Return to AgendaITEM CH3
CHILDREN’S SERVICES SCRUTINY committee
MINUTES of the meeting held on 30 October 2007 commencing at 10.00 am and finishing at 12:05 pm
Present:
Voting Members: Councillor Ann Bonner - in the chair
Councillor Marilyn Badcock Councillor Gail Bones (in place of Councillor David Turner) Councillor Nick Carter Councillor Mrs Anda Fitzgerald-O’Connor Councillor Jean Fooks Councillor Deborah Glass Woodin Councillor Pete Handley Councillor David Nimmo-Smith Councillor Lawrie Stratford Councillor David Wilmshurst (in place of Councillor Carol Viney)
Mr Chris Bevan Mr Ben Jackson Mrs Sue Matthew
Other Members in Cabinet Member for Schools’ Improvement: Councillor Attendance: Michael Waine
By Invitation: Mrs Carole Thomson (Oxfordshire Governors’ Association) Mr Mark Forder (COTO)
Officers:
Whole of meeting: K. Coldwell (Corporate Core).
Part of meeting:
The Scrutiny Committee considered the matters, reports and recommendations contained or referred to in the agenda for the meeting and agreed as set out below. Copies of the agenda and reports are attached to the signed Minutes.
45/07 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS
Apologies for absence and temporary appointments were received as follows:
The Committee AGREED to wish Councillor Haffenden a speedy recovery.
46/07 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Mr Ben Jackson declared a personal interest in relation to Agenda Item 5 – Follow up report on the first year of delegating the statementing budget – by virtue of being a parent of a child with Special Educational Needs and a member of CHOICE.
Councillor Lawrie Stratford declared a personal interest at Agenda Item 7 – Educational Effectiveness – on the grounds that he was a school governor at Bicester Community College.
47/07 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25 September 2007 were approved and signed subject to the following amendments:
· adding Mrs Carole Thomson, Oxfordshire Governors’ Association and Mr Mark Forder, COTO to the list of those present; · Minute 29/07 – removing Ms Thomas’s name from the scheduled meeting with Sharron Jenkinson; · adding the following wording to Minute 40/07 – Presentation on Budgetary Pressures 2008/09:
Councillor Handley expressed concern that there was no sixth form in Carterton and that there were no buses to the nearest sixth form in Witney.
Councillor Waine stated that if a school wished to develop a sixth form it would have to pursue this with the Learning & Skills Council and the school governors would need to put a case forward. Councillor Waine undertook to speak to Councillor Handley regarding transport.
· Minute 42/07 – Scrutiny Work Programme 2007/08 and onwards – removing Mrs Sue Matthew from the list of members on the Young (Child) Carers (and support for them) Lead Member Review Group.
Matters Arising
40/07 – Presentation on Budgetary Pressures 2008/09
· Councillor Waine undertook to:
- find out if the web site regarding the Review of Primary School Provision in Oxfordshire had gone live; - arrange a meeting with Simon Adams and Councillor Handley in order to discuss Councillor Handley’s concerns regarding the lack of public transport for young people in Carterton to Sixth Form College in Witney.
· Ms Coldwell undertook to:
- ask Councillor Chapman if she had received the report on the County’s termination service; and ask Monica Hanaway to provide an update on work underway to train more youth workers, as agreed at this Committee’s previous meeting.
48/07 FOLLOW UP REPORT ON THE FIRST YEAR OF DELEGATING THE STATEMENTING BUDGET (Agenda Item 5)
This item had been included on the agenda at the request of Councillor Jean Fooks.
On 7 November a report on the review of the first year of delegating the Statementing Budget would be considered by the Cabinet Member for Schools’ Improvement in order to seek endorsement for the continued implementation of the statementing budget as described in the report that went to Cabinet in June 2007, seek the views of the Schools’ Forum on the scheme as monitored hitherto; and as agreed by Cabinet in 2005, request a full review in time to bring about any changes in the scheme for April 2008.
The Cabinet Member for Schools’ Improvement and Ms Janet Johnson (SEN Service Manager - SEN Lead) attended for this item in order to answer any questions which members of this Committee may have wished to ask.
A selection of the Committee’s questions, together with the Cabinet Member’s and officer’s responses are listed below:
· How much money had been saved from reduced bureaucracy since the statementing budget had been delegated?
Central staffing costs had decreased by approximately 4%.
· What happened to the savings that had been made as a result of reducing bureaucracy?
Any savings were fed back to schools and SEN services.
· How long did statements last for?
Some children required a statement of Special Educational Needs (SEN) when they were two years old and kept it until they were nineteen. Other children and young people only required a statement for a few years. The length of time was dependent upon their level of needs.
· Did the data for children with SEN include high achievers?
No. Gifted and talented children were not recognised as having ‘special educational needs’ by the SEN Code of Practice.
· Did the data include those children and young people for whom English was not their first language?
If a child had special educational needs and English as their second language they would be included. Those children and young people who had English as their second language and no SEN were not included in the data.
· What was the cost to the County Council per student for those students who would have previously received a statement of Special Educational Needs?
Ms Johnson undertook to provide information on how deprivation funding was received and allocated to all members of the Committee.
Carole Thomson undertook to send the deprivation guidance to Ms Johnson.
· Could members of the Committee receive reports from Oxfordshire schools to enable them to see how issues were dealt with by different Headteachers?
Ms Johnson undertook to provide the Committee with an analysis of outcomes from the SEN development Programme and Annual Inclusion Audit. Further data on individual schools could then be provided on request.
· One of the consultation respondents had requested that the workings and minutes of the Resources panel be made available to schools. The response had been that it would not be possible to circulate minutes of the meetings due to the confidential nature of individual pupil’s cases. Would it be possible for anonymised, summarised minutes to be provided?
Ms Johnson undertook to provide anonymised data relating to the Resources Panel (eg numbers of requests and successful cases).
· In the past it had been hard to encourage Headteachers to attend Panel meetings. What could be done?
Ms Johnson responded that there had been regular attendance by Special School and Secondary heads, this had also been the case for Primary heads until Summer 2007. The Chair of the Oxfordshire Primary Head Teachers’ Association was aware that attendance by Primary heads was required and all schools had an open invitation to attend.
· Retrospective funding was an issue for schools. Could schools now be given this funding to avoid draining their finances?
Delegated funding was allocated on an annual basis. To provide retrospective funding would require increased bureaucracy.
· Was there any way of asking parents how they felt that the delegation of the statementing budget was working in practice?
The Delegation Working Group had continued to meet to monitor the impact of delegation, both at school and local authority level. Parent Partnership Officers attended. There had been fewer concerns from parents than anticipated. Officers had undertaken a considerable amount of work with parents before the scheme was introduced.
Following the question and answer session the Committee AGREED:
(a) to request Ms Johnson to provide a presentation to a future meeting of this Committee on an analysis of outcomes from the SEN development programme and Annual Inclusion Audit (one hour to be allocated for this Agenda item); and
(b) to look at how the needs of children and young people who do not speak English as a first language are catered for at a future meeting.
Councillor Waine undertook to:
· keep the Committee’s comments in mind when considering this item on 7 November; and · speak to Carole Thomson outside of this meeting regarding issues she wished to discuss further (eg retrospective funding).
49/07 YOUNG (CHILD) CARERS (AND SUPPORT FOR THEM): PROGRESS UPDATE (Agenda Item 6)
[Lead Member Review Group comprises Councillor David Turner, Councillor Mrs Anda Fitzgerald O’Connor, Councillor Carol Viney and Mr Ben Jackson].
The Committee received a verbal update on progress from Members of the Lead Member Review Group and Mr Hehir as follows:
o the scoping document for this review had been agreed by the Co-ordinating Group on 8 October. By that stage, two of the Members had already attended a Local Government Information Unit (LGIU) Young Carers’ (YC) Conference in London on 3 October; o the topic - young carers’ - was every bit as complex as it appeared to be - and much of the statistical material on it was fairly unreliable; o the conference had indicated strongly the need for better integration between adult and children's services and that adult services should be included in the common assessment framework; o there was a move towards incorporating young people's needs into a 14-19 transition plan; o there was a need for private time for assessments - ie the assessment should be done partly away from the cared for adults and when the young carer was available; ie not at school; o the New Deal for Carers and the National Carers Strategy in production, were both covered by the conference; o the conference covered a case study where a group of over 300 carers were brought together for a weekend; o there was an issue around the need for a back up plan for ycs in case of illness/accident. Emergency plans needed to be put in place; o there was a need for better communication of local best practice; o there was now a new National Carers’ Initiative - details were obtained from the conference; o the Children's Society had produced a Home-Family Pathway which was piloted in Oxfordshire; o the Lead Member Review Group had identified a need to lobby school governors and to pass on the requirements regarding training. There was no evidence that there had been any governor training in Oxfordshire in this area - and this might be something for the review to recommend. It would also be in tune with the thrust of the Young Carers’ strategy in the future - getting schools to take forward identification and support; o there were strong messages; "Do not hide behind departmental policies and procedures" and "Keep young carers files open" once they had grown older or had been directed towards other agencies; o it was suggested that there were around 30 ycs in each secondary school and of the importance that ycs should "have home life....(and) including education, leisure and a social life"; o the Review Group had already questioned Andy Couldrick and Deborah Parkhouse, as expert witnesses from Children, Young People & Families; o the process of gathering secondary evidence had continued and as a result the Lead Member Review Group had approached several authorities with a view to benchmarking/comparison work and/or possible visits; o the Lead Member Review Group had talked to the Chief Executive of Gloucestershire's Young Carers; and o approaches had also been made to Young Carers’ Centres in Oxfordshire and arrangements would be made to visit the South & Vale Centre very shortly to observe how it operated in supporting young carers.
It was suggested that school governors could be reached by various routes, for example, an article could be placed in ‘Governor News’ and that awareness of young carers should be included as part of other training for governors, as well as specific training sessions.
Following the update the Committee AGREED:
· that the Lead Member Review Group should now focus on answering some of the key questions which had been put forward during the review of the Children & Young People’s Plan undertaken by East Riding of Yorkshire Council, as the questions encapsulated the focus of this review (listed below):
- how good is the County at identifying young carers? - what are the main obstacles to ycs accessing support? - what are the main disadvantages ycs experience that affect their health and well being outcomes? - how should we assess needs, plans and co-ordinate services for ycs? - how should we design effective Information, Advice and Guidance and support services for ycs? - what are the best options for improving service outcomes?
· to request that a written progress update (to which the scoping template should be appended) be attached to the Agenda in future to enable the Committee to spend no longer than five or ten minutes on this item.
50/07 EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS (Agenda Item 7)
This item had been placed on the Agenda at the request of Councillor Sue Haffenden.
The Cabinet Member for Schools’ Improvement, Ms Judith Morris (Head of Education Effectiveness), Mr Roy Leach (Senior Advisor Educational Achievement & Service Monitoring) and Ms Sandra Higgs (14 – 19 Consultant) attended before the Committee in order to give their presentations and to answer any questions which members may have wished to ask.
The Committee received a presentation on exam results and developments regarding the 14 – 19 agenda, a copy of which is attached to the signed Minutes.
Mr Leach reported as follows:
· Foundation Stage profile – the figure for Oxfordshire was very close to the national figure in terms of personal, social and emotional development and communication, language and literacy. There was a large difference in scores for boys and girls, with girls scoring higher. This greater preparedness for school could be reflected in the differing attainment of boys and girls.
· Key Stage 1 – Oxfordshire was in line with the national picture apart from the percentage of children learning to write at a higher level which was slightly lower than the national average. This might be because Oxfordshire used to moderate every judgement at level 3;
· Key Stage 2 – Oxfordshire was in line with the national figures apart from English where they scored better than nationally;
· Key Stage 3 – this had been a real success story in Oxfordshire for many years and continued to be so, with Oxfordshire scoring higher than nationally;
· Key Stage 4 – this still remained a concern. Oxfordshire scored slightly lower than nationally for 5+ A*-C at GCSE. Achieving a higher number of 5+ A*-C GCSEs was a key focus. Officers were targeting those schools who could make the largest contribution towards attaining the target. Developments in the curriculum might help to do so. Oxfordshire was above the national average for 5+ A*-G at GCSE;
· A-level – It was hard to make realistic comparisons at A-level because scores were very dependent upon entry policies in schools. The number of points per student may have fallen because students might be taking fewer A-levels but getting better grades per subject. Room for improvement at A-level was limited because students taking A-levels were those students who were most likely to achieve;
· Position in relation to statistical neighbours – The picture across all key stages was not good. It was difficult to make comparisons because Oxfordshire’s statistical neighbours had changed between 2006 and 2007. However, it was a Directorate priority for Oxfordshire to improve its performance in relation to its neighbours. For the higher levels, Oxfordshire schools performed relatively well. Officers now needed to address the needs of pupils in the middle.
A selection of the committee’s questions, together with the Cabinet Member’s and officers’ responses are listed below:
· Did schools cater to boys’ needs?
The curriculum varied from school to school. Some schools were better at engaging boys than others. It was not pre-ordained that boys would do less well.
· Would a high number of children with English as a second language depress the score for communication, language and literacy?
This did have an impact. However, the low score was mainly due to young children for whom English was their first language entering school with a poor level of language development. Children with English as a second language outperformed those children with English as a first language later on in their school careers.
The Committee then received a presentation on the arrival of the Diploma, a copy of which is attached to the signed Minutes.
Ms Higgs reported as follows:
· Diplomas were the government’s new centre piece; · there would be two Diplomas in Oxfordshire from September 2008: An Engineering Diploma at level 1, 2 & 3 would be available to learners in the East and Ridgeway areas, based at Bicester, Didcot and Faringdon. A Creative & Media Diploma at levels 1, 2 & 3 would be available to learners in the North, based in Banbury; · functional skills were currently being piloted in six centres; · officers were working on developing the workforce: a national training programme was underway and delivery teams were being recruited; · Diplomas could not be delivered by one establishment alone – therefore partnership working would be very important; · there was little awareness of the reform of 14-19 education; therefore information, advice and guidance was crucial and was being developed; · time was needed to ensure that Diplomas were delivered in the true spirit intended to drive up standards, increase progress, improve engagement and modernise the curriculum. Secondment time would be needed for teachers; · employer and Higher Education engagement was vital; · applications to deliver Diploma lines from September 2009 were currently being worked on; · officers were working on a Diploma delivery strategy; · all of the Diplomas needed to be deliverable and accessible by 2013 and officers had drawn up a strategy for Diploma development; · a review of the capital investment plan and of funding mechanisms would now need to take place. A review of transport would also need to take place as transport between facilities would need to be organised at different times of day.
A selection of the committee’s questions, together with the Cabinet Member and officers’ responses are listed below:
· To what extent had officers engaged employers to date?
The Learning & Skills Council had contracted Oxfordshire Education Business Partnership (OEBP) to undertake work in this area. Officers had developed an employer engagement template and a list of how employers could engage. Employers were already engaged with the national workplace development programme.
· Would all the Diplomas be accessible to students in any part of the county?
There would be an entitlement for all students in 2013 which officers would have to find ways of meeting. In September 2008 students living in Banbury would not be able to take the Diploma in Engineering but other options would be available to them. Officers and the partnership would need to look at how the funding would accommodate transport needs. Officers would have to look at how to minimise the amount of movement both in terms of pupil time and cost and would try to make the travel to learn distances reasonable. Travel times might be longer for students on Diplomas where demand was lower. Travel arrangements would be particularly important for pupils in rural areas. A model would need to be developed that would meet everyone’s needs. Officers were awaiting further funding announcements and anticipated that funding would take the rural nature of Oxfordshire into account.
The Committee thanked Mr Leach and Ms Higgs for their presentations and AGREED to investigate the following trends at a future meeting:
· why students showed an improvement in performance for English between KS1 and KS2; and
· why there were fewer A-level entries in Oxfordshire than nationally (eg a similar number of students could be studying at A-level but taking fewer subjects).
Ms Coldwell undertook to request officers to reduce the amount of jargon used where possible and to provide full explanations of any jargon used when submitting information to future meetings of this Committee.
51/07 OUTCOME OF FORMAL CONSULTATIONS (VIA STATUTORY NOTICES) ON PROPOSALS FOR PEERS SCHOOL TO BECOME AN ACADEMY SUBJECT TO CONSENT FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Agenda Item 8)
This item had been placed on the Agenda at the request of Councillor Jean Fooks.
On 20 November the Cabinet would consider the outcome of the formal statutory process on proposals to close Peers School to enable it to re-open as an Academy subject to consent from the Secretary of State.
The Cabinet Member for Schools’ Improvement, together with Mr Shannon Moore (Assistant Head of the Raising Achievement Service (Learning and Achievement)) attended for this item in order to answer any questions which members of the Committee may have wished to ask.
A selection of the Committee’s questions together with the Cabinet Member and officer’s responses are listed below:
· There had only been 22 responses to the consultation. Therefore how could officers demonstrate that there was local support for an Academy?
There had been a disappointing response to the formal consultation. Informal consultation with stakeholder groups had also taken place including students, staff, governors and parents. The consultation session at Rose Hill Community Centre had been poorly attended. Parents had said that it was because they already knew about the proposal. A group who were against Academies had been formed although they hadn’t stated what the alternatives to Academies would be. Doing nothing was not an option.
· There was some degree of concern regarding when the sports centre and swimming pool would be closed. Would the County Council be supporting the sports centre until it was demolished on 1 September?
Discussion was currently underway with the City Council. The City Council wanted to withdraw from the arrangements as in their view the refurbished facilities in Blackbird Leys were adequate. The County Council had suggested that the facilities should remain operational until at least the date for the (possible) establishment of the Academy. These issues needed to be addressed before the business case could be signed off.
· The public consultation sheet stated that students would be expected to remain on site throughout the whole Academy day including lunch and break times. Would this apply to students aged 17 and 18?
Fourteen to nineteen collaborative arrangements meant that some students would need to leave the campus for purposeful activity. Local shopkeepers had fed back that over the years they had complaints about the behaviour of some students who were allowed off site during the day. The proposals were to counter this problem and were intended to introduce a learning community feel to the school. Many different schools were introducing this policy and organising activities for break times and lunch time.
· The prospectus stated that 1300 places would be available at the Academy. Where would the pupils be travelling from and would it affect the viability of other schools?
An analysis had been carried out in relation to future school places. The only capacity to provide extra school places in the city was at Peers School and Oxford Community School. Many local students were not choosing to attend Peers school at present and numbers for the next academic year were predicted to be below the current capacity of the local authority (LA) controlled school. The students attending Peers would be from the local areas of Rose Hill, Black Bird Leys and Littlemore, and currently attended the local primary schools.
· Was it likely that the Academy would grow to the detriment of other schools in the area?
Rose Hill was a growth area in Oxford City in terms of the numbers of school aged children. There were some other local sites where there might be additional housing. The projections for the secondary school provision took account of the children already at schools and there were also a number of additional families coming from Europe to work in the city.
· In terms of financial and staffing implications would new staff be recruited if the Academy went ahead and would the County Council be bearing the costs?
The school was classed as ‘improving’ at present, as evidenced in Ofsted reports from monitoring visits. Those staff who had not been meeting the required standards had been supported to improve or to find alternative careers after due processes had been carried out. There had also been a significant drop in the number of supply teachers, thus improving continuity of teaching and learning at the school. The professional associations were currently looking at the TUPE arrangements for the proposed Academy. They had asked that discussions regarding TUPE take place now so that staff were in state of readiness should the Academy be put in place. There could be costs to the Council if staff chose not to transfer or did not find a suitable position at the proposed Academy and the outline business case would need to pick up on this. No new staff would be recruited at this stage other than the Principal Designate, who would be employed by the Department for Children, Schools and Families if the Academy proposal did not go through.
· If the improvements for Mabel Pritchard Special School went ahead would other special schools awaiting improvements move further down the list?
The outline business case would look at the disposal of part of the land at Peers school. This could be actioned if there were exceptional costs in establishing an Academy, meaning that some of that money could be used to finance the costs of the new building. The capital needs of other Special Schools should not be affected.
· In terms of governance arrangements would there no longer be a stakeholder governing body?
The sponsors would have to determine the type of governance arrangements that they wished to be put in place. They were intending to set up a shadow governing body from January/February 2008 onwards subject to approval of the outline business case, to work with the existing governing body. A third sponsor had now come on board.
· If the Academy was approved what would happen when Oxfordshire Community School then replaced Peers as a failing school in 10 or 20 years time?
Oxfordshire Community School was not currently of concern. However, officers had already agreed to support the school in order to raise levels of achievement. There was a need for the resource needs of schools serving communities with social and economic disadvantage and high mobility to be addressed, as nationally the majority of schools going into Ofsted categories were schools serving disadvantaged communities.
· Why had Peers school deteriorated to the extent that there were now proposals for it to become an Academy?
Due to falling standards and leadership and management issues in the school, the school was already formally a school of concern to the LA before the Ofsted inspection. Officers had been working with the former Headteacher to address the issues. Therefore when the school went into Special Measures, officers had been able to take action quickly. The current Headteacher had worked energetically with the local authority to improve standards with some success. The Headline figures, though substantially improved, were still not at an acceptable level and the school building and the site were jaded and no longer 'fit for purpose'. The Academy proposal would provide additional resource, that otherwise would not be available, to accelerate progress.
· Would extra money be given to non-Academy schools?
Building Schools for the Future funding would be available to all county schools but would not be available until at least 2015.This was because overall Oxfordshire is not a LA with high levels of disadvantage. Peers School, if it became an Academy, would receive this funding from 2008. The ongoing funding for Peers would not be any different to that of other county schools. The funding levels to other schools would not be affected as this was a separate grant.
Following the question and answer session the Committee AGREED to advise the Cabinet that it would wish the County Council to express a preference for a stakeholder governing body to be put in place should agreement be given for an Academy to be established.
The Committee also AGREED to look at the issue of failing schools and measures to address this at a future meeting.
Ms Coldwell undertook to liaise with Northampton Academy in order to seek permission for members of this Committee (and possibly any Cabinet members who may also wish to attend) to visit the Academy in order to gain an understanding of how Academies functioned in practice.
Subject to agreement, it was hoped that a visit could be arranged prior to Scrutiny consideration of the business case at its December meeting.
52/07 SCRUTINY WORK PROGRAMME (Agenda Item 9)
To update this Committee’s work programme (CH9).
· Brief oral report from Councillor Haffenden on Bournemouth Conference: Social Services for Adults and children.
The Committee AGREED to defer the oral report on the recent Bournemouth Conference: Social Services for Adults and Children to its February meeting.
The Committee noted that a question and answer session on asylum seeking children and young people as requested by Councillor Ann Bonner would be considered at this Committee’s February meeting.
53/07 TRACKING SCRUTINY ITEMS (Agenda Item 10)
Report back on advice by this Committee to the Cabinet or Council.
No items had been identified for consideration.
54/07 FORWARD PLAN (Agenda Item 11)
The Committee was asked to suggest items from the current Forward Plan on which it might wish to have an opportunity to offer advice to the Cabinet before any decision was taken.
No items had been identified for consideration.
................................................................................... in the Chair
Date of signing.................................................................. 2007
|