The Inquiry

Question

Comment

Was the operation of the postcode system evaluated after it's implementation in 2000/1?

Not answered. There were complaints in 2000/1. At the very least, operational staff must have known that there were errors or omissions in the list. A revision was issued.

How is the County's list of all postcodes by wards created and updated. Was it updated between 2000 and 2001?

Not answered. There are many errors in the list. It is clearly not the latest data which the EROs use. A substantial list of misallocated postcodes for Loughborough was submitted on 13/11/01

Given the dissatisfaction in the method used in 2000/1, were any other methods of distributing the Grant investigated?

No. The Partnership were offered only one method. Other LEAs use a far more sophisticated and equitable methods of rationing grant, quite within the statutory requirements.

Given that the County created the postcode list using the ILC, why were Birstall Stonehill (110th) and Netherhall (89th) made ineligible for funds, rather than Birstall Greengate and Thurnby (18 & 19th resp)?

Not answered. This error has never been explained and persists.

Why was it decided to send Playgroups and Nurseries all the postcodes of 124 the eligible wards, rather than the 19 ineligible ones?

Not answered. Not just a paper saving. It would mean that by default or error of omission children would be eligible rather than ineligible. Thereby reducing complaints.

Given that the settings return fairly detailed statistics, why did the County get is projections so badly wrong in summer 2001?

This is answered in some detail. In hindsight the authority should have done its projections far more thoroughly, looking at other authorities experience and using sampling, and examining headcounts of 3 year olds in September. That is hindsight and everyone agrees its not an easy task. Settings complain that the paperwork they laboriously provide is not being used effectively.

What information exists for parents who may wish to take up places in pre-school education for 3 year olds?

Not addressed in the inquiry. Playgroups tell me that many parents do not know about the free places. I wonder if there is a tacit rationing by information or whether the Partnership believes information is getting through to all parents.

Why did officers spend so much time arguing that the requirement of 5 sessions per week minimum be reduced to a 3 sessions per week, when they knew that the 1996 Act prevented this and their time could have been better spent eliminating errors and communicating effectively with the Partnership, settings and parents?

It's endemic and continues. There seems to be a culture at County Hall of passing the buck, in many cases upwards to Whitehall. Whilst it is important that County Council's considered views are reflected to Government, particularly on Green Papers and other consultations, when this simply serves to procrastinate and divert resources, it is not helpful.

Why did the Director of Education's paper to Education Scrutiny on 3rd October not contain: any reference to the 1996 Act, a list of background papers, nor reference to the step change in the Grant from 0.5million, nor the criteria or Indices upon which the 19 wards were selected?

Not answered. The author was unable to tell me before Committee what criteria were used to select wards.

Why were the postcode lists circulated to registered Playgroups and Nurseries before the Partnership met on 20th September to consider their use?

What proportion of the EY Partnership Executive are employed directly or indirectly by the County Council? How many of the members at the meeting of 17th August 2001 were County Council employees and how many not.

The Scrutiny Committee was told on 4th December that the Executive was not a formal body... With 60% of the Executive composed of officers of the County Council Officers must have been pivotal in its decision not to support the postcode system ... but use it anyway...

Why did it take officers 3 weeks to reply after I, as a member of the Education Scrutiny Committee, asked which Index was used.

Why is the County Council insisting that for 2001/2, the Partnership confirmed that it wished to use the criteria of the Index of Local Conditions drawn up after the 1991 Census when the Partnership had not been asked to make a choice or decision about which indices to use, and furthermore, the 2000 IMD index was specified in the 2001 Partnership's Implementation Plan.

The Inquiry does not tackle this question directly. It describes the decision as one officers, rather than the partnership, took. The report describes it as poorly considered. This a very serious matter. Unless the administration can assure members that information will be provided to members in a correct and timely form, it represents a very damaging attack on the scrutiny process.

Why were officers not able to answer basic questions of a report at the Education Scrutiny meeting on 3rd October 2001?

Not answered. As a consequence of not having information at the meeting so that a proper discussion could ensue, the matter festered on for a further two months and two further meetings, before ultimately, this inquiry was established.

Why were complaints by parents not checked thoroughly?

Not answered. For example: Residents of Wesley Close complained that they were not eligible for free places and received letters telling them they had to pay even though they were in, in fact, an eligible ward.

How are complaints and errors being recorded and reviewed?

Not addressed, but one expects this has been improved. If full and systematic records are being kept it will be possible to identify errors systematically (eg whole roads) and amend the data. My evidence is that records are not very thorough.

Why were Playgroups/Nurseries not advised when errors were detected, and are still not being?

An answer is awaited. Parents were given individual decisions but neither parents who simply accepted the decision, nor playgroups affected, were not advised of errors - and still are not being.

Why are the County Council representatives on the EY Partnership exclusively Conservatives?

Not addressed. This is not a political body. The quality of decision making would be improved by a more heterogeneous membership.

Could the Partnership Plan and minutes be made more accessible (ie published in the web)?

Expected. The work of the Partnership would benefit from wider knowledge and understanding.

Will the County Council now tell all playgroups and nurseries that free pre-school education for all 3 year olds who require it is available for the Spring Term!