Report - Government Plan 2020-2023 - Education and Home Affairs - 11 November 2019

Government Plan Review 2020

Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

11th November 2019

This report forms Section 6 of the Government Plan Review Panel's report on the Government Plan – S.R.13/2019

Contents

1. Section 6 – Education and Home Affairs Panel's Government Plan Review ............... 4
2. Education and Home Affairs Panel membership......................................................... 4
3. Chair's Foreword ........................................................................................................ 5
4. Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................ 6  Key Findings ............................................................................................................. 6  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 9
5. Departmental Budgets and Efficiencies .................................................................... 10  Children, Young People, Education and Skills ........................................................ 11  Justice and Home Affairs ........................................................................................ 12
6. Actions, Programs and Capital Projects Reviewed ................................................... 14
7. Reports on Specific Actions and Business Cases ..................................................... 16  Actions not linked to a business case ..................................................................... 16  Business Cases for Additional Revenue Expenditure ............................................. 19  Business Cases for Capital Expenditure ................................................................. 48
8. Final Panel Comments ............................................................................................. 74
9. Witnesses and Evidence Gathered........................................................................... 75 Appendix 1 .......................................................................................................................... 76  Terms of Reference for Education and Home Affairs Panel: ................................... 76

1. Section 6 – Education and Home Affairs Panel's Government Plan Review
2. Education and Home Affairs Panel membership

The Panel is comprised of the following States Members:

Deputy Rob Ward (Chair)

Deputy Trevor Pointon

Deputy Rowland Huelin (Vice-Chair)

Connétable Simon Crowcroft

(the Connétable resigned from the Panel on 8th October 2019, but was involved with the initial stages of the review)

3. Chair's Foreword

Our scrutiny of the Government Plan has required a time limited focus of both Panel Members and Scrutiny Officers.

Our main concerns surround the reliance upon both efficiencies to maintain funding for much needed investment in these two areas and in the parallel changes from target operating models and reviews into education. Both produce a changing context for the services we are scrutinising.  As  such,  plans  will  need  to  be  monitored  for  their effectiveness, funding streams and adherence to time scales over the life of the Government Plan. Yearly revisiting of the process should enable this to happen.

The outcomes from the upcoming review of education funding, and the "Big Education Conversation" will need to be factored into future iterations of the Government Plan. Therefore, clear funding streams will need to be identified rather than simply alluded to.

Deputy R. Ward

Chair, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

4. Findings and Recommendations

Key Findings

FINDING 6.1

The Minister for Education has requested further details as to how the £1.78 million worth of efficiencies within her remit will be undertaken.  

FINDING 6.2

The Minister for Home Affairs has identified £700,000 of efficiencies in 2020 which  will  be  achieved  by  a  combination  of  additional  income,  vacancy management and reshaping of long-serving posts where the post holder has retired or resigned.

FINDING 6.3

The Minister for Education has commissioned a review of the funding of the education system in the Island which will be conducted by an external agency. This  is  currently  within  its  infancy.  The  Panel  cannot  comment  on  the implications of the review until such time as further information is available.

FINDING 6.4

The  post-16  education  strategy  will  contain  some  actions  which  can  be implemented  immediately  and  other  actions that  will  require further  policy development. Upon confirmation of the strategy, resources will be allocated to meet the needs of the various areas of the strategy. Further information is required as to whether current budgets are sufficient to address all aspects of the strategy.

FINDING 6.5

It is intended to bring forward a new student finance scheme to be in operation by September 2021. Until such time, the current scheme will be maintained. This is in order to provide certainty to students.

FINDING 6.6

There is an acknowledgment that the current tuition fees level in the United Kingdom may be reduced from £9,250 per academic year. In the event of a budget surplus, the Minister for Education has expressed a view to utilise this in order to bring vocational courses on par with higher education courses.

FINDING 6.7

The Jersey Music Service is due to identify a new delivery model which is intended to allow all children to embark on a musical learning pathway that is clearly signed. This will be developed throughout 2020. Given the ongoing development required, the Panel has rated this project as amber'

FINDING 6.8

There is significant work being undertaken to review the education system as a whole in the Island (including the review of school funding and Big Education Conversation), of which the Jersey School Review Framework is one small part. Depending on the outcome of this work there could be further implications for the Jersey School Review Framework.

FINDING 6.9

The Languages Strategy has been piloted successfully in 8 Primary School and will be rolled out across all primary schools. It is, however, too early to state whether  the  requested  funding  for  the  project  will  achieve  the  expected outcomes at this stage.

FINDING 6.10

There is a multi-stage review of the Education system underway, the first stage of which is the Big Education Conversation'. Due to the expected stages of the review it will take significant time to finalise any outcomes and further details will be required by the Panel prior to giving any assurances over funding levels.

FINDING 6.11

The business case for Early Years within R.91/2019 states 30 hours of nursery provision, however, this is only an indicative figure based on discussions of the Early Years Policy Development Board which has yet to make a firm policy decision at this stage. It is therefore not possible to state whether the funding identified is sufficient to meet any proposed scheme.

FINDING 6.12

The funding for this project covers the costs of the hardware devices in the new Les Quennevais School, however, there is no confirmation as to how much budget will be available centrally to manage upkeep of the equipment.

FINDING 6.13

If  the  Primary  Schools  Meals  pilot  scheme  is  a  success,  funding  for  the continuation of this project will come from the business case for reducing preventable diseases' (p.33 R.91/2019). Until such time as the pilot is evaluated there is no certainty over how much funding will be required.

FINDING 6.14

Students  accessing  the  Digital  Leadership  Programme  will  (once  the qualification has been registered with Ofqual) be eligible to receive support through the student finance scheme. The Panel is concerned that this funding is in addition to the funding provided by the proposal and could create a double funding scenario.

FINDING 6.15

The new roles created under the Skills Jersey additional funding request are designed to increase engagement across the range of services offered. It is, however, too early to state whether they will achieve the outcomes stated.

FINDING 6.16

The Legal Aid guidelines which govern the scheme have yet to be agreed by the Legal Aid Guidelines Committee. Until such time as a proposed scheme is agreed the Panel cannot give assurances as to whether the level of funding is appropriate.

FINDING 6.17

The final funding requirements of Le Rocquier School facilities and community sports facility capital project will not be known until such time as the feasibility study is completed.

FINDING 6.18

The final funding requirements for new school fields at Grainville and St. John 's Primary school will not be known until such time as the necessary agreements and planning permissions are granted for the proposals.

FINDING 6.19

The final funding requirements for the Les Landes nursery capital project will not be known until such time as the feasibility study is completed.

FINDING 6.20

The final funding requirements for the La Moye Primary School extension capital project will not be known until such time as the feasibility study is completed.

FINDING 6.21

The Panel has noted the need for additional music facilities at Jersey College for Girls and Jersey College Prep, however, further details are required over the proposed use by outside agencies. It is a concern of the Panel that similar investment in music within non-fee-paying schools is not being made.

FINDING 6.22

The completion of capital project for new playing fields and JCG and JCP is dependent upon the acquisition of the fields and change of use under the Island Plan and the costs are estimated at this stage. Further information is therefore required prior to assurances over the level of funding in the proposal.

FINDING 6.23

A schedule of replacement equipment for CYPES is being completed between now and the end of the year. It is expected that the funding within the business case will not cover all items and some will be delayed to later years.

FINDING 6.24

Capital improvements to schools will be prioritised to meet set objectives in order to comply with the Discrimination Law, Safeguarding and Regulation of Care requirements. At present there is no clarity over how funding will be apportioned between these improvements.

FINDING 6.25

Capital improvements to Youth Service/Community Hubs will be prioritised to meet  set  objectives  in  order  to  comply  with  the  Discrimination  Law, Safeguarding and Regulation of Care requirements. At present there is no clarity over how funding will be apportioned between these improvements.

FINDING 6.26

Due to the need for an options assessment to be completed, there is no certainty as to the proposed costs of the new passport project at this time.

FINDING 6.27

The Panel recognises the possible benefits of the combined control room, however,  further  clarity  over  the  long-term  implications  of  co-locating  the services is required.

FINDING 6.28

Whilst it understands the need for the new system, the Panel has not been able to  establish  how  the  proposed  Electronic  Patient  Records  system  for  the Ambulance Service would integrate with other whole island health systems that are due to be developed. It is concerned that without assurances over the integration of this proposal with future health systems the proposed funding could be wasted.

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION 6.1

The Minister for Education should publish further details of the efficiencies relating to her remit as a matter of urgency prior to the Government Plan debate.

RECOMMENDATION 6.2

The Minister for Education should ensure that in the event tuition fees are reduced in the United Kingdom, any budget surplus within the Higher Education fund should be maintained within the Education budget and not returned to central contingencies.

RECOMMENDATION 6.3

The Minister for Education should review the implementation and effect of the Jersey School Review Framework on a termly basis during its first full year of operation.

RECOMMENDATION 6.4

The Minister for Education should prioritise the work of the Early Years Policy Development Board and bring forward the Early Years Policy by the end of Q2 2020.

RECOMMENDATION 6.5

The Minister for Education should provide further clarity as to exactly where the funding from the student finance scheme will be utilised within the Digital Jersey Academy and ensure that there is no duplication with the proposed funding under this business plan.

RECOMMENDATION 6.6

The Minister for Education should ensure that further information is provided by JCG and JCP as to how the proposed music facilities will be used by outside agencies.

RECOMMENDATION 6.7

The Minister for Education should ensure that the schedule for replacement equipment for CYPES is provided to the Panel with information detailing how projects will be prioritised. This should be completed by December 2020.

RECOMMENDATION 6.8

The Minister for Home Affairs should pause the delivery of the electronic patient records capital project for the Ambulance Service until such time as assurances have been provided that it will integrate with any future whole island health systems.

5. Departmental Budgets and Efficiencies

The Panel notes from the Government Plan, that the following Departmental budgets will be in place for 2020:

The 2020 resources allocated to the Ministers which fall under the Panel's remit are as follows:

Children, Young People, Education and Skills

• The Panel questioned the Minister for Education on how the budget was apportioned between the various services under her respective remit. It received the following information:

• The Panel also requested a breakdown of the efficiencies that would be made under the remit of the Minister and understands that the Department for CYPES intends to make efficiencies of £3.5 million in 2020 of which £1.78 million relates to the remit of the Minister for Education.

• It is noted that the Minister has requested further details herself of the efficiencies to be made and this is currently being examined by Officers. To that end, the Panel has not commented on the efficiencies at this time.

FINDING 6.1

The Minister for Education has requested further details as to how the £1.78 million worth of efficiencies within her remit will be undertaken.  

RECOMMENDATION 6.1

The Minister for Education should publish further details of the efficiencies relating to her remit as a matter of urgency prior to the Government Plan debate.

Justice and Home Affairs

• The  Panel  questioned  the  Minister  for  Home  Affairs  on  the  allocation  of  the departmental budget to the various services within its remit and received the following: breakdown:

• The Minister elaborated on the figures during a public hearing:

The Minister for Home Affairs:  

The police have by far the biggest proportion. They have just over £24 million in 2020, the Prison Service £11 million and then Customs and the Ambulance Service  very  similar;  Customs  and  Immigration  £5.7  million,  Ambulance Service £5.6 million, Fire and Rescue Service just over £5 million.[3]

• It is noted that as part of the One Gov changes, the Department for Justice and Home Affairs was created out of the previous Department for Community and Constitutional Affairs. Additional services have been brought in to the new Department including Ambulance  Service,  Office  of  the  Chief  Analyst  and  the  Health  and  Safety Inspectorate. The Panel questioned why the budget identified in 2020 was broadly the same as that in 2017 in light of these changes. The Director General for Justice and Home Affairs explained the reasons for this during a public hearing:

Director General, Justice and Home Affairs:

The overall headline is that the budget has not taken a reduction when you add in Ambulance, but it is not as straightforward as just saying the Ambulance budget comes across and therefore that adds up on to the 2017/18 budget. Some elements of what the old Community and Constitutional Affairs was have been taken away, so there has been some give in some places and some take away in some others. That transition has not completely settled down yet.[4]

• In respect of efficiencies, the Panel received the following information from the Minister for Home Affairs in relation to the plans of the department and the services under his remit:

The Minister for Home Affairs:  

The work on efficiencies will go on for ever, because I think it is right that every States department has to provide the best service it can for the public, the appropriate service for the public at the appropriate cost, so that will be looked at all of the time. In the immediate term with the found efficiencies, close toward £700,000 for 2020. When I say "efficiencies" that does include things like we have recently announced the increased cost of passport fees, so there will be additional revenue there which is included in that sort of figure.[5]

• The Panel further questioned how the figure of £700,000 was arrived at and the process that was used in order to identify this figure. It was explained that the Department intended to make efficiencies through a combination of additional income (through  the  increase  to  passport  fees)  and  through  vacancy  management  and reshaping of long-serving posts where the post-holder had retired or resigned.[6]

FINDING 6.2

The Minister for Home Affairs has identified £700,000 of efficiencies in 2020 which will be achieved by a combination of additional income, vacancy management and reshaping of long-serving posts where the post holder has retired or resigned.  

6. Actions, Programs and Capital Projects Reviewed

7. Reports on Specific Actions and Business Cases

Actions not linked to a business case

This section of the report will focus on actions within the Government Plan that do not directly link to projects for additional revenue within R.91/2019.

Review the options to put future funding and structure of school system on a long- term, sustainable footing.

Summary Report

• This particular action has been brought forward within the Government Plan to address concerns over the funding and structure of the school system in the Island, with a view to placing it on a long-term sustainable footing. The Panel questioned the Minister for Education on the intention of this review during a public hearing:

The Minister for Education:  

I think one of the things that I need to make absolutely fundamentally clear is that I wanted to make sure that when we went out to tender for the independent review that it was not focused just on the U.K. or Europe; we looked internationally. That was really, really important for me and whether we end up with somebody from the U.K. will depend on the outcome of the process in which the tendering is going through at the moment. But we need to make sure. We have got terms of reference in those bits and pieces, but we have also got a number of pieces of work that have been done and really gone through and taken a lot of time by our own teachers and by our own department, which identifies a lot of evidence already. But what is important is pulling it all together and looking at it holistically. But what is most important is recognising funding in the way that produces the best for our children in a Jersey context.[7]

• The Director of Policy and Planning in CYPES explained that the tendering process for the review was currently underway, and further information could not be released at this time so as not to prejudice the outcome of the process.[8]

• It was also explained that the outcome of the review would not be the final point and further work would need to be undertaken once this had been completed:

Director, Policy and Planning:  

I think there are different stages to the review. There is a piece of work that we are tendering for at the moment, which will be looking at the system, looking at the structure, how it is funded and making recommendations to the Minister about potential changes and also looking at better practice models elsewhere and, as the Minister says, internationally. I think what follows from there will be the recommendation presented to the Minister and the Minister is allowed to choose how she then wants to respond to that. When you are talking about a consultation with the public and further discussions with trade unions, I think that will come at that stage. In terms of the actual delivery of the piece of work that we are tendering for, there would obviously be conversations with professionals at that stage within schools and I could imagine with teaching union representatives as well.[9]

• The Panel notes that this is an ongoing project which will take place over different stages. As the project is very much in its infancy, and significantly more information and work will be required prior to a preferred position being presented, the Panel has highlighted this project as amber' at this stage.

FINDING 6.3

The Minister for Education has commissioned a review of the funding of the education system in the Island which will be conducted by an external agency. This is currently within its infancy. The Panel cannot comment on the implications of the review until such time as further information is available.  

Develop and resource a new post-16 strategy to support the Future Economy Programme.

Summary Report

• The Panel published its report on post-16 education in April 2019. This report focussed on the current post-16 education offering available to students in Jersey and made recommendations to help assist and improve the system where possible. During this review it was explained that a new post-16 education strategy would be produced which focussed not just on post-16 options, but also higher education and lifelong learning.[10]

• The Panel discussed the timescale and plan for the new strategy during a public hearing with the Minister for Education on 13th September 2019. It is noted that a consultation was undertaken earlier in 2019 on the contents of the proposed strategy which discussed areas that could be implemented in short term and areas which required additional long-term strategies to implement.[11]

• The Panel also explored the similarity between this action (which sits under the CSP priority of vibrant economy) and the action to implement the new post-16 education strategy' which sits under the CSP priority reducing inequality. It was confirmed that there would be a distinction between resourcing the strategy (which would likely entail identifying both short and long-term goals) and implementing it once the resourcing implications had been identified:

Assistant Minister for Education:  

It goes back to what I was saying before of the vision of the 16-plus education. Some  of  the  recommendations  within  that  document  can  be  actioned immediately, some of it will require further policy development and that is why there is that difference.[12]

• The Assistant Minister further explained that it was still required for the strategy to go through  approval  processes,  including  agreement  by  the  Council  of  Ministers, however,  it  was  intended  for  this  to  be  formalised  prior  to  the  debate  on  the Government Plan.[13] It was also confirmed that once the strategy was approved, it would be possible to pinpoint resources to the relevant outcomes.[14]

• Without the specifics of the strategy at this time, it is not possible to make an informed decision as to whether this action can be funded from within existing budgets. The Panel has therefore assigned an amber' rating to the action.

FINDING 6.4

The  post-16  education  strategy  will  contain  some  actions  which  can  be implemented  immediately  and  other  actions  that  will  require  further  policy development. Upon confirmation of the strategy, resources will be allocated to meet the needs of the various areas of the strategy. Further information is required as to whether current budgets are sufficient to address all aspects of the strategy.

Implement the new post-16 education strategy. Summary Report

• This action links directly to the previous action discussed in this report. Clarification has been given by the Minister that a new post-16 strategy will be approved through Council of Ministers after which work will be undertaken to identify and resource the implementation of the strategy. In light of the Panel's previous examination of this area, and due to the lack of clarity over how it will be implemented, it has assigned it an amber' rating.  

Business Cases for Additional Revenue Expenditure

This section of the report will focus on the additional revenue projects as set out in R.91/2019 that the Panel has examined as part of the review.

Higher Education

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of higher education.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• The States Assembly adopted P.33/2018 Higher Education Funding Proposal' as amended on 10th  April 2018. The proposition significantly increased the funding available for students wishing to access first time undergraduate degrees. The funding allows for families with a household income of up to £110,000 per year eligible to receive the full cost of tuition fees for an academic year (£9,250). A sliding scale is then applied for families with household income up to £200,000 per year. Households earning up to £90,000 per year are also eligible to receive support with maintenance costs on a sliding scale. Those earning over £90,000 do not receive any maintenance support.[15]

• An  amendment  was  successfully  brought  to the  proposition, mandating that the scheme would need to be reviewed prior to any future Medium-Term Financial Plan being brought forward (as it was prior to the introduction of the Government Plan).[16]

• The scheme was implemented in time for the academic year 2018/19. The new scheme required the phasing out of the Higher Child Allowance (HCA) tax relief in order  to  provide  funding.  This  meant  that  families  who  already  had  children  at university (and were therefore receiving the allowance) did not receive the full amount as per the terms of the proposal as the HCA allowance was deducted from the grant. This was not applicable to households where students were starting their course in the 2018/19 academic year.[17]

• The additional funding requirement within this proposal is required to deal with the HCA claims currently moving through the system. This increases the total higher education budget to £16 million in 2020.[18] It is also noted that the increased funding requirement within the business case is in order to meet the significant increase in students accessing the scheme.[19]

Panel Analysis

• The Panel noted that the funding requirement in the business case within R.91/2019 has been identified in order to meet the costs of the current scheme. It is also noted that an action within the Government Plan seeks to plan for the implementation of a new student finance scheme. It is understood that the Assembly has mandated that the scheme be reviewed[20], however, the Panel questioned the Minister for Education on the implications of the two contrasting aspects of the plan:  

Minister for Education

My concern is having the current scheme, you have got to recognise that the people who go on to that current scheme have 3 years or maybe longer, depending on the course which they are a party to. You do not want to upset that course; you do not want them ending up having to come off that course because of a change in the funding scheme. I would like to commit, and the Assistant Minister would like to commit to give certainty to those people on the current scheme it will continue until the end of their particular course.[21]

• The Panel questioned the timescale for undertaking the review and bringing forward the new scheme. It was explained that there is a commitment to continue the current scheme until September 2020 with any new scheme being implemented from September 2021.[22] Any student accessing this funding would then maintain that funding for the duration of their course.[23] It was explained, however, that if a new scheme was financially beneficial to those on lower incomes, then there would be an ability to change to the new scheme.[24]

• One particular concern raised by the Panel is that there is some uncertainty over the future level of tuition fees. This has also been recognised by the Minister for Education.[25] As the current scheme is modelled on the current tuition fee level of £9,250 per academic year, should a reduction occur then there will be a significant budget surplus. The Panel questioned the Minister on this matter and received the following answer:

Minister for Education

In terms of if they were to drop a significant tuition fee from £9,000 down to £3,000, of course there would be a surplus within the budget. As I understand it, with the rules and stuff that are in place, there would be a big conversation with Treasury, but the ideal side of things behind that would be utilising that funding to recognise the vocational courses, to bring them on par as well, so utilising that across education in other ways, rather than just pushing it back to

the centre. That would be the ideal position I would like to see long term if that was to happen.[26]

• The Panel has noted elsewhere in the Government Plan that there is a commitment to plan for the impact of future policies (p.139). Whilst it is not directly linked to the future funding of higher education, the Panel would refer back to review of the school system and funding model. It would be premature to anticipate the outcomes of this review; however, the Panel believes that due to various funding concerns (some of which will be addressed within other projects in this report) there is the possibility that the education budget may need increasing. The Panel notes the ongoing discussion about tuition fee levels and, in the event that they do decrease, it has recommended that any surplus within the higher education budget be retained within the education budget and not returned to central contingencies.

FINDING 6.5

It is intended to bring forward a new student finance scheme to be in operation by September 2021. Until such time, the current scheme will be maintained. This is in order to provide certainty to students.

FINDING 6.6

There is an acknowledgment that the current tuition fees level in the United Kingdom may be reduced from £9,250 per academic year. In the event of a budget surplus, the Minister for Education has expressed a view to utilise this in order to bring vocational courses on par with higher education courses.

RECOMMENDATION 6.2

The Minister for Education should ensure that in the event tuition fees are reduced in the United Kingdom, any budget surplus within the Higher Education fund should be maintained within the Education budget and not returned to central contingencies.

Improving Educational Outcomes (8 projects)

The following eight projects are presented in R.91/2019 under the umbrella project titled Improving Educational Outcomes. The Panel has examined each individual project within the overall project and assigned each a rating based on the evidence received.

Summary Report

The Department for CYPES has requested the following funds in respect of the Jersey Premium.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• The  Jersey  Premium  funding  is  delegated  to  schools  in  order  to  help  improve educational and wider outcomes for pupils at risk of lower achievement due to socio- economic need or other factors (principally looked after children). The Jersey Premium was piloted in 2016 and implemented across all schools in 2017 at a lower rate than a similar scheme in England. According to the business case, the scheme has shown considerable evidence of a boost for those targeted pupils. The funding under the previous MTFP for students was £1,005 per primary child and £645 for secondary. Under the proposals this would increase to £1,150 and £725 respectively, as well as being available for students aged 16 – 19 years (who do not currently receive this support). It is noted this would mean 300 additional students would benefit from additional support.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel is pleased to note that the scheme will be rolled out to students aged 16-19 as this implements one of the recommendations outlined in its post-16 education review. It is also noted that 22% of the current cohort access this funding.[27] The Panel questioned how the additional funding would be applied:

Group Director, Education:  

Once eligibility is known for the individual student, a sum of money, depending on whether they are in the primary sector or 11 to 18 now, or with a higher rate that has been published and the rationale shared if the young person is looked after or has a need, is a care leaver, for example. It goes to the educational institution, the school, the college, the setting that they are in with clear account as to whether that money is spent on improving outcomes for that young person.[28]

• It was explained that the additional funding is designed to kick in immediately at the start of 2020.[29] Due to the nature of the education system financial year (September to August) and the Government financial year (January to December), students would receive two terms worth of the funding in 2020, with the higher rates being applied from the start of the academic year in 2020.[30]

• The  Panel  is  pleased  that  its  recommendation  has  been  considered  within  this additional revenue bid and is satisfied that it is in order, however, this should not be seen as a long-term solution to inadequate base funding.

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the Jersey Music Service.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• It has been identified that the Jersey Music Service (JMS) requires a different model of delivery to ensure it meets the needs of all children and young people and provides access to music as a subject and enrichment activity. The funding within this business plan is requested in order to bridge the gap to providing free tuition to pupils accessing the Jersey Premium as well as additional support to children with Special Educational Needs (SEN). It is also intended to provide support for whole class programmes in both primary and secondary schools to increase the number of students learning an instrument and provide future pathways.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel questioned whether the new model of delivery had been identified yet and found that this was currently being worked on by the JMS.[31] It was explained in a written response from the Minister for Education that the new model will be guided by the principle that all children and young people will be able to embark on a musical learning pathway that is supported and clearly signed.[32]

• The Panel also explored whether any further criteria to accessing free tuition was applied other than being in receipt of benefits. It was explained that work is ongoing between the JMS, the Jersey Premium team and Customer and Local Services to develop the criteria that ensures no children are deterred from accessing programmes due to socio-economic reasons.[33] Recognition was given in the response that it is not only families in receipt of benefits that may require assistance, and further work is being conducted by the JMS to identify potential barriers.[34] It was explained that this may include the idea of a sliding scale' of support or enhanced bursary scheme.

• Further details as to how SEN provision would be increased were also sought by the Panel. In the response from the Minister it was explained that best practice provision was being explored and young people themselves would be consulted as to what they would like to see included in the provision.[35]

• The Whole Class Ensemble Teaching project was explored further by the Panel. It is noted that this would be run by JMS staff, however, the exact staffing is not yet clear due to the need to train and support staff in delivery.[36] It is further expected that 2020 would be used to finalise the planning, training and resourcing of the project in time for a September 2020 start.[37] The funding in years two to four of the Government Plan would relate to 90% delivery of the programme with the remainder being used for ongoing staff development, training and maintenance of resources.[38]

• Given the ongoing development required for this project, the Panel has agreed that it must be rated as amber' at this stage, pending further review of the implementation and resourcing of any delivery model.

FINDING 6.7

The Jersey Music Service is due to identify a new delivery model which is intended to allow all children to embark on a musical learning pathway that is clearly signed. This will be developed throughout 2020. Given the ongoing development required, the Panel has rated this project as amber'.

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the Jersey School Review Framework.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• According to the business case in R.91/2019, the Jersey School Review Framework (JSRF) has been piloted over the past two and a half years and in turn has developed a robust system of peer-review, led by high-calibre external ex-HMI (Her Majesty's Inspectorate).  39  formal  reviews  of  maintained  schools  in  Jersey  have  been undertaken to date. The framework has since been reviewed with a full roll-out of the programme beginning in September 2019. The additional resources identified in the business case are to secure off-island expertise to work alongside Head and Deputy Head Teachers to ensure resources are available for schools identified as needing significant and rapid improvement.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel received details on the review of the framework prior to its implementation at a public hearing with the Minister for Education:

Group Director, Education

We conducted a pilot review of all Government-maintained schools, primary, secondary, special and the 8 A.R.C.s (Additional Resource Centres) in 2 years and a term. That whole review methodology is informed including the questionnaires from over 350 teachers, from discussion with school leaders, the training events, the external leads we have utilised to develop our peer review methodology. We then commissioned an independent evaluation of the whole process. Visiting professor at the University College London Institute of Education, Professor Peter Matthews, with a colleague, undertook a review, had drop-in sessions with teachers and met all the head teachers from primary and secondary, read every single review and critiqued our whole process and that evaluation was presented to the Minister yesterday. He has spoken very ... he and a colleague spoke very highly of our peer-led approach methodology and is explicit in stating it works much better for Jersey's community, both as a school accountability message, but also as a school development approach.[39]

• The Panel was also informed that the findings of the review would be published imminently after the hearing and has now had sight of the findings in confidence prior to publication. It questioned the use of external expertise, specifically how this took into account the unique nature of the Islands education system:  

Group Director, Education:  

What we have done in the review methodology is the overwhelming majority of review teams are peopled by people who live and work in Jersey, they are either school leaders, heads and deputies predominately, in similar phase schools or senior advisers and other advisers in the department. Each review has been led by an external reviewer. Our conviction is the best people who improve schools are the teachers and school leaders and the support staff within those schools. The best way they do that is working with other schools, so that collaboration. But periodically, every 3 years say, you need external eyes that can give you feedback on your view on how well you are doing. To make sure we have got that external validation we initially recruited 7. We have gone up to, I think, about 12 external people very, very experienced in this work. Many of them, not all, are ex-Her Majesty's Inspectors, but an international perspective.[40]

• It was noted that any external reviewers were given a two-day induction on the Island's education system prior to visiting a school.[41]

• The Panel received a submission from NASUWT that gave views on the JSRF. It was explained by the Union that whilst there had been some issues with the pilot of the JSRF (in its opinion as a result of misinterpretation at school level), general feedback on the implementation of the JSRF had been broadly positive.[42] This was caveated by the fact that the process was still in its infancy and would require refinement as the experience grows over time. The Union also welcomed the rejection of an Ofsted inspection approach.[43]

• It is worth noting that this particular review model links in with other work including the review of the education system and funding model, as well as the Big Education Conversation that has just been launched. Depending on the outcome of those pieces of work significant changes could be required to the JSRF. Although it would be premature to anticipate the outcomes of this work, it is vital that the JSRF is reviewed again to ensure it fits within any future policy direction or structure. The Panel has therefore rated this project as amber' at this stage.  

FINDING 6.8

There is significant work being undertaken to review the education system as a whole in the Island (including the review of school funding and Big Education Conversation), of which the Jersey School Review Framework is one small part. Depending on the outcome of this work there could be further implications for the Jersey School Review Framework.

RECOMMENDATION 6.3

The Minister for Education should review the implementation and effect of the Jersey School Review Framework on a termly basis during its first full year of operation.

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the Languages Strategy.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• Following the success of a Year 5 French programme across eight primary schools, it is proposed that this project is extended to all primary schools. The scheme includes a six-week immersive programme of daily French tuition for year 5 pupils supported by expert teaching and central resources. It is noted that the programme provides pupils with the same amount of teaching as A-Level students. This has been supported by the recruitment of 1.6 FTE Modern Foreign Language (MFL) specialists who will

provide support across the schools for the introduction of French language from Early Years through to A-Level. This investment also forms part of a wider Languages Strategy including the teaching of European languages, Mandarin and Jerriais.  

Panel Analysis

• The Panel questioned how the successful implementation and long-term success of this programme will be evidenced. It was explained that this would be measured in a similar vein to the pilot scheme by feedback from teachers, pupils and parents, formal assessment and through evidence of the real-life experiences in French offered to the children.[44]

• It also examined the reasons for the introduction of Mandarin. It was noted that this is provided in several island schools, either as a formal language provision or through after-school clubs.[45] Mandarin at Level 2 (GCSE standard) is currently developing at Hautlieu, however, projected numbers that may take up to language are not available at this point.[46]

• It is too early to state whether the requested funding will achieve the outcomes expected of the project, so the Panel has deemed it appropriate to provide an amber' rating at this stage.  

FINDING 6.9

The Languages Strategy has been piloted successfully in 8 Primary School and will be rolled out across all primary schools. It is, however, too early to state whether the requested funding for the project will achieve the expected outcomes at this stage.

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the Reading Recovery project.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• This business case relates to funding for the working partnership with Every Child Our Future' (ECOF) which has seen the introduction of Reading Recovery teaching to a range of Jersey's primary schools with the most challenging needs. This has currently been funded for three years under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the previous Education Department (now CYPES). This sat alongside funded reading interventions for older pupils and the training and deployment of over 600 reading volunteers in schools. According to the business case, Reading Recovery is the strongest evidence-based reading intervention internationally. It is intended for the additional funding to broaden the impact of the programme and will double investment as ECOF seeks further corporate sponsorship to match the investment.  

Panel Analysis

• The Panel received a submission from ECOF which outlined its strong support of the proposals and provided further evidence of the effectiveness of the Reading Recovery intervention, specifically in the Jersey context.[47] In the submission, ECOF explained that it currently offered support to 16 schools and 530 children.[48] It was also suggested that the funding could support the deployment of three full time professionals or the training and development of a cohort of additional teachers.[49]

• The Minister for Education confirmed that the additional funding will be used to strengthen the provision of early intervention for pupils experiencing severe difficulty with literacy.[50] It was also explained that support would be targeted appropriately based on further review.[51] Within the additional information provided by the Minister, it is noted that timeframes have been specified for the recruitment of an additional Reading Recovery teacher post for 3-years, with extended contracts being offered to the two existing staff fulfilling these roles. Following on from the expectation of training as set out in ECOF's submission, it was also confirmed that training will be offered to a group of teachers from the academic year 2020/21 to create further capacity (in line with corporate sponsorship being agreed).[52]

• The Panel is satisfied that there is existing evidence to backup the need for the scheme and therefore supports the additional funding to increase its capacity.

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the Children's Legislation Programme – Education Law.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• This business case relates to a review of the Education (Jersey) Law 1999 with a view to updating and clarifying the Law. This is due to be addresses alongside and in conjunction with wide-ranging improvements across all children's environments in Jersey. It is intended for the work to identify and implement reforms over a 20-year period. Work is currently underway to identify the main issues for consideration across the education system in general. The findings of the consultation will go on to inform detailed further reviews and consultation on areas for reform of the education system.  

Panel Analysis

• The Panel requested further details on the form of the review and the fundamental intentions behind the programme. The Minister for Education confirmed that the review would take place over multiple stages. Stage one (launched in October 2019) takes the form of the Big Education Conversation which would then inform stage two where detailed exploration of options based on feedback of stage one would take place (informed by educational specialists both inside and outside of Jersey).[53] Stage three would involve consultation on proposed changes identified in stage two.[54]

• The Panel questioned what the allocated funding would be required for and was informed  that  it  would  be  used  to  support  the  delivery  of  the  Big  Education Conversation (including resources to run focus groups etc.) and also to support the research and development work by engaging expertise from other jurisdictions.[55]

• It is accepted that this particular project will take significant time to finalise, and further details will be required as it progresses. For that reason, the Panel has assigned this project an amber' rating at this stage.

FINDING 6.10

There is a multi-stage review of the Education system underway, the first stage of which is the Big Education Conversation'. Due to the expected stages of the review it will take significant time to finalise any outcomes and further details will be required by the Panel prior to giving any assurances over funding levels.

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the school funding and demographics.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• The investment identified in this business case reflects the high number of pupils in primary school moving through to secondary school. As the demographic bulge' moves through the years, funding is required to follow it to ensure adequate teaching and support staff for larger year groups. The additional investment also identified a need within Early Years provision. If the funding is not provided, then it will continue to add to the structural deficit already present within the Nursery Education Fund (NEF).  

Panel Analysis

• The Panel requested a breakdown of the required investment and was provided with the following figures relevant to both areas stated in the business case:  

The total investment in 2020 is £813k. This is for the Nursery Education Fund (NEF).

• In 2021 £735k is allocated to the NEF and £207k for school demographics  

• In 2022 £773k is allocated to the NEF and £443k for school demographics  

• In 2023 £975k is allocated to the NEF and £700k for school demographics[56]

• Given the clear identified need for the funding and the breakdown provided by the Department, the Panel is satisfied with the proposed additional revenue request.  

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of Early Years.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• The  Early  Years  Policy  Development  Board  (EYPDB)  is  currently  considering opportunities for delivering early years education and child care for children aged 0-5. It has yet to make recommendations as to what a newly developed NEF could look like (the NEF presently funds Nursery provision for 3-4-year olds prior to joining reception classes). A policy will be produced to cover this area. This additional revenue request has been submitted in advance of any recommendations arising from the EYPDB and is modelled on the provision of 30 hours nursery education for all 3-4-year olds during term time and the delivery of nursery places for vulnerable 2 years olds.  

Panel Analysis

• The Panel received submissions on this particular area from Brighter Futures, Jersey Early Years Association (JEYA) and Jersey Child Care Trust (JCCT). Whilst there were some comments which supported the recent engagement day with the EYPDB[57], there was also some concern that not enough progress had been made.[58] The submissions also highlighted factors that should be considered when developing a new Early Years Policy (including ongoing initiatives). One particular issue raised by JEYA was in relation to the proposed 30 hours as proposed in the business case. It was noted in the submission that:

From past research, the optimum period of time a 3-4-year-old should be in an educational' environment is 20 hours per week.[59]

• The Panel notes that there is no additional funding required for this project in 2020, however, there is a significant increase required from 2021. The Panel questioned the Minister for Education on why this was the case:

The Minister for Education:

We have committed to keep the current scheme until the Policy Development Board have brought together all the evidence and worked with all providers to produce a full early year's policy, looking at conception to 5-year-olds. From 2020 the budget will remain as it currently stands. Everybody is given certainty that when it comes next September they will be applying for exactly the same thing that has been in place this year, last year and the year before.[60]

• The Minister further explained the intended timeline for bringing forward a new Early Years Policy:

Deputy R.J. Ward :

The timescale for seeing something physical happen? It is just that I think it is very important, while we are on it, that we get the timescale for that review to report back and any change being made is 2020, when the ...

The Minister for Education:

Next year. I want something brought out ... so scrutinised and looked at next year so that we have got our lead-in time ready for September 2021. Whatever is decided, there will be some issues from someone somewhere and that is just the way life is. You are not going to get the perfect system. We just need to minimise any disruption or concerns.[61]

• Given the feedback from stakeholders in relation to the proposed 30 hours per week suggested in the business case, and given the ongoing work of the EYPDB to bring forward a policy, the Panel questioned why the figure of 30 hours had been suggested:

The Minister for Education:

Okay, so I am not at the moment fixed on 30 hours, and the reason behind that is looking at what is happening in terms of the U.K. What we had to do, or what our officers had to do, was go forward with a rough estimation of what it may or may not look like. Thirty hours was a suggestion of an idea within the Early Years Policy Development Board about a way in which we may want to move. Bearing out all the evidence, the research and the information so far, and what we are still going through now, may not determine that we go down the 30-hour route. There may be, for example - and I have said this previously - a need to, instead of having a 30 hour, having a 10 hour or 20 hours for 2 year-olds or investing in particular special educational needs to support those particular children. It may be money better spent, because if we are looking at the outcomes for children, it is not just about paying for childcare. There are a number of initiatives and needs within the early years setting that we need to ensure that they are getting the best bang for their money.[62]

• The Minister went on to explain that the business case gave an indication of how much it may cost if the new proposals implemented 30 hours.[63] The Panel understands the rationale for requesting additional funding based on 30 hours, however, given the

ongoing work of the EYPDB to bring forward proposals it is still too early to evaluate whether the funding is appropriate at this stage. The Panel has therefore rated this project as amber'.

FINDING 6.11

The business case for Early Years within R.91/2019 states 30 hours of nursery provision, however, this is only an indicative figure based on discussions of the Early Years Policy Development Board which has yet to make a firm policy decision at this stage. It is therefore not possible to state whether the funding identified is sufficient to meet any proposed scheme.

RECOMMENDATION 6.4

The Minister for Education should prioritise the work of the Early Years Policy Development Board and bring forward the Early Years Policy by the end of Q2 2020.

Les Quennevais School IT Equipment

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of Les Quennevais School IT equipment.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of Business case

• The new Les Quennevais school is due to be completed in 2020. Whilst the Capital project for the school build will address the IT infrastructure (fibre, data cabling etc.), peripheral  hardware  (wired  and  mobile  devices,  interactive  displays  etc.)  is  not budgeted for. As the new school is purpose built, there will be significant difficulties if existing hardware is deployed in the new site. It is explained that a trial will be undertaken  for  a  number  of  the  peripherals  in  the  current  school,  but  a  fixed deployment must wait until the new school is available. Existing hardware that still has some functionality will be redeployed throughout the other schools or maintained as spares.

Panel Analysis

• The  Panel  noted  that  the  funding  requirement  for  this  project  is  only  for  2020 (£580,000) and that there is nothing further in the subsequent years of the plan. Whilst this is understood given the school is due to open in 2020, the Panel questioned whether the funding would also cover the costs associated with the upkeep of the equipment going forward. The Minister for Education provided the following response:

CYPES Education IT devices are purchased with a minimum 4-year warranty and devices need to be replaced on a 4-year cycle. Peripheral infrastructure and hardware (e.g. wireless access points, interactive displays, audio visual systems, lighting rigs, digital signage etc.) have an extended life of 5-10 years but again need to be replaced on that 5-10-year cycle. This is currently funded out  of  Education  IT  budgets.  The  school  is  sourcing  products  such  as Interactive teaching screens that provide a 5 year or in some cases life time warranty and a build quality to provide as long a life as possible.[64]

• There is a clear need for the new hardware within the new school. It is noted that the equipment is purchased under warranty for 4-years which should mitigate the issues raised, however, the Panel is unclear as to how much budget will be available centrally to manage upkeep of the equipment being proposed. For that reason, the Panel has rated this project as amber'.

FINDING 6.12

The funding for this project covers the costs of the hardware devices in the new Les Quennevais School, however, there is no confirmation as to how much budget will be available centrally to manage upkeep of the equipment.

Primary School Meals

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the Primary School Meals Pilot.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• This business case relates to the funding of a pilot scheme to provide a hot school meal in two/three town primary schools. It is the intention of the pilot to provide a clear understanding of the required resources and early indicators of successful outcomes to enable a decision to be taken on the benefit of extending the provision. The pilot is a partnership programme between Government and Caring Cooks'. If the pilot is successful and depending on the financial directive threshold for the project, any permanent contract will go out to a competitive and transparent tendering process.

Panel Analysis

• When examining this project, the Panel focussed on how it is intended to measure the success of the pilot scheme. In response, the Minister for Education explained that there was existing and well-established evidence that the provision and consumption of schools meals in line with nutritional requirements of the Jersey School Food Standards will have short and medium term benefits on learning and health outcomes in children.[65] The Panel also clarified the objectives, success indicators and tangible outcomes of the pilot.[66]It is noted that the meals will be prepared in an outside facility and not the schools themselves.[67]

• The main concern of the Panel was the funding of £150,000 for the pilot occurred only in  2020,  after  which  there  was  no  additional  funding  requirement.  The  Panel questioned where the budget would come from in the event the project was a success. The Minister for Education clarified that the budget for any future scheme would be met from within the additional revenue request for reducing preventable diseases (p.33 R.91/2019):[68]

The proposed new funding over the Government Plan period for this work is: 2020=£300k; 2021=£1.2m; 2022=£2.5m; 2023=£2.8m. This proposed funding is  taken from the  business  case for  reducing  preventable  disease which includes  funds  for  up-scaling  several  interventions  and  programmes commenced through our Food and Nutritional strategy including extension to the provision of primary school meals. The exact future allocations of funding will be made on evidence of success across programmes.[69]

• Whilst this clarifies the Panel's initial concern over where funding for any future programme would come from, this is still a pilot scheme which will need evidence of success before being rolled out fully. This project has therefore been rated amber' at this stage.

FINDING 6.13

If  the  Primary  Schools  Meals  pilot  scheme  is  a  success,  funding  for  the continuation of this project  will come from the business case for reducing preventable diseases' (p.33 R.91/2019). Until such time as the pilot is evaluated there is no certainty over how much funding will be required.

Digital Jersey Academy

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the Digital Jersey Academy.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• This business case identifies additional funding requirements for Digital Jersey in order to run the Digital Jersey Academy (DJA) which is a focused facility for higher level digital  skills  development.  The  DJA  opened  in  September  2019  and  has  been established to benefit students leaving secondary education, those in the digital sector looking to upskill and those looking to enter the sector. It is in response to evidence- based skill shortages and supports diversification of the economy. It is hoped that DJA will contribute to improvements in GVA, jobs and/or productivity in 5 years, as well as enhance Jersey's international competitiveness. It will run a series of courses including a Level 6 (undergraduate level) Digital Leadership Programme, the Digital Jersey Coding Course and the Digital Jersey Marketing Course.  

• The additional revenue request will be used to cover operational running costs of the DJA, cover faculty teaching costs, marketing and continued course development costs as well as associated project management costs for private sector involvement on the course. It is also expected that the DJA will generate income from both students and private sector businesses to be maximised by 2022.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel met with Digital Jersey when conducting it's post-16 education review and was given a useful definition of the four main areas when defining digital. For the

benefit of this report, it has agreed that it would be useful context from which to start when discussing this business case:

So, we have already put it into 4 different areas; so that is development-based skills, so that is kind of coding languages. Infrastructure and DevOps, so that is more like Cloud based information. Business intelligence and digital creative and content and within all of those 4 areas you can kind of align them to different companies. So obviously every company, no matter what sector of the economy, will have people within those 4 areas.[70]

• The Panel received a submission from Digital Jersey which commented on the Terms of Reference for the review and also provided additional information about the work of the Digital Jersey Academy. Digital Jersey also noted its support for the new post-16 education strategy and the purpose-built further education campus.[71]

• As the DJA had launched in September 2019, the Panel questioned how many students were accessing courses so far. It was noted that 87 students were currently enrolled across the various courses on offer.[72] It was questioned whether students would be able to access the current higher education funding when applying for the Level 6 Digital Leadership Course. The Panel received the following response:  

The Digital Leadership Programme (DLP) is in the process of becoming Jersey's first regulated qualification on the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) register. Once this process is complete, students will be eligible for grant funding by Student Finance, this should be complete by Qtr. 2 2020 at the latest. In the interim, CYPES, via Digital Jersey is supporting payment of the tuition fees and maintenance for eligible students.[73]

• The Panel notes that this is one of the reasons why the funding requirement is higher in 2020 than subsequent years. It is also noted that the funding requirement decreases over the 4 years, in-line with the expected income revenue as set out in the business case. The Panel questioned how much income would be expected from the Digital Leadership Programme from private sector businesses:  

The Digital Leadership Programme launched in September this year; consequently, it is too soon, as well as commercially sensitive, to put financial details into the public domain. However, the intention is a revenue split of 40% from student tuition fees, 30% from project work and 30% from industry courses. The programme places strong emphasis on industry involvement, which will be of great benefit to both the students and local firms.[74]

• The Panel also questioned whether the proposed courses crossed over with those on offer at Highlands College, and whether there was any duplication or progression opportunities from partnership working. It was noted that both Digital Jersey and Highlands College had signed an MoU in March 2019 which outlined the intention to work together in order to expand the digital skills training offer in the Island. This includes sharing resources and use of each other's learning environments.[75] It was also noted that the courses on offer at each establishment are designed to complement

each other and to that end there are no duplications in courses.[76] It was also explained that students accessing Level 3 courses at Highlands would be well placed to progress on to the Digital Leadership Course[77].

• The Panel does hold concerns about the funding blend of this project, especially given the intention for student finance to fund students on the Level 6 course. The Panel understands that the funding allocated in this business case is in order to meet the running costs, teaching costs and project management costs associated with private sector involvement. Assuming students are able to access funding through student finance, then this would in theory also be paid to Digital Jersey to cover the costs of running the course. The Panel believes that this may create a double funding' scenario. While there is certainly a strong argument for the need of this programme, the Panel believes that further clarity is required over the intended use of both of these funding streams. It has therefore rated the project as amber'.

FINDING 6.14

Students accessing the Digital Leadership Programme will (once the qualification has been registered with Ofqual) be eligible to receive support through the student finance scheme. The Panel is concerned that this funding is in addition to the funding provided by the proposal and could create a double funding scenario.

RECOMMENDATION 6.5

The Minister for Education should provide further clarity as to exactly where the funding from the student finance scheme will be utilised within the Digital Jersey Academy and ensure that there is no duplication with the proposed funding under this business plan.

Skills Jersey

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of Skills Jersey.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case  

• This additional investment requirement is requested in order to continue the structural changes needed to provide increased services for aligning the interim skills strategy commissioned in late 2016. The investment will mainly be used to create new posts

including a skill project manager, a researcher post, industry engagement posts and a work experience co-ordinator. It will go towards the creation of an improved skills accelerator scheme to include undergraduate and post-graduate internships to help graduates look to Jersey as an option after advanced studies. It will also cover rent/building and operating costs for Skills Jersey.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel has received a breakdown of the costs associated with the rent/building and operating  costs  for  Skills  Jersey.  This  has  been  provided  in  confidence  due  to commercial sensitivities. It has however clarified the split in the funding for the Panel.

• The Panel questioned what the expected outcomes of introducing the new roles were. The Minister for Education provided an in-depth explanation as to the expected scope of the roles and associated outcomes which included:

• increased  engagement  with  adults  (CV  writing,  personal  statement  and interview workshops and those close to retirement),
• increased engagement with schools at Year 11, 12 and 13
• Offer a range of workshops at different age groups on issues such as decision making, entrepreneurial skills, job searching and choosing GCSE's
• Parent sessions regarding skills/career options
• More apprentices accessing the Trackers scheme
• Mentoring as directed by schools for disengaged students
• Further research in to different apprenticeships and work experience areas
• Research into skills gaps and future skills/jobs
• Increased engagement of employers and industry areas with schools
• Increased engagement of employers in work place visits
• Industry specific mentors to engage students and teachers
• Returnships for careers returners and work experience for adults looking to change careers.[78]

• The Panel notes the increased engagement this funding will provide; however, it is too early to say whether this will achieve the outcomes stated. For that reason, the Panel has rated this project as amber'.

FINDING 6.15

The new roles created under the Skills Jersey additional funding request are designed to increase engagement across the range of services offered. It is, however, too early to state whether they will achieve the outcomes stated.

Jerriais

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of Jerriais.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• In September 2016, the States Assembly unanimously agreed additional support for Jèrriais in an MTFP amendment debate. This provided for the maintenance of teaching levels for Jèrriais as well as the appointment of two fully qualified teachers employed by CYPES to replace retiring team member of the L'Office du Jèrriais. R.72/2017 Jèrriais Plan 2017-2019 proposed a two-stage approach to give the language new status and increase opportunities to learn it. This was caveated by the need to develop a further plan in 2018.  

• The Jèrriais Teaching Service has developed the Jèrriais Language Plan 2020-2023 to coincide with the Government Plan which sets out the aims and objectives to protect and promote Jèrriais. In addition, work is underway to secure ratification of Jèrriais under the terms of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages to bring Jersey in line with other UK minority languages like Manx and Cornish. It is also noted that  the  States  recently  adopted  P.143/2018[79]  as  amended  which  called  for  all Government of Jersey signage and letter headings to be presented in both English and Jèrriais when requiring replacement. It also agreed to adopt Jèrriais as an official language of the States Chamber.  

Panel Analysis

• The Panel questioned how many students (from primary through to adult) are currently accessing Jèrriais lessons. It was provided with the following information by the Minister for Education:  

These are the current numbers of students accessing Jèrriais lessons: Primary 189, Secondary 24, Adult 26, Adult conversation 34. There has been a six-fold

increase in secondary students since lessons started with 4 students in 2017. Adult conversation has also increased six-fold from 4 or 5 in 2017 to the current figure of 34.  All  figures  denote  an  exponential  annual  progression.  Additionally,  the participation in the Eisteddfod has followed a similar six-fold increase since 2017.[80]

• The Panel is fully supportive of the scope of the project; however, it questioned the expectation of the likely number of speakers of the languages in 10 – 15 years' time. The Minister explained the following:

The forecast for 10-15 years' time is dependent upon two major factors:

1. An increase in teaching staff to match the increase in demand. The capacity of the current teachers is for only 50% of primary schools and to maintain the status quo of participating secondary schools.
2. Pressure on curriculum time for the language means that lessons take place around assembly, lunchtimes and after school.[81]

• The Panel is satisfied that the funding allocated at this stage is attached to a clear plan (Jèrriais Language Plan 2020-2023) and there is a mandate from the Assembly to promote and protect the language. This will of course require review as the plan progresses, but the Panel is generally supportive of this additional funding request.

Settlement Scheme

Summary Report

The Department for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) has requested the following funds in respect of the EU Settlement Scheme.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• This additional revenue request is for a further 12 months funding for the two Jersey EU settlement scheme caseworkers to enable the Jersey Settlement Scheme (JSS) to operate until the end of the transition period on 31st December 2020.

• Current funding for the two posts exists until December 2019 and has allowed the processing of applications from EU residents in Jersey for leave to remain once the United Kingdom leaves the European Union (EU). The scheme (in line with that in the UK) will remain open until the end of 2020 and has so far received approximately 45% of the anticipated applications (as of 28th October 2019) out of a potential 20,000. It is also noted that the scheme will operate until the end of 2020 regardless of a no deal Brexit.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel has maintained a watching brief on the Settlement Scheme since its introduction and has regularly requested updates from the Minster for Home Affairs on the progress of the scheme. It was noted at a public hearing with the Minister for Home Affairs that the most recent figure for applications was just over 6,100.[82] It was explained during factual accuracy checking of the report that this figure had risen to 9,000 as of 28th October 2019.

• The Panel did question whether the lack of resources after 2020 could impact the ability of the scheme to complete all of the applications. It was acknowledged during the hearing that a significant number of applications (2,000) had been received in the build up to the current Brexit deadline (31st October), mainly attributed to the anxiety surrounding the deadline.[83] Although this deadline has no bearing on the scheme (which runs until the end of 2020 regardless) it has raised the question as to whether a similar rush will occur towards the end of 2020. It is the understanding of the Panel that any applications received up until 31st December 2020 will be processed, however, if a deluge of applications are received close to this date it will not be possible to process them all before the funding allocated in the business plan runs out. The Panel questioned the Minster on this matter at a public hearing:

Deputy R.J. Ward :

You could have, going into January, February, March, April, thousands of cases, but the funding is only 2020; would it not have been some flexibility into 2021? It may be needed, that you may need to have some additional funding for at least 2021 to clear up the final excess of applications.

Acting Director, Jersey Customs and Immigration Service:

The important thing is the ability for those members of the public who need to get the authority that they will be able to do so as long as the application is made, so in other words, that is covered. I understand exactly what you are saying. My intention is that during the course of next year when we can see how the numbers are doing, if it is quite clear that we are still well down - and with this surge it may mean more - that we will consider our options in dealing with it. It may be possibly one of the 2, that I make an application to consider further funding, but more realistically, I am going to look to try to cover it within the resources that we have got.[84]

• The Panel is satisfied that this matter has been given due consideration. It is also satisfied with the requirement of the scheme and supports the request for additional funding.

Financial Crimes Unit

Summary Report

The Department for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) has requested the following funds in respect of the Financial Crimes Unit.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• This additional investment recognises that financial services remains a core industry for Jersey with the international scrutiny and oversight that this brings. Regulation, and criminal investigation in respect of suspected money laundering and financing of terrorism are a priority for the Government of Jersey. This is delivered through the Jersey  Financial  Crimes  Unit  (JFCU).  In  2016,  a  3-year  contingency  funding arrangement was implemented to deal with unacceptable responses to suspected criminality in terms of the length of time taken to conduct and finalise investigations. The additional funding provided an increase in the number of investigators including 3 Detectives, 2 Police Staff and 1 Advocate. These individuals remain in post and form part of the broader JFCU Operations Unit. Due to further pressures (including the next International Moneyval inspection in 2022) this additional funding request seeks to make the interim posts permanent.  

Panel Analysis

• The Minister for Home Affairs confirmed the details of the business case during a public hearing.[85] It was also noted within the hearing that (as with all projects within the Government Plan) if the additional funding request was not approved, the posts would be lost.[86]

• The Panel questioned whether the six staff identified within this funding would be in addition to or part of the increase in Police Officers dealt with elsewhere in the Government Plan. It was noted that the staff are already in post and the funding is required to continue the posts, therefore they would not be in addition to the increase of Police Officer numbers.[87] Having reviewed the information available the Panel is satisfied with the need for the additional funding and will be supporting it.

Policing 2020-23

Summary Report

The Department for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) has requested the following funds in respect of Policing 2020-2023.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• The business case has identified a need to increase police officer numbers based on the evidence that Jersey currently has significantly fewer Officers per 1,000 population than the UK, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. It is noted that this is due to lack of continued investment over recent years. It is explained that notwithstanding a number of modernisation and savings programmes (including digital transformation), the lack of resources is now translating into a reduction in police services and activities.  

• It explains that alongside the lowest number of recorded officers the police have also seen an increase in demand for services over the past 2 years. It notes that crime has increased by 13% whilst police incidents have increased by 29%.  

• The additional funding requested would support an additional 10 officers as well as 6 police staff to free up further officers for frontline duty. This would immediately increase police numbers from 190 to 200. Over the remainder of the Government Plan, further additional investment is requested to increase the total number of Officers to 215. It is noted this would in turn improve the ratio of officers per 1,000 population from 1.8 to

2.0 which is still lower than the UK, Guernsey and Isle of Man but marks a significant improvement on the current position.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel received submissions from the Jersey Police Authority (JPA) and Jersey Police Force Association (JPFA) in respect of this business case. Both highlighted the concerns from within the business case about the impact of lower police numbers on the ability of the Force to fulfil its duty[88] and operate effectively and efficiently.[89]

• Within the submission from the JPFA, it was explained that since 2006 the number of police officers had fallen from 245 to 188 as of 2019.[90] The JPA also highlighted in its submission that 215 officers and an additional 10 civilian support staff should be seen as the lowest optimal baseline for the Force.[91] Both, however, expressed support for the proposals.[92]

• The Panel questioned the Minister for Home Affairs on the rationale for reducing the number of Police Officers over the previous MTFP:

Deputy R.J. Ward

What was the rationale in the M.T.F.P. (Medium Term Financial Plan) for reducing police numbers to 215? Well, it was 188, was it not?

The Minister for Home Affairs:  

They were open to 190, but it was not a matter of reducing it. The plan was not to reduce the number to 190. What happened was there was an arbitrary budget figure given to the States of Jersey Police and that eventually led to them only having the budget for 190 officers.[93]

• The Minister explained that over the preceding months, the Police Authority and management team of Jersey Police had produced a report outlining the optimum level for the service. This was a figure of 226, an increase of 36 officers.[94] This was, however, subject to a review by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) from the United Kingdom which was yet to be finalised.[95]

• It was further explained that the recruitment of the 10 additional officers was already underway, with funding committed this year.[96] It was expected that the figure of 215 would be in place by the end of 2020.[97] The Acting Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police updated the Panel on the current recruitment drive during a public hearing:

Acting Deputy Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police:

Good quality. The Minister is absolutely correct, we had in the region of 120- odd candidates express interest by attending one of our open evenings. We held 3 sessions to explain what a role in the police might look like. From memory, we had around 102 applications and through the normal filtering processes you might expect, some will fall away naturally at that process. I think we are 12 down to about 80 candidates now who are about to go through fitness tests and aptitude tests, with an aim to get to 40 individuals who will come forward to extended interview processes.[98]

• The Minister further explained that a pool of potential recruits would be created to assist with any future recruitment drives.[99]

• The Panel is pleased to see that the issue identified in the business case is already being addressed and awaits the outcome of the HMIC review, at which point it will revisit the proposals. In the meantime, the Panel is pleased to approve this business case.

Legal Aid

Summary Report

The Judicial Greffe has requested the following funds in respect of the Legal Aid Office.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• The States Assembly adopted the Access to Justice (Jersey) Law 201- (the Law) on 1st May 2019. The Law establishes a statutory basis for a legal aid scheme which was previously administered by the Batônnier on behalf of the legal profession. Under the law, the Judicial Greffier is made responsible for administering the scheme, with a new Legal Aid Guidelines Committee (LAGC) established to assist and advise the Chief Minister in constructing new Legal Aid Guidelines.  

• This funding relates to the running costs of the new Legal Aid Office and a publicly funded fixed fee Duty Solicitor and Duty Advocate service will be established to support

those in custody. This requires a net growth revenue increase for the Judicial Greffe of around £400,000 per annum.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel received a detailed submission from the Judicial Greffier which provided a breakdown of  the funding request, split between the schemes on offer  and the operating costs of the Legal Aid Office.[100]

• It was also noted that as the Legal Aid Office has already been established the CEO of the Law Society had assumed responsibility for the administration of the current scheme.[101] It was therefore noted that it would be right to make a contribution of no more  than  10-15%  of  their  base  salary  where  possible.[102]  The  Judicial  Greffier explained that this would only be paid should there be available funds remaining in the legal aid budget at the end of the year. If the budget had been exhausted, then no contribution could be made.[103]

• Until such time as the new Legal Aid Scheme is brought forward, the current scheme will remain in place. The Panel questioned when this was anticipated to be brought forward and note that the Law mandates the LAGC to bring forward a scheme within six months of the Law coming in to force. It is noted that this would be by May 2020 at the latest.[104]

• The Panel has therefore agreed to give this project an amber' rating on the basis that additional costs may be incurred depending on the outcome of the new Legal Aid Scheme. It cannot therefore give certainty over the level of funding identified.

FINDING 6.16

The Legal Aid guidelines which govern the scheme have yet to be agreed by the Legal Aid Guidelines Committee. Until such time as a proposed scheme is agreed the  Panel  cannot  give  assurances  as  to  whether  the  level  of  funding  is appropriate.

Probation Service

Summary Report

The Probation and After-Care Service has requested the following funds:

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• The funding request seeks to maintain posts which have been funded by the States of Jersey since 2002 through the Substance Abuse and Crime Strategies, subsequently known as the Building a Safer Society Strategy (BASS). These posts include a Court Liaison Officer, Portuguese Offender Worker, Restorative Justice Officer  and an ADAPT Co-ordinator.  

• A 2008 Audit Report recommended that funding for these posts be transferred from the then Home Affairs Department to Jersey Probation and Aftercare Service (JPACS). This recommendation was never actioned. The result of this was that projects receiving BASS funding were unable to make requests due to the current revenue allocation process.

• The posts are seen as essential to the effective delivery of the JPACS service and therefore a growth bid has been submitted for 2020 onwards.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel received a detailed submission from the Chief Probation Officer detailing the requirements of each of the posts within the funding bid and also background information on the BASS funding and JPACS objectives and accountability lines.[105] The Panel is satisfied that this information has explained the requirement for the posts and also highlighted the important work undertaken by the JPACS

• It was also explained that the findings of a review into the working between JPACS and the Jersey Prison Service were expected to be published in October 2019.[106]

• The Panel is satisfied with the rationale and need for this additional funding request and will be supporting it.

Business Cases for Capital Expenditure

This section of the report will focus on the Capital Projects as set out in R.91/2019 that the Panel has examined as part of the review.

Le Rocquier school facilities and community sports facility - Capital

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the capital project to improve the Le Rocquier school facilities and community sports facility.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• Le Rocquier school has (at last census) 772 students enrolled with capacity for 900 as catchment for the east of the Island. At present there are no sporting/fitness facilities in the east of Island expect FB fields which is solely for outdoor activities. This request is therefore submitted to improve the facilities for students at the school and also to maximise community use of the facilities. The project is intended to demolish the existing sports hall and build a new sports hall, gym, fitness and dance studio, ensure an office for curriculum staff and community use as well as invest in a new outdoor 3G pitch.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel mainly explored how the ongoing maintenance of the facilities would be funded, given that the funding identified is mainly for capital build of the project. It is noted that a feasibility study will be undertaken and the model of delivery for the project will be discussed and agreed between CYPES and Department for Growth, Housing and Environment (GHE).[107]

• At this stage, the funding requested is estimated and will be identified further once the feasibility  study  is  completed.[108]  The  Panel  would  also  highlight  the  potential safeguarding implications that come with community use of school facilities and consideration should be given to whether the school will ultimately get first refusal' on the use of the facilities. The Panel therefore cannot comment on the proposed capital spend until such time as this is completed. To that end, the Panel has given this project an amber' rating.

FINDING 6.17

The final funding requirements of Le Rocquier School facilities and community sports facility capital project will not be known until such time as the feasibility study is completed.

School 3G Pitches Replacement - Capital

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the school 3G pitch replacement capital project.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• This business case outlines the benefits of 3G artificial pitches and identifies the following schools that would benefit from replacement of existing pitches; Plat Douet, Mont Nicolle, La Moye, Le Rocquier, Rouge Bouillon and Grainville.

Panel Analysis

• The  Panel  notes  that  as  part  of  the  proposal  to  improve  the  sport/fitness  and community facilities at Le Rocquier the cost of a new 3G pitch is included. The Panel has received additional information since the publication of R.91/2019 that highlights that the funding for Le Rocquier will come from this programme as opposed to within the capital project outlined previously.

• The Panel understands the benefits of replacing pitches with 3G versions, however, as with the concern listed in the Le Rocquier Capital project, consideration should be given to ensuring the schools get prime use of the facilities as opposed to community use. The Panel notes that this will be discussed and agreed on a school by school basis[109].This project is therefore rated amber' at this stage

School Field Development: Grainville Secondary and St John Primary - Capital

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the school field development at Grainville and St. John 's school

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

The business case sets out the requirements for both schools as follows:

• Grainville School – the current school field is undersized and the final phase 5' development of the school does not address this. The Government is working with a neighbouring landowner to engage in a land swap' to develop a full-sized football pitch along with the necessary security arrangements. It would also provide for a multi-use games area which would increase the PE curriculum offer and allow greater use from the community.  

• St. John 's School – the school currently has no field attached to it with the only play space currently tarmacked. This in turn impacts the PE curriculum time which is delivered at the nearby recreation centre. Part of a neighbouring field (under private ownership) is designated for educational use in the Island Plan and a planning and use of this by the school will form part of the developer's submission to the planning department. If successful, the Parish will be granted a junior sized football pitch to make available to the school.  

Panel Analysis

• The Panel has reviewed the business case and is satisfied with the rationale and need for the project to be undertaken. It notes, however, that there is a degree of uncertainty over the project on account of the agreements and planning consent that will need to be granted prior to any of them being taken forward in earnest. It has therefore rated the project as amber' at this stage.  

FINDING 6.18

The final funding requirements for new school fields at Grainville and St. John 's Primary school will not be known until such time as the necessary agreements and planning permissions are granted for the proposals.

Les Landes Nursery - Capital

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the Les Landes Nursery capital project.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• The business case provided in R.91/2019 explains it is CYPES policy for every States of Jersey School to have a nursery class. By 2021, Les Landes will be the only non- fee-paying Government of Jersey School without a nursery class. The investment would therefore provide further nursery places for families.  A feasibility study is required in order to identify the siting of the new classroom, although an extension would be required which could also lead to a reconfiguring of the existing Key Stage 1 classrooms.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel has reviewed the outline business case and understands the rationale and need for the nursery provision at the school. It cannot, however, provide assurances over the required level of funding at this stage as the feasibility study will need to be completed prior to any building commencing. It has therefore rated the project as amber' at this stage.

FINDING 6.19

The final funding requirements for the Les Landes nursery capital project will not be known until such time as the feasibility study is completed.

Mont-a-l'Abbe School Extension – Capital

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the Mont-a-l'Abbe extension.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• The current provision offered through Mont a l'Abbe school is split across two sites, with the primary provision at the school and the secondary at Haute Vallee school. This arrangement does not provide an environment for children with specific difficulties to thrive. The project seeks to build an extension to the school in order to co-locate all 0-19 pupils on one site. This would be achieved by purchasing a field located behind the school in order to future-proof the school.

• The development would also provide the ability to increase the respite care available for these children as well as reducing the requirement to send children off-island due to severe learning needs. It is noted this project is linked to an Estates project to fund the main build.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel has reviewed the business cases made available in respect of this project and is satisfied with the rationale and need. It will therefore be supporting it.

La Moye Primary School Extension - Capital

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the La Moye Primary School Extension.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• The business case in R.91/2019 outlines the need to expand the current school hall which is currently unfit for purpose and provide an additional classroom to meet the requirements of a two-form entry school. It outlines that the school hall is currently 26% smaller than it should be based on current guidelines. It also explains that additional outside space will be required to compensate for the hall expansion, however, there is existing space which could be redeveloped and will be included in the costs. It explains that there is an obvious space for the additional classroom, however, this will need to be explored further through feasibility studies.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel has reviewed the business cases provided for this project and whilst it understands the rationale and need for the improvements it notes that the final costs will be dependent on the outcome of a feasibility study. For that reason, the Panel has rated the project as amber' at this stage.

FINDING 6.20

The final funding requirements for the La Moye Primary School extension capital project will not be known until such time as the feasibility study is completed.

JCG School Hall Extension – Capital

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the JCG School Hall Extension.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• The business case explains that the facilities at Jersey College for Girls (JCG) were designed for 600 students, however, the current student census is c730. As a result, certain areas of the school have become overcrowded and in need of investment. One such area is the school hall which is now difficult to manage and creates health and safety risks. It is proposed to place an extension on the current school hall that would allow for full school assemblies, a stage for school productions, double as an additional classroom, use for media, music and drama studies and reduce health and safety risks. It is estimated to cost in the region of £260,000.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel has reviewed the business case for the project and notes that it is subject to approval through planning and GHE (Jersey Property Holdings). The Panel cannot therefore give an accurate assessment as to whether the funding identified is sufficient to meet the needs of the project. Until such time as final approval is confirmed, the Panel has rated the project as amber'.

JCG and JCP Additional Music Facilities - Capital

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the JCG and JCP additional music facilities.  

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• The business case explains that since the introduction of Polyphony' (an in-house instrumental tuition programme) in 2009, access to instrumental and vocal tuition has been broadened at the school. In turn there has been an increase in students studying music which has in turn placed a strain on the facilities in the school.

• The funding proposes a new development to be shared between JCG and JCP to support collaboration of teaching and the learning of music related activities. The development is also proposed to offer facilities for the Jersey Music Service and rehearsal space for other outside agencies and organisations. The identified site is Claremont lodge which sits between the two schools. The proposal for the new facility estimates a cost of £1.5 million over two years and would deliver an additional band rehearsal room, music classroom, six practice rooms, storage facilities, offices and a recording studio.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel questioned the  rationale for the development and was provided with additional information which highlighted the need:

This new build is a response to a genuine need. Due to the popularity and importance of teaching music at the school, plus the introduction of the in- house instrumental tuition programme Polyphony', pressure has been put on the school's existing facilities, which were not designed for the numbers of students that are now involved every day. As a result, not all Senior School

pupils can be taught on site and have to find tuition off site. In addition, the Prep school cannot teach properly with the facilities currently available.[110]

• It was also noted that new facilities would be required to provide a larger facility for the school's orchestral work. It was explained that the current band room has space for 45 students, however, the orchestra currently has over 70 students at full strength.[111] Furthermore there is an identified need to provide additional practice room space due to the number of students accessing music lessons.[112]

• The Panel questioned how the facilities being suggested compared to those in non- fee-paying schools. The Minster for Education explained that they were comparable to the plans for Grainville Phase 5 (currently under construction) which would incorporate a new music department consisting of similar elements (classroom, recital room, practice rooms and recording room).[113]

• It has been noted within the business plan summary in R.91/2019 that the development would also provide space for the Jersey Music Service as well as for use by outside agencies and organisations. The Panel questioned whether it was intended to charge these users but was not provided with any answers. It was, however, informed further of the potential usage from outside groups:

The development would also provide teaching facilities for the Jersey Music Service peripatetic service and other outside agencies, including the conducting of instrumental and vocal examinations. Also, the Island has a very limited amount of space  for  large  scale  music  ensembles  e.g.  Music  in  Action  have  recently requested to rehearse at JCG, because there is not a place in the Island that they can rehearse a medium sized orchestra with a piano. The school is also keen the facility is used during the holidays and evenings, for example for the delivery of CPD courses and lectures and talks for music teachers.[114]

• It is a concern of the Panel that similar investment in music does not appear to be happening  within  the  non-fee-paying  schools, although  it  does  acknowledge  the ongoing work to change the delivery model of the Jersey Music Service.

• The Panel notes the need for the facilities, however, further clarity is required over the proposed use by outside agencies. For that reason, it has rated the project as amber'.

FINDING 6.21

The Panel has noted the need for additional music facilities at Jersey College for Girls and Jersey College Prep, however, further details are required over the proposed used by outside agencies. It is a concern of the Panel that similar investment in music within non-fee-paying schools is not being made.

RECOMMENDATION 6.6

The Minister for Education should ensure that further information is provided by JCG and JCP as to how the proposed music facilities will be used by outside agencies.

JCG and JCP New Playing Fields – Capital

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the JCG and JCP additional music facilities.  

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Summary of business case

• The business case recognises the fact that green space at JCG and JCP is currently limited and regular negotiation is required during the summer months to secure facilities operated by other schools in close proximity. It also notes the difficulty this poses when offering extracurricular activities during lunchtime. The proposal seeks to address the issue by acquiring Fields 800, 800A and 801, change their use and develop them to provide open green space accessible by JCG and JCP at all times during the school day for a range of educational (PE, Forest School etc.) and social (use at break times etc.)