Agenda and minutes

Committee are asked to elect a new Chair for the remainder of the municipal year.

Councillor Waine, in the Chair as Deputy Chairman, opened the Meeting by confirming that Councillor Atkins had decided to step down as Chairman of the Committee.  He thanked Councillor Atkins for her contributions to the Committee since its inception, and for her hard work.

Nominations for the election of a new Chairman were called for.

Councillor Brighouse nominated Councillor Gillian Sanders, who seconded herself for the role.

Councillor Hoare nominated Councillor Mark Gray, which was seconded by Councillor Langridge.

Nominations were put to the vote and it was:

RESOLVED:  by 10 votes to Councillor Gray and 3 votes to Councillor Sanders, that Councillor Mark Gray be elected Chairman of the Education Scrutiny Committee for the remainder of the 2013/14 Municipal Year.

10.05am

Councillor Gray thanked Committee and thanked Councillor Atkins for her contribution to the Education Scrutiny to date.

Mrs Liz Smith was introduced and welcomed to the Committee as the new Co-opted member, representing Primary Parent Governors.

Apologies were received from Councillor Val Smith (Councillor Brighouse substituting), and from Mr Ian Jones.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 19^th September 2013 (ESC5) and to receive information arising from them.

The Minutes of the meeting held on the 19^th September 2013 were approved and signed subject to amending:-

Minute 13/13, paragraph 2:

Line 4 “academies” to read “schools”.

The following request to speak had been agreed by the Deputy Chairman, prior to the election taking place for the new Chairman of the Committee:-

Item 6 – Mrs Sue Moon, Oxon School Bus Action Group (OSBAG)

Mrs Moon, of the Oxon School Bus Action Group, thanked the Committee for allowing her to address them.

She confirmed that she had three points to make, which were:-

1)                  that she understood that catchment areas were different from school bus routes, but she could not accept that the proposals were removed from catchment areas; they were inextricably linked.

      There is no point applying for a school that you cannot afford to travel to;

2)                 regarding limiting of the issue of choice, Councillor Hudspeth had stated that his personal goal was to make all schools in Oxfordshire “good” schools.

OSBAG are of the view that choice is currently one of two options:

a)            go to your catchment school or

b)           if the catchment school is performing badly, look for an alternative school that is doing better.

The introduction of the revised policy means that the Council are trying to cheat families out of the choice of attending their catchment schools, and are effectively saying that there is a choice, but only if you could afford to pay for it;

3)                 as for savings the revised policy would deliver, the previous consultation was flawed in that it relied on assumptions that had been queried by the Cabinet Member for Finance.  Savings of £1-2 million had been suggested, but there was an absence of data to back this up.

The Committee had before them the Council’s Home to School Transport Consultation document, the current Home to School Transport Policy, the proposed Options A1 and A2 and the Frequently Asked Questions originally posted on the consultation web-site.

Roy Leach, School Organisation & Planning Manager explained to Committee that the number of issues being consulted on had been reduced to 3 main areas:

a)           The 14-19 partnerships.  As these do not exist any more there is no need for this to be covered in the policy.  However, in order to remove this matter from the new Home to School Transport Policy, it must be consulted upon;

b)           Concessionary seat charges.  The average cost of a concessionary seat is £700.00; anything below this figure represents a subsidy.  Proposed is a one-off 10% increase, then a 5-8% increase over 3-5 years;

c)            Entitlement.  The Statutory requirement is for students to be transported to their nearest available school by the Council, if the school is over 2 miles for school aged children up to the age of 8, and over 3 miles for children aged 8-16.  The Council’s existing policy is more general.

As an example of the implications of the changes to the policies, the Committee were shown the map of Burford School, and it’s associated addresses.  The map, along with the full consultation pack and maps of the other schools affected by the proposed policy, are also available on the Oxfordshire County Council web-site at the following link:

https://myconsultations.oxfordshire.gov.uk/consult.ti/transport2015/consultationHome

It was noted that the dots on all the maps available represent an address from which travel is provided to schools, and not an address for each child attending school.  It also explained that the dots were colour coded to the nearest school to that address along the route that would be travelled to school, rather than as a straight line route.  Therefore, black dots equated to an address nearest to the school that was the subject of the map.  Coloured dots related to a different, nearer school, which had been coloured to correspond.

The Committee heard that in some cases villages would be split with different areas of the villages being allocated different schools.  Historically these villages would have links with a particular school, and in order to avoid split communities, officers suggested that all students in these circumstances could be entitled to attend one school or another on a Travel Area basis.

It was noted that Minster Lovell was a split village between Carterton Community College and The Henry Box School, whereas students from the village are currently transported to Burford School.  In terms of savings, Committee heard that students living in Brize Norton, would not be entitled to free transport to Burford School, due to the proximity of Carterton Community College.

The Committee were also asked to note that the Frequently Asked Questions attached to the Agenda had been updated and further questions now appeared on the website.

In discussion, Committee noted that this was a difficult  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21/13

11.10am

Frances Craven, Deputy Director for Education and Early Intervention, and Sue Bainbridge, Schools & Learning Manager, will present the finalised Oxfordshire County Council Schools Improvement Framework (ESC8), identifying the support offered to schools, how the impact of the support is measured and how the impact is then used to improve schools work.

Also presented is the OFSTED Local Authority Inspection Framework, and for note, the OFSTED letter to Norfolk County Council, to highlight how the strengths and weaknesses identified can be used in terms of current practice at Oxfordshire County Council.

The Committee had before them the Oxfordshire County Council’s Draft School Improvement Framework and the OFSTED Local Authority Inspection Framework, together with a presentation tabled at the meeting on the OFSTED Inspection of Local Authority School Improvement.

Frances Craven, Deputy Director for Education and Early Intervention told Committee that councillors were welcome to attend the interest sessions.

Sue Bainbridge, Schools & Learning Manager, presented the OFSTED Inspection of Local Authority School Improvement to the Committee, covering the:-

·                    effectiveness of corporate and strategic leadership of school improvement;

·                    clarity and transparency of policy and strategy for supporting schools’ and other providers’ improvement, and how clearly the local authority has defined its monitoring, challenge, support and intervention roles;

·                    extent to which the local authority knows schools and other providers, their performance and the standards they achieve and how effectively support is focused on areas of greatest need;

·                    effectiveness of the local authority’s identification of, and intervention in, underperforming schools, including, where applicable, the use of formal powers available to the local authority;

·                    impact of local authority support and challenge over time and the rate at which schools and other providers are improving;

·                    extent to which the local authority brokers support for schools and other providers;

·                    effectiveness of strategies to support highly effective leadership and management in schools and other providers;

·                    support and challenge for school governance, where applicable;

·                    way the local authority uses any available funding to effect improvement, including how it is focused on areas of greatest need.

The Committee heard that whilst they were being funded programmes like “Every Child” were very important and staff within schools were being trained to deliver these programmes themselves.  Exit strategy plans were in place and the Every Child Team had been to National Conferences and received national recognition for their work.

Councillor Tilley praised the Data Team within the Council, saying they were unsung heroes, providing excellent information.

Councillor Constance stated that she was impressed by the imagination that had been shown, having been forced by cuts.  Lots of good points had come out of the presentation and the impact being made on vulnerable groups was noted.

In discussion, Councillor Constance asked about the formal powers for intervention, and was advised by Sue Bainbridge that a Notice is sent outlining the schools problems, giving them 15 days to put a plan together to turn the school around.  Upon intervention, OFSTED become involved and the Head Teacher of the school can be scrutinised, with a recommendation that their contract be looked at.

It was confirmed that this applied only to maintained schools and the position with regards to academies was slightly different, whereby the Head of the academy would be approached first, and then escalated to the sponsor (i.e. the diocese).  The Education Funding Association would then become involved, which would in turn trigger an OFSTED inspection.

During discussion, the Committee questioned the ability to allocate existing funds to give some further assistance with continuing the Every Child programme.

Carole Thomson noted that the money for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22/13

12.10pm

Frances Craven, Deputy Director for Education and Early Intervention, and Graham Shaw, Deputy Director – Oxfordshire Customer Services, will verbally update the Committee on the current situation regarding the externalisation proposals.

The attached report (ESC9) went before Cabinet on 15 October 2013.  The Committee are asked to consider how best to scrutinise this process and the timetabling of Children Education and Family proposals into the Working Plan for Committee.

The Committee heard from Frances Craven on the report previously circulated at page 105 of the agenda, that extensive briefing of staff, National Association of Head Teachers, Schools Forum and Oxfordshire Governors Association had been taking place.  Meetings for governors, schools business manager and bursars had also been held, so that everyone was up to speed in the context of spending reviews, and it was clear that the status quo could not be maintained.  Three issues had come to the fore as areas of concern:-

·                    Choice available;

·                    Flexibility of what was on offer;

·                    Timescales that users would be tied into.

A joint venture seems to be a positive way forward and outsourcing had not proved a popular option.  Schools are keen to be involved in the process and there was interest as to what a partner would bring to the venture.  It would be challenging to present the outcomes the Council are looking for.  A questionnaire had been sent out to schools seeking views in respect of outcomes, objectives and commitments and the results were due back by the end of December summarising the situation.

In discussion Committee noted that this was a sensible way forward, with soft testing a welcome partnership and evolutionary approach that was to be warmly encouraged.

Of the other counties that had already been through this process, Committee heard from Andrew Ball, Programme Manager, that Devon had been outsourced 18 months ago, Surrey 10 years ago and Staffordshire recently.  Outcomes showed that academies had engaged in buy-backs from all services.  In the three ventures looked at Councils had engaged schools as almost partners and there had been high buy-back levels, which were very strong.

Some Councillors noted their support for this approach, and it was mentioned in discussion as being positive that the status quo was not seen as sustainable.  However, the process depended on the quality of the service offered to schools and it was discussed that sponsored academies don’t buy back into services.  If corporate care was joined to the services offered thereby expanding the base of services offered, this may provide a better quality vision.  Andrew Ball confirmed that the providers were in dialogue, and the Payroll Services were seen as essential.

12.35pm

Frances Craven, Deputy Director for Education and Early Intervention, and Sue Bainbridge, Schools & Learning Manager,to present an up-dated report of the validated figures for GCSE’s and A-Levels (ESC10), previously considered by the Committee at the 19 September 2013 meeting.

Sue Bainbridge, Schools and Learning Manager, confirmed to Committee that the report before them had previously been seen and was presented now as an amended document to take into consideration re-marks and revised figures.  Amendments are shown in italics.  The Committee were informed that now none of the county’s secondary schools were below the floor level of 40%, being the Government-set minimum target for schools.  Councillor Tilley said that 60% was the benchmark figure, so some schools are still not good enough.

From the report, the schools with the largest percentage increases and decreases were highlighted.  The Oxford Spires Academy had produced true cohort figures this year at Year 11, and the Council were comfortable with that, whereas in the past some students had been in an off-site facility and not included in the schools figures.

With regards to English & maths, schools were performing well.  Although results from St. Gregory’s were of concern, the Committee were informed that their A-level results were of the highest standard.  At the Oxford Academy, Committee heard that a new Head Teacher had been appointed and underperformance issues were to be addressed.

The Committee also discussed the teaching within schools to D to C and C to B boundaries in order to push results up and ensure that every child gets the best education possible.

12.45pm

The Committee to are receive a verbal update from Councillor Howson on behalf of the Attainment Working Group.

The Committee heard from Councillor Howson with regards to the Attainment Working Group, that an initial meeting has been held and a second meeting was due to take place.

12.50pm

An opportunity to discuss and prioritise future topics for the Committee, potential approaches to its work and to discuss the schedule for future meetings.

Councillor Brighouse suggested a seminar for all members on attainment may be useful.  In discussion this was felt to be a good idea, with breakdowns for key stages rather than focusing on other areas, perhaps with 3-year trends and progress measured.

Sarah Jelley, Senior Policy and Performance Officer, explained to Committee that the work programme would be scheduled in order to use officer time and resources efficiently.  Four items had been noted for the next Committee agenda:-

• The OFSTED Framework select committee working group feedback;
• The Attainment working group feedback;
• The GCSE science results;
• The Home to School Transport report.

Councillor Bartholomew requested a re-vote on the decision to appoint a select committee style working group, as, if the matter had been decided by Elected Members of the Committee only, he noted that the decision to form a select committee would have gone the other way.  After discussion on this issue, Sue Whitehead, Principal Committee Officer, informed Committee that she would check the position with regards to Co-opted and Invited Members for future meetings.  However, it was agreed that the decision to appoint a select committee working group would stand.