NORTHERN IRELAND FORUM

FOR

POLITICAL DIALOGUE

________________

REVIEW OF EDUCATION

ADMINISTRATION IN

NORTHERN IRELAND

(Education and Library Boards)

22 November 1996

REVIEW OF EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND

(EDUCATION AND LIBRARY BOARDS)

" my view, which was expressed in the fact that I did not go for the three board option, was that that was going to .... create problems of accessibility and accountability of the sort I did not wish to see. "

( Michael Ancram to NI Affairs Committee 25 October 1995 )

" I have decided to reduce the number of Education and Library Boards from five to three. "

(Michael Ancram, Statement of 25 June 1996)

REVIEW OF EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND

(EDUCATION AND LIBRARY BOARDS)

C O N T E N T S

Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE 6

3. THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR EDUCATION 1996 - 2000 9

4. THE EVIDENCE : GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 11

5. CONSULTATION 12

6. ACCEPTABILITY 18

7. STABILITY 25

8. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY 29

9. OVERADMINISTRATION 31

10. DUPLICATION 37

11. FINANCES 41

12. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 48

13. RECOMMENDATION 50

REVIEW OF EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND

(EDUCATION AND LIBRARY BOARDS)

A N N E X E S

A : Maps

B : Functions and Roles in the Education System

C : Membership of Education Committee

D : List of Department of Education Documents

E : Submissions

F : Details of Petitions

G : Responsibilities of Education and Library Boards

H : Parliamentary Question of 19 March 1993

(Roy Beggs MP)

I : Economic Appraisal of Review Decisions

(Department of Education)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Following the reorganisation of the basic structure of local government in 1972, the Government decided that education and public libraries should be treated as a regional service. Accordingly, Northern Ireland's 8 education authorities and 16 library authorities were amalgamated into the current 5 Education and Library Board structure under the terms of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. (See Annex A for a map of the current 5-Board system)

1.2 In 1989, the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 introduced major changes to the education system in Northern Ireland. The main effects of the Order on the administration of education were:

- the devolution of greater managerial responsibility to schools and colleges;

- the introduction of formula funding of schools according to pupil numbers ;

- the establishment of independent appeal systems e.g. for determining complaints about examinations and transfers;

- the creation of new Curriculum Advisory and Support Services (CASS) within Education and Library Boards;

- the setting up of 3 new councils:

* The Northern Ireland Curriculum Council (NICC)

* the Northern Ireland Schools Examinations and Assessment Council (NISEAC); and

* the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS)

1.3 According to the Department of Education, the establishment of the 3 new councils meant that responsibility for the administration of the education system in Northern Ireland (including library and youth services) was divided among 11 statutory and 6 non-statutory bodies:

Statutory:

The Department of Education for Northern Ireland

5 Education and Library Boards

The Staff Commission

The Youth Council for Northern Ireland

3 Councils (NICC, NISEAC, CCMS)

Non-Statutory:

Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education

The Boards' Legal Service

The Regional Training Unit

The Association of Governing Bodies of Grammar Schools

The Northern Ireland Youth Forum

Youthnet

The responsibilities and composition of each body (as defined by the Department of Education) are briefly set out in Annex B of this report and it is clear that there are only 3 organisations with a major role in education administration: the Department of Education, the Education and Library Boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools.

1.4 On 17 February 1993, the former Education Minister, Mr Jeremy Hanley, initiated the debate on how Northern Ireland's education system should be administered by launching a consultation paper entitled "Educational Administration in Northern Ireland". The reason given for the review was that the Education Reform Order had

radically changed the context within which the education service was administered and, in particular, that the main role of Education and Library Boards had changed from direct involvement in the management of schools to the provision of advisory and support services. Mr Hanley proposed a reappraisal of the Board system with a view to creating a simpler structure.

1.5 The consultation paper sought comment on a number of proposed administrative models involving:

- the rationalisation of the existing Education and Library Board system into a smaller number of education authorities with similar responsibilities; or

- the creation of 3 separate regional agencies to deal with formal education, youth services and library services; or

- a mixed model with separate regional youth and library services, but with responsibility for formal education divided between a single central agency discharging executive functions and 3 local boards with strategic responsibilities.

Responses to this consultation were overwhelmingly in favour of the retention of the existing structure of 5 Education and Library Boards. ( See paragraph 6.2 for a summary of responses).

1.6 No proposals were produced following the consultation period. On 27 May 1993, the Rt Hon Michael Ancram replaced Mr Hanley as Education Minister for Northern Ireland.

1.7 On 10 April 1995, Michael Ancram published a further consultation paper entitled "Educational Administration in Northern Ireland: Proposals for Change" with the aim of ensuring that "the scale of our administrative system is no more nor no less than we need". The main focus of the review was again the Education and Library Boards as these carried the bulk of responsibility for education administration. In order to achieve efficiency savings while still providing "the highest possible level of democratic and community input to educational administration", the Minister proposed to reduce the number of Boards from 5 to 4, mainly by amalgamating the Belfast and South Eastern Boards into a new Greater Belfast Board (see Annex A for a

map of the proposed 4-Board system.)

1.8 The other significant proposals in the document were:

- devolution to Boards of responsibility for the recurrent funding of voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools;

- the setting up of working groups to consider the practicality of regionalising 6 major executive functions; and

- centralisation of planning and funding for further education.

1.9 In a statement of 7 September 1995, Michael Ancram announced that responsibility for the funding of voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools should remain with the Department but that he would proceed with the regionalisation and further education funding proposals. However, he decided not to make any final decision on the number of Education and Library Boards until he had discussed the matter further with the political parties in Northern Ireland. In doing this, he acknowledged that his 4-Board model had not found the favour he had hoped for, especially from political representatives.

1.10 On 25 October 1995, the Minister, together with senior officials from the Department of Education, gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. The Minister defended the 4-Board proposal as "a balance of the interests of local accountability, local accessibility, local ownership of education administration and the best use of resources" but he repeated his intention to reopen discussion with the Northern Ireland political parties on the question of how many Boards there should be. This consultation lasted until early 1996.

1.11 The decision announced by Michael Ancram on 25 June 1996 was not to proceed with the 4-Board proposal but to reduce the number of Education and Library Boards to 3. (See Annex A for a map of the proposed 3-Board system.)

2. THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE

2.1 Following the announcement of the Minister's decision on 25 June, the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue debated the proposed restructuring of the Education and Library Boards on 5 and 19 July 1996. The Forum decided that the matter should be thoroughly examined and that a substantive advisory report should be produced and forwarded to the Minister for consideration. The outcome of the debate was the following resolution:

"that in the light of the recent decision by the Minister responsible for education, the Forum invites submissions from Education and Library Boards and other interested parties on the contribution of educational services and structures to the promotion of dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland and, consequently, asks the

Minister to put the directive on hold until the views of the Forum are presented in the form of an advisory report."

2.2 The Chairman of the Forum, Mr John Gorman, wrote to the Minister on 23 July 1996 informing him of this resolution and asking him to delay action on his decision until the Forum might have the opportunity to produce its report.

2.3 The Minister's Private Secretary replied, on 20 August 1996, that the publication of the proposal for the draft Order in Council would be postponed until after 30 September, provided the Forum Report was presented to the Minister by that date.

2.4 At its final meeting before the summer recess, on 26 July 1996, the Forum established an Education Committee with the following Terms of Reference:

"to examine the contribution which education services and structures make to the promotion of dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland and report to the Forum by 31 December 1996"

Details of the membership of the Committee are set out in Annex C of this report. The Committee's first task was to take forward the Forum resolution of 19 July and, during the summer recess, advertisements seeking written submissions from interested parties were placed in the 3 main regional newspapers.

2.5 The Education Committee held its first meeting on 12 September 1996 at which Mr Oliver Gibson was elected Chairman and Mr Alan Mc Farland was elected Vice-Chairman. The following day, the Chairman wrote to the Minister asking him to extend the deadline on the Forum's report until the end of October 1996 in order to allow the Committee time to consider fully all written submissions received, and to invite oral evidence from as many interested parties as possible. The Minister, regrettably, refused this request on the grounds that he must consider the impact on the parliamentary process of any further delay in the publication of the legislation.

2.6 In view of this, the Committee had only time to produce an Interim Report which was formally adopted by the Forum on 4 October 1996. The Interim Report set out the Forum's conclusions and its single recommendation. The conclusions and recommendation stemmed from consideration of 44 written submissions (a figure

which has since risen to 49) and over 24 hours of oral evidence. The detailed arguments were necessarily reserved for this Final Report and are set out in Sections 5-11.

2.7 In his covering letter to the Interim Report, the Chairman of the Forum drew the Minister's attention to the Forum's resolution of 4 October 1996, that the report should be forwarded to the Minister for Education with the request that he give serious consideration to its recommendation that:

"The Department should defer any restructuring of the Education and Library Boards until a comprehensive review of educational administration can be carried out in 3 years' time, as foreseen in the Strategic Plan for Education 1996-2000."

2.8 Replying on the Minister's behalf, on 15 October 1996, Mr Colin Jack (Private Secretary) wrote that the Minister did not believe that the concerns set out in the report's conclusions made a case for abandoning or deferring the proposed changes and that he intended to publish the proposal for a draft Order in Council. The closing date for formal consultation on the proposed Order would be 29 November 1996.

2.9 Against this background, the Forum has produced this Final Report. It is the result of close examination of the cases for and against the proposed reduction of the number of Education and Library Boards.

3. THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR EDUCATION 1996-2000

"Ultimately ...... education administration is about creating the most conducive conditions in which our young people and adults are educated so that they can achieve their potential and, thereby, our society can be enhanced."

( Chief Executive, North Eastern Education and Library Board)

3.1 On 23 May 1996, shortly before the Minister announced his decision to opt for a system of 3 Education and Library Boards, the Department of Education for Northern Ireland published its "Strategic Plan for Education 1996-2000 : Learning for Life". The Plan was comprehensive, subject to wide consultation, and favourably received

in most quarters.

3.2 The Strategic Plan sets out in detail the aims, priorities for action and targets (without additional resources) for all stages of the education system, from pre-school to higher education. The Forum believes that the implementation of the Plan should be the Department of Education's highest priority and so the Committee considered the Department's proposals for the reorganisation of education

administration in the light of whether they would be likely to advance or impede progress in achieving the aims of the Plan.

3.3 In the Foreword to the Strategic Plan, the Minister paid tribute to our education system, " Northern Ireland has every reason to be proud of the strong traditions which underpin the service, of the way in which education promotes healthy and positive values, often in a difficult context, and of the high standards of results achieved". The Forum endorses this praise for an education system which has provided stability as well as a fine education service for the children of Northern

Ireland during 23 years of civil conflict.

3.4 In his introduction to the Strategic Plan, the Minister stated:

"the challenges which face education in the rest of the decade and beyond are formidable. The targets and objectives which have been set for the service will only be attainable if all our energies are focused on the key issues."

3.5 Given the crucial importance of education administration to the implementation of the Strategic Plan, any proposals for administrative restructuring need to take account of the role and functions of the Department of Education in relation to the other administrative bodies in the education service. It might, therefore, be sensible to carry out a comprehensive review of education administration rather than the current piecemeal approach.

4. THE EVIDENCE : GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

4.1 As a result of advertisements placed in Northern Ireland's main regional newspapers, the Forum received 49 letters and written submissions from individuals and from a wide range of organisations, including Education and Library Boards, teachers, school principals, teachers' unions, district councils, Chambers of Commerce, political parties and churches. Many of these organisations also gave oral

evidence to the Education Committee.

4.2 The Department of Education provided the Committee with documents relating to its education strategies and to its proposals for education administration. (See Annex D for details) Two of the Department's most senior officials, Mr Pat Carvill and Mr Don Hill, also explained the decision to reduce the number of Education and Library Boards from 5 to 3, during two oral evidence sessions before the Committee.

4.3 Details of those who gave oral and written submissions are at Annex E. The minutes of evidence have been published separately.

4.4 The main areas of controversy and the Committee's conclusions are set out in sections 5 - 11 of this report.

5. CONSULTATION

" I am determined that consultation must continue to be a governing principle of this review at all of its stages"

( Michael Ancram, 10 April 1995)

5.1 The history of public consultation on the review of education administration in Northern Ireland has already been set out in section 1 of this report.

5.2 In presenting its case to the NI Forum, Department of Education officials maintained that the Department had carried out widespread and protracted public consultation since 1993 on various models for the reorganisation of education administration. The Forum could not accept this assertion on the basis of the evidence and, in its Interim Report, concluded that the proposal to reduce the number of Education and Library Boards from 5 to 3 had not been subject to adequate public consultation. In his response to the Interim Report, Michael Ancram stated:

"This conclusion is simply not borne out by the facts. The issues addressed in the review, and possible ways of addressing them, have been exhaustively aired during consultations which have stretched over four years."

5.3 The Education Committee did not arrive at its conclusion lightly. On examining the evidence from district councils, political parties and Education and Library Boards, the Committee established a number of facts about the history of the consultation process on education administration.

5.4 The Department of Education had engaged in extensive public consultation on Mr Hanley's paper "Educational Administration in Northern Ireland" (17 February 1993). A consultation which did not, however, produce any proposals from the Department until 10 April 1995.

5.5 The proposal to reduce the number of Education and Library Boards from 5 to 4, contained in Michael Ancram's Statement of 10 April 1995, was subject to a 2-month consultation period. The 4-Board model met with such widespread opposition that the Minister announced, in September 1995, that he would not make any decision

until he had discussed the matter further with the political parties.

5.6 A further paper was circulated on 23 October 1995, to form the basis of consultation with the political parties. This document estimated savings in staff overheads for both 4 and 3-Board models and contained tables of the implications of both models for District Councils, Trustees and Transferors. Maps showing the boundaries of 4 and 3-Board structures were also included "by way of illustration". Neither option found favour with the major political parties, who all argued that decisions on the reorganisation of education administration should be left to a "Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly".

5.7 Also during this period, the Minister and his officials gave evidence to the House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in support of the 4-Board proposal on 25 October 1995.

5.8 The Minister's announcement, on 25 June 1996, that he had decided on a 3-Board model was unexpected for a number of reasons:

- the paper referred to at paragraph 5.6 above was only circulated to political parties. Neither the Boards nor the schools were consulted at this stage and the paper was not released for public comment. The last public position of the Department had

been the 4-Board proposal of 10 April 1995.

- the decision represented a considerable shift in position from the Minister's defence of his 4-Board proposal to the NI Affairs Committee less than six months previously:

" we had to come to a decision which was a balance of the interests of local accountability, local accessibility, local ownership of education administration and the best use of resources. I took the view that this was best going to be provided by having four boards".

- The Chairmen and Chief Executives of the 5 existing Education and Library boards were only informed of the Minister's decision at a dinner the evening before the announcement was published.

5.9 The 3-Board model was announced not as a proposal but as a decision. The most significant effect of this was that large areas of Northern Ireland, which would not have been affected by the original 4-Board proposal, were now involved in a considerable restructuring which effectively abolished the existing 5-Boards and replaced them with 3 new Boards.

5.10 The considerable boundary changes involved in the 3-Board model impacted most on the Carrickfergus, Newtownabbey and western council areas, yet these councils and their constituents were not allowed the same opportunity to make their case as had been afforded to the south-eastern councils the previous year, during consultation on the 4-Board proposal. This point was repeatedly made to the

Committee by the councils concerned.

5.11 Having considered these points arising from the submissions received, the Committee concluded that the Department of Education had consulted widely on the 4-Board model of education administration and had abandoned the proposal due to the weight of opposition it attracted. Following a period of consultation with the political parties, all of whom made it clear that they opposed any administrative restructuring at this time, the Minister ignored the views of the local politicians and announced the more radical 3-Board model as a decision and not as a proposal, even though it was likely to evoke greater public concern with the greater numbers of schools, Boards and council areas directly affected.

5.12 The unique constitutional position of Northern Ireland under direct rule from Westminster means that locally elected political representatives have no role in policy making or decision taking, other than in an advisory capacity. In order to offset the effects of this "democratic deficit", it should be Government practice to consult widely on proposed new policies or major structural reorganisations. The Committee was concerned that a decision was taken on the radical 3-Board restructuring, without full public consultation and disregarding the views of the major political parties.

5.13 The Minister's June announcement of his intention to publish draft legislation in September 1996 was particularly ill-timed because:

(1) The All Party Talks, endeavouring to restore responsibility for governing Northern Ireland to local representatives, had only resumed on 10 June 1996; and

(2) Those district councils, Education and Library Boards and schools which were most affected, and which had been deprived of a normal consultation process, were now hampered in their ability to respond to the Minister's decision because their

organisations were in recess for the summer. Indeed the Forum itself felt the adverse effects of the Minister's timing and had twice written to him, in vain, seeking an extension of his deadline for the Forum's response.

5.14 Conclusion

The Committee concludes that there has been an unacceptable absence of adequate public consultation on the current proposal to reduce the number of Education and Library Boards from 5 to 3.

6 ACCEPTABILITY

" No Irish (sic) politicians for several generations have taken any decisions, not even local government decisions; that is appalling"

(John Major, Manchester, Summer of 1996)

6.1 The fact that a Ministerial decision was taken and draft legislation was published without adequate public consultation was a matter of considerable concern to the Committee. The effects, in democratic terms, might have been mitigated had there been evidence of a significant body of support for the reorganisation. However, the

evidence presented to the Committee revealed that the Minister's decision did not take account of the views of the majority of respondents.

6.2 The NI Association of Education and Library Boards provided the Committee with a copy of its analysis of responses to Mr Hanley's 1993 consultation paper ("An Overview of Responses to the Department of Education's Consultative Document : Educational Administration in Northern Ireland"). The responses were summarised by the Association as follows:

- 90% of responses (which addressed the issue of Board numbers) were in favour of the retention of the 5 Boards.

- schools, in particular, supported the retention of the five Boards with 92% of the responses favouring this option;

- all the District Councils have supported the retention of five Boards, as have all the main Protestant churches;

- the political parties consulted at the time supported the maintenance of the five Boards, at least until a new Assembly had considered the best form of administration for Northern Ireland within new, locally accountable, democratic political structures.

6.3 The Permanent Secretary of the Department of Education, agreed that "many of those who responded to the consultation exercise .... argued for no change, particularly in advance of the establishment of any local assembly .... I think that it is fair to say that even some of those who, in principle, said in response to the consultations that they favoured change, would have preferred that that change should be deferred".

6.4 When asked about public reactions to the Department's first proposal to reduce the number of Education and Library Boards from 5 to 4 (10 April 1995), the Permanent Secretary said, "I think it is fair to say that they were very hostile, there were hostile comments really from all quarters, for different reasons". The statistics provided by the Department show the extent of this hostility:

The total number of letters received .....................1567

The number who supported the 5 Board system ... . 81

The number who supported the 4 Board system....... 6

The number who supported any other proposal.......... 16

Letters relating to South Eastern Education and Library Board issues (SEELB)................................ 1464

Only 6 respondents out of 1,567 supported the 4-Board proposal, while the 1,464 figure for SEELB conceals the fact that at least 1,200 of these were from supporters of the retention of the South Eastern Board and, therefore, of the current 5-Board structure. This fact had emerged from the Minister's evidence to the NI Affairs Committee in October 1995.

6.5 The Minister had also been presented with a number of petitions opposing the 4-Board model ( see Annex F for details ) and with letters from the leaders of the 4 main Northern Ireland political parties (Mr Molyneaux, Dr Paisley, Mr Hume and Lord Alderdice) and from Northern Ireland MPs, asking him to leave the review of education administration to local representatives. The Department stated that, with the scale of opposition to his proposal, the Minister had deferred a decision until the political parties had been consulted .

6.6 Despite the fact that the political parties believed that decisions on the reorganisation of education administration should be left to a local elected body, the Minister announced his decision, on 25 June 1996, to opt for a more radical 3-Board structure. Since this decision had considerably greater implications for the existing Board structure, it was highly unlikely that it would meet with less hostility.

6.7 The Department of Education provided the Committee with the following statistics on reactions to the 3-Board decision:

The total number of letters received .......................417

The number who supported the 5-Board system ..... 72

The number who supported the 3-Board system ...... 5

The number who supported any other proposal........ 0

Letters relating to Western Education and

Library Board issues (WELB)................................ 340

Only 5 of the 417 responses supported the 3-Board proposal. Furthermore, given the manner in which the Department's statistics cloaked the full extent of opposition to the 4-Board model, the Forum Education Committee inferred that the majority of the 340 letters referred to as relating to WELB issues were, in fact, opposed to the

3-Board model. In addition, 2 petitions were presented to the Minister, containing a total of 119,782 signatures in opposition to the dividing of the Western Education and Library Board. (See Annex F for details). This figure represents some 44% of the total population of the Western Board area.

6.8 During its investigation, the Committee considered evidence from:

- 5 Education and Library Boards;

- 3 Teachers' Unions as well as the NI Public Service Alliance and a group of staff from the North Eastern Board;

- 50 schools from various sectors of the education system;

- 3 deputations representing 22 district councils;

- The Library and Information Services Council (NI);

- The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools and a representative of the Catholic Church;

- The Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland;

- The Community Relations Council;

- The Northern Ireland political parties;

- A number of private individuals, including clergymen.

(See Annex E for details).

6.9 Despite the Department's strenuous defence of the proposed changes, no other individual or group came forward to the Committee in support of the 3-Board proposal. Respondents argued that improvements could be made, and savings achieved, within the existing Board structure without the disruption of abolishing the 5 Boards and replacing them with 3 new Boards. They were also concerned at the timing of such radical administrative change, when school principals and teachers were coping with major changes in education reform, and when politicians had just started All Party Talks about possible local, democratically elected structures of government for Northern Ireland.

6.10 It was clear to the Committee that the "democratic deficit" in Northern Ireland, whereby local political representatives have no direct role in the governing of Northern Ireland, had resulted in a lack of political accountability and Government Ministers taking decisions which do not reflect the views of the electorate. The development of All Party Talks is an acknowledgement that this state of affairs should not continue. The unanimity of responses to the Minister's proposed reduction in the number of Education and Library Boards convinced the Committee that the opposition was not confined to a self-interested minority, but was widespread and active. The remarkable degree of consensus among local councils and political parties, sustained for 4 years, in opposition to restructuring has been completely ignored by the Department.

6.11 In evidence to the Committee, the Department agreed that the whole procedure had been "contentious".

6.12 Conclusion

The Committee is of the opinion that no support exists for the Minister's decision, indeed there is widespread active opposition to it.

7. STABILITY

"If this is stability, all I can say is Help!"

(Principal, Strabane Controlled Primary School)

7.1 Throughout its evaluation of the evidence presented to it, the Committee was guided by the opinion (expressed in Section 3) that the main priority of the Department of Education should be to raise education standards through the "Strategic Plan for Education 1996-2000". The Committee had to consider whether the proposed restructuring of the Board system would help or hinder the

achievement of these improvements.

7.2 The Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 ushered in a period of great change in the education system, particularly in funding, enrolment and the curriculum. The view of the Department of Education was that the reforms have so significantly changed the roles and responsibilities of schools and Boards that immediate reorganisation is required.

7.3 This opinion was not, however, shared by those giving evidence to the Committee, particularly school principals, teachers and teachers' unions, who viewed the continuing process of education reform as a reason for not simultaneously embarking on administrative reorganisation.

7.4 All the teachers who addressed the Committee expressed concern at the pace of education reform which has not only brought major changes to the classroom but has dramatically increased their reliance on the Boards for advice and support. Administrative and financial management has been imposed on those who entered the profession to teach. They view the restructuring of the Boards as a weakening of

their essential support networks at a critical time.

7.5 In his evidence to the NI Affairs Committee, the Minister claimed that one of the merits of the 4-Board model (which he was then proposing) was the "avoidance of too radical a structural change at a time of pressure on schools." In explanation of his rejection (at that time) of a 3-Board option he told the Committee:

"The 3-Board model would have involved a lot of disruption right across Northern Ireland, and would have considerably changed the nature of the way in which education was administered in terms of .... the important elements of accountability and accessibility".

7.6 When this proposal was subsequently abandoned in favour of the more radical 3-Board decision, this argument was replaced by the line taken in the Minister's response to the Forum's Interim Report:

" It is now over four years since the review was initiated in 1992 and almost seven years since the education reforms became law. For example, secondary schools are now into the sixth year of managing their own budgets under LMS and I believe that they are now familiar and confident in operating this system. The same can also increasingly be said of the other aspects of education reform."

7.7 It was, however, difficult for the Committee to accept that schools are increasingly "familiar with and confident in" the various aspects of education reform when faced with evidence such as the following statement from the Principal of Strabane Controlled Primary School.

"Yesterday I picked up details around my office of all the data that had arrived since the beginning of September.....There is a revised programme of study. There is a new financial manual for the local management of schools. There are CCEA's directions for statutory assessment which begins for all primary schools this year. As the class

computerisation system now moves into the majority of primary schools, we have manuals for it. There is a major drugs initiative launched by the Department. There is the incorporation of boards of governors. There are new directives about open enrolment. There are new responsibilities for governors relating to the transfer of pupils from primary to secondary schools. There are additional demands for the school prospectus and the annual parents meeting. There have been detailed statistical bulletins about the transfer procedure (from the Department). For a significant number of schools, there is the raising school standards initiative..... There is the introduction of the code of practice for special needs and there is the introduction of staff development and performance review.... If this is stability, all I can say is "Help".

7.8 In presenting a picture of an apparent state of post-reform calm, the Minister omitted to mention the publication, in May 1996, of the Department's Strategic Plan which schools are currently striving to assimilate and implement. The Committee is convinced that excellence in the classroom can only be achieved with a quality support service. The raising of standards in schools can only be achieved with efficient management by confident people. There was no evidence to suggest that the proposed restructuring would lead to tangible, quantifiable benefits for the education service. On the contrary, there was good reason for believing that the existing administrative structures are working effectively and enjoy the support of the schools they serve.

The Committee is concerned that there is a very real danger the implementation of the Minister's proposals will produce the widespread disruption which he, himself, envisaged in 1995. The Committee was particularly impressed by the evidence of school principals who argued forcibly that the proposed structural changes would undermine their ability to respond effectively to the ongoing process of education reform.

7.9 As a warning, the Headmaster of Limavady High School, who was a teacher at the time of the last reorganisation of education administration, had this to say of the experience:

" In 1973, when the change took place, schools themselves were in quite a stable condition. There hadn't been a great deal of change.....but nevertheless there was confusion. There were administrative problems. Now the situation is completely different. Schools for the past number of years have been subjected to many

changes ....Now, I would hate to be plunged into a situation where change is still occurring in schools and where the level of administration above us was in a confused state as well".

7.10 Conclusion

The Committee concludes that schools and advisors should be afforded an adequate period of predictable stability during the implementation of the current education reforms.

8. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

8.1 The Department of Education has always maintained that the issue of local accountability was a major concern during the review of education administration and that his decision to increase the size of Boards to 50 members was made in direct response to those concerns. The Department argues that the new structure would provide greater political accountability through increased district council representation on the new Boards. Although total Board membership would decrease from 172 to 150 under the new 3-Board model, district council representation would increase by three councillors.

8.2 The Committee was, however, influenced by the fact that those elected representatives who gave evidence did not perceive that the proposed increase in elected representation would create sufficient benefits to outweigh the many adverse effects which they anticipated from the proposed restructuring. Indeed, the view of a deputation of councillors from the area of the North Eastern and Library Board was that:

"The Minister's decision proposes a percentage increase of political representation from the current 40% to 48% in the new three Board scenario, an increase of three additional councillors from 69 to 72 councillors. As District Councillors, we reject this artificial attempt to portray a real reduction in political and community representation, in its widest sense, as an attempt to redress the "democratic deficit" in Northern Ireland. This proposal will reduce the actual involvement of the community in Boards from 172 members to 105 members. This is a pathetic attempt to "buy-off" one section of the community at the expense of other legitimate interests such as Transferor representatives who, to facilitate this minimal increase in political representation, will be reduced by three representatives overall."

8.3 In deciding to reduce the number of Education and Library Boards, the Minister has failed to acknowledge the need for Board services to be provided in a manner which takes account of local circumstances and needs and which incorporates effective arrangements for accountability at local level.

8.4 The Committee also noted the view expressed by the Minister in his response to the Forum's Interim Report that:

"In terms of the larger areas which these new Boards will cover, I do not consider a fifty member Board to be unreasonable"

However, this view is inconsistent with the Government's thinking in the initial consultation paper in 1993, in which a membership of 30 "was considerably larger than would ideally be desirable", and a membership of 50 or more would "clearly be unacceptable".

8.5 Conclusion:

The Committee concludes that the replacement of the present 32-35 member boards with 50 member boards would create unwieldy, unworkable and less accountable administrative structures.

9. OVERADMINISTRATION

" When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change."

( The Secretary of State for Education, February 1993)

9.1 In his presentation to the Committee, the Permanent Secretary of the Department, cited three main reasons as having prompted the review. One of these was education reform and the implications of the 1989 Education Reform Order. The changed role of the Education and Library Boards since the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 was, therefore, an issue which the Committee explored with both the Department and with other witnesses.

9.2 The Department has maintained that the Order had radically changed the respective roles and responsibilities of the Department, the Education and Library Boards and the schools and colleges:

" the new, more arms-length role of ELBs inevitably focuses attention on whether Northern Ireland continues to need 5 separate administrative bodies."

(Jeremy Hanley, 17 February 1993)

"the transfer of a wide range of board functions to schools and colleges and the creation of the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment had already reduced significantly the responsibilities of boards before the review of education

administration began in 1992.... I remain convinced that the administrative structure is overelaborate for the needs of the education service."

(Michael Ancram, 25 June 1996)

9.3 On the other hand, the oral evidence from 4 Education and Library Boards was that their responsibilities had changed considerably but that this had not diminished their duties in relation to the good governance of schools, nor was their role in relation to schools "more arms-length". In this second assertion, the Boards were supported by a number of deputations from school principals and teachers.

9.4 The Education Committee asked both the Department and the Boards to supply details of Board responsibilities which had been abolished or reduced since 1989 and of the traditional and new functions for which they are currently responsible. The responses received are reproduced in full in Annex G of this report.

9.5 It was clear from its response that the Department considered there had been a significant decrease in the role of Boards, particularly in relation to finance, admissions, enrolment, curriculum matters and school management . It was clear from the Board's replies, however, that they continue to have significant responsibilities in relation to the above areas as well as additional, new responsibilities.

9.6 By far the greatest single responsibility which transferred to schools under education reform was the determination of teaching staff complements and control of the budget for teaching staff ( approximately 80% of the schools' recurrent expenditure ). There was, however, some dispute over whose role was diminished by the passing of this responsibility to schools. The Department held this responsibility until 1988 when it became the temporary responsibility of the Boards during a transitional period (1988-1990) after which control of their own budgets was delegated to schools in the wake of the Education Reform Order.

9.7 It was clear from the evidence that the Boards now have to support schools in a more intensive and extensive way when introducing and implementing the reforms. There has been a growth in the advisory, support and training roles to schools. On closer inspection, developments which purported to remove responsibilities from Boards e.g. Independent Appeals procedures have resulted, in practice, in Boards continuing to administer them. Boards have also had to develop new support systems in relation to the Local Management of Schools (LMS) and the Northern Ireland curriculum, and to provide support and training in specialised areas such as labour relations, equal opportunities and financial planning.

9.8 The implementation of new legislation, such as the recent Children (NI) Order 1995 and Special Educational Needs provisions, will place further demands on Boards' advisory services. Boards of Governors, who are largely voluntary, have relied heavily on Boards for training and information to help them cope with their duties and responsibilities and will continue to do so for a considerable time. In view of the

increased dependence of school principals, teachers and Governors on the support of Boards, it seemed to the Committee inappropriate to consider reducing the Boards at this time.

9.9 The Committee was particularly interested to hear the views of teachers, school principals and teachers' unions on this issue since they are the recipients of Board services and are, therefore, well placed to judge the situation at ground level. Significantly, they agreed that, since the introduction of education reform, Boards were much more actively involved with schools than had been the case previously

and their services were now in greater demand. In addition, there was a need for stability in the provision of support services at a time of increased pressure on schools.

9.10 When the argument that the Northern Ireland education system is overadministered by the current 5-Board structure was put to witnesses opposing the Department's decision, the Committee was repeatedly referred to the position of Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in Great Britain. Although the rest of the United Kingdom has been subject to education reform, the Department proposes to expand

the Education and Library Board system into 3 larger units, while the trend in the rest of the United Kingdom has been towards the creation of smaller LEAs.

9.11 In this context, a number of Boards referred the Committee to a letter from Andrew Collier, General Secretary of the Society of Education Officers to Michael Ancram. The Society is the professional organisation for LEA staff in England and Wales and in Education and Library Boards in Northern Ireland. Mr Collier pointed out to the Minister that, in the rest of the United Kingdom, the same debate had

raged between alleged economies of scale and the need for local authorities to be close to the people, but with the result that:

" the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland each opted for uniform patterns of unitary authorities, with education embedded in local government, and for authorities generally much smaller than your proposed new Boards.... It does seem strange that in Northern Ireland alone, education administration will be moved away from the local communities it serves, when changes in the rest of the United Kingdom are all in the other direction ".

9.12 Although many LEAs are part of unitary authorities which, unlike the Boards, have other responsibilities besides education, a major factor in determining their size was local, accessible education provision. It is interesting to note that, in response to a Parliamentary Question from Mr Roy Beggs MP, the Minister for Education, Mr Forth, published a list of LEAs in England, showing the number of pupils for which they had responsibility in January 1992. (See Annex H for a copy of the reply with the figures for Northern Ireland's Education and Library Boards inserted in bold capitals). At that time all 5 Northern Ireland Boards were in the top third of the table. Average pupil populations for English LEAs was 55,000 compared to 67,000 for NI Boards ( a figure which would rise to around 117,000 under the new 3-Board structure). Since 1992, LEAs in Great Britain have increased in number and decreased in size so that an update of the reply to Mr Begg's question would put NI Boards even higher up the table.

9.13 Other statistics quoted to the Committee were that the average populations served by LEAs is 160,000 in Scotland and 132,000 in Wales, while in Northern Ireland the average population served by the NI Education and Library Boards is currently 330,000, and would increase to 550,000 under the new 3-Board structure. The evidence of the rest of the United Kingdom does not support the argument that the

education system in Northern Ireland is overadministered.

9.14 Conclusion

The Committee concludes that, while there has been change in the role of Boards, this has been balanced by new and additional responsibilities. The Department's contention of overadministration cannot be sustained.

10. DUPLICATION

" We share the objective of the Minister that that money should go into the schools and that is what we are working towards. But we believe that we can do it within the existing structure ..... it is not necessary to turn the whole system on its head"

( Chief Executive, Western Education and Library Board)

10.1 The second factor cited by the Department of Education as having prompted the review of education administration was "the question of efficiency and effectiveness .... A concern was that under a five-board system there was duplication of effort between Boards to address common issues".

10.2 The Department's conclusion was that duplication of services, or rather the separate provision of the same, or broadly similar, services by Boards, was wasteful of resources and that savings could be made by simply reducing the number of Boards.

"The conclusion that the Minister came to was that that sort of overlap and duplication is in fact a product of the fact that we have five separate Boards. It reflects the structure of the existing system and it requires a structural solution."

10.3 On the other hand, the Education and Library Boards emphasised that they had consistently made annual savings on their administrative costs since 1991/92 through internal reorganisation, through increased inter-board co-operation and through the provision of some services on a "lead board" basis e.g. the Regional Training Unit and the Boards' Legal Service. They also argued that separate service provision does not automatically mean more expensive service provision, as the

Department's recent investigations into the possibility of regionalising some common services demonstrated.

10.4 In the words of the Deputy Chief Executive of the South Eastern Education & Library Board:

"We are not negative about savings, we are very aware that in our Board over the last four years, since education reform and delegation of budgets to schools came in, we have made very, very significant savings in our administration costs and the other Boards have done the same. We have done that by internal reorganisation with the

intention of getting money out to schools.

The Northern Ireland Audit Office, as you will see from our submission, analysed the output of that and concluded two years ago that Boards had saved 8%. It is a very significant sum .... Our total percentage of our budget that is spent on administration is down to the 2-2½% mark. We think that the kind of organisational changes that

we are continuing to put into place will have much more potential to generate money for schools, and have demonstrably already done so, than this kind of disruptive and disturbing change."

10.5 Such evidence does not create the image of the Boards as obsolete structures, unchanged for 23 years, unresponsive to education reform and wasteful of resources. Furthermore, the Boards expressed to the Committee their willingness to continue to seek ways to simplify their administrative structures and to reduce their administration costs. Despite the evidence of increasing financial efficiency on the part of the Boards, which have evolved structurally to meet the changing

circumstances of the post-reform era, this fact is not acknowledged in the Department's publications on education administration.

10.6 There is also considerable evidence to show that separate provision of services does not necessarily mean more expensive provision and that centralisation of services does not automatically yield financial savings.

10.7 In his statement of 10 April 1995, the Minister said:

"Detailed consideration of all the major executive functions performed by the ELBs has confirmed the Government's initial view that regionalisation would yield considerable improvements in economy and effectiveness."

10.8 By the time he had produced his paper for consultation with the political parties, on 23 October 1995, he was making the following, predictions:

"It is envisaged that Architectural Services, the payment of Awards, the arrangements for Internal Audit, Purchasing, Legal and Insurance Services and Information Systems ..... will be provided on a regional basis. These changes will reduce the extent to which there is duplication of activity ..... one tentative estimate is that savings of £1m per annum might result from this regionalisation."

10.9 However, after Working Groups had closely studied the potential for making financial savings by regionalising the six services concerned, the Minister's statement of 25 June 1996 was considerably more low-key:

"The potential for significant improvements in efficiency and some reductions in costs is, however, likely to be realisable only in .... architectural services, payment of student grants and awards and purchasing"

10.10 Conclusion

The Committee considers that Boards have already made significant progress in recent years in reducing areas of duplication and recommends that the potential for further reductions in duplication should be fully explored.

11. FINANCES

"Savings should not always be the motive for changes in the ways of educating our young, otherwise we end up short-changing and cheap-skating them."

(Cardinal Daly's representative)

11.1 The third consideration behind the review of education administration, according to the Department of Education, was the anticipated economic benefit. Throughout its publications over the past 4 years on the review of education administration, the Department consistently emphasised the potential savings accruing from a reduction in the number of Education and Library Boards.

"It remains my view that ..... we are devoting too high a proportion of educational expenditure to administration ..... we cannot ignore any opportunity for savings which would maximise what we can spend in the classroom."

(Michael Ancram, Statement of 7 September 1995)

"Resources devoted to administration are resources which have to be diverted from the provision of services to the public."

(Michael Ancram to NI Affairs Committee, 26 October 1995)

11.2 The Committee was concerned to explore whether the Department's projected financial savings from the restructuring of the Boards were realistic and whether, if achieved, they would justify the imposition of an unpopular, unnecessary and untimely decision. The Committee was particularly concerned to establish the validity of the assumptions and figures which formed the basis of the Department's projections and decisions.

11.3 The Department estimated that annual savings of some £2 million could be achieved by reducing the number of Boards to 3, based largely on revised staffing structures for executive services and from reductions in senior management teams. A large proportion of oral and written submissions to the Committee expressed disbelief in the Department's projected savings. There was scepticism, based on the

facts that the Department had not produced any economic appraisal of the various models it had proposed and that the Department's projections of financial savings had proved wrong before e.g. the savings originally estimated from the proposed regionalisation of 6 Board services.

11.4 A number of Boards complained to the Committee that the Department had failed to respond to requests that it should produce the full economic appraisal on which its proposals to restructure the Boards had been based. Some doubted whether such an appraisal had ever been carried out.

"We have been unable to get access to the economic appraisal and therefore it is very hard to attack the figures"

(Chief Executive, Western Education and Library Board)

"having shown you the figures in relation to regionalisation, I am sure, like me, Members may be sceptical about the £2 million because part of the problem is there has been no economic appraisal, there has been no clear financial information, no cost-benefit analysis."

(Chief Administrative Officer, North Eastern Education and Library Board)

11.5 In response to the Committee's request for a copy of the economic appraisal, the Department provided a brief paper, the relevant sections of which are reproduced as Annex I of this report.

11.6 In the introduction to its paper, the Department identifies the main elements of a policy appraisal as the identification of:

A. The Options;

B. Costs and Savings;

C. Non-Financial Benefits.

This section deals with the projected costs and savings contained in the Annex to the Department's paper.

11.7 A substantial part of the Department's Annex is dedicated to comparative costings between Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in Great Britain and Education and Library Boards (ELBs) in Northern Ireland. However, a study of the Department's use of such comparators raises a number of questions.

(1) The use of 1991/92 figures is difficult to justify since LEAs have undergone reorganisation on 2 occasions between 1991 and 1996, including a substantial increase in the number of LEAs and a consequent decrease in the number of pupils in

those affected.

(2) In some areas there is direct conflict between figures which are central to the validity of using comparators. For example, Bedfordshire is used to represent the average LEA, and is quoted as having 83,000 pupils in 1991/92. However, a Department of Education reply to a Parliamentary Question from Mr Roy Beggs MP (see Annex H) states that in January 1992 Bedfordshire had 76,781 pupils - a difference of over 6,000.

(3) The use of Bedfordshire may be further brought into question as, with a population of 0.5 million, it is 1/3 the size of Northern Ireland and its school population of 83,000 is 1/4 that of Northern Ireland.

It is clear that throughout the exercise like is not being compared with like.

11.8 Although substantial space is taken up discussing comparators, the Department of Education, under examination, insisted that the exercise played no part in the decision to reduce the Boards. They maintained that LEA comparisons were only used to check the Department's own estimates.

"It is an interesting and relevant comparison but that is all"

(Deputy Secretary, Department of Education NI)

The Committee found it strange that the Department devoted so much space in its financial submission to an exercise which played no part in its decision-making process. Indeed, if all references to LEA-ELB comparison are removed from the document, surprisingly little space (Sections 2 and 3) is given over to setting out the mechanism for identifying financial savings - the key evidence which underpins the

decision to reduce the number of Boards from 5 to 3.

11.9 In its evidence, the Department explained the methodology which had been used to estimate the possible savings arising from the reorganisation. A firm of management consultants was employed to collect data on the staffing of the Boards by function and grade.

Alternative staffing structures were then developed for various executive services on the assumption that:

"there are wide variations in the unit costs of services across the Boards and a reduced number of Boards are expected to achieve the performance levels already achieved by some"

11.10 The Department admitted that there were limitations imposed by the method used to collect data from the Boards and that it was not possible to isolate the existing staffing of every function reliably. No evidence was produced to establish that variations in the unit costs of services was due to inefficiencies and not to other factors.

11.11 The financial information provided was only at summary level, the Department failed to make available the requested detailed information that would have enabled the Committee to evaluate the proposed alternative staffing structures and the savings they would allegedly produce.

"This is a summary of very extensive working papers .... It shows the methodology, it shows the assumptions, it shows the summation of the costings, it is not the working document."

( Permanent Secretary, Department of Education NI)

11.12 The Committee was presented with a confused picture of the administrative expenditure of the Boards and the Department from 1991/2 to 1994/5 because of changes in the categorisation of such expenditure. The Committee had to contend with 4 different and conflicting sets of figures during the course of its investigation.

Furthermore, the Department's methodology of using 1991/2 expenditure figures for the LEA - ELB comparison precluded it from taking into account the substantial savings made by Boards in recent years (see paragraph 10.4)

11.13 The paper was even less informative about the likely implementation costs of the proposed restructuring:

"These savings do not take into account any additional costs resulting from, for example, increased travelling expenses but equally do not presuppose savings ... from a reduction in overheads and any potential rationalisation of headquarters

locations..... Redundancy payments ... cannot be reliably estimated until decisions are made about the numbers and grades of staff to be released".

11.13 The Committee was surprised and disappointed that the Department did not support its financial case with clear, convincing argument and evidence. The Committee considered, from the scant document produced and the Department's account of the methodoloy it had employed, that the appraisal falls short of the standard one would expect in an exercise to inform such a major policy decision.

11.14 Conclusion:

The Committee concludes that the Department failed to demonstrate that the estimated savings of £2 million are likely to be achieved or that the implementation costs of the proposed reorganisation have been properly assessed.

12. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS:

12.1 The Committee concludes that there has been an unacceptable absence of adequate public consultation on the current proposal to reduce the number of Education and Library Boards from 5 to 3.

12.2 The Committee is of the opinion that no support exists for the Minister's decision, indeed there is widespread, active opposition to it.

12.3 The Committee concludes that schools and advisors should be afforded an adequate period of predictable stability during the implementation of the current education reforms.

12.4 The Committee concludes that the replacement of the present 32-35 member Boards with 50 member Boards would create unwieldy, unworkable and less accountable administrative structures.

12.5 The Committee concludes that, while there has been change in the role of Boards, this has been balanced by new and additional responsibilities. The Department's contention of overadministration cannot be sustained.

12.6 The Committee considers that the Boards have already made significant progress in recent years in reducing areas of duplication and recommends that the potential for further reductions in duplication should be fully explored.

12.7 The Committee concludes that the Department failed to demonstrate that the estimated savings of £2 million are likely to be achieved or that the implementation costs of the proposed reorganisation have been properly assessed.

13. RECOMMENDATION

13.1 Education administration in Northern Ireland has been the subject of review by the Department of Education (NI) since 1992. Although Mr Hanley's original consultation paper (1993) invited comment on a number of possible models, the focus was clearly on the restructuring of the Education and Library Boards. From the available evidence, there seems to have been no review of the role of the Department in education administration and its relationship with the Board system.

13.2 There were no further developments until Michael Ancram, the new Minister, published his "Proposals for Change" (10 April 1995) in which he proposed reducing the number of Education and Library Boards from 5 to 4. This proposal was abandoned due to the weight of opposition it attracted, only to be superseded by the decision (25 June 1996) to reduce the number of Boards to 3. This decision was not the result of public consultation and aroused such widespread opposition that the newly-formed Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue decided to investigate the matter through its Education Committee.

13.3 From the evidence, the Committee established that the Minister's decision was undemocratic, in that it had been taken without proper consultation and against widespread opposition, especially from Northern Ireland's elected representatives. The rationalisation of the Education and Library Board system will produce an unacceptable reduction in local participation in education administration which is

against the trend in the rest of the United Kingdom. It will also cause considerable and unnecessary disruption in schools at a time when teachers are already suffering from reform fatigue. Substantial, but unacknowledged, savings in administrative expenditure have been made by Boards in recent years through the streamlining of internal structures and procedures and through Board initiated co-operation where necessary. No real evidence was presented of overadministration or duplication, or that regionalisation of services would automatically produce savings. Finally, the Committee considers that a review of education administration should not be carried out in a piecemeal fashion or by focusing only on the Boards, but should include the other two main bodies involved, the Deparment of Education and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools.

13.4 Recommendation:

The Department should not proceed with the restructuring of the Education and Library Boards at this time.