"The Isle of Wight has a population of around 125,000 of which just 40,500 are in employment The island has the lowest GDP per head in the SE region, and indeed, with the exception of Mid Glamorgan, the lowest in the entire UK. The impact of this manifests itself on the island in the form of high levels of socio-economic deprivation. The unemployment situation is the worst in the south east of England, and of the island's 33 wards, many fall into the category of most deprived in the country for indicators in addition to unemployment.

Measured by certain indicators, the Isle of Wight behaves more like an urban than a rural economy. The low GDP, isolation and poor access, the relatively low population density and high proportion of people of retirement age and over are mainly rural traits, whereas the high incidence of single parenthood and births outside marriage are more usually associated with urban deprivation. These are significant findings when choosing appropriate benchmarks to assess economic, social or educational performance.

Unemployment rates are higher on the Isle of White than either in Hampshire or for national rates. The island experiences significant cyclical 'highs and lows' in unemployment due to the seasonal nature of much employment particularly in tourism, agriculture and construction. Unemployment rates amongst young men are much higher than for young women. This disparity is likely to continue to increase and is a serious cause for concern.

The Isle of Wight is a unique community, with its own micro-economy and labour market. The labour market, to a greater or lesser degree and notwithstanding wider economic influences, operates almost independently of the mainland. This means that regional and LLSC area level information and data cannot easily be applied to the island, but island-specific data is in relatively short supply. The data that is largely absent that would better inform this demand study includes occupation forecasts by sector, information on types of training funded by employers by sector, specific information on skills gaps and vacancies that are difficult to fill. All of these need to be island and sector specific."

4S concluded the opposite saying instead that the Island has no excuse for being like this and that the economic problems are probably caused by our low educational standards, and by implication 2-Tier implementation would cause us to join with S E England and it's economic success. Their conclusion is clearly without any sound basis whatsoever. They have reversed the causal relationship between Economic and Educational performance.

The 2002 KPMG report, which centres on the problems with 14 plus education (which is where the main problems are still today) offered 4 options:

"Option 1

A Tertiary Board would be set up with representation from the LSC, the LEA, schools, the college and private training providers. Under the guidance of an independent chairman the Tertiary Board would make recommendations or decisions about the delivery and integration of post-14 provision. (This was the fourth option in the Melia report).

This model has many attractions, not least that it is the least disruptive, easy to set up and could be very flexible. It does not recommend any structural or functional changes to any existing institutions. The advantages and disadvantages of this model are discussed in detail. The main drawback is that the Tertiary Board will have no jurisdiction over delegated constitutional powers of school governors and the college corporation. It would also be difficult to overrule the statutory powers of the LEA. Whilst recommendations could be enforced by the use of the funding levers it is unclear at present whether the LLSC and the LEA have the powers to selectively fund what is provided, to the degree of sensitivity that would be necessary to allow the Tertiary Board to achieve its recommendations.

Option 2

First and middle schools re-organised into 5-11 primary schools. 11-16 secondary schools feeding into a Tertiary College which would offer all post-16 education. This might be based on a 16-18 centre, mainly offering Curriculum 2000, with a vocational FE unit largely catering for post-19 vocational education, adult and community education and HE. (This was the second option in the Melia Report)

This option was rejected by Dr Melia but the powerful logic of a tertiary solution based on the evidence from this study has caused us to return and re-examine this possibility. As Dr Melia pointed out a general FE college will always struggle on the Isle of Wight with a population of only about 127,000, when so many 16-18 year old students remain in schools sixth forms. All the available information from both the college and the schools demonstrate a large number of small group sizes and restricted option choices in each of the existing institutions. The college is already in financial difficulty because of this and at least one high school head is aware that the school sixth form is subsidised from the income intended for the lower school. With future convergence of 16-18 funding it is likely that most of the other high school sixth forms will become un-economic with their present numbers. The obvious financial and educational solution is to create a tertiary college as described above.

The advantages and disadvantages of this option are discussed in detail. The greatest problems concern the likely cost in capital and staff re-deployment, the simultaneous disruption to the educational system at all levels and the political difficulties of delivering the outcome.

Option 3

First schools (5-9), Middle schools (9-14), High Schools 14-18+ with significant vocational developments 14-19, close collaboration with the College 14-19, reduction from 5 to 4 High Schools.

The advantages and disadvantages of this option are discussed in detail. This option provides a less drastic re-organisation of the first and middle schools than envisaged in Option 2 but is intended to address the issues of poor Key Stage 3 performance whilst providing a valuable platform for imaginative post-14 developments.

Pupils would transfer to the High Schools at 14 where there would be maximum development of the opportunities within a 14-19 curriculum. It is proposed that in addition to academic AS and A levels, the new High Schools would develop an increased range of vocational options both pre and post 16. These programmes would be developed in close consultation and collaboration with the college. The outcome of these discussions must take into account the changing viability of the college but the high schools must be allowed to develop some areas of the vocational curriculum if a real 14-19 curriculum offer with full parity of esteem between vocational and academic education is ever to be realised.

In order to achieve economies of scale, reduce the number of small groups and to protect minority subjects some high school rationalisation is contemplated. The current five high schools would be reduced to four with the loss of one of the Newport/Cowes schools. The remaining four schools would work as two collaborating pairs, Ryde with Sandown and the remaining two Newport/Cowes area schools with one another. The full range of the 14-19 offer would be made by pooling the resources of both schools across the critical mass of students that will be available in each year group.

In the above model the college would work closely with the high schools in both the pre and post-16 stages. Post-16 the college would be the main provider in key vocational areas in company with the private training providers. Post-19 the college would provide all vocational educational and training, higher education and adult and community education. In all of these roles it would be likely to work in wide ranging partnerships with other agencies. The model of the college envisaged in this option is as in 2 or 3.

Option 4

First and middle schools re-organised into 5-11 primary schools. 11-18+ secondary schools. Virtually all 'lighter' vocational work would be moved into schools who would have their vocational facilities extended. Pairing and collaboration as Option 3 (but the closure of one high school would not be possible as the 11-18+ schools would be too large). Some 'heavier' or skills options such as Construction, Engineering, Hair and Beauty, delivered through skills centres on an industrial estate or commercial location either by a remodelled college or by private training providers.

The advantages and disadvantages of this option are discussed in detail. The size of the sixth form cohorts will be increased by the retention of more vocational students and improved delivery of Curriculum 2000 and the 14-19 agenda but the drawback is that collaboration between schools is likely to be more difficult than in option 3 because of the different timetabling demands of the different age groups. Most of the schools could not manage the increased vocational commitments with their present management, staff and expertise. Increased sixth form size will be entirely at the expense of the college recruitment. This will have a significant direct impact on the viability of the college. It may have a further strategic consequence in that it may significantly damage the college's ability to forge meaningful partnerships with mainland providers under Models 3,4 or 5."

The report concluded that Option 3 retaining the existing structure and working the problems out within it, would be the best option:

"Option 3 is less drastic in terms of the pre-14 re-organisation envisaged and thus is much less costly and may offer fewer political difficulties in its implementation. Both Options 2 and 3 attempt to address the overall issue of viability. This issue is not satisfactorily addressed by either Options 1 or 4. Option 3 attempts to build on the strengths of the current providers whilst giving the college time and space to recover from its current difficulties. When the 'difficulty' criteria related with cost, disruption and political difficulty are taken into account, Option 3 clearly becomes the preferred option although there is still the need for this to be fully costed and evaluated. Hence it is Option 3 that we recommend to the LLSC and the LEA for further consideration and wide consultation.

2.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

On the basis that Option 3 is the recommended primary option for 14-19 provision, other recommendations follow from this. In addition there are conclusions from the post-19 work that we have carried out that lead to subsequent recommendations. These are summarised below;

2.6.1 A strategic planning group, drawn from members of the Task Group, be set up immediately to:

1 Identify urgent areas where collaboration between providers would be beneficial and can be implemented within the current structures and funding regimes. Proceed to the implementation of such arrangements immediately;

2 Set up effective arrangements for the integration of the strategic planning between institutions for 14-19 provision, within current structures and funding arrangements;

3 Devise a minimum 14-19 curriculum offer and entitlement across the island with agreed entry and progression routes, within current structures and funding arrangements;

4 In association with the new Connexions service improve advice and guidance available to all young people within the new collaborative framework;

5 Agree a set of quality and value added performance measures that would be common to all providers, held centrally and reviewed annually.

2.6.2 A small implementation group, drawn from the LEA, the LLSC and the Task Group, to be set up immediately to:

1 Consult more widely on the implementation of the 14-19 preferred option;

2 Fully cost the organisational changes associated with the preferred 14-19 option;

3 Prepare an implementation strategy and a timetable for the preferred 14-19 option;

4 Prepare a consultation and communications strategy for the implementation of the preferred 14-19 option;

5 Examine ways in which constraints such as transport arrangements and schools admissions policies would need to be overcome to facilitate the 14-19 preferred option.

As part of this work we would recommend a strategic review of accommodation options across all providers to ensure that LLSC and the LEA are getting best value for money.

2.6.3 A joint working group of the private training providers and the college to be set up under the chairmanship of the LLSC and as a subgroup to the strategic planning group to:

1 Develop and implement a combined quality improvement strategy for

both the college and the private training providers.

2 Devise and implement a common quality assurance system;

3 Examine the feasibility of joint use of plant and accommodation;

4 Develop strategies for collaboration in different vocational areas

5 Develop strategies to tackle common island issues such as the need for

training of seasonally employed workers and the training of young men.

We strongly advise that this working group will need some external objective support.

2.6.4 In addition we would recommend…..

1 The implementation of the College recovery plan is initiated immediately but is re-appraised in the light of the emerging collaborative agenda.

2 A strengthening of the 14-16 link arrangements with local schools through the creation of a properly funded LEA/College jointly run programme for students of all abilities.

3 An influential consortium of employers and providers is convened to assist the College in setting up new Higher Education and FE links either on or off the Island.

4 A strategy is developed to co-ordinate the provision and delivery of adult basic skills education across the island.

5 The capacity of the voluntary sector to contribute to the increase in provision of adult basic education should be evaluated.

6 The LLSC should consider, along with its partners, ways in which it may be able to provide greater encouragement to enable the development of ICT as a means of delivering learning and accessing learning resources and staff expertise. This would support institutions in determining where and how ICT can be best used to enhance curriculum delivery and could be a determining part of the evolving collaborative agenda.

7 Appropriate LLSC and Employment Service officers, with a specifically Isle of Wight brief, are allowed to develop collaborative strategies to providers, and the use of common labour market intelligence, as quickly as possible.

8 The LLSC considers ways to broker future collaborative partnership working between agencies to share data on needs analysis and research to inform education and training provision."

In summary we conclude that the LEA paid for the KPMG report and then comprehensively ignored it's findings and recommendations. The fact that the condensed KS3 is only just being implemented is proof of this. This is basically an alternative to the 9 - 14 Middle School proposal as outlined above.

The KPMG report recommends a full consultation. FourS were not asked to carry out a full consultation and they did not carry out a full consultation. They were asked "to undertake a major strategic options review of schools organisation" Their conclusion comes on page 4 of the 81 page report: "To be a high performing area, the Island must change to the national system of primary and secondary education with transfer at age 11".

We make the following points:

1. Although parents are listed as the 3rd stakeholder group (p29) they were not consulted.

2. Unlike in Milton Keynes, households were not mailed and the views of the population were not sought.

3. Secondary pupils too are identified as having been consulted (p33) these, we understand, were only 6th formers, not middle or high school pupils with recent experience of transfer

4. Most importantly there is proof, in the form of ALL other 3-Tiers authorities (all of which are doing far better than the Island), that to be a high performing area the Island DOES NOT have to change to a 2-Tier system.

5. And finally, it is factually incorrect to state that the 2-Tier system is a national system. There is no national standard. the Government themselves have confirmed that this is the case, with 2 and 3-Tiers being regarded as equal in government eyes.

We believe that the LEA has driven this proposal to cover up its failure to implement the 2002 KPMG proposals. We also believe that cost plays a part with a desire by the LEA to close small financially un-viable schools (regardless of their educational viability or value to the their local and often rural communities). Kim Johnson himself has stated on more than one occasion that it is virtually impossible to close schools individually as these closures are invariably vetoed by the Secretary of State. The only way to close schools is to do it on mass as part of a re-organisation programme.