.90 Multi-agency working and joined up delivery through Integrated Youth Support Services (IYSS), as defined in the SfC, is recognised throughout the Belgrave plans. KPIs cover all aspects of the ECM agenda. Being Healthy and Staying Safe targets aim to reduce obesity, substance misuse and teenage pregnancy through increasing participation rates in sport, achieving Healthy School status and Sportsmark awards, as well as through enhanced extended schools programmes, “one stop shop” multi-agency support and improving attendance. Making a Positive Contribution includes cuts in exclusions, increased stakeholder involvement and student leadership challenges. The Belgrave Community and Learning Partnership is central to this, offering a full range of services at times of day, week and year when they are needed and providing increased access to school facilities outside normal school hours. Economic Well-Being includes the elimination of students not in education or employment. Belgrave’s extended school and community

40

programme is a model for other schools. 3.3.91 Belgrave is already served by a multi-agency base for integrated delivery of children’s services on the campus, including health professionals, police, Connexions, EWS and EPS. This is situated at the Torc Vocational Centre. 3.3.92 Belgrave has full extended school status and will further develop collaboration with and utilisation of C&LP partners, particularly CAMHS, Parent Support Workers, alcohol and drug abuse workers, Youth Offender professionals, Education Psychologists and Children’s Trust partners, through providing multi-agency facilities on site, especially to ensure joined up working through CAFs. This will be led by the Joint Assessment Co-ordinator to facilitate early intervention when required. 3.3.93 School inclusion and pastoral teams will be able to work much more closely with partner children’s services to support the most vulnerable and hard to reach students, especially children in care, children on the Child Protection Register, persistent absentees and children with mental health problems. The focus will be on all vulnerable groups, working together in a fully integrated team in order to provide stability and care and narrow the achievement gap. 3.3.94 The school will also be able to work more effectively with the Integrated Youth Support Services to engage hard to reach children who are in danger of becoming de-motivated and disengaging with education. The C&LP Coordinator will be able to co-ordinate work with the children’s workers so that vulnerable students are encouraged to participate in the extended schools programme, especially in out of hours and holiday activities. Health programmes will be a particular focus e.g. sexual health and drugs and smoking cessation programmes. 3.3.95 Sport, leisure and cultural activities are essential parts of Belgrave’s drive to transform children’s lives. The Sports College and School Sports Partnership will work together to provide a wide range of activities, including provision for vulnerable groups. The Partnership Development Manager will continue to develop the PESSYP strategy and increase access to the 5 hours of sport offer. 3.3.96 Adult and family learning will be actively promoted through the C&LP and a community zone within the new school will provide a modern and secure environment that will engage local people in lifelong learning and promote community cohesion. It will involve parents and carers of underachieving and vulnerable groups more closely in supporting their children. The remodelled school aims to transform the attitudes of parts of the community by becoming a welcoming place for all children and parents/carers and for the community so that they are confident in utilising the services described. It will become the community service hub, reaching out to parents of vulnerable children and providing support and education to help them support their children at school, particularly through parenting and family literacy schemes. It will be crucial that parents/carers of the most vulnerable children have this access to the ‘one-stop shop’. 3.3.97 The partner primary schools are also an integral part of the C&LP, working with children’s services and providing part of the extended school offer. The co-location concept will help to integrate the work of the Children’s Centres and Children’s Trust to deliver the Staffordshire Children’s and Young Person’s Plan. Championing pupils’ needs (including those with SEN) 3.3.98 The Belgrave Strategic Intent for SEN and Inclusion, expressed in its SfC, highlights the need to ‘strengthen the established and successful learning support provision, ensuring that interventions to remove barriers to learning are strategically planned and delivered to achieve swift and successful outcomes for individuals and groups of learners’. It reflects the County council’s

41

assertion in the SfC that ‘inclusion is at the heart of education’ and an ‘entitlement’. Through BSF, Belgrave will further develop its personalised learning centre which is already a strength of the school. ICT is fundamental to the success of this centre and the new investment will extend access to supportive technology to empower learning potential within an evolving e-culture. 3.3.99 Consultation is progressing with Two Rivers High School to facilitate outreach work with children with severe learning difficulties who could not otherwise cope with mainstream education. 3.3.100 Belgrave is committed to playing a prominent role in the work of the district Inclusion Panel to reduce and minimise both fixed term and permanent exclusions (currently there are no permanent exclusions). It will provide personalised support for students who experience social, emotional and behavioural barriers to learning, and for those at risk of exclusion, creating layers of extra provision in the new inclusion/learning support base. This role will be central to the success of the Tamworth District Inclusion Partnership. 3.3.101 The transition to secondary school is a particular point of concern. The school will develop learning skills as a foundation for accessing a broad, balanced and relevant curriculum. Learning to Learn, SEAL and emotional intelligence approaches will be embedded in the curriculum to create a resilience that will become habitual and transferable. The intention is to ensure that all students feel safe and enjoy their education. This will reduce bullying and non-attendance and promote community cohesion. The programmes will work with on-site multi-agency children’s services to support families and promote healthy lifestyles, both physical and mental, and will utilise ICT to track progress and ensure effective communication. 3.3.102 High quality IAG and work with other 14-19 stakeholders will open opportunities to a wide range of alternatives post 16, including Apprenticeships, Foundation Learning Tier and Diplomas, as well as GCSEs. This will focus on successful progression and social inclusion to ensure 100% engagement in RPA. 3.3.103 These plans will help to meet the requirements of the remit as set out in the letter of 23.02.09. Change Management (see also section 7) 3.3.104 Senior staff and governors have participated in the 2 major county wide conferences to develop the BSF initiative county wide. They have also been involved in lengthy and detailed discussions with officers to negotiate the Wave 6a plans and to offer consultation opportunities to community stakeholders. 3.3.105 The Headteacher is the most experienced in the district and chairs the district Secondary Heads’ Forum. He has been a crucial channel of liaison and communication with the county Transformational Learning Manager and has created the capacity in his leadership team to enable him to lead on the development of the BSF plans. He has been fully involved in every aspect of the plans so far. Therefore Belgrave was the obvious school to turn to when it was decided to choose a different D&B sample school. The other Heads fully supported this. The governors are aware of the change management needs that will come with being a sample school in BSF and the importance of ensuring the continuing progress of the school during the preparation for and the implementation of the building programme. 3.3.106 The Belgrave Headteacher has been meeting at least weekly with colleague Heads from Tamworth and Rugeley as part of the Education Transformation Workstream. Representatives from other workstreams have been invited to the meetings to ensure alignment, especially across ICT, sport/culture, community and SEN.

42

3.3.107 The Belgrave Head works directly and actively with the Transformational Learning Leaders, who meet regularly to develop school SfCs and a joint change management programme. They are organising a one day conference on transformational learning for all staff involved in learning across all secondary providers in Tamworth and Rugeley - over 700 staff (see section 7). 3.3.108 The Head has led senior staff in engaging with architects and the County council Estates Workstream representatives to prepare different options based on the school education transformation plans and to host community consultation on the outline planning submission. The Head was engaged in training on DQIs and options appraisal before participating in scoring the different alternative plans that had been developed. 3.3.109 Senior staff and governors have been involved in many meetings with peers in other schools and LA representatives and several have participated in visits to other new and remodelled schools, in the NCSL BSF programme and in SSAT trust status training. 3.3.110 The school is utilising its existing meeting and working party structures. Curriculum leaders have participated in LA subject meetings in which educational transformation has been a focus and have been participating in school improvement initiatives associated with the National Challenge programme. 3.3.111 An ICT e-champion has been appointed to develop the school ICT vision and has utilised the Becta framework to work with County council advisers and consultants to prepare output specifications. 3.3.112 A cross-section of school council representatives from the school are engaged in the Sorrell Foundation programme and are cascading what they do and learn to other students through the student councils (and across the county via the school council network). Partner primary school student representatives are also engaged in a similar programme, derived from the Sorrell experience. Improved educational outcomes through improved facilities 3.3.113 The latest iteration of the school Strategy for Change is reproduced in Appendix 2. This includes a detailed summary of the KPIs showing the improved educational outcomes the school will realise through improvements to facilities as a result of BSF investment. Change management and training are clearly crucial to the KPIs but close monitoring and evaluation is also essential. The school has agreed to a senior officer of the County council supporting the Head, the governors and the SIP to oversee the monitoring and evaluation outlined in the table and to ensure that progress towards the achievement of the KPIs is being sustained. 3.3.114 The design brief for the school has been through several iterations before settling on the preferred option. This innovative, imaginative and cost effective option is transformational in concept. The County council’s SfC required BSF to ‘create physical and virtual learning environments in schools and the community to support personalised learning – flexible spaces that can support whole class, individual and group work and dedicated community based spaces where learning can take place, including the promotion of secondary nurture provision’. This is exactly what the Belgrave plan seeks to achieve. 3.3.115 The school’s own Strategy for Change outlines the design features required to realise the Education Transformation vision. The philosophy that underpins this work has its origins in a desire to embrace the whole ethos around ‘Designing 21st century learning’ in harmony with all aspects of the ECM agenda. The educational, emotional and financial commitment that will be required to enable the rebuilding and remodelling of Belgrave High School is of such magnitude that we must

43

ensure the design is: • Flexible: to accommodate current and evolving pedagogies • Future proofed: to enable reconfiguration and reallocation • Bold: to look beyond, tired, tried and tested technologies and pedagogies • Creative: to energise learners and teachers • Supportive: to develop everyone’s potential • Enterprising: in order to make each space capable of supporting a different purpose • Technologically innovative: to facilitate the development ‘holistic e-learners’

In more specific terms our discussions with architects have led us to ‘demand’ for Belgrave:

• An approach to an entrance which defines the ethos of the school as an inspirational learning environment and community facility

• The creation and construction of a ‘street’ or ‘hub’ removing the existence of corridors by the provision of ‘zones’ and ‘clusters’, with every space contributing to learning in a cohesive and flexible environment whilst at the same time providing the capacity for accommodating larger audiences for conference style delivery

• The provision of a new multipurpose ‘state of the art’ performance arena to develop the potential for a second specialism in Performing Arts

• The harmonisation of our specialisms (both existing and aspirational) which will further enhance their capacity to impact on the transformation of learning across the curriculum

• Maximum natural light and the creation of voluminous space to impact positively on the learning environment

• Wireless provision across the entire site to facilitate real and virtual spaces where individual, informal group and class based teaching blend into one space through software links

• Open plan informal learning areas to support the personalised learning curriculum complementing what already exists in the classroom

• The creation of a discreetly safe and secure environment which embraces biometric technology

• The carefully orchestrated use of elevation, contours, colours, textures and materials to enhance all elements of learning

• The provision of fundamental facilities (dining/toilets/break out and recreation spaces) which at least meet or exceed the expectations of all users

• The school is a noted example of how design impacts on learning and is recognised for its eco-friendly and sustainable capacity

3.4 ICT service provision The overall ICT vision – Putting learners first 3.4.1 Staffordshire’s ‘Manifesto for Change’ sets out 10 ambitions to be achieved to make sure that all young people are successful - a manifesto that requires transformation of the environment and culture in which young people grow and mature. Staffordshire sees ‘technology enabled learning’ as a key to the change and transformation processes in which we are engaged. It is an integral part of all aspects of our work as we seek to improve the outcomes for children and young people. 3.4.2 We have clearly articulated our intentions in documents attached as appendices to Strategy for Change Part 2, in particular ‘Putting Learners First’ and ‘Technology for Learning’. The latter is not about introducing new technologies just because they are there, but introducing those that enable new ways of working that meet the needs of the new generations of learners and the

44

professionals who support them in that learning. 3.4.3 Staffordshire intends to ensure that due emphasis is placed upon ‘access’ to learning that is available for all at the point of need through a technology rich provision that ensures the opportunity to exercise meaningful choice. It is essential that individual and collective needs are met, that the requirements of those with special educational needs are embraced and that technology plays a key role in supporting those who are more vulnerable and those that are hard to reach. 3.4.4 To make this happen, we need to:

• ensure a changing culture that supports a technology enabled curriculum based on higher order learning and available to all learners at a time and place that is suitable to them

• establish an entitlement to a common learning platform providing personalised learning which reflects the learner’s interests, preferred approaches, abilities and choices

• develop e-maturity by establishing a technologically confident education and skills system where the user is placed at the heart of the provision

• restructure establishments to ensure that access to learning is available at the point of need

• provide access for all, enabled by technology, and irrespective of circumstance or ability • establish connected learning communities of parents and carers, practitioners and

learners using the county-wide learning platform • develop integrated systems that ensure data services and learning services merge • embed e-inclusion for everyone to ensure that technology supports those with special

needs and those who are hard to reach • address e-safety as a community wide issue and ensure that digital literacy is

established as an entitlement • develop technological solutions that support establishments on their journey towards

becoming carbon neutral.

How the vision is met by the preferred option 3.4.5 Staffordshire recognises the BSF programme as being an enabler to provide a step-change in access to education through ICT. There has been significant sustained investment in technology over the last decade. This has primarily been focussed on improving access to technology on a school level, increasing the availability of the internet within schools and improving the efficiency of administrative tasks with the emphasis being to move technical support to dedicated resource. Although this has proved of significant value, a key distinction between our approach to-date and the approach moving forward is in having buildings designed and built with ICT as an intrinsic service, rather than being considered post construction. 3.4.6 The BSF ICT managed service will approach ICT implementation on two different levels, these being:

• area-wide services • school based services.

3.4.7 In practical terms we are looking for the future service to provide:

• ICT designed into the fabric of the building; to date we have been hampered by the physical space, which has necessitated grouping of students according to the available space rather than by their learning requirements. We will be seeking, from our future partner, school designs that will enable grouping by stage not age, with ICT being a key enabler to support

45

this shift. Furthermore, technology will be used to facilitate designed-in safety, without which it will not be possible for our new physical buildings to provide welcoming, community focussed environments where students, teachers and members of the public will be able to access learning resources.

• ICT provided and supported centrally, enabling students to access resources when and where they require them. With the support of technology we envisage being able to:

o Implement automated registration systems o Access your own workspace o Access your workspace from anywhere o Access shared spaces o Have access to remote direct support services o Have the reassurance that services are robust and effective

These, along with a range of other benefits will support our desire to implement effective Diploma’s at 14-19, provide equality of learning opportunities outside the school and be the primary enabler to our Personalisation agenda.

• Schools that continue to benefit from locally provided ICT technical support services supplemented by additional technical staff with a central role. This new service will be targeted – using BSF standard KPI’s - on providing the requisite technical support for schools and will provide extended learning into the evening for remote student access. Local technical staff will have a distinct role in supporting ICT at a school level, but will have a governance and personal development structure that could ultimately enable them to progress within Staffordshire’s system, rather than leaving to seek opportunities elsewhere.

• Schools that are seen as ‘technology hubs’ where access to ICT and the requisite support services will act as a catalyst to further schools’ aspirations with regards to their specialisms.

• Schools that are seen as community hubs, encouraging parental engagement – not only regarding their children’s attainment, but also to provide opportunity for parents to learn, to network with and become members of other community groups, and thus schools serving the wider community in general.

3.4.8 We have provided narrative in the Options Appraisal section, providing background as to which services will be in or out of scope of the BSF contract. Additional detailed information regarding the Learning Platform can be found in the appended document, ‘Staffordshire BSF Learning Platform Options Appraisal’. 3.4.9 Currently the WAN, Telephony and MIS services are all contracted centrally in Staffordshire. WAN connectivity (including internet services) is currently undergoing re-tendering for a new local county council wide provision. Additionally, Staffordshire will soon have awarded a new 10 year contract for MIS services. The Local County council are also about to go out to tender for a county wide IP based telephony service. Commercially, we are assuming WAN and MIS are being stipulated as county council Obligations within the future overall BSF contract with Telephony being ‘In Scope’ but to be determined in Competitive Dialogue. 3.4.10 A summary of all key ICT services, and which are in or out of scope of the BSF programme is contained in Appendix 26. ICT options appraisal 3.4.11 It is intended that the full scope of services are procured through a Competitive Dialogue process which is led by the ICT Output Specification. To provide these services, certain technical products and solutions are assumed to need to be provided. Of these assumptions, the following will remain as county council obligations:

• WAN (including internet services)

46

• MIS • Learning Platform (tbc during Competitive Dialogue)

3.4.12 The following table defines each of the excluded services and states the rationale behind not procuring these services from the LEP. Additionally, the table provides detail around the Learning Platform as there are certain complexities around this product which need to be evaluated in the context of the BSF programme and wider LA requirements.

Item and Description Proposed BSF Provider and Rationale WAN Staffordshire currently provide WAN services to the entire schools estate which equates to 398 schools / 404 establishments. Additionally, we also provide WAN services to corporate SCC establishments. This existing operation offers a highly reliable WAN service, connected to the National Educational Network for schools, and is supplemented by a mature support service. Through this service, schools not only receive physical WAN circuits but also filtering and other supplementary services to support e-safety standards through a fully Becta accredited internet service. The scale of the service offers a total cost of ownership which is highly competitive and is passed through to the schools as a high Value for Money product.

SCC are the proposed future provider of WAN services to the BSF schools. SCC are currently procuring their WAN service provider for their next iterations of their WAN provision ‘Next Generation Broadband’; this new service will be fully operational when the BSF sample schools open. The new service will exercise potentially bigger economies of scale that schools currently benefit from, and will also offer an increased level of services as the county council is actively engaging other partners such as the PCTs to participate in the procurement. The primary distinctions between the new service and the existing offer are:

• Dedicated WAN links per school of at least 100MB

• MPLS technology offering greater functionality, security & efficiencies

• Greater network resilience / more diversity

• BSF equivalent service levels MIS All Staffordshire schools already purchase their MIS solution directly from Staffordshire County Council. This covers over 400 schools and therefore offers great benefits through economies of scale, thus also providing high Value for Money. Staffordshire are nearing completion of their project to procure a MIS service contractor. This activity will be complete in early 2010 and will award a 10 year contract to the successful bidder, plus 2 x 5 year optional extensions. It is envisaged that, through the scale of this procurement, all of Staffordshire’s schools will continue to

Staffordshire are the proposed future provider of MIS services who, in conjunction with the LEP ICT MSP, will setup a support service with appropriate escalation routes which will complement the BSF service levels and support the anticipated needs of data integration through the county council wide Learning Platform. This will allow the MIS services to be procured at a very cost effective level. This will also support the demands of 14-19 by practically allowing users to roam and be supported by the same infrastructure and systems throughout Staffordshire.

47

buy into this service. Learning Platform The majority of Staffordshire’s schools currently buy into a single Learning Platform service provided by the LA. This is a highly successful service, with over 80% of schools currently subscribed, and which is supplemented by change management and training services. The current Learning Platform service is contracted out by Staffordshire to RM Plc, and the contract expires in February 2012. Staffordshire’s Learning Platform strategy is to deliver a single, estate-wide solution which will further aid delivery of a fully integrated transformation programme, supporting many educational objectives. Most importantly, this will fully deliver key elements of the ‘Technology for Learning’ and ‘Putting Learners First’ strategies, which are an integral part to Staffordshire’s Strategy for Change Part 2.

Sustainability 3.4.13 Staffordshire aims to procure a fully sustainable ICT service through ensuring that:-

• schools commit to on-going funding, through schools revenue contributions, allowing continued high-quality service delivery and equipment refresh cycles

• there is comprehensive stakeholder engagement and buy-in to aims and aspirations of the programme

• proposals include a robust change management and CPD programme which is fully supported by and integrated into the LEP

• there is ongoing performance monitoring and management of the LEP, ensuring service continuity and best value.

3.4.14 Additionally, the ICT workstream in Staffordshire has carried out some detailed cost modelling utilising data from many other BSF programmes and similar-sized contracts in other market sectors, which demonstrates a financially sustainable approach through the lifetime of the programme. The detailed cost model and supporting narrative can be found in Appendix 30. Financial sustainability 3.4.15 A detailed cost model has been produced that identifies the whole lifecycle costs of ICT, this considers:

• legacy ICT • total cost of initial proposals (to be met by capital) • timing of roll-out of initial proposals, in relation to the build programme • likely lifespan of equipment and therefore refresh cycle

48

• proposals around shared services • change management and CPD • total cost of ownership of systems – (for instance combining reduction in revenue costs of

telephony with capital costs of equipment – where such revenue would traditionally be met by a separate budget)

• support service requirement (management by users or by service). 3.4.16 The diagram below illustrates the funding and revenue profile throughout the duration of a likely contract.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

Dev

ices

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Average Age of Devices (Years)

Advanced Desktop Standard Desktop Standard Laptop UMPC Ultra-Thin Client Device Average Device Age (Years) 3.4.17 We will be seeking responses from the market that demonstrate a sustainable approach to ICT implementation over a period of between 5 and 10 years, that will leave Staffordshire schools in a favourable position at the end of the contract life. The modelling exercise shows optimum points for refresh will be subject to consultation, based on likely device lifespan. In the example shown this would mean breaks at 5 or 10 years, immediately post refresh would leave schools in a healthy position post contract end. 3.4.18 Stakeholder engagement has been crucial to this process and is illustrated as follows:

• Schools have already made significant investment in ICT and understand the need for this to continue in the lead up to the start of the programme.

• Engagement with the schools to reflect their requirements when re-procuring the MIS and LP and how this is impacted by the BSF programme.

• Involving the school e-champions within the ICT work stream to represent their specific school needs.

• Schools running their own internal engagement sessions to capture the views of teachers, senior staff, governors, parents/carers, non-teaching staff and learners.

• Capturing the requirements of the county council. • Sessions held with Headteachers to communicate the trade-off between hardware and

services.

49

3.4.19 The following diagram illustrates trade-off between spend on equipment/devices and services depending on policy adopted:

3.4.20 Schools have agreed a provisional level of contribution calculated at approximately £180 pppa. Contributions set at this level have been calculated to deliver the aspirations over the long term, ensuring each school receives a very comprehensive ICT service. We have considered a number of approaches to guaranteeing accessibility of devices, the ideal approach to personalisation being a personal device. Practically this would be a device dedicated to an individual, with further systems available in school for high-end programmes, etc. We will look to challenge bidders during competitive dialogue, with a view to establishing whether this is feasible, with the LEP providing the technology. At the other end of the spectrum is a user provided device model. Building on mobile technologies, it is likely that within the first five years of a contract, students will own their own devices which could be used to access LA systems. The approach taken to demonstrate affordability lies somewhere between the two extremes, with the LEP providing enough devices to enable any student access as and when required. 3.4.21 Close attention has been paid to equipment refresh. Existing legacy equipment will be identified and a percentage carried over in to the managed service, thus maximising the existing significant investment that schools have already made. Similar attention has been paid to the refresh cycles for software, MIS and other solution. 3.4.22 The LEP will have to increase the level of user equipment, achieving a virtual 1:1 ratio. This then has to be refreshed on an ongoing steady state basis so that there is no overhang at the end of the contract. The same approach applies to centrally provided services such as the data centre, we have modelled sufficient funding to enable all equipment to be refreshed at the appropriate time. 3.4.23 Change Management and CPD have also been carefully considered, with resources being allocated to ensure that an effective programme is implemented. Prior to contract start this is further supported by Staffordshire Learning Technologies (SLT) services and in addition schools have been allocated funding to enable them to achieve the ICT Mark by 2011. 3.4.24 Mechanisms need to be put in place to monitor impact and value. The ICT contract shall mandate a benchmarking process for products and services to validate that best value is being achieved. A series of soft KPI’s and CPT’s will be put in place for monitoring the performance of the LEP, to validate the success of ongoing ICT Change Management investment. The County council recognises the need to provide resources to deliver effective contract governance, which will be considered more fully in time.

100%

spend on hardware

100% spend on services

Actual 1:1 user device

ratio

User provided devices + specialist equipment

ratio >1.1 Virtual 1:1 device ratio

50

Environmental sustainability 3.4.25 Using Becta’s tool for calculating energy consumption we have tested a number of scenario’s to give some indication of likely power usage depending upon the approach taken to ICT implementation. Scenario 1 – Local School Approach Fair Oak School 3.4.26 The Fair Oak School (which will join with Hagley Park as the sample school) has 1075 pupils sharing ICT equipment. The school currently houses its entire server infrastructure within a local server room onsite. The services the school currently utilise have estimated CO2 emissions of 187.109Kg per annum totalling over £35,500.00 in electricity costs. These costs have been broken down in the table below (all figures are per annum).

School Device Category Total CO2 Emissions CO2 from elec. [0.527]

Total Electricity Cost

Power PC, inc Mac 23,133 Kg £4,389 Laptop, Netbook 18,283 Kg £3,469 Thin Client 2821 Kg £535 Projectors 28,047 Kg £5,512 A/V, inc interactive Whiteboard & Digital Signage 10,672 Kg £2,025

Printers 947Kg £180 Network and Active Equipment 5478 Kg £864

Server 97,728 Kg £18,544 Annual Totals 187,109 Kg £35,518

Scenario 2 – Centralised Data Centre Approach Fair Oak School utilising a Centrally Hosted Data Centre 3.4.27 In this scenario we look at the energy consumption and CO2 emissions associated with a centrally hosted Data Centre. The table below includes the devices that would continue to be located and used by the school on the school premises.

51

School Device Category Total CO2 Emissions CO2 from elec. [0.527]


Power PC, inc Mac 23,133 Kg £4,389 Laptop, Netbook 18,283 Kg £3,469 Thin Client 2821 Kg £535 Projectors 28,047 Kg £5,512 A/V, inc interactive Whiteboard & Digital Signage 10,672 Kg £2,025

Printers 947Kg £180 Network and Active Equipment 5478 Kg £864 Annual Totals 89,381 Kg £16,974

3.4.28 All server and storage equipment would be hosted in a dedicated Data Centre. The table below includes these devices.

DC Device Category Total CO2 Emissions CO2 from elec. [0.527]


Centrally hosted Server, Storage & Active equipment 98,432 Kg £18,678

Annual Totals (1 school) 98,432 Kg £18,678 3.4.29 Although the above example states the split of emissions and costs between the local school and the data centre, there is no demonstrable net saving when compared to the traditional approach for one school (scenario 1). 3.4.30 However, considerable net emissions and cost savings are presented as soon as additional schools utilise the Centralised Data Centre approach due to schools sharing most of the equipment in the DC. For example, core switches, servers, storage and backup devices can all be shared and scaled up to support high quantities of schools. This would dramatically reduce the overall carbon footprint of ‘central ICT equipment’ in a DC when compared to the traditional approach. The tables below compare the differences between the traditional approach (no DC), a DC solution serving 1 school, and a DC solution serving multiple schools.

52

Comparisons of CO2 Emissions and power costs for ICT Solution Architecture Scenario’s 1 SCHOOL: Total CO2 Emissions Total Electricity Cost Traditional Model Total 187,109 Kg £35,518 DC Model – School 89,381 Kg £16,974 DC Model – DC 98,423 Kg £18,678 DC Model Total 187,804 Kg £35,652 2 SCHOOLS: Total CO2 Emissions Total Electricity Cost Traditional Model Total 374,218 Kg £71,036 DC Model – Schools 178,762 Kg £33,948 DC Model – DC 98,423 Kg £18,678 DC Model Total (2 schools) 277,185 Kg £52,626 6 SCHOOLS: Total CO2 Emissions Total Electricity Cost Traditional Model Total 1,122,654 Kg £213,108 DC Model – Schools 536,286 Kg £101,844 DC Model – DC 110,983 Kg £21,810 TOTAL (6 schools) 647,269 Kg £123,654 Savings per Annum 475,385 Kg £89,454 Savings over 10 Yrs 4,753,850 Kg £894,540

Note: the above figures are approximations based on an example ‘school’ being the equivalent to Fair Oak School. 3.4.31 Utilising a Data Centre facility will offer significant energy and cost savings if ALL the schools utilised a centrally hosted data centre. As the above data demonstrates, these savings would be further compounded over the 10 year anticipated period of the ICT managed service. We would wish to capitalise on the fact that co-location companies utilise buildings that are designed for the specific purpose of hosting data. Effective Data Centres and server rooms have to focus on resilience, scalability, energy efficiency, and capacity planning to compete in a competitive market. Conclusion 3.4.32 The process began with Tamworth and Rugeley high schools having been asked to use the

53

Becta school ICT electricity-use comparison tool to establish current energy usage. This is part of an educative process that will ensure that all staff and students take a much greater responsibility for energy consumption/reduction. 3.4.33 The analysis undertaken demonstrates the potential savings to be offered by utilising a Data Centre ICT solution architecture. Bidders will be continually challenged to demonstrate that their solutions will meet, if not exceed, our environmental requirements. Fundamentally, we will expect and encourage bidders to propose Data Centre solutions, or an equivalent which will meet or exceed our expectations. 3.4.34 The ICT specification, and therefore overall ICT procurement, will prioritise low energy solutions wherever possible and the use of energy used from sustainable sources. Further whole lifecycle considerations 3.4.35 Staffordshire County Council must reduce its carbon emissions by some 80% (using 1990 data as a baseline) in order to meet the targets set by Climate Change Act. It has also adopted a 5 year emissions budgeting cycle in line with the act. It will use BSF investment to ensure that the schools rebuilt and/or remodelled using BSF finance invest wisely in appropriate renewable technology and go far beyond energy efficiency to assure our learning communities of the future. 3.4.36 The county council recognises that our buildings create some 51.4% of total polluting emissions of which schools occupy approximately 80% of the footprint from the built estate. It must save 16, 049 tonnes CO2 in the budget period 2008-2013: schools must contribute a saving of 7,624.97 tonnes CO2. The reduction targets will be at the centre of the BSF project/ programme; the county council will ensure that all new build and major remodelling schemes use materials from local renewable sources where possible; that they achieve a very high level of energy efficiency, that energy schemes have a very high proportion of renewable generation and that appointed consortia and their construction companies have a demonstrable track record in low waste and high efficiency construction methods. 3.4.37 In order to achieve these substantial targets, we must consider energy consumption across the full life cycle of ICT systems as demonstrated in the Data Centre scenario discussed earlier. However, this life cycle will also include the manufacture, disposal and transport of equipment, along with the ongoing performance of systems when provided as a managed service. Production and disposal of equipment has a major impact on environmental sustainability. By buying ICT equipment that has been produced to be environmentally friendly, with low power consumption and green materials, the total cost of ownership can be reduced. Utilising equipment that has lower energy consumption can be offset against the energy required to produce, transport and dispose of equipment. We will work with, and challenge bidders in all these areas to demonstrate how they will meet our requirements. 3.4.38 Having a strategy for power management will also help schools and the county council save energy and reduce CO2 emissions, for instance power management applications or scripts can be run to manage the wake-up & shutdown of computers within the school environment. In Staffordshire, we will capitalise on technical developments that have already been established, and have won the county council several awards, which successfully manage the controlled management and shut-down of fixed user devices. This is a robust, operational solution which has demonstrable environmental benefits to the extent that its technical architects have received high acclaim and awards for their achievements. Enterprise printing 3.4.39 We also wish to take advantage of other methods of reducing energy and CO2 emissions, in

54

particular, an enterprise printing model. This type of solution is designed to reduce the number of printing devices within an educational establishment by utilising high productivity multifunctional devices. 3.4.40 By strategically placing multifunction devices throughout the School the cost of producing output is much less than that of a traditional laser printer. The output produced on a multifunctional device is charged on a metered basis each time a piece of output is produced. This charge per print remains constant regardless of toner coverage and it also includes all other parts, consumables and labour to keep the machine working. 3.4.41 By deploying fewer devices and utilising duplex print capability the Enterprise Print Model will result in lower energy and paper usage. This will both reduce costs to the schools as well as reducing the environmental impact of document production.

55

4.0.1 Introduction 4.0.2 The Value for Money (VfM) appraisal detailed within this section has been carried out in accordance with the convention set out in the following guidance: HM Treasury Value for Money Assessment Guidance – November 2006 Quantitative Assessment User Guide – March 2007 Outline Business Case Guidance Note – Partnerships for Schools 4.0.3 This analysis is based on the presumption that DCSF/PfS have made a programme level assumption that for new build schools PFI is the appropriate value for money procurement route. At this OBC stage, the Stage 2 project level assessment has been undertaken for the PFI projects in Phase 1 (sample scheme) and Phase 2 (non-sample scheme). 4.1 Summary of procurement route for wave 4.1.1 The table below sets out the percentage of new build and the choice of procurement for each school. Costs of Preferred Solutions and procurement route

School Phase

OBC control options costs

at funding start date

£’000

% New Build

% Refurb/

remodel/ unaffected

Route Rationale if 70-100% New Build

and not PFI?

Rugeley Learning Campus

Sample 38,177 100% 0% PFI n/a

Belgrave Sample 13,647 46% 54% D&B n/a

QEMS Non Sample 13,664 57% 43% D&B n/a

Rawlett Non Sample 12,932 48% 52% D&B n/a

Wilnecote Non Sample 13,781 48% 52% D&B n/a

Two Rivers Non Sample 1,619 2% 98% D&B n/a

Kettlebrook Non Sample 974 5% 95% D&B n/a

TOTAL 94,794

4.0 Value for money

56

4.1.2 The construction costs included in the above table are £94.794m at outturn prices based upon the planned construction of each school. 4.1.3 All of the preferred options that are completely new build will be delivered through PFI contracts in line with PfS guidance. All schools following a conventional procurement route fall below the 70% new build threshold. 4.2 The PFI projects 4.2.1 The Rugeley Learning Campus which comprises of the two PFI schools has undergone a qualitative and quantitative VFM assessment. The details of this are discussed in the next two sections. Qualitative assessment 4.2.2 The county council has undertaken a qualitative VFM assessment in accordance with HM Treasury and BSF guidance. This assessment requires the three factors of viability, desirability and achievability to be considered for the Rugeley Learning Campus (includes Fair Oak, Hagley Park and PRU). A detailed assessment is included in Appendix 3A. 4.2.3 This assessment has been carried out by the county council and its financial advisors Deloitte and lead technical advisors Turner and Townsend following the standard documentation set out by PfS and supplemented with HM Treasury guidance. 4.2.4 The funding and cost assumptions are included in Section 5.1 and an Options appraisal exercise has been undertaken in Section 3.1 which concludes that PFI is the most effective procurement method for the Rugeley Learning Campus, which will be procured as the Sample PFI School at the same time as the county council procures the LEP. 4.2.5 The VfM qualitative assessment requires the three factors of viability, desirability and achievability to be considered; these are summarised below. Viability 4.2.6 For PFI to be viable the investment objectives and desired outcomes need to be capable of translation into outputs that can form the basis of a contract and sound payment mechanism. 4.2.7 The contract documentation used will be the standard BSF documentation developed by PfS. This documentation has already been successfully used in several schemes that have been closed by the county council's advisers. In addition, there is significant experience in negotiating complex PFI contracts within the Staffordshire’s BSF procurement team, as well as in those corporate teams supporting the project. 4.2.8 Operational flexibility can be balanced with long term contracting. The standard PFI contract will run for 25 years with limited operational flexibility during this period (although the Treasury Document ‘Standardisation of PFI Contracts Version 4’ (SoPC 4) has sought to improve the process for contract changes). The county council is confident that this can be managed as part of the wider BSF investment across the county council. This project is part of a wider investment strategy, of which the Rugeley Learning Campus is the only school in the initial phase to be delivered as a long term PFI contract. 4.2.9 The service the county council will request the private sector to deliver will be clearly defined, specific and relating to discrete areas, which will provide the private sector partner with end-to-end

57

control. The service specification will set out clear boundaries and responsibilities. Desirability 4.2.10 PFI can provide better more effective risk management through appropriate risk allocation and produce incentives to develop innovative approaches to output delivery. Consistent high quality services can be incentivised through performance and payment mechanisms. Risk transfer is priced into the contract. 4.2.11 The county council believes that the private sector is capable of pricing and managing the service to be provided, as demonstrated through other BSF projects, and plans to use the standard BSF performance monitoring and payment mechanism documentation to incentivise the Contractor. 4.2.12 When going to market, flexibility will be maintained during the competitive dialogue procurement process, meaning that the private sector can innovate and develop a technical solution and/or service meeting the county council’s output specification. Achievability 4.2.13 While PFI may allow a more efficient and effective combination of public and private sector skills, determining the rules that will govern the relationship between the two sectors does involve significant transaction costs. Our project team has been constructed in such a way that in house and external expertise can ensure that PFI procurement can be effectively and efficiently managed. 4.2.14 The county council believe there is likely to be sufficient market interest in the scheme, and work is already underway to stimulate further interest. This has included soft market testing (see Appendix 31 for a schedule of meetings) with potential bidders to discuss the general principles and direction of our BSF project and attendance at the national British Council for School Environments (BCSE) exhibition in 2009. In addition there is in-house experience of going out to tender on other PFI projects such as W2R. 4.2.15 The county council have appointed a dedicated Project Team with sufficient capability to manage the procurement process. It is envisaged that this team will evolve into an operational role to appraise the ongoing performance against agreed outputs. The county council's representation on the LEP will also ensure that an important interface between the county council and the LEP is also maintained for this purpose. Conclusion 4.2.16 In conclusion, the government’s default PFI procurement model for schemes with over 70% new build meets the criteria relating to viability, desirability and achievability at the Rugeley Learning Campus. Based on the qualitative assessment undertaken, the county council believe that the PFI solution at Rugeley represents value for money on a qualitative basis. Soft services 4.2.17 This section summarises the conclusions from the Soft FM qualitative assessment that has been conducted in accordance with HM Treasury guidance (published November 2006) and is included in Appendix 3 Annex 2. This assessment has been carried out by the county council, Deloitte and Turner & Townsend. 4.2.18 The county council is satisfied that the benefits from the inclusion of cleaning, caretaking and site management will outweigh the costs and constraints. In particular the standard to which the building will be maintained; the pre-determined standards for the maintenance and operation of the

58

building; mechanisms for holding the provider to account through incentivisation; an effective performance/contract management framework; and the potential for the development of staff transferring to the private sector are seen as key benefits. 4.2.19 Catering will be included in the core bid but may be reviewed during the procurement phase should bidders proposals ultimately not demonstrate value for money or deliverability. Quantitative Assessment 4.2.20 A quantitative assessment has been carried out by the county council which follows the standard documentation set out by PfS and utilises the Quantitative Assessment Model provided by HM Treasury and in accordance with the associated guidance. 4.2.21 The Quantitative Evaluation spreadsheet calculates the Net Present Value (NPV) of the unitary charge for the PFI option and compares it with the NPV of the public sector option to produce a ‘crude VfM’ position. The inputs to the model have been derived from the following sources:

• HM Treasury Inputs – updated where appropriate for latest economic data

• PfS Inputs

• county council Inputs

• Turner & Townsend Inputs

• Deloitte Inputs

4.2.22 The Treasury Green Book (2003) sets out how public sector authorities should carry out an investment appraisal of the PSC and PFI options. At the Outline Business Case stage, the guidance recognises that both the PSC and PFI options have a degree of ‘optimism bias’ which needs to be reflected in the cost assumptions at this stage of the development. The county council has applied the ‘OB Pre %’ provided by PfS. Further details on the calculation of Optimism Bias are provided in the Section below. 4.2.23 The following supporting documents are provided in Appendix 3.

• Appendix 3A VfM Qualitative Assessment • Appendix 3B VfM Model • Appendix 3C VfM Quantitative Inputs • Appendix 3D Optimism Bias Calculation

4.2.23 The PSC has been generated using the PFI costs and adjusting them, where necessary, by assumptions made by the county council and Turner & Townsend to reflect the differing contractual nature of the PSC option. Full details on all the inputs used to generate the PSC for Rugeley Learning Campus are provided in Appendices as detailed above. 4.2.24 A thorough review of inputs to the models has been undertaken by the county council, Deloitte and Turner & Townsend. The county council is satisfied that the assumptions are realistic and provide a sound basis for VfM and affordability modelling.

59

Optimism bias 4.2.25 At the Outline Business Case stage, the guidance recognises that both the PSC and PFI options have a degree of ‘optimism bias’ which needs to be reflected in the cost assumptions at this stage of the development. The assumptions used are outlined below: Pre Final Business Case (FBC) optimism bias 4.2.26 The county council has applied the PfS assumptions on pre-financial close optimism bias as set out in Appendix 3D. Post FBC optimism bias 4.2.27 The county council, Deloitte and Turner & Townsend have considered the assumptions underpinning optimism bias using HM Treasury Guidance, including the Mott McDonald study, and is satisfied that all key project risks have been considered in order to calculate post optimism bias for the project and that these are in line with the project risk assessment. 4.2.28 The county council is satisfied that the scheme meets the ‘standard construction’ definition with reference to optimism bias considerations. Details of the calculation of the pre and post optimism bias figures are included in Appendix 3D. The percentages for pre and post optimism bias are shown in the table below. Optimism Bias

Pre FBC optimism bias Post FBC optimism bias

Initial capital costs 8.0% 9.38%

Lifecycle costs 10.0% 11.2%

Operating costs (non-employment) 10.0% 11.2%

Transaction costs (PSC) 8.0% 9.38%Third party income n/a n/a 4.2.29 Other than the post FBC percentage, the percentages applied are the standard percentages as per the HM Treasury Value for Money guidance. 4.2.30 The post-FBC Optimism Bias of 12.3% is viewed as reasonable and benchmarks against other similar local county council schools projects. Value for Money Qualitative Outputs 4.2.31 Based on these inputs, the HM Treasury Quantitative Assessment tool demonstrates that the PFI element of the Project will deliver VfM over the PSC option. This evidence is based on the output analysis generated by the spreadsheet, summarised in the table below and based on target pre-tax equity returns of 13%, 15% and 18%.

60

Qualitative output results VfM Base Case

13% IRR VfM Base Case

15% IRR VfM Base Case

18% IRR PSC (NPV £m) 82 82 82 PFI (NPV £m) 77 78 79 Indicative Crude PFI VfM 6.24% 5.42% 4.10%

4.2.38 The value for money analysis shows that the sample PFI project delivers value for money. The Crude VfM figure is just above 5% when using a 15% equity return. This is unsurprising given the relatively small capital value of project combined with the level of bank margins in the current market (c250bps construction and operating margin). The county council will look, through the competitive dialogue process to ensure that the bidders bring efficiencies into their submissions and demonstrate to the county council the continued value for money benefits of their proposed solution. 4.2.32 As the Crude PFI VfM value in the Output sheet is greater than zero for all IRR targets, based on the assumptions used, the county council can reasonably conclude that the PFI Option is more likely to provide VfM than conventional procurement. The county council has appraised these results, along with the conclusive results of the qualitative VfM assessment, to come to its overall VfM opinion. Value for Money Sensitivity Testing 4.2.33 On the basis of the output produced by the Treasury’s VfM model, the PFI element of the county council’s BSF project represents VfM. The findings and sensitivity analysis is summarised in this section. 4.2.34 Direct exerts from the VFM model are included in Appendix 3B. 4.2.35 The following sensitivity calculations use a target pre-tax equity return of 15%. 4.2.36 The table below demonstrates that on the financial assumptions used, PFI procurement represents value for money. Even allowing for fluctuations in both lifecycle and operating costs, PFI still represents VFM. 4.2.37 The table below also demonstrates by how much values have to change to be indifferent between PFI and conventional procurement. The changes in the unitary charge or capital costs required for this to occur are significant, which suggests that the likelihood of any uncertainties in the model assumptions changing the result of the VFM is low. Sensitivity testing

Crude PFI VFM (15% IRR)

Base Financial VFM Model 5.42% Lifecycle Cost Sensitivity

61

-5% 5.26% +5% 5.57% Operating Cost (employment and non-employment) Sensitivity

-5% 3.90% +5% 6.89% Combined Lifecycle and Operating Cost Sensitivity

-5% 3.73% +5% 7.04% Indifference Points Capital Cost Indifference Point -9% Unitary Charge Indifference Point 7%

Conclusion to PFI VFM Analysis 4.2.38 The value for money analysis shows that the sample PFI project delivers value for money. The Crude VfM figure is just above 5% when using a 15% equity return. This is unsurprising given the relatively small capital value of project combined with the level of bank margins in the current market (c250bps construction and operating margin). The county council will look, through the competitive dialogue process to ensure that the bidders bring efficiencies into their submissions and demonstrate to the county council the continued value for money benefits of their proposed solution. 4.2.39 The Unitary Charge indifference point is 7% when a 15% equity return is assumed, demonstrating that the Unitary Charge would have to decrease by 7% in order for the County Council to be indifferent between the PFI and PSC options. When the equity return is set at 13% the indifference point is 8%. In relation to the capital expenditure sensitivity, capital expenditure under the PSC would have to decrease by 9% assuming a 15% equity return and 10% assuming a 13% equity return to reach a point of indifference, both above the 5% hurdle. 4.2.40 Given that the underlying rationale for the LEP model is to secure long term contracts and that PfS promulgates the LEP as the value for money procurement route for BSF, the benefits of the LEP will be further seen in future waves/phases of the county council’s BSF programme. 4.2.41 The dialogue process will be used to ensure the long term VfM benefits of the LEP are delivered through to the non sample phases of the project. For example, the LEP route will generate indirect VfM benefits for the delivery of the full BSF programme, through the Key Performance Indicators that the LEP has to deliver against and the requirement for "continuous improvement". However, given that the programme is in its early stages, these benefits have been difficult to quantify. It is envisaged that these ‘indirect VfM’ benefits will include:

• Guaranteed minimum savings

62

• Efficiencies in the LEP's supply chain

• Shorter procurement timescales These benefits have not been included in the VfM analysis to date. 4.2.42 In summary, both the quantitative and qualitative analysis suggests that the sample PFI project will deliver value for money. 4.3 The conventional D&B projects 4.3.1 The county council note that for the conventional D&B contract it is not necessary to follow HM Treasury guidance required for PFI projects. 4.3.2 Estimated costs for schools for which conventional D&B contracts are to be used have been prepared by Turner & Townsend led by the county council. These estimates are for the preferred options outlined elsewhere in this OBC and have been used to confirm that an affordable solution for these schools is technically feasible. The cost estimates have been prepared using benchmarking data available to the county council on recent school construction projects, and have been adjusted using projected indices to give appropriate prices for the anticipated construction start dates. 4.3.3 For the sample D&B project, Belgrave School, the competitive procurement process is the vehicle for delivering VfM to the county council. The price submitted by the bidders will be evaluated against benchmarks provided by Turner & Townsend. The competitive process will be reviewed at FBC stage, supplemented by benchmarking of the final price by the county council, as appropriate. 4.4 The ICT project 4.4.1 The county council note that the HM Treasury guidance on VfM is not applicable to ICT contracts in BSF. The county council has set out in Appendix 26 the scope of the service and the affordability of the service in Section 5.3. 4.4.2 The county council is confident it will be able to obtain value for money from the market. 4.4.3 Throughout the procurement process the county council in conjunction with its Advisors will ensure that the cost of solutions offered by bidders are ‘on market’ and confirm this as part of the FBC. 4.4.4 In supporting the need to achieve Value for Money (VfM), we will aim for the ultimate balance between price and quality of deliverables, and achievement of the objectives sought. VfM does not automatically equate to the cheapest bidder and similarly, the bidder offering best VfM is not always the cheapest. 4.4.5 We will continually appraise the level of VfM throughout the competitive dialogue process. This will be openly presented to bidders, challenging them on how they believe their solutions meet the output specification, are affordable, are deliverable, are sustainable, will deliver step change and the potential to transform, and will therefore meet our overall requirements. 4.4.6 As detailed later in section 6.1 (Readiness to Deliver), we have established a comprehensive team to represent the ICT work stream throughout the procurement process. These resources, representing all key stakeholders, and supported by external ICT advisers, have the capacity and capability to undertake all procurement activities with the main objective of securing an ICT partner

63

who will provide best value. In support of all procurement activities, a comprehensive evaluation process will formally assess bidders in key areas, particularly in terms of best value.

64

Estimated PFI charges 5.1.2 The estimated unitary charge for the PFI school has been calculated using Deloitte’s shadow unitary charge bid model which is included in Appendix 5. This is based on an estimated PFI school capital expenditure of £38.177m (price base as at construction mid-point) which is derived from the preferred solutions provided by Turner & Townsend. A summary of the headline Shadow bid model outputs is shown in the table below. The data is sourced from the Shadow Bid Model ‘Summary’ worksheet. Unitary Charge

Project Estimated Financial Close date

Estimated Service start date

Estimated Contract end date

NPV of Unitary Charge

£m

Total Unitary Charge (Nominal)

£m

Real Annual UC (April 2009) £m

First phase PFI

(Rugeley Learning Campus)

01/11/11 01/05/13 30/04/38 66.468 173.201 5.751

5.1.3 A copy of the main schedules of the model are included in Appendix 5 and soft copies are available. The table below, summarises the basis for the main assumptions which drive the Unitary Charge. The assumptions and data sources are set out in more detail in Appendix 5 Annex 2 - Funding Terms and Appendix 5 Annex 3 - PFI Cost Assumptions. A prudent approach has been taken to cost and funding assumptions to reflect the higher values seen from recent market experience of the advisors. Summary of main assumptions driving unitary charge

Assumption Comments/Source Capital Cost £38.177m Turner & Townsend Lifecycle (Total Nominal) £9.977m Turner & Townsend Lifecycle (Annual Real) £264k Turner & Townsend

(2009/10 price base) FM (Annual Real) £836k Turner & Townsend

(2009/10 price base) Insurance (Construction) £320k Deloitte

(2009/10 price base)

5.0 Affordability

65

Insurance (Operation – Annual Real)

£85k Deloitte (2009/10 price base)

Bid Costs £1.25m Deloitte/PfS Guidance SPV Management Cost (Operation – Annual Real)

£180k Deloitte (2009/10 price base)

Swap Rate 4.3% +0.5% = 4.8% Deloitte - 50bps buffer included

Construction Margin 250bps Deloitte Operational Margin 250bps Deloitte Blended Return (nominal pre tax)

14.10% Deloitte - From Shadow Bid Model

Blended Return (real pre tax)

11.41% Deloitte - From Shadow Bid Model

PFI credits 5.1.4 The affordability analysis has been undertaken based on the PfS Funding Allocation Model estimated PFI capital of £36.930m. A multiplier of 1.65 is applied to the PFI schools capital (with the exception of abnormals which have no lifecycle consequence, to which a multiplier of 1.25 is applied), this provides for a PFI credit of £62.322m, including carbon reduction funding. Estimated PFI credits and affordability model 5.1.5 A summary of the PFI credits including carbon funding is shown in the table below. PFI credits

FAM funding

(start of construction)

£m Multiplier

PFI Credits (start of construction)

£m PFI Annuity

Grant Interest Rate

Scaling Factor

Rugeley Learning Campus 36.930 1.65 62.322 5.4% 1.0

Total 36.930 62.322 [1.0]

5.1.8 The capital expenditure values underlying the PFI credits envisaged are based on the standard PfS Funding Allocation Model (FAM) adjusted for the additional abnormals that PfS have agreed to fund on the schemes, but which attract a lower multiplier of 1.25. These values have been ‘uplifted’ for inflation to the start of construction using the DTI Pubsec indices incorporated in the FAM.

66

5.1.9 The PFI Annuity Grant profile of disbursement used in the affordability calculations has been validated by reference to the Department for Communities and Local Government guidance on PFI funding. A copy of the affordability model has been included in Appendix 7. The applicable local county council interest rate of 5.4% has been assumed within the PFI credit calculations. Carbon neutral funding 5.1.10 The carbon funding of £1,033,373 has been included in the FAM submitted to, and agreed by, PfS. The funding has been calculated in accordance with the guidance and is supported by the Carbon Calculators in Appendix 1D. The carbon neutral has been assumed to attract the same PFI credit multiplier as the base costs and is included in the PFI credit calculations. School contributions 5.1.11 The county council will expect PFI Schools to make a contribution towards the cost of hard and soft FM services. 5.1.12 The table below sets out the annual contribution from the School for the PFI project. Appendix 9E contains letters from the school subject to PFI setting out indicative in principle agreement to meet the required schools contribution. Annual contribution from the School

School

FM Contribution Devolved

Formula Capital (DFC) Funding

Central Dedicated

Schools Grant (DSG)

Comment

Rugeley Learning Campus 532,699 109,940 112,254

Per annum stated at 2009/10 price base

Total PFI Schools Contribution

532,699 109,940 112,254

Total PFI Schools Contribution per pupil (£/pupil per annum)

250 52 53 Based on 2,131 pupils

Overall affordability and central contribution 5.1.13 In addition to the School contribution the county council is committed to making an additional contribution on the PFI project in order to meet the overall affordability position. The table below sets out the annual contribution from the county council for the PFI project. As part of the County Council’s mitigation strategy to address the indicative affordability gap, the County Council has submitted a paper to PfS requesting an increase to the PFI multiplier. The paper requests a review of the multiplier rate to address the impact of increased funding costs within the PFI market which cause an increase in the unitary charge and also to reflect the effects of the decrease in the Treasury Discount Rate when the multiplier was original set.

67

Annual contribution from the county council

School Additional County Council Contribution Comment

Rugeley Learning Campus

755,712 Per annum stated at 2009/10 price base. First contribution required 2013/14.

Total PFI County Council Contribution

755,712

Total PFI Schools Contribution per pupil (£/pupil per annum)

355 Based on 2,131 pupils

5.1.14 No capital contribution is expected to be made to the PFI scheme at this stage. PFI Sensitivity Analysis 5.1.15 The county council has run a suite of sensitivities on Unitary Charge and affordability assumptions that are detailed below. Sensitivities

Annual Contribution required by county council to meet Affordability Position (stated at 2009/10 price base)

Base Case 755,712 Interest Rates on Swap +0.50% 897,420 Capital expenditure +£500k 793,233 Deposit / Sinking Fund Interest Rate - 0.5% (Note sinking fund assumes interest rate of 3.5% on positive and negative balances)

760,583

Deposit / Sinking Fund Interest Rate + 0.5% 750,900 5.1 The PFI projects 5.1.1 The table below outlines the overall cost, funding and resources for the PFI School (Rugeley Learning Campus) within this wave. The underlying costs and assumptions are detailed throughout

68

Section 5.1. PFI schools cost, funding and resources

(Nominal £) Total costs involved in meeting the output specification for design, build, finance and operating services i.e. Unitary Charge. 173,201,338

Less - Revenue Support Grant arising from PFI Credits per FAM (£59.808m) (114,822,520)

Less - Interest received by the county council on surplus cash balances (1,290,130)

Affordability position before Revenue Contribution 57,088,684 Met by: Contribution from Existing Revenue Budgets (FM Contribution and DFC) 29,215,561

Additional County Council Contribution 27,873,123 Anticipated Affordability gap 0 The approval of the county council contribution of £28.699m or £xm per annum was obtained on DATE and is attached at Appendix 9. This has been factored into the county council’s Medium Term Financial Plan. 5.2 The conventionally procured projects Design and Build (D&B) 5.2.1 The table below outlines the overall cost, funding and resources for the D&B Schools within this wave. The underlying costs and assumptions are detailed throughout Section 5.2. D&B schools [Current base case 3.5% FM inflation/Lowest FM £/m2] (Nominal £) Capital Total Construction Cost (including contingency) 56,057,000 Capital Funding from FAM 44,647,160 Amount Prudentially Borrowed 11,409,840 Capital Gap 0

69

Revenue Costs: Lifecycle 20,815,012 FM 56,348,341 Prudential Borrowing Repayment 14,441,176 Total Costs 91,604,530 Revenue Resources: Contribution from Existing Revenue Budgets (FM Contribution and DFC) 61,075,979

Additional County Council Contribution 29,436,585 Interest on surplus balances 1,091,965 Total Resources 91,604,530 Anticipated Affordability gap 0 The table above reflects the affordability position based on a 25 year operational period. However, the gap on capital funding is provided through prudential borrowing for which the current county council policy is a 60 year term. At the end of the 25 years the county council will still have a liability to pay 35 years of prudential borrowing amounting to an annuity payment of £0.577m per annum. D&B construction cost estimates 5.2.2 The conventional capital expenditure and costings assumed in the affordability model are shown in the table below for the conventionally procured schools. Capital expenditure for D&B schools

School CONSTRUCTION START DATE

Total construction

cost (including

abnormals) in £m

Council FAM funding - including

agreed abnormal funding in £m

Funding (gap) /

surplus in £m

Belgrave 01/11/11 13.647 11.418 (2.229)

Kettlebrook 01/07/13 0.414 0.273 (0.141)

QEMS 01/11/12 13.664 10.936 (2.728)

Rawlett 01/11/12 12.932 10.357 (2.575)

70

School CONSTRUCTION START DATE

Total construction

cost (including

abnormals) in £m

Council FAM funding - including

agreed abnormal funding in £m

Funding (gap) /

surplus in £m

Two Rivers 01/07/13 1.619 1.095 (0.524)

Wilnecote 01/11/12 13.781 10.567 (3.214)

TOTAL 56.057 44.647 (11.410)

5.2.3 The capital figures above are at outturn prices (based at the midpoint of construction). 5.2.4 Initial Capital expenditure is based on the Turner & Townsend’s estimates for the construction of the preferred option at the midpoint of construction for the school. 5.2.5 Based on the above cost estimates and level of capital funding received there is a capital gap of £11.4m. The County council plans to meet this capital gap on the D&B schools through prudential borrowing repaid over a 60 year period in accordance with the county concil’s MRP policy. The table below summarises the key prudential borrowing repayment details. Prudential borrowing repayment

Amount Assumed

PWLB Interest rate

Repayment term

Annual Repayment

Prudential Borrowing £11.410m 4.75% 01/04/13 –

31/03/38 £578k

5.2.6 The above amount has been factored into the overall D&B affordability position above. 5.2.7 Cabinet approval for the £11.4m of prudential borrowing was obtained on DATE and is attached at Appendix 9. The above has been factored into the county council’s Medium Term Financial plan. Lifecycle/FM costs 5.2.8 It is essential at this stage that lifecycle and FM services will be delivered through the LEP. Lifecycle and FM costs contained in the ‘Lifecycle and FM estimates’ table below are based on estimates provided by Turner & Townsend. Turner & Townsend provided a £/m2 estimate for an agreed output specification to meet minimum PfS standards for a typical secondary school. This figure has been compared to provisions made in previous Public Sector Comparators calculations, PfS guidance and information from other PFI/BSF schemes. 5.2.9 At this stage governors have agreed to hand over their DFC as a contribution towards a lifecycle fund. In relation to all other hard and soft FM services, governing bodies have at this stage

71

agreed to contribute a sum equivalent to current spending on these activities. 5.2.10 Owing to the school reorganisation issues at Tamworth and the impact of significant reduced funding at school level, it has not been possible to develop a robust methodology to calculate an appropriate school contribution. 5.2.11 During the period up to financial close, the authority will work closely with schools to develop an appropriate methodology for contributions to be made. 5.2.12 The ‘Lifecycle and FM estimates’ identifies the estimated affordability gap in relation to lifecycle and FM services after taking account of agreed school contribution. This will be made by the local authority as agreed by Cabinet on [Date] and attached as Appendix 9. Lifecycle and FM estimates

School Estimated annual

Lifecycle Costs

£

Estimated annual FM

Costs £

TOTAL COSTS

£

School Contributions

(including FM, DSG and

DFC) £

Difference £

£/m2 Cost estimate 14.5 33.00 47.50

Annual Inflation 2.5% 3.5% 2.5%

TOTAL 562,426 1,280,004 1,842,430 1,578,126 (264,304) 5.2.13 The county council believe that this level of expenditure is adequate to maintain the schools to a consistent high standard but this exceeds the level of expenditure currently being allocated to school maintenance on a per school basis. 5.2.14 The county council has taken a policy decision that all Design & Build schools will be maintained to a lower standard than the PFI School however the specification is still sufficient to meet PfS minimum standards for maintenance. 5.2.15 It is expected that the LEP will offer a managed FM service to D&B schools and the county council will include an FM output specification and contract documentation in the procurement documentation. The county council will liaise with PfS to ensure the managed FM service is structured in a way that it meets the requirements of BSFi in relation to the risks retained by the LEP. 5.2.16 The figures above represent the annual costs of these estimates at a 2009/10 price base, the totals of which are highlighted in the D&B affordability models. The affordability model assumes that Lifecycle costs are inflated at 2.5% per annum, FM costs at 3.5% per annum and School contributions at 2.5%. 5.2.17 The county council is satisfied that the estimates outlined above for construction costs, lifecycle and FM are reasonable following advice from Turner & Townsend.

72

D&B sensitivity analysis 5.2.18 The county council has run three sensitivities on the D&B cost and affordability assumptions. These are detailed below. D&B sensitivities

Affordability Gap per annum 2009/10 prices

Base Case 798,102 FM Inflation at 2.5% 582,241 Capex +5% 898,734 D&B Overall affordability and Central contribution 5.2.19 The net effect of the affordability analysis is a shortfall in resource over the whole life of the project. It has been assumed that the capital funding gap of £11.410m will be met by prudential borrowing with the ongoing revenue shortfall to be met via a contribution from the county council on the D&B schools project in order to meet the overall affordability position. The table below sets out the annual contribution from the County Council for the D&B schools. Annual contribution from county council

School Additional county council contribution Comment

D&B 798,102

Per annum stated at 2009/10 price base. First contribution required 2013/14.

Total D&B County Council Contribution 798,102

Total D&B Schools Contribution per pupil (£/pupil per annum)

203 Based on 3,939 pupils

5.2.20 No capital contribution is expected to be made to the D&B schools at this stage. 5.3 ICT projects Sources of funding and revenue contributions 5.3.1 In order to provide the services required, a long term investment plan is required. Although the standard capital funding is not insubstantial, further investment is necessary in order to provide a

73

fully sustainable ICT service which also delivers all the required enhancements as stated in the ICT Output Specification. Therefore, additional funding will be provided in terms of schools revenue contributions. 5.3.2 In a rolling programme of meetings from July to December 2009 we have met with all schools to discuss current levels of ICT expenditure and identify future costs. Each school has completed the Becta Investment Planner, supported by county council officers and consultants. Schools have the necessary information to make appropriate comparisons. We have identified the intended scope of the managed service and this has been discussed collectively and individually. 5.3.3 Through our detailed cost modelling and school engagement activities, we have derived a school revenue contribution figure of £180 per pupil per annum which underpins the sustainable service model of 5 years which we are proposing. Refresh 5.3.4 We believe that a refresh model is a fundamental requirement in order to fully achieve our objectives of educational transformation and step change and have developed our cost modelling accordingly. Funding characteristics and assumptions 5.3.5 A detailed cost model has been produced to demonstrate solution affordability for the duration of the managed service and to verify that there are no overhanging refresh costs at the end which may present sustainability risks. The cost model used is sophisticated and has a number of important features:

• Indexation is applied month by month rather than yearly. • The model contains multiple start dates for different types of activity, e.g. interim and full

managed service, which are different from build start dates. • The model has been run for the proposed 5 year duration of the Managed Service contract. • Each school is modelled independently so can take in to account requirements arising

through; o School specialism - an allowance of £25 per pupil for ICT has been provided for; o Local choice - an allowance of £100 per pupil has been made for developed local

choice decisions; o SEN – a provision of £5000 per SEN pupil has been provided; o Other factors, e.g. economies that arise through a school being based on a campus.

5.3.6 The ICT cost model is robust and will be maintained as the project progresses. A copy of the cost model, plus a supporting document stating detailed cost assumptions, is provided in Appendix 34. 5.3.7 The PfS financial planning model has been populated, a summary of which is included on the next page. There are a number of differences between the PfS model and our model, as follows:

• Indexation is applied as a flat rate and only annually, thus overstating costs; • Only one start date for services is provided, thus costs are incurred earlier than would

actually be the case. 5.3.8 The PfS model therefore indicates that a small deficit would occur. In comparison our model demonstrates the costs are in balance. Our analysis of the difference has identified how this has arisen. The PfS model operates at a higher level, whereas our model captures more detail and models costs at a much lower level. Each of the differences between the models has been

74

accounted for and isolated, therefore robustly demonstrating the affordability of the solution for Staffordshire. Building Schools for the Future - ICT investment profileLA

Scenario`

Contract duration (Years) 10.00

Total pupil places 6,092

ICT Funding and Expenditure

Funding£000's TOTAL 5 Year Total 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016BSF CAPEX Allocation 8,833.4 8,833.4 0.0 8,833.4 0.0 0.0 0.0BSF OPEX Allocation 12,184.0 2,893.7 39.0 173.9 871.6 893.4 915.8Total ICT funding 21,017.4 11,727.1 39.0 9,007.3 871.6 893.4 915.8ExpenditureOne-off Investment (CAPEX) (7,494.4) (7,494.4) (713.0) (6,781.4) 0.0 0.0 0.0One-off Refresh costs (CAPEX) (1,542.0) (1,542.0) 0.0 (1,542.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0Required revenue funding (OPEX) (9,978.3) (2,893.7) (39.0) (173.9) (871.6) (893.4) (915.8)Ongoing Refresh costs (OPEX) (6,108.0) (225.2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (225.2)Total ICT Expenditure (25,122.7) (12,155.3) (752.0) (8,497.3) (871.6) (893.4) (1,140.9)

NET Funding Surplus/(Deficit) (4,105.3) (428.2) (713.0) 510.0 0.0 0.0 (225.2)

BSF ICT Affordability

£000's BSF Allocation This scenario Difference BSF AllocationThis scenario DifferenceICT Capex 8,833.40 9,036.41 -203.01 1,450.00 1,483.32 -33.32ICT Opex (average annual cost) 1,218.40 782.77 435.63 200.00 128.49 71.51

Staffordshire County Council

OBC BC Financial Planning

First 5 years

TOTAL (£000's) PER PUPIL (£'s)

5.3.9 A review of the schools revenue contribution using the PfS model demonstrates that the contribution per school is approx £180 per pupil and this is consistent for each of the mainstream schools. The only significant variations from this are for PRU and SEN facilities, which is to be expected. 5.4 LEA investment in the LEP 5.4.1 The county council is planning to procure a standard LEP. The intention is to invest 10% in the LEP working capital and risk equity up to £500k. This investment was approved by the Cabinet on DATE. The actual amount invested will be determined by the bidders proposals. The LEP will be funded by county council contribution. 5.4.2 The county council will invest directly into the PFI scheme. The exact amount is £487,365 (this represents the blended equity investment in the PFI scheme and a summary is shown below. Investment in LEP

Estimated Injection (£’000s) Timing of Injection

LEP Investment – Ordinary Shares £1 01/11/11

75

LEP Investment – Working Capital up to £500 01/11/11 PFI SPV Investment – Equity via LEP £1 01/11/11 PFI SPV Investment – Sub Debt via LEP £486 01/11/11 5.5 Affordability – concluding summary 5.5.1 The Section 151 Officer has signed off this project. See Appendix 9 for section 151 commitment letter. The table below identifies sources of capital and revenue budget. The table below identifies sensitivities on the affordability gap. Sources of capital and revenue budget (To be finalised by formal submission to PfS)

Sources Capital Budget

Revenue Budget SOURCE / EVIDENCE OF

COMMITMENT County council Capital Budget S151 letter / budget / Cabinet

approval School DFC Budgets GB letter (annual contribution) School Revenue Budgets GB letter (annual contribution)

PFI Credits Affordability Model/ PfS approval of OBC

Interest Received on PFI Sinking Fund Affordability Model/S151 letter

Interest Received on D&B Sinking Fund Affordability Model/S151 letter

Capital Contribution Cabinet approval Uses D&B FM Expenditure Costings from technical adviser D&B Lifecycle Expenditure Costings from technical adviser

PFI Unitary Charge Shadow pricing model Capital Contribution to D&B Cabinet approval

Contingency on PFI See comment below Difference Between Source & Use 0

76

5.6 Accounting treatment 5.6.1 The county council has accounted for the PFI projects in its financial statements in accordance with statutory guidance, currently Appendix E of the 2009 SORP. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as they are applied in the 2009 SORP introduces a control-based assessment of balance sheet treatment. The county council has taken an early view on the likely treatment, and confirms that the project is a service concession within the meaning of IFRIC12 such that the provisions of IFRIC 12 have been considered. The indicative position is that the project is both a service concession for the provision of services related to infrastructure and the assets will likely be controlled within the meaning of IFRIC12. Therefore early indications suggest that the assets will be recognised on the county council’s balance sheet. 5.6.2 The county council has also undertaken an initial view on the likely National Accounts balance sheet treatment used for departmental budgetary purposes. This National Accounts determination is based on standards laid out in part IV of the ESA95 Manual of Government Deficit and Debt. The analysis follows the HM Treasury technical paper on how to apply these standards 5.6.3 On the basis of the above indicative assessment at this early stage, the project is likely to transfer construction and availability risk but not demand risk. The Guidance only requires construction risk and one other to be transferred to the contractor to conclude that the asset is off balance under ESA 95. Although a definitive conclusion on the accounting treatment will not be possible until the project's contractual features are finalised, early indications suggest that assets should not be recorded in relation to the project for National Accounts purposes. The detailed review of IFRIC 12 and ESA 95 is in Appendix 8. 5.6.4 The accounting treatment will be reviewed in detail as part of the Final Business Case, and the final opinion, which will include details of the accounting entries, will be confirmed with the county council's external auditors.

77

6.1 Project management 6.1.1 Staffordshire County Council is a large Shire county with a breadth of knowledge managing large complex, multi-faceted, change projects – projects with specified objective need requiring substantial capital investment and risk management skills, knowledge and competence. 6.1.2 Our recent accolades include: the first of its completed Primary Capital projects, namely the replacement primary school at Huntington, a 2FE school with Nursery and Community Learning Partnership; the delivery of the Torc Campus in Tamworth, in many ways the catalyst for change in secondary education before BSF investment; the relocation of the Meadows Special School onto the Leek High School Campus, and; the Primary Place reorganisation in Rugeley. Capital investment in excess of £300m has been managed into benefiting those in school within Staffordshire over the last five years. 6.1.3 The county council has demonstrated very clearly it’s capability in project management, programme and commercial management and continues to build on its reputation. 6.1.4 The county council delivered two schools under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in stages between 1999 and 2001. This enabled Sir Graham Balfour High School (4180) to be rebuilt and Cooper Perry Primary School (2399) to be refurbished and extended. During 2009 the council undertook benchmarking of this contract and concluded VfM was maintained. The county council also has a number of other non-schools PFI contracts including the Waste to Recycle project. Upon completion, the Rugeley Learning Campus will have benefited from lessons learned and the PFI expertise the county council has. 6.1.5 The council and all schools are keen to demonstrate their readiness, ability and capacity to deliver BSF in Staffordshire. Effective programme management will be key to delivering the programme in Staffordshire the specified time frame and to within the agreed budget. We have, therefore, introduced robust project and programme management arrangements detailed below. 6.1.6 The participation of Larry Priest acting as our Client Design Advisor and as our Design Champion for the programme. Larry has immersed himself in the need to ensure creative, flexible schools for the future, is embedded within the Estates work-stream and participates at all levels with our learners to promote awareness of what good design can do. Larry reports directly to Clare Collins the Estates workstream leader. 6.1.7 Staffordshire’s BSF is a corporate county council project; it effects and involves all Directorates and their respective, private, voluntary and public-agency partners. The project Owner is Peter Traves, the Director of Children’s Services. The county council has elected to deliver BSF through the Asset Management and Planning (AMP), a division of the Children, Young People and Families, given the expert client knowledge the division has to procure schools given specified learning needs, improvement and school based priorities. 6.1.8 The governance structure for our BSF project is contained within Appendix 23. 6.1.9 The Project Board is chaired by the Deputy County Council Leader Ian Parry, the Lead Cabinet Member for Children and Young People. Board is attended by the Corporate Management Team and Cabinet Member for Schools Cllr. Veronica Downes. The Project Owner, the Director of Children’s Services and the Deputy Corporate Director also attend. Project Board Membership and Terms of Reference can be found in Appendix 24.

6.0 Readiness to deliver

78

6.1.10 The BSF Project Team (formerly the Production Meeting) is chaired by Yvette Dawson, BSF Commercial Officer, which meets bi-weekly. Membership of the team spreads across the Authority and includes Primary Capital (PCP) Finance, Legal, Procurement, HR, Estates/Technical, ICT, PE Sport and Culture, Communities, Communication and Consultation and Integrated Services, Education in addition to colleagues from schools, membership of the team is shown in Appendix 23. Its focus is on the interoperability of the BSF contracts and the impact and effect the council must consider in order for it to change sufficiently to accommodate a LEP and allow education transformation to be implemented physically through building construction, ICT and FM. 6.1.11 Project Assurance is provided by the Head of Internal Audit, Lisa Andrews and the Corporate Programme Manager Andrew George. 6.1.12 A Stakeholder Working Group within each Wave 6a locality (Implementation Groups), which comprises of heads, governors, district authority senior staff and Director and offers scrutiny and advice to the programme team. Colleagues from LSC, Landau Forte (the Academy Sponsor) and South Staffordshire College also attend. A full list of membership and terms of reference can be found in Appendix 25. 6.1.13 Regeneration Opportunities are explored through the BSF District Regeneration Working Groups, chaired by the Deputy Leader Ian Parry, with further member representation from Cllr. Ben Adams. Groups have been formed and tasked with identifying opportunities in Rugeley and Tamworth Districts’ with colleagues, senior officers, Directors and Leaders from each district authority. 6.1.14 Support from the county council’s wider service areas, including Direct Services, Planning, Legal, Procurement, Human Resources, ICT and Finance all of whom either contribute to or lead respective work streams. 6.1.15 A number of workstreams have diversified to deliver specific elements of the OBC. As the programme progresses the terms of reference for each of these will be reviewed to ensure that work streams continue to make the required contribution. 6.1.16 A dedicated, efficient Core Team has been appointed to oversee BSF within Asset Management and Planning under the management of the Project Director, John Giacomelli, supported by Phil Cresswell, the BSF Project Manager, and Mike Osborne-Town, the Transformational Learning Manager. 6.1.17 The team are based in Stafford and operate in a flexible modern way through a matrix organisation being co-located as and when necessary with the consultants that we have supported to ensure our BSF ambitions are delivered. The Core Team work very closely with the 8 workstream leaders and numerous specialists throughout the council to ensure the deliverables are being monitored and outputs maintained. The team meets once a week to discuss all matters pertaining to maintaining their plan for BSF: Resources, finance, consultant interfaces, PfS relationships and managing information to and from schools. 6.1.18 Brief pen pictures of the core team are given below. Detailed Curricula Vitae are attached in Appendix 22. John Giacomelli – BSF Project Director John has managed BSF for Staffordshire long before the county council was accepted as a Wave 6a county council by PfS. Instrumental in the appointment of Cocentra and all subsequent key recruitment and procurement, John has worked for Staffordshire for seven years and set up Asset

79

Management and Planning Division to safeguard and assure all capital investment in education the county council made. His background as a school and education sector architect has enabled him to work in many successful positions for both the public and private sector, experience benefitting all who work on Staffordshire’s BSF. Phil Cresswell – BSF and Academy Project Manager Phil has over ten years project management experience in both private and public sectors, largely working in education capital, and has delivered numerous high risk, high value projects for universities, colleges and most recently for Staffordshire County Council. He has also worked in national industry. Phil managed the Capital Team within the Division prior to starting in the role and oversaw Divisional AMP, Finance, PFI and Capital Planning. Phil has managed the BSF Core Team and Academy development programmes since January 2009. In December 2009, Phil recommended the appointment of selected panel member to the Academy Design User Group following competitive dialogue following the National Framework Competition requirements. Instrumental in the redevelopment of the Torc Campus and Redbrook Hayes Exemplar Primary, Phil also designed and oversaw the school visioning work procurement strategy for Staffordshire’s first exemplar Primary Capital Project, Huntington Primary School. Mike Osborne-Town – Transformational Learning Manager Mike was a successful secondary school Headteacher for 17 years before joining the BSF team as Transformational Learning Manager in September 2009. He was chair of the North Birmingham Headteachers’ Excellence in Cities programme and chair of the county Secondary Headteachers’ Forum for two years and delivered sessions at the annual NCSL conference as well as at SSAT and county events. Since joining the BSF team Mike has engaged the BSF schools in the process through weekly meetings to develop a transformational learning and change management programme. He is also leading the School Improvement Division team of subject officers to develop transformational learning county wide. One manifestation of this was the transformational learning conference, involving both national and county trainers and almost 800 teachers in February 2010. Yvette Dawson – Commercial Officer Yvette has over ten years experience in quantity surveying and commercial management and has worked for both the public and private sectors on a diverse range of projects - health, research and education, including laboratories, universities, secondary schools and FE colleges. Her prior experience in managing challenging projects with particularly tight time and budgetary constraints means that she is well placed to manage the commercial activities of our BSF programme, including risk, procurement, legal and financial, whilst supporting all other workstreams in their contributions to the programme. Anita Zala – BSF Project Accountant Anita is a qualified CIPFA accountant. Anita has provided financial advice on the BSF project since June 2009. Prior to her appointment she has worked for Deloitte, PwC and Grant Thornton in various financial roles. She has substantial public sector experience but has also worked in the private sector. She has some experience of PFI projects. Steven Ford – BSF Legal Officer Steven has over ten years experience as a commercial property solicitor. Before joining the BSF Team he dealt with complex development schemes at a national law firm. Previously Steven has worked at one of the leading law firms specialising in acting for the public and not for profit sectors. He has extensive experience of dealing with a broad range of high value, complicated and high

80

profile transactions and managing multi-disciplinary teams in order to complete contracts and enable projects. Michelle Corbett – BSF Project Support Manager Michelle manages the interface and organisation of our consultants and work-streams; she manages the objectives set by the Core Team. Michelle plays a key support role in the development of the BSF programme. Her primary task is ensuring the complex estates components are developed sequentially. Prior to working for Staffordshire County Council’s BSF team, Michelle worked for a private sector BSF Consortia in a business development role. Michelle Evans – BSF Communications and Marketing Officer Michelle has over five years of experience of marketing and communications working in the public and private sector and operating as a consultant. With a proven background in delivering marketing campaigns for investment and change driven projects in the education sector, Michelle has previously worked for a number of midlands based universities on successful media and communication commissions. Derrick Golland – BSF ICT Interim Lead Officer Derrick has over 20 years experience as a local authority adviser and is currently Senior Adviser and e-Learning Manager in the School Improvement Division. He has also worked for WMnet, the Regional Broadband Consortium. He has been a key member of both the Educational Transformation workstream and the ICT Workstream which he leads. The team also has two vacant positions, that will be recruited to in Spring 2010 to maintain resource levels sufficient for procurement, these are: BSF Team Organiser – Primarily involved in supporting the team, diary management, event co-ordination and administration. BSF Competitive Dialogue Officer – This position will co-ordinate and support key officers and senior team members to ensure the competitive dialogue procurement process runs to plan. We will be advertising for this post in spring 2010. 6.1.19 The BSF Core Team all have defined interface duties with the eight workstream leaders and also with PfS colleagues to ensure consistency and safeguard deliverables. Our work streams are:

• Commercial and Facilities Managed, led by Yvette Dawson, BSF Commercial Officer; • ICT, led by Derrick Golland, School Improvement Division lead ICT Officer; • Estates and School Organisation, led by Clare Collins, Capital and Development Manager

and Schools Estate Client, supported by Michelle Corbett from the Core Team. • Primary Capital Programme, led by Clare Collins; • Communication and Consultation led by Clare Collins and supported by Michelle Evans from

the Core Team; • Communities and Integrated Services, led by Jim Brady, Assistant Director, Children and

Lifelong Learning Directorate; • Sports and Culture, led by Mark Thornewill, Director of Sports Across Staffordshire and

Stoke-on Trent, reporting to Janene Cox, Assistant Director, Communities Directorate; • Education Transformation, led by Mike Osborne-Town, BSF Transformational Learning

Manager.

81

6.1.20 Additionally, working with our schools, work streams and reporting to the BSF Core Team, our external advisors are:

• Education -- Cocentra (lead contact = Steve Davies, Kenilworth) • Legal Advice – Eversheds (lead contact = Adrian Turner, Nottingham) • Financial – Deloitte (lead contact = Mark Simpson, Birmingham) • Technical – Turner and Townsend (lead contact = Raj Sudan, Birmingham)

Including: • FM – Turner and Townsend • Architects – Glancy Nicholls, Birmingham • CDA – Bryant, Priest Newman, Architects (lead contact = Larry Priest) • ICT – Turner and Townsend, (lead contact = Tim Whitehead)

PE, Sport and Culture workstream 6.1.21 The PE, Sport & Culture Stakeholder Group, which is comprised of representatives of national, regional and local agencies, has, in consultation with a wide range of partners including schools, local authorities, national governing bodies of sport, primary care trusts and Partners in Creative Learning, provided a vehicle to coordinate detailed work across this workstream. 6.1.22 In consultation with partners, the group has set out a vision for PE, sport and culture in Tamworth and Rugeley and developed an action plan with all partners, including head teachers, school middle leaders and school improvement officers, to ensure that the BSF programme provides flexible spaces that will support 21st century learning. The action plan recognises the strengths of the existing sports, performing arts and music specialist schools, the local community facilities and PESSYP networks. The ICT Workstream 6.1.23 The ICT Workstream is focussed to address the needs of the schools within the BSF programme. It is fully integrated, and acts as the main conduit for representing Staffordshire’s ICT requirements for BSF. 6.1.24 The ICT Workstream, chaired by the Senior Adviser (e-Learning) includes external ICT consultants, Turner & Townsend who bring with them direct experience of the BSF ICT procurement process. This ensures that the ICT Workstream has further commercial and technical capability, plus the capacity to undertake the BSF ICT procurement process. All funding to support the resources within the ICT Workstream has been approved within the county council. The team is fully operational and embedded into the larger BSF programme team. 6.1.25 The contribution of the ICT Workstream to Change Management is outlined in detail in paragraphs 7.0.7, 7.0.8 and 7.0.27 to 7.0.31. 6.1.26 As we are proposing a standard LEP model, we have utilised the risk matrix template that is provided in the PfS ICT guidance documentation, and populated it (Appendix 4, Annex 2) to

82

represent confirmation of our current view of the risk profile associated with ICT. Other support 6.1.27 We have also employed specialist planning consultants, Gough Planning Services and Sports Advisors, PMP Genesis, to assist with issues surrounding green belt concerns with the Rugeley sites and also Sport England appeasement; Highways consultants have been employed to look specifically at modelling traffic studies at the QEMS site in Tamworth. 6.1.28 Budget provision has been agreed by the county council’s Cabinet to support BSF at £5m, a further £3m (£8m in total) will be budgeted for in the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), to allow work to continue up to financial close, working with our consultants through the procurement phase. Our budget to support procurement, financial close and a programme management structure to ensure the day to day operational interface with the LEP has also been designed to oversee design development through the new project approvals process. This function will remain within Asset Management and Planning Division. Officers to support the LEP and operate as the intelligent client programme team, post financial close, and whilst the LEP is setting up are as follows:

• Assistant Director – Asset Management and Planning • Head of Service – Asset Management and Planning • BSF Programme and Commercial Manager • BSF Programme Support Manager • BSF Transition Officer • BSF Accountant and Finance Officer • BSF Team Organiser.

6.1.29 Staffordshire Procurement (a division of the Finance Directorate) will support Asset Management and Planning with the management of the PFI Contracts, KPI’s, performance monitoring and benchmarking to comply with HMT VFM requirements. Risk Management 6.1.30 Our BSF Risk Register is a living iterative document which is managed as part of the Project Team Meetings in addition to individual risk analysis workshops. Risk is reviewed at every appropriate opportunity. The Risk Register is attached in Appendix 4, Annex1 where the risk owner is also identified. 6.1.31 A Local Partnerships Skills Audit is scheduled to take place in February 2010. [DN – PC to write up post review] 6.1.32 A Gateway Review 1 (Business Justification) will be carried out between 09 and 11 February 2010. [DN – PC to write up post review] 6.2 Procurement process 6.2.1 The county council’s procurement of the LEP will be carried out in accordance with the European Union Competitive Dialogue procedure as illustrated below. This procedure is considered by the county council and PfS to be the most appropriate for complex projects such as this.

83

6.2.2 It is recognised that a number of IPD phases may be required in order to ensure the right solution for Staffordshire, particularly if there remain a number of issues to be negotiated after submission of IPD Part 2. It is acknowledged that once the county council has concluded the dialogue process, the flexibility of negotiation is lost, hence we are keen to ensure that sufficient dialogue takes place in order to avoid premature closure and acknowledge that dialogue cannot be closed until a suitable solution has been identified. 6.2.3 In recognition of the relative complexity of this procedure the Project Team, both internal representatives of the county council and all relevant external consultants will be participating in the Local Partnerships advanced training course on competitive dialogue, subject to availability, in advance of the procedure commencing in April 2010. Procurement programme 6.2.4 A detailed programme for the procurement process is included within Appendix 16, however our key milestones and dates are as summarised below: Key Milestones of the Procurement Process Date OJEU 29/04/2010 Session with schools on procurement protocols 04/05/2010 Bidder visits to sample schools 11/05/2010 Bidder day 12/05/2010 Receipt of PQQ 10/06/2010 Invitation to Participate in Dialogue Part 1 issued to bidders 09/07/2010 Receipt of IPD 1 submissions 08/10/2010 Evaluation period 08/10/2010 – 12/11/2010 Bidder presentations 20/10/2010 & 21/10/2010 Notification of shortlist 24/11/2010 Invitation to Participate in Dialogue Part 2 issued to shortlisted bidders 24/11/2010 Receipt of IPD 2 submissions 15/02/2011 Evaluation period 15/02/2011 – 01/03/2011 Invitation to submit final tenders 03/03/2011 Receipt of final tenders 30/03/2011 Evaluation period 30/03/2011 – 10/05/2011 Appoint preferred bidder 26/05/2011 Submit planning applications 23/06/2011 Financial Close December 2011

84

6.2.5 In accordance with the updated requirements of Partnerships for Schools, our full suite of procurement documents has been drafted for comprehensive review and approval prior to the submission of our Outline Business Case and a copy of our approved draft OJEU notification is included within Appendix 10. 6.2.6 The timely completion of this documentation has been achieved through the formation of a dedicated Procurement sub-work-stream comprising select members of our Commercial & FM work-stream. Not only responsible for the generation of the Procurement Programme and associated activities, responsibilities have been assigned for the ownership and completion of each document, notably drafts of:

• the OJEU notice • the Descriptive Document • the PQQ • the PQQ Evaluation Matrix • the IPD Volume 1 • the IPD Volume 2 • the Shareholders Agreement • the Strategic Partnering Agreement • the PFI Project Agreement • the PFI Payment Mechanism • the Design & Build Lump Sum • the ICT Services Contract • the ICT Payment Mechanism • the Management Services Agreement • the Funders Direct Agreement • the D&B FM Contract • the IPD Volume 3 (Output Specifications).

6.2.7 In addition to the draft procurement documents all derogations have been reviewed and approved by PfS prior to the submission of our OBC. 6.2.8 All documentation is currently stored electronically on our dedicated SharePoint destination where all key stakeholders and members of the Project Team can access the data as and when required. 6.2.9 AWARD will be utilised as our document storage facility for the purposes of electronically conducting our Competitive Dialogue procedure, thus providing our electronic data room. 6.2.10 The electronic data room will be backed up with a hard physical data room for our own internal audit purposes only and will not be accessed by the bidders. 6.2.11 Management of both the soft (electronic) and hard (physical) data rooms will be governed by our Head of Categories, supported by a team of Data Officers and dedicated BSF Procurement Support Officer. 6.2.12 The electronic system will be utilised during competitive dialogue to facilitate smooth communications and receipt of bidders’ submissions at the various milestones in format that enable prompt evaluation through the AWARD software. Market Interest/soft market testing 6.2.13 Market interest has been successfully generated through the attendance of Core Team

85

members at strategically high profile events such as BSEC and other PfS conferences. 6.2.14 A series of informal meetings with key potential bidders as listed below have also proved successful in maintaining interest beyond initial enquiries and regular dialect and marketing activities are sustaining a sufficient level of commercial interest in Staffordshire’s BSF proposals and aspirations. A copy of the agenda utilised for each of these meetings is included within Appendix 31, together with notes from each meeting and the headline outcomes. Bidder Attendees Date

Wilmott Dixon Jackie Griffin – Bid Manager, Wilmott Dixon 13/08/2009

Catalyst Lend Lease Adrienne - Bid Manager, Catalyst Lend Lease 18/09/2009

Morgan Sindall

Nick Gyring-Nielsen – Head of Business Development, Morgan Sindall Investments Lyndsay Smith – PPP / PFI Director, Morgan Ashurst

23/09/2009

Carillion

Robert Holt – sector Director, Carillion Integrated Solutions Karen Davenport – Director of New Projects, Academies and BSF, Inspiredspaces

25/09/2009

Costain

Chris Gilder – Bid Director, Costain Robert Bollen – PFI Bid Manager, Costain Michael Jackman – Managing Director, MVH Services Ltd

07/10/2009

Interserve

Bob Vince – Interserve Andy Davis – ICT Mari Boyd Clark – Cambridge Education Jane Millington – Bid Manager, Interserve

05/10/2009

Laing O‘Rourke Stephen Beechley – Education Sector Leader, Laing O’Rourke 08/10/2009

Miller Kam Birdee – Business Development Manager, Miller Simon Butler – Operations

23/10/2009

86

Director, Miller

BAM Simon Turner – Project Director, BAM PPP UK Ltd Adrian Padley – UK Education Director, BAM Construct UK Ltd

09/11/2009

Equitix Geoff Jackson – Managing Director, Equitix David Rose - Equitix

09/12/2009

Balfour Beatty Ian Woosey – Business Development Director, Balfour Beatty Education

10/12/2009

Wates John Maguire – Business Development Manager, Wates Forthcoming

6.2.15 Amongst the leading consortiums within the BSF arena it has been muted that Staffordshire is appealing for the following key criteria.

• The vision for truly transformational education. • The economies of scale that can be driven through not only wave 6A but all future waves

within Staffordshire, coupled with the longevity of partnership that this should hopefully encourage.

• Strong stakeholder support from schools, both teachers and pupils • The clear support of the county council in ensuring the deliverability of our schemes

through additional financial contributions • The robust project governance and delivery arrangements established to ensure the

successful achievement of all key milestones to date.

6.2.16 Given the significance of the ICT aspects of our BSF proposals, more specific ICT marketing meetings have also been conducted in order to maintain commercial interest in this key area, again generating substantial interest in Staffordshire’s potential this is explained more fully in paragraphs 6.4.22 to 6.4.25. Approach to selection of a LEP partner 6.2.17 In advance of our OJEU being formally issued, a suitably skilled evaluation panel will be established to review the various sections, thus ensuring that responses are judged by those who are appropriately knowledgeable and competent in the area being scored, thus eliminating the risk of any misguided or inappropriate scoring causing an unfair bias. 6.2.18 The evaluation process (excluding criteria) will be consistent throughout the procurement and competitive dialogue procedure. The process has been developed based on the procurement experience of the county council, its external advisors, PfS and current EU Procurement Law. 6.2.19 The evaluation and assessment of all submissions will be undertaken by the county council, with the support of its external advisors and representatives of PfS, during which we will assess each bidders’ ability to successfully develop designs and solutions that align with our schools’ Educational Visions and those of the county council.

87

6.2.20 The evaluation process will determine compliance with our overall objectives and will assess the comparative strengths/weaknesses of the bids. 6.2.21 The county council will select the most economically advantageous bid and it should be noted that this may not necessarily be the lowest cost option. The detailed evaluation will consider the technical, educational, legal, financial, human resources and delivery aspects of individual bids in developing its overall conclusion. The evaluation process will:

• be fair, transparent and auditable • allow for consultation with stakeholders • maintain the confidentiality of bidder information • facilitate the assessment and selection of the bid that is the most economically

advantageous • facilitate the assessment and selection of the bid that is most likely to deliver

educational transformation in the county.

6.2.22 A compliant bid is required in all instances of dialogue. In addition, variants will be permissible to be submitted at the bidders’ discretion (providing these are first discussed with the county council) and will be evaluated using the same methodology as the evaluation of standard bids. 6.2.23 During the evaluation period the county council may request further clarification information from the Bidders to assist in its assessment of their Bids. In addition, the county council may, during the process, raise any matters of clarification in order to understand, refine and finalise, with the Bidder, the definition of obligations, specifically around the allocation of risk and the payments process required from Staffordshire County Council. 6.2.24 The written information provided by each of the Bidders will form the basis upon which the county council will perform its evaluation. 6.2.25 The Bidders will be evaluated according to the quality and deliverability of their written submissions. The ‘deliverability’ refers to the likelihood, based upon tangible evidence, that all aspects of a particular Bid (specifically around timing and cost) could in fact be delivered as stated. 6.2.26 The county council will select as preferred bidder the bidder who provides the most economically advantageous bid, taking account of, in no particular order:

• price and quality • affordability • deliverability • offers, via the LEP, the best potential benefits to SCC.

6.2.27 In adopting this approach, the county council will place the appropriate emphasis on affordability through modelling of the financial implications of proposals for PFI schools, the design solution and the benchmarked costs, relative to the funding available. In addition, we will also examine the affordability of ICT proposals, together with the viability of the LEP proposals. 6.2.28 Acknowledging that PfS is a contracting county council within this procurement process they will play an important role in our evaluation process. Specifically, key members of the team that will aid our evaluation are:

• Tom Webster, PfS Project Director will sit on the Main Evaluation Panel and form part

of the LEP, Partnering, Technical and Financial Evaluation Teams;

88

• Elaine Barnett, PfS ICT Representative will be a member of the ICT Evaluation Team; • Kevin Sumputh, PfS Commercial Representative will be a member of the Legal

Evaluation Team; • Mike Thompson, PfS Educational Representative will be a member of the Education

Evaluation Team; and

• Paul Middleton, PfS Design Representative will be a member of the Design Evaluation Team

6.2.29 It is imperative that the whole of the evaluation procedure is fully auditable. This will be achieved by establishing a clearly defined recording system that covers:

• all procedures, and any amendments • requirements for confidentiality for all parties • the evaluation criteria for selection at each stage • the roles and responsibilities of all of the evaluation teams and the reporting process

through Staffordshire County Council • the individual weightings given to specific sections or aspects • the clarification meetings for all sides • requirements for de-briefing of unsuccessful Bidders.

6.2.30 The principles behind all the above points are set out within the IPD. 6.2.31 The evaluation process will be overseen and moderated by the BSF Project Board where by a report will be made to them by the Main Evaluation Panel who will then draw their conclusions on whether or not to endorse the recommendations. 6.2.32 Individual bid evaluation teams will each be responsible for producing reports detailing the results of their evaluation for each section that they have reviewed. 6.2.33 These bid evaluation teams will comprise of LEP, PFI Sample Schools, D&B Sample School, ICT, Legal/Commercial and Financial. 6.2.34 From the above grouping the bids will be separated into component parts to ensure that the correct disciplines evaluate their specialist areas. Once this has been completed the evaluation scores and justifications will be compiled in to a report assessing the relevant merits of each of the individual bids and ensuring that a complete picture of the prospective consortium is established. 6.2.35 These reports will then be passed to the Main Evaluation Panel for review, following which they will draw their conclusions to come to an overall recommendation for the appointment of a Preferred Bidder. 6.2.36 A summary of the reports and concluding statement will then be prepared and presented by the Main Evaluation Panel to the BSF Project Board. 6.2.37 Finally, a report will be taken to Cabinet recommending the selection of a Preferred Bidder. The county council’s Cabinet will ultimately determine whether or not to appoint the Preferred Bidder on the basis of the Team’s recommendations. 6.2.38 In accordance with our programme, it is envisaged that our LEP will be operational in terms of the commencement of our sample schemes by October 2011.

89

6.3 Consultation and statutory proposals Planning 6.3.1 The county council has put each school at the centre of the design development process with early and continued engagement. 6.3.2 Schools and governors were involved with a detailed options appraisal following the high level options identified as part of SfC2. 6.3.3 Outline planning applications were validated on 13 November 2009 for the following schemes:

• Queen Elizabeth Mercian School, Tamworth (non-sample) • Rawlett Community Sports College, Tamworth (non-Sample) • Wilnecote High School, Tamworth (non-Sample) • Belgrave High School, Tamworth (Sample – D&B) • Rugeley Learning Campus;

Hagley Park and Fair Oak, Rugeley (Sample - PFI) 6.3.4 ‘Letters of comfort’ have been included in Appendix 9, Annex 8 to satisfy the town and country planning requirements on Kettlebrook Short stay Unit and Two Rivers Secondary Special School. 6.3.5 The planning committee will sit to consider the outline planning applications on 4 February 2010 with the exception of Belgrave High School. The Belgrave outline planning application has received no objections from statutory consutlees and therefore will be approved under delegated powers within the county council (Appendix 9, Annex 8). 6.3.6 The Rugeley Learning Campus outline planning application proposes development on green belt land and the county council must then inform the Government Office West Midlands, who then have a 21 day opportunity to comment on the application and approve moving forward. 6.3.7 Prior to the outline planning applications detailed above being submitted a public information campaign assured a high level of information was made available to all stakeholders with events held for schools, governors and the public. We have also worked closely with all statutory consultees to ensure their concerns are addressed and mitigated. 6.3.8 The design team has held regular meetings with the county council’s planners, consulting on planning requirements, maintaining support for the schemes and minimising the risk of the applications being rejected. 6.3.9 Expert advice has been sought from external planning consultants Gough Planning Services and Sports Advisors in relation to Tamworth and Rugeley. PMP Genesis have been enlisted to assist with issues surrounding green belt concerns with the Rugeley sites and also Sport England appeasement and Highways consultants have been employed to look specifically at modelling traffic studies at the QEMS site in Tamworth. 6.3.10 The design team has also been made aware of ‘letters of support’ written by school stakeholders to the planning committee, which are intended to encourage equitable consideration of the planning applications. 6.3.11 Section 77 applications are not required as there are no playing field disposals in this wave.

90

PE, sport and culture 6.3.12 Consultations have taken place with Sport England during the design process. They are also represented on the PE, sport & culture stakeholder workstream. 6.3.13 The workstream has developed its vision for PE, sport and culture in Tamworth and Rugeley and developed an action plan with all partners, including head teachers, school middle leaders and school improvement officers, to ensure that the BSF programme provides flexible spaces that will support 21st century learning. School organisation 6.3.14 Following initial consultation with the community in Tamworth about school reorganisation, statutory notices were published. Representations went to Cabinet on 08 April 2009 where the decision was made to approve the following:

• To change the age range of the following schools from the current age range of 11-18 to 11-16, with a planned admission number of 192, with effect from 01 September 2011:

• Queen Elizabeth's Mercian School • Belgrave High School • Rawlett Community Sports College • Wilnecote High School

• To establish an 11-18 Academy to replace Woodhouse Business and Enterprise College on the Woodhouse site (age range of 11-16) and also to provide the post 16 facility on the Queen Elizabeth's Mercian School site.

6.3.15 Following consultation with the Post 16 Stakeholder Group, the Landau Forte Charitable Trust and Tamworth secondary headteachers the proposal was made to the county council that students progressing from Year 12 to Year 13 in September 2011 should remain in their current school to complete their Post 16 education. This amendment to the original statutory notices to change the school age ranges was approved by the Deputy Leader of the County Council, Ian Parry, under his delegated powers. 6.3.16 No school reorganisation statutory notices have been published for Rugeley. Federation consultation 6.3.17 Rugeley's two secondary schools, Fair Oak Business and Enterprise College and Hagley Park Sports College, and the jointly run Aelfgar Sixth Form Centre currently operate collaboratively under one Executive Headteacher as a 'soft' federation. Consultation with both school communities on the proposal to formalise the current arrangements and move to a 'hard' federation to federate took place between 5 October 2009 and 22 November 2009. 6.3.18 On 9 December, the governing bodies of Fair Oak and Hagley Park made the decision to form a hard Federation following the consultation results that found 57% of respondents in favour of the proposal and 21% against. The Federation will be in place from 5 April 2010. School swimming pool consultation 6.3.19 Swimming Pools are not currently part of our BSF Capital Strategy, In Tamworth, three high

91

schools in the BSF programme have swimming pools. These pools are at Belgrave, QEMS and Wilnecote. In Rugeley, Fair Oak High School has a small swimming pool. In order to establish a criteria that informs how and when we invest in swimming pools consultation has taken place with schools and governing bodies. 6.3.20 In Tamworth, Belgrave and WIlnecote have expressed a preference to retain the pool, Queen Elizabeth Mercian School do not wish to continue with the use of the pool. Fair Oak High School have also confirmed that a school pool will not be part of the new school buildings. 6.3.21 Discussions with the headteachers and Governing Bodies of both schools will continue. A copy of the consultation paper, and the individual responses is at Appendix 34. 6.4 Sponsor and school commitment 6.4.1 Political support for the programme has continued following a change of administration in July 2009, demonstrated by the approval of SfC2 on 18 November and approval to move forward with the future formation of the LEP on 16 December. BSF remains a corporate project with its priorities integrated into the corporate and directorate based planning process. 6.4.2 Schools and governors have been involved in the BSF process from an early stage through regular information sessions and conferences and more recently through weekly meetings with the Transformational Learning Manager and other members of the BSF core team. 6.4.3 There is school and governor representation at the Tamworth and Rugeley Implementation Groups as well as on the Post 16 Stakeholder Group in Tamworth. 6.4.4 Schools have been involved in the option appraisal and design process and have worked with the Transformational Learning Manager to produce their own school visions which not only inform the design of the buildings but also the educational change that needs to take place. 6.4.5 Schools have been fully involved with, and supportive of, the decision to replace QEMS as the D&B sample school with Belgrave. 6.4.6 The S151 Officer supports the project (see Appendix 9, Annex 6) Communications and consultation strategy 6.4.7 Detailed communications (Appendix 27) and consultation strategies (Appendix 28) are in place for the project which are delivered through a dedicated communications and marketing officer. The communications and consultation workstream draws on expertise from across the county council to develop best practice approaches for communications and consultation. The BSF team were shortlisted for a Chartered Institute of Public Relations award in 2009 for its approach to stakeholder engagement. Links have been made with BSF communications contacts at other authorities as well as other government agencies. 6.4.8 Key announcements and regular updates are communicated internally and externally utilising a wide range of communications channels and in accessible and audience specific formats. 6.4.9 The BSF website (www.staffordshire.gov.uk/bsf) is a key channel for communicating information about the programme getting average visitors of 2353 per month. Specific campaigns to drive traffic to the website have generated short term increases in visitor numbers further demonstrating the usefulness of the website as a communication channel.

92

Student engagement 6.4.10 The county council has taken a comprehensive approach to student engagement over the past eighteen months. Following on from a two day consultation event for primary and secondary aged pupils in July 2008 the BSF team have worked with the district school councils to allow schools to inform the BSF decision making process. The BSF team are currently working with primary and secondary schools in Tamworth and Rugeley to create pupil briefs that will inform how the new BSF schools look and feel. 6.4.11 The secondary school events have been run by the Sorrell Foundation with support from the county council and the primary school events have been run by Bryant Priest Newman in conjunction with the county council. 6.4.12 Students from all of the Tamworth and Rugeley secondary schools and the Rugeley sixth form centre have taken part in the Sorrell Foundation’s joinedupdesignforschools programme. The aim of the Sorrell Foundation is to inspire creativity in young people and to improve the quality of life through good design. At the heart of the programme is the creation of a pupil brief by each pupil client team, with input from the whole school community, which will improve the quality of life in their school. The Challenge Day took place at the Sorrell Foundation Young Design Centre in London with the Brief and Celebration days taking part in the Staffordshire. 6.4.13 The primary school engagement programme in BSF is seen as a key thread of the wider engagement activities being undertaken by secondary schools with the Sorrell Foundation. Students were invited from all of the primary schools that feed into the Rugeley and Tamworth secondary schools as well as some of secondary students that attended the Sorrell days. 6.4.14 Both primary and secondary students attended the Celebration Day on 10 February to present the combined output of the engagement programme to an audience made up of headteachers and county council representatives. 6.4.15 Appendix 29 documents the primary and secondary engagement process in video format. Other stakeholder engagement 6.4.16 In November 2009 public information sessions were held in both Tamworth and Rugeley to raise the profile of the BSF project as a whole and to answer specific questions around the outline plans and the proposal to federate in Rugeley. 6.4.17 The BSF Project Director has met with the Chief Executives of both Tamworth Borough Council and Cannock Chase District Council. Links have also been made with neighbouring authorities. 6.4.18 Specific briefing sessions have been held with all Wave 6a governing bodies to get support for the outline plans and timescales moving forward. Letters of support from governing bodies are in Appendix 9. 6.4.19 A series of soft market testing meetings has enabled consultation with potential consortia partners. 6.4.20 Appendix 33 details the full schedule of consultation and engagement dates that have taken place since July 2009. 6.4.21 Stakeholder engagement will continue to play a vital role in our BSF programme and we recognise the importance of communications in maintaining the current commitment to transform

93

education across Tamworth and Rugeley. ICT Soft market testing 6.4.22 The county council has carried out soft market testing with potential ICT suppliers. All organisations that are currently bidding for ICT projects within BSF were invited to attend a 1 to 1 meeting with the county council. The main objective was to share the potential scope of the service with the market, and in return achieve an honest and open view from suppliers on their likelihood to tender. We also aimed to gain any further key indicators to inform our procurement approach and scope of services; such as solution elements of interest, and anticipated managed service costs. 6.4.23 To fully inform our supplier engagement, we sought direct input from schools, primarily through the e-champions and head teachers. Their key points of interest were:

• the range of services provided and likely cost to schools, particularly relating to anticipated school revenue contributions

• the refresh period of equipment • the interface with existing services (notably the WAN) • reference sites • likely makeup of the bidding consortia.

6.4.24 Of all organisations contacted, seven responded positively and subsequently attended a meeting with representatives of the BSF ICT work stream. All seven organisations have expressed an interest to bid. During the dialogue, each organisation was informed of the likely ICT services which were in and out of scope, with particular focus around the Learning Platform. In all cases, each organisation stated they would intend to bid whether the Learning Platform were in or out of scope. ICT engagement 6.4.25 A range of other teams and groups have been established within Staffordshire to provide vital representation of key stakeholders within the BSF programme. In the form of e-champions, we have established a clear point of contact for ICT in each school. That person is a member of the school leadership team or is in a suitably authoritative position in order to inform that group. Although the appropriate funding and cover has been provided, the role of the e-champion is not confined to meetings; they are also fundamental in representing their school and user voice through;

• Developing their vision; • Engaging with curriculum leaders; • Attending reference site visits; • Inputting and reviewing key programme documentation.

6.4.26 e-Champions have been instrumental in developing our ICT Output Specification and will have key involvement throughout the competitive dialogue and evaluation elements of the procurement programme. 6.4.27 We have already engaged with the schools Headteachers, both individually and as a group, to fully inform them of the intended ICT scope, confirming their commitments, clarify that we are representing their requirements and clearly agreeing all expectations. This has allowed us to undertake the ICT procurement programme with the full support of this key stakeholder group. 6.4.28 We have a well established ICT in Schools Stakeholders Group (ICTiS) drawing on the

94

expertise of staff from schools across Staffordshire. We have recently reconstituted this group in order that we can re-align its role with BSF and the Primary Capital Programme and the group is planning to develop strategies for capturing the learner voice. Membership of the Group includes representatives of both our Primary and Secondary Forums. ICTiS is seen as a key component of our enhanced ICT Workstream.

95

Introduction 7.0.1 Section 1.6 summarises our approach to leading and managing change in order to fulfil the fundamental strategic objectives of SfC. It introduces the process, what has already been done, what is planned, what the risks are and what resources are available. This section, Section 7, develops these aspects in much more detail. 7.0.2 Change management is an iterative process and the change management plan is ever changing. It involves the BSF core team, the workstreams and the work of School Improvement Division officers and external consultants, as well as the work of schools and community stakeholders. The implementation of the change management process is described below, from the start of the planning for BSF to the anticipation of the needs during and after building. However, this will be updated and revised as necessary. How the Authority has prepared for the involvement of schools, parents and other stakeholders 7.0.3 The change management programme began in 2007 as soon as the county council knew it was part of BSF Wave 6a. All of the secondary schools were involved in an extensive consultation and awareness raising programme. There were two full day conferences for Headteachers, governors, officers, councillors and other stakeholders, each with nationally recognised speakers. The first focused on awareness raising, the second on education transformation. Between these conferences the Director and Assistant Directors of Children and Lifelong Learning and other officers held in-depth, district meetings with school leadership teams and governors to look at practical implications. These were followed up with discussions at secondary heads’ meetings e.g. to consider the future of post 16 education. First phase districts were given more time and support. 7.0.4 A project board and several workstream groups were set up consisting of officers, school representatives and community representatives. The workstreams researched and published seminal documents to lead thinking about education transformation. The SfC drew from these documents. A representative headteachers’ working group was formed to explore what educational transformation might look like and several visits to existing BSF schools were undertaken. School Improvement Division officers were briefed and trained in the change management process in order to start to engage subject leaders in the BSF agenda and a Headteacher from an “outstanding” secondary school was appointed to lead on Education Transformation and given the role of Transformational Learning Manager. 7.0.5 The Education Transformation Workstream was reorganised to focus on leading and managing change in the BSF schools. The core ET workstream group became the Heads of the schools, chaired and supported by the Transformational Learning Manager. The workstream now meets weekly and incorporates visits from other workstream representatives to ensure alignment of visions. 7.0.6 The Estates Workstream also holds regular meetings with headteachers to develop the design proposals leading from the school educational transformation visions in the school SfCs. Architects were appointed to engage with the schools to develop different options in preparation for SfC and OBC and the submission of outline planning applications. Heads have been trained in DQIs and options appraisal in order to score different alternatives. Reference sites have also been visited. The architects have had several meetings on school sites with groups of senior staff, governors and students to develop proposals.

7.0 Leading and managing change

96

7.0.7 The ICT Workstream produced the key BSF document ‘Technology for Learning’ which charts the projected development of technology over a ten year period and acts as a bench-mark for discussion. During 2009 the original workstream has been re-focussed to address the needs of schools and give the group a strong learning focus. The following diagram, based on Tamworth, illustrates its central role in the change and transformation process:

7.0.8 The ICT Workstream is chaired by the Senior Adviser (e-Learning) from the School Improvement Division. It is upon this flow of information and ideas that the ICT change and transformation process will be taken forward, preparing the way for a managed service. Governors 7.0.9 Governors have already been involved in the change management process with presentations from officers at meetings and in school. Governor representatives, with other stakeholders, attend regular Implementation Group Meetings, led by officers. These will continue throughout the BSF process. Initial training sessions on Trust status have been organised through the SSAT and the Headteacher of a newly formed Trust has agreed to act as consultant to the schools that press ahead. Each school has agreed for a county council senior officer to join governors’ meetings to act as a BSF consultant and to help to monitor progress towards achieving the KPIs. The officer will monitor the effectiveness of the relationship with the partner secondary school in supporting progress. Governors will also be part of the negotiations on managed services. Children’s services 7.0.10 Multi-agency working and the co-location of other children’s services are central to school and Integrated Youth Service visions. Discussions have already taken place to ensure that facilities are included in remodelling designs. These will continue throughout the process and will involve the Community and Learning Partnerships which fund and help to manage extended school provision. C&LPs are funded to employ a co-ordinator for each school partnership who has the capacity to manage the change process and who organises regular meetings of children’s trust and services

97

providers. Parents and the local community 7.0.11 Parents have been fully engaged in the consultation process e.g. about the re-organisation of provision in Tamworth, federating the two schools in Rugeley and the outline planning applications and school designs. This consultation will continue as required. Other stakeholders 7.0.12 Implementation meetings for both Tamworth and Rugeley involve a wide variety of stakeholders. The Deputy Leader of the county council has taken an active lead on BSF and chairs project board meetings which also involve other county councillors. Borough council executives and councillors join governors, representatives from Further Education, officers and school representatives to discuss emerging issues. This programme of meetings, held every two months, will continue throughout the BSF process. Sports and culture representatives from the district borough councils are ensuring the alignment of BSF and community provision e.g. in Tamworth work will continue to rationalise swimming and sports facilities, both within and outside the BSF framework. Post 16 education 7.0.13 Heads and officers hold regular meetings with representatives from the South Staffordshire FE College and the Landau Forte Academy, which will be responsible for the Post 16 Academy in Tamworth. These meetings focus on the transition from the11-18 to 11-16 age range and the transfer to the new Post 16 Academy, including HR issues to do with TUPE. The focus also includes agreeing IAG protocols and curriculum alignment. Partner primary schools 7.0.14 Heads will continue to work with their partner primary colleagues to ensure that there is alignment across the phases. School council representatives from the schools are engaging in their own design development days, led by the architects and officers who are working with the secondary schools and the Sorrell programme. The Transformational Learning Manager and the county council asset management lead officer both meet with the Primary Headteachers’ district forum to engage the Primary Heads in the transformational learning and design process and the schools are sending representatives to the transformational learning conference. The School Improvement Division lead officer (primary) is developing alignment across the primary sector. Student engagement 7.0.15 Students are engaged through the Sorrell Foundation programme. This consisted of an introductory session with the Transformational Learning Manager in preparation for the day visit to London. This day engagement day was followed by a second day to develop the students’ individual school brief, working with the Sorrell designers, and a final celebration day in February for students to present their ideas to stakeholders. Throughout this programme the students involved have been meeting with the architects and involving the rest of the school through school councils and assemblies. This engagement will continue when the final architects are appointed. Primary schools have had a similar programme organised by the county council. Leadership training 7.0.16 Heads and other senior staff from the Tamworth and Rugeley schools are engaged in the NCSL BSF leadership programme in order to consider the change management implications for

98

their schools. The Transformational Learning Manager is developing a programme to explore the concept of transformational learning across the county with BSF schools as its vanguard. SID staff are preparing for this so that the transformation programme becomes the central school improvement programme when the National Strategies programme ends in March 2011. Transformation learning leaders 7.0.17 A team of Transformational Learning Leaders (TLLs) has been appointed from the senior staff at each of the Tamworth and Rugeley schools to work with the Transformational Learning Manager on a one day a week secondment basis. The TLLs are leading on the development of the school SfCs and have produced several iterations. These were originally based on a collective agreement of what should be included, utilising PfS guidance and the county council documents. TLLs then led the senior staff in their schools to revise their three year school improvement plans to become 10 year education transformation plans and to engage other staff in the BSF transformation agenda. The TLLs’ role is:

• to work with TL Leaders in other Tamworth and Rugeley secondary schools to research and explore the most effective learning strategies and the facilities needed to implement them

• to share these strategies with fellow staff and to engage them in deciding the most effective facilities required to deliver them in the school

• to lead groups of teachers in the school to train them to be able to utilise these strategies in preparation for the new facilities

• to work with other Leadership Team colleagues to ensure that best transformational learning practices are embedded across the curriculum

• to lead the development of the BSF school vision and Strategy for Change (based on the Staffordshire BSF Strategy for Change and Putting Learners First documents)

• to ensure that new teaching and learning strategies are consistent with and utilise National Strategy initiatives e.g. Assessment for Learning and Assessing Pupil Progress

• to ensure that the new ICT resources and equipment enable and support transformational learning strategies

• to persuade teachers that new strategies in teaching and learning are needed in order to maximise the benefits of the new facilities and become outstanding schools

• to share best practice with other Staffordshire districts. Change champions and challenge challengers 7.0.18 The TLLs are also the change champions for their schools, assisted by their CPD leaders and teams. The headteachers, supported by the Transformational Learning Manager, will be the change challengers with a commitment to pushing the boundaries of improvement strategies, encouraging innovation and calculated risk-taking. Both are working to ensure that the concept of transformational learning is explored across the schools so that all staff understand that incremental improvement is not enough and that there needs to be a step change in learning outcomes, facilitated by the BSF investment. Transformational learning conference 7.0.19 The next step in the transformational learning programme is to get all Tamworth and Rugeley school staff fully engaged in educational transformation through a joint conference held in February 2010. Every member of the teaching and learning staff at all of the secondary age schools in Tamworth and Rugeley are participating – over 700 of them. 6 national speakers have been given the brief of challenging staff to consider what is meant by transformational learning in the 21st century in order to get them to start to think differently. The premise is that what we are doing currently, through National Strategies etc, is not enough. Each member of staff will listen to 2 of the

99

speakers and then work with School Improvement subject advisers to consider what transformational learning might look like in their areas. Plans for the remodelled schools and of innovative learning space designs will be available as a back drop. Representatives from all other Staffordshire secondary schools and Tamworth and Rugeley primary schools have been invited. If this conference is successful, there will be similar annual conferences appropriate to the enhanced development agenda, in future years to ensure the rate of progress is maintained. Creative partnerships transformational learning development programme 7.0.20 Creative Partnerships will be leading a workshop at the conference to present to staff who are change leaders a the Change School programme. This will support the BSF schools through a process of diagnosis, programme design and delivery, reflection and change management. Each school will work alongside a Creative Agent and recruit a creative partner, or group of partners, with whom they will devise their programme of activity with a significant budget. As well as programmes in the individual schools, Creative Partnerships will bring together a group of young people, community members and teachers from all the schools to form a joint group who will explore wider questions, bringing and taking back learning, taking trips to research possibilities and expand horizons, and building a shared understanding and language around the impact of space on learning and teaching. It will also create a powerful documentation package for the programme, so that the process and learning can be shared nationally. The SID programme for change management for the county and schools 7.0.21 Senior advisers are undertaking their own change management programme in order to prepare for the conference and to plan a follow up programme to engage school staff over the 3 years up to the building programme. County council officers are being trained to use TDA change management tools to reinforce the transformational learning agenda across the county. They are also utilising existing county council structures of calendared School Improvement Division (SID) days and CPD opportunities through subject associations, National and 14-19 Strategies and SSAT to explore innovative practice. Annual transformational learning conferences are planned to ensure the momentum is maintained and the best ideas are shared across all of the schools. The programme will also be offered to other county council schools who will be sending representatives. A “Think Tank” has been set up to consider how the SID needs to transform itself to ensure it is cost effective and fully prepared to lead and manage educational transformation over the next ten years. Curriculum transformation 7.0.22 Ideas will be explored through the SID programme of engagement with subject leaders in schools. Specific preparation for Sportsmark, Artsmark, Geography Mark and Eco-school/sustainable school awards will be developed, as will preparation for the 5 hour sports and cultural offers. Vocational programmes and new curriculum ideas such as the RSA Opening Minds curriculum will be explored with school staff. Other cross-curricular themes such as PLTS will be used as vehicles for re-thinking learning through the SID CPD programme. School change management plans 7.0.23 The BSF schools meet together to plan and implement change management through the designated Transformational Learning Leaders. Each is developing its own change management plan as part of its SfC. These are included in Appendix 2 (nb The change management sections for Wilnecote and Belgrave as particularly good examples). Inevitably there are differences as the individual schools choose to respond according to the different contexts and needs. This is entirely justifiable as the schools need ownership of the programme so that they take responsibility for it, supported by the county council. The plans will be further developed following the Transformational Learning Conference through all staff being asked to identify their individual and group needs as

100

part of the conference evaluation and follow up. Sample schools – delivery of SfC objectives 7.0.24 The way that the sample schools will deliver the SfC objectives is explained in detail in Section 3.3. All of the county council’s SfC objectives are covered across all of Key Policy Areas required by PfS as illustrated in 3.3, including change management. SEN/Inclusion 7.0.25 Schools will be supported to prepare for new initiatives in SEN/inclusion. For example schools resourcing VI, HI, ADS and SLD bases will be trained by specialist county council staff and a programme of visits to find good practice. Change culture 7.0.26 A programme to develop a change culture in schools has already begun. Transformational Learning Leaders have undergone TDA training on change management and are now implementing it with school staff. The county council Artemis programme of induction is now fully developed and will be utilised. The county council is supporting NCSL Leading from the Middle, Leadership Pathways and NPQH programmes. The Senior Workforce Development Manager is launching a CPD leaders’ initiative entitled “Embedding Links” to create locality based training to help establish links between the use of professional standards, performance management and CPD which will have a BSF focus for Tamworth and Rugeley. ICT change management 7.0.27 Staffordshire recognises that there is a journey to be undertaken from the understanding of ICT as a taught subject to a future of technology enabled learning that embraces the whole community. It is a journey that is at once exciting, but challenging and requires sensitive handling if maximum ‘buy in’ is to be achieved. Crucially, it is a route that is informed by the opportunities that new technologies present, but not solely determined by them. It is designed to prepare the way for a managed service. 7.0.28 The ICT change management process can be sub-divided into five stages:

• Foundation: Through an extensive range of workshops school staff have determined the statement of requirements and all schools have the opportunity of attending regular user groups. As with the learning platform this approach is seen as essential to providing a sound foundation through engagement.

• Dialogue: To ensure that we understand fully the needs and priorities of schools we have established an ICT in Schools Stakeholders’ group. This meets termly and acts as a forum for schools to discuss issues with officers of the Authority.

• Enabling: All Tamworth and Rugeley schools have chosen to adopt the county-wide learning platform. We are using this initiative to address the needs of schools and use the learning platform as a catalyst for the engagement of all staff in ICT. Each school has already identified a lead teacher who is responsible for embedding the learning platform across their learning community. These lead teachers are helping to develop the specification and then to support the training, development and implementation programme required to ensure all staff, students and parents are e-confident. We have built upon this model by creating an ‘e-champion’ in each school. These school champions will have the opportunity to join an enhanced BSF ICT workstream and share expertise, experience and research across BSF schools to ensure that there is an equality of opportunity and provision; their expertise will serve to support and inform schools across Staffordshire. The e-champion in each school

101

has the responsibility of co-ordinating and initiating the transformation towards technology enabled learning.

• Challenge: All schools will be expected to complete the ICT Mark, which is recognition of the key role that ICT will play in transforming learning in Wave 6a schools. We have nominated an officer from the School Improvement Division to work with each of the Tamworth secondary schools and support them in gaining the ICT Mark in 2010/11.

• Confidence: The Technology for Learning change management process involves a system-wide approach to development. It places the learner at the heart of the process and includes the learner in any strategy for change so that the learner can take ownership of learning, that the learner may be supported in a variety of venues and by a range of learning providers and agencies, and that parents will play a real, informed, partnership role.

The e-champions group 7.0.29 We have identified a clear need for there to be a single point of contact for ICT in each school. We expect that person to be a member of the school senior leadership team or in a position to inform that group. We asked that this person be in a position to represent their own school and, at times, others as well and to be in a position to act as a driving force for change in their school, working very closely with the Transformational Learning Leader. We have given them the title of e-Champion. The role of the e-Champion is not confined to meetings and we have begun to develop a funded programme which includes: developing a vision for ICT in conjunction with curriculum leaders, engaging in reference site visits, commenting on on-line case studies and researching appropriate technologies at major events such as BETT. They are instrumental in helping develop the Output Specification and will be central to developing an ICT Quality Indicators initiative across their school community. The ICT in schools stakeholders group 7.0.30 We have a well established ICT in Schools Stakeholders Group drawing on the expertise of staff from schools across Staffordshire. We have recently reconstituted this group in order that we can re-align its role with BSF and PCP and the group is planning to develop strategies for capturing the learner voice. Membership of the Group includes representatives of both our Primary and Secondary Forums. ICTiS is seen as a key component of our enhanced ICT Workstream. Professional learning community 7.0.31 We intend to use the learning platform to enable all teachers in Tamworth and Rugeley to share ideas and information on how learning will be transformed as a result of the BSF process. This will be rolled out during the course of 2010 and is currently being trialled by the e-Champions. The concept space 7.0.32 Headteachers have indicated to us that traditional ICT provision is not always helpful to them in their aim to move the culture of their school forward and address twenty-first century needs. There will continue to be a case for computer suites for some time to come, but increasingly we need to demonstrate that we are embracing new technology enabled ways of working. It is not appropriate, or possible, to explore informal approaches to learning in the formality of a computer suite. We have identified the need for an informal ‘space’. We intend to develop a ‘Concept Space’ that will enable e-champions and local authority staff to work with both teachers and learners and explore the new ways of working that technology offers and have set funding aside accordingly. It is an opportunity to capture the learner voice in a real context. Above all, it is an opportunity for us to establish what does, and what does not, work effectively. Learning establishment staff, through their use of the concept space – with or without learners present – will have the opportunity to explore and accept or reject new ways of working presented by technology. The space will be designed to

102

help professionals make informed decisions based on real experience and to cascade their experiences to others. The technology and furniture present in the space is not expected to remain constant, but to change over time as new hardware and software is developed. The wider community 7.0.33 We will establish ways in which the whole school community, not just learners and staff, benefit from our enhanced provision, according to identified local need. We recognise that for online reporting and parental engagement to succeed we will need to support the wider community. We will establish each school as a hub for the development of technology focussed skills that maximise to the full the benefits contained in our developing infrastructure and service provision. Managed services 7.0.34 Change management relating to managed services, both ICT and FM, continues to require time and in-service training. There have already been several meetings with Heads, senior staff and Business Managers and reference site visits have been made to explore practice and costings at other BSF schools. Officers and consultants will continue to work with individual schools and to organise joint training sessions to give advice. These will continue through the competitive dialogue until the final negotiations for the LEP contract are concluded and best value is achieved. Maintaining Standards during Transition Monitoring and support 7.0.35 Long term relationships have been put in place to support raising achievement, particularly during the transition and building phase. The senior officer presence at governors’ meetings will help to monitor progress towards KPIs and evaluate the effectiveness of the transformational learning strategies and change management process. The agreement to partner each school with another successful, local school will help to maintain standards during the process, taking over when National Strategy initiatives such as Gaining Ground and National Challenge end. Leadership capacity 7.0.36 Schools will dedicate time for senior staff to participate in the planning, procurement and building process. This will require the restructuring of leadership teams so that there are clear lines of responsibility, both for BSF and for ensuring the transformational agenda is maintained. The Heads of the two sample schools have already done this and are now able to lead on the BSF process themselves to ensure full engagement with all stakeholders. Transformational Learning Leaders will retain their secondments throughout, continuing to work with the Transformational Learning Manager so that educational transformation is secure. The increasing involvement of school Business Managers has been factored in e.g. The school business team at the sample PFI school is already in contact with the support PFI school to anticipate the increasing demands and the Head and governors have visited this school to establish a good working relationship. Support from architects 7.0.37 Schools have already had several detailed discussions with the current architectural team, including the CDA, to prepare options and create outline plans. The architects have been part of the student engagement process and were involved in the Transformational Learning Conference. The involvement of architects and the CDA is seen as training to get stakeholders to start asking questions and thinking through the design implications of transformational education strategies in anticipation of the final design process. Decanting issues are already being anticipated in order to minimise the potential for the disruption of educational provision. The possibility of beginning an ICT

103

managed service before the building projects are complete will also be considered. Staffordshire County Council support 7.0.38 Senior officers and subject advisers from the School Improvement Division will be funded to maintain their support to subject and CPD leaders in order to keep transformational learning at the centre of the county council’s school improvement strategy. They are having a series of half day sessions in which they are working with the Transformational Learning Manager to understand the long term demands of BSF and to plan a programme of support. SID subject officers will form working groups with Tamworth and Rugeley subject leaders to maintain the momentum of the transformational learning conference. SID officers are playing a central role in the transformational learning conference, building on the messages of the keynote speakers to question what transformational learning looks like in their subject areas and what learning spaces are required. This conference is the start of an ongoing programme to prepare and train staff for the process of change and transition management so that everyone is fully ready to make the best use of the new facilities. Advanced skills teachers 7.0.39 The county county’s ASTs will be utilised and will work in teams that go into one school, or across a number of schools within the Tamworth or Rugeley district with a specified focus. Their work will be coordinated by the TLL and the Authority AST lead officer to ensure the focus is strongly on transforming learning. Currently, a focus has been identified in one school to work with staff on how to move teaching from satisfactory to good. Five triads of teachers including 1 AST are working alongside each other in the classroom and then in focus groups to feed back to each other the key points to improve the quality of teaching and learning. This debate will help to inform the ongoing work of transforming learning. Concept space 7.0.40 Schools will be test beds for new ideas, teaching and learning strategies, ways of working together and for new equipment, including new technologies and furniture. The space released in the Tamworth schools when they lose their sixth forms from September 2011 will be utilised for this purpose. The central mall in the Tamworth Vocational Centre will become an ICT concept space where classes can be brought to try out new equipment, see also 7.0.32. Reference site visits 7.0.41 Technical consultants are compiling lists of schools for staff and students to visit when appropriate. Several have already taken place and more are planned, including subject specific ones. Community stakeholder engagement 7.0.42 The Deputy County Council Leader is taking a direct lead through meeting regularly with senior officers to monitor progress and make decisions, as well as to promote BSF at public engagements and through the media. Governors, stakeholders and other community representatives will continue to participate in the Implementation Group meetings to monitor progress, raise concerns and maintain engagement in the change culture. These meetings considered the project scope and are now discussing the implementation strategy for the construction. Community open evenings will be held in each school to provide opportunities for neighbours and other community representatives to be consulted, especially when the detailed planning applications are being considered.

104

Interest group disagreements 7.0.43 Senior officers have met with governing bodies to discuss the process and have been accompanied by the architects who created the outline building plans and options. The Implementation Groups involve governor representatives of all of the schools and are the forum for managing potential stakeholder disagreements affecting construction project delivery and transformation. The Implementation Groups are chaired by the Deputy Director of Children’s Services and try to anticipate such disagreements and manage them through open dialogue and transparent provision of information. The Education Transformation Workstream meets weekly to ensure that issues are fully discussed and resolved before they become problems. Educational risks of transition 7.0.44 A comprehensive risk register has been compiled with a core team officer taking overall responsibility. She has held several workshops to train BSF team members in risk identification and management and in keeping the register up to date. Workstreams regularly review risks and plan mitigation strategies. The Education Transformation risk strategy has been developed by the ET workstream which is led by the Transformational Education Manager. The Transformational Learning Manager is responsible for ensuring the risks are discussed with the Heads and are managed and mitigated. A copy of the register showing education risks is in Appendix 4. 7.0.45 The Tamworth and Rugeley Implementation Groups meet regularly to consider all of the wider stakeholder issues around BSF. Significant risks are identified by the Education Transformation Workstream (made up of the headteachers and the Transformational Learning Manager) and mitigation strategies agreed. This works on the principle of transparency and sharing, especially of issues that could create stakeholder disagreement e.g. differential funding for the building projects and planning objections. These are fed into the overall risk plan. The educational risks in the Risk Register will continue to be reviewed and assessed, with Action Owners identified and mitigation strategies put into place. Resourcing Change Management and the Partnership Relationship with the LEP 7.0.46 The details above illustrate the human resource and other costs the county council is devoting to the BSF process. This includes the cost of the core team. The BSF accountant manages the resource budget. This is comprehensive and long term. The spend to date (end December 2009) has been £1.965m. The anticipated budget is £5.955m. The assumptions with respect to the operation of the LEP are detailed. A summary is shown below: [DN – to be inserted]

105

Partnership relationship with the LEP 7.0.47 The county council has agreed to the detailed development and procurement of a LEP to create a long term strategic partnering agreement with the Council (Cabinet decision 16.12.09). The LEP will provide for BSF projects: design services for all school projects; the PFI provider for new build schools and the Design and Build contractors for non PFI schools; facilities management (both hard and soft) and ICT managed services. The LEP will have 4 private sector directors, one Council and one PfS director. The county council will make an investment in the LEP of circa £400k. A Strategic Partnership Board will be established to ensure the stakeholders have influence over the operation of the LEP and monitor its performance .It will comprise of two county council representatives, a LEP director and a representative Headteacher and governor. Involvement with the LEP 7.0.48 Members of the core BSF team will be seconded to the LEP as required. A senior category manager will be responsible for the detailed management of the contract through the design and development, construction and early operational phases and thereafter monitoring FM, especially variations, through attendance at monthly meetings. Stakeholder involvement with the LEP 7.0.49 The LEP will be required to provide regeneration opportunities and significant support to students, local employment and commerce e.g. by mentoring students, holding master classes on the BSF process and providing work experience placements; providing apprenticeships; ensuring a proportion of jobs during the construction phase are provided by local trades; encouraging the LEP to use local commerce and suppliers; providing opportunities for the community to use the new facilities through extended schools programmes.

106

8 Appendices Appendix 1: 1a) Option analysis & feasibility approach to sample schools

Annex 1 – Qualitative analysis (inc. Option appraisal) Annex 2 – Quantitative analysis (inc. Capital costs and Lifecycle costs) 1b) Externals and Abnormals Pro-forma

Appendix 2: Sample schools – delivery of strategy for change 2a) Draft ICT Output Specification 2b) ICT Option Appraisal Matrix

Appendix 3: Annex 1 – Qualitative VfM Assessment Annex 2 - VfM Qualitative Assessment – Soft Services Annex 3 - PFI Value for Money Quantitative Assessment Annex 4 - Value for Money Guidance Note and Input Assumptions Annex 5 – Optimism Bias

Appendix 4: Annex 1 -- Risk Matrix Annex 2 – ICT Risk Matrix

Appendix 5: Unitary Charge Model Appendix 6: FAM Appendix 7: BSF Affordability Model

7a) PFI Funding Model 7b) D&B Funding Model 7c) ICT Funding Model

Appendix 8: Indicative accounting letter (accounting treatment) Appendix 9: Governing Body Resolution for PFI Contribution

Annex 1a – Minute of support Annex 1b – Minutes of meeting Annex 2a – Cabinet Minute Annex 2b – Capital Extract Annex 2c – DoF report to Cabinet Annex 3 – School Commitment letters to FM & Lifecycle Annex 4 – School Commitment letters to ICT Managed Service Annex 5 – Cabinet decision, report and confidential annexes Annex 6 – S151 Officer Letter of commitment Annex 7 – Legal Officer OBC Declaration regarding Site Surveys, Site Ownership and TUPE Annex 8 – Planning Approvals / Letters of comfort

Appendix 10: Draft OJEU Appendix 11: OBC Required KPI data Appendix 12: Approvals Checklist – DCSF and PfS checklists

107

Appendix 13: Annex 1 – Rugeley Learning Campus SfC Annex 2 – Belgrave High School SfC Annex 3 – Rawlett Community Sports College SfC Annex 4 – Wilnecote High School SfC Annex 5 – QEMS SfC Annex 6 – Kettlebrook SfC Annex 7 – Two Rivers SfC

Appendix 14: CDA liaison dates Appendix 15: Carbon reductions Appendix 16: Procurement timetable Appendix 17: Descriptive document Appendix 18: Annex 1 – PQQ

Annex 2 – PQQ Evaluation Matrix Appendix 19: IPD Volume 1 Appendix 20: IPD Volume 2

Annex 1 – Shareholders agreement Annex 2 – Strategic partnering agreement Annex 3 – PFI project agreement Annex 4 – PFI payment mechanism Annex 5 – Design and build target cost Annex 6 – Design and build lump cost Annex 7 – ICT services contract Annex 8 – ICT payment mechanism Annex 9 – Management services agreement Annex 10 – Funders direct agreement Annex 11 – Facilities management agreement

Appendix 21: IPD Volume 3 Annex 1 – FM output spec Annex 2 – F&E output spec Annex 3 – Education output spec Annex 4 – Facilities & Services output spec

Appendix 22: Curricula Vitae Appendix 23: BSF project governance Appendix 24: Project Board membership and terms of reference Appendix 25: Tamworth and Rugeley Implementation Group membership and terms of reference Appendix 26: ICT services Appendix 27: Communications plan

108

Appendix 28: Consultation framework Appendix 29: Student engagement DVD Appendix 30: ICT cost modelling Appendix 31: Soft market testing schedule agenda and notes Appendix 32: ICT options appraisal Appendix 33: Consultation schedule Appendix 34: School swimming pool consultation

photographs of staffordshire’s student engagement...

Documents