Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the Meeting and in particular Donald McEwan from the Council of Oxfordshire Teachers’ Organisation (COTO) who had now officially taken over from Ian Jones and Mr Stan Terry from the Oxfordshire Governors’ Association who was substituting for Carole Thomson.

The Committee paid tribute to Mr Jones and thanked him for his long-standing contribution to the Committee.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ted Fenton (Councillor Hilary Hibbert-Biles substituting) and Mrs Carole Thomson for the morning session (Mr Stan Terry substituting).

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 6 February 2019 (ESC4) and to receive information arising from them.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 February 2019 were approved and signed subject to changing ‘singed’ for ‘signed’.

Matters Arising

Minute 124/18 – The Chairman reported that he had received a disappointing response from the Department for Work and Pensions and Department for Education stating that it was the duty of parents to make themselves known.  The Committee AGREED to right separately to Oxfordshire MP’s asking them to lobby Government to do more around this issue.

10:10

Members of Scrutiny Committee have requested an update on post 16 destinations of pupils in Oxfordshire schools and academies.  A particular interest was expressed in destinations of pupils at 14-19 establishments in the county and current understanding of the long-term sustainability of those establishments.

The Education Scrutiny Committee is RECOMMENDED to note and consider the contents of this report. 

At a previous meeting, the Committee had identified an area for concern around pupils dropping off in Year 11, together with national concerns around the sustainability of Studio Schools.  Accordingly, the Committee had before it a report (ESC6) which set out an analysis of destination for pupils in year 11 in Oxfordshire Schools and academies at the end of the 2018/19 academic year, together with a detailed breakdown of destinations for pupils in 14-19 establishments.

Allyson Milward, Head of Access to Learning attended the meeting to introduce the report and answer any questions the Committee may wish to ask.  In introducing the report, Mrs Milward explained that in general studio schools were losing popularity and losing numbers and that the drop off at year 11 was not what was expected and that losing pupils in year 11 meant that the school were not sustainable.

The Banbury Space Studio numbers were very low and getting worse.  The Bicester School and Bicester Technology Studio School was under the Activate Learning Trust who were considering the long-term future of the Studio School, with the possibility of merging the Management and Governance of the schools.

The Committee expressed concern over the number of pupils missing in year 11, especially as some of the children had been permanently excluded or off rolled and the significant numbers of children not being picked up in years 12 or 13. The Committee also questioned what work was being carried out in relation to moving children from NEET to participating.

In response, Mrs Milward confirmed that officers did track vulnerable learners, but that these schools were academies and therefore the oversight for funding and effective governance for these school rested with the Regional School Commissioner.

The Chairman raised concern that the initiative to introduce UTC school was not working, particularly the Banbury and Bicester Space schools with the Bicester Space School losing 25% of year 11 pupils a year, when the school was designed to take students through to age 19, together with the very high costs in keeping the schools going.

Following debate, Councillor John Howson moved and Councillor Jeannette Matelot seconded and it was AGREED to ask the Heads of Studio Schools and UTC’s (for balance) in Oxfordshire to attend a future meeting of the Committee to come and discuss their where they see their place in the post-14 Education scene.

10:35

The Committee will receive a presentation on how the Schools Structural Maintenance Programme (SSMP) is compiled and the methodology used, including the information that has been transferred from Carillion and how this information has been utilised to provide a robust programme of works based upon the most urgent priority rating.

Accordingly, George Eleftheriou will present details of progress against the 2018-19 programme of works as well as details of the proposed projects for 2019-20. Outlining the main issues/mitigations, opportunities and way forward.  A handout to accompany the presentation will be circulated prior to the meeting.

The Committee is asked to receive the presentation.

At a previous meeting, the Committee had requested to receive a presentation on how the Schools Structural Maintenance Programme (SSMP) was compiled and the methodology used, including the information that had been transferred from Carillion and how this information had been utilised to provide a robust programme of works based upon the most urgent priority rating.

Accordingly, George Eleftheriou, Assistant Director Community Facilities Management had been invited to the Meeting to present details on the progress against the 2018-19 programme of works, together with details of the proposed projects for 2019-20. Outlining the main issues/mitigations, opportunities and way forward.

Mr Eleftheriou explained that the County Council, as part of its strategic asset management plan, carried out a programme of condition surveys on all its buildings every 5 years. The County Council considered the conditions survey data they held, together with intelligence held by local managers of buildings and its own maintenance teams to prioritise the expenditure of funding received from central government under the Schools Structural Maintenance Grant. The last Asset Condition Survey had been undertaken by Carillion in 2016.   

The School Structural Maintenance Programme (SSMP) was primarily based on the County Councils PUF rating (Performance, User, Fabric) and the intent was to deal with the highest priority repairs and maintenance needs. Those needs were considered against:

a)      The condition survey data,

b)      Existing repairs and maintenance programmes,

c)      Basic need programme,

e)      Programme and compliance pressures because of the devolution of DSG funding to maintained schools

The 2018-19 programme of works was identified using the above criteria following the collapse of the Carillion contract.  Unfortunately, limited information was transferred to the County Council when the Carillion contract ceased, however the condition data for the majority of maintained schools that was collected under the Carillion contract was available. This high-level condition data identified major repair/life cycle replacement items.

This information was used to draft an initial programme. To ensure that the data used was robust, a programme of inspections were undertaken by County Council Building Surveyors and Engineers, of the highest priority items. This inspection detailed the urgency, scope and budget cost of the works initially identified.

This collected information was then re-assessed from a PUF rating perspective to identify the most urgent items to be delivered within the budget allocated.

The 2019-20 programme of works had been identified and was awaiting approval in April.  Once the programme was ratified the schools would be contacted to notify them of their inclusion in the programme and relevant timings.

The agreed programme for 2018-19 consisted of 14 major projects, some of which had been carried forward from the Carillion contract.  Seven operationally critical projects had been successfully completed by the County Councils project delivery team.

o      Blewbury School – Heating pipework and boiler replacement.

o      Bloxham School – Structural repairs to roof.

o      Crowmarsh Gifford School - Pitched roof replacement due to structural failure.

o      Fir Tree School – Pitched roof replacement due to structural failure.

o      St Francis School – Hot  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133/19

10:55

Report by the School Absence and Attendance Working Report (ESC8) TO FOLLOW

A working group was setup by the Education Scrutiny Committee to understand why secondary school absence figures are higher than the national average and work that is being undertaken to address this. To achieve these aims, the working group has met with officers to consider government guidance and performance information and visited four secondary schools across the County.

This is the second of three deep dives commissioned by the Committee. The first deep dive looked at school exclusions and the final deep dive will look at educational attainment.

The key message identified through the deep dive was the importance of embedding a culture in schools that promotes inclusion and good attendance practices across staff, pupils and parents. The working group has been able to highlight a number of examples of this good practice in secondary schools across Oxfordshire.

The group have also identified common themes where work is being undertaken to address barriers to improving school attendance. These themes included access to alternative provision, In Year Fair Access Panels and access to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAHMS).

The Committee is asked to consider and approve the recommendations.

A working group had been setup by the Education Scrutiny Committee to understand why secondary school absence figures in Oxfordshire were higher than the national average and to establish what work was being undertaken to address this. The working group had met with officers to consider government guidance, performance information and had visited schools.

The Education Scrutiny Committee received a report about school attendance figures and identified that secondary school absence was above the local and national average. The Committee established a working group to investigate the reasons for this. The working group sought to understand the trends associated with secondary school absences in the county; highlight areas of good practice and identify barriers that exist to improving attendance including how the local authority was working with schools to overcome this.

The Committee decided to focus on secondary school attendance rates as it found that primary school absence rates in Oxfordshire had historically been in line with or below the national average, yet rates for Oxfordshire secondary schools have been consistently above the regional and national average since 2013-14. In 2016-17, 5.7 half days were lost to absences at Oxfordshire secondary schools compared to 5.2 in the South East and nationally. 13.5% of these absences were classed as ‘persistent absences. Whilst the figure has been decreasing since 2013-14, it was still one of the higher rates in England with the national average being 13.1%.

The overall aim of the deep dive was to gain a greater understanding of trends associated with absence and attendance at secondary schools across Oxfordshire; identifying the pathways that exist to tackle unauthorised and persistent absence and to develop recommendations that enable the sharing of good practice to reduce absence rates across Oxfordshire.

In introducing the Report, The Chairman, Councillor Michael Waine explained that the key outcome identified through the deep dive was the importance of embedding a culture in schools that promoted inclusion and good attendance practices across staff, pupils and parents. The working group had been able to highlight a number of examples of this good practice in secondary schools across Oxfordshire.

The working group had also identified common themes around access to alternative provision, In Year Fair Access Panels and access to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) as areas which could assist in improving school attendance figures. The working group were recommending that the Committee endorsed the work that was underway to develop an Alternative Provision Commissioning Strategy and a revised IYFAP Protocol with involvement from schools.

The Chairman, Councillor Michael Waine thanked Councillor John Howson, together with other members of the Working Group for their support and thanked Deborah Bell, who had been appointed half way through the review and had already made a very positive impact. He further thanked the schools involved for their time and input.

Deborah Bell, Head of Learner Engagement, welcomed the report.  The Council had been successful in a bid for over £5m to provide a one-year pilot of 16 new Mental Health Workers.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134/19

11:45

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

Members considered the forward programme of items and agreed items for the June and September Meetings as shown below (Changes shown in bold italics and strikethrough):

13:00

Education Scrutiny Committee has invited Chris Russell, Ofsted Regional Director for the South East, to attend the meeting for a Question & Answer Session. This follows the publication of a new Education inspection framework by Ofsted for consultation in January 2019, which is proposed to be implemented from September 2019 onward.

Questions will be planned by the Committee in advance and communicated to Mr Russell ahead of the meeting.

The Committee welcomes this opportunity and extends its thanks to Mr Russell for committing his time to attend.

The Ofsted Regional Director for the South East, Mr Chris Russell, attended the Meeting for a question and answer session following the publication of a new Education inspection framework by Ofsted which went out to consultation in January 2019 with a view to being implemented from September 2019 onward.

The Questions had been planned by the Committee and communicated to Mr. Russell ahead of the Meeting.  Mr. Russell thanked the Committee for the notice of the questions and for the opportunity to come and speak to the Committee.  Set out below are the questions and answers given during the session:

“In view of Ofsted's focus on the progress made by disadvantaged pupils, are you able to signpost us to a comparable county LA not necessarily in the South East where there have been good gains in this area since 2016?"

“It is very difficult to point you to a comparable authority as the issues around disadvantaged pupils are different in different areas and each authority has its own unique set of problems. In terms of authorities where they have tackled this issue and had gains, whilst some authorities had had gains, those had not always been sustainable, so the best way forward was to identify specific problems and focus on tackling those.   Ofsted would be happy to support where they can on any conferences on this issue. HMI Sarah Hubbard has very close links with Oxfordshire and would be happy to support you.

The Local Authority interactive tool is a free tool which allows you to analyse data and look at authorities that have closed the gap and that you believe are similar to yours.

“We've seen the changes in Framework in terms of time frame from the first call announcing an inspection, and we're concerned about the impact of this on schools. Can you explain what evidence Ofsted’s rational for the change, especially in terms of the initial contact with a school.”

We are consulting on the new framework currently, but these proposals are draft, and we are very much looking and listening to the responses we are receiving.  It is not however, really a change in the notice period.   The difference is that we are proposing on-site planning, instead of being at home ringing the school, we will be in the school, able to ask questions, but we will not be going around the school collecting evidence.  However, I can totally understand how the school would feel like the new proposals feel like there is no notice and issues such as Head teachers being away from the school or teaching are real issues.  This proposal has been universally unpopular, and we will be listening to the responses.

“Schools have commented that they have not had much opportunity to produce the in-house, cohort specific data during the inspection and with some of our small schools where we have cohort specific swings this has been a concern.”

The proposals we are consulting on at the moment suggest that we don’t  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136/19